WH: Sotomayor reversal proves what a great judge she is

posted at 8:47 am on June 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Give Robert Gibbs points for chutzpah, if not logic or consistency.  When the White House press corp peppered him with questions about the status of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination after getting reversed on Ricci, Gibbs explained that the ruling proved that Sotomayor was — get ready — a judicial originalist.  Not only that, but it turns out that the administration had already rejected part of Sotomayor’s previous judgment on Ricci before the court reversed it:

The White House came to the defense of President Obama’s pick to be the newest Supreme Court justice after Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s ruling in a racially charged case was reversed by the Supreme Court.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs all but accused the current court of “judicial activism,” a buzz term used by conservatives in recent years, in overturning what the White House saw as Sotomayor’s upholding of precedent. …

But Gibbs said that the case “denotes that [Sotomayor] is a follower of precedent,” and the arguments over judicial activism “seem to be at the very least upside-down in this case.”

Gibbs said the case proves “she doesn’t legislate from the bench.”

Not even the Supreme Court’s dissenters to Ricci would go that far.  As Stuart Taylor notes in his analysis of the dissent, none of the nine justices defended Sotomayor’s judgment or reasoning in Ricci [emphasis mine]:

What’s more striking is that the court was unanimous in rejecting the Sotomayor panel’s specific holding. Her holding was that New Haven’s decision to spurn the test results must be upheld based solely on the fact that highly disproportionate numbers of blacks had done badly on the exam and might file a “disparate-impact” lawsuit — regardless of whether the exam was valid or the lawsuit could succeed.

This position is so hard to defend, in my view, that I hazarded a prediction in my June 13 column: “Whichever way the Supreme Court rules in the case later this month, I will be surprised if a single justice explicitly approves the specific, quota-friendly logic of the Sotomayor-endorsed… opinion” by U.S. District Judge Janet Arterton.

Unlike some of my predictions, this one proved out. In fact, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 39-page dissent for the four more liberal justices quietly but unmistakably rejected the Sotomayor-endorsed position that disparate racial results alone justified New Haven’s decision to dump the promotional exam without even inquiring into whether it was fair and job-related.

Justice Ginsburg also suggested clearly — as did the Obama Justice Department, in a friend-of-the-court brief — that the Sotomayor panel erred in upholding summary judgment for the city. Ginsburg said that the lower courts should have ordered a jury trial to weigh the evidence that the city’s claimed motive — fear of losing a disparate impact suit by low-scoring black firefighters if it proceeded with the promotions — was a pretext. The jury’s job would have been to consider evidence that the city’s main motive had been to placate black political leaders who were part of Mayor John DeStefano’s political base.

Wait, wait, wait — the Obama administration filed a brief against Sotomayor’s judgment?  Their argument was that Sotomayor overreached in issuing a summary judgment, a point that won unanimous approval from the Supreme Court.  Isn’t that the definition of “judicial activism”?

Now the White House wants to pretend that Sotomayor is an originalist, when they themselves fought against her activist ruling.  That’s impressively Orwellian.


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

She’s a great follower of precedent, but since most of the SCOTUS found against her in Ricci, they aren’t, ipso facto, she’s better suited for the job than five of those already on the bench.

Ironclad logic.

Akzed on June 30, 2009 at 8:48 AM

Give Robert Gibbs points for chutzpah…

OK. But no points for intelligence.

Corky on June 30, 2009 at 8:49 AM

Hasn’t she been overturned by SCOTUS 6 of 7 times her cases were heard in the court?

We need to really not seat her on the Court.

Better decisions because she is a female and a minority?

Bite me. I am a female in a male profession and I would NEVER make a claim like that.

karenhasfreedom on June 30, 2009 at 8:49 AM

Ironclad logic.

Akzed on June 30, 2009 at 8:48 AM

I call Obarfo the “Impermeable.”

You just can’t penetrate his arguments

They are ROCK SOLID. You try to turn a corner on him, BOOM — there’s a hand to talk to

Shuttin everyone down

blatantblue on June 30, 2009 at 8:50 AM

wow.
Every time I read something about Obama, I can find his stances on every side of the fence.
Who the frick is this guy?
Something’s gotta give. This country has got to wake up.

bridgetown on June 30, 2009 at 8:50 AM

Hey Gibby!
friendly reminder: check with DOJ before spewing :-)

chutzpah indeed….

cmsinaz on June 30, 2009 at 8:51 AM

This country has got to wake up.

bridgetown on June 30, 2009 at 8:50 AM

LOL HAHAHA! hehehehe!! hahawwwwhawh awhwa whawww!!!

Man — thanks for the laugh ;D

blatantblue on June 30, 2009 at 8:51 AM

Ogabe has consistently said that he opposed the Sotomayor ruling in the Ricci case. You haters who point out that he never actually said anything of the sort are just racist.

The White House will now issue a directive that all Presidential statements are to be written in pencil for easy editing.

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 8:52 AM

Now the White House wants to pretend that Sotomayor is an originalist, when they themselves fought against her activist ruling.

I would propose, that the WH & the DOJ KNEW , or at least assumed it was a good bet, that she was going to lose this SCOTUS ruling, and they filed against her on purpose, in order to be able to spin this exactly they way they are now!

And, if she wasn’t over-ruled, then they could continue to tout what a great judge she was.

In otherwords, not only “Orwellian”; but also “Machiavellian”!

Dale in Atlanta on June 30, 2009 at 8:53 AM

Mr. McConnell, Line 1.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 30, 2009 at 8:53 AM

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 8:52 AM

I just thought it was all oral — nothing written

“But you said–”

“No I didn’t.”

blatantblue on June 30, 2009 at 8:53 AM

originalist

Translation: make it up as you go your own way.

OldEnglish on June 30, 2009 at 8:54 AM

The Obama team tries to play all angles of all issues, each one tailored to placate a specific group. Sooner or later, enough people are going to compare notes and realize we’ve all been had.

cruadin on June 30, 2009 at 8:54 AM

Only in this screwed up system of Goverment in America can a person who is wromg 66% of the time get rewarded with a promotion.

Socialisim at it’s best.

Wait I forgot. Look at “O” Dumbo ears and look at his qualifications. A comunity orginizer. Yep he’s POTUS material alwright.

See what would happen to you in your job if you ha a 66% failure!!!!!

Rick007 on June 30, 2009 at 8:55 AM

cruadin-
one would hope sooner, but it appears later and later….

*sigh*

cmsinaz on June 30, 2009 at 8:56 AM

That’s impressively Orwellian.

I keep telling you Obama is the Anti-Christ from the Book of Revelations…. But nooo, you just refuse to listen….

doriangrey on June 30, 2009 at 8:56 AM

▲ = ▼

davidk on June 30, 2009 at 8:56 AM

The White House will now issue a directive that all Presidential statements are to be written in pencil for easy editing.

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 8:52 AM

And, backdated to the day before the event occurred.

OldEnglish on June 30, 2009 at 8:57 AM

“Judicial originalist” means she can make it up as she goes along.

NeighborhoodCatLady on June 30, 2009 at 8:57 AM

note from rahm emanuel.. someone please pull my hand out of robert gibbs arse,it’s starting to smell down here….

SHARPTOOTH on June 30, 2009 at 8:57 AM

davidk on June 30, 2009 at 8:56 AM

Succinct.

OldEnglish on June 30, 2009 at 8:58 AM

That the white-male SCOTUS did not agree with Sotomayor is PROOF that they did not have the richness of her experiences and therefore could not reach Sotomayor’s better conclusion.

The reversal simply proves she was right TWICE (on both the wise latina and Ricci counts), and reinforces why her confirmation is so vital.

/off

dtestard on June 30, 2009 at 8:59 AM

a good judge doesn’t like to be overturned. therefore, they try to make their decisions very narrow. also, it is very helpful if they follow the law since its tough to overturn based on the law unless the higher appellate court is an “originalist”.

her overrule rate is high. that means she is an activist or a poor judge or just doesn’t care.

kelley in virginia on June 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM

In otherwords, not only “Orwellian”; but also “Machiavellian”!

Dale in Atlanta on June 30, 2009 at 8:53 AM

Obamian…

GrayDog on June 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM

blatantblue on June 30, 2009 at 8:51 AM

LOL, sounds like one of those ‘I gotta laugh or I’ll shoot myself in the head’ kinda laughs~

bridgetown on June 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM

Is she headed for the bus?

Y’all know Obama doesn’t want a failed nominee – that’d make him just like Boooosh ….

Mew

acat on June 30, 2009 at 9:01 AM

Give Robert Gibbs points for chutzpah…
OK. But no negative points for intelligence.

Corky on June 30, 2009 at 8:49 AM

FIFY

common sensineer on June 30, 2009 at 9:02 AM

She was a far-left, quota queen dope before being a far-left, quota queen dope was cool.

With the press, that is.

Imposing this unqualified bigot on this country as a Justice of the Supreme Court is tyranny, pure and simple. That she will have power over our lives is vomit-inducing.

NoDonkey on June 30, 2009 at 9:03 AM

This administration has made a mockery of core principles and truth. In doing so they are taking this country down a long, winding, and dangerous path of relativism.

They know it is impossible to keep up, impossible to understand or make sense of thus keeping the American people in a constant state of wait and see. This wait and see allows them to lead the sheep down the path farther and farther until there is no posssible way to get back.

They are redefining truths with mind numbing and insane spin like this Sotomayor nonsense.

katy on June 30, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Reagan about the cold war struggle with the USSR: “We win, they lose.”

Clarity and purpose without all the obfuscating bullshat, I miss that old man. 7:^]

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 9:04 AM

her overrule rate is high. that means she is an activist or and a poor judge or just doesn’t care.

kelley in virginia on June 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM

Hope you don’t mind the redaction.

davidk on June 30, 2009 at 9:05 AM

Reagan about the cold war struggle with the USSR: “We win, they lose.”

Clarity and purpose without all the obfuscating bullshat, I miss that old man. 7:^]

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Agreed…I miss him too.When we actually had a REAL leader.

Jeff from WI on June 30, 2009 at 9:05 AM

at the time that she was nominated, didn’t many conservative commentators say that, although she was a yukky nominee, she would be better than someone who was a real left-wing leader?

this woman is bad, but knowing obama, he can find someone worse.

and SC justices really matter. i know that. but can’t the Senate take time out to vote no on cap ‘n trade, too, while they are discussing this woman?

kelley in virginia on June 30, 2009 at 9:06 AM

davidK: thanks. judges really do worry about their “overturn” rate.

kelley in virginia on June 30, 2009 at 9:07 AM

She’s proven she’s capable in judging cakes at the county fair.

Jeff from WI on June 30, 2009 at 9:07 AM

absolute B S

bluegrass on June 30, 2009 at 9:08 AM

Now the White House wants to pretend that Sotomayor is an originalist, when they themselves fought against her activist ruling. That’s impressively Orwellian.

Or just another instance where the WH doesn’t have a clue about the official positions being taken by another part of the Executive branch (in this case, the DOJ). For another recent example, compare Obama’s statement yesterday about the Honduran “coup” with Hillary’s (DOS) statement about “not a coup.”

It’s just one in a series of examples of the incompetence and cluelessness of the Obama administration. They’re not “Orwellian,” they’re just plain stupid.

AZCoyote on June 30, 2009 at 9:08 AM

Now the White House wants to pretend that Sotomayor is an originalist, when they themselves fought against her activist ruling. That’s impressively Orwellian.

As I posted on another thread, it is time for a re-make of 1984 only this time, Winston Smith is a low-level government drone feeding the teleprompters in the Robert Gibbs wing of the propaganda ministry. He gets into trouble with the regime after he stumbles on an unredacted copy of the Constitution that still has the Bill of Rights intact and a preamble that begins “We The People” instead of “Let me Be Clear.”

highhopes on June 30, 2009 at 9:08 AM

Hasn’t she been overturned by SCOTUS 6 of 7 times her cases were heard in the court?

*snip*

karenhasfreedom on June 30, 2009 at 8:49 AM

5 of 7, though in one of the cases that SCOTUS upheld, they delivered a unanimous admonishment to Sotomayor for her extremely faulty reasoning, even though she did make the right legal judgement.

Vic on June 30, 2009 at 9:08 AM

A great judge does not make if you’re overturned 60% of your decisions by the SC!

How can she possibly be up to the job if she can’t interpret the constitution in a lower court?

xler8bmw on June 30, 2009 at 9:08 AM

doriangrey on June 30, 2009 at 8:56 AM

It’s Revelation dingis, no “s.”

Akzed on June 30, 2009 at 9:08 AM

The Loon story from the Dems of the day? Oh, I already had several to choose from.

DL13 on June 30, 2009 at 9:09 AM

Sonia seems to be a lightweight judge. No pun intended. However, we have already had an example of learning on the job and it doesn’t work out too well.

Kissmygrits on June 30, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Ed it is hard to read your posts, with the add for Evony right next to it, and the picture that can only be described as a women with extremely impressive cleavage.

MDWNJ on June 30, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Orwellian is best defined by this administration as “consistently, continuously dishonest.”

T J Green on June 30, 2009 at 9:12 AM

Now the White House wants to pretend that Sotomayor is an originalist, when they themselves fought against her activist ruling. That’s impressively Orwellian.

Same story, just another day. Once again the Obama admin is caught out as inconsistent, or lying, or contradictory, or two-faced. Generally, the news doesn’t get widely disseminated, and the offense itself is small potatoes to the administration’s supporters in the press. In other words, the price to pay for lying is too low to change the behavior.

Obama’s going for broke. He’s daring his opponents to stop him. He’s willing to use any trick openly, and so far America still wants him to. If it wasn’t Obama, it would be someone else. America is sick. It might get better, but there’s something seriously wrong with our culture now, and the destruction of the present system that allows this may be preferable to keeping it going. Like Chicago’s infamous public housing project, Cabrini Green, it’s time to tear the thing down and start over.

JiangxiDad on June 30, 2009 at 9:12 AM

Are there white males on the Supreme Court? I rest my case.

LibTired on June 30, 2009 at 9:14 AM

Is she headed for the bus?

acat on June 30, 2009 at 9:01 AM

Based solely on this one ruling, I’d say not likely. The dissenting opinions all but gave her a pass on her racism, making the claim that there was no harm because the city threw out the entire test instead of promoted token minorities ahead of the test-takers that actually did well. Where I think that Sotomayor might run into trouble is that there is a clear pattern of racist comments and affiliations. She’ll (hopefully) be grilled on just what role race has in her views of the law because it is clear that she thinks the law allows for discrimination if it furthers the social cause of minority groups. That’s legislating from the bench no matter what the filthy liar in the White House says.

highhopes on June 30, 2009 at 9:14 AM

The White House will now issue a directive that all Presidential statements are to be written in pencil for easy editing.

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 8:52 AM

New Czar.”Eraserhead”.

Johan Klaus on June 30, 2009 at 9:15 AM

Nothing about this administration is impressive.

loudmouth883 on June 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM

Clarity and purpose without all the obfuscating bullshat, I miss that old man. 7:^]

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Stop with that “old” stuff, some of us might get offended.

Johan Klaus on June 30, 2009 at 9:19 AM

doriangrey on June 30, 2009 at 8:56 AM

I concur — have thought so from day one.

D2Boston on June 30, 2009 at 9:19 AM

She is not fit to Judge, not fit for the bench and not fit for SCOTUS. If she is a Latina and not an American,her issues are in the way of her duties. I would not hire her to clean my toilets.

I would not trust Obama to park my car.

old trooper2 on June 30, 2009 at 9:19 AM

So someone remind me why he picked Sotomayor? She’s got baggage for days in all this and he chose her. Is it stupid-time in the white house round room or is she part of his plan?

Thunderstorm129 on June 30, 2009 at 9:19 AM

Nothing about this administration is impressive.

loudmouth883 on June 30, 2009 at 9:16 AM

Disagree, it is truly impressive how in just six months, the Obama Administration has set new, insurmountable records for both corruption and incompetence.

Worst President ever. Worst Speaker of the House ever. Worst Senate Majority Leader ever. It’s a hat trick full of crap, for the absolutely worthless, corrupt and incompetent Democrat Party.

NoDonkey on June 30, 2009 at 9:21 AM

I seriously wonder what the other SCOTUS think. I mean how many of her rulings have been overturned? Quite a few, correct?

deidre on June 30, 2009 at 9:21 AM

I wonder what Robert (Say Anything) Gibbs sees when he looks in the mirror…

Tony Snow he ain’t.

hillbillyjim on June 30, 2009 at 9:22 AM

Is it stupid-time in the white house round room

Thunderstorm129 on June 30, 2009 at 9:19 AM

Is it ever any other time there? Do tell..

bridgetown on June 30, 2009 at 9:23 AM

Note to Gibbs:
1. SCOTUS b*tch-slapped her up one side then down the other. Simple as that. Frankly, she deserved it. She needs to go back to the barrio.

2. The problem with being Orwellian is that it just makes Barry look even more like the Obozo he is.

3. Dude, how do you do your job with a straight face?

Bubba Redneck on June 30, 2009 at 9:24 AM

Sotomayor will always be known as a racist, no matter if she gets confirmed or not. I also think the double standard between an uber-liberal who actually is a racist and a conservative who is labeled a racist by the left (like M. Malkin), just because he/she is a conservative, is staggeringly laughable.

Geronimo on June 30, 2009 at 9:24 AM

It proves that she is a racist and that Gibbs is full of more crap than a Christmas turkey. Relying on the behavior of dumb, parasitic, uninformed people got Obama elected but now their ploys and schemes are starting to fall apart. In part the saying goes . . . you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.

rplat on June 30, 2009 at 9:28 AM

I’m guessing it would be bad form to cheer if he gets cancer?

/s

bluelightbrigade on June 30, 2009 at 9:29 AM

I was once told that I was not eligible for a Teacher Corps position because my skin was not brown enough. This college-era experience was informative enough to complete my conversion to an individual-rights form of conservatism.

Ms. Sotomayor is the doppelganger for the college professor who told me that unequal treatment under the law is necessary to counter previous unequal treatment under the law.

I had always been told that two wrongs do not make a right, but in Ms. Sotomayor’s calculus, they do. Furthermore, in her calculus, it’s open season on people who look like me, and that’s a shame — it’s exactly the position (that people can be discriminated against based on skin color) against which the Republicans wrote several Constitutional amendments to counter over a century ago.

The Democrats have never lost their need to classify by group. They had that policy in the era of slavery, and they have it today.

unclesmrgol on June 30, 2009 at 9:29 AM

That’s impressively Orwellian

More like scarily Orwellian. Seems this administration is saying a lot that is Orwellian.

rbj on June 30, 2009 at 9:29 AM

The White House will now issue a directive that all Presidential statements are to be written in pencil for easy editing.

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 8:52 AM

No, pencils leave a paper trail. Better to issue Presidential statements and Executive Orders on Etch-a-Sketches so that a couple shakes and they cease to exist.

highhopes on June 30, 2009 at 9:31 AM

unclesmrgol on June 30, 2009 at 9:29 AM

Unclemrgol, I just had this experience in an ethics class I was taking. We were discussing A.A. and how it attempts to right past wrongs. I brought up that defining admissions to colleges, jobs, etc.. based on race is in fact racist. Judging anything based on race is racist, but the professor was having none of it (she’s a great teacher by the way). Basically, she’s holding up a banana and telling me it’s an apple. I’m not having that either. It’s a banana dammit!

Geronimo on June 30, 2009 at 9:34 AM

I would propose, that the WH & the DOJ KNEW , …

Dale in Atlanta on June 30, 2009 at 8:53 AM

I would stop right there: I am not convinced that they know anything.

It’s just one in a series of examples of the incompetence and cluelessness of the Obama administration. They’re not “Orwellian,” they’re just plain stupid.

AZCoyote on June 30, 2009 at 9:08 AM

This is the slow motion train-wreck of electing to the most powerful executive position ever a man who has no executive experience.

He cannot control is administration, as exemplified by the conflicting statements coming from Cabinet members. He cannot even keep his Cabinet ‘on message’.

He has no control in Congress. Both Pelosi and Reid have pretty well told him to get lost. The best that he can do is to kinda sorta maybe agree with them after they’ve set their legislation the way that they want to.

He self-admittedly has no influence internationally. Honduras stopped taking his phone calls; Ahmedinejad & Khamanei find him to be a helpless and convenient scapegoat; North Korea told him to get lost.

Even his domesticated lefties are sick of him. You folks all know the litany.

I have long believed that governments do not have a great deal of ability to actually improve the lives of its citizenry, but a government has tremendous scope to wreck their lives. I really do not want to see that proved.

ss396 on June 30, 2009 at 9:36 AM

Didn’t Michigan recently ban race-based hiring (AA)?

How difficult was that to do and can it be replicated in other states?

bluelightbrigade on June 30, 2009 at 9:39 AM

We cannot allow the left to redefine the term “judicial activism” to fit their agenda. To reverse bad precedent is the charge of the courts (especially if that precedent is unconstitutional).
Using Gibbs reasoning, Sotomayor would have endorsed Jim Crow laws, slavery, and school prayer; And she would have fought against women’s sufferage, and “a woman’s right to choose”.
What a bunch of complete losers. The administration AND the press for letting him get away with this garbage.

edgehead on June 30, 2009 at 9:50 AM

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
Abraham Lincoln

Lets hope this is still true. Sometimes, I’m not so sure.

Miss Molly on June 30, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Lets hope this is still true. Sometimes, I’m not so sure.

Miss Molly on June 30, 2009 at 9:55 AM

A lot of voters don’t speak English. They can be fooled repeatedly. Many of the English speaking ones can too. Look at California. It descended into decrepitude without a shot being fired. The Fed gov’t is on the same collision course for us all.

JiangxiDad on June 30, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Call it a feeling (since we’re on the topic of empathy) but I think she might not be confirmed…

mjbrooks3 on June 30, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Bite me. I am a female in a male profession and I would NEVER make a claim like that.

karenhasfreedom on June 30, 2009 at 8:49 AM

Uhm, I didn’t realize that professions have genitalia. Come again?

jbh45 on June 30, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Come 2012 It won’t be Obama who wins the election. It will be the crap ass loser the east coast repubicans nominate that loses the election.

Mark my words.

rollthedice on June 30, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Robert Gibbs, “Up is down, left is right, night is day, hot is cold, etc”. Any questions?

TooTall on June 30, 2009 at 10:05 AM

No, pencils leave a paper trail. Better to issue Presidential statements and Executive Orders on Etch-a-Sketches so that a couple shakes and they cease to exist.
highhopes on June 30, 2009 at 9:31 AM

How about flash paper; Ogabe can use his cigarette to instantly torch any paper trail which exists.

Bishop on June 30, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Move along, folks, nothing to see here. If ’0′ argues against everything, he has to be right, see?

We’re just not smart enough to understand…

TinMan13 on June 30, 2009 at 10:10 AM

Every Supreme Court needs at least one racial bigot.

tarpon on June 30, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Whoa. I’m dizzy.

SouthernGent on June 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Come on, just look at her on the picture. She actually looks stupid.

Jeff from WI on June 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Why is this woman being nominated for the Supreme Court? Why is Obama hell bent on driving down all standards for our country?

Lets just hope we can fix everything he is in the process of trashing once his misguided ass is gone.

When will he learn that you can’t force all the fish in the sea to swim at the same speed?

saiga on June 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM

No lie is too outrageous for these criminals.

notagool on June 30, 2009 at 10:31 AM

When will he learn that you can’t force all the fish in the sea to swim at the same speed?

saiga on June 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM

You can, if you can force them all to stop.

It’s all about equality – the lowest common denominator.

OldEnglish on June 30, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Gibbs explained that the ruling proved that Sotomayor was — get ready — a judicial originalist.

This guy is pathetic — I remember when the MSM told us that he would be the best WHPS ever…puhlease!

Richard Romano on June 30, 2009 at 10:44 AM

“We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”

Saltyron on June 30, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Ed:

The reason TeamObama went to the trouble of filing an Amicus Brief was not just because a remand is better than an outright reversal. It’s because Sotomayor could then decline to discuss “an ongoing case.” More Machiavelli than Orwell here.

Has Sotomayor officially resigned her seat on the lower court bench yet? It would be pretty ironic if the Court had, in fact, sent the case back to the 2nd Circuit and told Sotomayor to do her homework. She could have been working on Ricci and her nomination hearings at the same time.

JM Hanes on June 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM

WH: Sotomayor reversal proves what a great judge she is

And Joe Jackson is an ethical man. /sarc

kingsjester on June 30, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Barry “the buffoon” Soetero alias Barrack Obama is one deception after another. You cannot believe your own eyes or ears when the truth to this human chameleon is based on what he wants it to be. Sotomayer’s opinions have been reversed over 60% of the time. If being wrong most of the time is competence then trust in leadership should cease to exist.

volsense on June 30, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Senator Chuck-U-Schumer doesn’t recognize the SCOTUS decision and will appeal to the World Court for their ruling. Too bad there is a two year waiting period for such cases. Don’t get me wrong Senator, I’m sure the right amount money will be wired to those who side with you. BTW, make sure its on the way into the right people’s off shore bank account before the nomination process begins or all bets are off.
.
Signed,
.
The you R-I-N-O who committee for lower standards and poors.
.

Americannodash on June 30, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Liberalism is a degenerative mental disorder that progresses into insanity. Barry is removing all doubt that this is happening at an alarming rate. His goal seems to make reality cease to exist.

volsense on June 30, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Obama didn’t bow.

Jim Treacher on June 30, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Gibbs has great joke writers…

d1carter on June 30, 2009 at 11:22 AM

You would think people would start to notice the Whitehouse talking out of both sides of their mouth by now.

It is taking far far too long for those approval numbers to come down in my opinion.

Obama is really successful at confusing every single issue with misinformation. You would think he was at war with the American people.

petunia on June 30, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Gibbs makes Baghdad Bob sound honest.

infidel4life on June 30, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Running into the street traffic ‘cuz the boss told you to do so doesn’t take chutzpah, just stupidity.

bloviator on June 30, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Up is down, wet is dry…..Ok I get it now

NoFanofLibs on June 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Isn’t that the definition of “judicial activism”?

We have always been at war with judicial activism.

James on June 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM

It isn’t so just because boy king and his jasper say so. Where’s the proof wiseguys.

bluegrass on June 30, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2