Ricci dents Sotomayor support
posted at 3:30 pm on July 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The high-profile reversal of Sonia Sotomayor’s judgment on Ricci has taken the momentum away from public support. A new Rasmussen poll shows that a previous eight-point plurality favoring her confirmation to the Supreme Court has turned into a two-point plurality of opposition. The real risk is to Barack Obama’s efforts to paint himself as a reasonable moderate on the judiciary:
A heavily publicized U.S. Supreme Court reversal of an appeals court ruling by Judge Sonia Sotomayor has at least temporarily diminished public support for President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the two nights following the Supreme Court decision, finds that 37% now believe Sotomayor should be confirmed while 39% disagree.
Two weeks ago, the numbers were much brighter for the nominee. At that time, 42% favored confirmation, and 34% were opposed.
As usual, the crosstabs tell an interesting story. First, the most damaging numbers may not come from the confirmation question at all, which is a statistical split. Her favorability rankings look simply terrible for someone supposedly outside the political arena. She has a net favorability of -13, with 49% having an unfavorable view of Sotomayor. She has a -8 among women (47%-39% unfavorable) and a -16 among men (53%-37% unfavorable). Majorities find her unfavorable in almost every income bracket, with the exception of <$20K and $60-$75K.
That spells trouble for Obama as Sotomayor heads into high-profile hearings in which issues like Ricci and other reversals will get scrutinized even further. Obama planned on showcasing Sotomayor as his proof that the accusations of extremism against him were false. Republicans have an opportunity to show how partisan and hard-core activist Obama is, and the American public has begun to agree that Sotomayor isn’t a moderate or excellent choice at all.
The GOP will almost certainly not be able to stop her from taking her seat on the Supreme Court, nor will Obama abandon Sotomayor at this point. The damage from Ricci will be significant, though, and it will reinforce the notion that the Obama White House does a lousy job of vetting its nominees. It will erode confidence in Obama at a time when the White House wants to get the American public to trust it to run the energy and health-care industries. It’s bad timing, and the administration may want to put off the hearings until after its legislative battles have finished.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 Next »
Racist.
Geronimo on July 1, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Indeed. What it should also confirm is that Obama’s intellect is the single most overestimated force known to science. What a fraud this grinning puppet is.
Jaibones on July 1, 2009 at 3:34 PM
She is no good for the Supreme Court. She suffers from a debilitating case of Latinites just like Geraldo.
saiga on July 1, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Works for me!
upinak on July 1, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Roll out the spotlights. Lights… camera… action!
petefrt on July 1, 2009 at 3:35 PM
As sure as the sun comes up everyday, a negative poll always signals a change of plans or an “emergency” for this administration.
sherry on July 1, 2009 at 3:35 PM
It is odd to think that there are people who actually have confidence in Obama.
myrenovations on July 1, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Never fear.
The NYTimes will conduct a poll that questions 80 Obama voters and 20 McCain voters, then release the results on Page 1 under the headline “Sotomayor support remains high in the face of anti-Civil Rights Supreme Court”
battleoflepanto1571 on July 1, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Me too!
ladyingray on July 1, 2009 at 3:36 PM
At least she pays her taxes. Can’t have everything!
World B. Free on July 1, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Didn’t SCOTUS understand that she’s a wise Latina? That’s why they reversed her decision, none of them had the life experience she had. People are just going to have to understand and accept that. Harumph
Lay-Z on July 1, 2009 at 3:36 PM
So all of the sudden they care what the public says? I don’t think so.
Cindy Munford on July 1, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Sonia Sotomayor’s racist approach to injustice in the Ricci case should be hung around the neck of every Senate Democrat who votes for her confirmation. If confirmed, her willingness to place leftists ideology over justice should be a major issue in 2010.
Loxodonta on July 1, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Between her and Al Franken, I just have to laugh at the folks we’re putting in charge.
Thunderstorm129 on July 1, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Just in case, Ogabe has created an ‘Under Bus Czar’ to organize the remaining space available to make sure Soto has a nice place next to the warm muffler.
Bishop on July 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM
You are quite the optimist.
I figure they will get 80 affirmative action hires and 20 “life-long Republicans” to take their poll…
18-1 on July 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Sotofinger……..
Seven Percent Solution on July 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Wonder why those two brackets?
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 3:39 PM
and the American public has begun to agree that Sotomayor isn’t a moderate or excellent choice at all.
some of us knew this all along and were labeled racist for our opinions….
SHARPTOOTH on July 1, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Quoth Chris Matthews,
“Rasmussen is a Republican poll. We don’t do those here.”
(two second pause)
“Next, here’s the new MSNBC poll showing 85% percent** of people want government run health care”
**percentage of 1000 randomly selected adults at a Starbucks on the Upper West Side of Manhattan
battleoflepanto1571 on July 1, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Welfare rats and union workers.
HornetSting on July 1, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Sonia Sotomayor’s racist approach to injustice in the Ricci case should be hung around the neck of every Senate Democrat who votes for her confirmation. If confirmed, her willingness to place leftists ideology over justice should be a major issue in 2010.
Loxodonta on July 1, 2009 at 3:37 PM
The sad part is she has 4 justices who ruled with her. She may be bruised but far from beaten.
fourdeucer on July 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Unmasked.
artist on July 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Welfare rats and union workers.
HornetSting on July 1, 2009 at 3:42 PM
hey hey not all union workers….
SHARPTOOTH on July 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM
There’s the understatement of the year.
Isn’t that right Geithner, Killefer, Richardson, Daschle, Solis, et al?
VibrioCocci on July 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM
pffftt…She is going to be easily confirmed. Now I just wish Scalia and Thomas would retire.
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM
I don’t recall seeing this at Hot Air, but it seems to be on-topic and deserving of notice.
Jaibones on July 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM
On second thought, let’s not give Obama any advice.
Mad Dog on July 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM
+1
VibrioCocci on July 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM
so you like racist latino’s do ya,
SHARPTOOTH on July 1, 2009 at 3:47 PM
I think we need a “Speech on the Supreme Court” by dear leader.
tomas on July 1, 2009 at 3:50 PM
She’d be replacing one of them, so Obama still needs one more. That’s why electing conservatives to the Senate is so important. We need enough to at least be able to sustain a filibuster, but I’m still hopeful for a majority or close to it. So, Sotomayer and Ricci should be used at Tea Parties and during the upcoming campaign.
Loxodonta on July 1, 2009 at 3:50 PM
I disagree. The sheeple who need their confidence eroded won’t see it, no matter what. They’re to invested in HOPENCHANGE. The administration isn’t pragmatic enough to wait it out, they’ll keep ramming things through at breakneck speed, hoping like hell American Idol has a good season.
Monica on July 1, 2009 at 3:50 PM
From your lips to your idol’s big ears.
Loxodonta on July 1, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Obama has surrounded himself with the most incompetent administration in decades beginning with his vice president. Sotomayer’s racist leanings just enhance her place on “the team”.
volsense on July 1, 2009 at 3:52 PM
who cares anymore?
gatorboy on July 1, 2009 at 3:53 PM
I am afraid Obama may have 2 or 3 throwaways up his sleeve and when he finds a way to circumvent the Judicial Branch he owns the whole thing.
fourdeucer on July 1, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Yes but hasn’t ALL the White House vetting in nominees been lousy? Doesn’t the Obama administration hold the record for “non-tax paying” nominees? Of which some have been confirmed.
kthomas8268 on July 1, 2009 at 3:54 PM
The leftards try to argue that we are nuts because she wasn’t the other of the opinion that was reversed. That’s true. However, she was one of the justices whose job was to review the written opinion for legal error. Instead, she and the others rubberstamped it. The USSC reversed her court’s decision and the lower court’s decision. So, she indeed owns it.
Blake on July 1, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Pretty telling she’s your side’s best and brightest. The woman’s inept.
Chuck Schick on July 1, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Don’t fart and type at the same time. It’s hard to tell them apart.
lorien1973 on July 1, 2009 at 3:56 PM
We need the Honduran Army in DC NOW
bill30097 on July 1, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Uhbama will just explain that she was the wisest Latina he could find.
Cicero43 on July 1, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Since Sandra Day O’Connor has a book out, she was on MSNBC (arghh) to promote it. She appeared with Souter on crazy woman Andrea Mitchell’s show. I must say this was an entertaining little interview. Andrea being unbiased reporter she is, asked a question of Souter about 5-4 split and the court not reflecting the new left leaning “enlightenment” of the public. Surprisingly Souter let it rip on Andrea and went on a rant about the press politicizing the court. His ultimate point was the court should be about following law not advancing political agendas (I am summarizing his rather long rant here)
Always good to see anyone rip apart Andrea Mitchell. Though Souter was polite, and excluded present company, he was clearly attacking the political characterization of her question.
msmveritas on July 1, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Ah. That would explain it. I keep forgetting how much more than make than I do.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Oh yeah? Well George Bush is stupid.
/tired old libtard retort
VibrioCocci on July 1, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Dream on, trolldouche. We are trading the most recent Republican appointment-disaster for another leftwing activist. Net loss = 0.
Ogabe will get to replace Ginsburg with another of his Marxist classmates from Harvard or Columbia, and the net loss of that will be = 0. We will lose a very smart but deeply flawed judge who ignores the law and writes leftist political opinions from the bench and gain a stupid and reliable leftist, no doubt.
And he should also get the opportunity at a third mistake on SCOTUS – cementing his legacy as a leftist and an idiot – when Stevens finally retires, thus ending the daily reminder of GOP stupidity.
Jaibones on July 1, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Our Congress and President could not be displaying what they are any more clearly and obviously. It’s like the Spirit of Truth is abroad in the earth, forcing the exact nature of their deeds out into the open.
It’s blindingly obvious that Sotomayor is a politically biased jurist, and comes from a modern juridical tradition of shrugging irrationalism in service of invidious politics. The Ricci case coming up now seems designed to highlight what the Democrat-controlled Senate would be doing by confirming her.
The list goes on and on, from the Iranian mullahs’ proving of the conservative right’s points about it, as if on cue, to the incontrovertible evidence on the costs of cap-and-trade and Obamacare, which no one even bothers to dispute.
Whatever the Democrat-controlled Congress and Obama do, no one can say we, and they, did not know what was being done. At this juncture in our nation’s history, there is not a soul supporting the Obama/Democrat agenda who has an excuse. It can’t be obfuscated or waved away.
J.E. Dyer on July 1, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Terry wants the one black justice out! Terry is obviously therefore a racist!
/liberals
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Which sounds nuts, until you consider that he also thinks it’s a good idea to put Biden in charge of anything.
Jim Treacher on July 1, 2009 at 4:07 PM
the affirmative action prez-douche may not get his affirmative action barren jurist – pity
Ris4victory on July 1, 2009 at 4:09 PM
I think its more likely reinforce the fact that Obama is a Leftist.
tgharris on July 1, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Doesn’t matter what the public thinks. She’ll get her seat.
SouthernGent on July 1, 2009 at 4:18 PM
I’m sure judge Sotomayer will do a fantastic job on the Supreme Court bench.
Jeff from WI on July 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I don’t think this wil erode my confidence in Obama at all.
NeighborhoodCatLady on July 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I don’t see the GOP making an issue of this at all. They are spineless.
She’ll go through the confirmation process like crap through a goose, which is exactly what we’re getting.
Then she can impose her uneducated, mindbendingly hallunicantory concept of the law on the rest of us.
But that’s better then hurting someone’s feelings.
NoDonkey on July 1, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Our big hope is that she’ll become, like Al Franken in the Senate, the “gift that keeps on giving.” Who knows what rulings or dissents she’ll issue in her first year or so on the bench? She could say or write something truly nutty from the bench, or make public comments that are equally nutty, that will just allow the GOP to rail against Obama for appointing “extremists” to the bench.
The Ninth Circuit is the best thing that ever happened to the Republicans on judicial issues. My parents, who are not lawyers and not tuned in to lawyering, both know what the Ninth Circuit is and why they’re so dangerous… Sotomayor’s vote on the Court isn’t enough to change it (she’s just a replacement for another reliable liberal), but her tone is much nastier…
Outlander on July 1, 2009 at 4:26 PM
I for one can’t wait for another woman on the Supreme Court, and a “smart Latina woman” at that. This is wonderful.
Jeff from WI on July 1, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Hey Ed, I hate to burst your bubble, but this current crop of fair weather republican senators will not oppose a latina woman judge no matter how radical she is.
paulsur on July 1, 2009 at 4:29 PM
I thought the muffler spot was reserved for Rev. Wright.
Laura in Maryland on July 1, 2009 at 4:31 PM
You know Jeff, you may want to consider changing your handle to Trollbait from WI.
paulsur on July 1, 2009 at 4:32 PM
I agree. We should have more women in ALL workplaces, now pack your stuff and move along. Let’s start by replacing YOU with an unqualified woman.
Laura in Maryland on July 1, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Sotomanure to the highest court, parley-voo?
Sotomanure to the highest court, parley-voo?
She has a foul temper and spews such a crock
On her la Raza has a full head lock
She could beg a peso, a drink, a meal
But it wasn’t because of sex appeal
If she changes her underwear
The frogs will give her the Croix-de-Guerre
She has so many delusions it would make Freud’s knees knock
And her face would stop a cuckoo clock
You might forget her racist chant and sexist yell
But you’ll never forget the nominee from Hell
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo
InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on July 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM
I guess that makes me a self loather. Actually forget retire, I hope something awful happens to Scalia and Thomas. Thats how I feel about those two.
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Big friggin whoop! She still gets on the court and we reinforce that which we already know. The Big 0 still gets what he wants and the American people are once again on the losing end of the deal.
glennbo on July 1, 2009 at 4:39 PM
How does the Supreme Court’s judicial activism in the Ricci case demonstrate that Sotomayor is extreme? It was a 5-4 decision; Souter, the justice she will replace, agreed with her.
As Glenn Greenwald said:
You can make a good case that the Obama team has not done a good job of vetting various nominees. But it’s preposterous to claim that the Ricci case shows that Sotomayor was poorly vetted. The facts clearly contradict that claim.
orange on July 1, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Isn’t that what your side says of all minority conservatives? Or do you actually have a problem with people who say that and instead believe individuals should vote on their own principles rather than what people tell them minorities should believe?
Such a burst of sunshine you are. Wishing harm on people who disagree with you and have the intellect to do so in our highest court. Brilliant.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Having to work with an idiot like Ginsberg, a jackass like Souter and now a complete fool like Sotomeyer (probably) isn’t bad enough?
NoDonkey on July 1, 2009 at 4:43 PM
No, they really don’t. Pay more attention. Not even the 4s agreed with how she made her ruling. It was 9-0 against her.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 4:46 PM
No esthier most people on my side are colorbind in our disdain for conservatives. I hate Scalia just as much as I hate Thomas. Every step of the way those bastard “originalists” aim to curtail my rights, and I don’t appreciate it.
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Risk? The One speaks from atop the pedestal of HYPOCRISY and no one calls him on it. So where’s the RISK?
GarandFan on July 1, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Thanks, independent voters. We’ll be stuck with this POS justice for her lifetime.
Elections matter.
BuckeyeSam on July 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
You can still put anything you want up your rectum any time you want as you go waddling out to pick up that government cheese, so cheer up buttercup.
NoDonkey on July 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
So full of shit as to be unbelievable.
GarandFan on July 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Terry, you’re amongst friends. No need to lie. We all saw people on your side throwing Oreos at Michael Steele, while photoshopping blackface on him.
We also saw your side call Dr. Rice a house negro and worse. And we didn’t forget what you (the plural you) called Justice Thomas (hint: Uncle Tom).
I know you think we’re stupid, but that doesn’t make it so.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Yeah I bet people like you are all about anti sodomy laws. Am I right?
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Yeah too bad that the number of people committing such shenanigans are about the same number as the repubs who make racist Obama jokes. Your talking about the fringe buddy.
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Sadly, she’ll still get appointed. Even though she has repeatedly shown a lack of interest in correctly applying the Constitution or legal precedent when ruling on cases.
She seems, in fact, to be one of those people that just goes to work to get a check. Her real interest is in promoting Latina issues, which I’ve no problem with. As long as she doesn’t do it from the bench.
hawksruleva on July 1, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Not at all, without sodomy, it wouldn’t be possible for people like Sotomayer to be conceived.
And what a tragedy that would be.
NoDonkey on July 1, 2009 at 4:55 PM
What rights are they trying to curtail?
hawksruleva on July 1, 2009 at 4:56 PM
She will be easily confirmed, as our elected “representatives” are no-longer listening to us.
-Dave
Dave R. on July 1, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Esthier – silverfish has personally met and vetted every liberal in America and is a “winner”. You are now an official “curtailer” and should be deeply ashamed. Please quit bloviating immediately, as first amendment rights are now only for libbie-’tards not curtailers/
Ris4victory on July 1, 2009 at 4:59 PM
The scare quotes need to go around “elected” just as much as they do “representatives”, especially post-Franken.
Democrats will allow Republicans to have a few token seats, but anything close from now on will be stolen by the Democrats, my prediction.
NoDonkey on July 1, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Go look up the work Thomas has done to diminish the fourth amendment. After that check out how Scalia feels about your right to privacy. These guys practically advocate for a police state.
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 5:03 PM
No, I’m really not. I honestly wish I was, and it’s not just limited to minorities. People on your side, even prominent people on your side, believe that even women are traitors if they don’t vote “properly”.
I can give you the full breakdown if you want, from people like Steve Gilliard and Ted Rall, to Wendy Doniger and so many others.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 5:04 PM
The most important reason that this is good news is that it will slow the Democrat juggernaut. Anything that slows congress is good news, if we can stall them until next spring I think there is a good chance we can stop the Obama agenda like Clinton’s was stopped in 1994.
Bill C on July 1, 2009 at 5:06 PM
You are so very correct, and yet, I can’t help myself.
There is no Constitutional right to privacy. You should be embarrassed for pretending there is one.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 5:06 PM
I’d like to keep all of my financial records private from the guys over at the IRS, how do you feel about that?
Seems to me, since the details of my financial life are private, all that they need to know is that I made $1.00 last year.
How far will the hopes and dreams of Barack Obama go when we are granted our Constitutional Right to keep our finances private?
NoDonkey on July 1, 2009 at 5:06 PM
I know that constitutionally there is no provision for privacy. I just have a question Esthier. Do you feel that you have a right to privacy? I sure as hell do, and I despise anybody who seeks to take that away from me.
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Don’t be ridiculous.
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Like the people in academia threatening and shouting down conservative speakers? Or, like the people who invaded the privacy of Carrie Prejean because she had the audacity to disagree with Perez Hilton? Or, like the people who make rape jokes about conservative women and their underage children? Or, like the people who refuse to call the tyrannical government in Iran “illegitimate,” but go out for ice cream when a young woman is murdered by their thugs?
Loxodonta on July 1, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Then why in the world would you expect a Supreme Court Justice to pretend that you do? Do you not understand what their role is? It’s all about the Constitution and nothing else.
I know for a fact that I do not have an unconditional right to privacy, as NoDonkey pointed out. Any job I take, no matter what it is, has to be reported. Anytime I donate to a campaign, it’s reported. My age and weight, recorded.
Your guy, Obama, seems to believe that a person’s sealed divorce records are likewise free to be reported.
We have cameras now outside, everywhere though in most cities only at red lights.
What right to privacy are you even talking about?
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 5:16 PM
A better question for the pollsters:
If a Supreme Court Nominee believes it is justifiable to deny job advancement based on race, should the nominee be disqualified from serving in the Supreme Court?
R Square on July 1, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Ok how about this esthier. Do you think there should be gun registration?
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Nobody is advocating for unconditional privacy. I think it is fine just the way it is, and I don’t think that it should be eroded in any way.
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Neither can I. Let’s share.
Loxodonta on July 1, 2009 at 5:21 PM
You do realize that the constitution doesn’t spell everything out. That we have societal norms that aren’t ever explained in the constitution. You do realize this right?
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 5:21 PM
I don’t see what purpose it serves and believe all government waste should be cut.
Well, our Justices can only follow the Constitution, which you seem to agree Clarance and Scalia are doing as you acknowledge it provides no protection for privacy.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 5:23 PM
And again, you do realize that isn’t their job, don’t you? They are to do nothing but decide whether a law is Constitutional or not. That’s it.
They’re not lawmakers.
My weakness…
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »