Newsflash: Obama Picks Sotomayor - Comments Page 2

Part of: NewsFlash

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is the first Supreme Court pick by a Democratic President in 15 Years.

In an unsurprising move, the White House announced this morning that President Obama has picked Second Circuit Court Of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter.…
Read comments below, or read this article from the beginning.

Article comments

— go to most recent comments
  • 26 - Clavos

    May 26, 2009 at 7:06 pm

    Actually, Jordan, she said:

    "And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. Um, um -- [laughter] -- I know. I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it, and, I'm ... you know."

    No orator, is she?

  • 27 - Clavos

    May 26, 2009 at 7:11 pm

    Jeannie #25:

    Your article is still showing in the queue as a "Draft." That is far more likely the reason Dave hasn't edited it yet, not because "he is too busy making comments here."

    And, there is more than one editor in Politics.

  • 28 - RJ

    May 26, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    It's a cynical pick by 0bama, but a politically smart one.

    He gets "diversity" kudos in the media (as if he needed any more...), wins over some female and Hispanic voters with the identity politics aspect, appeases his leftist base (which is angry over some of his recent national security/foreign policy decisions), secures a left-wing judicial activist "progressive" on the Supreme Court for a generation, and puts the GOP in a tight spot.

    If the Republicans don't fight this nomination, their base will be angry. And if they do fight this nomination, they'll be smeared as divisive hate-mongers.

    Win-win for 0bama-Rahmbo-Axelrod-Teleprompter.

  • 29 - Clavos

    May 26, 2009 at 7:14 pm

    Jeannie,

    To submit an article for editing and publishing, you have to put it in "Pending" when you're ready. This information was included in the instructions you received when you were accepted as a BC writer

  • 30 - RJ

    May 26, 2009 at 7:22 pm

    #27:

    There is hope yet, I suppose. Perhaps she'll make such a complete fool of herself at the confirmation hearings - maybe calling Jeff Sessions a "gringo" or something - that she'll be dumped before a vote.

    Or maybe video will surface of her running a puppy through a shredder or something.

    It's not over until the Boricua gorda sings!

  • 31 - Clavos

    May 26, 2009 at 7:26 pm

    It's not over until the Boricua gorda sings!

    ¡REAV!*




    *¡Reiendome En Alta Voz!

  • 32 - RJ

    May 26, 2009 at 7:30 pm

    Potential political ramifications in 2012:

    Florida is a purplish state, and offers a large chunk of Electoral Votes. And the Orlando area is a fast-growing part of that state, which can swing to either party in an election.

    It also has a large and growing Hispanic population, including a sizable community of Puerto Ricans. And many of these Puerto Ricans consider themselves to be "Newyoricans" - like Sotomayor.

    Maybe the way to win Florida these days isn't to pander to Cubans in Miami-Dade County; instead, you pander to Puerto Ricans/Newyoricans in Orange County!

    0bama-Rahmbo-Axelrod-Teleprompter is/are genius, I tell you...

  • 33 - RJ

    May 26, 2009 at 7:36 pm

    #33:

    No clue...singing in a high voice?

  • 34 - Clavos

    May 26, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    0bama-Rahmbo-Axelrod-Teleprompter is/are genius, I tell you...

    Almost as smart as Karl Rove...

  • 35 - Jeannie Danna

    May 26, 2009 at 7:42 pm

    We need a supreme court that reflects the country and you need a political department that can handle more than one opinion at a time.

  • 36 - Clavos

    May 26, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    No clue...singing in a high voice?

    Laughing Out Loud.

  • 37 - Clavos

    May 26, 2009 at 7:45 pm

    We need a supreme court that reflects the country and you need a political department that can handle more than one opinion at a time.

    Uncalled for, but I'll edit you and even publish you anyway. That is, if you ever actually stop crying and submit it.

  • 38 - RJ

    May 26, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    JD,

    I'm not sure why you are so disgruntled here. You were doing it wrong, now you've been told how to do it correctly.

    It was writer error, not editor error. No need to get snippy. Geez.

  • 39 - Jeannie Danna

    May 26, 2009 at 7:49 pm

    Karl Rove couldn't even graduate from college just like Limbaugh both dismal failures in academia land...funny how hard they try to discredit people that excelled in college. Ironic

  • 40 - Jeannie Danna

    May 26, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    Submitted already where it should have gone to begin with..Culture :)

  • 41 - RJ

    May 26, 2009 at 7:56 pm

    "Karl Rove couldn't even graduate from college just like Limbaugh both dismal failures in academia land...funny how hard they try to discredit people that [sic] excelled in college."

    College success != life success

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • 42 - Clavos

    May 26, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    Karl Rove couldn't even graduate from college just like Limbaugh both dismal failures...

    I should be such failure as those two.

    I've known more than one college graduate who is a semi-literate moron; in fact, lots of 'em.


    Per Wikipedia:

    In June 1971, Rove dropped out of college to take a paid position as the Executive Director of the College Republican National Committee. Joe Abate, who was National Chairman of the College Republicans at the time, became a mentor to Rove."

    Not exactly "couldn't even graduate from college."

  • 43 - Baronius

    May 26, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    Jeannie, if you look at the range of articles on this site, you'll have more confidence in the willingness of the staff to present all political sides. It might be a little to early in your tenure here to be accusing editors of bias.

  • 44 - Arch Conservative

    May 27, 2009 at 3:57 am

    "I am going to rename the GOP the "petty party." It is made up of hard dried up men and women who never amounted to much that are seething with jealousy ..."

    I'll just pick one Republican Jeannie.....Mitt Romney is more successful and has made more money than you, all of your friends, and all of your family members combined. There can be no doubt that if you were given a thousand years on this planet you could not even come close to the success Mitt Romney has obtained in his 60.

    The fact is that unlike Alito, whom the Dems tried to paint as a racist, Sotomayer is actually a fat, racist, pig and the GOP should show her the same respect and consideration that King Barry showed Alito and Roberts when he was a Senator. She's ugly too.

    Oh and bliffle with your little "party of no" remark. Baronius, who put you in your place four comments later by using the truth, shouldn't have had to. [personal attack deleted]

  • 45 - Jeannie Danna

    May 27, 2009 at 4:05 am

    Money is not everything in this world ARCH.
    You can fill your bank account to the brim and still be empty inside... [edited]

  • 46 - Jordan Richardson

    May 27, 2009 at 4:12 am

    Yeah, Mitt Romney also believes that God came down and literally screwed Mary to produce Jesus. He also believes that anyone can become a "god." And that the people God dislikes have "dark skin." Oh, and temple marriage! Aaaaand Romney believes that God is so stupid that he needs to memorize a secret handshake lest he be left out of the upper echelon of heaven.

    At least he's rich and good-looking, though. I guess it doesn't matter if he's batshit crazy underneath all the Reaganesque sheen.

  • 47 - Arch Conservative

    May 27, 2009 at 4:37 am

    Yeah Mitt Romney is such a religious whackjob that he was unable to succeed in the business world because he couldn't keep his mouth shut about all his bizarre religious convictions. Oh and let's not forget the countless Joseph Smith statues he erected in MA while governor there.....

    Attacking the Mormon faith is the best criticism of Mitt Romney you can come up with Jordan? Really? That's pretty lame, even for someone like you.

  • 48 - Jordan Richardson

    May 27, 2009 at 4:59 am

    Arch, it was never my intention to launch a full-scale critique of Mitt Romney. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    It was my intention to demonstrate that your "success on every level, no matter what or who you ask" doctrine in regards to your new favourite guypal is a little hollow when you consider the nutty ideas floating around in his head.

    Now if you want to deem a reliance on such an archaic, bizarre faith as a "brilliant success," go right ahead. But don't you dare sit there and accuse others of "cheerleading" when you're waving the pompoms with the best of 'em.

    Remember: your ridiculous point was that Mitt Romney was more successful than Jeannie in "any way that could be measured."

  • 49 - Jordan Richardson

    May 27, 2009 at 5:29 am

    Mitt Romney is also extremely "successful" trying to relate to African Americans. Honestly, when you don't know what the hell you're doing, all the successful people start with the Baha Men and work their way outwards in large, ever-expanding circles that finish with saying the word "bling-bling" and referring to a baby as "Michael Jordan."

    He does have successful looks, though. He looks like a lawyer who advertises on the back of a bus. He looks like the American president in a Canadian movie (stole those from Letterman).

  • 50 - Jeannie Danna

    May 27, 2009 at 5:43 am

    To The Arch Conservative And Anyone else here at BC who does not agree with me,

    I have just as much right to be a BC Critic as any of you. You can all try to "razzle dazzle me with your facts and figures" The only thing that does is make me dizzy...:)
    You can wave your fancy college diplomas in front of me. I don't care because when you were in your frat houses playing "Animal House" I was serving my country in the USAF at home and abroad...:)
    You can remind me how much money you have or make or are entitled to. I do care about this because while you are comfortable there are millions of starving children, abused women and unempowered men all around this "blue ball" that would appreciate the "things you squander" This only reinforces my premise that for the most part "the republican and conservative philosophy lacks EMPATHY...:(
    We all have a seat at this table in that we all have opinions and beliefs, hopes and dreams....even if you don"t like it.
    I am now really fired up! so thank you BC. I am going to start an essay today about a wonderful, intelligent and experienced woman who is about to become the first Latina to sit on the highest court in our land; I will write it tastefully and eloquently in honor of Judge Soytamayor. I suggest you get out of the way so that the "lady can sit down"...:)oh yeah and I'm going to publish it in culture where I feel most welcome!

  • 51 - Jeannie Danna

    May 27, 2009 at 5:54 am

    Oh one more note. I spelled her name wrong It's Sotomayor. I can always admit when I've made a mistake...#52

  • 52 - roger nowosielski

    May 27, 2009 at 6:20 am

    Nice show, Jeannie. Don't take crap from anyone.

  • 53 - El Bicho

    May 27, 2009 at 7:30 am

    "you could not equal the success, in any way it might possibly be measured, that Mitt Romney has attained in one."

    Although I don't know her well, I believe one way Jeannie equaled the success of Romney is in earning the Republican nomination for President. And considering she didn't spend any of her own money, she was more successful than he was at it.

  • 54 - MarkSaleski

    May 27, 2009 at 9:17 am

    She's ugly too.

    there's ugly, and then there's ugly on the inside.

  • 55 - Clavos

    May 27, 2009 at 9:57 am

    According to The Wall Street Journal, Judge Sotomayor,

    In a speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, Judge Sotomayor offered her own interpretation of this jurisprudence. "Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases," she declared. "I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." (emphasis added)

    I have a two-fold problem with the Judge's viewpoint here:

    First, it indicates a strong bias in the judge's judicial mindset; a bias which is highly inappropriate for a SCOTUS Justice.

    Secondly, it is not simply a legal bias, such as activist or strict constructionist, it is a bias which is at once sexist and racist, both of which are illegal.

  • 56 - roger nowosielski

    May 27, 2009 at 10:00 am

    I happen to agree here, Clavos. That was an imprudent statement. It may come to haunt her.

  • 57 - Dan(Miller)

    May 27, 2009 at 10:37 am

    It may come to haunt her. As well it should, during the Senate hearings.

    Let's suppose for a moment, and merely for the sake of argument, that she clarifies her statement as follows:

    Yes, Senator, I said that and I meant it. To elaborate, I am convinced that women are smarter, more perceptive and in all other respects better than men, and that Latinas are smarter, more perceptive and in all other respects better than all other women. I am committed to adhering to this view when I participate in the matters which come before me as a Supreme Court justice. To the extent that by doing so I violate my oath of office and a few meaningless and silly laws, too damn bad.

    Since that oath, along with nearly all of the laws and precedents by which the Supreme Court has heretofore considered itself bound were authored by dead, white, non-Hispanic males, I shall simply ignore them.

    Any further questions?


    It does seem highly unlikely that she would ever say such a thing in public, and I rather doubt that she even thinks it. Still, it would be worth watching the exchange. I wonder how many Senators would vote against confirmation if she said it.

    Dan(Miller)

  • 58 - roger nowosielski

    May 27, 2009 at 10:50 am

    I'd say that is a more damning comment that what some may regard as her questionable decisions.

  • 59 - roger nowosielski

    May 27, 2009 at 10:53 am

    What she'll probably do is to dissociate herself from that statement - that it was politically-motivated, geared to the Hispanic audience, blah blah blah.

    Even so, it ain't gonna fly.

  • 60 - RJ

    May 27, 2009 at 11:30 am

    Jordan,

    I'm guessing you're an atheist then? Because ALL religions sound bizarre to those who do not practice them.

    Islam? Catholicism? Hinduism? Judaism? They all sound absolutely nuts to a nonbeliever who reads their fundamental tenets.

    Leftists attack Mormonism simply because it's an easy target: a minority religious group composed primarily of socially conservative White people. That's all.

    If Mormons were "progressive" and had better tans, leftists who be praising them endlessly and trying to give them special "minority rights."

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • 61 - RJ

    May 27, 2009 at 11:32 am

    "I am now really fired up! so thank you BC. I am going to start an essay today about a wonderful, intelligent and experienced woman who is about to become the first Latina to sit on the highest court in our land; I will write it tastefully and eloquently in honor of Judge Soytamayor."

    Hopefully in your essay you will manage to spell her name correctly.

  • 62 - Baronius

    May 27, 2009 at 11:59 am

    Yes, that statement could come back to haunt her, but to get at that particular piece of cheese, a Senator will have to risk a big spring-loaded charge of racism cracking him on the back of the neck.

  • 63 - roger nowosielski

    May 27, 2009 at 12:05 pm

    Well, maybe so; and given the lack of backbone they all seem to share in common, probably she won't be challenged on this point, or at least not vigorously enough.
    Still, if there is a good enough reason for her disqualification, that must be it.

  • 64 - Dave Nalle

    May 27, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    In Dave's world pretending is a big part of reality. Must be hard to take when someone says something honest. She didn't make it that way Dave. She's calling it like she sees it.

    Then if she's ethical she should be objecting to it, not joking about it. Sorry, Cindy. You can't win this one.

    Dave

  • 65 - Doug Hunter

    May 27, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    You can't 'win' an argument with a true leftist because they have no standards except adherence to their leftist religious beliefs. When a politician who adheres to their religion gets caught with a freezerful or cash or running a prostitution ring from his house they simply reelect them. When their boy gets caught selling his seat they just place the sold seat and reshuffle to the next douchbag. It doesn't matter what they do, say, or anything else it only matters what they feel.

    In the mind of the Cindy's of the world a drugged out crack whore who's lived on the back of society her entire life without ever contributing anything and sells her vote to the local democrat for some dope is far more 'successful' than any Republican ever could be. Talking to a leftist is like bizarro world. Failure, dependence, division, and hatred are virtues while freedom, independence, equality, and success are the enemy. Very odd.

  • 66 - Dan(Miller)

    May 27, 2009 at 1:35 pm

    Here is an article about Judge Sotomayor's comments at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, later published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. It does seem likely that Judge Sotomayor will be given ample opportunity to explain her rather bizarre remarks there and elsewhere.

    I have attempted elsewhere to deal with "her" recent decision on the firefighters, one of whom was Hispanic, who were not promoted on the basis of test scores, and do not put a lot of weight on the last three paragraphs in the article. As best I can determine, it was "her" decision only in the sense that she was one of the three judges on the Second Circuit panel who unanimously affirmed the decision of the District Court; she later voted to buck the case up the Supreme Court.

    Dan(Miller)

  • 67 - Cindy

    May 27, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    Dave,

    That is okay with me.

  • 68 - Cindy

    May 28, 2009 at 6:29 am

    Dave,

    Just in case I wasn't very clear in #67. I agree with you. But so should they all be objecting to it. Fact is they don't. I see what she said as evidence people should be paying attention to more than anything--things don't work the way it's claimed they do. When some of us try to say things like no one listens. We're told exactly how the law and courts work and why it's good. I see what she said as validating.

    I almost suspect she was intentionally letting people in on the secret.

  • 69 - Cindy

    May 28, 2009 at 6:32 am

    When some of us try to say things like [this] no one listens.

    Even if she's not letting us in on the secret Dave. I hope you see, at least, that that is the way things work.

  • 70 - Dave Nalle

    May 28, 2009 at 6:36 am

    Cindy, I don't think it's a secret. Not if you have any experience with the system. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't all be working to make it work the way it is supposed to, because in principle and in most instances it's a pretty good justice system -- certainly compared to most of the rest of the world.

    Dave

  • 71 - Cindy

    May 28, 2009 at 7:02 am

    It doesn't and will never work. When people have power over other people. It's like the colonels from west point I served at my bar. They have an 'altered reality'. They are part of a 'culture'. Their power is reinforced by status. They apparently all rationalize that what they do is necessary. Everyone else does it. That is what we are taught to do--fit into the group, be like everyone else.

    Look at some social science studies about what people are and do Dave. 70% of us would shock someone to death just because an authority seems to think it won't be a problem. People entering a culture are inducted into its rules, kindergartners, people who work at home depot, soldiers, judges. No one feels powerful enough to change things and still maintain their position--so everyone goes along. Can't fight city hall.

    It's just like police culture values machismo. Military culture holds itself as above civilians. Judges are just members of an elite culture that has a hell of a lot of power like the others.

    Unfortunately, it's those people like the ones I went to college with...the one's I wouldn't ever seek advice from on any important matter--those are the ones in charge.

  • 72 - Clavos

    May 28, 2009 at 7:15 am

    No one feels powerful enough to change things and still maintain their position--so everyone goes along. Can't fight city hall.

    I think you're projecting here, Cindy. Unlike you, most people aren't particularly interested in change at the group or societal level; they aren't interested in changing the status quo -- they're happy (or think they are) with their current situation.

    Military culture holds itself as above civilians.

    As a grunt, I never had that sense of my fellows. Officers (some of them) were a different matter, particularly among the flag ranks.

  • 73 - roger nowosielski

    May 28, 2009 at 7:20 am

    #71:

    "It doesn't and will never work. When people have power over other people."

    It's a preemptive statement allowing for no exception. In fact, it's just as ideological as any absurd claim from the extreme Right - all too transparent for its fundamentalist and fanatical mindset, religious or secular. Besides, it obliterates the all-important distinction between power and authority.

    If one were to think in fact of a principle to encapsulate the dogma of anarchism, that would be it.


  • 74 - roger nowosielski

    May 28, 2009 at 7:22 am

    See does speak of officers, Clavos. In fact, related her experiences at length on one of the threads.

  • 75 - Cindy

    May 28, 2009 at 7:28 am

    Clav,

    To your first comment. I agree and I wish I had said that instead. That sounds much more like most people. Yes, I am projecting. I am in the minority. But there are some like me, and sometimes we're all like me--it happens when we actually do want to change something. Usually, when something isn't in our favor.

    To your second point.

    Right Clav. I should have confined my comment to the colonels, generals, etc.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Nov 30, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs