The Sotomayor Hearings
Kari Chisholm
Today, the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are underway.
What are you hoping to hear? What issues do you expect to be raised?
Discuss.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jul 13, '09
Judge Sotomayer is obviously well qualified and should have no trouble with any of this. However, before her inevitable confirmation, I hope that the Republican senators, Rush "Idiot" Limbaugh and their various talking head supporters at Fox continue to make boneheaded statements about the Judge and her background, and that the Repubs will continue to do everything possible to further alienate and anger Hispanic voters.
9:23 a.m.
Jul 13, '09
Sonia Sotomayor is a qualified candidate and such a long-serving judge that the confirmation hearings will reveal nothing about her nomination. It will, however, reveal a great deal about the GOP. Will a group of mainly white Southern men, let by a man whose own racist past tanked his candidacy for the federal bench, put race on the table? For decades, the GOP has gotten away with using coded, dog-whistle language to appeal to Southern whites. Will they resist the urge to play to their base (and base instincts)?
Phony standards and mischaracterizations--if not outright lies--will be de rigeuer, but it will be interesting to see exactly how far they're willing to go to try to bamboozle their base.
There's a growing, ugly movement in the GOP--symbolized by the attacks on Obama, his birth records, and his religion. To what extent will the GOP play to the fringe elements who want to hit Sotomayor with the same ugly lies? That's what I'll be looking for.
9:23 a.m.
Jul 13, '09
Sonia Sotomayor is a qualified candidate and such a long-serving judge that the confirmation hearings will reveal nothing about her nomination. It will, however, reveal a great deal about the GOP. Will a group of mainly white Southern men, let by a man whose own racist past tanked his candidacy for the federal bench, put race on the table? For decades, the GOP has gotten away with using coded, dog-whistle language to appeal to Southern whites. Will they resist the urge to play to their base (and base instincts)?
Phony standards and mischaracterizations--if not outright lies--will be de rigeuer, but it will be interesting to see exactly how far they're willing to go to try to bamboozle their base.
There's a growing, ugly movement in the GOP--symbolized by the attacks on Obama, his birth records, and his religion. To what extent will the GOP play to the fringe elements who want to hit Sotomayor with the same ugly lies? That's what I'll be looking for.
10:23 a.m.
Jul 13, '09
I predict the hearings will be unrevealing and that Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed by a strong, bipartisan majority, although falling well short of the 96 and 87 vote totals received by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer when they were nominated by President Clinton.
The biggest problem Judge Sotomayor will face is the standard set by then-Senator Barack Obama, who voted against highly qualified nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito simply because he disagreed with their judicial philosophy (or, as Senator Lindsey Graham said in his opening statement this morning, because Obama wanted to be President).
Some Republicans will no doubt cite the Obama precedent in voting against Sotomayor and some will simply vote against her just as they would anyone nominated by a Democratic President, but there will be no fillibuster and she will be confirmed by a wide margin.
Jul 13, '09
I can't wait to see the Republican Senators' faces when Sotomayor tells them, deadpan, that she's never really considered the abortion issue and has no opinion about it.
After all, ALL of them are on record that that's a praiseworthily acceptable answer.
10:56 a.m.
Jul 13, '09
Jeff Alworth: Phony standards and mischaracterizations--if not outright lies--will be de rigeuer, but it will be interesting to see exactly how far they're willing to go to try to bamboozle their base.
The word "bamboozle", as recently popularized by Josh Marshall, implies to me the idea that there is some sort of unwilling deception going on. So far as I'm concerned, however, that isn't at all what's happening.
Take FOX for instance. The more they're caught lying, the higher their ratings go. In other words, their audience is specifically tuning in for something to confirm their prejudices. The last thing they want is objective fact.
Really, I think this is the wave of the future in terms of media marketing. You can't make money telling people things that are actually true. Very few customers actually want that. You make money telling people what they want to hear. And you have to do that, because as soon as they don't, they switch to one of the other 500 channels they have.
Jul 13, '09
She makes better decisions than white boys, 'cause she ain't one.
Who wouldn't vote to confirm her?
11:42 a.m.
Jul 13, '09
Steve, you're right that I was using that word in the Marshall sense. And given that the GOP Senators were in smear mode even before there was a nominee, it's hard to argue otherwise. The actual person being discussed is hardly relevant; the GOP will use their same talking points no matter who the nominee is. If this isn't a bamboozle, the word has little meaning.
Jack, it's hard to unring bells. I've heard conservatives credibly argue that the Dems essentially ruined the process with Bork. Now it's essentially a fundraiser and sideshow. The interesting moment in American history will be when a President submits a nominee when s/he doesn't have Congress. Will the majority block the candidate on purely ideological grounds? The GOP didn't do it in the 90s, but you could see it happening.
That said, I think it's reasonable to oppose even capable judges if they're radically far to the right or left. Obama's calculation was that both Alito and Roberts were radicals, and history will decide. (Of course, I think he was right.) Nothing says a senator must rubber-stamp a judge whom s/he believes will be a catastrophe for the country.
In any case, Sotomayor is not radical (lefties like me find her views far too moderate; a contrast to all the arch-conservatives who danced in ecstatic joy over Alito and Roberts), and this is why the confirmation hearings are going to be more about how the GOP handles this fact.
Jul 13, '09
Sotomayor is not a radical. . . .
Thanks for that, it was the best Monday belly laugh I have had in a while.
A judge whose judicial philosophy is cribbed from one hit wonder MaurÃcio Alberto Kaisermann is a radical in her professional capacity.
1:28 p.m.
Jul 13, '09
She's an outstanding choice, and not the radical which the reactionaries of the misleadingly branded "conservatives" party hope to paint her as. The critique/review of Sotomayor's record by the Congressional Research Service as a guide for Senators found the following:
"Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor’s approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis, i.e., the upholding of past judicial precedents."
Jul 13, '09
Folks, Like it or not folks, this is the way the process works. You don't get to have your liberal/progressive/Democratic Senators mercilessly grill any SCOTUS nominee that happens to be conservative - and then credibly bewail similar treatment of your liberal/progressive SCOTUS nominees by conservative/Republican Senators as somehow unfair, unwarranted, or excessively partisan. It has nothing to do with supposed 'growing ugly movements in the GOP - symbolized by attacks on Obama'... Think back to the 'growing ugly movement among liberal/progressives' in their near 24/7 attacks on Bush that went on from even before he was nominated to the day he left Washington - and some still carry on even today. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I suspect Sonia Sotomayor is a qualified candidate (as were Alito and Roberts before her - whether you personally agree with their judicial philosophies and political leanings is not a 'qualification'...) and will be confirmed - as she should be. But that doesn't mean Sotomayor should get special treatment or 'rubber-stamped' - avoiding the process that every other SCOTUS nominee has had to go through for over 200 years now.
1:37 p.m.
Jul 13, '09
Boats: Thanks for that, it was the best Monday belly laugh I have had in a while.
Well Boats, given the overtly racist statements you've made in the past here on BlueOregon, I would imagine you'd consider anyone who doesn't wear a KKK hood to be "radical". But for the average goodhearted American, her moderate judicial temperament is clear as day.
Jul 13, '09
Overtly racist? You have me confused with someone else, because surely I would at least strive for implicit "dog whistle" racism, and if you happen to be referring to my postings about the unlamented passing of Mr. Jackson and obvious appreciation of real trail blazing African American musicians, well, Wacko Jacko was self-loathing.
Hmm. A confused Stevie? Par for the course.
2:13 p.m.
Jul 13, '09
Jeff, I agree with you that Judge Sotomayor is not radical but I don't think Justices Robert and Alito are, either. Personally, I was happy when Obama picked Sotomayor because I think he could have done much worse (which, from your perspective, probably means better).
I don't see Sotomayor voting much differently from Souter, although when she does, I suspect her votes will be more conservative rather than more liberal (especially on some criminal law and perhaps employment law cases, based on some of her previous rulings).
The one caveat would be if Republicans "radicalize" her through a nasty, grueling confirmation process which in part happened, I think, to Clarence Thomas. Not that this will necessarily change her vote on any specific cases but it may affect the tone of her opinions as I suspect it has with Justice Thomas.
Jul 13, '09
Ah yes, Justice Thomas' confirmation hearing. How can anyone forget Joe Biden's highest profile moment as an overt racist, the one that nicely compliments all of his decades of public low key racism against blacks and folks hailing from the subcontinent?
2:31 p.m.
Jul 13, '09
It's worth highlighting this comment as a way of establishing where in the world we are on the left-right spectrum of judicial nominees:
That would be Justice Souter, a Republican appointee. One thing lost in this debate is that the current liberal/conservative split on the court is relative, not absolute. The four members of the minority are liberal in comparison to the members of the conservative majority. But by historical standards, Souter is hardly going to be confused with Thurgood Marshall. By contrast, the Roberts Court may be the most conservative in American history.
All of this is important context for where Sotomayor fits politically: she's a moderate by historic standards and someone who is strongly inclined to observe precedent. She's one of the least-radical picks Obama could have found.
Jul 13, '09
Barring an illegal immigrant housekeeper or gardener in her past I see no fireworks in these hearings. I'd expect more republican discussion about laying the groundwork for whomever the NEXT candidate is whenever another member of the Supremes steps down.
Obama and the dems won, they have the right to nominate whomever they believe makes the grade. Sotomayer is obviously well versed on the law. Nobody is going to agree with a good jurist's decisions 100% of the time. There will be the expected grandstanding regarding her short shrift in Ricci, but I do not forsee and blood on the water. She will be confirmed; but mostly along partisan voting lines.
Jul 13, '09
Since the role of the judiciary is to apply the law, not make public policy, even liberals will look more moderate if authentically filling the role in our system of government. If one wants to be a political animal, that is what the other two branches are supposed to be about.
What is sad to me is how the congeniality of the system of judicial confirmations has broken down over the past 20 years and Roe v. Wade was the catalyst for that. The Supreme Court usurped the political process with that decision and short circuited a developing national consensus on abortion that has failed to materialize to this day. Had the pro-lifers lost the debate in the political arena, they'd be a lot quieter today, but since it was a judicial outcome they always believe they are just a "few votes away" from reversing Roe rather than a political moonshot away from changing a legislative outcome.
And yes, the Democrats have been worse in breaking down the process: First when "borking" Judge Bork. Then through all but crucifying Thomas for daring to be a black conservative. Then they turned to filibustering nominees by corrupting the intent of a procedural rule of the Senate intended to be used against legislation. It was illegitimate then, and it would remain illegitimate should the Republicans claw back to 40 votes.
There is no sense in decrying the foul taste of partisanship as regards judicial nominees when you dumped the most poison into the well.
Jul 13, '09
That's funny. I may have been in High School at the time and not paying that much attention to politics, but my understanding is that the Democrats "all but crucified" Thomas for daring to sexually harass women (Anita Hill in particular).
3:34 p.m.
Jul 13, '09
Jim H: My understanding is that the Democrats "all but crucified" Thomas for daring to sexually harass women (Anita Hill in particular).
Those are mere facts, Jim. Boats doesn't pay attention to those because, as Steven Colbert so accurately put it, "facts have a liberal bias".
Boats prefers to live in his own fantasy world, where his commentary pretending that racism in this country is all just "liberal white guilt" is a sign of his own fair-mindedness (and not at all a hallmark of his own deep seated racism), and his many critics are all just ganging up against him.
Jul 13, '09
As folks around here are fond of saying "that was just a cover for the real agenda." Sexual harassment charges were the flag of convenience for Biden's real agenda, which was to knock out an unapologetically conservative nominee in order to get a pick like Souter turned out to be.
What is cosmically amusing is that a few short years later for these Anita Hill promoters, all female accusers were desperate liars, and Bill Clinton was credible.
Jul 13, '09
Racism in this country is not all "white liberal guilt." There are real instances of racism perpetrated every day by people of all shades of color.
Only liberals make an entire industry of apologetics about it. I happen to take an approach rather like Morgan Freeman's, quit it with the limiting adjectives and treat men like men rather than black men, white men, or brown men.
Yes, Stevie, I recognize your being treated like a man is akin to dreaming the impossible dream given your multi-issue hypersensitivity.
3:58 p.m.
Jul 13, '09
Boats: Only liberals make an entire industry of apologetics[sic] about it.
Ah, more delusional fantasy coming out of Boats. I wonder what he thinks the U.S. Market Cap of this "racism industry", all staffed by liberals, is? Millions? Billions? Think of the jobs!
And now he thinks he's gathering credibility by questioning my manhood. In a way that went out of style in the 1970s.
What is this idiot's mental age, anyway? Ten?
Nah. That's insulting to ten year olds.
Jul 13, '09
Market cap? Nah. A good slice of the annual charitable foundation take? Yep.
And Stevie. I don't call into question your manhood. Your sniveling tone does that "trollslayer."
Jul 13, '09
"Jeff, I agree with you that Judge Sotomayor is not radical but I don't think Justices Robert and Alito are, either."
Of course, Roberts and Alito are not radical. They represent the Washington Establishment and Corporate America. No more Mr. Nice Guy
7:00 p.m.
Jul 13, '09
That would be Justice Souter, a Republican appointee. One thing lost in this debate is that the current liberal/conservative split on the court is relative, not absolute.
Perhaps it is more important to recognize that historically Republican presidents have been less likely to select Supreme Court Justices on a partisan or ideoloical basis. Remember that Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens were all Republican appointees.
The closest you can come to a parallel conservative justice appointed by a Democrat would be Byron White, who was appointed by Kennedy (and he would probably object to be characterized as conservative).
Jul 13, '09
"Remember that Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens were all Republican appointees. "
Jack, I don't know how old you are. But I am old enough to remember the IMPEACH EARL WARREN campaign getting lots of news coverage.
We should get away from the team mentality (Roberts and Alito come from one team, Souter was supposed to belong to that team but too often voted with the other team sort of thing).
Read some classic cases (West Virginia vs. Barnette is one of my favorites). If justices can write as well in majority or dissent as some of the cases students study in a Constitutional Law class, they should be valued as judges regardless of who appointed them.
I happen to be a big fan of Justice Jackson. That doesn't mean I agree with all of his cases or public statements.
9:52 p.m.
Jul 13, '09
This idea that all was sweetness and light in Supreme Court appointments prior to Robert Bork's nomination is nonsense.
Lyndon Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the United States (he was already an associate justice) was sunk on ideological grounds by southern conservatives in 1968 upon Earl Warren's retirement. The position remained open and Richard Nixon was able to appoint Warren Burger as Chief Justice after winning the 1968 presidential election.
Then in 1969 Fortas resigned due to a financial scandal which led to the beginning of an impeachment process. Richard Nixon sought to appoint first Clement Haynsworth and then G. Harrold Carswell to replace Fortas. Both appointments were perceived in part as related to Nixon's "Southern strategy" of bringing white conservative Democrats opposed to the Civil Rights revolution into the Republican Party. Both were opposed and defeated on ideological grounds, Haynsworth out of a combination of a reputation for upholding segregation and strong anti-labor bias, and Carswell for his positions on civil rights and women's rights, according to the Wikipedia entries on them. Carswell also had a 58% reversal record. Carswell also suffered from having poor friends; Senator Roman Hruska responded to charges of that Carswell was mediocre thusly:
Nixon got Harry Blackmun confirmed on his third try.
What is notably different about those cases is not that the appointment process was more decorous or less ideological than recently, but that they were less partisan, reflecting the different ideological characters of the parties then to what they are now.
As for partisanship in holding up lower court nominations with filibuster threats, it was the Republican congresses of the 1990s that really set that process in motion on a mass scale.
Jul 13, '09
Chris Lowe:
This idea that all was sweetness and light in Supreme Court appointments prior to Robert Bork's nomination is nonsense.
Bob T:
I'm not sure anyone said that it was, but that the Bork hearings were the first of the very political and drawn out hearings we've had ever since. (By the way, if Sotomayor is seen as qualified because of her resume, then Bork was a lot more so -- but I'm glad he's not on the court).
You might be interested in reading a George Will column from May in which he concluded that this drawn-out probing into a nominee's thinking is now necessary.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Jul 13, '09
Jamais Vu:
The critique/review of Sotomayor's record by the Congressional Research Service as a guide for Senators found the following:
"Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor’s approach as an appellate judge has been an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis, i.e., the upholding of past judicial precedents."
Bob T:
I don't like that, either, because it all depends on the wording of the Constitution. In other words, sometimes precedent (or incremental precedents) need to be slapped down if they have more in common with an inventive interpretation than what's in the Constitution itself. You didn't want to see Brown v. Board of Ed (1954) snuffed out because "separate but equal" was allegedly "settled" in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), do you?
The latter was of course a case of the "living" Constitution doctrine with all of the usual flaws -- racist, anti-free market, anti-property rights, and so on. I'll take the original document over precedent in these cases.
Same could be said of the Kelo decision, which in my view was based more on a string of bogus anti-property rights rulings with this one being the final nail. There was nothing in the original document that said that most of the takings clause is to be defined by states and local governments, but not the due process part.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Jul 13, '09
LT:
I happen to be a big fan of Justice Jackson. That doesn't mean I agree with all of his cases or public statements.
Bob T:
What we need is another Stephen Field.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Jul 13, '09
Greg D:
and that the Repubs will continue to do everything possible to further alienate and anger Hispanic voters.
Bob T:
Yeah, sure. Most or all would have voted for W's circuit court nominee Miguel Estrada, and then later on would have voted overwhelmingly for him on the USSC. But he was trashed and shot down by you guys because you can't stand to have any minorities who don't follow the so-called progressive line. Seems that the Dems can get away with trashing minority choices for federal courts (Thomas, Brown, Estrada), with no harm. Must be the welfare state mentality. You've got so many people addicted you can trash them and they won't do anything. That's why I never associate progressive with "progress", and never will.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Jul 13, '09
Bill Bodden:
Of course, Roberts and Alito are not radical. They represent the Washington Establishment and Corporate America.
Bob T:
Oh, it's that easy, is it?
The same was no doubt said a few years back about the team of Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, yet with O'Connor their Kelo opinion was correct while the majority (the five favorites of yours at that time) gave Pfizer everything they wanted. How would Sotomayor have voted on that one? Would she have re-discovered the value of property rights as a bulwark against statism, or driven that final nail in the coffin lest too many "little people" get some power to say "No" to that bogus definition of "public use" shared by everyone from George W. Bush to Sam Adams and Randy Leonard?
Apparently you see too many things in black and white.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Jul 14, '09
runeup.com has many runescape accounts for sale,and have many runescape gold, you can come and choose some what you like.
Jul 14, '09
In runeup.com you can buy rs money,and also we have cheap rs powerleveling,you can play very well with these.
6:43 a.m.
Jul 14, '09
Jack, I don't know how old you are. But I am old enough to remember the IMPEACH EARL WARREN campaign getting lots of news coverage.
Trust me, I'm old enough. But my point isn't that Republicans or conservatives likes the justices I named (Warren, Brennan, Blackmun and Stevens), but that they were appointed by Republican presidents.
Can anyone name justices appointed by Democratic presidents who turned out similarly unpopular with the Democrat's liberal base?
This idea that all was sweetness and light in Supreme Court appointments prior to Robert Bork's nomination is nonsense. . . . What is notably different about those cases is not that the appointment process was more decorous or less ideological than recently, but that they were less partisan, reflecting the different ideological characters of the parties then to what they are now.
Which is my point. To date, the partisan battles over Supreme Court nominees have been waged by Democrats, not Republicans. My hope is that the Sotomayor confirmation will follow that pattern and that many, if not most, Republicans will vote to confirm her.
Here's a trivia question: Name the last Supreme Court candidate nominated by a Democratic President who was rejected by the Senate. (Fortas doesn't count, his name was withdrawn as Chris notes above.)
Jul 14, '09
Perhaps it is more important to recognize that historically Republican presidents have been less likely to select Supreme Court Justices on a partisan or ideoloical basis. Remember that Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens were all Republican appointees.
Appointed by Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford, all of whom would be primaried by Club for Growth as "excessively leftist" were they to run today. Yes, Republicans used to be reasonable, and the racist party used to be the Democrats. Many of us hadn't even been born then. And every year you'll have to reach farther back into history for that bit of trivia. Democrats aren't Woodrow Wilson any more, and your guys sure aren't Teddy or Ike. Not one bit.
The closest you can come to a parallel conservative justice appointed by a Democrat would be Byron White, who was appointed by Kennedy (and he would probably object to be characterized as conservative).
That's because the Democrats have only named two Justices in the last 40 years, Ginsburg and Breyer, both of them middle-of-the-roaders who only seem liberal compared to the Roberts wing of the court. With that small a pool, there's not much of any pattern to find.
Of course, if you go back deep enough into history so that you find Democratic presidents making Supreme Court appointments, you can find conservatives like Tom Clark, Felix Frankfurter, John Harlan and Stanley Reed to go with GOP appointees Brennan, Warren and Potter Stewart. In those ancient times, they revered brilliant legal minds over ideological litmus tests. Most of us weren't alive.
Jul 14, '09
Admiral Naismith:
....Breyer, both of them middle-of-the-roaders
Bob T:
Anyone who thinks that a gun-carrying individual within a thousand feet of a school is "affecting" interstate commerce is hardly a middle-of-the-roader.
Bob Tiernan Portland
9:33 a.m.
Jul 14, '09
Can anyone name justices appointed by Democratic presidents who turned out similarly unpopular with the Democrat's liberal base?
This reflects my earlier comment about the current context of the court. Since 1953, Democrats have appointed just six of 22 justices. The reason no one was complaining about the early picks is because they came at the tail end of the great liberal realignment. FDR and Truman together appointed 12 justices and from 1937-1967, Dems appointed 16 of 21. The court shifted left during that period, so in our memory, Dems have been pleased with whom they could get. (Though in fact, both Ginsberg or Breyer have endured mild criticism from the left for their less-than-arch liberal positions. Don't count me among them--I think the two have exceptionally keen minds.)
In other words, I think your comment underscores the point that the court has been dominated by conservatives for a very long time.
Jul 14, '09
Poor Boats he is just upset that his right-wing ideology (is it safe to say you are more of a Rush Limbaugh than a Tom McCall or Mark Hatfield guy?) is out of vogue outside the deep south and places like Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas. I suppose when you live in a rural "red america" area you just get your views reinforced all the time (no I do not live in a totally blue area).
Chris Lowe "As for partisanship in holding up lower court nominations with filibuster threats, it was the Republican congresses of the 1990s that really set that process in motion on a mass scale."
Don't forget Tom Delay in claiming congress needs to impeach federal judges for their holdings in cases (Terri Schiavo was one example) regardless of whether those judges committed any high crimes or misdemeanors.
Jul 14, '09
Bob T:
"Apparently you see too many things in black and white."
Not in this case. I happened to agree with Jeffrey Toobin's article - here: No more Mr. Nice Guy - who is noted for being a responsible commentator on legal issues and one who doesn't see things in "black and white" terms. It was interesting that Sheldon Whitehouse, one of the more responsible and judicious senators in Washington, made a point of citing this article on the opening day of the Sotomayor hearings.
2:03 p.m.
Jul 14, '09
The comment above that Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford would be ideologically unacceptable to today's Republicans was well made. It shows the true depth and lasting impact of the Reagan Revolution on American political culture and our current perceptions of where the "middle" is.
Even Reagan started out by nominating a justice, O'Connor, most would view as middle of the road; it was much later that he made the more ideological nominations (Scalia, then Bork.) The uproar of the Bork nomination led then to Kennedy in Reagan's last year--Reagan ending as he began with a justice who turned out to be a middle of the road SCOTUS member.
Sotomayor is much like O'Connor, a moderate, and may end up forming a clique with Kennedy in the middle. The Republicans should not go into hysterics over her or they risk losing credibility by crying wolf. They would be better served to let the moderate in, and then wait for Obama's next nominee, who just might be a genuine left-wing ideologue, perhaps the mirror image of Robert Bork. That would be the smart thing to do, but I don't expect they'll think it through.
Jul 14, '09
Bob t:
"Apparently you see too many things in black and white."
Wrong again, Bob. I argue strong pro or con positions, what you refer to as black and white, but that doesn't mean I don't see the gray areas in betgween. Have you ever heard of a lawyer arguing a case and advocating a point that would support the opposing attorney or prosecutor? On the other hand, I will concede there are times when it is better to be more balanced on a blog.
During the Democratic primary it was obvious I was hostile to Hillary and positive (sort of) towards Obama, but I was aware of positives for Hillary (not many) and negatives for Obama (several). But I wanted Hillary to lose, so I took strong negative positions against Hillary and somewhat positive positions supporting Obama. With Obama I cut him some slack on the basis of his being in a campaign, but that didn't keep me from saying somethings forcefully when I disapproved strongly of something he came up with.
To use your own assessment, it looks like you just see what I say in terms of black and white. Pay attention. You'll find you're wrong on that one.
8:10 p.m.
Jul 14, '09
"Had the pro-lifers lost the debate in the political arena, they'd be a lot quieter today,"
They've been losing pretty consistently overall since the decision, in the political arena. Acceptance of the premise of legal abortion under regulated circumstances is pervasive and not appearing to change any time soon. The extend of those regulations has swung back and forth and of late is pretty restrictive, but abortion is not a winning political issue for pro-lifers anywhere but the South and overwhelmingly Catholic districts I suspect.
So don't go blaming SCOTUS for the failure of the pro-life movement to criminalize abortions. It's not what a clear majority of Americans want.
8:27 p.m.
Jul 14, '09
"Sexual harassment charges were the flag of convenience for Biden's real agenda, which was to knock out an unapologetically conservative nominee in order to get a pick like Souter turned out to be."
Do you know who David Brock is? He founded and runs Media Matters.org, which is a liberal watchdog but is honest in their specific assessments of media bias incidents.
Do you know what he did before that? He was the primary mouthpiece on the Thomas nomination against Anita Hill, fed bullshit by groups like Scaife's and Viguerie's and the rest of the Republican smear machine and printing it as truth. He claims now he was a dupe, but I wouldn't be surprised if he knew what he was doing.
And so a little rancor from Democrats in response to the way that the GOP was making sure they didn't get Borked again in their view, is profoundly deserved. Thomas was ushered through because Anita Hill had been slimed, when Mr. Pubic Hair was the one with ooze on him. And he's proven to be the dullest mind on the Court, a reliable pocket vote for Rehnquist and now Roberts. The worst day for him was when Alito was confirmed, because his opinions took over the "crazy right wing" slot, and did them a lot more wittily and sharply (gotta admit Alito is sharp). I'd take nine Roberts in place of Thomas on the Court. (Well, maybe four Roberts).
Jul 15, '09
Bill Bodden:
Wrong again, Bob. I argue strong pro or con positions, what you refer to as black and white, but that doesn't mean I don't see the gray areas in between.
Bob T:
The remark pertained to your view that Alito and Roberts can fit nicely into your predictable slot as defenders of "the Washington Establishment and Corporate America".
I learned a long time ago how unpredictable justices are. There are many times when I'm glad Ginsburg was there, and many times when Thomas and/or Scalia were dead wrong. Replacing any of them guarantees nothing.
On that note, I rarely if ever hear any progressives praise Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist etc for their opinions (even when in the minority), such as that for Kelo, siding with the NAACP, the ACLU etc, over the Ginsburgs and Stevens types who had no problem with the Sam Adams and G.W. types in Connecticut deciding to sweep away politically un-connected people so that a corporation could get their property and the city could brag about "creating jobs" and getting "tax revenues". I just took it to mean that you were all too embarrassed at this blow-back from decades of watering down private property rights.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Jul 16, '09
The Republicans would have allowed a vote in any case. This is why Republicans often lose these kind of battles. The Republicans play fair and play by the rules, the Democrats play to win. That is also why Al Franken is the Senator from Minnesota after an election recount barely more credible than the one recently completed in Iran.
5:03 p.m.
Jul 16, '09
What color is the sky on your plant, KenRay?
5:03 p.m.
Jul 16, '09
planet, that is. oh well.
Jul 16, '09