"Politico's Glenn Thrush reminds readers that five current Republican senators -- Thad Cochran (MS), Susan Collins (ME), Orrin Hatch (UT), Richard Lugar (IN), and Olympia Snowe (ME) -- bucked their party to vote to confirm Sotomayor to the Second Circuit in 1998. However, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY), Minority Whip John Kyl (AZ), ranking Judiciary Committee member Jeff Sessions (AL) and John McCain (AZ) were among the 28 Republicans who voted to block her confirmation. View the 1998 Senate roll call vote here." *posted by ericb at 7:44 AM on May 26, 2009
At The Washington Monthly, a commentator claimed to have employed a more scientifically rigorous method: “To all the short-sighted libs who are clamoring for the youngest-possible nominee... Right idea, wrong methodology. You want someone who will serve the longest, i.e. with the greatest remaining life expectancy—and that involves more than simple age. I tried assessing their respective health prospects, and ruled out all who even border on overweight. Best choice: Kim McLane Wardlaw, whose ectomorphitude reflects her publicly known aerobic-exercise habits.”Yes girls, it doen't matter how smart you are, what matters is how you look.
(Wardlaw’s “ectomorphitude” also gets rave reviews at legal gossip site Underneath Their Robes, which describes her as "Heather Locklear in a black robe. This blond Hispanic hottie boasts a fantastic smile and an incredible body, showcased quite nicely by her elegant ensembles.")
Republican A: OK, it's Sotomayor. What are our talking points against her?Republican C forgot to mention that she's an illegal immigrant.
Republican B: Well, there are signs that she's left-leaning and likely to support policies we oppose, like abortion rights and affirmative action. We have credible arguments against those positions and could stake out a principled position against her nomination.
Rebpulican C: She's a stupid fat bitch!
Republican A: You both raise good points. Hey, this is a big-tent party, so let's throw it all out there. What's the worst that could happen?
"Last week, the well-respected SCOTUS Blog underscored the historic nature of a Sotomayor nomination and warned Republicans that it will be 'hopeless' to try to block her nomination. Politically, such attacks risk “exacting a very significant political cost among Hispanics and independent voters generally.” A look at some of the likely conservative claims:posted by ericb at 7:50 AM on May 26, 2009 [3 favorites]
Opponents’ first claim — likely stated obliquely and only on background – will be that Judge Sotomayor is not smart enough for the job. This is a critical ground for the White House to capture. … The objective evidence is that Sotomayor is in fact extremely intelligent. Graduating at the top of the class at Princeton is a signal accomplishment. Her opinions are thorough, well-reasoned, and clearly written. Nothing suggests she isn’t the match of the other Justices. [...]
The second claim — and this one will be front and center — will be the classic resort to ideology: that Judge Sotomayor is a liberal ideologue and 'judicial activist.' … There is no question that Sonia Sotomayor would be on the left of this Supreme Court, just not the radical left. Our surveys of her opinions put her in essentially the same ideological position as Justice Souter. [...]
The third claim – related to the second – will be that Judge Sotomayor is unprincipled or dismissive of positions with which she disagrees. … There just isn’t any remotely persuasive evidence that Judge Sotomayor acts lawlessly or anything of the sort." *
Sotomayor also claimed: “For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir — rice, beans and pork — that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events.”One day into this and the Republicans are reduced to criticizing her diet.
This has prompted some Republicans to muse privately about whether Sotomayor is suggesting that distinctive Puerto Rican cuisine such as patitas de cerdo con garbanzo — pigs’ feet with chickpeas — would somehow, in some small way influence her verdicts from the bench. - The Hill
"Deferring to people’s own pronunciation of their names should obviously be our first inclination, but there ought to be limits. Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English (which is why the president stopped doing it after the first time at his press conference), unlike my correspondent’s simple preference for a monophthong over a diphthong, and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn’t be giving in to. [...]And this is what they got? What's next? Critizing her academic credentials? Oh, wait.
[O]ne of the areas where conformity is appropriate is how your new countrymen say your name, since that’s not something the rest of us can just ignore, unlike what church you go to or what you eat for lunch. And there are basically two options — the newcomer adapts to us, or we adapt to him. And multiculturalism means there’s a lot more of the latter going on than there should be."
Rove: Attending top schools doesn’t mean that Sotomayor is smart, but it proves that Bush is.She didn't merely attend Ivy League schools. She excelled right at the top. As mentioned above, she graduated from Princeton summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa and Yale Law School, having been selected as an editor of the Yale Law Journal.
During a debate at Radio City Music Hall last night, former Bush adviser Karl Rove claimed that Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor was “not necessarily” “very smart.” When host Charlie Rose noted in response that she attended Princeton and Yale Law School, Rove replied that you don’t have to be smart to attend a top school:Rove - “She is competent and will be confirmed….She has an interesting and compelling life story…”Rove’s dismissal of Ivy League attendance is ironic considering that in an interview previewing the debate, he cited George W. Bush’s experience at Harvard and Yale to mock claims that Bush is stupid. “The myth was that this guy, who was a Yale history grad and a Harvard MBA, was not smart,” Rove told the Chicago Tribune. In December 2008, Rove also touted Bush’s time at Harvard and Yale in a Wall Street Journal column, writing, “You don’t make it through either unless you are a reader.”
Charlie - “She is very smart.”
Rove “Not necessarily.”
Charlie - “What do you mean? She went to Princeton where she graduating with honors and then went on to Yale Law School….”
Rove- “I know lots of stupid people who went to Ivy League schools.” The crowd applauds."
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives... are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address.Having read all of that, it's particularly irritating to see that one solitary soundbite stripped of its context so that it can be blown completely out of proportion to the degree that it has -- and no doubt will continue to be until the hearings are over.
[...]
Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.
[...]
I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that — it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.
[...]
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. 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 Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, 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 male who hasn't lived that life.
[...]
I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable.
[...]
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
G. Gordon Liddy: "Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then."posted by ericb at 8:05 AM on May 30, 2009
« Older Thought-provoking NY Mag essay... | Howcast... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Slap Factory at 6:02 AM on May 26, 2009