July 21, 2009 8:48 AM
Sotomayor: not over 'til it's over - call Congress to postpone
In the rush of other issues, I haven't really said much about Sotomayor. Of course I think it is wrong to nominate someone to the Supreme Court - or any other appointment, for that matter - based on gender or the color of their skin.Which is why I think Ms. Sotomayor is an inferior candidate - because while she may stack up for diversity purposes, her lower court record is abysmal, though you won't hear it from the Government Media. In fact, the Washington Times reports that 60% of her decisions were reversed. And now a person who gets it wrong on the law 60% of the time will be one of the nine composing the Final Word on US Law?
And how humiliating to have one of your decisions reversed by the sitting Supreme Court even as hearings are being conducted to attain your own seat there. Even the Washington Post had to report Justices Rule for White Firefighters in Racial Bias Case . . .
Or I guess it would be humiliating if the Government Media weren't in the business of engineering political outcomes with no regard for the truth.
Ah, but that's why she's nominated, isn't it? Because of her politics (plus gender and skin color). You see, it didn't matter when President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada - who was himself of Hispanic descent. But though he had a better court record than Sotomayor, his politics were not in order, the Dems attacked Bush for "affirmative action" - yes, really! - and brutalized Estrada and filibustered until he withdrew his nomination. In other words, if you are brown or black, but you do not support abortion or affirmative action, then in the Democrat playbook (Saul Alinsky) you are fair game. Unleash the hounds.
So we have to sit through undignified hearings as Ms. Sotomayor is kowtowed to because of her "heroic back-story." Several sitting judges had even more heroic back-stories - but people like Clarence Thomas don't count because though he is black, he does not curry favor from the Leftist "Masters."
We have to hear Ms. Sotomayor make a string of serious malapropisms which a conservative would be laughed at of town for. But worse, we have to hear lie after lie, as she sidesteps questions on abortion and gun control, but most importantly denies her clear intent in saying publicly - captured on at least seven different occasions - that she believes a "wise Latina woman" would make better decisions than a "white male."
This is racism at its worst - when it props up a lesser candidate simply for the sake of appearance. And when it causes complete dysfunction in our government so that our elected officials are behaving like the masses who succumbed to the trickery of the Emperor's New Clothes.
Though everyone says it is a done deal, I would still call your senators and representative to tell them you want them to at least hold the vote until after the Congressional break. News broke yesterday that Obama's support is crumbling (See Politico - Poll: Public Losing Trust in President Obama) - which is why they are in such a hurry to
For a thoughtful analysis on why this sort of patronizing of minorities is actually demeaning to them, read the following article from The American Thinker (HT: A Mac and a Mug o' Joe):
Sonia Sotomayor's Troubled Eyes
by George Joyce
Is anyone else sick and tired of listening to Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee cower in the face of Sonia Sotomayor's sex and ethnicity? Reports out of Washington describe the Republican Senators tiptoeing ever so gingerly around Sotomayor so as not to alienate the female and Hispanic vote. What's worse, the embarrassing sideshow includes the kind of pathetic pandering many Americans have come to expect at these empty political charades.Senator Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, for example said he expected every American to be "proud that a Hispanic woman has been nominated to sit on the Supreme Court." Senator John Cornyn, R- Texas, added: "Your nomination should make us all feel good as Americans." Conservative Senators are quivering in the face of an obviously partial and biased minority candidate just as much of the nation quivered in the presence of another minority candidate: Barack Obama.What America needs right now is courage and mutual respect -- not empathy and sensitivity. Anyone with an ounce of dignity should be appalled by the patronizing behavior on display since the Senate confirmation hearings began. Showing empathy to a woman with a frightening history of color consciousness on the bench and in many of her personal statements may score political points with voters in some swing states, but this dubious strategy comes with a profound price tag: the degradation of American civic life.Conservative pundits are telling us that Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation is a done deal. Even the editors of National Review advise congressional Republicans not to stonewall Sotomayor's confirmation and "expend some of the political capital" that can be used to oppose Obama's more important policies. These are policies, they say, that will "inflict damage on our country that will take generations to repair."In fact, what the conservative pundits fail to recognize is that progressive intellectuals like Obama and Sotomayor have helped to convince much of America to replace mutual respect with partisan solidarity. In other words, Obama's damaging policies are merely the symptoms of a much deeper revolutionary vision that seeks to undermine the very basis of democratic society: mutual trust and respect among individuals.
Read entire article here.
Posted in Activism, Obama Nation | Permalink
Comments
I agree with most of what you said, but the 60% overturned number is neither relevant nor remarkable.
That 60% is comprised by three cases out of five - not a large number to go by.
The average rate for Circuit Court cases overturned by the SCOTUS is around 75% - So Sotomayor actually has a better than average record. Out of roughly 150 cases ruled by Sotomayor, only three have been overturned and two upheld by the SCOTUS. That is a very strong record.
There are plenty of valid reasons to oppose Sotomayor, but the 60% argument is not one of them and only makes conservatives look foolish. I would recommend against using it.
Posted by: ConDad | July 21, 2009 5:05 PM
Thanks for the clarification, ConDad.
Posted by: barbara | July 21, 2009 5:09 PM
Barbara,
I hope you won't feel that I'm "ganging up" against you since someone did already mention this, but Alito had a 100% reversal rate. Which sounds terrible until you realize that we're talking about only TWO decisions. Most decisions that federal judges make are based on settled law, and the Supreme Court won't even bother hearing those.
Otherwise I completely agree with you. Some people use race as a blank check to advance THEIR candidates. As you said, it's not really about her being a woman or Hispanic since female or Hispanic conservatives are brutalized in the media. (And when conservatives cry foul, liberal commentators claim that saying, "Hey, we don't agree with her policies and don't think race is a good enough reason to confirm her!" is the same as making crude sexual jokes about her children. So, of course, everyone can see that "it's both sides" and no one can really be blamed.)
Posted by: Michelle Potter | July 21, 2009 5:53 PM
