Althouse: On the radio just now, Rush Limbaugh toyed with the idea of supporting Sonia Sotomayor.

June 3, 2009

On the radio just now, Rush Limbaugh toyed with the idea of supporting Sonia Sotomayor.

The theory is that, raised as a Catholic, she might be secretly pro-life. Is it a risk Obama would have taken? Perhaps it is. I assume the Democratic Party would do very well if the Supreme Court happened to overrule Roe v. Wade.

(Cross-posted on Instapundit.)

ADDED: Diane Feinstein: "I think she is a woman who is well-steeped in the law and well-steeped in precedent. And I believe that she has a real respect for precedent, and that she was not just saying that. And if that is really true, then I would agree with her. And I believe it is." The Senator attests too much, I think.

55 comments:

Fred4Pres said...: Ann: Are you suggesting Obama is secretely hoping for a liberal "Souter" with his pick of Sotomayor? I seriously doubt that. Not from this President and his past on this issue.

In addition, being raised Catholic hardly means you are automatically opposed to abortion. Catholics break around the same percentages on that issue as Protestants do. As probabilities go, on that demographic alone, that is about the same as a coin flip. And here is someone claiming you are raising more anti Sotomayor ammo without intending to do so.; 6/3/09, 12:10 PM
Elliott A said...: There is always the hope that she is another Souter.

As a non lawyer, I wonder if judges in general and the Supremes in particular could have the ability to evaluate a case or challenge to a previous decision without any empathy for the subject matter. I have heard many people say they are Pro-Choice, but think from a legal standpoint, Roe v. Wade was a bad decision.; 6/3/09, 12:13 PM
Fred4Pres said...: Oh wait, Ann just posted this link at Instapundit:

After a private meeting with President Barack Obama's high court pick, Feinstein said Sotomayor has a "real respect for precedent" on abortion.

That's code for saying Sotomayor will affirm the Roe v. Wade decision the Supreme Court handed down in 1973 that allowed virtually unlimited abortions.; 6/3/09, 12:19 PM
ricpic said...: When I think of the tremendous self-restraint Sonia has to exercise NOT to give in to the legitimate rage and resentment the mere sight of a white heterosexual male arouses in her...and then when I think of the enormous effort she will have to make as a Supreme Court Justice to rise above that legitimate rage and resentment and make the Mount Everest attempt to judge that bastard impartially. Well...I salute the wise Latina bitch in advance.; 6/3/09, 12:23 PM
Fred4Pres said...: Would the Democrats (and Obama) do well if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade? Hmmm. An interesting stategy to wedge the Christianists from the GOP. I am sure Rahm, Alexrod, Carville and the rest of the Democratic insiders are working on this secret plan day and night.

No. Not really. Although I can imagine Hillary just praying something like this happens to Obama.

I would eat popcorn and love it, but that blockbuster is not coming anytime soon.; 6/3/09, 12:24 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Latin America’s Catholicism is more hard core than American Catholicism.

But as we all know by now, Sotomayor is latina in name only.

Sotomayor is as catholic as Obama is a latino.; 6/3/09, 12:26 PM
former law student said...: But, raised as a woman, Sotomayor would likely be pro-woman.

[Precedent is] code for saying Sotomayor will affirm the Roe v. Wade decision the Supreme Court handed down in 1973.

The current precedent is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which says abortion can be prohibited at viability, which as medical technology advances comes earlier and earlier in pregnancy. There is an exception for post-viability pregnancies which endanger the life or health of the woman. And abortion is no longer a fundamental right, but something that cannot be "unduly burdened."; 6/3/09, 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Perhaps she'll treat the Constitution as settled law and the Roe decision as a living document, instead of the other way around.; 6/3/09, 12:38 PM
Daniel12 said...: Rush would support a reverse racist affirmative action case who hates straight, white, salt of the earth people if it would get Roe v. Wade overturned? Wow, cynical.; 6/3/09, 12:40 PM
Bissage said...: Just so we’re clear on this: it’s out-of-bounds to ask Judge Sotomayor whether she’s ever had an abortion. Right?; 6/3/09, 12:40 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Bissage, would it really matter? I'm sure there are plenty of women who have had an abortion and are against abortion.; 6/3/09, 12:50 PM
Peter Hoh said...: It would be in the best interests of the Democratic Party to see Roe overturned. That they have expended so much political energy to preserve it only proves their political stupidity.; 6/3/09, 12:54 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: The height of the building were Sotomayor was born coupled with the loud music conspired to prevent her from hearing the church bells ;); 6/3/09, 12:56 PM
Vandermemmelsma said...: I wasn't listening to Rush, so I can't be sure, but it sounds like something he might say just to mess with liberals. Remember Operation Chaos?; 6/3/09, 1:07 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: I assume the Democratic Party would do very well if the Supreme Court happened to overrule Roe v. Wade.

Yes, very much so. Then the other shoe would drop and people would see women and doctors being carted off to jail for disobeying a (primarily) religious law.

Republican leaders probably don't want that outcome, either, because they would then lose a litmus test issue that mobilizes so much of their base. For them politically, it's better to rail against abortion than to win it.

Really, the Republican Party has played the abortion movement for dupes.; 6/3/09, 1:12 PM
Bissage said...: Bissage, would it really matter?

Of course not, peter. I was making fun of the absurdity of the third-rate political theater.

You know, reductio ad absurdum . . . eh . . . humorum est.

Yeah, that’s the ticket!; 6/3/09, 1:19 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: By the way, this fact probably hasn't raised it's head in conservoblogosphere space, but Sonia Sotomayor defended white racist speech in one case, Pappas v. Giuliani, on free speech grounds.

Or has the right wing been all fair and balanced and discussing the nuances of this?

Ri-i-i-i-ight.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/03/sotomayors-defense-of-whi_n_210795.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/01/sotomayor/index.html; 6/3/09, 1:21 PM
KCFleming said...: According to Althouse's Insty post, Sotomayor is not only anti-2nd Amendment, she's not very fond of the First either.

So who gives a damn if she wants us to be able to stick knives into 8.9 month old fetal material?

What a joke the Democrats are.
A horror to behold, but a joke on us.; 6/3/09, 1:22 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Pogo, could you explain why some doctors are unwilling to perform d&c procedures (sticking knives in the brain, as you call it) when there's been a late-term miscarriage?; 6/3/09, 1:28 PM
Peter Hoh said...: sorry, not d&c but d&e. It happened to a friend of mine. At 8 months into the pregnancy, she stopped feeling movement one day. Went in asap, her doctor confirmed that the fetus had died, but refused to surgically remove the dead fetus. His excuse had something to do with not wanting anyone to think he had performed a late-term abortion.; 6/3/09, 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Sotomayor is as Catholic as Ted Kennedy.; 6/3/09, 1:41 PM
A.W. said...: Hoping a person is not what they present themselves to be... um, isn't that the mistake many conservatives and libertarians made in voting for obama in the first place?

As for the claim that she honors precedent, its funny how precedent only seems honored if they like it. mind you, though, that is a bi-partisan vice.

I just wish i could vote for a party that would be consistent on these things. oh, and agree with me all of the time. on everything.

But i am not holding my breath waiting for one.; 6/3/09, 1:41 PM
garage mahal said...: I'm sure the health and welfare of an unborn fetus somewhere in Harlem is of the utmost concern to Rush Limbaugh. As long it remains unborn.; 6/3/09, 1:43 PM
A.W. said...: Btw, as for the assumption that being catholic will influence her vote, you only say that if you don't know many catholics. I mean, sheesh, my father in law (who is catholic) asked my sister in law (who is and was single) to get pregnant about 4 months before my wedding so he would be able to carry a grandchild down the aisle. Now to be fair he is in his sixties and i can understand why it would make him a little crazy to have a grandchild, but i really don't know which is more appalling: his poor morals or his poor math.

i have yet to meet a single catholic who obeys all the "rules," with the possible exceptions of the priests.; 6/3/09, 1:46 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Pogo shovels this up:
According to Althouse's Insty post, Sotomayor is not only anti-2nd Amendment, she's not very fond of the First either.

Really? In the Pappas case where she defended the speech of a white racist, Sotomayor wrote this:

This is a perversion of our "reasonable belief" standard, and does not give due respect to the First Amendment interests at stake.

and...

SCOTUS Blog analyzed her race-based cases and found:

Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous.

Hey, by all means, keep making shit up and slinging your mud. You're getting more on yourselves than her and damaging your own credibility.

I don't see the Instapundit post where Ann Althouse claims Sotomayor is "not very fond of the First either." Please provide a link.

(Maybe you meant Instaputz?); 6/3/09, 1:52 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I'm sure the health and welfare of an unborn fetus somewhere in Harlem is of the utmost concern to Rush Limbaugh. As long it remains unborn.

Actually, most blacks are pro life.; 6/3/09, 1:57 PM
Beth said...: What does that even mean, "toyed with supporting"? Rush is an entertainer. Who cares what he thinks about the Supreme Court? I don't ask Ronald McDonald what he thinks, either.

He's a dancing bear. Enjoy the circus, Althouse.; 6/3/09, 1:57 PM
Titusisgoingawaythisweekey said...: There are many different types of catholics. Very few follow every catholic doctrine.

There is death penalty and abortion and gay marriage and condoms and all kinds of shit.

Well maybe the Pope and Bill Donahue.; 6/3/09, 2:04 PM
Titusisgoingawaythisweekey said...: Love Rush. So fat and so not attractive.; 6/3/09, 2:05 PM
KCFleming said...: "His excuse had something to do with not wanting anyone to think he had performed a late-term abortion."

Makes no sense to me!
There's risks to not doing so. Weird. Needs a new doctor, methinks.

"Actually, most blacks are pro life."
In 2002, "black women had 409,000 abortions, accounting for 32 percent of all abortions. African-Americans make up 12 percent of the population".

Is pro-life among blacks "more honour'd in the breach than the observance."?; 6/3/09, 2:06 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm certainly not convinced that her Catholicism would impact her thoughts on Roe (as other have noted, it generally doesn't have much of an effect in the American Catholic population).

BUT, I would note that Obama has, on the whole, been pretty bad at picking folks for important positions. Think about it: Joe Biden, Tim Geitner, etc. I find it completely possible that he fully intended to pick a strong liberal Roe supporter, but completely screwed things up.; 6/3/09, 2:07 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Pogo, can you provide that link where Ann Althouse says S Sotomayor is "not very fond of the First" amendment?; 6/3/09, 2:11 PM
KCFleming said...: Alpha, read Althouse's Insty link first.

Before you post.; 6/3/09, 2:12 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/79500/

No mention of the first amendment there, Pogo. It's about Roe v Wade.

I guess the answer is "no, you cannot back up your claim."; 6/3/09, 2:15 PM
knox said...: I'm sure the health and welfare of an unborn fetus somewhere in Harlem is of the utmost concern to Rush Limbaugh. As long it remains unborn.

Chomping at the bit to play the race card. It's a discussion on abortion, yet we've got to work it in somewhere!

Just what exactly are you doing for babies in Harlem on a day-to-day basis? Enlighten us, o self-righteous one.; 6/3/09, 2:24 PM
knox said...: Cause, if you're not out there helping "Harlem Babies," you, sir, are a racist pig. Or at the very least, a hypocrite.; 6/3/09, 2:27 PM
Jon said...: i think there's a reasonable chance that Sotomayor may be somewhat to the right of Souter on abortion, maybe about the same as Kennedy. Which probably wouldn't be true of whoever replaced her were her nomination to be defeated.

However, I'd be stunned if she turned out to be an anti-Roe vote.; 6/3/09, 2:34 PM
KCFleming said...: Actually the answer is Why Kant Alpha Read?; 6/3/09, 2:44 PM
KCFleming said...: The Instpundit link by Althouse:

“IF YOU REALLY WANT TO HEAR ABOUT the suit, the first thing you’ll probably want to know is what ‘fair use’ is, and what Section 107 of the Copyright Act says and all that Mel Nimmer kind of crap but I don’t feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth. I don’t really write this blog for people who don’t know that kind of stuff already.” But you really do want to click on that link if you want to know why Sonia Sotomayor had something to do with why J.D. Salinger filed his lawsuit in the Southern District of New York."

ANSWER:
She is against the first amendment.; 6/3/09, 3:10 PM
traditionalguy said...: El Rushbo is coming close to admitting his mistake on Sotomayor. That reassures me that Rush will still think clearly when the facts come in different, even after he had made up his mind. All the Conservatives need to join him.; 6/3/09, 3:15 PM
bagoh20 said...: In this short set of comments so far Rush has been called a racist, fat and not so attractive, and a dancing bear.
-
Well argued, but the insults could use a little work.; 6/3/09, 3:59 PM
chickelit said...: @Pogo: Sotomayor's ex-husband is Kevin E. Noonan, a patent attorney. Noonan is quite pro-patent and is a critic of the Patent and Trademark Office as currently deployed.

Maybe she just learned something about patents and copyright law.; 6/3/09, 4:04 PM
KCFleming said...: "...a patent attorney"

Didn't someone on these very pages recently cite patent attorneys as the absolute worst attorney-plus-other combo evah?

What she learned means that no one can ever ever refer to Holden Caulfield or Harry Potter without getting your ass sued.; 6/3/09, 4:20 PM
hdhouse said...: bagoh20 said...
In this short set of comments so far Rush has been called a racist, fat and not so attractive, and a dancing bear. Well argued, but the insults could use a little work"

How about druggie asshole liar?; 6/3/09, 4:33 PM
KCFleming said...: Nah.
The Pres has that one sewn up.; 6/3/09, 4:38 PM
The Dude said...: hdhouse wrote "How about druggie asshole liar?"

How about one - thanks for adding to the conversation with a good description of yourself.; 6/3/09, 5:12 PM
garage mahal said...: Knox
Limbaugh said Sotomayor was a racist, yet he would consider supporting her. That pretty much says it all.; 6/3/09, 5:50 PM
Chase said...: Alpha Liberal,

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually agree with you on some of your posts. i do think some of the conservative comments have been way over the top. I would prefer someone like another Roberts, but I'm not afraid of Sotomayor and think she might settle in as someone pretty middle of the road.; 6/3/09, 5:56 PM
Anonymous said...: "But, raised as a woman, Sotomayor would likely be pro-woman."

Girls are aborted more than boys. So, you might want to re-consider what "pro-woman" is.

"By the way, this fact probably hasn't raised it's head in conservoblogosphere space, but Sonia Sotomayor defended white racist speech in one case, Pappas v. Giuliani, on free speech grounds.

Or has the right wing been all fair and balanced and discussing the nuances of this?"

Man, where were people like you when Judge Pickering was being labeled a racist and bigoted by Democrats (it was only 5 years ago)? I mean, he only fought the KKK when it was really dangerous to do so and all.

"; 6/3/09, 7:35 PM
Anonymous said...: "But, raised as a woman, Sotomayor would likely be pro-woman."

Girls are aborted more than boys. So, you might want to re-consider what "pro-woman" is.

"By the way, this fact probably hasn't raised it's head in conservoblogosphere space, but Sonia Sotomayor defended white racist speech in one case, Pappas v. Giuliani, on free speech grounds.

Or has the right wing been all fair and balanced and discussing the nuances of this?"

Man, where were people like you when Judge Pickering was being labeled a racist and bigoted by Democrats (it was only 5 years ago)? I mean, he only fought the KKK when it was really dangerous to do so and all.

"; 6/3/09, 7:35 PM
Jeremy said...: On the radio just now, Rush Limbaugh toyed with the idea of blowing himself.

Oooops.

Too fat.; 6/3/09, 10:25 PM
Jeremy said...: Fred4Pres - Anybody who thinks Ann Althouse is an Independent or Liberal is out of their mind. And I don't believe for a second that she voted for Obama.

She posts silly right wing bullshit headlines every day of the week, all in the hopes of stirring the pot with her regular wingnut sycophant crowd.

She just loves the attention...and that's the name of that game.; 6/3/09, 10:29 PM
traditionalguy said...: Jeremy...But she does it with such perfect tone and style. That's why you enjoy disrupting commenters expressing their points of view here, and not somewhere else.; 6/3/09, 10:39 PM
Corky Boyd said...: Rush is just playing games.

Obama wouldn't have nominated her if he weren't certain of her stand on abortion. He would be impeached by the Democrats if she even hinted at overturning Roe, and he knows it.

Rush is just trying to instill some doubt into a few Democrats.; 6/4/09, 12:02 AM
former law student said...: Girls are aborted more than boys. So, you might want to re-consider what "pro-woman" is.

I find this hard to believe. 90% of abortions take place in the first 12 weeks. Amniocentesis, which can ID the sex of the fetus, as well as uncover genetic problems, is performed between the 15th and 18th week. More males are conceived than females, so during the first 15 weeks, more males are aborted than girls. Males are also more apt to have genetic defects serious enough to suggest abortion, so after the first 15 weeks, more boys will be aborted than girls. There may be some gender-selecting abortion that favors boys, but the sheer number of excess males aborted for other reasons should swamp it out.; 6/4/09, 12:45 AM