However, her performance adds fuel to the Republican argument that Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor not because she was the best possible candidate and not because she was a moderate, but strictly for political purposes.

It also adds fuel to the Republican argument that more Republican Senators are needed to block future “legislators from the bench”, especially if they are nominated to replace a conservative Justice.

From Ann Althouse, “Did You Notice How Sonia Sotomayor Has Backed Away From Any Identification with Obama’s Notion That “Empathy” is a Component of Judging?” ……

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/scotus-hearings-sotomayor-backs-off-on.html

The more she talks, the dumber she sounds. Yea; We really need to dumb down the Supreme Court.

Cybergeezer on July 15, 2009 at 1:47 PM

It already hit rock bottom dumb when Roberts was made Chief and nerd-alert Alito was added.

It doesn’t mean she won’t get confirmed.

The conventional thinking is that she will be confirmed even without the republican votes. Really? She does not belong on the supreme court. She has neither the intellect or temperment and it is likely she is a bigot. The republicans should stand together and vote no. Let’s see what all those blue dog democrats with good American, blue coller constituents who are being told they aren’t as wise as a puerto rican woman will do when they get wind of the fact no republicans are going to vote for her. When will “what is best for America” come into the republican mindset instead of “how can I walk the fence”?

By the way, conventional wisdom is what the washington elite must do to pull the wool over the eyes of us great unwashed and maintain their control over us.

Liberals are liars.

Its not a question of is she a liar, that is established.

Its a question of which lie is the one she wants to espouse today.

Either she was lying then or she is lying now.

In any event, why is anyone surprised that the lying son of a b!tch behind the teleprompter picks liars tax cheats and criminals and thugs to staff his administration?

That’s what you do when you come from the toilet of chicago politics.

coldwarrior on July 15, 2009 at 9:14 AM

Good point.
Most often, when you listen to conservative vs liberal in a discussion, you hear the conservative argue with reason and logic. The liberal then responds with emotional anecdotes, moral imperatives and hypothetical scenarios.
If this doesn’t work, step 2 is talking over the top incessantly, and step 3 personal attacks and ridicule.
When I try to discuss some issue with a left-leaner, using logic and common sense, it usually ends one of two ways.
1. “If that were true why don’t we hear about it more on the news?”
2. “Yeah, that’s true but everybody does it.”
End of discussion.
Bottom line – they don’t want to know.

Interesting piece, but the passing attack on Thomas is totally uncalled for. Thomas is a much better writer than Souter, whom she praises.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on July 15, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Yes, I agree, but the point I was making is that even from a Leftwinger’s (and Leftwing female’s) perspective, that Sotomayor has real academic, intellectual problems. The analysis of her prose (”writings”) is scathing but I venture to say, almost certainly relatively accurate.

A lot of Leftwingers are just preset to dislike Thomas. I think that he is a relatively Conservative and Black person, seems to just fry the Left’s sensibilities so badly that they can’t perceive him any farther than “immensely threatening to my concept of reality”. (Their concept of reality, not MINE, that is.)

This is why affirmative action does not work…

right2bright on July 15, 2009 at 9:18 AM

To the contrary; affirmative action works beautifully, from the Left’s point of view.

And it’s a long view: beginning 40 years ago, the Permanent Left saw the opportunity to set the stage for the triumph of racial politics using affirmative action. Like evil tennis coaches, they scoured the population for young females and minorities who could be groomed in the elite academies for leadership positions.

The Obammy administration represents the fruits of this strategy: a President, First Lady, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Secretary of HHS..all Red Diaper Affirmative Action babies.

Twenty years ago in New York City I knew a brilliant young woman, just graduating high school. She informed me that she had been awarded a full scholarship plus grants for living expenses to Colombia University.

When I asked what course of study she intended to pursue, she answered “deconstructionism” (the Markist academic “discipline” of finding the true, oppressive memes concealed within literature and history. Another way of saying consciousness-raising.

It was apparent to me that she had little or no idea what deconstructionism was: she had simply been identified by academics at Colombia as a promising future tool for the “struggle”.

Sotomayor and the others aren’t as bright as that young woman, but their gender or coloration more than compensate, with help from affirmative action.

Sotomayor is an obvious dolt. I wouldn’t hire her to represent me in traffic court. But in her case, affirmative action worked exactly as intended.

This lady better hope they never televise the court.

JiangxiDad on July 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Why? She will have a plum job for as long as she wants it. If she cared at all about her reputation in the public eye, for honesty among other things, she would either have declined the nomination if she wasn’t willing to defend her public record, or she would defend it. That she’s done neither of those things says to me that she’s dishonest. Once on the bench, she doesn’t really have anywhere to go but nowhere or up, because she’s settled on taking the low road to get to where she wants to be.

Appalling.

“The totality of the record is one that’s more important to look at, rather than, like I said, some out-of-context or clipped way of looking at it,” Mr. Gibbs said.

kokobin on July 15, 2009 at 10:28 AM

If a prospective Justice were a member of the Johnathan Club, chances of confirmation would hover around zero. If the prospective Justice were a member of the National Council of La Raza, I guess the chances would go to near certainty.

The totality is something your side would rather not have on the record, given the whiffle ball questions they’ve asked so far.

I need to hear Sotomayor disavow “wise Latina” five more times (to balance the six times she used her “white man vs. brown woman” comparison), and then I can ask why she is even trying for a position for which she has stated she is not qualified six times.