Sonia Sotomayor’s greatest hits

posted at 10:55 am on May 26, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Courtesy of our friends at Verum Serum, who have plenty more to say about Sonia Sotomayor. Not only do we have Sotomayor essentially admitting that she sees lawmaking as the purview of courts, but a speech given in 2001 makes Sotomayor sound like the kind of identity-politics hack that most people saw in Lani Guinier when her appointment in the Clinton administration went down to defeat.

First, the video:

Um, all of the legal defense funds out there, um, they’re looking for people out there with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. Um, um — [laughter] — I know. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, and, I’m … you know. [laughter]

If she’s that erudite in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee when answering this question, the Republicans won’t have to push hard to bounce Sotomayor out of the Supreme Court. She knew she’d overreached and couldn’t even explain herself in front of a friendly audience, who realized quite well that her backpedaling was entirely self-serving and incoherent.

Sotomayor was much more clear in another law-school speech in 2001, this time at UC Berkeley law school. Facing another sympathetic crowd, she informed the graduates that, contrary to public opinion, color and gender do mean something in qualifications for public service:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

Stuart Taylor picked this quote from deep within a May 15th profile of Sotomayor in the New York Times, and wonders in the National Journal whether the Times would have buried a similar quote by Samuel Alito during his confirmation process:

So accustomed have we become to identity politics that it barely causes a ripple when a highly touted Supreme Court candidate, who sits on the federal Appeals Court in New York, has seriously suggested that Latina women like her make better judges than white males.

Indeed, unless Sotomayor believes that Latina women also make better judges than Latino men, and also better than African-American men and women, her basic proposition seems to be that white males (with some exceptions, she noted) are inferior to all other groups in the qualities that make for a good jurist.

Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.

Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: “I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life” — and had proceeded to speak of “inherent physiological or cultural differences.”

That fits entirely within Barack Obama’s “empathy” guidelines, and it serves as an admission that Sotomayor has more interest in outcomes than in the law. If so, she should run for Congress, where policy gets made. The reason race and gender shouldn’t matter at all is because judges should apply the law, not their “life experiences” or their “empathy” for specific outcomes. Sotomayor sounds like Judge Roy Bean, calling the courts a law unto themselves, rather than a thoughtful jurist interested in applying the law created by a representative democracy.

Is this enough to derail Sotomayor? Perhaps not, but it’s plenty to assure a colorful confirmation hearing, especially with Jeff Sessions serving as ranking Republican.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The GOP has no stomach to attack her in any meaningful way. That would make them sexist and racist bigots.

No, she’ll get cursory questions at best.

ladyingray on May 26, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Powertripping egoist.Activist. Liberal. She has all of Obamas traits.
She often plays the race and gender cards.

roninacreage on May 26, 2009 at 10:58 AM

I’m shocked.

MES401067 on May 26, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Who cares about any of this nonsense. NK, Pakistan, Supreme Court, California bankruptcy, lowering of US credit rating.

What we all REALLY want to know is how is the CA supreme court going to rule on GAY MARRIAGE?! It is the issue of our generation and likely more important to the nations prosperity than anything in history.

Come on people, this historic decision and yet NO posts on it? pish posh.

I shouldn’t have to put this but /sarc

ThackerAgency on May 26, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Man, if all there is to criticize is a few off-the-cuff remarks, all Democrats have to do is point out Sotomayor’s virtues as a jurist, of which there are more than a few.

starfleet_dude on May 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Is it asking too much for a female justice nominee to be good looking?

RWLA on May 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

That quote just really shocks me. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since I knew they held such views but to see it presented with such honesty and audacity… it truly alarms me.

Kronos on May 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Eh, the GOP will lose Hispanic votes for resisting Ogabe’s tide of empathy; better to lay low and pick their battles while Ogabe destroys the nation.

When can battle be joined? Hard to say, considering that an aggrieved minority will always have to be factored into the mix; I’d say sometime in the year 2072.

Bishop on May 26, 2009 at 11:01 AM

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

call me old fashioned but I thought justice was supposed to be blind. Read the law without seeing the people. Put the evidence on the scale and see which way it tilts – WITHOUT PUTTING YOUR THUMB ON IT.

ThackerAgency on May 26, 2009 at 11:02 AM

My 0.02 is that Republicans ought to keep their powder dry for the next SC nomination, which may well be a more critical one. Also, if this blows up in their face, you can be sure Obama’s next nominee will have a leg up against a discredited minority in the Senate.

starfleet_dude on May 26, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Being a white male, thus having no enriching life experiences to offer, I feel I am in no position to comment on this post. If I could have only haved lived life like nice343.

WashJeff on May 26, 2009 at 11:04 AM

This country is being ruled by a large gaggle of hacks, leftists, fascists, incompetents and two-bit social activists. I’m not sure we can ever recover from this rancid mess.

rplat on May 26, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Man, if all there is to criticize is a few off-the-cuff remarks, all Democrats have to do is point out Sotomayor’s virtues as a jurist, of which there are more than a few.

starfleet_dude on May 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Spork they doomed Bork for ideological reasons….your merry band of redshirts lowered the bar….

but take heart Grahamnesty will cave.

sven10077 on May 26, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Despite making sexist and racist comments like above, the prevailing wisdom is that she will be confirmed. I think the GOP needs to simply present the argument against her without over reaching, since she’s going to get in anyway.

Dash on May 26, 2009 at 11:06 AM

This pathetic Affirmative Action pick was the best Obama could do? I guess the list of qualified liberal judges must be non-existant.

Sotomayor makes Harriet Miers look like a genuis.

Norwegian on May 26, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Obama: “Quick… what can we do to distract the Press… and the Blogs… NORKS just set off a NUKE!”

Rahm: “Well… we do have a pending SCOTUS appointment to make… we’ll do it tomorow!”

Romeo13 on May 26, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Is this the standard “let me propose the more radical candidate first, with the assumption that s/he will be shot down, then follow up with a less radical, yet still liberal judge so that any complaints from Republicans will appear whiny to the public and therefore s/he will be confirmed” tactic?

cannonball on May 26, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Maybe she should step into the shoes of a white male and walk a mile?

kirkill on May 26, 2009 at 11:11 AM

It doesn’t really matter what she has said, or how weak a jurist she has proven to be.

The GOP lacks the guts to go after her. Rubber stamp time.

conservnut on May 26, 2009 at 11:11 AM

The rock star round of applause upon entrance really disturbed me. Everything is orchestrated with this guy. Manipulated.

ndulik on May 26, 2009 at 11:12 AM

I’m reading that even some Dems think she is an intellectual lightweight… The Constitutionalists on the court may be able to make her an even worse spokes-organism (I’m no specist!) than Souter.

mankai on May 26, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Stick to the opinions, on the merits she is qualified and her opinions do not reflect an ideological bias. Recall that this is the same stuff, looking at speeches, not opinions, that Democrats did with Janice Rodgers Brown.

Would you have preferred Judge Wood, or professor Kagan? Looking at the calls of balls and strikes or even on the empathy meter, Judge Sotomayor is better that any of the names floated. Republicans cannot defeat her and to filibuster judges after making such a fuss about filibustering judges in 2005, is beyond politically stupid. To filibuster Judge Sotomayor after seeking the nuclear option on judges in 2005 only feeds President Obama’s narrative that Republicans are the unprincipled party of no which is out of ideas.

Score points by referencing Democrats treatment of Migel Estrada, then vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor.

Angry Dumbo on May 26, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Could we give her course on the Constitution? It seems she missed that one in law school.

petunia on May 26, 2009 at 11:13 AM

one thing I like about this stuff and her:

Atleast she is HONEST about her Liberal Views and what they actually mean.

1) that they are in fact racist against white males

2) that the Judges are effectively making Policy, unconstitutionally and they know it and think its a good thing.

This is refreshing given the usual B.S. we get from the Left that aides them politically.

This is the Dennis Kucinich of SCOTUS nominees

jp on May 26, 2009 at 11:14 AM

this woman sounds like a strict Constitutionalist…

runner on May 26, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Man, if all there is to criticize is a few off-the-cuff remarks, all Democrats have to do is point out Sotomayor’s virtues as a jurist, of which there are more than a few.

starfleet_dude on May 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Starfleet Dud,

Why is that when a Dem says something horrible, it is an off the cuff remarks, but any Republican gets hammered for less. G-d damn America is off limits, but I hope Obama doesn’t succeed in turning the country communist is heresy.

P.S. I sure other posters have offered to send you one, but I’d be willing to take up a collection if we can just get your size.

http://www.entertainmentearth.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RU889116++++SMALL

Laura in Maryland on May 26, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Is it asking too much for a female justice nominee to be good looking?

RWLA on May 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

looking-ist!

kirkill on May 26, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Sotomayor makes Harriet Miers look like a genuis.

Norwegian on May 26, 2009 at 11:07 AM

No, that’s not fair. Sotomayor’s resume is indeed far more impressive and suitable for the SCOTUS than Miers’. That doesn’t mean I think she’s brilliant or a good pick for the Court or the country, but fair is fair.

aero on May 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Like I said, Sotomayor…. sounds like a Level Boss on PS/3… Final Fantasy or something…

Mazztek on May 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Sotomayor makes Harriet Miers look like a genuis.

Not really, genius. The Miers pick was the most bizarre act Bush did in office, and even dumbfounded his own party. Obama’s clearly not that dumb.

starfleet_dude on May 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Man, if all there is to criticize is a few off-the-cuff remarks, all Democrats have to do is point out Sotomayor’s virtues as a jurist, of which there are more than a few.

starfleet_dude on May 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

All Republicans have to do is look at her decisions that have subsequently been overturned by a higher court, of which there are more than a few.

kirkill on May 26, 2009 at 11:17 AM

I think a brick is smart. Heck a river washed boulder has a better handle on life.

upinak on May 26, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Angry Dumbo on May 26, 2009 at 11:13 AM

I think just the opposite. They should only focus on the speeches. Not confirm her and use that as a basis for defeating her. That is the standard now. It can’t be allowed on one side yet not on the other.

The high ground gets you nowhere on this.

We got two excellent Supremes from this process used against us! I say the same result could occur when used on our side.

Bush’ first picks were not nearly as good as Roberts and Alito.

petunia on May 26, 2009 at 11:18 AM

All of the liberal, socialist wolves who ripped Palin apart will recoil in horror if anyone says anything the slightest bit critical of Sotomayor.

NOW you will see N.O.W. and other so called feminist organizations speak up for a woman.

Star20 on May 26, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Would you have preferred Judge Wood, or professor Kagan?

How about preferring none of them? I don’t understand this “Well it could have been worse so let’s go with it” rationalization; stand for something and resist them all.

I’m tired of no one drawing a line in the sand and caving like cowards because they might lose a vote, there is something bigger here to defend and no one seems willing to do it.

Bishop on May 26, 2009 at 11:18 AM

She’s unassailable. Republicans will not be able to attack her for fear of alienating Hispanic communities in Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania. If senate republicans go too far it will essentially insure Obama is reelected because Florida will be lost in 2012. He is nothing, and I do mean nothing, if not a great politician. Bill was a light weight compared to this guy and we better start competing with him with this in mind.

sdavis0830 on May 26, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Also defeating Obama on this would put real dents in his omnipotent armour!

petunia on May 26, 2009 at 11:19 AM

The last place this idiot needs to sit is on the Supreme Court.

GarandFan on May 26, 2009 at 11:20 AM

The totally objective article on Stinkipedia states that she is a “moderate” – seriously.

corona on May 26, 2009 at 11:20 AM

You people want to qualify her on her intelligence and legal acumen instead of the fact that she is a Hispanic Female judge? What do you think this is, the Supreme Court or something?

kingsjester on May 26, 2009 at 11:20 AM

sdavis0830 on May 26, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Because those guys went big time for McCain after Bush nominated the first Latino to the Supreme Court and had the first Latino for AG. Yeah those Latino they are really supportive of people who throw them bones.

petunia on May 26, 2009 at 11:21 AM

To filibuster Judge Sotomayor after seeking the nuclear option on judges in 2005 only feeds President Obama’s narrative that Republicans are the unprincipled party of no which is out of ideas.

Angry Dumbo on May 26, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Given his Senate votes against candidates whom Obama himself admitted were qualified (Roberts and Alito), Obama is in no position to complain that Republicans are “unprincipled” for voting against his candidate based on their disagreement with her judicial philosophy. Or is “no” an acceptable and principled position only when it’s coming out of Obama’s mouth?

AZCoyote on May 26, 2009 at 11:21 AM

She hate whites and men…or is it just white-men? I got money that says she hate people that disagree with her political views. Less than four months to make our country not of laws but of (wo)men.

jukin on May 26, 2009 at 11:21 AM

All Republicans have to do is look at her decisions that have subsequently been overturned by a higher court, of which there are more than a few.

Unless you can point to one that’s a real doozy of a reversal, all a recitation of such decisions will accomplish is make everyone’s eyes glaze over. You have to give the Crazy Base something real simple, after all… ;p

starfleet_dude on May 26, 2009 at 11:21 AM

sdavis0830 on May 26, 2009 at 11:19 AM

When are people going to learn to attack the person and USE the “I-am-a-blah-blah” as a means to say, “I never said you were a blah blah, I said you are this kind of person and you should leave out the fact you are a blah blah”!

It gets on my last nerve that people do not call out a person due to whatever their skin, religon and so on… and call them out on their merit or what little they have.

upinak on May 26, 2009 at 11:22 AM

RWLA on May 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM asks: “Is it asking too much for a female justice nominee to be good looking?”

Answer: it is too much to ask so long as we are talking about judges whom Democrats like. You ought to know by now that any good looking woman judicial nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court would be a conservative Republican in her politics.

Phil Byler on May 26, 2009 at 11:23 AM

She hate whites and men…or is it just white-men? I got money that says she hate people that disagree with her political views. Less than four months to make our country not of laws but of (wo)men.

jukin on May 26, 2009 at 11:21 AM

I totally agree. She hates anyone who speaks out against her. And I bet it filters into the court room as well.

upinak on May 26, 2009 at 11:23 AM

This is the worst pick since William O. Douglas.

petunia on May 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM

I keep hearing that she’s an intellectual lightweight, and yet Obama insisted that high intellect would be a factor in his decision. If he truly thinks this lady is an intellectual powerhouse, what does this say about his intellect?

Of course, many of us who oppose him already were suspect of this claim that he’s the smartest man in the world, but this pick of his should reveal to some of his supporters that his supposed intellect is all a ruse.

yogi41 on May 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM

I’m harping on this in every single thread, which I am rarely wont to do, but man, that quote about “wise latina women” vs. “unenriched white men” is pure delicious red meat for the general population who pays even scant attention to this stuff.

She needs to be attacked on it in the media with those words in lights so we can watch libs twist and be forced to defend that racist nonsense everywhere. Play their game, except put them on the defensive for once. Right, I’ll shut up about it now.

LibTired on May 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM

This shows the difference between Republicans and democrats. When Harriet Meirs was nominated, Republicans screamed bloody murder. Now, democrats love this because she’s a woman and hispanic.

Vince on May 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM

You have to give the Crazy Base something real simple, after all… ;p
starfleet_dude on May 26, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Can’t argue with that, the Crazy Base of the left were given an acceptable black guy and the rest is history. Simple.

Bishop on May 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM

She sounds like a racist to me.

Star20 on May 26, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Not only do we have Sotomayor essentially admitting that she sees lawmaking as the purview of courts,

please don’t bother to read the entire quote in context, where she actually explains the difference between the district court and the court of appeals, instead of stating a general belief that “lawmaking is the purview of the courts.” unlike district courts, the court of appeals indisputably does make policy. any decision by a court of appeals provides precedent until overruled by the SC for all district court judges within that circuit.

sesquipedalian on May 26, 2009 at 11:25 AM

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion

I thought the law was supposed to be gender-blind, color-blind, and be based upon dry logic rooted in the Constitution of the United States rather than the subjective emotion of individual experience.

To see where the latter leads, one need merely look at the opinions of Chief Justice Taney, whose complete and total abrogation of the rights of Blacks was partly rooted in the Constitution of the time, but mostly rooted in his own racial animus (which is why he found that even freeborn black citizens of one state could be seized and bound upon the declaration of a single white citizen of another state that said black was his slave).

unclesmrgol on May 26, 2009 at 11:26 AM

The Miers pick was the most bizarre act Bush did in office, and even dumbfounded his own party.

Maybe so, but we eventually got Alito out of it. Crazy like a fox, Bush was.

Missy on May 26, 2009 at 11:27 AM

sesquipedalian on May 26, 2009 at 11:25 AM

You’ve just proven what you attempted to disprove.

unclesmrgol on May 26, 2009 at 11:29 AM

The Miers pick was the most bizarre act Bush did in office, and even dumbfounded his own party.

Maybe so, but we eventually got Alito out of it. Crazy like a fox, Bush was.

Missy on May 26, 2009 at 11:27 AM

I consider Alito and Roberts proof that there is a God.

petunia on May 26, 2009 at 11:30 AM

I consider Alito and Roberts proof that there is a God.

petunia on May 26, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Me too, petunia.

Missy on May 26, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Check out which Chysler dealerships are being shut down

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/05/red-alert-did-campaign-contributions.html

jp on May 26, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Is it asking too much for a female justice nominee to be good looking?

RWLA on May 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Janet Reno was the other option.

strictnein on May 26, 2009 at 11:32 AM

The GOP lacks the guts to go after her. Rubber stamp time.

conservnut on May 26, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Then go after them. Threaten them with a loss in the primaries if they support this horrible nominee. Don’t just roll over.

LastRick on May 26, 2009 at 11:32 AM

I’m seeing a lot of people on blogs and Twitter claiming that the “wise Latina woman” quote is somehow being taken out of context and misapplied. Here it is in the context of her full speech. The quote in question is on the last page. I don’t see how the entirety of the speech mitigates her meaning, which is clearly exactly what it appears to be.

aero on May 26, 2009 at 11:32 AM

She sounds like a racist to me.

Star20 on May 26, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Yikes! If we had the guts we could lump her in with Rev. Wright and Malcolm X and Farrakhan… and have that discussion that Holder is itching to have…

Not in our lifetimes.

petunia on May 26, 2009 at 11:32 AM

I got money that says she hate people that disagree with her political views.

jukin on May 26, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Which means she fits right in!

The Left is asking for us to shut her down; Obama says this is a step toward a truly “equal under the law” legal system? Really? We’re that open about it? I’m actually wondering if this isn’t just one move of the playbook.

emailnuevo on May 26, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Another leftist activist judge who, by her OWN words, has no respect for caucasian men, thinks she is ABOVE the Constitution and believes in legislation from the bench.

Sotomayor is being pushed by Caire McCaskill D MO, I guess it’s finally time to pull out the nasty evidence on McCaskill taking bribes to fabricate audits while she was State Auditor in MO, maybe that will catch 2 birds with one stone.

nelsonknows on May 26, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Is it asking too much for a female justice nominee to be good looking?

RWLA on May 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Janet Reno was the other option.

strictnein on May 26, 2009 at 11:32 AM

I think Janet Napolitano is better looking. Dumb as a doorknob too! So she’s qualified.

petunia on May 26, 2009 at 11:34 AM

So, let me see if I have this right:

….She grew up in the projects, was raised under the care of her mother, and in her role as an adjudicator she chose to favor black persons who did poorly on a test and made white persons retake the test and punish them for being smarter.

???

Uhhh….Don’t look now, but Obama basically chose himself for the Supreme Court.

Talismen on May 26, 2009 at 11:34 AM

can anyone tell me how to correctly pronounce sotomayor?

Chiasmos on May 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM

I believe she’s referring to court policies, and she’s right. That is where the precedents are established for courts to follow.

I think it makes people look foolish to twist the meaning.

AnninCA on May 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM

I thought the law was supposed to be gender-blind, color-blind, and be based upon dry logic rooted in the Constitution of the United States rather than the subjective emotion of individual experience.

unclesmrgol on May 26, 2009 at 11:26 AM

That is another difference in the parties. Whether lady justice gets to peek under her blindfold.

petunia on May 26, 2009 at 11:37 AM

When did Jeanine Garobuffalobutt become a judge? 10 to 1 Sotomayor’s breath smells like the outhouse door on a tuna boat.

nelsonknows on May 26, 2009 at 11:37 AM

But she has “such a compelling life story” … which appears to be the most important factor in a SCOTUS justice, these days.

This pick is pathetic. If The GOP don’t hold her in committee, then they are totally worthless.

BTW, I loved the way The Precedent claimed that Souter had been such a towering legal mind. LOL.

Sotomayor should not be allowed anywhere near the SCOTUS, whether she “saved baseball” or not. What the heck was that all about?

progressoverpeace on May 26, 2009 at 11:39 AM

can anyone tell me how to correctly pronounce sotomayor?

Chiasmos on May 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM

it’s pronounced JEANINE GAROFALO

nelsonknows on May 26, 2009 at 11:39 AM

She supports:
* bilingual education
* racial gerrymandering of voting districts
* expanded rights for illegal aliens
And since she fought against President Bush’s appointment of Miguel Estrada, she can hardly be a person who is interested in Hispanic “justice”, but more accurately liberal Hispanic “justice”.

right2bright on May 26, 2009 at 11:40 AM

I think it makes people look foolish to twist the meaning.

AnninCA on May 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Her statements are out there twisting in the wind… ripe for interpretation. Not our fault she said what she said.

petunia on May 26, 2009 at 11:40 AM

I believe she’s referring to court policies, and she’s right. That is where the precedents are established for courts to follow.

I think it makes people look foolish to twist the meaning.

AnninCA on May 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Are you really this stupid? Why do you think she said that she shouldn’t be saying that on tape? “Court policy”? LOL.

Wow. You are really dumb.

progressoverpeace on May 26, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Mark Halperin says it’s all over:

Assuming nothing surfaces in Sotomayor’s background that causes controversy, expect her to be seated when the court opens for its new term in October, after thorough confirmation hearings that will seem more like a lovefest than a legal firing squad. By both design and luck, Obama faces a Supreme Court-pick process that has been drained of the tension and combat that has characterized such moments in the past several decades. …

Obama has chosen a mainstream progressive, rather than a wild-eyed liberal. And he has chosen a rags-to-riches Hispanic woman. Her life story is inspirational — a political consultant’s dream. Since she is certain to be confirmed, there are plenty of smart conservatives who will, by midday Tuesday, have done the political cost-benefit analysis: at a time when Republicans are trying to demonstrate that their party can reach beyond rich white men, what mileage is there in doing anything but celebrating such a historic choice? …

Unless Administration background checkers failed to find what they needed to know about Sotomayor’s history, those spoiling for a battle are not going to get one.

starfleet_dude on May 26, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Saved baseball my ass. Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa saved baseball. Oh, and steroids saved baseball too!

Vince on May 26, 2009 at 11:41 AM

progressoverpeace on May 26, 2009 at 11:39 AM

That wasn’t exactly the sobering speech one expected to hear a President give about a Supreme Court Nominee, was it?

Play ball!

kingsjester on May 26, 2009 at 11:41 AM

can anyone tell me how to correctly pronounce sotomayor?

Chiasmos on May 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM
it’s pronounced JEANINE GAROFALO

nelsonknows on May 26, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Hee hee!

petunia on May 26, 2009 at 11:41 AM

nelsonknows on May 26, 2009 at 11:34 AM

You mean the SAME McCaskill that is “looking into” Native Corps of Alaska because she thinks they get more fair treatment? Even though they are “minority based!

Say it isn’t SO! And BTW good morning Bro!

upinak on May 26, 2009 at 11:42 AM

90-10 confirmation is a done deal. The GOP will roll over and play dead on this one.

angryed on May 26, 2009 at 11:42 AM

My guess, this isn’t even Obama’s first choice. That will be coming. She is the sacrificial lamb that solidifies the Hispanic vote in the future as the Repubs rightfully attempt to stop her appointment.

Obama and crew may be many things but politically stupid is not one of them.

If on the other hand she actually gets the nod, Obama and friends will laugh their asses off and send their first choice on the next appointment. He will probably be getting at least three picks over the next four/eight years.

patrick neid on May 26, 2009 at 11:43 AM

kingsjester on May 26, 2009 at 11:41 AM

I am constantly amazed by how much more frivolous The Precedent can become. Just when I think he has hit bottom, he digs even further.

If the GOP lets this one get through, they are going to be totally finished.

progressoverpeace on May 26, 2009 at 11:44 AM

starfleet_dude @ 11:41 AM

You forgot the “sarc” tag at the end.

Vince on May 26, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Jonah Golberg, at NRO’s the corner:

But one advantage for Obama in picking the most left-leaning Hispanic possible/confirmable is that it actually allows the Democrats to — once again — cast Republicans as anti-Hispanic. If Obama picked a centrist, opposition would have been principled, but pro-forma. By picking Sotomayor, conservatives will no doubt demand full-throated opposition, which plays perfectly to Obama’s purposes (so long as he doesn’t dump Sotomayor for some, any, reason). I don’t think this was the key factor in his decision, but you can be sure the White House will love casting conservative opposition in those terms.

emailnuevo on May 26, 2009 at 11:44 AM

LOVING THAT HOPENCHANGE NOW……ugh!

SDarchitect on May 26, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Mark Halperin says it’s all over:

starfleet_dude on May 26, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Duh. Most of those wanting a fight know she’ll be confirmed anyway and don’t want to die on this hill. They just don’t want the GOP to roll out a red carpet for her and scatter rose petals in her path.

However, Obama’s background checkers notoriously suck at their job, so you never know.

aero on May 26, 2009 at 11:45 AM

I believe she’s referring to court policies, and she’s right. That is where the precedents are established for courts to follow.

I think it makes people look foolish to twist the meaning.

AnninCA on May 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Imagine, talking to yourself, and calling yourself foolish…what she said she said.

because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law,

Even she knew she is wrong, but if it is “wrong” for the “right” reason, then the law be damned, full steam ahead.

right2bright on May 26, 2009 at 11:45 AM

On Fox, when Jane Skinner read McCaskill the quote of Sotomayor’s about Latina women making better decisions than white men, McCaskill replied by saying that Sotomayor should not be held to the opinions of others! What a bunch of morons. When told that it was Sotomayor who said that, McCaskill responded that it must have been taken out of context.

Pathetic.

progressoverpeace on May 26, 2009 at 11:46 AM

This pathetic Affirmative Action pick was the best Obama could do? I guess the list of qualified liberal judges must be non-existant.

Sotomayor makes Harriet Miers look like a genuis.

Norwegian on May 26, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Seriously — the White House puts out all this horse-hockey about Obama taking stacks of opinions and background info to Camp David and pulling all-nighters on this decision – and in the end he picks the token? Hilarious. If Republicans were smart they would find a way to simply needle Obama about this and ridicule him – it’s the one thing he can’t stand.

rockmom on May 26, 2009 at 11:46 AM

She’s garnered bi-partisan support before, so I can’t see why the GOP would object to her. This is a situation where it would be awfully easy for the GOP to fall into being truly obstructionist with no gain.

Why go there?

AnninCA on May 26, 2009 at 11:46 AM

emailnuevo on May 26, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Then explain Miguel Estrada…

right2bright on May 26, 2009 at 11:46 AM

However, Obama’s background checkers notoriously suck at their job, so you never know.

I doubt taxes are an issue for a sitting justice, actually.

starfleet_dude on May 26, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Comment pages: 1 2