GOP risks losing Latino vote for decades

[Ordie]

GOP risks losing Latino vote for decades

Ruben Navarrette Jr., San Diego Union-Tribune (postchat@aol.com)
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
America's largest minority would neutralize its power if it were taken for granted by one party and written off by another.
So I cringe when I think of the damage that Republicans do to their brand by treating U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor with the one thing that many Latinos will not tolerate - disrespect. They know that President Obama's first nominee to the Supreme Court has the goods. Summa *** laude from Princeton. Editor of the Yale Law Journal. Seventeen years on the federal bench. She didn't just play the game; she dominated it.
After more than 20 years of writing about diversity issues, I knew Sotomayor would be in for a rough ride. Some of her critics on talk radio and in the news media have for years clung to the idea that white men are being discriminated against by affirmative action. However, the attacks against Sotomayor were much swifter and uglier than I imagined.
In fact, I don't even think the White House could have hoped things would turn out this well for the administration and the Democratic Party. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel must have known that he was putting Republicans in a box and making it hard for them to derail the first Latina Supreme Court justice. But how could he have known that so many in the GOP would willingly step into the box, lock it from the inside, then blow it up with irresponsible, hateful and disrespectful language?
All because Sotomayor said in a speech almost a decade ago: "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."
Some white males were insecure enough to take that comment literally. Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh compared Sotomayor to white supremacist David Duke. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called her a racist. And former Rep. Tom Tancredo - who ironically built a career pandering to nativists, opposing bilingual education and the popularization of the Spanish language, and trying to halt immigration, legal and otherwise - called the National Council of La Raza (which claims Sotomayor as a member) the "Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses."
The most childish comment came from South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who, as a former military judge, seems to think this controversy is about him. "It is troubling, and it's inappropriate," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday" about the line in Sotomayor's 2001 speech. "And I hope she'll apologize."
Oh, brother. Should Sotomayor seek out and apologize to every white man in the United States? Won't that delay the confirmation hearings by, well, several decades?
This is how bad things are: Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama is distancing himself from the divisive fearmongers in his own party. Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sessions said the word racist is not "an appropriate description" of Sotomayor and that her critics should not "demagogue" race - something that we need to treat "with the respect that it deserves and the care that it deserves."
Mind you, this is the same Jeff Sessions who, in 1986, saw his own nomination to the federal bench derailed because of allegations of racial insensitivity. At the time, Sessions testified that he was joking and that his remarks were taken out of context when, during a murder investigation involving Ku Klux Klansmen, he said he had respect for the Klan until he found out some members of the white supremacist group smoked marijuana. And as bad as that was, Sessions now thinks the attacks on Sotomayor go beyond the pale?
Unlike many Latinos, I've never seen either of the parties as having a monopoly on enlightenment when it comes to race issues. Democrats can be as racially insensitive as Republicans. But if conservatives wipe their feet on this historic moment and savage an American success story for the sake of political theater, they'll seal their doom with Latinos, who will stay away from the GOP for decades.
I won't be able to help them. And nor would I want to.

Source:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/03/EDR617VE4O.DTL&type=printable

[Eknytz]

I highly doubt that the blocking of this Sotomayor character by the GOP will make them lose the latino vote.

[RxOnco]

When did the Republicans "have" the Latino vote?

This is yet another scare tactic drummed up by the Left, distibuted by the MSM, and bought by the Republicans. George W. Bush had more minorities in upper level positions than any other before him. Did it help the Republicans with the minority vote? No.

The Democrats tried to crucify and destroy Clarence Thomas (a black man). Did it hurt the Democrats with the black vote? No.

[seraosha]

What a load of manure.
Between the two parties, the record seems clear which has elected more minorities, and Hispanics in particular, to positions that they earned through hard work and diligence, and not as a vote buying ploy.

Not knocking Sotomayor, but making this about race is just as asinine as folks only voting for President Obama because of his skin color.

We as a nation need to lift the bar higher.

[Ordie]

When did the Republicans "have" the Latino vote? .
Bush got 46% of the Hispanic vote in 2000

[Lazuris]

The Democrats tried to destroy Justice Tomas and they didn't loose the black vote.

[California Joe]

I highly doubt that the blocking of this Sotomayor character by the GOP will make them lose the latino vote.

What? Is she in a Harry Potter film or some sh*t? She's an "actual judge" asshead. Appointed by a Republican President in the first place.

[Invisigoth]

I highly doubt that the blocking of this Sotomayor character by the GOP will make them lose the latino vote.

It's not about blocking a judge for reasons of judicial differences, it's the stupidity with which the GOP bloodhounds have descended upon her.

Whether it is the has-beens like Newt and Buchanan or the GOP superstars like O'Reilly and his merry band of nationally syndicated bigots, they didn't go after her for her judicial record but for her ethnicity and I guarantee you its gonna come back and bite them in the ass.

The woman graduated top of her class from Princeton and voted to protect some white racists freedom of speech; how dumb can these people be?

Frontline seats to the self-destruction of the GOP - priceless.

[Laworkerbee]

I'm getting tired of Latinos being referred to as some type of generic group that votes, eats, sleeps and ****s the same way.

It's bull****.

[Ought Six]

I:
"Whether it is the has-beens like Newt and Buchanan or the GOP superstars like O'Reilly and his merry band of nationally syndicated bigots, they didn't go after her for her judicial record but for her ethnicity and I guarantee you its gonna come back and bite them in the ass."I am no fan of that blowhard O'Reilly, but I would really like to see a direct quote where he attacked Sotomayor solely for being Hispanic. I seriously doubt that any such quote exists.

[LineDoggie]

Of course

How dare we raise questions about her

How dare we examine her words

Thats only allowed of Republican Nominees

Being Borked is the term y'all seem to be avoiding

[California Joe]

Of course

How dare we raise questions about her

How dare we examine her words

Thats only allowed of Republican Nominees

Being Borked is the term y'all seem to be avoiding

By all means, raise questions. Examine her words, but do it in context. She originally was a Republican nominee.

Sorry if the guy that originally nominated her doesn't fit the current mold of a perfect "Republican". He was only a decorated torpedo bomber pilot and director of the CIA, and President...it's not like he has the same creds as Caribou Barbie or some fat ****head radio hack or 5 defferrments Cheney.

Frankly, it's the Dems that should be worrying about being "Soutered".

[Invisigoth]

I:I am no fan of that blowhard O'Reilly, but I would really like to see a direct quote where he attacked Sotomayor solely for being Hispanic. I seriously doubt that any such quote exists.

Well let's kick it off with the gem of the GOP: Mr Rush Limbaugh ladies and gentlemen!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XAdyfUxyaM&

Closely followed by the more tempered but equally bigoted Bill O'Reilly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_vkbSeNvxc&

But don't count Ol' Bill out, he can still make a turn-around by inviting guests that are equally big a*******:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr5ZouUuzQQ (http://nearlynobodysnews.blogspot.com/2009/05/o-on-blog-coverage-of-sonia-sotomayor.html)

[Holmes85]

Curious question, do they actually listen to what they're saying, because if they do it's frightening.

[Ordie]

Curious question, do they actually listen to what they're saying, because if they do it's frightening.

Its all about ratings and advertising revenues.

Anything to get the attention of print and soft media is free advertising.

They really don't care about the country, it they did, they've would've had the guts to run for office in the first place.

[Invisigoth]

Its all about ratings and advertising revenues.

Anything to get the attention of print and soft media is free advertising.

They really don't care about the country, it they did, they've would've had the guts to run for office in the first place.

Rush Limbaugh agrees

http://www.pensitoreview.com/images/photo-rush-limbaugh-cigar.jpg

[yetibit]

Bush got 46% of the Hispanic vote in 2000

That number dropped to 31% for McCain in the 2008 election

[Holmes85]

Rush Limbaugh agrees

http://www.pensitoreview.com/images/photo-rush-limbaugh-cigar.jpg

How much you willing to bet that's a Cuban Cigar he's smoking.

[eskachig]

All because Sotomayor said in a speech almost a decade ago: "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."
Some white males were insecure enough to take that comment literally.By the standards of this board I'm fairly left wing I guess, and generally I have supported the Obama administration, but I'm not really sure how else to take that comment. I don't really understand the context, but she pretty much does imply that white men are dumb. I don't see how asking her to clarify that statement is a bad idea.

[SkyUS]

By the standards of this board I'm fairly left wing I guess, and generally I have supported the Obama administration, but I'm not really sure how else to take that comment. I don't really understand the context, but she pretty much does imply that white men are dumb. I don't see how asking her to clarify that statement is a bad idea.


I don't think she is implying that white men are dumb. What she is saying is that given her background in growing up in the ghetto, being a minority and being raised by one parent. She knows how the other half lives so to speak.

Would a white guy, who didn't grow up poor or in a ghetto, experience what it's like being a minority and a woman. Be better suited to understand all of the circumstances of a case involving a minority?

It doesn't mean that she would excuse the said minority from crime or whatever, but she would have better experience in knowing not a black and white version of the events. but she would be able to see some of the gray areas as well.

Look ultimately law suppose to be applied equally to everyone. How can it be applied equally if only one side of the story is known while the other side of the story is either not understood, and not seen personally.

That's just my two cents, anyway.

[LineDoggie]

Well then, Start planning for about 2 dozen more jurists on the court

We must have a Blind Jurist, a Handicapped one, an American Indian One, One thats been addicted to crack, one that came here illegally, one that came here legally, one that is obese, one that is anorexic, one that is living in a trailer, one that ..........

After all how can any of those on the court now know how these groups feel and their circumstances?

[duhblow7]

I:I am no fan of that blowhard O'Reilly, but I would really like to see a direct quote where he attacked Sotomayor solely for being Hispanic. I seriously doubt that any such quote exists.

He didn't have to say it directly. Perception is reality.

[Marshall_Nord]

I'm getting tired of Latinos being referred to as some type of generic group that votes, eats, sleeps and ****s the same way.

It's bull****.

X2

Wow, it's a good thing I don't consider myself a drone of any racial/ethnic group that every time "my people" gets "attacked" I will not vote for that politician's party. This kind of mindset is moving backward, not forwards.

This B.S. feeds the hands of our politicans who need to pit one group against another to stay in power. Until we refuse to react like Pavolv dogs to this crap we are doomed to survive as a muticultural civilization.

[Ordie]

X2

Wow, it's a good thing I don't consider myself a drone of any racial/ethnic group that every time "my people" gets "attacked" I will not vote for that politician's party. This kind of mindset is moving backward, not forwards.

Different realities, common language.
Its a marketing and political consultant nightmare.

Put a Domincan immigrant from New York with a New Mexican with roots from the 1600 in the same focus group and you have two completely different paradigms.

[XShipRider]

It's not about blocking a judge for reasons of judicial differences, it's the stupidity with which the GOP bloodhounds have descended upon her.

Whether it is the has-beens like Newt and Buchanan or the GOP superstars like O'Reilly and his merry band of nationally syndicated bigots, they didn't go after her for her judicial record but for her ethnicity and I guarantee you its gonna come back and bite them in the ass.

The woman graduated top of her class from Princeton and voted to protect some white racists freedom of speech; how dumb can these people be?

Frontline seats to the self-destruction of the GOP - priceless.

Thank God Newt, Buchanan and O'Reilly aren't running (you forgot Rush). And everyone knows there are no bigots in the Democrat party -- unless they're talking about or addressing Republicans, self-proclaimed hetero******s, people of faith, people claiming "white" on their census forms, blacks claiming to be Republicans, the middle class, servicemembers, loggers, fishermen, the self-employed, the successful, the list goes on...

Frankly, she's been treated with kid gloves and far better than Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork (who has since become a verb).

Destruction of the GOP is fine. We should worry more about the destruction of our entire economic system, the one that has buoyed us for 200+ years.

Judge Sotomayer will be confirmed, of that there is little doubt. There is no possibility of "judicial differences" because no matter the reasoning or questioning it will be twisted into something dark, sinister and "bigoted" by the press.

[Marshall_Nord]

Different realities, common language.
It's a political consultant nightmare.

At least there is some good to this!

[shocker1]

What is a white man? Why must it be about color? Everyone grandstanding on race it's all very disheartening. This nominee is well qualified and seems to struggle against her own biased tendencies. I can relate as we all can from our own experiences. I do disagree with her notion that "others" are unable to understand because of up bringing. Understanding others has levels and we can reach some level most of the time in our toughest issues.

In the whole speech of her's I read she mentioned very little of the law, Constitution ect.... Her story and excellent performance are tributes the her achievements. I look forward to the hearings.

The Dems could risk losing many olive to white range skin color votes for decades. Next election is fast approaching, economic policy, gas prices and taxes. Conservatives should avoid bringing themselves down to the Democrat's level using race, ethnicity as a political tool.

[Laworkerbee]

X2

Wow, it's a good thing I don't consider myself a drone of any racial/ethnic group that every time "my people" gets "attacked" I will not vote for that politician's party. This kind of mindset is moving backward, not forwards.

This B.S. feeds the hands of our politicans who need to pit one group against another to stay in power. Until we refuse to react like Pavolv dogs to this crap we are doomed to survive as a muticultural civilization.

Yep

I shutter and want to vomit every time I hear a Latino "activist" speak; I can't help but think "this douchebag claims to represent me".

[Ordie]

Yep

I shutter and want to vomit every time I hear a Latino "activist" speak; I can't help but think "this douchebag claims to represent me".

I feel the same way when they mention "Puerto Rican Immigrant" when they are in fact US Citizens to begin with. Its like saying "Alaskan Immigrant"

[Walter Sobchak]

Isn't it funny that when Democrats oppose a person of color or ethnicity, it's always on the basis of something intellectual or in defense of some lofty ideal, the concern for which has been skillfully discerned or nuanced from something they wrote or spoke long ago? They are defending the poor and innocents of the great Republic from the depredations of this obvious wolf-in-sheep's clothing, who is being dealt onto the High Court by some dirty, crooked Republican dealing from the bottom of the Constitutional deck. Yes, it's for the Chillllllldren... always.

However, when the shoe is on the other foot, any scrutiny is racist, mean-spirited, evil and is destined to set back race relations a thousand years or more.

Phony moralists... I could respect them saying, "You are Conservative. We hate you and oppose you. Other than that, nice tie!"

[LineDoggie]

I feel the same way when they mention "Puerto Rican Immigrant" when they are in fact US Citizens to begin with. Its like saying "Alaskan Immigrant"
I've got to admit, being Born & raised in NYC, I've never heard a Puerto Rican call themselves an Immigrant. I've heard them call themselves many things, not all nice, but not that.

[Hot Lips]

By the standards of this board I'm fairly left wing I guess, and generally I have supported the Obama administration, but I'm not really sure how else to take that comment. I don't really understand the context, but she pretty much does imply that white men are dumb. I don't see how asking her to clarify that statement is a bad idea.

She does not imply that they are dumb, not at all.

She questioned the notion "that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases".

The context was in a lengthy speech she gave in 1991 (the year she was nominated by George H. W. Bush) in which she was speaking about the value of diversity when it comes to race and *** discrimination cases being put before a panel of judges that has traditionally lacked the perspective of represents of those portions of our population that tend to suffer such discrimination - women and minorities. Thus the statement "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".


So How Did Sotomayor Rule in Race-Related Cases?
May 29, 2009 7:12 PM (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/so-how-did-sotomayor-rule-in-race-related-cases.html)
ABC News (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/so-how-did-sotomayor-rule-in-race-related-cases.html)


Tom Goldstein at his Scotusblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race/) says he’s “in the midst of reviewing every single race-related case on which she [Sonia Sotomayor] sat on the Second Circuit. There are roughly 100. They cover the gamut from employment discrimination to racial bias in jury selection. I decided that I would stop and write an interim report once I got through her 50 most recent race-related cases other than Ricci because the numbers are sufficiently striking and decisive.”

Goldstein says that the three-judge panel on which Sotomayor sat accepted the claim of race discrimination in three out of 50 cases -- and in all three cases, the panel, which included a Republican appointee, was unanimous. In roughly 45, Goldstein writes, the claim of race discrimination was rejected with Sotomayor voting to reject.

“On the other hand, she twice was on panels reversing district court decisions agreeing with race-related claims -- i.e., reversing a finding of impermissible race-based decisions. Both were criminal cases involving jury selection. … It seems to me that these numbers decisively disprove the claim that she decides cases with any sort of racial bias.”

-jpt

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well let's kick it off with the gem of the GOP: Mr Rush Limbaugh ladies and gentlemen!


Thanks for posting that- it pretty much sums up my position regarding Ms Sotomayor's consideration. Her associations (various minority-pandering groups) , her temperament (belief that her race and gender should color her decisions), her rulings (New Haven firefighter case), and her belief in the court's role (i.e the courts are where law is made) - make her uniquely unqualified for the post in my eyes. To me, the very idea that a US president would nominate someone with her record for a lifetime appointment at the SC is shocking. People are free to disagree with me - and I believe that increasingly they will, as more and more fully government-indoctrinated voters come on line. We seem to be moving firmly into a new era of reverse-Darwinism (i.e. egalitarianism) that will likely result in the country collapsing under it's own unsupportable weight.

[brainplay]

I don't think she is implying that white men are dumb. What she is saying is that given her background in growing up in the ghetto, being a minority and being raised by one parent. She knows how the other half lives so to speak.

Would a white guy, who didn't grow up poor or in a ghetto, experience what it's like being a minority and a woman. Be better suited to understand all of the circumstances of a case involving a minority?

It doesn't mean that she would excuse the said minority from crime or whatever, but she would have better experience in knowing not a black and white version of the events. but she would be able to see some of the gray areas as well.

Look ultimately law suppose to be applied equally to everyone. How can it be applied equally if only one side of the story is known while the other side of the story is either not understood, and not seen personally.

That's just my two cents, anyway.

Her background doesn't mean jack squat when you're dealing with the Supreme Court. State, federal, and local courts where you need the rule of law and compassion at the same time..sure! But the Supreme Court's sole purpose is to DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW.

Bringing compassion or "understanding" to a Supreme Court case is neither warranted nor should it be acceptable. That is saved for the Circuit of Appeals court.

Like every other candidate that gets in the SC, their each and every action should be scrutinized to the fullest to make sure the American people get the best objective judge they can on the seat. With her previous comments and her links to various Mexican organizations which can be viewed as fairly racist (ever been to a campus La Raza meeting? Holy crap!), the Republicans have a legitimate reason to not like her as a candidate.

Now, what I don't get is why every one these "gets" keep asking the Republicans bend over and sacrifice some more of their values to get votes like they have for the past 8yrs. We go through the same thing each time a new Justice is appointed but the level of "but you'll lose votes" excuse has gone through the roof.

[Ought Six]

I:

I did not bother to watch the Limbaugh clip, because A) I cannot stand to watch the guy, and B) it does not address my question about your claim about Bill O'Reilly. I did watch the O'Reilly clip. Nowhere did he attack Sotomayor for being Hispanic. You made an assertion which you cannot back up, and which certainly appears to be an outright fabrication.

As for O'Reilly's comments about "gender and race based politics", I largely agree with him. There were far more qualified candidates than Sotomayor. Obama obviously chose her because she is a Hispanic woman, and likely because she is a former Repub nominee, making it harder for Repubs to attack her as 'liberal'. From a purely political standpoint, it was a brilliant pick. And that is precisely O'Reilly's point; that the pick was political, designed specifically to pander to Hispanics and to put the Repubs in the uncomfortable and politically costly position of opposing a Hispanic woman. That is pure gender and race politics, and you seem to have fallen for the ploy rather hard.

As for my own personal view, I have some problems with Sotomayor.

First, her statement about "bringing empathy to the bench" is directly contrary to the fundamental requirement that the law be totally objective, especially when making caselaw. That is why the statute of Justice wears a blindfold. Even a first year law student knows this, and the impression that Sotomayor does not grasp the critical importance of this concept is an extremely troubling one.

My second concern is Sotomayor's membership in a racist group, La Raza. They are the polotical front for Atzlan, the group that calls for the ethnic cleansing of southwestern north America of all groups except Mexicans. It is, IMO, outrageous that a member of an ethnic racial supremacy group should be nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I hope her nomination goes down in flames. There are other candidates, including Hispanic and female ones, that do not have her glaring deficiencies.

[SkyUS]

Her background doesn't mean jack squat when you're dealing with the Supreme Court. State, federal, and local courts where you need the rule of law and compassion at the same time..sure! But the Supreme Court's sole purpose is to DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW.

Bringing compassion or "understanding" to a Supreme Court case is neither warranted nor should it be acceptable. That is saved for the Circuit of Appeals court.

Like every other candidate that gets in the SC, their each and every action should be scrutinized to the fullest to make sure the American people get the best objective judge they can on the seat. With her previous comments and her links to various Mexican organizations which can be viewed as fairly racist (ever been to a campus La Raza meeting? Holy crap!), the Republicans have a legitimate reason to not like her as a candidate.

Now, what I don't get is why every one these "gets" keep asking the Republicans bend over and sacrifice some more of their values to get votes like they have for the past 8yrs. We go through the same thing each time a new Justice is appointed but the level of "but you'll lose votes" excuse has gone through the roof.


Yeah I got that. I was responding specifically to the speech she made. See Hot Lip's post.

And I have another issue in general with politics in US. Should we really characterize our views of a person upon something she said a decade ago? I am not specifically just referencing her, but to me an immigrant from Europe, it seems kind of odd. I know that some will say that somebody is a flip flopper or has bad character, because he changed his opinion on something. We aren't we all humans? Surely we change our opinions on something, how come politicians can't do it? Or should we hold them to everything ever opinion they said at one point and another?

[Ordie]

And I have another issue in general with politics in US. Should we really characterize our views of a person upon something she said a decade ago? I am not specifically just referencing her, but to me an immigrant from Europe, it seems kind of odd. I know that some will say that somebody is a flip flopper or has bad character, because he changed his opinion on something. We aren't we all humans? Surely we change our opinions on something, how come politicians can't do it? Or should we hold them to everything ever opinion they said at one point and another?

The US Media is a business that is highly competitive with shrinking sales and marketshare. Much of it has to do with the proliferation of blogs and alternative media as news source.

If there is no news, the mass media will find and create the news to generate readership and viewership to attract people and revenues.

Any news business will hire interns to seek whatever information from a persons past opinions to generate new$.

[Holmes85]

The US Media is a business that is highly competitive with shrinking sales and marketshare. Much of it has to do with the proliferation of blogs and alternative media as news source.

If there is no news, the mass media will find and create the news to generate readership and viewership to attract people and revenues.

Any news business will hire interns to seek whatever information from a persons past opinions to generate new$.

Good Point. It's not like Rush Limbaugh can get a television program on cable (I shudder at the thought). So he has to say extreme things to attract people to his radio program (And I think radio is suffering just as much as newspapers in terms of usage).

Though in the end all this is basically muckraking, which is digging up dirt on an individual's past in order to gain sales.

[Hollis]

Like every other candidate that gets in the SC, their each and every action should be scrutinized to the fullest to make sure the American people get the best objective judge they can on the seat. With her previous comments and her links to various Mexican organizations which can be viewed as fairly racist (ever been to a campus La Raza meeting? Holy crap!), the Republicans have a legitimate reason to not like her as a candidate.
.


DO you know who Marshall Thurgood is? Maybe do some research, being a member of a Mexican American organization does not specifically mean squat. Do you know where Chrystal City, TX is? Do you know it's history.

Have you ever been to a La Raza meeting? Been to one or more of their BBQ's............. Or do you talk to them like you talk about them here?

[seraosha]

And I have another issue in general with politics in US. Should we really characterize our views of a person upon something she said a decade ago? I am not specifically just referencing her, but to me an immigrant from Europe, it seems kind of odd. I know that some will say that somebody is a flip flopper or has bad character, because he changed his opinion on something. We aren't we all humans? Surely we change our opinions on something, how come politicians can't do it? Or should we hold them to everything ever opinion they said at one point and another?

If we can't judge a person by what they say and do over time, then how do we judge them? What is the benchmark if not looking over their career? If they have been consistent in the past, the assumption is that they will be consistent in the future...not always what happens, but I'm at a loss as to another method than taking someone at their word, weighing their past performance, and extrapolating their behavior in the future.

What other method do you propose?

[Jobu]

What? Is she in a Harry Potter film or some sh*t? She's an "actual judge" asshead. Appointed by a Republican President in the first place.

The same Republican who appointed that Souter character.

Your point?

[Soldat_Américain]

What I love is that some of you guys don't remember that Obama's predecessor attempted and failed to get Harriet Miers on the bench. Oh and the fact that this turned into a discussion about Judge Sotomayor and not about the ways the Republican part seems to be shutting out minority groups...granted it is only part of the party but they are very loud.

[Jobu]

What I love is that some of you guys don't remember that Obama's predecessor attempted and failed to get Harriet Miers on the bench.

And a good thing it did fail. It was conservatives who torpedoed her nomination.

Now I can wish that Sotomayor fails too. Sadly, she'll probably easily get on the court and make many poor decisions for a generation since she appears to more about "social justice" than anything else.

[Soldat_Américain]

And a good thing it did fail. It was conservatives who torpedoed her nomination.

Now I can wish that Sotomayor fails too. Sadly, she'll probably easily get on the court and make many poor decisions for a generation since she appears to more about "social justice" than anything else.
Have you taken a glance at her Judicial record?

[brainplay]

the ways the Republican part seems to be shutting out minority groups...

Can you be a little more specific? Last 8yrs saw a crap ton of minorities in appointed into positions of power not seen before. Ironically, their advances were quietly ignored by the Democrats or shut out as "Uncle Toms". Heck didn't GWB even have a midget (little person) on his staff or was that his dad?

So how is it that they are "shutting out minorities" or would it happen to be shutting out certain...loud minorities...who put emphasis on their race as much or more than their job?

[Hollis]

IMHO, the R's are screwing the pouch over this. There are valid concerns, but trying to make it look like it is about race is beyond stupid.

It means no one should be a member of any organization that promotes a interest,

No Church Membership, Veterans Organizations, Local community groups, help to others groups, ................. nothing.

The bench is made of how many judges? Her voice will not be the only voice on the bench or the only vote.

If your worried, I would suggest taking some time and read the majority and minority opinions from the bench.

or maybe it just easier to rant emotional attacks than to actually understand the court, the judges and the opinions.

[Holmes85]

Actually if one were to look at the credentials of the other Supreme Court Justices, you'll find that some have even less experience than Sotomayor.

I'll do some information digging.

I'll let you folks make your own decision.


The following information comes from this site. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussupremecourt/ig/Know-Your-Supreme-Court/Chief-Justice-John-Roberts.htm




Chief Justice John Roberts

The Understudy

From Tom Head (http://civilliberty.about.com/mbiopage.htm), About.com

Vital Statistics


51 years old. Graduate of Harvard University (summa *** laude, 1976) and Harvard Law School (magna *** laude, 1979), where he served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. Lifelong Roman Catholic. Married to attorney Jane Sullivan Roberts, with two young adopted children.

Career Background


1979-1980: Clerked for Justice Henry Friendly of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Friendly, an aging, widely-respected justice who received a Presidential Medal of Freedom from Jimmy Carter in 1977, had served on the circuit court since 1959.

1980-1981: Clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. Rehnquist would become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1986.

1981-1982: Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William F. Smith under the Reagan administration.

1982-1986: Associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan.

1986-1989: Associate counsel at Hogan & Hartson, the largest law firm in Washington, D.C.

1989-1993: Principal Deputy Solicitor General for the U.S. Department of Justice under the first Bush administration.

1992: Nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by George Bush, but his nomination never received a Senate vote and was ultimately lost in the shuffle following Bill Clinton's victory over Bush in the 1992 presidential election.

1993-2003: Head of the appellate practice division at Hogan & Hartson.

2001: Nominated for a second time to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the nomination died in committee before receiving a Senate vote.

2003-2005: Associate Justice for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals after being nominated for a third time in 2003.

Nomination and Approval


In July 2005, President George W. Bush nominated Roberts to replace retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But that September, before Roberts' name could be brought to the Senate for approval, Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away. Bush withdrew Roberts' name for consideration as a replacement for O'Connor and nominated him to replace Rehnquist instead. Roberts was approved by the Senate later that month by a 78-22 margin, receiving enthusiastic support from many prominent civil libertarians such as Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT).http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussupremecourt/ig/Know-Your-Supreme-Court/Justice-Antonin-Scalia.htm

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia

The Curmudgeon

From Tom Head (http://civilliberty.about.com/mbiopage.htm), About.com

Vital Statistics

70 years old. Graduated from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg in Switzerland (1957), then graduated from Harvard Law School (1960), where he served as note editor of the Harvard Law Review. Lifelong Roman Catholic. Married to Maureen McCarthy Scalia, with nine adult children and 26 grandchildren.

Career Background

1960-1961: Received of a Frederick Sheldon Fellowship at Harvard University, which allowed him to study law in Europe.

1961-1967: Associate counsel at Jones, Day, Cockley, and Reavis in Cleveland, Ohio.

1967-1971: Professor of Law at the University of Virginia.

1971-1972: General counsel for the U.S. Office of Telecommunications Policy.

1972-1974: Chairman of the U.S. Administrative Conference.

1974-1977: Assistant (for the Office of Legal Counsel) to U.S. Attorney General Edward H. Levi under the Carter administration.

1977-1982: Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, and Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University and Stanford University.

1982-1986: Associate Justice for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Nomination and Approval

In June 1986, President Ronald Reagan nominated Scalia to replace Associate Justice Rehnquist, who had just been promoted to replace retiring Chief Justice Warren Burger. After strong bipartisan support, he was unanimously (98-0) approved by the Senate.

Landmark Cases

Employment Division v. Smith (1990): Wrote a 6-3 majority opinion establishing that laws banning ceremonial peyote use do not violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause.

Kyllo v. United States (2001): Wrote a 5-4 majority opinion establishing that use of thermal imaging to examine a residence constitutes a search, and is prohibited under the Fourth Amendment unless a warrant is obtained.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004): Joined Justice Stevens in a strong dissent in which they argued that U.S. citizens should never be classified as enemy combatants, and are always entitled to protections granted by the Bill of Rights.

[California Joe]

True, she has what? Over 12 years on the bench. Over 1000 cases...Like it or not that constitutes experience and for f*ckssakes look at her record on race based cases again.

[Hot Lips]

From a purely political standpoint, it was a brilliant pick. And that is precisely O'Reilly's point; that the pick was political, designed specifically to pander to Hispanics and to put the Repubs in the uncomfortable and politically costly position of opposing a Hispanic woman.

Thus proving, IMO, no matter who Obama picked, men like O'Reilly would have found fault with it.

Republican's helped advance her career, Republican's want the Hispanic vote, Republican's have made some of the same decisions she has, blah blah blah. But because Obama picked her, it HAS to be some conspiracy to make Republican's go against their own support and agreement with her.

As if that even makes any sense.

[Jobu]

Thus proving, IMO, no matter who Obama picked, men like O'Reilly would have found fault with it.

Republican's helped advance her career, Republican's want the Hispanic vote, Republican's have made some of the same decisions she has, blah blah blah. But because Obama picked her, it HAS to be some conspiracy to make Republican's go against their own support and agreement with her.

As if that even makes any sense.


It would've been nice if Obama had nominated someone who wasn't so obviously (as her own words make clear) on a liberal crusade for "social justice." You know, someone who doesn't see the world as a battle between the white man and everyone else.

Obama chose to go for identity politics instead.

[LineDoggie]

It would've been nice if Obama had nominated someone who wasn't so obviously (as her own words make clear) on a liberal crusade for "social justice." You know, someone who doesn't see the world as a battle between the white man and everyone else.

Obama chose to go for identity politics instead.
Worked well for him, didnt it?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

IMHO, the R's are screwing the pouch over this. There are valid concerns, but trying to make it look like it is about race is beyond stupid.

It means no one should be a member of any organization that promotes a interest,

No Church Membership, Veterans Organizations, Local community groups, help to others groups, ................. nothing.

The bench is made of how many judges? Her voice will not be the only voice on the bench or the only vote.

If your worried, I would suggest taking some time and read the majority and minority opinions from the bench.

or maybe it just easier to rant emotional attacks than to actually understand the court, the judges and the opinions.

Well hey, for my part, I do understand all the above and still somehow manage to oppose her nomination. And hell, I don't even feel bad, that as the ubiquitous "man", I'm attempting to keep her down.

I don't think the R's aren't making it about race. They're making it an issue that she, on occasion, is unapologetically about race/gender. Not the same thing. Of course it hardly matters if people can't tell the difference.

You make a good point about membership in organizations though. I'd say that membership in civic organizations isn't the issue- once again it's what those organizations are about that's the issue. Women's glee club =OK. KKK= not ok. Shriner's =OK. NAMBLA= not OK. Well, that's "OK" or "not OK" according to the 2Sheds Big Book of Good and Bad. Those "bad" organizations are obviously just fine and dandy to some people. These are extreme examples for the purpose of clarity but if we agree there is a "good" and a "bad" then somewhere there exists a line, and to me, race/gender advocacy organizations are just on the other side of that line.

Going OT a bit...what I see happening is that Obama is attempting to fulfill the dream of all the civil rights babies of his generation. He is, after all, the first of his generation - raised from day one under government-enshrined laws codifying so called "reverse-discrimination" - now in a position to appoint others like him into positions of real power. Walk the halls of any US government building - what you'll see there is a mix of gender and race that does not reflect the general population, because the government (like academia) is not a true performance-based organization. Being a certain race or gender makes one more qualified (just ask the nominee) - more able to be hired, more able to
be advanced, more valuable and more cared for (I don't remember ever seeing an email asking for an advocate for white males to serve on the local EEOC board). The judge's confirmation, IMO, would truly complete the circuit and get the machine working for that kind of thinking. Some believe that's just fine - there are legions people who've been raised that way - our government schools teach that it's rightthink - I happen to disagree. She's not evil, she's not stupid, she's not even unqualified - she's simply a terrible choice out of the hundreds we could choose from, IMO.

Back on topic...as far as the republicans shootin' themselves in the foot. Sure, why not? If people have latched on to the idea of an all-powerful government that controls everything and interprets the founding documents with the richness of experience that only a minority can provide (her words not mine), then they'll deserve the THX1138 world they wind up with. Do you want your head shaved, a number tattooed on your head and a dreary white jumpsuit? Not me, I look terrible in solid colors like that. It makes my ass look huge. So, rather than go along with all that just to keep the corner office, I'd prefer the republicans eternally lose from here on out.

[brainplay]

Republican's helped advance her career, Republican's want the Hispanic vote, Republican's have made some of the same decisions she has, blah blah blah. But because Obama picked her, it HAS to be some conspiracy to make Republican's go against their own support and agreement with her.

No, the Republicans wanted to keep their seats in those districts and caved to the Mexican/Latino pressure. Bush #1 got a Latino kudos in a race he wasn't going to win any other way. Once again a completely different form of court under different circumstances. Now that we've got that out of the way...


For fvcksakes people, can you morons get your head on straight for a moment and at least attempt to differentiate what a Supreme Court does and everything else is instead of trying to find conspiracy in O'Reilly and Limbaugh? She's been brought up and shot down as a candidate several times because of these same issues and now isn't anything new. Her activism has been a reason of concern to the Republicans for a while now.

Experience isn't as important as Constitutional Law knowledge. It has to be objective. Hell I give her credit for damage control after the fact announcing her objectivity. But there are a crap ton of circuit court justices that have a crap ton of experience but are not candidates due to their lack of Constitutional rulings and/or reversals. In terms of being a candidate by constitutional experience she ranks under "not in the least noteworthy". But hot damn, she's a woman and a latina so that kills two birds with one stone. No need to touch the immigration issue after handing over this little gem and Carlos Moreno can go sit and spin.

Her racial caseload isn't anything special either. Most race cases are thrown out due to the lack of evidence and testimony to make a solid case often falling to a "he said, she said" which doesn't cut it in an APPEALS court.

She's a darn good Appeals Court but thats where she belongs. Elena Kagan had her beat in spades for this job which is another red flag (granted she's a queen bitch after the harvard incident booting the military of campus).

[Soldat_Américain]

I would like to point out that every supreme court appointment has political motivations...so let's get off the she's a latina, she'll go for the minority every time bs, and analyze here record as a judge, and you'll find she has better qualifications as a judge then some of the other judges had before they ascended the high court.

[Jobu]

So now that some of her records have been released it's clear that Sotomayor used the racist "wise Latina would reach a better decision than a man" several times in several speeches.

It was a recurring theme.

Obama went on TV and told us all it was just a poor choice of words and not an indication of what she truly believed. Is that why she kept repeating it over and over again?

[Hollis]

Going OT a bit...what I see happening is that Obama is attempting to fulfill the dream of all the civil rights babies of his generation. He is, after all, the first of his generation - raised from day one under government-enshrined laws codifying so called "reverse-discrimination" - now in a position to appoint others like him into positions of real power. Walk the halls of any US government building - what you'll see there is a mix of gender and race that does not reflect the general population, because the government (like academia) is not a true performance-based organization. Being a certain race or gender makes one more qualified (just ask the nominee) - more able to be hired, more able to
be advanced, more valuable and more cared for (I don't remember ever seeing an email asking for an advocate for white males to serve on the local EEOC board). The judge's confirmation, IMO, would truly complete the circuit and get the machine working for that kind of thinking. Some believe that's just fine - there are legions people who've been raised that way - our government schools teach that it's rightthink - I happen to disagree. She's not evil, she's not stupid, she's not even unqualified - she's simply a terrible choice out of the hundreds we could choose from, IMO.



I think your off Topic is actually on topic. It is about politics. I am clueless as to all the judges out there as to how they rank. I don't like her position on the 2nd Amendment. Probably like most Americans, I want the best person for the job. All too often politics is what decides these issue rather than actual qualifications.

I think the "race base" argument muddies the issue more than helps. I rather see some comparison on qualifications. Partisan Politics is what Washington D.C. is made of. If a R was president, the D's would be throwing a hissy fit too on something that really does not have much to do with the job. To think, our system is about as good as it gets.

[seraosha]

It would be easier to ignore the "race thing" if she would stop using it as a qualification in her speeches, you know?

[Flagg]

I would like to point out that every supreme court appointment has political motivations...so let's get off the she's a latina, she'll go for the minority every time bs, and analyze here record as a judge, and you'll find she has better qualifications as a judge then some of the other judges had before they ascended the high court.

Agreed.......

I tend to think Supreme Court appointments represent two things:

1.) Vote pandering

2.) Long-term focused influence and legal "course correction" in the judiciary

I know nothing about Sotomayor, I knew nothing about Clarence Thomas until his alleged concerns about public hair on his can of Coke.

My guess is that the following criteria is followed when nominating Supreme Court Justices:

1.) Is the candidate female and/or a member of a minority group?

2.) Of those candidates that answered correctly to the first qestion, particularly is they answered yes twice, is the candidate going to rigidly adhere to legal doctrine to allow a legal "course correction"? If not, just grab a white guy who will...there's plenty to pick from.

Clarence Thomas certainly fit that mold.....he "coincidentally" replaced Thurgood Marshall...the first black Supreme Court Justice.

But Marshall had some "legal SuperBowl rings" like Brown Vs Board of Education on his fingers....being in the right place at the right time with the right talent and being the politically right colour.

Where as Thomas was simply black on the surface and Republican to the bone.....with a very tough pass through confirmation vote......replacing Marshall with Thomas was a F'n joke.

Thomas presided over Rush Limbaugh's wedding for F's sake!

I liked it better with Marshall.......where his colour surely would have been important in the decision.....but his ability CLEARLY put him above the pass line....Thomas was just a black republican with a law degree.

And for the record, my bias is to the Right......

The Legislative and Executive branches are pushing high on the corruption cycle....it would appear an argument could be made the same has occurred at the highest level of the Judicial branch...with Thomas as but one very embarrassing example.

I have heard people talking about Sotomayor.......I respond with asking about her legal record as I haven't a clue...no one knows, no one cares...but that is what everyshould should know and care abbout

But the fact that she's a Latino Woman replacing a white male devil Souter is a double tick in the box I suppose......

We get what we deserve.

[matthew.manhorn]

That's quite interesting if someone could explain why....Democrats tend to win Latino votes, but not as asymmetric as those of black votes.

[brainplay]

That's quite interesting if someone could explain why....Democrats tend to win Batino votes, but not as asymmetric as those of black votes.

Latinos and Hispanics tend to have very conservative views in many aspects. However, the (illegal) immigration issue is what controls the vote of many legal citizens (and a few illegals) who still have ties or nostalgia for their previous nationalities. The immigration issue tends to wiggle its way into welfare, states rights, and law enforcement as well. Nanny-state thinking is another issue which adds into the voting numbers as many 1st and 2nd generation immigrants (legal and illegal) have experienced some form of social welfare under their previous nationalities or were taught through nostalgia about how great the previous systems were.

If the immigration issue were to suddenly become a non-issue you would see some serious shifting in votes demographics.

[Ordie]

Latinos and Hispanics tend to have very conservative views in many aspects. However, the (illegal) immigration issue is what controls the vote of many legal citizens (and a few illegals) who still have ties or nostalgia for their previous nationalities. The immigration issue tends to wiggle its way into welfare, states rights, and law enforcement as well. Nanny-state thinking is another issue which adds into the voting numbers as many 1st and 2nd generation immigrants (legal and illegal) have experienced some form of social welfare under their previous nationalities or were taught through nostalgia about how great the previous systems were.

If the immigration issue were to suddenly become a non-issue you would see some serious shifting in votes demographics.

It's a bit more than that.

By in large, Latino voters voted for Obama for the same reasons why the rest of the country voted for Obama.

People voted for a change.

[brainplay]

It's a bit more than that.

By in large, Latino voters voted for Obama for the same reasons why the rest of the country voted for Obama.

People voted for a change.

Umm...I wasn't talking about the last election but the overall tendencies. The irony of that last statement is funny though.

[shocker1]

It's a bit more than that.

By in large, Latino voters voted for Obama for the same reasons why the rest of the country voted for Obama.

People voted for a change.

If they want a change vote third party instead of being used by the dynamic duo.