Democrats & Liberals Archives

Sotomayor: She's no Harriet Miers but...

Orrin Hatch: shut up. As one of the most vocal supporters for Harriet Miers’, one of the most laughable appointments to the supreme court, you have no credibility in the discussion for the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor.

Orrin Hatch, doing his best to do a hatchet job on Sotomayor:

Newt: shut up too.
Tweeting that Sotomayor a racist is the same thing that you were all over Pelosi a couple of weeks ago. You claimed that she should step down because she said that the CIA lied to her. You then claimed that she 'disqualified' herself as speaker of the house. You would know best about what would disqualify (link) a speaker (cheating on your wife while she's in the hospital isn't reason for you of couse).

Limbaugh: keep talking...
You gotta love an idiot that never knows when to keep his mouth shut. Equating Sotomayor to David Duke ( link) was a very, very good thing for the moderates of the nation. The moderates know that Sotomayor was appointed by George H.W. Bush for her moderate views. Keep on talking; you'll destroy the Republican party yet.

Take a look at Sotomayor's record. If you disagree with her record, note the cases and decisions to support your opinion. Trying to use the race card isn't the smartest approach, when you're trying to appeal to every growing Latino community.

Posted by john trevisani at May 31, 2009 8:09 AM
Comments
Comment #282262

John,
Check spelling: Harriet Miers

Posted by: phx8 at May 31, 2009 11:35 AM
Comment #282266

Newt, Orin and Rush. That’ll bring up your lunch.

Men without shame.

Posted by: gergle at May 31, 2009 12:13 PM
Comment #282270

Actully, Sotomeyor looks alot like Harriet Miers. They are both smart, but not brilliant. She gets reversed a lot and criticized for her lack of judgement. She will be a little out of place with guys like Roberts, Brennan and Alito, who are brilliant, whether you like them or not.

Posted by: Christine at May 31, 2009 1:21 PM
Comment #282274

Christine,

define brilliant-seems to me Sotomayor fits in that category. Actually she hasn’t been reversed a lot. If you do an average of overall reversals, her stats are actually lower than average for reversals. Of course the coporate owned right wing media(which is all media not just fox)doesn’t want people to know this or anything else positive about Sotomayor so they mislead with inaccurate information and half quotes that make it sound as if she said something she didn’t.

Posted by: Carolina at May 31, 2009 2:25 PM
Comment #282275

“”She will be a little out of place with guys like Roberts, Brennan and Alito, who are brilliant,”” Brennan was very Brilliant a irish immigrant lad i think Eisenhower put him in he retired in 1990, Roberts is Brilliant to and Alito is.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 31, 2009 2:50 PM
Comment #282278

Carolina

The corporate media that I read (evidently you have independent sources) tells me that she was reversed in the Supreme court 60% of the time that it went there. Does your free media have different numbers. Do most judges have only a 40% success rate? If so, we may get rid of them altogether and just flip coins. It is much cheaper and actually produces better results.

Rodney

Most of the Supreme Court people are brilliant. Sotomeyer may be. Let’s see how she does. So far, not so good, however.

Brennan - I wanted to include a brilliant liberal with a compelling story. His as at least as much a rise against the odds as Sotomeyer’s.

Posted by: Christine at May 31, 2009 4:47 PM
Comment #282281

phx8:
Thanks. Will do.

Posted by: john.trevisani at May 31, 2009 7:07 PM
Comment #282285

Christine-
There’s lies, damn lies, and statistics. The numbers in question don’t count all the cases she’s tried as part of the court, just the three or four that have gone up to the Supreme Court. Most stand as they are, though. You’ve got to be careful about those kinds of fallacies of logic, and those who use them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 31, 2009 10:05 PM
Comment #282300

Christine
So Sotomayor is not brilliant because she is a woman or because she is Hispanic? Which? Or perhaps she is not to be considered brilliant when stacked up against two Bush appointed right wing aparachiks?


Stupid is as stupid does.
Forrest Gump

Posted by: bills at June 1, 2009 1:21 AM
Comment #282301

Christine,
Although Rachel Maddow is a liberal comentator/reporter, I watch her, why? because she gets all her facts right. Now sometimes I don’t always agree with her, but her facts are at least right. Then it’s good to get some information from some reliable conservative places (sadly that list is shrinking). She did a great review of this whole thing all last week. First of all Average reversal rate is 75%. She has one of the lowest reversal rates, and if you compare it to supreme court justices that are now up there, she is better then all of them.
Second, Like some other people said, that is only the cases that the supreme court took. She done hundreds of court cases the supreme court did not take either because it was dropped, the supreme court didn’t think it was important, or it agreed with what the appeals court determined when they over viewed it.
Third, she is not really a liberal unless if you think Roberts or Alito is liberal also. If you look at her court cases she stays within the law. Now there is a few cases where there are two laws that conflict each other that congress has made, and the courts have had to decide which one takes precedent which sometimes looks like they are making law.
On a side note though, that is the one strange thing about our court system. If you really think about it, all laws come from the courts just about. If a jury decides you are not guilty of something even though you in fact are. Example, you kill somebody and it’s on tape and the jury doesn’t care well, then you didn’t break the law. But that just says how dangerous radicalism of any kind is dangerous in America.

Posted by: kodossupreme at June 1, 2009 2:16 AM
Comment #282308

Thanks Stephen and Kodosupreme for adding your two cents worth. I was slow to get back here but now I need not respond to Christine as you did an excellent job and I need say no more. Other than I to enjoy Rachel’s show and find her brilliant (although I am sure others will say not as we all know if you are liberal, democrat, progressive, left-wing you are genetically predisposed to stupidty). And for those of you on the right who are genetically predisposed to having no sense of humor that last part was a joke.

Posted by: Carolina at June 1, 2009 9:08 AM
Comment #282310

The blue dog dems. will be the ones who stop Sotomayer.

Posted by: John at June 1, 2009 10:03 AM
Comment #282314

“So Sotomayor is not brilliant because she is a woman or because she is Hispanic? Which?”

this is exactly what i expect anyone who opposes sotomayer to be accused of. there’s absolutely no possibility that any of the questions about her ability, and tempurment could be justified. play the race card. how typical.

Posted by: dbs at June 1, 2009 11:59 AM
Comment #282320

After watching the Clarence Thomas sideshow even Biden acted like he didn’t want to be there dental work and hair plugs :) and i was not a fan of Thomas and the other sideshows from the right i became an Independent.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 1, 2009 12:45 PM
Comment #282337

Exactly what liberals want conservatives to do is shut up.

Anything that interferes with Obama’s agenda, just shut up!!

You sure out Limbaugh Limbaugh.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 1, 2009 11:11 PM
Comment #282345

john

“(cheating on your wife while she’s in the hospital isn’t reason for you of couse).”

are you talking about john edwards?


“Trying to use the race card isn’t the smartest approach,”

lets hope the dems follow your advice john. my guess is they won’t, and will accuse republicans of trying to stop her appointment because she’s a hispanic woman. of course though thats not the same thing as them blocking the nomination of miguel estrada. gotta love those dems always taking the high road.

Posted by: dbs at June 2, 2009 11:41 AM
Comment #282388

Ted Kennedy said, shortly after Bork’s nomination:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.”
Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 3, 2009 1:01 AM
Comment #282408

“”Gingrich backs off “” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090603/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sotomayor_supreme_court “”Gingrich conceded that Sotomayor’s rulings have “shown more caution and moderation” than her speeches and writings, but he said the 2001 comments “reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system — that everyone is equal before the law.”

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 3, 2009 11:31 AM
Comment #282410

rodney

i think we should let her record, and actions speak for themselves. she deserves a fair hearing, but should be asked many tough questions. her confirmation should take as much time as needed to get as complete a picture as possible as to what kind of justice she will be. that IMHO is fair.

Posted by: dbs at June 3, 2009 11:51 AM
Comment #282411

The right is running out of things to scream and yell about so they find one sentence in one long speech to repeat endlessly and distort statistics to make her look like a bumbling judge. They call someone who finished at the top of her class at Princeton “not smart enough” but some moron who finished in the middle of his class was deemed smart enough to be president? I would love to see a real liberal on the SCOTUS but she isn’t it. Sotomayor is pretty moderate.

I think it’s pretty ironic that Orin Hatch had the gall to say the SCOTUS justices are justices for everyone not just the left when they stuffed the way, way, way right wing Alito and Roberts down our throats. Those two represent nothing that I believe in. I guess what he meant by everyone is everyone who thinks like he does.

I believe we need a balanced court between liberal, moderates, and conservatives but all we really have now is moderates and conservatives. All pretty corporatist. I also think we need more diversity of opinion and the fact that all the current justices and the one who will become the next all came from Harvard and Yale doesn’t cut it. You’re not going to get much diversity of opinion from people who all went through the same system.

Posted by: tcsned at June 3, 2009 12:01 PM
Comment #282418

From the above linked article:

Sotomayor disclosed the speech during the 1997 Senate debate over seating her on a federal appeals court, but no Republican publicly voiced concern about it at the time.
“No one made an issue out of Judge Sotomayor’s comments the last time the Senate confirmed her for the federal bench, because everyone understood what she meant and knew her respect for the rule of law was unquestionable,”

The questions should have been asked and answered at her last nomination, particularly about this speech which has everyone twisting. They had their chance then.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 3, 2009 3:07 PM
Comment #282426

womanmarine

“The questions should have been asked and answered at her last nomination, particularly about this speech which has everyone twisting. They had their chance then.”

and they will have thier chance again. just because it was not asked the last time around doesn’t mean it’s not fair game.


Posted by: dbs at June 3, 2009 8:32 PM
Comment #282630

DBS:

Either they fell down on the job when it should have been done, or it wasn’t important. If it wasn’t important, why would it be now? If they fell down on the job, well ….

Posted by: womanmarine at June 8, 2009 9:55 AM
Comment #282854

womanmarine

“If it wasn’t important, why would it be now?”

supreme court, a lot more at stake in comparison too say a district, or appellate court appointee.

Posted by: dbs at June 12, 2009 10:13 AM
Post a comment