I personally think this is where right-wingers show that they really aren’t interested in the country.

Aren’t interested in the country . . . hmmm?? What exactly does that mean?

Oh, and who are “the right-wingers” in your imagination — anyone who opposes the nomination?

She’s clearly a moderate by any standards.

Maybe, as she claims, by the standards of Latinas who are inherently wiser than white men, but come on . . . by any standards?

If right-wingers care, they’d applaud this appointment.

Care? About what?

His other choices on that list?

Way worse.

Time for a new list, then, no?

I have come to completely lose all respect for this type of partisan political thinking.

“One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh.”
Robert A. Heinlein

It’s just, frankly, stupid.

“Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.”
Friedrich von Schiller

She’s clearly a moderate by any standards.

If right-wingers care, they’d applaud this appointment.

His other choices on that list?

Way worse.

I have come to completely lose all respect for this type of partisan political thinking.

It’s just, frankly, stupid.

That claim of his is obviously a risible untruth. And, of course, if there were any truth to it at all, she would never have been appointed by Barack Obama in the first place.

But no doubt one area where Lanny Davis and the liberals will try to disingenuously make the “strict constructionist” argument will be with regard to the Ricci case.

But that argument fails of it’s own weight.

In fact, as Ann Coulter has amusingly pointed out, Rubert Gibbs has already tried (and failed) to claim that Sotomeyor was just following precedent in siding — as she did — with the initial order and the subsequent opinions.

That order was clearly intended to bury the case, followed by a sudden and last second switch four months later to an identically-worded per curiam decision, and a bare (7-6) majority, in rejecting a motion for rehearing en banc.

Her vote would have made the difference.

As Ann correctly and amusingly noted:

Concerned that Sotomayor’s famed “empathy” might not shine through in cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, the Democrats are claiming — as Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said on MSNBC — that she was merely applying “precedent” to decide the case. You know, just like conservatives say judges should.

This was an interesting claim, in the sense that it was the exact polar opposite of the truth.

To be sure, there is “precedent” for racial discrimination by the government, but Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education. If Sotomayor had another case in mind, she wasn’t telling: The lower court’s dismissal of the firefighters’ case was upheld by Sotomayor and two other judges in an unsigned, unpublished opinion, titled, “Talk to the Hand.”

Not only that, but Sotomayor’s fellow Clinton appointee, Jose Cabranes (who sounds like an “empathetic” fellow), issued a blistering dissent from the appellate court’s denial of a rehearing specifically on the grounds that the case “raises important questions of first impression in our Circuit — and indeed, in the nation.”

A “case of first impression” means there’s no precedent. If there were a precedent, it would be a case of, at least, “second impression.”

lwssdd on June 1, 2009 at 2:00 PM

That’s a nice idea but you have skipped over the part that the left never feels bound to a definition from one day to another, anyway. For the left, the Constitution is not the only “living” document.

When confronted with a group of people who define welfare payments as “tax cuts” there’s really not any sort of reasonable approach to take with them. They are quite beyond reason.

Give Obama Sotomayor, and save the fight for his next pick, when he could be politically weaker or the GOP politically stronger.

“You know, you can’t get a good lawn service or SCOTUS without having hispanics!”

Davis admits the “wise Latina” remark was a big mistake, although he calls it a “gaffe”, which is only true if she doesn’t really believe it.

Remember, this remark was 32 words delivered as part of PREPARED speech. It was not an “off the cuff” response to a question…which is gaffe-able. It was not something “overheard” when Sotomayor was talking to a friend in the restroom…which is also gaffe-able. These words were in a prepared, edited, probably rehearsed SPEECH. Sotomayor’s remarks were even obliquely referenced and repudiated by two subsequent speakers…both Latino.
Sorry, Lanny, we know Joey Biden gets many passes for his many gaffes, but we didn’t just fall off the turnip truck and …we know Joe, we know gaffes…THIS was no gaffe.

I am betting you will find that in case after case, she has voted based on applying the law to the facts – even where the result is contrary to the expected “liberal” ideological position…

Noted Constitutional Law Expert and Strict Constructionist, Lanny Davis

Of course this is pure conjecture by Davis, and nonsense. If it were true, why on earth would our fascist President have chosen her? And how would a constructionist appellate court judge get the coveted Allahpundit endorsement?

More Newspeak

Identity politics is stupid it is based on superficial display and not in reality.

Dr Evil on June 1, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Great link on Sotomayor’s “ethnic” background.

Hers’s some bad news for ya Lannie!!

It won’t work.

You will never be forgiven.

In fact, you’ll be lucky to live a normal lifespan.

Sonia Sotomayor … strict constructionist?

She is a strict destructionist, but what dfference could a few letters really make?

Graham has been her vocal opponent in a respectful, logical manner for days. Good for him to be consistent on this, no caving.

Sotomayor should not be vocally “supported” by conservatives; and when the vote comes, any Republican voting for her is not helping conservatives. When confronted by the media, Republicans should not shrink from criticizing Sotomayor’s leftist agenda. Degree and proportion are the day’s code words.

Sotomayor will NOT observe the Constitution. On that basis alone, as I’ve noted consistently, Republicans should not vote for her confirmation. Obama already has the votes required for her to be seated in the SCOTUS. No need rolling over and playing dead just to humor The One and his minions.

But reality being what it is, people should have their say so that it is on the record that a significant proportion of Americans disapprove of Marxism in the Supreme Court, and then remain aloof from either supporting her or from obsessing.

Dig a little deeper, Davis promises, and conservatives will find a strict constructionist:

Dig a little deeper? Seems like Lanny did much more than a little digging to unearth these pro-Soto gems.