Sotomayor

[guido911]

Let the Palin-izing and JTP-ing of the new SCOTUS nominee begin: Divorced, no children, diabetic, blah blah blah

Seriously, pretty decent (and fair) article about her and what we can expect during confirmation:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/the-dynamic-of-the-nomination-of-sonia-sotomayor/

[Conan71]

Not too bad a choice given her prior experience and education.  Nor a surprise.

The part of the article that pisses me off is the author saying that GOP opposition would be interpreted as "anti-Hispanic".  Doesn't matter that they would have idealogical issues, must be simply because she's female, Hispanic, and comes from modest means.

Just play the race/ethnic card if someone disagrees.

[FOTD]

Her nomination is a slam dunk if the GOP dogs can be kept in their kennels.

[Conan71]

GOP can't do a thing about it.  Just depends on if she's done or said anything incredibly stupid.  I doubt she will get Borked.

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made," she said, laughing a bit through the next part: "And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. Okay, I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I know."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/sonia-sotomayor-10-things_n_207724.html

Same article also points out that she might be ambiguous enough on abortion to please pro-choice groups and has ruled in the past with the position of pro-life.

Here's a decent summary from NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/politics/27court.html?_r=1&hp

I suspect GOP will lay down on this one and wait for President Obama's next pick to SCOTUS.  Chances are, he will replace Stephens this term and if Justice Ginsburg's health declines, he could wind up picking three justices.

[guido911]

Just play the race/ethnic card if someone disagrees.

I do not recall the media b*tching about the race card when the dems filibustered Miguel Estrada, and he was a court of appeals nominee.

[Conan71]

I do not recall the media b*tching about the race card when the dems filibustered Miguel Estrada, and he was a court of appeals nominee.

It's not racist when Democrats do it.  And all those Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act?  They're all Republicans now, remember.  Oh, and Abe Lincoln would have been a Democrat today.

/snark

[guido911]

Here's Soto's sherpa Claire McCaskill making an a$$ out of herself:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/26/sen_mccaskill_sotomayor_has_richly_uniquely_experience.html

[Conan71]

Matthews and Olbermann will undoubtedly be masturbating under their desks this evening.

[guido911]

Matthews and Olbermann will undoubtedly be masturbating under their desks this evening.

Matthews and Olbermann will undoubtedly be masturbating each other under their desks this evening.
FIFY

Not sure about Olby given that Prop 8 was upheld. Remember that Special Comment he gave after it passed and how he was mercilessly excoriated by Opie and Anthony?

[Wilbur]

Her qualifications boil down to just one thing:  Her legal mind.  Her qualifications have nothing to do with:
1.  Being female
2.  Being Hispanic
3.  Her life experiences
4.  Her real world richness
(all quotes I've heard)
Remember, she is there for just one reason...to interpret the constitution.

Having said that, one of the honors of being President is, you get to appoint Supreme Court justices.  Absent outrages court behavior and/or consistently being overturned by higher courts, a nominee, whether appointed by a Democrat or a Republican, she get the nod from the Senate.

[cannon_fodder]

Wilbur,

If she wasn't a Hispanic who has a vagina - would she have gotten the appointment?  The answer is no.  Her race and her sex are the reason she was chosen over a litany of other people.

I'm not arguing that she isn't qualified.  But when the criteria starts with female and then includes "minority, preferably Hispanic" the question should be asked.  I think different people can bring different perspectives to the bench and I think that is important, but it still bothers me when race is a criteria for better or for worse.

- - -

And the whole "policy from the bench" thing is just junk.  She was commenting on the state of affairs, not the way she wants it to be.  The fact is Judges do make policy and they have to.  Our legislature is usually to slow, ambiguous or divided to make policy.  Judges don't really have that luxury and have to decide one way or another.

I do not think her statement was in favor of judicial activism.

(fwiw, I am not a fan of this appointment.  But to be fair she does appear to be qualified. . . )

[guido911]

Her qualifications boil down to just one thing:  Her legal mind.  Her qualifications have nothing to do with:
1.  Being female
2.  Being Hispanic
3.  Her life experiences
4.  Her real world richness
(all quotes I've heard)
Remember, she is there for just one reason...to interpret the constitution.

Having said that, one of the honors of being President is, you get to appoint Supreme Court justices.  Absent outrages court behavior and/or consistently being overturned by higher courts, a nominee, whether appointed by a Democrat or a Republican, she get the nod from the Senate.

What was so outrageous about Bork or Estrada?

[RecycleMichael]

What was so outrageous about Bork or Estrada?

Bork was a tool. He fired Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox because Nixon ordered him to. The Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General both resigned instead of doing it but third-string Bork did it and got the promotion.

Then, in the Senate confirmation hearings, he went off as crazy, arguing that the constitution did not guarantee a right to privacy. That, and his continual commenting on abortion, made him opposed by both democrats and republicans. 

[rwarn17588]

Bork was a tool. He fired Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox because Nixon ordered him to. The Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General both resigned instead of doing it but third-string Bork did it and got the promotion.

Then, in the Senate confirmation hearings, he went off as crazy, arguing that the constitution did not guarantee a right to privacy. That, and his continual commenting on abortion, made him opposed by both democrats and republicans. 

I remember it well. Some of Bork's comments came so out of left field that even some Republicans looked at him like he came from outer space.

He came across like an arrogant guy who was all-theory, no-practice in terms of constitutional law. He said stuff that was way out of the norm, then got all indignant when senators said they were disturbed by this.

[guido911]

Bork was a tool. He fired Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox because Nixon ordered him to. The Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General both resigned instead of doing it but third-string Bork did it and got the promotion.

Then, in the Senate confirmation hearings, he went off as crazy, arguing that the constitution did not guarantee a right to privacy. That, and his continual commenting on abortion, made him opposed by both democrats and republicans. 

Would you please direct me the provision in the constitution providing a "right to privacy"? Lemme help you, there isn't one. The rigt to privacy was created by the Supreme Court in cases like Griswold v. Conn., a case involving contraception use in the bedroom.  While Bork may have been wrong, his thinking is no different that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Rehnquist or any other strict constructionists.

As for being a "tool", gee whiz RM, how many of those folks currently occuy high level government posts today? Eric Holder and his involvement in the Marc Rich pardon? Tim Geithner and his tax issues? Biden the plagiarist? Sh*t, Alcee Hastings is a disgraced and IMPEACHED federal judge yet has a seat in Congress:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alcee_Hastings_corruption_scandal

Bork got "borked" because of his views on abortion. Period. Why else would his video rental history be leaked?