The GOP and Sotomayor

The GOP cannot base it's opposition to Sotomayor based on her record (which, in reality, is quite moderate) or her race and gender, which they are currently doing in a despicable way. So the GOP is up against a wall on this.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Those good ol' GOP birdies! The qualifications of nominees don't matter. All we want are our activist judges. They are also wont to see all members of a group alike if it suits them - Thomas is representative of all African-Americans - or not if it doesn't - Sotomayor is a far left commie.

Yes, because Estrada was exactly the same as Sotomayor: Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada's lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Democratic Senators also objected to the refusal by the Office of the Solicitor General to release samples of Estrada's writings while employed there. Republicans, however, stated that the Democratic concerns were actually just an attempt to deny Estrada a circuit court seat because of his conservatism.

Let's go back in time.
.
Of all the ugliness churned up by the battle over whether Miguel Estrada deserves a spot on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the fact that it strips us down to our barest racial selves is the ugliest. If the crash of Trent Lott proved that the Old South still lives in the Senate, the battle over Estrada confirms that the race virus plaguing this country isn't fading with dying senators; it's just morphing into more and more lethal strains. And it's not just Congress. You expect them to behave like petulant babies, strutting and fretting their racial outrage before the cameras. But even more depressing than the unfolding filibuster has been watching Hispanic advocacy groups eat each other alive over the nomination, running commercials attempting to influence congressional votes and accusing one another of being "anti-Latino" for disagreeing over the fitness of the nominee. This confirmation has become the affirmative action debate in different packaging: Can we ever get far enough past racism to figure out how to get past race?
.
Full article at the link.
.
http://www.slate.com/id/2079445/

You're blowing the story, JNS. The GOP is launching a full-on, coordinated attack on Sotomayor. They're playing for time because they know that attack by swift-boat needs repetition to work. That's not "walking softly."
.
Also you blew the bit on Sessions. If you are going to reference his nomination being derailed, you might want to cite to the quotes that actually did the damage.

JNS-just like your little birdie update. There was more to the story than the Dems paid little heed to hispanic voters. You need to start putting this stuff into context instead of just checking a box that you included a quote from people opposing. And why in the name of all that is holy is the birdie annonymous?

From Christy Hardin Smith: By the way, I know I'm breaking the gold rule by actually providing my source's name. But there you go. I'm a bad boy.
.
"Here we have the very essence, the core if you will, of right wing objections to Judge Sotomayor's nomination. I give you the intellectual stylings and logical superiority of Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton:
.
David Shuster: "What evidence do you have that she would put her feelings and politics above the rule of law?"
.
Tom Fitton: "Because President Obama chose her."
.
She was nominated by a Democratic President. Ergo, she must be unacceptable without any factual foundation as to why.
.
Taaaa daaaaaaaaaah.
.
http://christyhardinsmith.firedoglake.com/2009/05/27/scotus-right-wing-objections-to-sotomayor-in-a-nutshell/

.
A GOP birdie reminds me..
.
Did your birdie remind you that Estrada had no judicial experience prior to getting nominated? Or maybe that Estrada's law firm represented Dubya in front of the Supreme Court in the dispute with Al Gore over the results of the 2000 elections? Maybe birdie mentioned that the Bush Administration and Estrada failed to provide the Senate with the basic information it needed to evaluate and vote on Estrada's nomination?
.
It's funny how, in the GOP aviary, the fact that two people with can be classified as a latino or latina means that they are exactly the same...And shame on you, Jay, for passing this bit of false equivalency along uncritically.

Love the GOP Birdie, part. Great Journalism, JNS!

.
Gah. Should read: ...two people with different backgrounds and can be classified as a latino or latina means...

JNS continues to push the racist/hate agenda by focussing on Sotomayor's ethnicity...
_
A GOP birdie reminds me that the Dems paid little heed to Hispanic voters when they filibustered Miguel Estrada's nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals,
_
Democrats opposed Estrada and two other judges based on their radicalism -- one was a white male, one was a white female, and one was a hispanic male. Sonia Sotomayor is a fully qualified jurist who happens to be hispanic, but JNS is advancing the hate agenda of the GOP, that wants to make it appear that Sotomayor was nominated solely because of her gender and ethnicity.

shame on you, Jay, for passing this bit of false equivalency along uncritically.
-
Bears repeating.
-
It's just a post on a blog, not the end of the world. But it still shouldn't be done.
-
The distastefulness of the claim ("every brown person is exactly the same!") was bad enough; the total and complete absence of context that you provided means that this post makes people less well informed for having read it. Advertising is dying, Jay; better work on providing value added with your content.

"A GOP birdie reminds me that the Dems paid little heed to Hispanic voters when they filibustered Miguel Estrada's nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals..."
.
Gosh, I must have missed the clamor from Hispanic voters to see Estrada on the Court of Appeals. Also, it's possible that Sotomayer's pick has nothing to do with them either (as I recall, Obama won Hispanics by a rather large margin and Republicans continue to burn down that bridge even as we speak). Perhaps he thought the placement of someone other than another Anglo-Saxon male might be good for the Supreme Court for it's own sake.
.
You folks never tire of being punked by shallow, lying Republicans, do you?

I do not see all the "fuss" about Sotomayor in the first place. This is not the nomination to pick the "fight" against anyways. She is just replacing one far left liberal jurist with another.
.
Conservatives would better be served in waiting until the next appointment is considered. Justice Stevens will soon be gone, and possibly Ginsberg. Let them have their token Female and Hispanic without a fight. That is what I say.
.
The next two vacancies will be fought and fought against with vigor by anyone who has any semblance of intelligence or integrity. I only hope Obama only has 4 years to mess things up royally as he has already begun as noted previously. Hopefully the two Jurist, Stevens and Ginsberg can last long enough on the bench to wait out his Presidency of 4 years. But, as with Suder, we are only potentially replacing two far left policy making jurists with 2 others. Conservatives have little to loose and everything to gain when those two nutjobs are off the bench.

Yikes, that last sentence reads way meaner than I thought it did; I'm sorry about that. I just meant to say that the "both sides are to blame!", "take down both sides and call it a day" approach to journalism is not long for this world. It's just a post on a blog, but it's still not a great idea.

lose = loose, I still have problems with that spelling.

This has all the real world legal relevance of the Sharks verses the Jets. I like the Jet's moves but the Sharks had better choreography. I wonder if Roberts can still do a high kick.
-
" … tonight the confirmation goes so slowly
=
The questions are so lowly
=
But still the Court is right

-
The loons take the light,
=
And make this endless process endless blight!
=
Toooooniiiiiiiiiight!"

lose = loose, I still have problems with that spelling.
.
Yeah, well, I'd work on spelling the justices' names right, first. At least you have the sense to recognize a losing battle for the GOP.

"Let them have their token Female and Hispanic without a fight. That is what I say."
.
Just curious rusty. Was Sandra Day O'Connor a token white female for Reagan? Was Clarence Thomas a token black for the first Bush? Are they still viewed as only token picks by your side?

Republican talking head Michael Goldfarb: "Does anyone dispute that Sotomayor has been the recipient of preferential treatment for most of her life?"
Republican leader Jamer Imhofe: "In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences."
I guess uninformed, coded hate speech is what they call "walking softly" these days...
It will be wonderful when there are fewer useful idiots spreading nonsense like JNS.

"Just curious rusty. Was Sandra Day O'Connor a token white female for Reagan? Was Clarence Thomas a token black for the first Bush? Are they still viewed as only token picks by your side?"
.
As long as we continue to look at gender and race as the first pre-requisite for any position rather than a person's qualifications, yes would be my answer to you gysgt.
.
I don't disagree that a more balanced court would not be beneficial to us all, based on gender and race. However the qualifications should be the first thing we look at, not the second, third or ...
.
I have the same opinion on this as I do with affirmative action. We have gone for what 20 years or more now with affirmative action? How has it changed anything?
.
If both potential candidates possess the same qualifications, then we should look at gender and race as the "tie breaker" of sorts, don't you think?

JNS is advancing the hate agenda of the GOP, that wants to make it appear that Sotomayor was nominated solely because of her gender and ethnicity
.
The best line on that subject so far is here:
.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=oh_no_who_will_represent_white
.
Yes. Because the worldviews of John Roberts, Sam Alito, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia are not impacted at all by their white male identities. White men are raceless and genderless, haven't you heard?

Yesterday Harriet Miers, today Miguel Estrada. Both preposterous analogies, easily demolished with about a minute of googling. Conservatives don't really remember actual history, only talking points, and they wrongly assume that everyone else is like them in this regard. Luckily for them, though, the media's memory is almost as bad as their's is.

.
Hey, rusty..would you, being far-right conservative and all that, ever consider putting someone who has virtuallv all of the recorded speeches of Malcolm X up for nomination to the Supreme Court?

Rusty-Thanks for your response. But I disagree that any of these appointments have anything to do affirmative action and every thing to do with political gain. Rather they be a minority or a white male its what they can do for the person appointing them.