Saying no to Sonia?
How the GOP will go after Obama's court nominee
Saying no to Sonia?
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Back on May 5, in this space, I wrote: "It's hard to imagine that the Senate Republicans would try to filibuster any female nominee who has the requisite legal qualifications - particularly if that female also happened to be Hispanic (federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor, who grew up in a New York housing project and would naturally bring a new experiential perspective to the court)."
Now that President Obama has indeed chosen Sotomayor, let's see how the Republicans play it.
Will the party of southern white guys - which is led, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, by Jeff Sessions, a southern white guy - mount a parliamentary effort to block the ascent of an Hispanic woman...and thus risk alienating itself even further from women voters (who backed Obama last fall by 13 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (the fastest-growing demographic group, which backed Obama by 36 points)?
Will the GOP, prodded by its conservative base, dare to assail a woman of color who rose from humble beginnings on sheer merit; who was formally tapped for the federal district bench by a Republican president (George H. W. Bush); and who was confirmed in 1998 for a federals appeals court seat by a Republican Senate, voting 67-29? (By the way, those 67 Yes votes included 25 Republican senators...seven of whom are still serving.)
The answer is, yes, the party certainly will assail her. Actually, the GOP has a duty to challenge the nominee; that's what advise and consent is all about. And lest we forget, Obama as a senator supported the idea of filibustering the Samuel Alito nomination.
But, politically, the Republicans have to tread with care. Considering GOP strategists' concerns that the party risks being relegated to long-term minority status if it continues to tick off Hispanic voters, the party would be well advised to challenge Sotomayor in a substantive manner, forego the usual rhetorical cartooning, and recognize that any filibuster bid would be politically counterproductive.
That said, here's some of what you might expect to hear from the not-Sonia movement in the days ahead. The strategy will be to downplay Sotomayor's race and gender (as much as possible, anyway), and focus on some of her rulings and statements:
1. The New Haven affirmative action ruling. Along with six other federal appeals court judges, she sided with the city's decision to throw out some tests that had been used to evaluate firefighters for promotion. The city tossed the tests because no minority candidates had made it to the top of the promotion list. Some white firefighters challenged the city's action, alleging that they'd been effectively denied promotions for which they were qualified. Basically, Sotomayor and the other appeals judges ruled against the white firefighters. It was a complex case (now on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court), but the GOP can potentially reduce it to emotional shorthand - by invoking "9/11."
You ask how that's possible? Here's conservative activist Wendy Long, this morning: "On September 11, America saw firsthand the vital role of America's firefighters in protecting our citizens. They put their lives on the line for her and the other citizens of New York and the nation. But Judge Sotomayor would sacrifice their claims to fair treatment in employment promotions to racial preferences and quotas."
2. The "liberal activist" soundbite. The loyal opposition has latched onto a passing remark, uttered by Sotomayor during a law student forum in 2005, about how a "court of appeals is where policy is made." Conservatives will therefore say, in essence, that Sotomayor wants to make policy on the bench; ergo, that makes her a "liberal activist judge" and thus unqualified for the high court. But the context of her remark was far less exciting.
While enlightening the law students about the differences between clerking in federal district court and clerking in a federal appeals court, she sought to explain that the former venue rules on individual cases, whereas the latter venue rules on broader issues that serve as controlling legal precedent - i.e., "policy" - for all the district courts in the region. That's a dry explanation you'd find in any law textbook; presumably, however, the GOP will cite her remark as proof that she would ignore the Constitution and take stances that hew to her purported ideological preconceptions. Sure enough, perpetual presidential candidate Mitt Romney brandished the "policy" quote (and distorted its meaning) earlier today.
3. The dim lightbulb theme. We're hearing this one already on the radio and in conservative blogs - that Sotomayor supposedly is not very bright, that she's roughly comparable to Harriet Miers, the Bush crony who was briefly tapped for the high court back in 2005. It might seem odd to equate Sotomayor (top honors grad of Princeton and Yale, and an ex-federal district judge who ruled on more than 450 cases) with Miers (who never served as a judge, and never even wrote any legal treatises), but hey, this is the kind of rhetorical cartooning I mentioned earlier. The dim bulb theme is actually inspired by a recent New Republic article, which quoted some lawyers as saying that the judge is no intellectual heavyweight, but that article was counterbalanced weeks ago by the quotes of other lawyers whose assessments of Sotomayor appear in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary ("She is very smart" "She is frighteningly smart" "She is very intelligent"). Anyway, does the GOP want to put itself in the position of arguing that an Hispanic woman of obvious high achievement is too dumb for the high court - an argument akin to the old saw that black football players were too dumb to be quarterbacks?
4. The identity-politics soundbite. During a 2001 lecture on cultural diversity and the law, Sotomayor suggested that, with respect to many cases that reach the bench, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." She was making a broad point about the benefits of bringing a range of experiences to the federal bench; indeed, she also argued that "personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see." There's potential grist for the Republicans in those remarks, although they'd need to be careful on this one. Certainly they wouldn't want to be caught implying that only the white male life experience is acceptable for the high court.
All told, the GOP is officially wary of firing on all cylinders, at least for the moment. The Republican National Committee released a very cautious statement this morning, one that has already drawn scorn from conservative activists:
"Republicans look forward to learning more about federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor’s thoughts...Supreme Court vacancies are rare, which makes Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination a perfect opportunity for America to have a thoughtful discussion about the role of the Supreme Court in our daily lives. Republicans will reserve judgment on Sonia Sotomayor until there has been a thorough and thoughtful examination of her legal views."
They pledge to be thoughtful?
Spoken like a party that has only 40 senators.
Comments (126)
Yes, but the GOP hasn't met a pledge they couldn't break. Any attempted vilification of this well-qualified nominee will just further marginalize the GOP, if that's possible.— GetEmGood- Lets just say that GWB nominated a person for the Supreme Court that; 1) Sided with a city that thew out promotion test scores of black/hispanic firefighters because there was no white firefighters that made the list! 2) Nominated a conservative judge who said that he/she thinks public policy is made from the court bench not the legislature and 3) was quoted as saying, that he would hope white males, with all their education, would more often than not come to a better conclusion than less educated hispanics/blacks! I wonder what the reaction to that judge would be by liberals? That being said, she should be confirmed at first glance as this nomination was meant to spark a fight with the GOP and they should not take the bait:) I doubt she is the most qualified person for the job, but she is the correct gender and race for the President (the ultimate affirmative action)! One last thing, you never know how someone is going to vote once they get on the bench, see Souter/Ginsberg for examples:)— NEPhilly
- NE, did you even read the whole posting? Polman went out of his way to explain that "policy" did NOT mean public policy - go re-read it. In any case, it doesn't matter what the Reps do since they can't filibuster once Franken is seated, which should happen before they vote on this. All they can do is hurt themselves, which they have lately shown an astonishing talent for doing. They should save the hysterics for a real liberal, like Pam Karlan - that should be fun!— Yersinia Pestis
- NEPhilly has his right wing hate radio talking points down pat already – good boy! You'd think people would be ashamed of being so ignorant, misogynistic and racist, especially after the brouhaha that they claimed happened to a truly un-qualified jurist: Clarence “Whatever Scalia says” Thomas. But like all good dogs, they’ve learned their trick for the day.— TwoLanes
- It did mean public policy you can slant it any way it still means the same. She has been overturned by the Supreme court more than most of her peers. Also Ben "that racist redneck disgusting man" Nelson (D) has already said he wont vote for anyone who has an agenda. It may still happen. I would also think that Clarence Thomas had a better story but then again the man is a ragging racist because he doesnt believe in free thing for everyone.— rgreen72
- yersinia, I read the whole post & I guess I will take Mr. Polman's word for it:) Also, I agree the GOP should keep its powder dry for the next one and said she should be confirmed! I see you didn't have a thought on #1 and #3 of my post as there really is no defense for it! two, I haven't had the chance to listen to Rush as it is a little busy at work today, I was just answering Mr. Polman's 3 points, and the other radio guy isn't evne on yet. I guess if they say it on radio it is immediately wrong, ignorant, misogynistic & racist! I get it now, thanks:)— NEPhilly
- rgreen, it doesn't mean what you say it means, it means what Sotomayor meant - controlling precedent. But, I give up, there's no point in arguing with people who failed their IQ tests in first grade and have remained stuck there ever since...— Yersinia Pestis
- Before NEPhily, Tom, Mike and others start spewing the talking points of Half Story Hannity and Druggie Limbaugh in trying to get people against Judge Sotomayer just remember the catchy phrase from Judge Scalia - "Mere factual innocence is not reason not to proceed with a death sentence after a FAIR trial" and know WE DO NEED JUDGES WITH VARIED experiences who will look at legal issues from different angles. The right wing is against legislating from the bench ONLY when the decisions will be against them. The companies are well protected on the high court. How about the regular folks ??? Bravo President Obama for your inspired choice !!!— ModerateMarge
- NE, thank you for your consideration; you are normally at least rational, even when I don't agree with you - the IQ test remark was directed only at the other poster, and of course the lurking CD and Xi who will turn up to drag matters into the gutter any minute now, no doubt. It takes too much time to debate every single point all the time; however, for now I would say that I'm not crazy about the New Haven ruling, but on the other hand, if the test is blatantly rigged, somebody has to make the city change it, while the remarks about the Latina perspective have more to do with life experience than education - her point was that judges from a privileged background have so little empathy with the less privileged that they truly don't understand the issues - as Roberts and Alito amply demonstrated in the Ledbetter case, which was the first thing Obama rectified when he took office.— Yersinia Pestis
- She is an ABSOLUTE disaster and represents ultra left wing politics. The Democrats always SAY they want "middle of the road, highly qualified judges." Except when they are a twofer-female and hispanic. That the writer in this article even frames it in that context is a disgrace. I guess it was okay thought for Democrats to be against women on the Supreme Court when they are Republicans (Harriet Meiers) or to be against Hispanics on the Supreme Court when they are Republicans (Alberto Gonzalez)But if Republicans oppose her it's because they are anti women or anti hispanic. Like I said, a disgrace.— WriteWinger
- Dick, it is interesting that you continue to only write about Republicans. Have you not realized yet that Democrats control ALL THE POWER IN WASHINGTON? Or does this fact just mean that you suddenly are no longer interested in speaking truth to power?— Frito1
- Sonya is not the sharpest tool in the judge's shed. Hey, we are a country of mediocrity now so it does not matter, right?— CD75
- It will be interesting to see the GOP show their true colors on this nomination. Hopefully they will HONESTLY and HONERABLY use snippets from Judge Sotomayer's decisions not try and alter the meaning by selective editing. Half Story Hannity is the worst - whenever he cites a decision it pays to read the whole decision and not let him dishonestly edit !— ModerateMarge
- Hopefully the Republicans will not try to destroy her with vile and venomous attacks like the Democrats did to Bork, Thomas and Alito!— Frito1
Comment removed.- I am all for Sonya. Common folk need judges too. As U.S. Senator Roman Hruska (R-NE) said: "there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos."— CD75
- yersinia, thanks for the rational remark as I try my best! I'm married to a latina, so no racism there:) As I said, I believe she should be confirmed, but Mr. Polman is correct, it is the GOP's duty to challenge her & 'advise and consent' and not just roll over because the nominee is a woman and a latina!— NEPhilly
- Comment removed.
- Mediocrity is refreshing after the 8 year Bush disaster. Mediocrity beats idiocracy every time.— mxlplk
- Marge, did you ever notice that Lady Justice while holding the scales is blindfolded? There is a reason for that. Some rulings by Sotomayor...she allowed a racial discrimination claim to continue when the plaintiff, a black nurse, sued Bellevue Hospital Corp because other nurses spoke mainly in Filipino, their native tongue, which she claimed made her feel harassed and isolated; in U.S.A. v. Marcus, she sent the case of a convicted violent sex trafficker back to a lower court because a lower court judge had not specifically told the jury that some, though not all, of the sex trafficking had taken place before it was specifically outlawed; she rejected a suburban law that prevented the display of a menorah in a city park; In 1995, she released the suicide note of former White House aide Vincent Foster, acting on litigation brought by the Wall Street Journal under the Freedom of Information Act; in 2007, she wrote an appeals opinion finding it was constitutional for state troopers to lure suspects away from two vehicles while they searched the cars for cocaine without a warrant; and she reversed a lower court ruling allowing the family of the TWA flight that blew up 800 miles off the coast from getting financial settlement in court...saying Congress intended for the law to be limited to 3 miles off the coast and the lower court just wanted to provide some financial relief for the families. Clearly contrasting opinions, and not totally empathetic. However, her 80% reversal rate at SCOTUS level, including one that was overruled 9-0, leaves for some discussion as to her qualifications in interpreting the law. See any talking points in there Marge?— tom - wilmington, de
- Comment removed.
- Oh yeah, and in the only two cases she heard about abortion, she ruled in favor of the pro-lifers, not the pro-choicers. Those cases involved protesting outside abortion clinics and the government's right to limit abortion related speech in clinics outside the US receiving US government aid. Like I said, clearly contrasting opinions.— tom - wilmington, de
- Why not say "no", Dick? The Dems would do it on their end for no reason. Of course, if it's the Reps doing it, they're nasty hate-mongers; the Dems do it because their righteous, right? We never hear a unkind word out of a Dem. Isn't that right, Mr. Franken??
- Let's see....Dems came out against Thomas, and he has a great personal story as well as being African American. Were they racist? Didn't he bring a different view to the court based on his personal experiences? Right, his views were "out of the mainstream".— tom - wilmington, de
- NEPhilly has his right wing hate radio talking points down pat already – good boy! .....lolz— chasing history
- Comment removed.
- Face it people, we have gone from being a nation of laws and standards to a nation of feelings and fairness (i.e. relativism). Enjoy.— justwondering
- WhislkeyBob-"Great pick by our President & Chief Commander on his pick." I doubt you can pronounce her name.— (reeducated)Yankee Air Pirate
- How can I have the rightwing radio points down, before they are on the air, please! whiskey, nice post and inclusive also, I guess disagreeing with someone's political point of view makes them, "NE area of philly was overrun with braindead low level scum sucking reflubrican extremists who most wouldn't be able to chew gum and walk at the same time."— NEPhilly
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- WhiskeyBob-Sodomizing boys is on your mind ? That's a tell.— (reeducated)Yankee Air Pirate
- whiskey, you are a sweetheart! You must be so smart to know all the ins and outs of each argument and have a nice rational debate on each subject! The sure sign of a weak argument or personality is to use name calling to make your point! You are so brave as well, to say something right to a person's face and let them know how you feel! Your family, neighborhood, party and schools must be so proud of you! jwad, it is not racism if you are a lib'democrat and say those type of things, only if you are a white, christian male:)— NEPhilly
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Okay,we'll keep "fighten" for the cause,meanwhile you keep "fighten" to hold onto that tenous grasp of reality.— (reeducated)Yankee Air Pirate
- Dick, please compare the treatment of SCOTUS nominees by the opposing party over the past 30 years. Such a double standard...— Vandy
- I guess my answer to your nonsense won't get by the censors, but your politically correct responses get posted?!? Interesting! Maybe that is for the best:) chasing, the same goes for the Dems in congress as well, you would have to admit!— NEPhilly
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- his posts are what passes for wit and insight among the workingclass democrats....oh Loard, isn't that rich coming from someone with your limited education. lolz............— chasing history
- Comment removed.
- The only people who will be bringing up race and gender are the democrats. They will turn any discussion not favorable to the judge into a issue of race or gender. Just as Will did in the beginning of this article. Trying to vainly conceal it as a "what if" statement. You make the snide remarks then tell the GOP it needs to tread lightly.— DadofThree
- I'll preface this post by saying that I am a conservative. I haven't researched Sotomayer independently enough yet to form any opinions one way or another. From the little I've heard, she isn't as left-leaning as Ginsburg, so for conservatives, the pick could be worse. However, if, as posted here in the comments, she has an 80% overturn rate at SCOTUS, that demonstrates a concerning lack of respect for precedent and does call into question her abilities as a judge. I'll need to here more before making a judgment one way or another, but if that statistic is true, it is troubling.— jfar86
- bob is like most lib'dems, they only believe in freedom of speech or thought if you believe in the same things as they do! If not, then you are ostracized (see Ms. California for an example), name called, taxes looked into, etc:)— NEPhilly
- Comment removed.
- Tom - As per usual regurgitating the GOP talking points. As for Sotomayer getting overturned when did this occur ? When she was a district court judge or an appellate judge ? If it was when she was a district court judge - did the appellate circuit overrule her or did it happen at the Supreme Court level ? What was the error she committed ? Have you read her opinions in their entirity or did you take Half Story Hannity's notoriously inaccurate editings ? You do realize of course that as an appellate judge she was overruled as part of a 3 judge panel so there were many from the circuit agreeing with her. And I go back to Scalia's mere factual innocence ... we need judges concerned with life and liberty more than finality in decisions which I think is where Scalia's twisted thoughts come from. Vet her nomination by all means - but PLEASE come back with more than innuendo and half truths if you intend on fighting her nomination.— ModerateMarge
- NEPhilly 03:51 PM, 05/26/2009 [bob is like most lib'dems, they only believe in freedom of speech or thought if you believe in the same things as they do! If not, then you are ostracized (see Ms. California for an example), name called, taxes looked into, etc:)] - Miss Prejean was not ostracised for anything she said (and NO the foul perez Hilton doesn’t count – she wasn’t “ostrasized because of that) - it was her hypocritical ACTIONS - aligning herself with the 1st anti-gay group that paid her way and then allowing herself to be a tool of that group, giving interviews and spewing THEIR talking points, not her OWN OPINIONS. She even painted herself into a corner and decided that she was a defender of "traditional" marriage but couldn't even credibly defend it with her own words - THAT, my friend, is why she was "ostracised"/appropriately derided. Vilifying and ostracizing someone is MUCH different – just ask Richard Clarke, Shinsenki, Donald Vance, Robert Byrd, Joe Wilson, etc. Anyway, at the end of the day, I think Sotomayor's record will easily refute her critics and make Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings look like a cakewalk, with much further damage to her detractors, in this day and age.— B_Pastor
- NEPhil, please don't characterize all liberals as being like WhiskeyBob. I was deeply offended by his posts. But then, I've been writing until my fingers are numb that we should debate ideas based on facts and sources, not use childish and offensive personal insults. Sigh. It's equally repulsive on both sides.— NigeltheMastiff
- B_Pastor- Why do you bloggers on the "right" think free speech means freedom from criticism??? Quite the opposite. Please, please keep making invalid points. It's not only your freedom, but it continues to expose your ignorance.— pagoda
- Sorry, I should have addressed that to NEPhilly. I just saw the "free speech" thing and lost it. All my sincere apologies to B-Pastor.— pagoda
- nigel, noted! I have always said the same thing about our debates and I have tried to live by them myself, as you know! bpastor, she was stating the same position as Pres. Obama got elected on and the California Supreme Court just upheld and did get blasted by almost everyone on the left/Hollywood! She is beauty queen answering a question during a paegent, not a politician that has to credibly defend her position, please! The President of the US should have to credibly answer the question, IMHO!— NEPhilly
- Jeez Dick- how would you like it if you were called in a disparaging way just a "northern Jewish liberal" twice in one paragraph? Your smug condescension never fails to astound me.— justablogger99
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- I love how Polman is basically playing the race/sex card and starting the whole thing with his very racial motivated "southern white guy" comment and before that makes sure he notes the judge is a Hispanic woman and immediates interjects the hatred pot stirring that he is accusing Republicans of. Her sex and race is a non issue - but in Liberal America you have to stir up minority hatred of Republicans by basically making a very unfair generalization and interjecting the race/sex issue into the discussion. He basically is laying the claim of if you are against this pick you are a racist/sexest person and completely takes issue off the table. This one way street is ridiculous and has no place in this conversation, especially form someone so highy regarded as Dave Polman - never knew awards of praise were reaped on people who openly promote a racist agenda.— reddog44
- I doesn't matter because the Dems tore apart Bush's Latino nominations and nothing was said about it. The BS flows one way. If the Republicans attack Sotomayer, the Dems will cry fowl, but when the Libs did it, zilch!!!— BGarber
- The fact that this nation has survived Clarence "Frogman" Thomas shows that we are nothing if not resiliant. Could Sotomayor possibly be any worse than that wingnut?— johnnymon
- I'm very much a center right libertarian type thinker. I know for a fact that Souter was terrible. I took a brief look at Sotomayor's profile and I think she is a significant improvement over Souter. Left of the dial? Yes. But she's also had a pretty independent track record as well. Souter's departure is a great day for this country. That reason alone makes Sotomayor's confirmation worth while. But I actually think she's alright.— Greg V.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
AS A AMERICAN, HE MADE A GREAT CHOICE. AS A LATINA WOMEN, I AM PROUD. THERE ARE NO WORDS THAT, CAN DESCRIBE THE JOY I FEEL IN MY HEART.— Sadler48- Comment removed.
- I read the 1st paragraph of Poll-mans article and stopped. Just another hit piece against the Republican party. I am sure that this woman is a flaming liberal just like Obama. The Republicans cannot stop her inevitable confirmation. This constant worrying about Republicans by Democrats indicates a deep seated inferiority complex the Democrats have. I think they know that in the arena of ideas liberalism is a failure.
- She is a GREAT choice - in spite of what many of the far right will try to say about / do to her.— Irish Frank
- She's not the first Hispanic to sit on the court. Benjamin N. Cardozo was of Portugese ancestry, sat on the court in the 1930's, oh but he was also Jewish so I guess that doesn't count. I don't like the fact that Judge Sotomayor has also been quoted as saying that the bench is where policy is made. No, the court interprets the law, it doesn't make the law. We might as well start opening the borders now, illegal aliens "Come on in!!!"— mas215
- Johnnymon- I am gonna play the race card on you. How about a dose of your own medicine? Why is Clarence Thomas a wingnut? You are such a racist for saying that.
- What a surprise. Janann surfaces with her ad hominem attacks on Rush et al. while failing to address a single point that is actually being debated.— jfar86
- SMike, you hurt my liberal feelings!— Djoko Pritza
- OK, the rightwingnuts can't stop Sotomayor but they will throw everything at the wall anyway because this is their chance to rally the dispirited base and raise a little money. So sit back and enjoy, but don't bother to debate the crazies.— Djoko Pritza
- Perhaps, DP might have seconds thoughts about the nominee if he was the odd (white male) one in a hiring/promotion situation like in the New Haven case. These men, who are white or otherwise, and support Obama and the whole liberal agenda are just fascinating...must be Bush Derangement Syndrome!— rsh00
- Djoko- I would rather be spared the legal Olympics and just confirm the women. The first test was she had to be a minority and the other litmus tests included being anti American, defering to internatinal law, anti constitution, for abortion at any and all costs, for affirmative action, and for freeing terrorist. My guess is she passed with flying colors.
- And might I add one more thing? The liberal posters on here are the biggest phonies in the world. I hear nary a word of complaining about Obama conducting military tribunals and holding some terrorists indefinately without trial. When Bush was President you hyperventilated over this issue. Obama on the campaign trail called them a " legal black hole " but now that he must keep us secure he is OK with it all. If Liberals truly had any principles they criticizing Obama with the same vitrolic venom they gave to GWB. But a phony is always a phony
- Where is all the good grace and goodwill from the rest of the World? Obama is president but it would appear to me that Iran will soon have the bomb and Korea just detonated one. How can this be? He already did the world apology tour. Has France committed more troops to Afghanistan? Oh oK.... But now they like us again.
- I love the line where Polman writes " would Republicans dare assail a woman of color ?" Huh? Liberals routinely impune the integrity of Clarence Thomas. What the left did to Condy Rice and Alberto Gonzales was awfull. Once again a bunch of phony baloney hoeee from the leftists.
- [Forward from a previous blog -- just for you, swedesboromike...] I voted for and support President Obama. I believe that keeping detainees in Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan without habeas corpus, legal counsel, and charges against them is a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, a violation of the rule of law, and against our basic values. Barack Obama II is the president of my native country which I love dearly. He's not infallible.— Phrossty
- SMike, I'm with you on quick confirmation. Do you have any clout with your Brothers on the Right? (Right now I'm having to listen to Pat Buchanan -- I'm not sure I can make it through this ...)— Djoko Pritza
- Comment removed.
- Phrossty-OK, you are off the hook
- Comment removed.
- Djoko- Then change your channel. Nowadays you don't even have to get up. There is a contraption called the remote control. Why do the lefties sit there and listen to people you cannot stand. You do more complaining about conservative pundits than the rising unemployment rate, insurmountable debt, and a floundering economy. The left in this country is very bitter.
- janann -- i live for those times lawrence o'donnell takes buchanan on ... i've quit listing to morning joe and his parade of small minds ...— Djoko Pritza
- SMike -- don't be so literal ... I try to talk to you and all you can give me is "change the channel" -- weak ...— Djoko Pritza
- Poll-man loves polls but I guess he didn't like this one or he would have found a way to include it in todays column. According Rasmussen 31% strongly approve of Obama and 30% strongly disapprove. The is the lowest rating of any President at this time in their presidency. Furthermore 55% somewhat approve and 44% somewhat disaprove of the job Obama is doing. Then when broken down into policy the numbers get deteriorate significantly.
- Djoko- What do you want me to tell you? I don't watch MSNBC anymore so I don't know what Buchannan is up to. I've always found him to be respectfull debator but maybe something changed. If you are labeling him a racist because he disagrees with this woman's philosphy then that is utterly baseless. I could say the same thing about the left for calling Clarence Thomas a " wingnut " or for criticizing Condoleeza Rice.
- Comment removed.
- swedesboromike - You accuse Polman of cherry picking polls and then you cherry pick a poll to make your point. Follow the link on http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html to get a broad sample of Obama's approval rating and you will see a broader picture than the one you offered. ••• http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html— Phrossty
- "1. The New Haven affirmative action ruling." Dick, here's how this could hurt Ms. Sotomayor. I believe a final ruling is expected by the Supreme Court in June, before she is confirmed. If the SCOTUS overturns her judgment in that case, it opens up a new attack on her judicial sense unrelated to any sensitive areas.— Vandy
- I love those rightwingers who claim that America used to be a color blind country but now we are obsessed with race. What they mean is that nonwhiteprotestantmales are getting uppity.— liberal
- Phrossty- They are both reliable sources. Your link is a 20 day average. Rasmussen is a daily tracking poll. And yes I used a common liberal practice of cherry picking to prove my point. But I don't think anyone would dispute www.rasmussenreports is a very credible pollster.
- Phrossty- They are both reliable sources. Your link is a 20 day average. Rasmussen is a daily tracking poll. And yes I used a common liberal practice of cherry picking to prove my point. But I don't think anyone would dispute www.rasmussenreports is a very credible pollster.
- It's idiotic to summarize a complicated federal case in one sentence. These abbreviated descriptions of a judicial candidate's views or ability are easily slanted one way or another and mean nothing.— liberal
- Liberal- You are so misguided in your rhetoric. I see potential in people and you only see a victim. But what is most amazing to me that you quick to accuse Republicans of being racist yet you routinely spew you venom towards conservatives like Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas.
- And so the always classy Repubs have decided to repel women and Latinos as well, as we see: … Sen. James Inhofe said “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.” Responding to Inhofe, The American Prospect’s Dana Goldstein writes, “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?” That 20% will be down to 10% by Sotomayor’s confirmation!— SchoolMom101
- We have survived Scalia and Thomas. I see no reason why the USA will not only survive but prosper with the inspiring choice of Sotomayer by our President Obama !!! This country is blessed for Obama's service !!!!! Thank you President Obama for your service. Only 7 years 8 months to your well deserved retirement !— ModerateMarge
- liberal, do you honestly think that not one Democratic congressman will play the race/gender card when those mean ol' Republicans delve into her record? Even Dick claims it is the Republicans' "duty to challenge the nominee; that's what advise and consent is all about." This was the safe pick for Obama--she was the odds-on favorite within an hour after Souter's retirement announcement--and after going through some tough questions (especially if the Supreme Court to which she aspires overturns her own ruling in the New Haven firefighters reverse-discrimination case), she'll be confirmed. The composition of the court won't change; no big deal, life goes on.— Vandy
- Vandy - How come it is somehow wrong when Democrats question Republicans but never the other way around ???? Your post reminds me of Druggie Limbaugh decrying the lack of civility in politics AFTER spending the time calling the Senate Majority leader Dingy Harry ! Sotomayor's record is fair game - let's have honest appraisals not the BS. Do yourself a favor and READ the cases do not trust Limbaugh, Half Story Hannity or others to condense them for you. Research is work !— ModerateMarge
- The percentages being thrown around right now of reversal of Sotomayor's decisions are completely wrong. Out of roughly 380 decisions, the SC has heard 6 cases and overturned 3. Major Garrett and Robert Gibbs had a discussion about this at the press briefing.— Ed G
- The difference between Dems and Reps is that Reps look solely to nominees for how they will vote on issues. I havent heard word one on how the lady feels about abortion, torture, etc. -- all I have heard about is her background and qualifications -- from Dems. Why is empathy a bad thing? Why is making laws from the bench a bad thing? We wouldnt have had so many things we have today if the Court didnt step above popular opinion and tell us that the law of the Land was wrong (separate but equal, limiting abortion, to name a few). Republicans love to make issues where there is none -- such as, what difference does it make, to the grand issue of torture being wrong, what Pelosi knew and when? It is an issue meant to sidetrack the real issue of torture being wrong. If she knew beforehand, then she was wrong too. Anyway, I really hope that the Reps do the stupid thing and really rail against this.— Master Dreamz
- We'll find out more about her in the weeks to come, but the wingnuts need to remember that by virtue of winning in November, the President earned the right to chose who he liked, and so long as she is qualified, she gets in. One of the biggest reasons I voted for Obama was because I wanted him, and not McCain, to be the one to replace Stevens and anyone else leaving the SCOTUS. McCain campaigned that he would appoint more Scalia-clone types like Roberts and Alito, which I did not want. I did not like Roberts or Alito, but because they were qualified, they got in, and I accept that this was a natural result of the fact that Alfred E. Neuman (I mean GWB) was president. It's real simple - you lose the election, you don't get to make judicial appointments.— johngilb
- Marge: Very sorry I have to do this but you criticized Clarence Thomas so that makes you a racist. Just using your liberal logic on you. How do you like a dose of your own medicine?— ModerateMike
- MasterDreamz-- You must be joking. The only thing the Democrats wanted to know about Alito and Roberts was their stance on abortion. A single issue. Quite honestly I would rather be spared the legal Olympics. I am sure this woman is a pure liberal. All this is a distraction from rising unemployment, insourmountable debt, and rougue nations aquiring nuclear weapons.— ModerateMike
- swede--I am deeply hurt by your post attacking me. Please be more sensitive. Well, OK, maybe I can take it. I've never spewed any venom toward Rice or Thomas, just politely disagreed with them. And i don't believe in the politics of victimization. I do, however, need to remind all of you what a very racist country this used to be, within my living memory, and I think it is kind of disingenuous of right-wingers to use the color-blind rhetoric (the opposite of their views in the 50s and 60s) to try to thwart reform. It's you righties who use the victim card--with you, white males are forever the victims of liberal politics, despite their continuing and obvious privilege in this society.— liberal
- "The difference between Dems and Reps is that Reps look solely to nominees for how they will vote on issues. I havent heard word one on how the lady feels about abortion, torture, etc. -- all I have heard about is her background and qualifications -- from Dems." MD, her qualifications were a secondary reason for her selection: "A top Democrat close to the White House said the president made his choice on substance but was candid about what it means for 2012. “For those of us who think about electoral votes, we feel kind of good about it,” said the Democrat, rattling off one swing state after another that have sizable Hispanic populations." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22988_Page2.html Obama is thinking about re-election already.— Vandy
- "Vandy - How come it is somehow wrong when Democrats question Republicans but never the other way around ??" Never said it was wrong, Marge. But since the topic on this board is how the Republicans will attack Sotomayor, it's worth noting that if you look back over the past 30 years, it's been the Democrats that have been particularly nasty with the likes of Bork and Thomas. The Republicans were very civil with Breyer and Ginsburg. "Deference to the president, along with solid qualifications on the nominees' parts, won favor on both sides of the aisle, although other scholars warn that the political landscape has changed since the mid-1990s. Justice Breyer had been a federal judge in Boston and longtime lecturer at Harvard Law School, while key conservatives were similarly won over by Justice Ginsburg's record as a moderate federal appeals judge despite having held liberal positions as an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer during the 1970s. "If you look at the positions Ginsburg had taken in her academic writing and her work for the ACLU, they were fairly extreme positions to the left and yet her nomination and Breyer's sailed through with virtually no eyebrows being raised," said Stephen Presser of Northwestern University's schools of law and history." So I'm just wondering why the assumption exists that Republicans are out to trash Ms. Sotomayor when the evidence suggests that it's the Democrats who have been particularly nasty?— Vandy
- I know Liberals are so amazed by this pick for the Supreme Court. Obama could have a bowel movement and you would go gaga over it. But, here is a link to perhaps a more pressing problem. N.Korea has announced they will not abide by the truce signed in 1953. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052600555.html?hpid=topnews— ModerateMike
- "The difference between Dems and Reps is that Reps look solely to nominees for how they will vote on issues." Oh, and MD, if you truly believe that Democrats only care about background and qualifications rather than specific judgments for SCOTUS nominees, you'll be very interested in this quote from then-Senator Obama on Alito: "Democrats’ difficulty ahead is that Obama contested Alito’s nomination for reasons beyond his expertise in the law. “I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. He's a smart guy, there's no indication that he is not a man of good character," Obama said in January 2006. “But, when you look at his record, what is clear is that when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless.” http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/26/obama_sotomayor_critics_96663.html .So, let's see, your logic only applies when it's a Democratic choice? So hypocritical...— Vandy
- Liberal- The Republicans in Congress got the 1964 Civil Rights Legislation passed while people like Al Gore's father were voting against it. So you need to get your story straight here. Yes I believe in merit. I am not racist and nor are Republicans. In America anything is possible if you work hard. Look at Clarence Thomas,Condoleeza Rice,Michael Steele, etc. This race accusation business that liberals like yourself constantly prosletize is the most disingenious part of the Democratic playbook. I will not tolerate it anymore.
- To answer Marge, Sotomayor was overturned 8-0 (which is unanimous) as an appellate judge in the case "Merrill Lynch v. Dabit" when it overturned her decision that a state class-action lawsuit is not pre-empted by federal law. She was also upheld in "Knight v. Commissioner" 9-0 but rebuked for a decision that, as put by Chief Justice Roberts, "flies in the face of statutory language". I guess that meant she got the right decision for the wrong reasoning. And where, exactly, in my naming her past decisions, am I regurgitating talking points? Is anything that disagrees with your position a right wing talking point?— tom - wilmington, de
- The actual quote cited in part by Polman is as follows: "Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white man who hasn't lived that life." Now, that sounds like saying using the law is not enough in making a decision, even though justice, while holding the scales in balance, is blindfolded. Nothing is supposed to matter except the law to a judge. To quote the California Supreme Court in their decision yesterday.."It bears emphasis that our role is limited to interpreting and applying hte principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values." That should be the role of a Supreme Court justice...and that makes Sotomayor unqualified to sit on the highest court in our land.— tom - wilmington, de
- ModerateMike: only Dems play the race card? Remember Thomas hinmself referring to the Anita Hill charges as "a modern day lynching of the black man" ? Do you recall Arlen Specter (remember him?) interrogating Hill as if he were still a prosecutor? Please don't pretend that only the D's play the race card. Oh, and Thomas' race had nothing to do with his nomination, either (again, nothing wrong with that, but I thought only Dems did that).— still_independent
- It's real simple - you lose the election, you don't get to make judicial appointments.....Don't worry, the GOP will bend over like Senator Craig in the men's room. They still think people care what Republicans have to say. We don't!— chasing history
- tom: look at the quote you provided (emphasis mine). "... It bears emphasis that our role is limited to INTERPRETING and applying hte [sic] PRINCIPLES and rules ...". It's extremely naive to think that someone's background, upbringing, etc. play no role in how they interpret the constitution. Most areas of constitutional law are not so cut and dry. Whay are there so many split decisions? Why can the SC reverse itself 20 years later? The constitution doesn't change, the judges do.— still_independent
- still, there is a difference between interpreting and applying principles and MAKING POLICY through the courts. In California, the justices first allowed gay marriage because it was not in the state constitution. Second, they upheld the Prop 8 because it became part of the constitution. A judge who would make this ruling based on "empathy" would probably have reversed the Prop 8 vote. But a justice who follows the principles as set forth in the constitution upheld the prop 8 vote. Just showing how the judges followed the letter of the law no matter their personal beliefs. A justice who ruled by empathy and not the law, or the principles as set forth in the constitution, allows their beliefs and values to guide their interpretation. That should not be the case. Sure, judges change, and some decision are just bad decisions. But like both Roberts and Alito were questioned on, there has to be some value to precedent, and empathy should not play a role.— tom - wilmington, de
- The boring debate about Sotomayor continues, with each side on this blog spouting its own views as devince and dismissing those of the other side. Only five more months to go!— Djoko Pritza
- Tom, I think perhaps you're applying an all-or-nothing perspective to the quality of empathy. That is, if one is empathetic, he/she will make decisions solely on that basis without regard to the Constitution or existing law. I don't think that's the case. Some of these cases are extremely complex. I believe a judge can apply the law, yet bring an empathy to its application. In the case of Prop 8, I think that's what the CA Supreme Court did. It applied the current state constitution, which had been voted upon by the citizens of the state. At the same time, however, it also ruled that gay couples who had married during the time frame when it was legal in CA are still legal. (This, of course, may also be the basis of a law suit down the road.) But that's applying some empathy, I think. And as far as bringing one's own values and experiences to the job, well, don't we all do that every single day? We all view the world through the lens of our own background, experiences and intellect. That's what makes up all so different. It's actually a good thing.— NigeltheMastiff
- "And as far as bringing one's own values and experiences to the job, well, don't we all do that every single day? We all view the world through the lens of our own background, experiences and intellect. That's what makes up all so different. It's actually a good thing." You're right, Nigel; we all have empathies. The issue I have is that there appears to be a desire to select someone with pre-specified empathies for certain groups. Coming at it from the reverse angle, the court will be two-thirds Catholic when Sotomayor is confirmed. It's not unreasonable to think that their religious upbringing and experiences might make them empathetic to, say, the plight of an unborn child. But that's not the empathies that liberals are seeking, and they would howl if that began to surface.— Vandy
- What I have found most disturbing in all the coverage was the fact that, if(when)confirmed, Judge Sotomayer would be the sixth Roman Catholic sitting on the current Supreme Court. So we have to negate her gender and nationality but religion gets a pass? Especially a religion that is at odds with some of the laws of this country. She's a racist the right is saying but the conservative squint of current Catholic justices brings to mind another hate-filled term -- Papist. If abortion comes to the Supreme Court again I hope all the Catholics recuse themselves from participating in any decision. How do Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy distance themselves from their religion in such cases? Yet Sotomayer can't possibly be objective when it comes to race and nationality and a woman's right to choose and privacy issues. This is the Supreme Court of the United States not the Curia!— Farrell
- I tend to assume that if the justices are well trained (and most are products of top law schools) they will look at each case in a professional way. Will their opinions be tempered by their values? Of course. I may not always like the outcome of their opinions, but I have some faith that those will be based on case and Constitutional law. Also, as the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other, cases can be overturned. So for me, very little is set in stone anyway. Maybe I'm just old enough to be able to stand back and realize that in 10 or 20 years, outcomes may be very different.— NigeltheMastiff
- tom: like it or not, appellate courts DO make policy - when the law is vague (or non-existent) in an area they set the policy that is followed by the lower courts. "Policy" should not be made in the sense that it overrides judicial intent. Take the advent of the internet. The courts set the policy as to who owned what, what was permissible, what should be regulated, etc. UNTIL the legislature got around to it. Courts DO (and should) set policy in the absence of law.— still_independent
- Mike - It is not racist to critisize Thomas. Please tell me - just what opinion is he known for ??? He seems to be a Scalia rubberstamp with nary an original thought in his mind. As for Sotomayor's reversals in the Upper Court(s) - who cares ???? All of them have been reversed prior to their elevation and they spend their careers with many cases in the minorities year after year.— ModerateMarge
- Modmike, dont you read? Yes, how they feel about Roe V. Wade is important because they did not want someone that would seek to overturn a previous ruling -- not an issue, a rule of law. They wanted to know how they could justify turning over a previous Supreme Court decision -- was it based on law or political leaning?— Master Dreamz
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: