Here's something interesting: Sonia Sotomayor was the subject of a roll call vote in 1998, when she was confirmed to her current position the 2nd Circuit. The overall vote was 67-29 in favor of confirmation, with 4 Senators not voting. All Democrats voted in favor of Sotomayor (although three did not vote), while Republicans opposed her by a 29-25 majority.
Among those Senators who are still in the chamber today, however, Sotomayor's margin of confirmation was a bit more comfortable: 36-11. CORRECTION: The list below omits John Kerry, who also voted in favor of confirmation. That makes the total 36-11, rather than 35-11 as originally reported.
How Current Senators Voted on Sotomayor
Asterisks indicate members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Note that the ranking Republican member, Alabama's Jeff Sessions, voted against Sotomayor in 1998, although Orrin Hatch, who was then the Committee chair and remains on the committee today, voted for her.
It seems to me that with this pick, Obama may be trying to carefully calibrate the amount of Republican resistance: enough that there's a chance that they'll do something that makes them look silly, but not enough for them to seriously threaten Sotomayor's nomination with a filibuster.
5.26.2009
Current Senators Voted 36-11 to Confirm Sotomayor in 1998
@ 10:28 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
178 comments
The fillibuster threat makes the Minnesota Senate seat more interesting. Be interesting to see if Gov Pawlenty comes under any pressure to delay the certifying of the result at all.
Other than perhaps Snowe and Collins, I expect every Republican to vote against her. Why? Because Obama picked her. It's been their M.O. so far, and I see no reason to believe that they will change ... ever.
Count on it, the Senate Republicans are going to make fools of themselves on this one. I thought Sotomayor was the best pick on the list, and probably the most bullet-proof, but I can't help but think that in the back of his mind Obama was thinking that this would be a good opportunity to marginalize the GOP with a couple of key demographic groups.
Well if they want to vote against her, people like Senator Cochran or Sen Gregg or Sen Lugar are going to need reasons why they voted for her last time and why they can't this time.
Just go look at Drudge's headlines and near mis-statements of the facts in the article even he is lionking to. This is their M.O. and has been for years, the party of "No" will continue and Hatch will be under great pressure to vote against the most experineced Justice nominated in decades.
the real question is Hatch. Don't we need one vote from a republican on the judicial committee to get her nomination out of committee? Let's hope he's still a reasonable man.
A masterful move. Attack Sotomayer (of Puerto Rico heritage) and watch the hispanic vote vanish into the distance.
Conservative Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska has already said he is open to filibustering Obama's court nominee.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlMOBfXTMW0
NELSON is against ACTIVISTS on the bench. Think he was dropping any hints with Sodomayor.
She seems like a great woman, but past statements and rulings are very troubling.
So consider Nelson in the filibustering process.
President Obama will nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor
If confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, Judge Sotomayor, 54, would replace Justice David H. Souter to become the second woman on the court and only the third female justice in the history of the Supreme Court. She also would be the first Hispanic justice to serve on the Supreme Court.
See details of her biography:Judge Sonia Sotomayor-news-online
ytownMetz: Nelson may filibuster, but Collins and Snowe likely won't. And in the end Nelson may be pressured to drop the filibuster and just vote no as a protest on the floor vote.
Several moderate Republicans from Obama states will be under significant pressure from both sides. There will be pressure from their leadership (if you can call it that) to filibuster, and pressure not to look like idiots to their voters. I bet more than a few will split the difference by voting for cloture and then against the nominee. Even without Franken, it will just take one Republican vote for cloture (or two if Nelson follows through on his threat) to get her confirmed. I'd put money on confirmation.
And, yes I'd also put money on Republicans shooting themselves in the foot.
Let's keep in mind that the 1998 35-11 vote to confirm her came at a time when Clinton was mired in scandal and lameduckness. Of those 46 votes, aren't we more likely, then, to see more like a 40-6 ratio given today's circumstances (popular President just starting out?)
Pardon the guesstimation.
It seems to me that with this pick, Obama may be trying to carefully calibrate the amount of Republican resistance: enough that there's a chance that they'll do something that makes them look silly.
Why does it always have to be some sinister or conniving plot?
Perhaps he's simply picking the best candidate, credentials-wise and ideologically speaking, who also fits the gender and ethnicity role that is being pressured to fill.
Are you dems/libs really that obsessed with every political move being something shrewd to disrupt and demoralize the opposition that you've totally abandoned the thought of just finding the best person for the job?
Guess I'm not surprised, seeing as how they're the party of unwavering support of affirmitive action, which completely jettisons the notion of picking the best person for the job in favor of other (see: skin color) ridiculous credentials.
Typical la-la land stuff here. Of course she'll be confirmed. But the politics of it are far less clear cut than you think. Only around here are Dems like Webb presumed to be lining up to eagerly vote for a leftie like this. A bit of respectful publicity for Sotomayor's more outrageous comments will help push Obama's image left, and will lash him to any unpopular decisions that this woman might help write on the court. Americans have a far more modest view of proper judicial power than most on the left, including the President. The court issue works for them broadly. The only riposte to that is the head-counting race stuff that the left always falls back on. Of course, being a Latino didn't help Estrada did it?
Jeff-
Thanks for the spittle, got a fact? Most experienced nominee in 70 years, nominated to be a Judge by a Republican, first Hispanic on the court. She has to be better than Roberts, who has NEVER voted with the people and ALWAYS voted with big business. Roberts is your activist judge.
On a fillibuster, aren't GOPers like McCain, who were part of the deal to end a Democratic blocking of judges under President Bush also in an awkward position if they want to fillibuster Sotomayor? I am beginning to think that if they don't want Sotomayor on the bench then a fillibuster is going to be too damaging a way of doing it. (Thats not to say they won't try.) But if they are going to get rid of her then its going to take some kind of swiftboating it seems to me, to get her to a point where its too politically damaging to Obama to have her on the bench.
Count on it, the Senate Republicans are going to make fools of themselves on this one.
And Senate Democrats haven't made fools of themselves on plenty of occasions? Just one example: see Nancy Pelosi and her CIA discussion from the last couple of weeks.
I thought Sotomayor was the best pick on the list, and probably the most bullet-proof, but I can't help but think that in the back of his mind Obama was thinking that this would be a good opportunity to marginalize the GOP with a couple of key demographic groups.
Aren't they already marginalized among every demographic group except for older white males? Hard to see it getting any worse for Republicans with women, Hispanics, etc. just because the ones in the Senate don't fawn all over her.
I guess you ignoring the fact that Pelosi was correct and the CIA defended itself by stating they briefed people who not in the Senate at the time the CIA claims to have briefed them, and people they claim to have briefed were out of DC on the days they were briefed. Even Pannetta's defense of the CIA did not say they briefed Pelosi - go read what he said.
Also go see the Muckraker over at Talking Points Memo.
Thanks for the spittle, got a fact? Most experienced nominee in 70 years, nominated to be a Judge by a Republican, first Hispanic on the court. She has to be better than Roberts, who has NEVER voted with the people and ALWAYS voted with big business. Roberts is your activist judge.
Ridiculous. Roberts had much stronger credentials than Sotomayor prior to nomination. He was the most qualified appointment in generations, yet 22 Senators - including the oh-so-humble Barack Obama - voted against him. They looked foolish doing so. Roberts is a man of the people. You are a joke.
Wow, fred, you are spinning to cover Pelosi?
You've got to use that time and energy on more important things than her. She ain't worth it.
You just racked up several foolish points there, my friend.
Your credibility is waning.
Yes welcome back Nate! I hope you enjoyed London and Paris. Thanks for posting the list of Senators who voted for Sotomayor when she was confirmed in 98. I'm betting that 3-4 of those Republicans who voted for her will switch their votes because 'they have discovered that she is the anti-Christ and Hitler combined' since they last got marching orders from Herr Limbaugh - er, I mean since they last voted for her.
Unless the Republicans can find something very damning in her past I think this one is a shoo-in despite all the hot air bluster and fuss coming from the GOP. But hey let the Republicans beat up the first Hispanic and the third Woman for SOCTUS - thet will be sure to allienate big voting blocs which turned against the GOP even more. The smart move for the GOP would be to sit this fight out and wait for another fight that they might have a chance of winning. But I imagine the Republicans will: (pick one or all) go nuclear, slash and burn, shock and awe, or take no prisoners!
Roberts did not have better creds. Roberts ARGUED before courts alot but he did not make decisions and there is a significant difference. His slamming of other judges from the bench has shown how unprofessional he is (see comments about the Federal Circuit). He also has NEVER had to think about a decision - he simply does not have the capacity to vote against his religious or Republican beliefs - or at least he has NEVER shown it. He votes with big biz and Catholics period. He is a terrible judge.
He also promised to increase the number of cases before the court, something in which he has been a complete and utter failure.
He is a terrible judge.
An opinion predicated around the simple notion that you disagree with his ideology.
You back nothing up with facts, just opinion and hyperbole. Nobody is listening. You are a joke.
Casual-
Go read the quotes. Pannetta spoke in the wrong tense to even make his remarks about Pelosi.
As to the facts, go here:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/nancy_pelosi/
Porter Goss was head of the CIA when he was briefed as a "Congressman."
The CIA itself has admitted their records suck and they don't know what the hell went on :
"While CIA's information has Mr. Juola attending briefings on September 19, 2006 and October 11, 2007, there are different recollections of these events, which Mr. Obey's letter describes. As the agency has pointed out more than once, its list -- compiled in response to congressional requests -- reflects the records it has. These are notes, memos, and recollections, not transcripts and recordings."
Finally, if you don't think Cheney co-opted the CIA you are seriously nuts.
As for Pelosi, I am no fan, but she might be right on this one.
Fred. Suddenly experience is the gold standard? Last week the talking point was that we wanted someone from a non-judicial background. As for "most experienced nominee", check out the CV of Robert Bork.
Read Jeff Rosen. She's a lightweight driven by her political preferences. The remark about Hispanic women being better judges than white men is all too revealing of her mindset. The Duke tape of her laughing with derision at the suggestion that judges don't "make policy" is awful. But the left - once alive to the dangers of judges - is now slave to them, even after they win.
And as for "facts" Fred, unless you are some sort of serious court expert please spare me. You and everyone else here (myself included) are reacting to the same reporting.
Initially, I was lukewarm about this pick, I guess I still am. Afterall it's pretty hard to get excited over a potential SCOTUS appointment that seemed almost inevitable, even months before Obama was sworn in. Personally, I would have liked to see Obama be a bit more bold and go with a sleeper pick like Anita Alvarez or Lisa Madigan, although the latter seemed unlikely considering her political ambitions. Out of the conventional wisdom picks being suggested, Pamela Karlan seemed the ballsier. Maybe she'll be one of the next two.
At the end of the day, Obama was boxed in on this one. This pick had to be a women, and rightly so, but she also had to be a minority.
I don't know what Sotomayor's political affiliation is. I've read more than once that Sotomayor is a "Republican appointed by a Republican" and that she's a moderate, as is Elena Kagan, who I'm also lukewarm about. Wingnuts are insane if they think she's a flaming liberal. She's a moderate, simple as that.
If Obama's shortlist was Sotomayor, Kagan and Wood, he probably made the right choice. Ideally, Sotomayor would be in her late forties and healthier. If she was I'd have been on board withthis pick from the beginning.
As for the political fallout with Hispanics to any potential filibustering and voting against Sotomayor by GOPosaurs, it'll likely be nullified by senate Democrats, who right now are a collective clusterfuck. GOPosaurs, with the help of their shills in the MSM, will grandstand and attempt to score political points, while the Dems sit on their arses and keep their mouths shut. To say Obama and the dems have set a trap for wingnuts is reaching. Senate Dems, led by the spinless Harry Reid, couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery. And even they could, Ben Nelson would inform his pals on the other side and announce it on FOX.
Casual-
I just refuted your lack of facts on Pelosi, now for Roberts:
From 2006 when nominated:
"Business couldn't do any better than Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. The prospect of the two on the Supreme Court signals to manufacturers and businesses that they will have allies in high places, say academics and business experts.
One represented corporate interests as a private attorney; the other often sided with employers in lawsuits filed by workers. Beyond their decisions in individual cases, the Roberts court also has the potential to craft a consistent philosophy on business issues, something that several academics argue has been lacking in recent years since the departure of Lewis Powell in 1987."
To NOW:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/25/090525fa_fact_toobin
Roberts clearly has an agenda, that is just not a good Judge, and to act like he is "moderate" he claimed to be is insane.
Jeff-
The "we want someone who has never been on the bench" argument was never my talking point. I think Granholm would have been a terrible choice and as bad as Harriet Meiers.
Picking someone with a thin background, like Thomas, can lead to someone who cannot handle the pressure or position, like Thomas.
To Rosen article-
That was the most lighweight fluff hatchet job ever attempted. Rosen had no facts, and admitted such in a follow up pice, and took back the lgihtweight to a large extent.
Rosen should be exoriated for that article, I certainly posted in the comments section :)
Sonia FTW! Casual Observer can't argue the facts about the CIA lying re: torture briefings. Too many instances have been listed..even Panetta worded his statement to concede that point.
Personally, I think she will be a moderate voice on the court, I would have liked Wood.
For those who don't want to read about Roberts first four years in Jeff Toobin's excellent article linked above. Here is the take home quote:
"In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party."
I think Chief Justice Roberts is one of the most compelling arguments against the argument that historians of the future may have a very different view of President Dubya than people now have. He just seems like a complete lightweight to fill one of the most important positions in the American system of government.
And Jeff, anyone at all who thinks that SCOTUS isn't important in making policy just hasn't paid enough attention to history and at least Sotomayor isn'r pretending if thats her view. Go back to the historical importance of the Dredd Scott case if you want. The court has always set policy. The idea that any judge at all isn't an activist is ridiculous. But the point is does a justice have reason for there judgement, or are they following a political, not legal, agenda.
Another thing on the political fallout with Hispanics. Obama is now their boy. Even Dems can't fuck themselves with that vote for the next two election cycles. Not while Obama is President. I read a few comments that hispanics went crazy after Sotomayor was confirmed. GOPosaurs can either score some points with the base, or minimise damage with Hispanics. But like I said, somehow senate Dems will find a way to nullify any gains they may get with this pick.
Fred is just an angry, hate-mongering atheist. Nothing new to see here.
You libs are so concerned with grinding the opposition to pulp, you're totally ignoring the absolute economic implosion going on in this country right now.
State budgets are crumbling. See link below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30855847
And which state is leading the way to disaster? Why, that liberal bastion of California, of course. Don't even mention the "Republican" Governator.
Personally, I think she will be a moderate voice on the court...
"Moderate" to you is far, far left for about 80% of the country....and anyone sane and rational.
Here's what I'm gertting at...
At First Blush, A Briiliant Choice
John Aravosis:
Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post notes what's most important about today's Supreme Court nomination:
Republican strategists have fretted openly that if their party can't find a way to make Hispanics a swing group electorally -- as President George W. Bush did in 2004 when he won 44 percent of the Latino vote -- they may find themselves in a permanent minority status. Bridging that gap between the GOP and the Hispanic community just got a lot more difficult.,
It's a brilliant move by the Obama people. A very strategic, calculated move. A woman and, more importantly, a Latina.
Now let's see how well the Obama people, notoriously less than interested in working with others to achieve their goals, run this campaign. The stimulus battle was a disaster until Obama snatched victory from the jaws of the defeat - up until things went horribly wrong, there wasn't much interest in having "outsiders" help (for example, the Obama team never asked the blogs to help at all, even when things did go wrong). Gitmo is another example. Obama makes a grand gesture, about closing Gitmo, but no one does the leg work to turn the President's policy into law, so the Senate decimates Obama's proposal. Will the same thing that happened during the campaign happen during this nomination battle? Namely, that the Obama people, far too often, like to go it alone, thinking they don't need friends and allies to achieve their goals.
Time will tell.,
http://www.americablog.com/2009/05/at-first-blush-its-brilliant-choice.html
Casual-
Sotomayer's record is actually very moderate. She has been pro-business often in the Circuit she is in. She actually seems to think through a decision BEFORE she makes it. The same cannot be said of Roberts.
Causl-
As to state budgets - Obama has abeen in charge a few months, economies move slowly and pretty clearly those problems are Bush/Cheney issues, but nice try.
Fred,
Rosen came under pressure after the fact, but he didn't make up the very damning comments by lawyers and colleagues. Furthermore, your analysis of Rosen as "lightweight" is undermined by your apparent admiration for Jeff Toobin, that philosopher among us.
All of this backslapping about diversity on the court is a joke. No one, absolutely no one, on the left cared a jot that Estrada was an hispanic. Indeed, he was blocked precisely for that reason. We only want lefty hispanics on the court, not conservative ones. The diversity argument is purely instrumental.
This is why we need a moderate, the SCOTUS is moving way too far right when it comes to ste power, they decided today that cops can question prisoners without lawyers:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/05/26/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Lawyer-Request.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes
Oh came on Jeff. Rosen's article was complete tripe. He used a few quotes from a few lawyers to call Sotomayer a lightweight in an article where he admitted he had read none of her decisions and looked at her actual actions in court not at all. At least he needed to have actual examples from the record...
As for Toobin, he used facts and is correct that Roberts has NEVER voted against the Rove crazy right Repub position, ever. That is just indefensible. Scalia even does better than that.
Mel Martinez won't filibusterer her, think of the political ethnic conflict that would cause in FL, PR's vs. Cuban-Americans. Also I wonder how this vote would effect John McCain in the general election in AZ? The consensus is that he is safe, what if this really pisses off Latinos? This is a tricky one for Kay Bailey Hutchinson she has to vote nay to win the GOP primary, but thsi could bite her in the TX general (when will the Latino sleeping giant in TX wake up?).
I think Sotomayor will get 7 republicans. Lugar, Martinez, the Maine sisters, Hatch, Voinovich, and Gregg. It will be interesting to see how South Western republicans vote. Ensign thinking of running for POTUS piss of the base or Latinos? Kyle is in the same predicament as McCain, only with more base support.
As to state budgets - Obama has abeen in charge a few months, economies move slowly and pretty clearly those problems are Bush/Cheney issues, but nice try.
Uh, I'm trying to reconcile the fact that California is in far worse shape than almost every other state to who runs the show out there, which is liberals.
Regardless of who put us in this mess, California is still responsible for some of their own well-being. Even if Bush/Cheney are to blame, several states - many red ones, in fact - are keeping things together with a little patchwork.
My point is that California is in much worse shape, and it is run by liberals. Coincidence? I think not.
You cannot refute this. It's undeniable fact.
Go read Krugman's article from yesterday describing in very exact terms how Arnold and the republicans have brought California to the brink:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/opinion/25krugman.html?scp=3&sq=krugman&st=cse
:) FACTS!
One more point on the politics of this. What's revealing is the extent to which race has to be used to cover over an unpopular judicial philosophy. If put up to a straight referendum, the Robert's- Alito judicial philosophy would destroy the Sodomeyer-Souther one. The Hispanic angle is just a way of browbeating everyone.
I also wonder about the political analysis here. Sure, opposing this woman might hurt among hispanics (who, apparently, according to this site - personalize all politics to their race), but is an overly vigorous fealty to affirmative action think dangerous to Obama? Can the GOP go any lower among Hispanics? No. Can Obama hurt himself with white men, suburban voters, etc? Yes.
Again, I wish the whole race, gender stuff would go away. But it won't, and I'm not entirely convinced that the politics of it are as clear cut as everyone here seems to think. For instance, how popular do you think Sodomeyer's decison in the recent New Haven affirmative action case will prove? About as popular as bubonic plague.
Jeff says:
"If put up to a straight referendum, the Robert's- Alito judicial philosophy would destroy the Sodomeyer-Souther one. "
So you think that a white, Republican, pro-business, anti-woman, anti-union, southern judicial philosophy that views Catholic dogma as a real good thing would win over what is truly a rather moderate Judicvial philosohy (that is only viewed as liberal as the court is so far right as to be almost off the map)?
Where were you during the Presidential electionw hen this was proven dead wrong? Where are you now in not knowing that the crazed righty repub philosophy is only popular in the racist, sexist, uneducated south? Where do you live, Mars?
Jeff,
You seem to completely forget that both Souter and Sotomayer were appointed to the Judiciary by Republicans. The fact that Republicans are now calling them "liberals" instead of the moderates they are shows how far to the right margin the Republicans have moved.
From the other thread:
Everybody notes how she was appointed by GHWB in 1991 but they seem to be missing the point that President Bush nominated Sotomayor to the district court in 1991 when the New York senators, Moynihan and D’Amato, forced her on the White House in a deal that enabled the senator, not of the president’s party, to name one of every four district-court nominees in New York. Sotomayor was Moynihan’s pick. I have also heard that Bush 41’s White House nonetheless resisted nominating her because she was so liberal and did so in the end only as part of a package to move along other nominees whom Moynihan was holding up.
Also for those that think the Republicans will "shoot themselves in the foot" over this nomination (wishful thinking), from confirmthem.com:
http://www.confirmthem.com/on_sotomayor
My take on the appointment? She's the best of the worst. Judge Sotomayor will almost certainly be a reliably liberal vote on the hot-button social issues, but she's not going to playing a leading role in shaping the jurisprudence of the Court (like Judge Diane Wood almost certainly would have done). She's a political pick, plain and simple. I think the GOP would be wise not to waste too much political capital (assuming it has any left) on opposing this appointment. Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed, and strongly opposing her will only further alienate Hispanic voters. This is not to say that I don't think we should expose her for the penumbra lover and radical that she is. Indeed, I am all for it. But the bottom line for me is that the folks waiting on President Obama's on-deck circle are far, far worse. Think of it like a professional wrestling match: Let's get in a few blows, and then let Obama have his pick. There are hills to die on, and this seat isn't one of them (especially given the dems' fillibuster-proof advantage in the Senate).
Your guy blew it......
Go read Krugman's article from yesterday describing in very exact terms how Arnold and the republicans have brought California to the brink:
HAHA! Facts, my ass. There wasn't one statistic quoted in that entire article. I literally burst out laughing when I saw the name "Rush Limbaugh" being used by him in his diatribe about the economic mess "California" is in. Equating the two, and more broadly, the stark-raving mad and extremist "Republicans" is just an excuse by liberals who are failing miserably at governing. In that state (CA) and increasingly so, nationwide, Republicans are marginalized. They are of little consequence. There is no excuse on the part of liberals to get things accomplished. Yet Mr. Krugman is bound and determiend to play that card no matter what.
This was just another opinion rant by that windbag. I mean, it's not like he has an ax to grind with the GOP. Yeah, right. He takes every chance he can get to make weasel-worded potshots at Republicans, whether they are warranted or not.
More specifically, though, get back with me when you can link to something that explicitly (read: quantitatively, statistically, "factually") ties California's economic woes to Republican policies.
Hotheaded, windbag rants will not suffice.
Here is the beginning of the last paragraph of the Rosen article in New Republic 'I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor's detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths.' Kind of confirms Rosen as a hack. Given a job to write pieces on each of Obama's possible nominees, he admits that he hasn't done enough research. As a whole IMO it reaked of an article that is there simply to dig as much dirt as possible. Very few names given to sources. Typical source siting is 'as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it'. No chance of tracing sources back. Bit of a lightweight article really. If thats THE case against, the case for Sotomayor must be pretty strong.
And California is also hampered by Republican blocks on anything except cutting of services because anything budget-related requires a supermajority which the Democrats don't have and the Republicans are very good at maintaining party loyalty.
There are a lot of states that have a virtual monopoly of power by one party (at least at state level), but California isn't one of them.
Not that I was trying to say that the budget mess in California is the Republicans' fault. The problems are the system as set-up and the complete inability of the Democrats and Republicans to get along.
@Casual Observer,
Your use of 'atheist' as a pejorative is merely a sign of your own religious bigotry.
That being said, I don't feel too good about this nomination--admittedly on the strength of one quote--"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."
Despicable. Can you imagine what would happen if Obama had nominated a white man who said the reverse of that statement? ("I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.")
Not only would this theoretical white male appointee be forced to withdraw his appointment, he would probably be forced to resign whatever seat on whatever court he already sat upon. But not the Honourable Ms. Sotomayor. Anyone else see a bit of a double standard?
A person (of ANY ethnicity/gender) who thinks that their decisions might be inherently superior because of their ethnicity/gender has NO PLACE being a judge in any court.
Jeff said -
Fred. Suddenly experience is the gold standard?text
Of course experience is a major part of qualification for a job; who would argue otherwise?
Last week the talking point was that we wanted someone from a non-judicial background.text
Who's "we"?
As for "most experienced nominee", check out the CV of Robert Bork.text
Robert Bork was indeed experienced.
Let me explain this very carefully.
Experience is important. It is not the only important thing. Relevant experience is necessary but not sufficient.
Read Jeff Rosen.text
Irrelevant anonymous smears about her personality. As I said before, the only information provided is the information that Jeff Rosen couldn't find anything worse to print.
She's a lightweight driven by her political preferences. The remark about Hispanic women being better judges than white men is all too revealing of her mindset. The Duke tape of her laughing with derision at the suggestion that judges don't "make policy" is awful. text
Your misinterpretation of her remark is revealing of your mindset.
And of course judges "make policy". The Dred Scott decision, Brown vs Board of Education, etc, etc, etc.
Judicial decisions determine what is legal or illegal.
But the left - once alive to the dangers of judges - is now slave to them, even after they win.text
I've never met this guy "the left" that you guys are so obsessed with.
And as for "facts" Fred, unless you are some sort of serious court expert please spare me. You and everyone else here (myself included) are reacting to the same reporting.That doesn't address Fred's point.
Your position is that this is a bad nominee.
We understand that others who are not women or Hispanic could also make good nominees, and we also understand that she is being nominated by a president who is not from the party you favor. Those are not strong arguments against the appointment. Do you have any facts?
There are plenty of other states, run primarily by Democrats, Repblicans and every mix in betwee, with exponentially fewer problems than California.
California is one of, if not the, most liberal state in the US. The implosion of that state's economy is tied directly to poor management on the part of liberals. Plain. And. Simple.
The most depressing thing is that on any given case, you can, with about 95% confidence, predict how at least 8 of the 9 justices will vote. And the shame of it is that many would consider that a balanced court. The only way to really begin to fix the court, though, is to have two justices (one from each "team") leave at approximately the same time and replace them with two justices whose opinions aren't so canned (an opportunity wasted by the previous administration). Unfortunately, I don't have any particular confidence that any party in power would be able to resist the temptation of adding an Alito and Roberts (or the Dem equivalent).
Casual Observer
Fred is just an angry, hate-mongering atheist. Nothing new to see here.text
This is the first angry, hate-mongering comment I have seen.
You libs are so concerned with grinding the opposition to pulp, you're totally ignoring the absolute economic implosion going on in this country right now.text
No-one is ignoring this.
State budgets are crumbling. See link below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30855847
And which state is leading the way to disaster? Why, that liberal bastion of California, of course. Don't even mention the "Republican" Governator.text
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1
Yes, I know that you are required to burst a blood vessel in your brain at the mention of Krugman's name, but it's actually a good summary of a major problem with state budgeting.
Your use of 'atheist' as a pejorative is merely a sign of your own religious bigotry.
Nope. Fred has been a belligerent and militant atheist on here before, calling out believers as quacks and idiots. If he had not displayed such arrogance and hostilitiy initially, I would not have felt the need to call out his own faith, or lack thereof.
Why is it always that when an atheist condemns believers, he is a pragmatist who is standing by the principles of science, yet when a believer calls out an atheist, he or she is a religious bigot?
The legislative split in California is only about 60-40 with a Republican governor. If you want to get Plain. And. Simple. about it, the budget crisis is probably more closely related to it's mammoth entertainment and service economy. Those aren't industries that are well suited to weather a sustained recession. But if you want to prattle on about affirmative San Francisco gay entitlement action programs, have at it, brave Republican hero!
:)
I am not a believer, but think you can believe anything you want - just don't use our government to force it down other's throats. How does that differ from the Taliban or the Europe the Founding Father's escaped to found this place?
I am most certainly not a hate-monger.
...but it's actually a good summary of a major problem with state budgeting.
I must have missed it. He blabs about how crippling Prop 13 is/was but never goes into any detail. He opines about how the GOP is self-destructing as they transfer from the party of Reagan to the Party of Limbaugh. And then wonders aloud how in the hell this same party still has 40 Senators in Congress.
I failed to see a thorough summary of the problem with state budgeting anywhere in the text. Next time, you, fred, Mr. Krugman, or whomever need to back up what you say with actual facts, not glorified rants.
It will be interesting how much of a fight the GOP puts up against Sotomayor.
Per this article ( http://tinyurl.com/qhoq7w ) it seems she is one who likes to make law from the bench.
And per this one from the liberal rag New Republic ( http://tinyurl.com/ckw6kt ) she is not well-respected among her peers and may be another Harriet Miers.
Ole!
petekent01 (on twitter)
with a Republican governor.
I knew some bozo would try this. Forget the fact he is to the left of at least half of Senate Democrats. Arnold ain't no Republican. He married into the freakin' Kennedy family, for chrissakes.
Despicable. Can you imagine what would happen if Obama had nominated a white man who said the reverse of that statement?Doesn't matter. Racism from ethnic minorities towards the majority (Caucasians) in the US is acceptable. It's the only rational way to make up for years of oppression and abuse. And it's the liberals' dream come true.
Death to the white man. That'll solve all our problems ;)
Which half?
HWPixHend mentioned on the last post that Sotomayer was the "best of the worst." To the rest of the conservatives on the blog, who would you have rather Obama nominated, among people he might have realistically chosen? Is there a moderate that would have been acceptable to you? Cass Sunstein? Kagan? Someone else?
You had to have known that Obama was not going to choose someone in the Alito/Roberts vein. Personally, I think both are qualified for their positions, but I would have voted against them because I disagree with them. I don't think we have to go ad hominem on anybody with whom we have honest disagreements about judicial philosophy.
Personally, Roberts is my second favorite (least disliked) justice behind Kennedy, and followed by Scalia, Alito, and Thomas (in that order). Knowing that Bush was not going to nominate a liberal, I would have preferred Bush nominated a moderate like Kennedy or O'Conner. I understand why he didn't. Who would you have preferred Obama nominate? Jeff? Casual Observer?
I actually agree about Krugman, I have never liked his approach and he advocates instead of analyzing, but...he did win a Nobel (How, I will never know).
As for me, I do back up argument with fact.
Casual observer said
I knew some bozo would try this. Forget the fact he is to the left of at least half of Senate Democrats. Arnold ain't no Republican. He married into the freakin' Kennedy family, for chrissakes.
----------------------
Yet more evidence of the problem with the current GOP. Schwazzenegger campaigned for George HW Bush and countless other GOPers. I am not aware of him campaigning for any Democrat ever. Its like the GOP can't even acknowledge its moderates as part of their party any more. Its whats killing that party. (Just as much as any Democrat who decries Evan Bayh or Ben Nelson for instance is damaging that party.)
I knew some bozo would try this. Forget the fact he is to the left of at least half of Senate Democrats. Arnold ain't no Republican. He married into the freakin' Kennedy family, for chrissakes.Then what, in your opinion, makes someone a Republican?
Depending on what happens, we will now see non-"Cuban" Hispanics vote like African-Americans: 90%+ for Democrats.
Casual...fred keeps owning you.
Just stop -- you're working yourself into a rant at this point.
Try attacking the argument instead of the person...it may help a bit with your lack of credibility.
Maybe Casual Observer would think of James Carville as a better Republican than Schwazzengger is?
Besides Governor Schwarzenegger (R) being a closet liberal, would you care to discuss the likelihood that California was just too large an economy to both have entitlement programs and be in a heavy recession or would you rather pick nits about the numerical makeup of the legislature? I hear that Sweden is doing very well these days!
This doesn't loo to impressive in regards to the nominee (this time from cnn.com):
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/26/past-sotomayor-rulings-faced-tough-crowd-on-high-court/
Over the course of almost 17 years on the federal bench, Sotomayor has written opinions on at least eight cases that the Supreme Court later reviewed on appeal, according to a CNN analysis of Sotomayor's cases. Of those cases, six were either overturned or sent back to the lower court for further consideration. One case was upheld, but Sotomayor's legal reasoning was panned in the opinion signed by entire court. An eighth case is still being deliberated.
Only a couple 5-4's in there, most were by wider margins including an 8-0 and a 7-2.
Casual Observer -
Why is it always that when an atheist condemns believers, he is a pragmatist who is standing by the principles of science, text
He isn't. There plenty of religious scientists. Bigotry is bigotry. Some atheists are bigoted.
However, some forms of science denial are grounded in some religions. So it sometimes happens that some principles of science are defended against some specific sectarian beliefs.
yet when a believer calls out an atheist, he or she is a religious bigot?text
Because whoever is doing the "calling out" usually is.
Someone who goes around insulting and angrily confronting atheists actually reveals that their own religion may not be very sincerely held. Unless it's a religion I don't know about that teaches to marginalize and drive away anyone who doesn't share exactly the same belief.
He blabs about how crippling Prop 13 is/was but never goes into any detail.text
That's the point, and he goes into a fair amount of detail for the length of the column. Their ability to modulate revenue is hampered by Prop 13, which has many undesirable features.
I failed to see a thorough summary of the problem with state budgeting anywhere in the text.text
In general, policies that hamstring the ability of the peoples' elected representatives to modulate the way the state raises revenue are not helpful.
Of course, you might say that if Prop 13 is so bad, Californians should have the brains to get rid of it somehow, and I might agree with that.
Harold,
How did I misinterpret her remark about Hispanics and white men? Or her mocking of the philosophy of judicial restraint? How did you interpret these comments?
As for the judicial experience argument, lots of folks were minimizing it last week. Hence the wide speculation that Granholm or Nepolitano or Patrick might be named. None of them have a day of experience on the bench. Perhaps you missed this meme.
Judges do NOT, or should not, decide what is legal or illegal. Legislator do that. Judges decide whether laws are constitutional or not. The fact that you don't get this says it all.
I have no idea whether or not she will be a good justice. Nor do you. But your reactions in favor or her are no better informed than mine against her. I base my reaction against her on her apparent vision of the judicial role as some sort of heroic oligarch ready to dispense justice to those with whom she has empathy. I prefer procedural justice, blindly granted. Furthermore, as much as I value real diversity, I despise its engineering. So does most of the country, by the way, which is yet one more area where Sodomeyer is out of step.
What no-one has mentioned yet in this thread is that senators tend to have different standards for voting on nominations for district or appeals courts than for Supreme Court. Providing that the nominee isn't downright insane or guilty of crimes of moral turpitude, mere clear qualification to act as a judge is usually sufficient for easy confirmation for district and even appellate courts. The reason for this is that judges on lower courts are bound by Supreme Court decisions. Supreme Court justices, on the other hand, have much more power to make or overrule precedents. We can look back at examples like Judge Bork and even Judge Douglas Ginsberg. Both of them won confirmation to the Court of Appeals in DC, but neither of them got onto the Supreme Court.
The upshot? It is not necessarily hypocritical for a senator to support someone for a lower court seat on the basis of competence and then vote against him/her for a Supreme Court nomination, on the basis of legal philosophy, or simply because finer-toothed vetting has turned up some problem that was previously unknown (cf. the case of Judge Douglas Ginsberg).
Fred,
The fact that conservatives don't consider Souther a conservative is not evidence of their rightward drift. It's evidence of his leftward drift. You aren't seriously suggesting that he was some sort of moderate Republican are you? Or that the party of Reagan would have embraced him. He was a stealth candidate who backfired. And as for Bush and Sodomeyer, that was part of a deal and was very unpopular in the White House.
By the way, aren't you lefties worried about another Catholic on the court? No?
Jeff said-
"Judges do NOT, or should not, decide what is legal or illegal. Legislator do that. Judges decide whether laws are constitutional or not. The fact that you don't get this says it all. "
Judges do alot more than decide Constitutionality, even on the SCOTUS. They have to interpret the laws, often less than optimally drafted, and decide whether they apply or not to the situation.
Jeff-
I am worried about another Catholic on the court...
As for Souter, he was moderate it is just the court if off the rails to the right that makes him look liberal.
HWPixHend makes a laughable post there. Firstly, how many judgements have other judges had appealed to the Supreme Court? 8 cases in 17 years doesn't seem so bad.
Then he says only a couple of 5-4s in there, which is true, but added to the case SCOTUS upheld and the case SCOTUS sent back to appeals court that makes half of Sotomayor's appealed cases. (Remember 1 has yet to be decided upon). So there are double the amount of 5-4 cases as there are of any other type. (No other type of result SCOTUS could make gets more than 1 occurence). My point, you can spin those numbers any way you want. To me they don't mean anything at all, without being put into a wider context.
markymark-
Alot of 5-4 against you with the current SCOTUS likely means you ruled for the little guy against "the man."
Notice how quiet Obama has been on North Korea? Isn't it nice not to have fear dominate the conversation and the foreign policy?
Alot of 5-4 against you with the current SCOTUS likely means you ruled for the little guy against "the man.",
Another opinion slanted by ideology. This is spin, not fact.
No one owned me Kevin. I'm just a dissenting voice in an echo chamber. Of course it's going to look like I drew the short straw in this liberal la-la land.
Back to the point about the Governator. I wasn't making a point about inclusiveness (his in the GOP) so much as I am about ideology and governance. And my point was that a more liberal ideology prevails in California, which is directly tied to their current gloom, and not whether or not you'll ever see Schwarzenegger and Limbaugh ever holding hands. In other words, you can't blame "conservative ideology" for California's woes.
Jeff said
Judges do NOT, or should not, decide what is legal or illegal. Legislator do that. Judges decide whether laws are constitutional or not. The fact that you don't get this says it all.
-----------------------------
I am sorry, but that is precisely what judges do. That is the role of a judge, to decide on the legality of a case or otherwise. They do so by interpreting what the law, both through legislation and precedent and some would argue through 'natural justice'. Not everything that passes before SCOTUS or any other court, is reflected by existing legislation.
You could make a case for saying that a justice should not stray beyond a plain text reading of the constitution, but if that really is the case (and I don't believe you really believe it is!) then why does any justice have a large amount of shelves filled with case histories and other legal text books? Surely all they would need would be a copy of the constitution?
Really genuinely the 'Liberal activist' vs 'Conservative plain text reading' split in political language is amongst the most false in US politics. Liberals read the constitution and conservatives make judgements based on there own political prejudices. And that is fine, its the way the constitution wanted it. Thats why justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, to make sure that the preferences and prejudices of the people are taken into account.
Notice how quiet Obama has been on North Korea? Isn't it nice not to have fear dominate the conversation and the foreign policy?That's because he's a pussy cowering in fear. As a leader, he makes us weaker as a nation.
I find it funny that you're so worried about "fear" dominating the conversation when a country just tested an explosive equivalent to the one that leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Yeah, there's nothing to "fear" about the incineration of tens of thousands of people.
@ Casual Observer,
You miss the point. There is a distinction between arguing about faith, even attacking a faith (and I consider atheism a faith as much as Christianity or Islam, even if it is less complicated), and using a faith as an insult. Example: an atheist could argue that Christianity must be false, because of scientific evidence, or the Problem with Evil, or such. A Christian may in turn argue that atheism is wrong based on whatever arguments he/she could come up with. Each could even call each other's faith morally wrong for whatever reasons, logical, historical, whatever. None of this would necessarily be bigoted. However, if the Christian used 'atheist' as an insult (as you did), or if the atheist called the christian a 'knuckle-dragging troglodyte christian fool' their comments could be called bigoted. (I have to apologize here to you--I should not have called you bigoted, I merely meant to call your comments bigoted. Efforts should be made to avoid applying hurtful labels to anyone)
Anyway, in my view, regardless of how someone exercises their faith, using their faith as a pejorative, an insult, is inevitably a bigoted attack on all people of that faith--even if it is not intended as such. If some one really is a 'hateful militant atheist', better to emphasize the 'hateful militancy' part rather than the 'atheist' part.
Sorry to be so far off topic, but I feel the need to defend against bigotry specifically against atheists--it is so prevalent, that unlike other forms of bigotry, effective political pressure cannot be exerted against it. (In a survey, only 27% of respondents would have accepted an atheist president, the lowest of all religious view surveyed, which included Mormonism and Islam, among others.) There is no atheist Reverend Al Sharpton, there to force offenders to grovel and apologize.
Sorry for the "lets all be tolerant" rant.
No end of amusement over Casual's claim that California is "one of the most liberal states in the country". That would definitely come as news to my friends from LA County.
Seriously, California is about as liberal overall as New Jersey is- it consistently Democrat in presidential elections, by a significant, but by no means overwhelming margin, but talk any other election, be it state, local, or any other national office, much less the referenda, and it's a very, *very* different picture.
wv:hestrium- If I had to guess, it's probably what Casual's huffing.
Markeymark, obviously, didn't read the article I linked to. So much for a reasonable debate. I had hoped for better on here, but I should have known better.....
You libs can carry on...
That would definitely come as news to my friends from LA County.
Anecdotal or marginal evidence doesn't suffice. Sorry. You lose. California is as liberal as they come - easily one of the five most liberal states in the country, even factoring in local and state elections.
Jeff -
How did I misinterpret her remark about Hispanics and white men? Or her mocking of the philosophy of judicial restraint? How did you interpret these comments?text
I interpret the comment about Hispanic women and white men as a particularly obvious joke.
I do not think she "mocked judicial restraint"; I think that she scoffed at the idea that judicial decisions do not affect policy.
I am in favor of legitimate judicial restraint, and I wish that the conservative activist judges on today's ScOTUS would observe it.
Judges do NOT, or should not, decide what is legal or illegal. Legislator do that. text
Of course I agree with basics of this, as should anyone with an elementary school education. No-one has suggested that judges should initiate new laws from scratch.
Judges decide whether laws are constitutional or not.However, this is certainly not the only thing judges do.
Laws the proceed from legislatures frequently need to be interpreted in court. They are rarely perfect as written.
Furthermore, the US is a "common law" country - written legislation is supplemented by an accepted body of tradition.
There are many complications.
The fact that you don't get this says it all.text
I am kind of tired of this silly straw man. Neither I nor anyone else has suggested that judges should distort or invent the laws.
@ Casual
Anecdotal evidence doesnt count but sheer assertion does? Interesting logic.
In all seriousness, you can maybe make a compelling argument that Hawaii, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island are more liberal. But that would still be subjective. It's a safe bet that California is definitely one of the ten most liberal states in the US.
Or are you going to tell me next they're on par with the ideology of Oklahoma or Utah?
I heard a good retort to the strict constructionalist mindset that the GOP has for its nominees... "The constitution works now for the same people it did back when it was written, rich white land owners"
The constitution is not an infallible document and nuanced interpretation of it is a must. Otherwise we wouldn't have a judiciary, because the constitution would speak for itself... but it doesn't.
@Matthew Walsh,
Okay, dipshit. Here's a statistical analysis of liberalism/conservatism by state for both economic and social policy. It's not "sheer assertion." It's fact. And I could round up another half dozen reports with similar results.
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2008/06/ranking_states.html
Casual Observer, you seem to have a blind spot about liberals destroying the economy (in California) as if it's only liberals who have a hand in destroying economies. On the national scale, it's the big-business republicans that destroyed our economy going back to pressuring clinton to repeal the GSA. That legislation was introducted by the GOP, and a veto may well have been overturned.
As a general comment to those who deride atheists on this board. It's a point of fact that the framers never intended for us to be a christian nation. As such, there is no room for a biblical slant on laws in our government. ZERO. An atheist is in the unique position of being theologically neutral when it comes to government because we understand the intention of the establishment clause. Religion should not influence government, nor should government influence religion.
The GOP will scream for a month or two and in the end she will be confirmed with a few republican votes.
If they are perceived as anti-woman and hispanic they will never win another national election again.
Obama played them well. He knows in order for them to oppose her they have to commit political suicide. Plus she is very qualified.
The GOP has to know they will hate any nominee that comes from Obama, payback is hell!
...pressuring clinton to repeal the GSA...
Always gotta blame those mean, nasty Republicans, eh? No matter what the failings of the Dems/libs may have been? Unbelievable.
I'm convinced one of these days, in the not-so-distant future, Dems are going to have a 4-to-1 edge over Reps and a stranglehold on national politics, yet you all will still find a way to blame all of the country's and world's problems on that 20% that still identifies themselves as Republican.
@Casual Observer
Did you look closely at the graph you linked? Economically, CA has 20 states more liberal than it. (Socially, it has 9, but this was an issue of economics, no?)
@Jeff NYC Cem,
Yes, and the framers never meant for believers to be so openly persecuted and mocked as they are today, which will only get worse over time as it's now politically correct - practically chic - to shun believers. See Bill Maher and Jon Stewart for examples. In ten years, mockery of Christianity such as what they exhibit will be more than commonplace. Of course, all the concerns and interests in preserving the civil liberties and freedoms of these people will have evaporated by then. The libs won't be happy until they can send a white man to prison for life for calling a black man a "n****r" and when a self-professing Christian can get mocked and beaten on the sidewalk with nary a word.
@joel
Plus she is very qualified.
Nope, she is a racist buffoon. See:
1) her self-aggrandizing comments about Latin women's superiority to white males, and
2) her ruling on the New Haven firefighter's (Ricci) case
@Ole Forsberg,
Yes, I looked at it. I realize that study shows California slightly more "conservative" than others, but still far more liberal than others on here would like to believe. And, yes, "economic policy" was the topic at hand, but social policy has a direct impact on it.
Casual Observer -- so you're shifting the debate to the dems constantly whining about the mean old GOP when someone defends against your naive claim that liberals are responsible for screwing the economy?
My point is this. Someone's political alignment doesn't necessarily make them good or bad, it's the decisions they make. So you can blame California's calamities on the liberals -- and in effect try to indict liberal ideology alltogether -- but conservative rule has led to it's fair share of fiscal messes.
It's you're stubborn insistence on California's liberal-ness leading to it's fiscal problems that I'm taking issue with. Bad decisions can be made by those in either party. If you want instances where conservatives have run economies into the ground, you have plenty to choose from as well.
Casual: Do you really believe you are so openly mocked and derided as we non-believers? If you think that, then you have a pretty serious case of persecution complex.
Last I checked, admitting to being an atheist will reduce someone's chances of getting elected to public office to almost zero.
To state that all "libs" want to see "a self-professing Christian can get mocked and beaten on the sidewalk with nary a word" is intellectually dishonest since a majority of "libs" are still believers, in one form or another.
It's also intellectually dishonest to play the victim because a couple of comedians make a sarcastic comment about believers having a mental illness, especially since mockery and derision of non-blelivers is so prevalent in society that it doesn't even warrent a special comment about when it happens.
@Casual Observer
But your assertion was that the liberalness of CA was the reason for its budgetary issues. If your statement is true, then why are the 20 states more (economically) liberal than CA not in greater difficulty?
(And, please explain how social liberalism affects budget in ways that economic liberalism does not.)
HP said
Markeymark, obviously, didn't read the article I linked to. So much for a reasonable debate. I had hoped for better on here, but I should have known better.....
-----------------------
Actually I read the whole thing. And have now read it twice. And I would say that to use it in the way that you used it, to make a criticism of Sotomayor, you need to put the comments of the article in a context. Over 17 years, 8 cases being sent to SCOTUS doesn't seem bad really. But I don't know that for sure, and I am sure you don't either. Also the article implies that those 8 cases are all about Sotomayor, having read a summary of the most recent case, it turns out that Sotomayor was one of 7 to rule out of a panel of 13. So it isn't just Sotomayor it is a whole panel whose verdict has been appealed. Did she write the opinion that SCOTUS apparently panned? I don't know if she did, and I would be surprised if you did. My point being that the context is vital in that article. The article itself was not making a case against Sotomayor, it was pointing out that SCOTUS does often overturn verdicts sent to it. [at least thats my reading of it!]
Truth is that Sotomayor seems to be a good pick from my point of view. A decent moderate to liberal judge who I believe reflects both legal intelligence and political intelligence. I think the right will make some noise, as is their right, but I can't see how Sotomayor can be rejected at this point. If only 8 of her judgements, or at least 8 judgements that she has been involved in, have been referred to SCOTUS over 17 years, that seems to me a pretty decent record. From what I have read she seems to make judgements based on the law, not personal prejudice. And despite plenty of early noise from GOPers noone has found a judgement she has made that comes close to 'troubling' (a word GOPers seem to like today!)
To casual observer and any others who want to use the firefighters case against Sotomayor, here is CNNs summary of the case
'Ricci v. DeStefano (2008), 530 F.3d 87: Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of an exam to determine promotions within the city's fire department. Only one Hispanic and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam; the City subsequently decided not to certify the results and issued no promotions. In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral arguments in April 2009.'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/26/sotomayor-scotus-case-history-new-haven-firefighters/
What is racist about that judgement? The judgement threw out an examination that only 1 minority passed. Seems like to vote for the examination would be more racist than to vote against it.
Casual Observer said... In other words, you can't blame "conservative ideology" for California's woes.
Funny. I thought liberals were all "tax and spend". That's been the right's accusation for decades. Now policies that block taxes from being raised are being blamed on the liberals.
Isn't that ... interesting.
By the way, this is interesting:
The worst states as a percentage of budget gaps vs. general funds are in order: California (21.3%), Arizona (17.8%), Nevada (13.5%), Rhode Island (12.6%), Florida (11.0%), New York (9.1%), New Jersey (7.6-10.6%), and Alabama (9.2%).
Seems to be a pretty even split between conservative and liberal states.
It's also intellectually dishonest to play the victim because a couple of comedians make a sarcastic comment about believers having a mental illness, especially since mockery and derision of non-blelivers is so prevalent in society that it doesn't even warrent a special comment about when it happens.The tide is quickly turning, my friend. Change we can believe in right. We're seeing the most radical shift in indeology and public policy in this country since its founding. I won't argue that, as of right now things might still be tilted ever so slightly in favor of "believers." Mark my word, though, in 10 to 20 years, being openly and militantly gay and atheist will be welcomed, condoned, and encouraged. Being a believer - particularly of the Christian faith - will be openly mocked and scrutinized, to the point that believers will be made to feel shame in public and will be harassed relentlessly. Obama's change will provide the impetus for this to happen. Wait and see.
But your assertion was that the liberalness of CA was the reason for its budgetary issues. If your statement is true, then why are the 20 states more (economically) liberal than CA not in greater difficulty?
Look, dingleberry. That was just one chart - out of several - that showed California's relative liberalness. I just used that one to show they were far from being conservative, not to argue exactly which notch they should occupy. Other research shows them to be much more liberal than that.
(And, please explain how social liberalism affects budget in ways that economic liberalism does not.)
I never said that. I was saying that social policy affects the budget THROUGH economic policy. If a state tilts more socially liberal, they're likely to have greater expenditures in the budget - think, entitlement programs - compared to more socially conservative states.
Social policy impacts economic policy in many cases. There's no two ways around it.
Seems to be a pretty even split between conservative and liberal states.
We must have a different definition of "even split." I see 6 blue states and 2 red ones. And the most staunchly "red" one - Alabama - ranked the best of the worst.
Now policies that block taxes from being raised are being blamed on the liberals.
Taxes being too low isn't the problem. Out of control spending is. Quit trying to frame the debate in a way that doesn't address the problem. California spends too much money, and it's because of liberal ideology. Plain. And. Simple.
Casual, the tone of your rhetoric says it all.
To use words like "open and militantly gay and athiest" "will be condoned and accepted" shows your open derision for gays and atheists. You think it's an agenda, led by a christian president -- who believes marriage should be between a man and a woman -- to mock and deride believers? Really?
Also, do you really think that in a country where ahtists stand little chance of getting into public office, where christian organizations are still some of the most powerful lobbies, that things are only slanted ever so slightly in your decection?
Atheism is far from being a mainstream position. We may be heading towards more secularism in government, but that does not mean that we're headed toward a society where christians are openly mocked by the majority. There is no basis for that assumption based on the current national climate.
Casual: A state that went for a dem in the last election doesn't mean its automatically a liberal state. Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Nevada are all, on balance, pretty conservative states. That Florida and Nevada went for Obama, doesn't change the overall bent of their statewide politics.
What is racist about that judgement? The judgement threw out an examination that only 1 minority passed. Seems like to vote for the examination would be more racist than to vote against it.
Do you even know what the Ricci case was/is about? The city of New Haven committed an open and blatant act of racism towards qualified white candidates for promotion consideration, simply because there wasn't enough success from minorities to fit the racial mix they wanted. Never mind the fact that an independent third-party designed the test to make it strictly about work-related issues. There was no racial bias in the test. The people who failed simply lacked the fundamental knowledge and capacity to do well.
Sotomayor supports the discrimination against those qualified white firefighters.
That aside, her self-aggrandizing comments about the superiority of latin females to white males poisons her as racist as the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
Yes, you heard it here first, folks. The new Supreme Court nominee is as racist as the KKK.
A state that went for a dem in the last election doesn't mean its automatically a liberal state. Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Nevada are all, on balance, pretty conservative states. That Florida and Nevada went for Obama, doesn't change the overall bent of their statewide politics.
I call bullshit. I call bullshit squared, even. That's a convenient argument to make when you want to show the even split among liberal and conservative states with crippling budget deficits. Florida and Nevada are blue and will become increasingly so in the future. That's been the dogma here at 538, anyway, and has been argued logically and intellectually. The rumor is that Arizona will turn blue before long and is increasingly liberal. Don't blame me. This is the argument out of you liberals' own mouths.
I'll say to you, just because a state voted Republican previously does not mean that the prevailing ideology of the past will remain static into the future. Times change. People change. Ideology changes. Six of those eight states you listed are now center-left to far left. That's all there is to it. There's no "even split."
Bullshit.
Casual: Did you know that it's possible to make an exam that is favored more toward whites than minorities? Did you know that most IQ tests in the United States score white males far better than white females or any racial minority? Do you really think that this case was about denying white firefighters promotions based on the fact that they were white? This case highlights potential racism in the examination process. That you think that it had to be accurate because only mostly whites passed it highlights your own racism -- the ability to accept that only whites were smart enough to pass the exam and get promoted. You heard it here first... Casual, YOU are a member of the KKK.
OK Casual, it won't surprise me that a lot of states turn blue because of the way the republican party has marginalized itself in the past few years. But to deny that IN THE PAST (Which is when financial messes were created) Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Alabama were (and in some cases, still are) ruled by a more conservative ideologies, is again, intellectually dishonest.
Casual observer
The City of New Haven rejected the examination [or at least the results of the examination] because they decided that it did not conform to federal legislation. Sotomayor simply sad that they had the right to do so. And here is what she said about her heritage 'Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life'. That doesn't mean that she is more qualified than any white man. But as a 'wise' latina she is in a better position that a white man who hasn't had a rich life to draw experience from. She is not saying that her latinness makes her superior, but that the life experiences she has had give her a broader experience, as against a whbite man that hasn't lived a similar life. (The extension being that a wise white man who has lived a rich life would be in an equally goos position.)
@Casual Observer:
""
Look, dingleberry. That was just one chart - out of several - that showed California's relative liberalness. I just used that one to show they were far from being conservative, not to argue exactly which notch they should occupy. Other research shows them to be much more liberal than that.
""
Dingleberry?? =)
You offered a chart to support your point that does not support your point. I reread the comments and could not find anyone suggesting that CA was (economically) conservative. The evidence that you provide supports the contention that CA is a moderate state (in an economic sense). In other words, when asked to support your point, you produced a graph that weakens your point.
The main point of my comment was that were your hypothesis correct, then these 20 other states (more economically liberal than CA) should have budget issues as bad or worse than CA. You did not even respond to that.
And,... "Dingleberry"???
That you think that it had to be accurate because only mostly whites passed it highlights your own racism -- the ability to accept that only whites were smart enough to pass the exam and get promoted.
Ha! And I can just as easily say that because you think it had to be inaccurate or biased because very few minority candidates passed it highlights your racism -- the ability to reject that whites may have displayed superiority on an examination because a commensurate number of minorities were unable to do so.
How is that any freaking different??
Yes, I realize some tests are potentially biased, but enough with the relentless politically correct apologizing.
I'm not saying, "Geez, sounds like a bunch of dumb niggers/spics."
I'm saying, "In what appears to be an unbiased test to provide a qualifier for promotions, whites, for whatever reason, displayed superiority and shouldn't get punished as a result of the failings of their minority counterparts."
If anything, they may need to look deeper into training and education for minority candidates, but lets not just assume the test is biased and throw out the promotions of white candidates because we didn't see the results we would have liked.
@markymark:
I have the feeling that you are over-reaching on defending Sotomayor's apparently racist and/or sexist comment.
(Although your analysis of the New Haven case seems spot on.)
Nevada went 55-43 for Obama. They have 1 Dem and 1 Rep Senator. They have 2 Dem and 1 Rep congressperson.
Hard to argue they're a conservative bastion, isn't it?
@Casual Observer:
""
If anything, they may need to look deeper into training and education for minority candidates, but lets not just assume the test is biased and throw out the promotions of white candidates because we didn't see the results we would have liked.
""
But, correct me if I'm wrong, the New Haven case was about allowing the chief to decide to throw out the exam scores, no? He would be the one most qualified to determine if the exams actually did test 'promotion' skills, right?
So, CO, it appears as though you and mm agree on this?
Florida makes a better argument. Only 51-48 for Obama. The Senators are split evenly, and there are 15 Rep vs. 10 Dem congresspersons.
They also have a Republican governor, albeit a moderate.
Nevada, FWIW, has a R governor too.
Ole forsberg,
I think what I am doing is contextualising her comment, which does on the face of it seem racist. She is not though saying she is more qualified because she is latina, but because she has life experience and is wise. (Notice in the quote, she doesn't say that the white man is wise). She is saying, at least as I interpret the comment, that her latino status does not disqualify her, and that her experiences make her more qualified. Whether or not you agree with that, it is not a racist view.
@Casual Observer:
""
Nevada went 55-43 for Obama. They have 1 Dem and 1 Rep Senator. They have 2 Dem and 1 Rep congressperson.
Hard to argue they're a conservative bastion, isn't it?
""
Again, no one called it a "conservative bastion", did they? The graph that you cite showing CA is economically more conservative than 20 other states also shows the NV is conservative on both economic and social scales (as are AZ and AL). It does show, however, that FL is economically liberal and socially conservative.
So, the score is 5-3 liberal-conservative.
Looking at the state legislatures, Nevada is overwhelmingly Democratic while Florida is overwhelmingly Republican.
On that note, I'll concede Florida is still a conservative stalwart if you'll concede Nevada is a liberal one. That still makest the "split" 5-3 in those eight states you listed.
@markymark:
If your take on it is how she actually meant it, then you are right that it is not a racist view. I am just not convinced your interpretation is correct. (I'm also not convinced that my interpretation is correct. Let us see what her case decisions say about her; that should offer greater insight.)
Again, no one called it a "conservative bastion", did they?Uh, maybe Jeff NYC Dem didn't use the word "bastion," but he was arguing Nevada was conservative. Quit playing games over semantics. You've been doing that with me on the entire thread. It's annoying, especially when you come off as clueless.
I rectified it, anyway. I gave him Florida, but he has to admit to Nevada.
@Casual Observer:
You are assuming, however, that a Democrat in NV is the same as a Democrat in FL is the same as a Democrat in AL is the same as a Democrat in MA is the same ...
I deny the correctness of that assumption.
Looks like you forgot John Kerry, who was a Yea vote
@Casual Observer:
First, I'm a Dingleberry, now I'm clueless?
""
Quit playing games over semantics.
""
Definition of semantics: "the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text."
Definition of ad hominem: "appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason)."
I have tried to keep this discussion about facts, meaning, and logic. It is the only way I know of constructing an argument. When a person fails to use facts, fails to use logic, and misconstrues another person's meaning, there is no discussion, there is no understanding, there is no conversation---there is only talking.
If you think that it makes me come off as being clueless, perhaps you need to argue correctly. Perhaps you need to argue ethically. Perhaps you should reread your own posts. Perhaps you should use facts instead of mere assertions.
If you are frustrated with me, I understand that. But the fault is your own inability to stick to the argument and what is actually said during the argument, rather than what you want the other person to have said.
I knew some bozo would try this. Forget the fact he is to the left of at least half of Senate Democrats. Arnold ain't no Republican. He married into the freakin' Kennedy family, for chrissakes.Blame the Republican Party for our misunderstanding then. They've been more than happy to keep putting him out in front of people and campaign for their candidates.
And WTF does who he marries have anything to do with it? How partisan do you have to be for party affiliation to be a veto on who you marry? Most moderates on either side of the aisle shouldn't have trouble marrying a moderate on the other side or anybody short of a radical.
So Arnie's a moderate. Admittedly, that isn't a Real Republican according to many which seems to be part of why they're having trouble with party affiliation right now.
I'm convinced one of these days, in the not-so-distant future, Dems are going to have a 4-to-1 edge over Reps and a stranglehold on national politics, yet you all will still find a way to blame all of the country's and world's problems on that 20% that still identifies themselves as Republican.Just like how it was the Democrats' fault that Iraq failed and the economy went in the tubes during Bush's watch?
Partisans from both parties will blame the other side no matter how irrational it may sound. Florida had nearly a 3/4 majority in the state house, a 2/3 majority in the state senate and a completely Republican cabinet, but when our economy went to heck it was the fault of Democrats. It's also the Democrats' fault that we have open primaries.
And for the record, there is more to California than just the coast. A lot of California is liberal, but it also has a lot of conservatives. It's NOT one of the five most liberal states in the state, even if you want to disregard the economic side of things (in an debate on California's economic policy?!).
Ole forsberg,
Well I dare say someone on the Judiciary committee will ask her about her comments, so I would imagine she will get a chance to fully explain herself. But I would be fairly shocked if someone with enough intelligence to be nominated onto the Supreme court honestly was stupid enough to make that comment if the blindly racist interpretation that some are putting on it already holds.
Perhaps you should use facts instead of mere assertions.
Which was preceded by this gem:
You are assuming, however, that a Democrat in NV is the same as a Democrat in FL is the same as a Democrat in AL is the same as a Democrat in MA is the same ...
I deny the correctness of that assumption.
Look, I won't deny there are some ideological quirks and differences in different regions of the country, but political affiliation (as in, what party you belong to and vote for) is, by far, the best barometer we have for ideology on a national basis.
That a state's relative number of Democrats and Republicans may not always punctuate those individualistic and idiosyncratic ideolgoical characteristics in as much detail as we'd like doesn't necessarily undermine the argument for or against the prevalance of liberalness or conservatism in a particular state or area.
@Casual Observer:
""
Looking at the state legislatures, Nevada is overwhelmingly Democratic while Florida is overwhelmingly Republican.
On that note, I'll concede Florida is still a conservative stalwart if you'll concede Nevada is a liberal one. That still makest the "split" 5-3 in those eight states you listed.
""
If that is your metric, then Alabama would be a blue state: "Democrats [hold] a 62-43 advantage in the House, and a 22-13 advantage in the Senate" (source).
Semantics? Evidence that your metric is incorrect?
Whatever.
@markymark:
Which I agree with, and I hope you are right.
But, I know better than to think that anything she would say would change many people's opinion about her. It seems the battle lines are already drawn. The only thing in question seems to be how bloody of a battle it will be.
(I wonder if the Administration has checked to make sure she paid her taxes. lol )
Just like how it was the Democrats' fault that Iraq failed and the economy went in the tubes during Bush's watch?
Democrats have had far greater than a 20% say in recent years. Keep in mind, they actually retook control of Congress in 2006.
...if you want to disregard the economic side of things (in an debate on California's economic policy?!).
I never disregarded it. I made the point that social policy impacts economic policy, so the ideological bend from that perspective should be considered. And, again, I say that was just one assessment. It was just the first one I came to. They show California slightly more conservative than others. It's not the sole authority, even though it was the one I used as an example.
I guess I need to find a couple of others that aren't so charming towards California conservatism.
Furthermore, the Louisiana House is 60D-43R, and the LA Senate is 23D-16R.
But, whatever.
I call bullshit. I call bullshit squared, even. That's a convenient argument to make when you want to show the even split among liberal and conservative states with crippling budget deficits. Florida and Nevada are blue and will become increasingly so in the future. That's been the dogma here at 538, anyway, and has been argued logically and intellectually. The rumor is that Arizona will turn blue before long and is increasingly liberal. Don't blame me. This is the argument out of you liberals' own mouths.
I'll say to you, just because a state voted Republican previously does not mean that the prevailing ideology of the past will remain static into the future. Times change. People change. Ideology changes. Six of those eight states you listed are now center-left to far left. That's all there is to it. There's no "even split."
Bullshit.I've missed out on those previous arguments because I'm not a regular, but we aren't blue except maybe going that way for Presidential elections.
We may be moving closer to blue. We used to have that almost veto-proof Republican majority in both houses with a Republican governor and three Republican cabinet members. But now, it's only a solid majority.
76-44 in the House.
26-14 in the Senate. (I thought that we'd picked up a more seats in both, but maybe not.)
16-9 in the US House.
1-1 in the US Senate.
2-1 in the Cabinet.
We voted for Obama, but that doesn't make us blue.
Evidence that your metric is incorrect?
My "metric" included both national and state political affiliation. Regardless of state politicians, Alabama went 61-39 for McCain, has a Rep governor, 2 Rep Senators, and 4 of the 7 congressional representatives are Republican.
Nevada can't boast that kind of "national" conservative credentials. I'm not being inconsistent here. Quit twisting and spinning what I say.
@Casual Observer:
""'
Just like how it was the Democrats' fault that Iraq failed and the economy went in the tubes during Bush's watch?
'
""
Democrats have had far greater than a 20% say in recent years. Keep in mind, they actually retook control of Congress in 2006.
""
And, Democrats also had control until 2002 once Jeffords left the Republicans.
I guess I need to find a couple of others that aren't so charming towards California conservatism.If that was the point that you wanted to make, yes. But saying "California is one of the 5 most liberal states in the US" and then producing a link that shows it as #9 (out of 48) in social issues and about 20 in economic issues simply makes you look silly.
Furthermore, the Louisiana House is 60D-43R, and the LA Senate is 23D-16R.
Again, I'm trying to balance an analysis predicated on both national and state politics. Despite being Democratic at the state level, Louisiana went 59-40 for McCain, has a Rep governor, 6 of 7 House representatives are Reps, and the Senators are split. Of course, the Dem Senator Landrieu is a very conservative one, which, I realize, supports your claim that a Dem in X is different from a Dem in Y, etc. - which I never disputed, anyway.
Democrats have had far greater than a 20% say in recent years. Keep in mind, they actually retook control of Congress in 2006. That's absolutely true. I thought you were simply exaggerating for effect rather than actually predicting that Democrats would take a 80% majority in the future. So I was attempting to make a comparison without the exaggerations.
The Dems did have tenuous control of one of the houses of Congress for half of Dubya's two terms. But to argue that they were actually the determining factor on policy effects for all eight years credits the Democratic Party with a lot more competence and organization than I think that they really deserve.
@Casual Observer:
""
My "metric" included both national and state political affiliation.
""
Sorry, I missed that part.
I was responding more to you equating Democrats across the United States as being equal. To which you clarified after I posted, which is why I did not read your clarification.
Of course the amusing thing is that I'm scrolling back to see why it was an important issue... oh yeah: budget gaps.
5-3 liberal-conservative
I thought you were simply exaggerating for effect rather than actually predicting that Democrats would take a 80% majority in the future.
I'm not exaggerating very much. We're already at 60%-40% and this is just the beginning of the end for the GOP, right? I wouldn't be surprised - in all seriousness - if Democrats controlled 70% or more of Congress by 2016. And Barack is absolutely going to win a second term. It's all going to be on their shoulders, though. That's the peril of squashing the opposition and grinding them into obscurity. You have no one else to blame. So when the Dems make up that much of the political landscape and then this country is turned into a third world backwater, we'll know exactly who to blame.
For the record, I blame the Dems for very little of what happened in 2001-2008, but they're going to get no such favors for the atrocities that will be committed from 2009-2017.
When they get the uber-supermajority they've always wanted and the Reps have gone the way of the Whigs, then the excuses will have completely run out. I'm waiting patiently for that day. The sad thing is, this country will cease to exist as we now know it. We'll have the per capita GDP of Argentina....if we're lucky.
@Casual Observer
Nevada can't boast that kind of "national" conservative credentials. I'm not being inconsistent here. Quit twisting and spinning what I say.But this entire debate is about who runs the state. The national party is irrelevant in this case.
And besides, in CA, the issue is very much Prop 13. It requires 67% of the state legislature to approve any budget motion. This torpedoed the recent efforts by the Governator to balance the budget, as his own party (leave that one be, I'm not in the mood for that argument) rejected the changes to the tax code that could have helped fix the problem. I have no comment about what happened when it went to referendum last week, other than that there was
A) apparently very low turnout
and
B)Voting explicitly for a tax increase is a generally distasteful move (do not try to tell me voting for Obama was that- voting for a politician who may be involved in a tax increase is a decidedly different thing, as there are other issues in that case)
Yes, spending can bankrupt the government if they lack the ability to secure the funds necessary to maintain that spending. However, due to the stranglehold that Prop 13 (which I would think was ridiculous regardless of who was running the state) has on CA, they lack that ability. And therein lies the problem.
But this entire debate is about who runs the state. The national party is irrelevant in this case.
No. Evidently, the debate is over ideology...according to Ole Forsberg. But since we can't really put a finger on that because a Dem in CA is different from one in AL and FL and MA et al and because a Rep in OK is different from one in CT and NV and MT et al, then we simply can't make any assessment one way or the other.
Markymark - Neither the article (from CNN, a left to mod outlet, BTW) or myself said ANYTHING about whether her 8 cases being reviewed over 17 years was high or low.
You are right about one thing, I don't know if it is, but that was NOT the point being made. The POINT was of the 8 cases of hers that were reviewed by the SP, SIX were overturned and the one that was upheld, her arguments were resoundly criticized. The last case hasn't been decided yet, so 6 of 7 were overturned and the one that was upheld did NOT make here look good. Nothing more, nothing less.
As I said, not too impressive (which is also what I believe the article was trying to say), but, hey, that’s just my opinion……
It also could be pretty embarrassing if she gets overturned shortly on the affirmative action case by the court she is trying to join right before the hearings.....
Let's see if I can get the coding right this time.
I'm not exaggerating very much. We're already at 60%-40% and this is just the beginning of the end for the GOP, right? I wouldn't be surprised - in all seriousness - if Democrats controlled 70% or more of Congress by 2016. And Barack is absolutely going to win a second term. It's all going to be on their shoulders, though. That's the peril of squashing the opposition and grinding them into obscurity. You have no one else to blame. So when the Dems make up that much of the political landscape and then this country is turned into a third world backwater, we'll know exactly who to blame.
Not gonna happen.
It's 60-40 in the Senate and close to it in the House. And I think that currently it looks like Obama is going to get re-election, but the same would've been said about Bush41 up until the end of '91. And Obama "only" won 53% - 47%.
But you're making exactly the same sort of proclamations that came from the more excitable on both sides way back in 2004 and the Democrats looked just as clueless as the Republicans do now.
The Republicans are going to remember what "conservative" means and go back to small government. But sooner or later, the nutjobs are going to marginalize the party enough that the moderates and real conservatives either splinter and form their own party or they'll grow a set and take back their party.
Fortunately for the Republicans, their troubles are self-inflicted and not due to the masterful political maneuvering of the Democrats so it can be self-repaired fairly readily. In the meantime, they'll be sniping from the sidelines and waiting for the Democrats to screw up. Which they will.
For the record, I blame the Dems for very little of what happened in 2001-2008, but they're going to get no such favors for the atrocities that will be committed from 2009-2017.
When they get the uber-supermajority they've always wanted and the Reps have gone the way of the Whigs, then the excuses will have completely run out. I'm waiting patiently for that day. The sad thing is, this country will cease to exist as we now know it. We'll have the per capita GDP of Argentina....if we're lucky.
Shorter Casual Observer: If the Dems can't fix all of the messes that more than a decade of GOP driven policy created, it's their fault.
Of course, if they would just pass more tax cuts on the wealthiest individuals and pass more deregulation, everything would be just fine.
I have no vast store of confidence in the likes of Reid and Pelosi, but the GOP has proven themselves incredibly unfit to govern at the national level. I will vote against them continually until they show me some intellectual muscle.
The likes of Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, et al will never cut it, and the likes of Bachmann and Barton should probably just be put away in a rubber room. Palin? Jindal? Huckabee? A bunch of jokes. Romney was the one bright candidate you had, and he had to sell his soul to even make a run at the Presidency ... and the rank and file still wouldn't vote for a Mormon.
Sotomayor ended the MLB strike. I rest my case.
Hey Casual:
You and this California is liberal therefor it's economic are bad is so tiresome. Go to Wikipedia and look at the black populations percentages of South Carolina and Maryland. I lead with that because having read you I know that will be your first defense (it's the minorities fault SC is so poor). Now that we know they are 29.2% black and 29.5% black explain to me why conservative South Carolina is so poor, uneducated, and undeveloped compared to Maryland? If you want I can compare state after state with similar demographics to southern ones, and guess which ones come up short. Yes in Texas v. California you will win (Texas allow oil drilling, Cali doesn't) but overall you will lose that game of conservative success v. liberal underdevelopment. New England v. the Plains, Delaware v. Tennessee, I could go one all day comparing states with either large or small minority population based on their conservatism or liberalism. But of course all you will do is scream California, California.
Now on the pick Sotomayor is very experienced, and her college resume doesn't scream unintelligent intellectual lightweight, being magma cum luade and all. The "affirmative action" attack is silly. There isn't any such thing as "most qualified" it's a judgment call. There is at any one time about 50 top judges. About 30-60% at any one time will be the wrong ideology for the current president. So there is always a "pool" of qualified individual, at which point it's about the presidents gut. Unless you want to argue that there are no qualified woman, black, or Latino candidates? That's not a start to a race fight, it's the logical conclusion to those who cry-baby about this being about ethnicity. I guess we can concur that because the GOP is the party of white men Roberts and Alito was about gender politics. The fact that the major voting block the GOP has been trying to win over for the last 20 years Reagan Democrats are overwhelmingly Catholic is a coincidence with all those recent catholic picks (Catholics have been a part of the democratic natural constituency for a long time).
Yes she has made some unpolitic statements but aren't conservatives the ones always crying against political correctness. Compare her statement (which were jokes) to Alito arguing that a mostly white state senate district of 120 person was OK even though the nearby black one had 47,000. This didn't violate one man one vote. Those are hardly equal.
In fact judicial review of the constitution isn't even in the text, it's a precedent from the first chief justice, in a sense even that is "activism" from a strict constructionist standpoint. Plus the SCOTUS also reviews death penalty cases, that's where qualities like empathy come in, they don't strictly rule on the constitutionality of a case. Like a case working it's way up where a court denied a rape convict the right to have a DNA test run.
The constitution is scripture it has changed. When the 13th amendment was ratified, it changed the founder's original intent profoundly. It invalidated large parts of their ideas, and original intent. If the founders wanted an unchanged text, they could have banned changes to it, in fact they didn't even like the original text as written hence the bill of rights. Every time there is a major amendment the constitution becomes a new document. (by major I mean things like the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 13th, 16th, 19th, not the 27th an "accounting" change.
should read the "constitution ISN'T scripture, it has changed"
Casual Observer-
"An opinion predicated around the simple notion that you disagree with his ideology.
You back nothing up with facts, just opinion and hyperbole. Nobody is listening. You are a joke."
And you are a fool. This comment of yours immediately followed several reasons given for opposing Roberts; 1)His not having spent much time on the bench, 2)His disrespect of other judges in his opinions, and 3) His seeming lack of preparation in making his opinions. So where do you get off accusing other people of not thinking before they post something?
Casual: you don't understand the FIRST THING about the California budget situation, which is the constitutional requirement that every tax and spending measure get a two-thirds supermajority. The liberals don't run the state; the conservatives don't run the state; the Democrats don't; the Republicans don't; the state is REQUIRED to be run by a consensus.
As long as the minority party has at least one-third, as the Republicans still do, they have the power to blow everything up if they choose to. For some reason, the California Republicans continue to prefer blowing everything up.
HP said
Markymark - Neither the article (from CNN, a left to mod outlet, BTW) or myself said ANYTHING about whether her 8 cases being reviewed over 17 years was high or low.
----------------------------
Which is kind of my point. It strikes me as if its quite a low figure really. And given that I would imagine that taking a case to SCOTUS is pretty expensive, I would imagine its something that you don't do unless you are fairly confident you will win (or have rich backers!) So the metric shouldn't be how many cases you have had overturned, but instead how many compared to other judges have gone before SCOTUS. I don't read anything in that piece that makes me think anything less of Sotomayor, none of the cases that were overturned seem uncontroversial as cases, and possible to rule either way within the constraints of the constitution, (at least from someone who doesn't have as deep an understanding of the constituion as one would hope a SCOTUS judge would have!)
I think you are making a case based on sand if you think that article is a good argument against Sonia Sotomayor.
At 5:11 PM, Casual Observer said...
political affiliation (as in, what party you belong to and vote for) is, by far, the best barometer we have for ideology on a national basis.
So Zell Miller (D-Georgia) had/has basically the same political philosophy as Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)? Or the same political philosophy as Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)?
Zell Miller (D-Georgia) had/has basically the same political philosophy as Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)? Or the same political philosophy as Susan Collins (R-Maine)?
Then at 5:27 PM, Casual Observer said...
Of course, the Dem Senator Landrieu is a very conservative one, which, I realize, supports your claim that a Dem in X is different from a Dem in Y, etc. - which I never disputed, anyway.
But in the meantime, at 5:21 PM, Casual Observer said...
I'm not being inconsistent here. Quit twisting and spinning what I say.
No one needs to twist and spin your words, CO. You do that well enough yourself.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
One last quick thought before this thread dissapears! Much has been made of the fact that Sotomayor has been nominated by Presidents of both parties, but she has also been confirmed by the Senate when it has been controlled by both parties. I think that is worth pushing forward.
And, as I have already posted in a couple of threads, including this one, the only reason she was appointed by a Republican President was the "deal" he was forced into by the NY Senators, but I know that doesn't play out as well to the myth that she is some how a bipartisan pick. It has also been pointed out that Senators from BOTH parties have a tendency to look at (and sometimes vote) differently on Supreme Court nominations as compared to other judicial appointments.
As far as what the article implies about her judgments, I guess we'll have to disagree, but just saying my argument is based on "sand" doesn't really mean anything, now does it? It is really a poor attempt at debate, IMO. Just because you disagree is not good enough. Argue the facts instead of attacking your opponent with meaningless insults.
I have a couple of more comments. I still think it will be real interesting (embarrassing) when (not if, IMO) her Affirmative Action case/opinion (as short as it was) is overturned by the Supreme Court, maybe just in time for her hearings too. I don’t think it will be a 5-4 decision either and may very well include the Justice she is to replace.
I also want to repeat the point I posted from confirmthem.com that she is the “best of the worst”, from a conservative’s point of view, despite the liberal media’s attempt to say other wise. Most conservatives I read or listen too are quietly happy, as this appointment could have been a LOT worse. She is not exactly an intellectual giant either. There’s no way she will have much influence on the conservative block on the court (Alito, Roberts, Thomas or Scaila). I can’t even see her having much influence on the Kennedy’s swing vote either. Kennedy will sometimes surprise you, but there is no way he will look to her for guidance. She will be a reasonably consistent liberal vote, like Souter, but, heck, there’s even a chance she could be a reverse Souter and go the other way once she is on the court and basically answers to nobody. I doubt it, but wouldn’t that be a kick in the pants……
Again, your “guy’, blew it, IMO.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/shapiro.scotus.identity/index.html
Some more good commentary, again, only IMO.
So HP you think that putting a reasonably consistent liberal voice on the court is 'blowing it'?? Fine. If thats your metric, then I wish Obama would blow it a little more often.
Onto the firefighters case. I think you may be right that it could be the toughest issue for Sotomayor, but not because of the law, because of the spin the swiftboaters on the right might try to put on it. Let me repeat, Sotomayor was not saying that the examination should be ignored, but that the City of New Haven had the right to do so, if it wished to. (of course the Swiftboaters will ignore that fact.) And she was following legal precedent in doing so (in other words to do otherwise would have made her an 'activist' judge.)
Incidentally I believe I was arguing the facts in pointing out that the point of the CNN article was that most cases brought before SCOTUS are overturned, and that in all probability Sotomayor's number of cases referred to SCOTUS was relatively small (which surely is a good thing!) Which makes that article a very flimsy basis of an argument against Sotomayor.
Which brings me to Ilya Shapiro. Honestly that is one of the most flimsy articles I have EVER read. Take this paragraph 'Moreover, Sotomayor has a mixed reputation among lawyers who have practiced before her, some questioning her abilities as a judicial craftsman, others her erratic temperament, according to a piece by Jeffrey Rosen in The New Republic, which itself has come in for criticism.' So a large part of the criticism Shapiro is making of Sotomayor comes from a flimsy article. (And the Rosen article is the 2nd most flimsy article I have ever read.) And then he snipes 'this does not mean that Sotomayor is unqualified to be a judge -- or less qualified to be a Supreme Court justice than, say, Harriet Miers.' So he is not saying Sotomayor, who even most Conservatives cannot say is unqualified, is less qualified than a hugely unqualified nominee, who had had a political career based on her closeness to George W Bush, and had no legal background worthy of the Supreme Court at all.
Here is another interesting paragraph from Shapiro 'Now is the time to show the American people the stark differences between the two parties on one of the few issues on which the stated Republican view continues to command strong and steady support. If the party is serious about constitutionalism and the rule of law, it should use this opportunity for education, not grandstanding.' I would suggest that most people agree with the rhetoric of what Shapiro is suggesting; that judges are there to interpret law, and not make it, but I think a lot of Americans would view as hypocritical any Republican suggesting that, especially just after citing Ricci vs DeStefano as a reason not to appoint Sotomayor, as indeed Shapiro seems to be. (Either that or he is citing the case as a reason to appoint Sotomayor, he seems to trip himself over on that point.)
And here is the ultimate piece of partisan sniping 'And if Democrats insist on playing identity politics, I suggest a two-word response: Miguel Estrada, the Honduran immigrant with his own rags-to-riches story whose nomination to the D.C. Circuit Democrats successfully filibustered, effectively preventing George W. Bush from naming the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.' So the guy who was a controversial nominee to a lower court had a hope in hell of getting onto the Supreme Court? B*llsh*t. The whole article is flimsy at best, and if its the best a aharp mind on the right can come up with, then frankly there is no chance Sotomayor will be stopped.
I thought it was obvious by my context (twice), but by "blowing it" I mean in that Obama could have put a MUCH more liberal judge on the court and possibly someone also with much more intellectual firepower which would have had a much larger impact for YOUR side.
I try to have a reasonable debate and you call me "laughable", my arguments based on “sand” and now anybody that agrees with me “swift boaters”. Despite that poor debating technique, I will try at least one more time to debate you reasonably. You might try that style yourself; it will gain you more credibility and let folks take you a bit more seriously.
She didn't even consider the constitutional arguments of the affirmative action case (following "precedent"???, give me a break...), which she has been rightly criticized by all parties, liberal to conservative. Again, not very impressive at all. Have you read it?
You still haven't been able to argue away that 6 of the 7 cases she has had reviewed have been overturned with one likely to follow that will be very embarrassing and the one they did not overturn her arguments were still torn apart. Keep trying, though I am having serious doubts that you are ever going to be able to make a reasonable argument on this one.
We can, at least agree on Miers. Shapiro's article was no masterpiece, I admit, though I thought it brought up some interesting points, which BTW, is all that I said that it did. A good place to start from, not end in of itself. It certainly set you off…….
FWIW, I think you are misrepresenting the original CNN article:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/26/past-sotomayor-rulings-faced-tough-crowd-on-high-court/
The headline is:
“Past Sotomayor rulings faced tough crowd on high court”
While it does say that this happens “frequently" to Federal judges, it also says:
"Sotomayor has written opinions on at least eight cases that the Supreme Court later reviewed on appeal, according to a CNN analysis of Sotomayor's cases. Of those cases, six were either overturned or sent back to the lower court for further consideration. One case was upheld, but Sotomayor's legal reasoning was panned in the opinion signed by entire court. An eighth case is still being deliberated."
Seven of the eight cases were while she was serving in her current post on the US Court of Appeals, not over the full 17 years.
OK first off, I didn't say that anyone who agrees with you is swiftboating. I suggested that Judge SotoMayor may well be hit by swftboaters later on, simply because there is no other purposeful way of opposing Sotomayor.
Neither have I denied that the Supreme Court has overturned some of her decisions. My point being that that isn't unusual and that only having a handful of decisions being appealed to the Supreme Court seems to be a positive actually. And actually you called Shapiro's article 'Some good commentary'.
Just because you say someone isn't debating you doesn't make it so. Sotomayor, from everything reasonable I have read, is a good appointment that should and will be approved. Sure the right will put up a fight, as is there right. But I don't see anything yet that puts Sotomayor's position under threat.
Again, we agree. I've never said there was enough to even remotely hold up her confirmation. In fact I have argued she is the "best of the worse" for various reasons and the best a conservative could expect out of Obama. Saying that doesn't mean I can't draw out issues as I see them, especially when there is misrepresentation on things like making a big deal about her being appointed by Bush 41 without mentioning the context of that appointment or the fact that Obama certainly could have gone with someone more liberal and more intellectual firepower instead of picking the best female Hispanic. I glad he didn't for the reasons already stated, but the left should be concerned about their guy not stepping up to the plate, IMO. Apart from the Meirs NEAR debacle, GWB hit two conservative home runs with Alito and Roberts, based on views, intellectual strength and age. Obama hit a single……
No insults in your post, see, you can do it......:)
While I don't think she will have a real hard time getting confirmed, unless something big comes up, I am looking forward to hearing her answer questions regarding things she has said in speeches, like the superiority of Latin women’s judgments and how judges make policy, among other things.......
There isn't very much that the Republicans can do to block Sotomayor from the SC. Instead, they see this as a great opportunity to "energise the base" by trotting out 'reverse discrimination' and the constant bogeyman of a 'far-Left takeover'.
The deeper question is, however, "how much more "energised" can the base get?". They are already shrill and unbalanced, speaking in some dog-whistle code language that the uninitiated cannot understand.
Like the obnoxious drunk at a party who thinks he gets more and more charming and witty with each drink, so the wingnuts seem to believe that they get more and more persuasive and attractive with each new crazy stunt or each "impure" member they purge from their ranks.
Will the wingnuts reach "outrage fatigue" by 2010? Didn't "Dijon-gate" prove that they need a steady "fix" of newer and crazier outrages to fixate upon? Can the Party even restrain the base anymore from making the kind of attacks that will blow the Hispanic and female demographic for decades?
With the majority of Limbaugh's audience being over 65, surely this strategy will put their heart and blood pressure medications to the test. There is a limit to the benefit of an "energised" base; at some point a Party sees diminishing returns.
You realize, of course, that you description of the far right is identical to the description of that can be made of the far left (and probably just as wrong, except for the extreme 5% on both ends). Thanks, I can just say change the names and I don't have to type as much. Now, do want to really debate the issues or are silly insults all you've got?
BTW, it’s “energize” not “energise”…..
Google (and real facts, for that matter) are a wonderful thing (even if it only took 10 seconds). Here is an article with data on Limbaugh's listeners' demographics:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n5_v14/ai_20204513/
"Of the nearly 20 million Limbaugh "dittoheads," most are 25- to 54-year-old males (although the female audience has grown to 40 percent) with college degrees and annual household incomes of more than $50,000. Men still dominate the talk-show listening audience, according to Talkers, but now only by a slight 6 percent margin."
"Limbaugh's demographics roughly are in line with those for the rest of talk show audiences, according to Talkers. The largest percentage of listeners think of themselves as political independents, albeit with conservative leanings. More important, all the studies indicate that 90 to 95 percent of talk listeners vote, according to Talk Daily."
HWPixHend wrote:
"BTW, it’s “energize” not “energise”….."
It's a British spelling. Smug much?
"Google (and real facts, for that matter) are a wonderful thing (even if it only took 10 seconds). Here is an article with data on Limbaugh's listeners' demographics:"
That link was from 1998.
Try looking at the figures from 2009 here.
"It is, rather, a crueler demographic point. The dirty little secret of conservative talk radio is that the average age of listeners is 67 and rising, according to Sinton—the Fox News audience, likewise, is in its mid-60s: “What sort of continuing power do you have as your audience strokes out?”"
I guess, yes, you are smug and weak on facts as well.
"You realize, of course, that your description of the far right is identical to the description of that can be made of the far left"
My description is of remarks from the Party leaders, FNC pundits, and talk-radio "opinion leaders", not some fringe, "far right".
The term "far Left" is so abused by conservatives as to mean nothing at this point. Apparently, it means any view to the left of Cheney when employed by conservatives. The crucial difference here is that the Democratic Party is not controlled by some fringe CPUSA members or Maoist philosophers, while the Republican Party is completely in the thrall of those you term "far Right".
It's beside the point, anyway.
The Republicans intend to use Sotomayor's nomination to energise the base. The base is already energised to the point of shrieking rage. What the "far left" is doing has no bearing on those points, except to provide you with a distraction of "Dems do it, too!". Likewise, the idea that the Party will not be keep these "energised" people under control is irrelevant to what the "far left" does.
I thought we were talking about a US issue....:)
The actual quote from YOUR link:
“The dirty little secret of conservative talk radio is that the average age of listeners is 67 and rising, according to Sinton—the Fox News audience, likewise, is in its mid-60s:”
Not much back up and Limbaugh isn't even mentioned.
How about these:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1102/limbaugh-audience-conservative-men
http://www.quantcast.com/rushlimbaugh.com (actually for rushlimbaugh.com)
Neither is anywhere close to 67.
Why do you get to define BOTH the "far left" and the "far right" in who they are and what they believe? Pretty convenient....
Liberals would NEVER abuse the term "far right", yeah right.....
You control the MSM (except Fox, which just KILLS you, I know) but some how the "conservatives" get it out to everybody all wrong and the far left is defined as anything "left of Cheney”. And, of course, the Democratic Party isn't controlled by their base, got it……
Thanks for not wasting any more of my time, as you are, obviously, incapable of seriously debating the actual issues. It really sad that you also fall into so many clichés.
"How about these:"
Yes, how about those?
One says absolutely nothing about the age demographic of Rush's audience. It's mostly men, so that means they aren't over 67 - is that what you are trying to contend here?
The other is nothing more than sampling data on traffic to Rush's website - nothing at all about his radio audience.
"I thought we were talking about a US issue....:)"
Yes, and I thought you were smug - what is your point?
Clearly you have no idea that British spellings can differ from American spellings - and somehow this is proof of your intelligence in some rather weird way that only you can comprehend.
Or have you perhaps invented a rule that no one else is aware of: American issues must be discussed using American spelling?
"Why do you get to define BOTH the "far left" and the "far right" in who they are and what they believe?"
Somebody has to. I only used the term 'far left' in reference to the actual words Republicans use when discussing the Obama Administration. You are the one who termed those actual words a description of the far-right, not me.
"It really sad that you also fall into so many clichés."
It's really sad that someone whose entire schtick is calling out others on facts and reason runs away when someone calls them out on those very same things.
By the way, "cliché" is a French word. I thought that we were talking about a US issue. Smug tosser.
On the Pew Report, fourth chart down, middle column, only 49% over 50 for Limbaugh. I also offered the other report, SPECIFICALLY, as the WEBSITE ONLY (only 44% over 50). It does, IMO, also prove my point about Limbaugh's "audience" NOT averaging 67.
It helps to read the post and the link before responding.
Smug? Sure, but you are making it much too easy to be so....
Cliché is in every American dictionary I can find. If we are to eliminate all words that have foreign roots, I think we wouldn't be able to debate the issues, Oh, whoops, we can't do that anyway with you only providing clichés.....
BTW, when you put a smile after a phrase, it means it was a joke.....
I certainly am not running away. Still here. What else you got? I was hoping for a bit more of reasonable & serious debate, but you've been pretty lacking on that point. So, all I am saying is you better step it up if you want me to stay around. I guess if you don't and you want to call my not wanting to waste my time on your gibberish "running away", I'll have to get over it. That's going to be REAL tough on me, NOT.....
I don't think the age of Limbaugh's audience really matters. I do think his show and his following is a bit of an echo chamber. I don't suppose Limbaugh has ever convinced anyone who didn't come to the conversation already agreeing with him. He is all about energizing the base.
The real danger to the GOP posed by Limbaugh is that he is alienating the moderates in the GOP (as is Dick Cheney) and in the end the moderates are going to be needed for the GOP, just as the Democratic Party needs them. If I were in the leadership of the GOP, frankly I would think about giving Sotomayor a pass relatively quickly. I don't think the GOP really wants a debate about legal restraint, giving there unrestrained language on abortion and recently gay marriage as legal issues. I think that the GOP is starting to lose the battle over social issues. (I think thats been a key factor over the last 2 election cycles as the Democrats have moderated their stands on social issues such as guns and abortion.)
Post a Comment