May 28, 2009

"Republicans would be foolish to fight the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court..."

"...because she is the most conservative choice that President Obama could have made," says E.J. Dionne, whose assertion shouldn't be trusted.

IN THE COMMENTS: traditionalguy said:
Dionne's advice is letting the cat out of the bag. The Progressive wing will gladly push for withdrawal of her nomination if the repubbies continue to posture and vent over a few imperfections in Sonia's speeches. Then Obama could really un-load on them with his next choice. The nomination of Sotomayor needs another "just like Bush" tag.
Ah, yes. Just like Bush did with Harriet Miers and then Samual Alito. As kentuckyliz suggested, we ought to call Sotomayor Sorta-Miers.

131 comments:

m00se said...

Shrug.

She is what she is. I'm not too worried about her alleged liberalism in the same way I am not too impressed by her alleged exceptionalism. From what I've seen, she's a fairly smart, experienced jurist with a good back ground as a judge whose made some pretty silly statments in her time. She'll have to backtrack on those at some point. Sorta like Thomas or Scalia.

Pogo said...

"Resistance is futile."

I'm going to do exactly nothing about Sotomayor. Everyone Obama picks will be an anti-property and anti-liberty leftist.

Everyone he picks will have been schooled so that casually mentioning their preference for certain races or genders over others and mentioning that 'law makes policy' are comfortably understood as just part of the law schools they went to.

None will have rubbed their eyes to see for themselves how very far things have drifted from the actual Constitution.

So why bother? They are busy writing the new Constitution for the 4th American revolution. Either it succeeds or we rot. But no prior attempt anywhere else has ever succeeded to create this 'third way', so don't buy any green bananas, at least, not from the US Treasury.

Sotomayor? Not worth the effort. The next and next after that will be worse in other ways.

EnigmatiCore said...

Interesting argument from Dionne; one which presupposes that the main criteria for voting a Justice up or down is political ideology. This is about the opposite of which I believe, which is that is never a reason to vote a Justice down.

Judicial temperament and ethics are about the only reasons to vote against a nominee.

You know, like when a nominee has on more than one occasion made comments that are incompatible with the type of color-blind society for which we should all strive. That is a valid reason to oppose a nominee.

Joaquin said...

Like all nominees, she should and will be put under the microscope. She will have to explain the 'controversial' statements that she's made in the past.
For EJD to suggest that it's foolish to fight his nomination is pure nonsense. It does however parrot the Dem. party line that we've been hearing the last couple of days. She's a Latino woman and therefore she's above reproach. POLLY WANNA CRACKER!

The Drill SGT said...

I agree with EnigmatiCore, that ideology is a poor test for confirmation, but note that he (Dionne) and the Left seem to relish using it.

More interesting to examine is the fact that the nominee has written 5 judgements that have thusfar found it to the SCOTUS, where 60% have been found wanting.

With Ricci likely loser as well, that will drive her won/loss record to 2 of 6. That would seem to indicate she maybe does put empathy above dispassionate justice a bit too much?

traditionalguy said...

Dionne's advice is letting the cat out of the bag. The Progressive wing will gladly push for withdrawal of her nomination if the repubbies continue to posture and vent over a few imperfections in Sonia's speeches. Then Obama could really un-load on them with his next choice. The nomination of Sotomayor needs another "just like Bush" tag.

EnigmatiCore said...

Drill SGT, that does not bother me too much. If a President thinks the Court has been making poor decisions or going in a bad direction, then it only makes sense that said President would nominate someone with a high reversal rate.

Now, if the high reversal rate is coupled with shoddy opinions that show a disregard for Judicial restraint and/or a propensity for making decisions without a foundation in the rule of law, then that is a whole other matter and speaks to temperament.

Issob Morocco said...

Not as foolish as the One's pick of her to go onto the court.

Surely Liberals must have a judge with more depth of argument, than just argumentativeness.

Peter V. Bella said...

If the Republicans were smart, they would make a statement:

"We are not going to do to her what was done to Alito. We are not going to fill the confirmation hearings with hatred, vitriol, and insults- like the Democrats did. We are going to question her qualifications in a professional manner.

Of course that will not happen. The Democrat Party is the party of hate. The Republicans are palying catch up. Both parties are too full of their ideological BS to make any sense.

As to the rest- I agree with Pogo. Our property, our money, our right to prosperity and wealth building and our civil liberties are under threat.

Joseph Hovsep said...

Drill SGT: The average reversal rate for cases that are appealed to the SCOTUS is 75%. The Court has a lot of discretion as to which cases they take, and they tend to take appeals where they disagree with the reasoning below. If you look at other current SCOTUS judges, you will find similar reversal rates when they were appellate judges.

American Liberal Elite said...

PVB: "The Democrat Party is the party of hate."

This from the party of love.

The Drill SGT said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Drill SGT said...

Joseph Hovsep.

OK, sounds reasonable

Jason (the commenter) said...

Of course they should put up resistance to Dione. It's good practice. They should talk about her racism, talk about her unpopular rulings, and make her seem like as bad a choice as they can.

We need to know how they would do things differently. This is a teaching moment. They need to get out there and convert people to their cause.

EnigmatiCore said...

ALE-- accusing someone else of being a criminal is not a defense against a charge.

No political party 'loves' anything but power.

Pogo said...

One of the stranger beliefs in the US is that we can survive anything, that no matter who is President or Senator or Supreme Court justice, the USA will remain.

This magical thinking is based on the erroneous neo-religious belief in 'progress', that things have improved over time and will continue to do so.

The 20th century should have disabused people of that notion, but did not.

Nations rise and fall. Ours was founded on certain principles that made it into a dominant force in the world. Tinkering here and there with that recipe is considered a harmless or even necessary process.

But few consider that they may be hacking at the very roots of our success. Sotomayor and other leftist judges may be chainsaws to the tree of the US Republic, rather than mere spoils for the current administration.

EnigmatiCore said...

Joseph Hovsep- of course the reversal rate, when measured as a percentage of cases taken by the SCOTUS, would be high. It is a case of selection bias; they are going to take on cases that they are likely to overturn as a matter of course.

Beta Conservative said...

Does Obama voting against Roberts and Alito on ideological grounds factor in here polticallY? Or is all forgotten so those nasty Republicans can once again be smeared as racist and sexist for having the same reservations about a liberal nominee?

hdhouse said...

Pogo said...
Sotomayor and other leftist judges may be chainsaws to the tree of the US Republic...."

Woodman spare that tree..touch not a single bow..

I think you misspelled Rightest.

goesh said...

- 60% reversal? Good God! Surely the GOP will make some hay with this....

Pogo said...

I think you misspelled Rightist.

Pogo said...

Hard to tell with you though.

heckheck said...

Joseph Hovsep said... The average reversal rate for cases that are appealed to the SCOTUS is 75%. The Court has a lot of discretion as to which cases they take, and they tend to take appeals where they disagree with the reasoning below.

This is a good point, but cases that get to the Supreme Court are not usually decided unanamously. It seems that if there is a reversal by the supremes this would make the dissenter from the lower court look good.

Aaron said...

Sotomayor created a situation where a reasonable person would question her impartiality in any case involving white males, latina females, or discrimination law generally. The canons of judicial ethics make it clear that she should have disqualified herself in Ricci v. DeStefano, for instance, because even if she is not racist, she has created the appearance of racial bias which is just as bad in a judge.

Equality before the law is too important a principle to allow it to go down without a fight. Everyone--democrats, republicans--should fight her nomination. And if it was a white male judge expressing a belief that white men were better judges, we wouldn't even be debating the point. Why on earth should we treat women or minorities differently?

And I don't care that this is normal discourse in law schools. First, maybe this should be a wake up call to the law schools that fostering this kind of bigotry in minorities is not doing that person any favors. Second, the fact is that the judges i had as professors (I had two, both on the 2nd circuit in fact), all understood that they had limitations on what they could and couldn't say. Its part of what comes with being a judge. At the beginning of one of my classes, one of my judge professors warned us specifically that sometimes the canons of judicial conduct would keep him from answering. Soto should have known and respected those limits.

Frodo Potter said...

E.J. Dionne, Jr. unwittingly put his finger on some key strategies for Republicans.

“Liberals should not take the bait of the right-wingers by allowing the debate over Sotomayor to be premised on the idea that she is a bold ideological choice. She's not. But if conservatives succeed in painting this moderate as a radical, they will skew future arguments over the court. In fact, liberals should press Sotomayor on her more conservative decisions on business issues, an area in which the current court already tilts too far right.

As for Republican senators, they have to ask if it's worth alienating Latino voters to wage a fierce battle against a woman who is, from their point of view, the best nominee Obama was likely to give them.”

Does anyone imagine that liberals will even *think about* grilling Sotomayor? She’s a slam dunk for them. They’re absolutely in love with her. Some tool even wrote in TIME magazine that Sotomayor will magically heal all divisions between Blacks and Latinos (as if a Puerto Rican judge could speak for Mexican gangbangers). But liberals ARE going to take the bait. In fact, they are starting to take it already. They *will* defend her. The Republicans can eliminate any liberal grilling by going on the attack.

Then there is this comment by Dionne: “But if conservatives succeed in painting this moderate as a radical, they will skew future arguments over the court.” Well, Duh. It is exactly in the interests of conservatives to skew future arguments so that moderates (in Dionne’s view) will appear radical. It’s in the interests of liberals to try to make moderates appointed by Republicans appear right-wing. It’s sad; it’s disgusting; it’s unfortunately the way politics has been played the last 30 odd years.

Dionne also argues that it is not in the interests of Republicans to alienate Hispanic voters. He is generally right, but there are a few important exceptions.

First, as a rule, Cubans are not crazy about Puerto Ricans. This is especially true of those who came to America shortly after Castro took over, as well as their progeny. So most Cubans are not going to be enraged if Sotomayor gets roughed up a bit in questioning.

Second, and I’m probably going to draw some heat for this assertion, Hispanics in general (and especially Mexicans) are pretty machismo. I think there would be more danger in attacking a judge named Miguel Sotomayor. All the NPR feminists will resent harsh questioning of Sotomayor, but the Republicans will never have their vote anyway. The Republicans could have a decent share of the future Latino vote under the right circumstances.

So, my thought is that Republicans should grill her, put her on the hot seat, but be civil about it and never cross certain boundaries. In other words, play rough, but not dirty. Again, Republicans *want* to skew future debate.

Of course, this all depends on the Republicans having the ability to figure this out, so I’m not terribly hopeful.

MnMark said...

It's a tough question for Republicans. Do you do what you believe is the right thing, which is defer to the tradition that a President gets who he wants for the Supreme Court as long as the candidate has acceptable qualifications and stable personality? But what if the other side does not follow that rule, and happily votes your candidates down for ideological reasons, while expecting their own candidates to continue to be considered solely on the basis of qualifications? The President's voting as a Senator is a prime example of this hypocrisy.

It's like fighting Al Qaida. Do you observe the traditional rules of war when fighting an enemy that does not? What if your existence is in danger? It seems to me that gentlemanly rules only apply as long as both sides follow them. And when they break down it is the responsibility of the side that broke them first, in this case the Democrats who have been violating the norms of Supreme Court confirmations and voting on ideology alone since the days of Bork and Thomas. The Republicans, whose whole outlook is based on respect for tradition and custom, are reluctant to lower themselves to the same level. They keep hoping that if they take the high road, the voters will reward them for it. Meanwhile, Democrats are using Alinsky's "anything goes because I'm right" approach. At a certain point if Republicans expect to survive they cannot continue unilaterally observing rules that only disadvantage them. They never get credit from Democrats for following the traditions anyway.

If I were a Republican Senator, I would say "I am going to follow the President's lead and vote strictly on ideology. I would be happy to go back to the days when a President's choice was deferred to, but the President's own votes as a Senator demonstrate that that era has passed. I hope it will return again someday. But meanwhile, this candidiate is an anti-white, anti-male racist and sexist and will disregard the Constitution to push her own policies. I vote no."

traditionalguy said...

The two arguments against Sotomayor do not compute: (1) She is not of a minority race. So why is her "White men" quote seen as racially hostile? I use the phrase white men on occaision as a descriptive term, and I have no racial hostility. Hispanic culture is not against White people, rather they are competing with English speakers for space to live hispanically.(2) The mandatory use of Borking tactics just because the Democrats used them is not productive of anything except venting anger. The Obama Boys are drawing such angry conservatives into a trap. Rough up Sotomayor for what seems to hispanics as no good reason, and Obama gets to stereotype you forever as hateful dimwits. The only goal is to win. Don't adopt Japanese tactics and try a courageous banzai charge for the Emperor Limbaugh, but find a pragmatic political alliance that has 51% of the votes.

Henry said...

Miers is one parallel to the hypothetical, but Douglas Ginsberg is another. The first nominee that time was the better.

* * *

Arlen Spector, the very junior Democratic Party member of the judiciary committee should be interesting to watch. What if he decides to extract some payback for losing his seniority.

Henry said...

And ditto what m00se said.

MnMark said...

"Rough up Sotomayor for what seems to hispanics as no good reason, and Obama gets to stereotype you forever as hateful dimwits."

Dems have already been characterizing Republicans forever as hateful dimwits. They've been doing that since Goldwater's days. So what's new?

Why is it that we have to worry about how Dems characterize Republicans? How about the Dems worrying about they are characterized? Do they get to vote as Obama did, explicitly on ideology, with no consequences? I say this is the perfect time to highlight Obama's behavior as a Senator. Say "the President has established a new era in S.C. confirmation procedure. The new way is to vote strictly on ideology. We shall do the same."

It seems like the arguments are all about how the Republicans will hurt themselves. How about how the Dems hurt themselves with a candidate who is on the record as a racist and who mocks the idea that judges should not make policy? I mean seriously, what would it take for you to give Republicans permission to go on the attack? The core, non-negotiable qualification for a judge from the Republican point of view is that they do not make law. I say they will do best by standing up and firmly and politely saying "we will never vote for a judge who would undermine the very foundations of our system of government by legislating from the bench. This is a non-negotiable stand for us. We may not have the votes to stop her confirmation but we will not violate our most basic principles by meekly confirming someone with those views, and given the President's own voting record as a Senator, he is in no position to object."

MadisonMan said...

It seems that if there is a reversal by the supremes this would make the dissenter from the lower court look good.

It makes the dissenter agree with the Supreme Court. As someone else said, if you are unhappy with recent decisions, any choice you make for USSC justice ought to have a high reversal rate. (If you're choosing from Appeals Judges)

Aaron said...

Traditional guy

So, if you are not a minority but you say something racist, that is okay?

all this focus on whether a group is historically discriminated against, or a minority is misplaced when we are talking about racism. In my book, racism is the opposite of Martin Luther King's dream: judging a person not by the content of their character, but by the color of their skin. Gender bias has a similar definition, except of course there are some real physical differences that are sometimes relevant. That is a man doesn't need a right to an abortion, and as a rule women don't need a test to know if their child is their own. Its that kind of thing that makes separate bathrooms according to race an outrage, but gender segregated restrooms okay. That is true as far as it goes, but the mistake made, which is also often made with disabled people, is to make too much of those differences. women make babies. that's not an insignificant difference in life generally, but its an irrelevant difference when it comes to the legal talent of a person. There is no innate differences between men and women when it comes to legal reasoning.

People like Sotomayor set the cause of gender and racial equality back.

SteveR said...

I think Senate Republicans, if they were smart, and that's assuming they are capable of being smart, would give her a proper inquiry and then give her a unanimous "yes" vote. She won't change the court and it appears Obama/Emmanuel are using this, in part, to bait Republicans into pissing off Hispanics.

A 78-22 confirmation for Roberts came with no price for the Democrats. but something similar for Sotomayor, will be forever portrayed as emblematic of anti-hispanic republican bias.

That's obviously not true but this is not worth the fight.

AJ Lynch said...

E.J.'s picture is in the dictionary next to the definition of "liberal pussy".

Aaron said...

Btw, on reversal rates, we are talking about something like 6 cases. The sample is too small to be meaningful.

A better analysis is to look at what mistakes she made and how excusable they are. For instance, before Lawrence v. Texas, a judge would be obliged to say that Bowers v. Hardwick is the law of the land and therefore there is no constitutional right to gay sex. i don't know the procedural history of Lawrence, but given we are talking about the 5th circuit, i would hazard a guess that they followed Bowers, no questions asked. So if they did, then they would have been reversed--but clearly it wasn't their fault. In my hypothetical, they were following the law as laid down by the Sup. Ct. and then the Sup. Ct. changed its mind.

Given that there can be that kind of "no fault" reversals, the mere numbers don't tell us much, especially given such a small sample.

You need a lawyer to look under the surface and see if she was making a reasonable reading of the law.

garage mahal said...

So Obama is like Bush because picking Sotomayor is paving the way for his next pick, just like Bush did when he picked Miers. It was a shrewd stealth bait and switch. Haha. Gives the rubes something to think about I suppose.

Pogo said...

Given that a seeming majority of Americans are happy to reject the concept of 'blind justice' for 'a thumb on the scale', the GOP can do nothing at all.

Our nation is a different one than even 50 years ago. I count myself an anachronism, favoring ideals that have disappeared, like 'a level playing field' and 'living within your means' and 'reaping what you sow', and 'everyone play by the same rules'.

Now I teach my children that the only way to survive, much less succeed, is to belong to The Party and to keep your beliefs to yourself.

Else you'll wind up like those idiot Chrysler dealers who contributed to Republicans; because they are the ones that were forced to close, while the Democrat donors stayed open.

Learn well, my children; sycophancy is an easy game to play.

Henry said...

I totally forgot, above, that Ginsberg was the replacement for Bork. I was thinking of Ginsberg as the candidate abandoned for Kennedy. Of the three, I would have preferred Ginsberg.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The Progressive wing will gladly push for withdrawal of her nomination if the repubbies continue to posture and vent over a few imperfections in Sonia's speeches.I don’t think they will considering she is the embodiment of identity politics, something the left thrives on. I can’t get all that worked up over her wise latina comment because in all honesty, it is exactly what I have come to expect from the left. Whether they openly admit it or keep it close to the chest, the meme that minorities can come to better conclusions due to their ‘unique’ experience than a white man is a given. Us white folk just don’t get it since we have been writing the rules since the dawn of time.

She’s replacing another lib so why fight it? Nothing changes in the court makeup and save the ammo for another day.

goesh said...

- 6 pitches and she only gets 2 cigars,that's a hell of surface scratch to get at the alleged treasures that lie below, Aaron....

TMink said...

"alleged liberalism"

Really?

Hmm, you have a great point. I mean, I never actually saw Hitler kill any Jews, maybe he is an alleged Anti-Semite.

And with what you can do with photoshop nowadays, our President is probably just an alleged smoker.

Come to think of it, I have never seen DTL with another man, so he is an alleged homosexual.

Trey - allegedly

Joseph Hovsep said...

I think the "wise Latina" thing will and should be addressed in the confirmation hearings but GOP needs to tread carefully on calling her a racist on such flimsy grounds considering JEFF SESSIONS is the ranking GOP member of the Judiciary Committee. I think its perfectly fair game to address the issue but strategically its going to be really tricky for the GOP to pull off with Sessions leading the GOP pushback.

garage mahal said...

.I don’t think they will considering she is the embodiment of identity politics, something the left thrives on.Only conservatives can pick someone other than a white male. If a Democrat does, it's "identity politics". Only a conservative like Reagan can say we need a woman on the court. And only a conservative justice like Alito can say their immigrant background will affect their rulings.

rdkraus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rdkraus said...

Pogo

Where'd that info on Chrysler come from?

Sincerely,

Anachronism #2

holdfast said...

I think it is so cool that Dionne and other liberal columnists are looking out for the GOP in its hour of need. We should totally heed his advice on everything - he must have our best interests at heart!

Pogo said...

rdkraus:

via insty, here.

rcocean said...

I hope the Repubs aren't listening to EJ - a liberal democrat.

The Repubs *should* attack Sotomayer they *should* highlight her and Obama's left-wing extremism -but they won't.

After all, Bush I appointed her to District Court and the Repub Senate approved her to the Appeals Court. And the Republican support for SoCon issues has always been phony and half-hearted - their only real interest is pimping for the Chamber of Commerce and K street.

traditionalguy said...

Aaron... If you think that there is no innate difference between men and women in legal reasoning, then an all women Court would work well. In experience the men and the women working together can complement each other by bringing a different piece of the truth to the table. Sotomayor's comment was not against Whites, but was drawing that same distinction between a woman and a hispanic having valid parts of the truth to share in deciding cases as do men and Anglos/whites. The intellectuals do not like her for her commitment to using law to make society function, rather than a purist view that all logic automatically flows from the reasoning of Legal tretise writers. In other words, Sotomayor is a realist, and for this flaw she will always be dissed by theorists. For comparison, Karl Marx was a theorist while Harry Truman was a realist. No one respected Truman for the same reasons that Sotomayor gets little respect. I am a realist because trial alwyers have to win in court, not look good in text book law debates. Also, when in a lawsuit NEVER hire a law professor who is the expert in that field of law. They always lose badly, and never understand the courtroom human dynamics that hit them.

Aaron said...

Oh this keeps getting better. She is a member of La Raza, too. Literal translation: the race.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html

Traditional guy

> If you think that there is no innate difference between men and women in legal reasoning, then an all women Court would work well.

You’re right, I would have to think that and I do believe that if the best 9 people for the job happened to be women, or african american, or whatever, that is fine.

> In experience the men and the women working together can complement each other by bringing a different piece of the truth to the table.

Then I assume you are against gay marriage, right?

> Sotomayor's comment was not against Whites, but was drawing that same distinction between a woman and a hispanic having valid parts of the truth to share in deciding cases as do men and Anglos/whites.

No, if THAT was what she said, i.e. “different but equal” I would be okay. But she said, “different and superior,” and that is unacceptable.

Seriously, her defenders are being downright obtuse. She said latina women more often than not would reach a “better conclusion” than a white male. What part of “better” is confusing you?

> The intellectuals do not like her for her…

Maybe, maybe not. I can’t say about that. I don’t like her because she said something that disqualifies her from sitting in most cases.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Only conservatives can pick someone other than a white male. If a Democrat does, it's "identity politics". .

Yes that is correct. I guess those liberals who screamed hosannas over her gender and ethnicity wasn't loud enough for you to hear?

Invisible Man said...

Our nation is a different one than even 50 years ago. I count myself an anachronism, favoring ideals that have disappeared, like 'a level playing field' and 'living within your means' and 'reaping what you sow', and 'everyone play by the same rules'..
Ah yes, a world were we just took it for given that a white man was the best person for the job and everyone else had to "prove" themselves worthy while being called a "broad" or "boy". Those sure were the good old days for you, Pogo.

AJ Lynch said...

The New Haven case will bite the liberals in the ass during the confirmation hearings. There will be a sizeable public backlash against this kind of judicial foul play in job promotions.

In spite of that, Judge Sotomayer will be confirmed. But it will be costly to the Dem's and Obama's political capital.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Ah yes, a world were we just took it for given that a white man was the best person for the job and everyone else had to "prove" themselves worthy while being called a "broad" or "boy"..

Whereas it is one now where skin color and genetalia trumps all because whitey had it so good for too long. Equality is so 1970.

I'd rather the left just admit they aren't interested in equality and meritocracy and just say it's payback cause the bullshit excuses at this point is beyond stinky.

Jeremy said...

Ed Rollins weighs in...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/28/rollins.sotomayor/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Crimso said...

"She is a member of La Raza, too."

Wonder if she thinks States or Commonwealths have the right to secede...

Jeremy said...

There's nothing better for a Democrat or liberal to see, then a pack of far right Republicans wasting their time whining and bitching about this nominee.

She'll be on the Supreme Court for decades after people can even remember Newt and the other fools who think they can smear the President by smearing his nominee.

And the "tent" just keeps getting smaller...

Joseph Hovsep said...

Whereas it is one now where skin color and genetalia trumps all because whitey had it so good for too long. Equality is so 1970.

Hoosier, no one on the left believes this. And if you look around you, that's not what the world looks like. Whites and men still have more money and power in the U.S. than other groups. Despite the controversy, affirmative action hasn't really had a huge effect on that.

The idea of a level playing field is very appealing but its not really level if white men bring their the greater wealth and power they have inherited to the game. There isn't an obvious fair way to deal with that but I don't think its honest to pretend that a level playing field is really level.

Pogo said...

"Hoosier, no one on the left believes this. "
Bullshit.
See Invisible man, quoted here.


"...we just took it for given that a white man was the best person for the job and everyone else had to "prove" themselves worthy..."

A lie, one that I was taught as well. Pure bullshit, as any honest reading of the Civil War and the Founders might reveal. But I was told the same lies, so I recognize the source.

Pursuit of the ideal, that colorblind justice should evaluate only the facts at hand, paying no mind to the currently desired political outcome, is a goal we often fell short of, for man always does, yet still we endeavor to improve. Failure is no sin, unlike lack of trying.

But the current regime rejects the ideal per se. In that I am an anachronism. You reject the very concept of liberty, Invisible Man, and find that good. I disagree.

And Joseph, the rules are what is level, not the starting point, or the finish line. And those never are equal and never will be. Belief otherwise counsels and foments destruction.

Sigerson said...

If Sotomayor had that resume and was named Kevin O'Connell she would get 99 votes in the Senate. She's the most experienced lawyer to be nominated in 100 years. None of the sitting justices have her breadth of real-world legal experience as a prosecutor, trial lawyer, trial judge and circuit court judge. Pointy headed law professors and career political hacks do not make a great court. A real lawyer on the court is a wonderful thing, in my opinion.

AJ Lynch said...

Sigerson:

So by "trial lawyer" you mean Judge Sotomayer actually worked for a significant period in a for-profit private practice where she had a roster of clients? That would benefit us because it means she would have "real world" experience as an entrepreneur.

Is that what you are claiming as well?

Joseph Hovsep said...

Pogo, Invisible Man was referring to your reference to how things were better 50 years ago. Do you sincerely believe that there was a so-called level playing field without racism and sexism in employment or college admissions 50 years ago?

Around 50 years ago, Sandra Dae O'Connor graduated third in her class at Stanford Law School and couldn't find a firm to hire her as anything but a secretary. Blacks were still being educated in substandard segregated schools. There are countless examples to counter your glorification of a nonexistent past racially- and sexually-neutral paradise.

Joe said...

The problem for conservatives isn't getting a more liberal nominee, but a smarter one. I spent time brushing up on Sotomayor's opinions; she's an intellectual lightweight. That makes her another Souter.

The bigger risk would be, off the top of my head, a Cass Sunstein or the like. Yet, there's part of me that would prefer someone like that, even if they are liberal.

Sofa King said...

Pogo, Invisible Man was referring to your reference to how things were better 50 years ago.

He never said "things" were better. He said "ideals" have disappeared. Two different things. It's possible - probable, maybe - that we've moved closer to realizing those ideals since then while simultaneously forgetting what we're supposed to be aiming for.

Pogo said...

"Do you sincerely believe that there was a so-called level playing field without racism and sexism in employment or college admissions 50 years ago? "

False choice.

The Constitutional structure was there to achieve the ideal, but has been mis-used or under-used. But the ideal was clear, very clear. Hundreds of thousands of men died in the 1860s for that belief, howevermuch you want to deny it.

That men have not been saints or perfectly met their ideals is a regrettable human problem, but it does not damn the ideal. And to reject those ideals in favor of tilting the playing field this way and that is dangerous and ultimately wholly destructive.

I was taught the liberal mantra, the one you display here, I learned that seemingly sacred language. But it's a damned lie.

Joseph Hovsep said...

He never said "things" were better. He said "ideals" have disappeared. Two different things.

Fair enough. But either way, I don't think the ideals of the 1950s--aspirational or realized--were what Pogo claims either. Do you think the law firms that rejected O'Connor would have claimed that women are equally qualified to be lawyers but she just wasn't good enough? That's not what they told her. Do you think Southern white politicians, school teachers and principals claimed that blacks and whites were equal and capable of learning together? That's not what the historical record shows.

Pastafarian said...

Funny, I remember hearing that the election of Obama would be the big "Mission Accomplished" moment of the civil rights movement.

How long will we need affirmative action, liberal commenters? At what point can it be discontinued? I'd really like to know.

Pogo said...

Joseph, rejecting the ideal of the Constitution because it did not achieve perfection by 1950 is idiotic.

Pogo said...

"I don't think the ideals of the 1950s--aspirational or realized--were what Pogo claims either"

How can I state it any clearer?
I cannot; you refuse to read.

Joseph Hovsep said...

Pogo, the text of the Constitution is the same as it was 50 or 100 years ago but people did not believe that it meant what we believe it means today. Ideals are what people actually believe in and aspire to, not what in retrospect we decide words should mean.

traditionalguy said...

Aaron...You may have noticed my traditional nom de plum, and I confess that I have never married a man. I plead that I have had a super college roommate friend (See, Sideways) and close male friends (is amateur wrestling practice partners close enough?). It just never seemed right by my traditions to have sex with all the people I have loved. I loved my brother too. My favorite uncle was an "intimate partner" for many years with Tennessee williams, Truman Capote et al., and I love him. But gay sex has not ever seemed to me like an option. Does that make me into your enemy and a bigot? Probably not, unless I also tell you that I am a true believer in the risen Jewish Messiah who loves you. As to Gay Marriage, why not.

Pogo said...

"Ideals are what people actually believe in and aspire to, not what in retrospect we decide words should mean."

Pretty much what I said (the second half being a bit unclear however).

And the left wants to abandon the ideals set forth in the Constitution for court-directed weighting of the scales.

Why?

Joseph Hovsep said...

And the left wants to abandon the ideals set forth in the Constitution for court-directed weighting of the scales.I don't know what you are talking about. That certainly doesn't describe Sotomayor's take on Ricci. She would have deferred to the department.

Palladian said...

"And the left wants to abandon the ideals set forth in the Constitution for court-directed weighting of the scales.

Why?"

Because it's STICKIN' IT TO THE MAN, which is the unspoken (and spoken) aim of the left. Revenge against daddy is a life-long motivator.

Palladian said...

"She would have deferred to the department."

How convenient that the fire department was doing the dirty work!

Pogo said...

"I don't know what you are talking about."

I don't have the energy to bring you up to speed about the concerns in re: Sotomayor.

Aaron said...

Sigerson

> If Sotomayor had that resume and was named Kevin O'Connell she would get 99 votes in the Senate.

Presuming you mean if he was a white male, do you think he would get even one vote if he said that white men make better judges than latino women?

And if not, why should we treat her any different?

Traditional

> I confess that I have never married a man

Fair enough. I was actually asking.

Joseph

> She would have deferred to the department.

Deference is inappropriate in racial discrimination cases. Where there is racial discrimination, black letter law says that you are supposed to apply strict scrutiny. Instead, the district court said that there was no racial discrimination at all, even though it was in fact a decision based on color, and then ducked the rest of the issue.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Whites and men still have more money and power in the U.S. than other groups. Despite the controversy, affirmative action hasn't really had a huge effect on that..

That is generally the case where the majority has been in power from the beginning.
The idea of a level playing field is very appealing but its not really level if white men bring their the greater wealth and power they have inherited to the game..

That sentence implies that white men will use their wealth and influence to keep the brown man and women down. I suppose you can subscribe to that theory but I’d argue that the last 40+ years of civil rights advances, EEOC, anti-discrimination laws (gender, age, religion, race) that have been passed, I’d say those rich white guys have not been very successful. Sorry but after 20+ years in the corporate world, I have been subjected to more diversity training, sexual harassment training, cultural sensitivity training than you would probably believe. I’m not so naive to believe discrimination doesn’t exist but I also don’t subscribe to being stuck in 1955 or that there is some cabal of white fat cats conspiring to keep the ‘darkies’ in their place and the ‘broads’ barefoot and pregnant.
There isn't an obvious fair way to deal with that but I don't think its honest to pretend that a level playing field is really level..

I never said it was. Again, I’ve been around the block long enough to know that a solid resume and networking will go a lot farther than just a solid resume. The fair way to level the field is to judge solely on merit. If that means not enough blacks, hispanics, women, transgendered dwarves aren't represented in [insert industry here] then my suggestion is start encouraging those groups to start pursuing those fields and excel in them.

elHombre said...

Joseph Hovsep wrote: Do you think the law firms that rejected [Sandra] O'Connor would have claimed that women are equally qualified to be lawyers but she just wasn't good enough?

Do you think Sandra O'Connor got to be an Associate Justice by giving a shit what those guys thought?

Do you think conservative Republican white males elected her Majority Leader of the Arizona Senate in the early 70s because Gloria Steinem endorsed her?

This does not appear to respond to Pogo. So what's your point?

Sigerson said...

From Justice Alito: "Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. ... And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. [...]

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

What a lousy racist! I tremble with fear for the fate of the Republic that this man who allows his ethnic background to influence him is a Supreme Court Justice.

Sigerson said...

"AJ Lynch said...
Sigerson:

So by "trial lawyer" you mean Judge Sotomayer actually worked for a significant period in a for-profit private practice where she had a roster of clients? That would benefit us because it means she would have "real world" experience as an entrepreneur.

Is that what you are claiming as well?"

I agree and reviews of her business-related decisions on the 2d Cir. (a very active commercial litigation venue) have declared her to be a flaming.... moderate.

Sigerson said...

" Aaron said...
Sigerson

> If Sotomayor had that resume and was named Kevin O'Connell she would get 99 votes in the Senate.

Presuming you mean if he was a white male, do you think he would get even one vote if he said that white men make better judges than latino women?

And if not, why should we treat her any different?"

You're twisting the meaning of what she said. Read the whole quote and then report back. Don't just regurgitate what Newt twitters into your brain....

Sigerson said...

From the "racist" speech --

"Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

what a load of crap, right? Why does she hate America so much?

Palladian said...

"what a load of crap, right? Why does she hate America so much?"

Whatever else you might think about the context of the statement, don't you agree that calling yourself a "wise Latina woman" is embarrassing and stupid?

Palladian said...

". Read the whole quote and then report back. Don't just regurgitate what Newt twitters into your brain...."

Don't just regurgitate what the Obama Administration telepathically beams into your tooth fillings either, honey.

Sigerson said...

Pogo -- on the Chrysler dealerships getting shut down as retribution on Republicans, STFU http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/news-flash-car-dealers-are-republicans.html

Sigerson said...

Palladian -- I don't take talking points from anyone. I read the entire speech and don't think her comment is objectionable in any way. It's a very subtle, thoughtful essay on what it's like to be a female member of a racial minority in a system that's almost entirely white and male. And, most importantly, she concludes by noting that once justice is handed down it has very real, concrete consequences and, as a judge, she owes it to all litigants to check her prejudices at the door.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=all

Pogo said...

Interesting, but the data do not refer to dealer ownership, which is key and unaddressed by that author.

So STFU back at ya.

Joseph Hovsep said...

That sentence implies that white men will use their wealth and influence to keep the brown man and women down.That's not what the sentence was intended to imply. It was intended to imply that every person brings their own wealth and power to their own selfish interest. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. It just means that those who start out with more are going to be more successful. Like the Yankees are more successful than other teams because they are so much richer. They don't always win but they win more often and many consider that an inherent unfairness in MLB.

Pogo said...

"as a judge, she owes it to all litigants to check her prejudices at the door."

No, she clearly states that as a judge, she owes it to all litigants to hang her prejudices on the door.

Sigerson said...

Pogo --

Car dealer political contributions are 88% Republican. Are you REALLY suggesting that the owners of those car dealerships would donate at a lower rate to Republicans? If so, I'd like some of what you're smoking.

Sigerson said...

"I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives..."

Pogo -- what part of that is illegible? Is it written in Spanish and I somehow missed it? She recognizes that she has prejudices, just like any other flawed human being sitting as a judge, and declares vigilance in checking them! Get it?

Palladian said...

"Palladian -- I don't take talking points from anyone."

Yet you link to the New York Times. Interesting!

Pogo said...

Show me the data, and that the rate of dealership closing is in fact no different between Dem-owned and GOP-owned dealers. (Impossible, given that only one Dem-owned dealer closed, but go ahead and try.)

Until then, STFU again.

Pogo said...

"She recognizes that she has prejudices, just like any other flawed human being sitting as a judge, and declares vigilance in checking them! Get it?"

It's in English, at the NYT:

1) “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know."

2) "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

Are you skipping every third word?

Aaron said...

Sigerson

if you keep pretending that Sotomayor said something she didn't, we'll have to take that as a confession that you can't defend what she did say.

and in fact the whole paragraph is even worse. the whole context is worse. She believes that her advantages are inherent. that is rank bigotry, period. And more than a few women and latinas are upset at these comments, too, because they recognize that this undermines the goal we should be working toward, which is equality.

elHombre said...

@Sigerson: Shame on you for misquoting Alito.

You quoted him:

I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. [...]

How about finishing the quote:

... and I am reminded that a wise Italian man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better [judicial] conclusion than a female of color who hasn’t lived that life.

Oh. Sorry. I guess that wasn't Alito, was it?

AJ Lynch said...

It would be easy for Chrysler and GM and the car czar to defuse the growing suspicions that some closings were political judgments. Why don't they just share the criteria for the closings?

AND next the transparency-loving Obama administration should be asked (by the media) how closing a car dealer saves significant money for a car manufacturer!

Jeremy said...

Sigerson said..."If Sotomayor had that resume and was named Kevin O'Connell she would get 99 votes in the Senate."

Of course she would.

This is just another of the right wing's never ending strategy to muddy the waters of good sense with silly bullshit based on one or two off the cuff comments from the woman...and as usual, it will backfire, making them look even more bigoted than they already are. They constantly harp on how "equal" things have become in America, while only 2% of the major corporate CEO's are women.

And for some reason, they also appear to forget that she was nominated by George H. W. Bush to a seat on the U.S. District Court, was the youngest judge in the Southern District, and first Hispanic federal judge anywhere in New York State. (Only 7 women among the district's 58 judges...shocking, huh?)

She graduated from Princeton, summa cum laude, while at Yale became an editor of the Yale Law Journal and got her J.D. from Yale Law School. (Wikipedia)

Jeremy said...

Let's compare the incredibly "devastating" comments much of the right wing's argument against Sotomayor is hinged...with things the local favorites had to say:

Sotomayor: "...they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is -- court of appeals is where policy is made."

Scalia: "Not only do state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States'"
(Baker v. State)

Scalia: "In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law," since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed. (Reves v. Ernst & Young)

Sotomayor: “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...”

Alito: "Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position."


And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

Hoosier Daddy said...

This is just another of the right wing's never ending strategy to muddy the waters of good sense with silly bullshit based on one or two off the cuff comments from the woman.

I seem to recall Trent Lott making an off the cuff comment praising an aging old Senator that caused him to step down from his Senate leadership position.

I remember another off the cuff comment from a university President about how women aren't hardwired out for the physical sciences and he was flayed for it.

Off the cuff comments are only ok for liberals I guess.

Aaron said...

Jeremy

First, you are dodging the issue. Its not her qualifications, its her prejudiced statements.

Second, btw, being an editor of the YLJ is not really that impressive. Unless things have massively changed from her time, the test to get in consists solely of a quiz on the blue book of citations. Bluntly the assumption is that all Yalies would make wonderful editors, but they want to force them to know how to make proper citations back and forth.

Which is not to denegrate her creds overall. Bluntly if she hadn't said that latina woman comment, i would say, "not my cup of tea, but elections have consequences, so she should be confirmed." Bluntly i never opposed Breyer or Ginsberg; i have deep disagreements with them, but at least by tradition they were good enough.

In my book as long as she reaches a threshold of qualification, she should be confirmed. the problem is that because of her idiot statement, she has fallen below the threshold. she should recuse herself from every case involving a white male, a latina female, as party or lawyer, or any case involving discrimination. Which means we would be getting half a justice at best.

There are equally qualified people who could be nominated who haven't shut themselves out of so many cases, and yes, every bit as liberal as Soto, just without that baggage. So why not nominate one of them, instead?

traditionalguy said...

Jeremy...I actually agree with your last two comments which made very good points made without any overt hostility. Thanks.

hdhouse said...

Joe said...
The problem for conservatives isn't getting a more liberal nominee, but a smarter one. I spent time brushing up on Sotomayor's opinions; she's an intellectual lightweight. That makes her another Souter."

Ahhh all brushed up are you now? Tell me JOE, where did you get your law degree? How did you do at Princeton etc.? Been on the bench long?....

I'm not sure, but where you on the short list at all during the last 3 appointments? Are you a plumber?

You remind me of Ferris Bueller...admiring your "piece of shit car...cause I don't even have a piece of shit car"

Aaron said...

Jeremy

And try as hard as you want, but Alito said nothing about his views being superior because of his heritage. And he certainly never suggested that he had an inherent superiority over anyone because of his heritage or gender.

So what Alito said is more than a little different from what Sotomayor.

But, on the other, her statement about policy being made on the circuit court level actually is rendered innocuous in context. She clearly says a moment later she is not advocating that policy should be made on that level, only noticing that it does get made. watching it you might suspect she was throwing that in as a cya move, but i am not going to try to read her mind. her literal words were unobjectionable and that is enough.

hdhouse said...

AJ Lynch said...
"...) how closing a car dealer saves significant money for a car manufacturer!"

co-op advertising
print and display advertising

hey i thought you believed in a free marketplace...well too many dealers drive prices down...so they cost the auto companies plenty...but you knew that didn't you?

Sigerson said...

@Pogo -- "Show me the data, and that the rate of dealership closing is in fact no different between Dem-owned and GOP-owned dealers. (Impossible, given that only one Dem-owned dealer closed, but go ahead and try.)"

Conspiracy theory much? Chrysler is closing down dealers that are in bad locations, don't include all three brands and those that have large, scummy used car lots onsite. Once the company has made that *commercial* decision, let the chips fall where they may. Most owners of car dealerships are rural or suburban, older white men. Guess what, most of those folks are Repubs!

AJ Lynch said...

Hdhouse:

You gace two perhaps reasonable possibilities and I'd like to see Chrysler or the Obama car czar answer as well.

Co-op advertising? Are you suggesting Chrysler will do less advertising but sell approximately the same volume of cars via fewer dealer outlets?

Brochures? I'd suspect the dealers pay the car manufacturers for those.

Sigerson said...

@Aaron -- "And try as hard as you want, but Alito said nothing about his views being superior because of his heritage. And he certainly never suggested that he had an inherent superiority over anyone because of his heritage or gender."

The narrow quote that you seem obsessed by is innocuous, just like the comment about judges making policy. The old O'Connor canard is that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion. Her point was that she would hope that she could make a better decision, not just the same decision. It's aspirational, not declaratory.

Jeremy said...

Hoosier Daddy - "I seem to recall Trent Lott making an off the cuff comment praising an aging old Senator that caused him to step down from his Senate leadership position."

Only a wingnut would compare Lott's comment relating to Strom Thurmond: "We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either..." to what Sotomayor said.

And if you really think his comment was not that big of a deal, here's what one of your heroes had to say about it:

President George W. Bush: The comment was "offensive and it is wrong."

Aaron said...

Sigerson

switch the words white male and latina woman and see how innocuous it sounds.

But I love the argument. "Look she wasn't saying latina women were superior. she was just hoping they were."

Sure, i could see her in church: "dear God, please make my race superior to all others. Amen." its fine for her to wish she was "the bestest justice ever," but why wish it on a specific race?

so even taking your silly argument on its face, you fail.

Aaron said...

Btw, at instapundit they are saying that john lott crunched the numbers on the dealerships, and there isn't much to it. it turns out that people in business with lots of property tend to vote republican.

I haven't checked it out, but lott wouldn't lie in favor of Obama, so there is that.

Jeremy said...

Aaron - "Alito said nothing about his views being superior because of his heritage..."

Neither did Sotomayor.

She said that she “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' didn't say anything about being "superior," only that her heritage might offer her the opportunity to "reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

Are you actually saying a person's heritage and life experiences are not relevant to making decisions from the bench?

The "Rule Of Law" does not prohibit flexibility based on circumstances and experience.

Unless of course, you think judges should act like robots and never consider circumstances or situations relating to their decisions.

Is that what you really want?

Jeremy said...

Joe said..."I spent time brushing up on Sotomayor's opinions; she's an intellectual lightweight. That makes her another Souter."

Translation: She's not a conservative so she must be a lightweight.

*As if Clarence Thomas represents a bastion of higher intellect.

F-u-n-n-y s-t-u-f-f.

AJ Lynch said...

I don't know why so much discussion of this Latina judge.

The bottom line is she will be confirmed. The Republicans should make sure sje pays a price for her bigoted statements and the public needs to be aware of how she may dispense justice.

Liberal Moms & Dads will only see red when their well-qualified kids lose out on law or med school slots due to crazy affirmative action. Hell Althouse has two boys and so she herself could be one of those Moms one day.

Aaron said...

Jeremy

First, “I would hope” is just a fig leaf. She was plainly expressing her opinion.

Second, even accepting your naivete for wisdom, why should she be wishing wisdom on latina women only, indeed specifically hoping that one group is superior to the other? Here, try it with different races: “I hope us white judges are better than the black ones.” Doesn’t sound so good does it?

The fundamental flaw in her reasoning, if we accept your silly fig leaf of an argument, is that she thinks of latina women as “her team.” It is one thing to want justice for Latinas, it is even appropriate to worry about justice for those similarly situated but superiority? It crosses a line.

Again, accepting your silly fig leaf, which I don’t.

> Are you actually saying a person's heritage and life experiences are not relevant to making decisions from the bench?

As we have said repeatedly, we are not taking issue with her saying that she brings to the table part of the background, it’s the claim to superiority that is the problem.

> The "Rule Of Law" does not prohibit flexibility based on circumstances and experience.

No, in fact, considering their “circumstance” beyond the facts of the case is exactly the opposite of upholding the rule of law, especially on the Supreme Court. The reality is that the Supreme Court is ruling on a lot more than whether that individual plaintiff or defendant will win, but instead setting down the principles that shall be applied to a number of cases. The significance of Brown, for instance, wasn’t that the little girl was going to go to a white school, but that segregation across the country was illegal. And in fact consideration of “individual circumstances” had prevented that outcome for decades, where in case after case the court would say, “sure, separate was not equal here, but if it is equal in another case, separation was okay.” That is why Thurgood Marshall and the Ink Fund specifically stipulated that the black and white school were equal, even though they were plainly not: because he wanted to establish that separate was NEVER equal, regardless of individual circumstances.

So you have it exactly backwards. Trial courts deal with individual justice. Supreme Courts are about setting down the principles that the trial courts will apply. (Using that term, supreme court, generically. For instance, the “Supreme Court” in NY is actually a trial court.)

BJM said...

Wealthy white males may be more visable, but they are no longer the majority asset holders.

Since 2000, women started more businesses than men; 56 to 48%. The 2010 census should be very interesting.

According to the CWBR, -there are 6.2 million privately held majority (51 percent or more) women-owned businesses in the United States employing 9.2 million workers and contributing $1.15 trillion to the economy. Half of all privately owned businesses in the U.S. are owned by women, and between 1997 and 2002, women-owned businesses grew at twice the rate of all businesses. An additional four million businesses are owned equally by men and women. Together, women-owned businesses and those owned equally by men and women number 10.2 million, employ over 18 million workers, and generate $2.32trillion.

The wealth transfer from the WWII generation to the Boomers was the largest asset transfer in history. By 2020, as Boomer men reach the median life expectancy, more commonly-held assets will transfer to women.

Ponder that.

Joe said...

Translation: She's not a conservative so she must be a lightweight.No, Jeremy, it means she is an intellectual lightweight. Her opinions have extremely poor reasoning. The biggest insult isn't getting reversed, but having the higher courts support the decision and entirely discard the reasoning.

I even pointed out that the danger to conservatives was a liberal nominee who wasn't a lightweight, yet there would be something refreshing about that.

To pretend that Sotomayor has any real intellectual gravitas as compared to hundreds of other candidates is simply absurd. (The irony being that her "competitors" all have superior intellects, just the wrong race.)

elHombre said...

Sotomayor will be, and should be, confirmed.

The Republicans should use the process to embarrass Obama without seeming to browbeat her.

The questioning should politely focus on her controversial statements and opinions, particularly since she was last confirmed. Attention should be drawn to the shaky Obama vetting process with references to his tax evaders and questions about her own taxes. She should be asked about her conversations with the President and whether he asked her to explain the inherent superiority of latino women and other controversies -- conversations that probably never took place.

Then they should abstain from the vote to confirm with a concise and polite jab at the President for his divisiveness, sloppy vetting and identity politics.

If Republican expect to regain traction, they need to remember that with Democrats substance is nothing and politics is everything and act accordingly.

traditionalguy said...

Query: If we can take a hard working and highly organized and socially skilled woman of Hispanic heritage and give her the best in education and a carrer path to the top of her profession, BUT she will never be as good as the theoretical WASP super brain out there somewhere, then why bother educating the non-WASPs at all. She makes Palin look dumb in comparison, but I am very happy with Palin's brainpower and skill set. Ergo, we should confirm this brilliant woman without acting like we are being raped. Why would we want to pull a Katie Couric type spliced interview job on her and use it for slander about her really extaordinarily good intellect.

Aaron said...

i wouldn't be so fast to assume this is a fait accompli.

republicans controlled congress when meiers was nominated and that didn't ensure victory. indeed, eventually the drumbeat from republicans led her name to be withdrawn. i would wonder for instance if Webb and Warner would be interested having their vote for her held against them, given her inappropriate comments. the fact is the democrats run in 2008 were actually much more conservative than your normal fare. they might be easier to peel off than everyone assumes.

I will repeat what i said in the last thread. if the defenders of the principle of equality under the law have to go down, let's do it the exact way every roman mother wished her children would die in battle: with our wounds in the front.

elHombre said...

@Aaron-

You have done a yeoman's job of making your case.

Nevertheless, the issue isn't Sotomayor, it is Obama. She is just a replacement, perhaps, for Seuter's liberal vote.

The Republican's have a chance to look statesmanlike while scoring some points on Obama. A losing effort here just confirms their status as losers, regardless of where the wounds are.

Aaron said...

Traditional

Wow, there is so much pure golden wrongness piled into this statement, I hardly know where to begin:

> If we can take a hard working and highly organized and socially skilled woman of Hispanic heritage and give her the best in education and a carrer path to the top of her profession, BUT she will never be as good as the theoretical WASP super brain out there somewhere, then why bother educating the non-WASPs at all.

Um, because even if you can’t be the best (by definition only one person can be), you can still be YOUR best? Because in fact most people in law don’t make it to “the top of their profession.” At my law school alone we had a class of around 300 people. if the next 9 justices are chosen from my class, I would still only have a roughly 3% chance of being on the Supreme Court. And indeed because I am disabled, my real chances are probably actually about 0%. But despite all of that, I don’t feel like my education has been wasted. Go figure.

And indeed, that goes for the WASPs who aren’t as good as the “Super WASP.” Indeed, the sentence contains an inappropriate degree of racial obsession. If the argument is that you shouldn’t bother trying unless you will be the best, or on the top of your profession, then there is no reason to limit that to hispanic people. don’t educate anyone unless you are certain they will be on the supreme court! Brilliant!

So why drag race into your point?

> Ergo,

Saying ergo doesn’t make your argument more logical.

> we should confirm this brilliant woman without acting like we are being raped.

First, who is acting like they are being raped?

Second, right, because being smart and educated is everything. Really, we should resurrect Albert Einstein and make him chief justice. *brain is hurting from all the bad logic you are putting out. Your comments are like a black hole of illogic, sucking all the logic from around it into its core.*

Really, this all just reminds me of the infamous comment in defense of mediocrity on the Supreme Court: “Even if [the nominee] were mediocre, 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.”

(by the way, notice that last name? gee, maybe she isn’t the first hispanic on the supreme court after all. Of course that gets into that creepy analysis of who counts as which race. Its funny that the people who would do so apparently are the liberals. I personally could give a rat’s behind if she is our first hispanic justice or not.)

(And yes, Frankfurter is the name of a supreme court justice. And ironically, he WAS kind of a wiener. :-) )

> Why would we want to pull a Katie Couric type spliced interview job on her and use it for slander about her really extaordinarily good intellect.

First, um, who is proposing that?

Second, there are many, many other extraordinary intellects, of all colors, creeds and genders, who haven’t yet said anything racist and sexist. Maybe we could nominate one of THEM.

elHombre said...

Oops. Souter, not Seuter.

Seven Machos said...

Wait just a minute. A cotton-pickin' minute. I have argued in these very threads for ages that Bush's Miers pick was a planned stroke of genius, that nobody was that stupid, that it was a planned ruse all along to get people to vent about qualification and then withdraw and nominate Alito, who would have been pilloried mercilessly otherwise. But the left was hoisted on their own qualifications petard.

I was ridiculed for this argument.

When did it become conventional wisdom?

Hoosier Daddy said...

It just means that those who start out with more are going to be more successful. Like the Yankees are more successful than other teams because they are so much richer. They don't always win but they win more often and many consider that an inherent unfairness in MLB..

Define start out with more.

I think we have a difference of opinion of what a level playing field is. To me it's allowing everyone to be judged on an equal basis of talent and skill. I think to you it appears to be more white guys with wealth and power than minorities and women. Well leveling that playing field means letting the white man take a back seat to success until wealth and power are equally apportioned. I think they tried that in Russia in 1917 and it didn't turn out.

People with wealth will always have it a bit easier at least at first. That's life and is why Steven Spielberg and spend $30,000 for a plated dinner to sit at the same table as Obama and you and I have to stand in the nosebleed section with the great unwashed to catch a glimpse.

You can only level the playing field so much. Golf allows handicaps, life doesn't.

traditionalguy said...

Aaron...I surrender to your logic. I will only add that logic, which really does great science if the categories are kept straight, is not the logic used by the Supreme Court Justices. Decisions have never been a result of brilliant scientific deduction, but rather a result of inferences drawn from known rules and the prior decisions which are diligently applied where possible to a society that is changing itself every 6 months instead of every 20 years like it did during my childhood. That is why the character of a Justice to be with us for 25 years is also so important.

hdhouse said...

AJ Lynch said...
"Co-op advertising? Are you suggesting Chrysler will do less advertising but sell approximately the same volume of cars via fewer dealer outlets?"

I have some friends in the advertising community who handle placements for Chrysler...actually that is their goal..and a spend to market strategy. But they will spend significantly less as some of that decision making rests in hands outside of management.

Brochures? I'd suspect the dealers pay the car manufacturers for those."...it is a shared expense. detroit prints and distributes in bulk and the dealers localize them..i'm actually not sure how chrysler handles it but that is the way most of GM's stuff works.

It is a huge print expense.

MadisonMan said...

Seven, if it makes you feel better, I still think that the Bush Administration WAS that stupid when they nominated Miers. Maybe not stupid, just very very very out of touch. So I don't buy for one second the Miers was a stroke of genius to get Alito in argument.

Re: Trent Lott. I think Bush and Rove were looking for an excuse to cast Lott overboard. Oh hell, I'll say it: Throw him under the bus. Why? So the Senate Leader would be more beholden to the White House. So when the "scandal" happened, the WH's tepid "support" emboldened those who didn't like Lott. Result: Mutiny and Frist's elevation.

Palladian said...

"Seven, if it makes you feel better, I still think that the Bush Administration WAS that stupid when they nominated Miers. Maybe not stupid, just very very very out of touch. So I don't buy for one second the Miers was a stroke of genius to get Alito in argument."

The Bush Administration did a lot of stupid things. It's just difficult to believe that they were that stupid.

hdhouse said...

Palladian...actually I think factually it was an opportunity to remove Lott and they took it. You will remember that the WH gave him no support whatsoever and the democrats just sat there and watched the play play itself out. MadisonMan I think is accurate on this. Frist may have been the devil in the tall grass.