Next entry: Black and gay -- and reclaiming 'civil rights'
Previous entry: Yes, this was published in a major newspaper in the year 2009
Having had weeks to prepare for Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court hasn’t helped Republican hysterics take the time they need to think very carefully about launching attacks (god forbid they should accept that Obama has a right to nominate justices, of course---no matter who it is, they’re going to shit bricks, 100% regardless of the person’s views or qualifications, simply because they just don’t accept Obama’s right to hold office) so that they don’t sound like braindead morons who are too laden down with sexism and racism to even respond coherently to this nomination. They’ve got no excuse---26 days is ample time to come up with attacks that aren’t blatantly racist and sexist, even if they are fundamentally racist and sexist. But the idea of a woman of color taking a spot on the highest court of the land trumps 26 days of preparation time to learn to sound like you have a modicum of common sense. It’s time for the hysterics!
There’s two front runners right out of the gate in the “you’ve got to be fucking with me” levels of racism department. First is Mike Huckabee calling Sotomayor “Maria Sotomayor”, which is the sort of bigotry that could have easily been avoided by doing something conservatives find repugnant, and educating yourself on some basic facts. Even more startling is that Politico called Sotomayor a “Latina single mother”, a feat she managed to accomplish despite having no children at all. Even better was the fact that they used this in one of those conservative rhetorical games, where they openly attack someone’s race by whining about how that person’s race is beyond attack.
Over-the-top racist stupidity wins the day’s contest in the you’ve-got-to-be-fucking-kidding department, but sexism is bringing up the rear. Ramesh Ponnuru is claiming that Sotomayor is “Obama’s Miers”, which is a fancy way of saying that women aren’t smart enough to be Supreme Court judges. That’s because Sotomayor and Miers have nothing in common but their gender---as Scott spells out, Sotomayor has a long resume as a judge, but Miers’ main qualification was that she was a lawyer who wrote mash notes to the Shrub. Alas, the 26 days have given conservatives a little better grounding in attacking Sotomayor’s gender without coming right out and saying it, so I expect we’ll see more of these arguments that she’s stupid that have no real evidence, but just rely on innuendo that feels true to the base, because they think that “stupid” and “woman/non-white person” are synonymous. Quoth Adam:
Sotomayor’s resume doesn’t just look good compared to Harriet Miers. Sotomayor has more than 10 years on the appeals court--by contrast, the current chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, had two years as a judge on the D.C. Circuit before being nominated. As a white man, however, his credentials and intelligence are beyond reproach.
Despite Republican threats to filibuster Sotomayor, I’m skeptical they can get all Senate Republicans on board with this, since some moderates have got to realize that Sotomayor’s as centrist as they’re going to get. So even if not all Democrats are in their proper seats by the time it comes to a vote, giving us the 60, I think we’ve got it. Republicans can try to kill this in committee, and I suspect that’s what they’ll try to do. Not because they object to Sotomayor so much as they need to take every opportunity possible to grandstand about how they don’t accept that Obama is President. Either way, if they try to kill or stall this appointment, it’s just going to draw out the period that Republicans can go on TV and continue to say blatantly racist things. I’m of two minds on this. On one hand, I appreciate that this is an opportunity for Republicans to out themselves as the party of bigots, and let the growing population of Hispanic voters know where Republicans stand on the topic of blatant, vicious racism against Hispanics. That said, when stuff gets racialized like this, it creates on the ground antagonism to rise, which isn’t good for anyone. The political gains from this have to be weighed against the real world animosity this sort of thing sows.
So let’s hope my instinct is right, and Republicans may actually let this one go.
------
Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.
Posted by
Amanda Marcotte on 04:26 PM •
Permalink
Amanda:
With all due respect, Amanda, I hope they take this one to the mat. Please, oh God, please. It will be murderous on them. What’s wonderful is that some of them realize it but can’t help but react to the howling mob they’ve created. The spectacle of them dancing around their base to try to not look like the race baiters they are will be worth the price of admission. Get the popcorn you ain’t never seen nuthin’ like this. Petard hoisting, anyone?
Hey, look on the bright side! If Sotomayor doesn’t get in, Obama will just choose someone almost as good. But if she does get in, that’s gonna be some of the sweetest Schadenfreude I’m ever tasted! Holy cow, listen to these racist, women-hating chumps. Oooohhhhhhh… I wanna see Huckbee cry. If not that, at least see him get like Alan Keyes.
If Sotomayor gets in, it’ll all be worth it.
We have so got the votes, and the more Republicans whine about “empathy,” the more Americans will see that they lack it.
Bring it on.
I’m hearing “It’s reverse racism”! If Obama picks anyone other than an old white man, it’s racism. See how they did that?
Republicans on the whole aren’t going to let it go--the only question really is “how many stupid things are they going to say before a sane Republican Senator (by their standards) says she’s going to be approved?” I’m betting Orrin Hatch will be one of the first to do so, just because he wasn’t a complete douche when Clinton was President when it came to picking judges.
So let’s hope my instinct is right, and Republicans may actually let this one go.
Doubtful. This is the party which has, time and time again, ceded its leadership to Rush Limbaugh. The man has an audience of Know-Nothings to please.
It should be unbelievable. Getting her name wrong and calling her a single mother...these are 5 second Google search answers.
It just makes it clear that none of them give a fuck about facts.
This appears like it’s going to be much worse than even the worst cynic would have predicted
[Raises an eyebrow]
How old is Sotomayor - only 54? That would make her the youngest on the Court, a few months less than Roberts. I suspect that factor is going to be fuelling a lot of Republican resistance.
Has the dreaded “A” word shown up yet? She’s a woman - surely some wingnut somewhere is putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with a screed about her fetish for bloody coathangers…
Frankly, if she really were a single mother I might respect her more - not for being a mother, but because, if she managed to pull off getting this far in life while being a single parent, holy shit, you know?
But, yeah, stupid.
Listening to an NPR discussion between a Serious Liberal (forget who) and a former clerk for Scalia (!) about Sotomayor. Scalia-clerk seemed to have the phrase “unlawful empathy standard” drummed into him by whoever had coached him because he dropped it in like every other sentence. By the time the piece was over my knuckles were itching to punch him in the throat because his arguments seemed to mainly consist of “Obama bad! Bad nominee cuz I said so! Unlawful empathy standard!”
Serious Liberal was Serious.
The political gains from this have to be weighed against the real world animosity this sort of thing sows.
That’s a far deeper game than anyone in the Republican Party is able to play, leaving the issue of willingness aside. They have no leadership: it’s all Rush at this point, and Rush is not responsible to anyone except the rabid base. They will demand these attacks on Sotomayor. In the end, it will make Rush money and get him more attention to be vehemently anti-Obama and a crypto (and not-so-crypto) racist on this issue. The rest of the party will have no choice but to follow, and that is the only calculation that will go into it.
Aren’t all latina women single mothers named Maria? What’s the problem?
Don’t they call the wind Maria?
Piator, unfortunately, she does have some health problems, so I doubt that’s it.
True, Felix, but I was talking more about liberals cheering this on. Which makes me anxious.
Roberts was such a terrible choice for the SC, that every complaint made about Sotomayor should be used to question his competence and impartiality.
If the GOP is still even partly sane they will realize that Sotomayor is essentially a safe, non-scary, sorta liberal pick. They won’t oppose it too hard. They’ll wait until the next appointment (perhaps Stevens but more probably Ginsburg) to see if Obama appoints a real liberal, then if (ha!) he does they’ll come out snarling: “sSeeeEEEE??? See what happens when we were reasonable? We were reasonable with them and they picked Lenin!!! Eleventy-One!”
A more likely possibility is that any Obama pick will be treated as if Felix Dzerzhinsky had just been appointed. It wouldn’t be about the pick itself, it would be about de-legitimizing any and all decisions from that judge that they disagree with.
True, Felix, but I was talking more about liberals cheering this on. Which makes me anxious.
It makes me a little anxious as well, but the Democratic Party has not quite institutionalized the feeding frenzy (especially on judicial nominees) in the way the Republicans have. Some Democrats will cheer it on, no doubt, but it will not be the self-sustaining and inevitable default response that it will on the right once the winger talk-radio machine smells a “librul” minority nominee in the water.
Whilst the reactionary pundits like Limbaugh and the non-office holding potential future GOP presidential candidates have weighed in heavily against Sotomayor, the Senate Republicans have been very, very quiet today. I think the NRSC on some level realizes that they have a losing hand if they want to try to filibuster her, because the two female Maine GOP Senators already appear to be on board with confirming her.
My hope is that they are stupid enough to try to block this nomination, because I imagine that they’ll only alienate the Hispanic voting bloc even more in the process.
My belief is that they realize this, and that Sotomayor will get confirmed relatively easily. The NRSC showed some semblance of sanity last week when they endorsed Charlie Crist for Senate within 15 minutes of him announcing his candidacy - they did this because they realize that he’s the most electable candidate that they have, even though he’s despised by much of the base as a RINO for supporting Obama’s stimulus package, and even though he’s going to be challenged by a significantly more conservative candidate, Marco Rubio.
The conservative talking heads will kick and scream, the potential 2012 GOP presidential nominees will kick and scream, but the NRSC will quietly concede that they have no shot of filibustering her appointment and realize that any serious attempts to do so will only hurt them more, and she’ll get confirmed with at least 65 votes.
Ok, I also erad that Cass Sunstein made the short list - just a thought - if they reject Sotomayor who’s next? It would really be fun to watch them:
white? yeah! male? yeah! Accept nomination, accept nomination - now, now, now!!!
Hello Justice Sunstein - no, I haven’t read any of your books - especially the one titled “Why an Exteme Right Judiciary is Wrong for America.” FAINTS.
Don’t they call the wind Maria?
Around here, we call it “Constance”.
Piator, unfortunately, she does have some health problems, so I doubt that’s it.
The Wikipedia mentions Type 1 diabetes - were you thinking of anything else?
That she was an intellectual property litigator might be a concern. The last thing your country (and by extension, the rest of the world) needs is tighter controls there.
Thing is PIATOR, while she received a glowing endorsement from NOW, she only received a tepid endorsment from NARAL due to opinion she wrote stating that the government is free to support anti-choice causes as well. Not that this statement will endear her to the anti-choicers, she’d have to come out and clearly say that women are subhuman.
The libertarian blogs are concerned about her voting with a majority in a takings case which applied Kelo. Others on the threads are pointing out that (a) appellate judges are supposed to apply the law, whether they like it or not, and (b) the case was a straight Statute of Limitations matter could not address the takings issue except as obiter. What they’re all agreed on, though, is that Kelo is merely a license for government acting as the weapons man for corporate theft. Unfortunately they’re right.
DTG in STL says: The conservative talking heads will kick and scream, the potential 2012 GOP presidential nominees will kick and scream, but the NRSC will quietly concede that they have no shot of filibustering her appointment and realize that any serious attempts to do so will only hurt them more, and she’ll get confirmed with at least 65 votes.
Absolutely agree! The GOP punditocracy, the RNC, and cretins like Huckster and Mittens only have to appeal to their constituency of bigots and rightwingnuts. Most of the GOP senators, especially those from states with large Hispanic (and female and minority) blocs can’t afford to alienate potential voters in advance of their next election.
Anyone seen the actual short list? I had heard it was all female ...
They’ll wait until the next appointment (perhaps Stevens but more probably Ginsburg) to see if Obama appoints a real liberal,
Does it make me a bad person to wish for something bad to happen to Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Roberts/Kennedy some time in the next three years? Because I can live with being a bad person if it means Obama gets to replace one of those sacks of crap.
Does it make me a bad person to wish for something bad to happen to Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Roberts/Kennedy some time in the next three years? Because I can live with being a bad person if it means Obama gets to replace one of those sacks of crap.
I’m with you 100%.
Sadly, I see no realistic possibility of Obama getting the chance to replace Roberts, Alito, or Thomas during his presidency, even assuming he gets re-elected. Thomas is the oldest of the three, and he’s only 60.
As for Scalia, he’s 73, but I see no shot of him retiring while Obama or, for that matter ANY Democrat is president. Assuming he survives through the end of a second Obama term, he’ll be 81 years old - which is eight years YOUNGER than the current oldest member of SCOTUS, Justice Stevens, who just turned 89 last month. Obama’s only hope of replacing him is if he dies, because there’s no way in hell he’ll retire while Obama is in the White House.
Anthony Kennedy, 72, is probably Obama’s best shot of getting to replace one of the right-leaning members of the court, though Kennedy is the closest to moderate of the five on the right.
I’m afraid that we’re probably stuck with the four ultra-wingnuts through Obama’s presidency, and only if a Republican succeeds Obama wil Scalia retire willingly.
Incertus:
It would have to be poetic for it not to be bad. For example, Alito could be shot by a cop who wasn’t at all threatened by him, operating on a warrant that wasn’t for Alito’s house, ‘cuz Alito says that both those things are okay. Roberts would have to die as a result of corporate malfeasance, ‘cuz he says that’s always okay. Scalia? Accidentally shot by Dick Cheney. Thomas? Naaah, nothing to him. Actually, I like the idea of the court’s one occasional libertarian seeing the light and being philosophically consistent forever.
By the time the piece was over my knuckles were itching to punch him in the throat because his arguments seemed to mainly consist of “Obama bad! Bad nominee cuz I said so! Unlawful empathy standard!”
damnedyankee,
I listened to the same bit. And yeah, I had about the same reaction. I was in the car and yelling at the radio that the guy’s an asshole, because seriously, “unlawful empathy standard”? Really, that’s the best talking point they can come up with?
<lbockquote>Even more startling is that Politico called Sotomayor a “Latina single mother”, a feat she managed to accomplish despite having no children at all.</blockquote>
So, just to get this straight - the heirarchy of wiminfolk for the conservatives goes like this
-(white) virgin
-(white) married with clown car womb (as long as they’re in a church)
-(white) married with 2-3 kids
-(white) unmarried with kids
-(white) divorced with kids
-(white) divorced no kids
-(white) never been married no kids has sex anyway
and repeat that list for each race - as long as it’s UNDER the white list.
Wait, should virgins be at the top? Or in the middle? Argh. It’s hard - such shifting sands.
To be fair to Huckabee, I always think “Javier” when I see the name Sotomayor. I’m sure I’ll get over that in time.
I was thinking of her diabetes, though I suppose I don’t know that it’s actually linked to shorter lives, if you have the kind of medical care SCOTUS judges have. But Bush made it clear that youth was one of his standards, and so the precedent is set, and Republicans can’t whine their way out of that one.
As for her decisions on abortion---she’s only upheld a long-established precedent, which is that the government does have a right to express a preference, even if it doesn’t have a right to stop you from getting an abortion. I don’t agree, on an equal protection basis, but abortion hasn’t been handled too much under that so much as privacy. But there’s no way to argue that the government doesn’t have a right, if it wishes, to promote child-bearing over not. It’s all over our laws, including our tax codes.
Seeker,
What about Kennedy? Poetic for him would be, I guess, getting run over while standing in the middle of an intersection trying to decide whether to go right or center-right, preferably by a woman who’s in the 24-hour waiting period for an abortion.
Like I said, I can deal with being considered a bad person if it means one of them is off the Court and replaced by Obama.
Incertus, if you’re a bad person, then so am I and so are lots of other people as well. Because I can name, offhand (and IRL), at least 7 or 8 people who feel the same way. And for certain, I feel that way too. And I don’t even feel particularly bad about it, particularly in the cases of Alito and Scalia.
-(white) married with clown car womb
I was taking a drink while reading this. You owe me a keyboard.
Me too Anders, but not in the context of the US Supreme Court. But wow, it’s kinda fun to contemplate Republan heads exploding all over the country from that. Why couldn’t this nomination happen a couple months earlier so we could have a nice April Fool’s prank?
Obama should learn from history and do the following: nominate some lightweight and let the GOP go wild on her. Then show your magnanimity by convincing her to withdraw her name from consideration. Then nominate Lani Guinier.
Virgins should definitely be at the top since they pretty much don’t exist. And Republicans just love worshipping things/people/time periods that never actually existed.
Conservatives can disguise any objection they have to Sotomayor, by trotting out their favorite fake process argument: judicial activism! Cue the scary music.
Incertus at [1901h]: I found that very funny!
An interesting addendum to the discussion of this pick, an angle considered by Glenn Greenwald at Salon:
Those examining Sotomayor’s record have not yet turned up hints of her views on separation of powers and presidential powers, in contrast with another rumored-to-be-top contender Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Wood. At a time when Obama is angling for indefinite imprisonment without trial on government say-so and embracing the Bush-era, wildly expanded state secrets doctrine, is he attempting to shape a court more receptive to expansive presidential powers?
Thomas will just sort of fade away. One day he just won’t be here anymore.
Talking point to memorize and repeat until you’re blue in the face: More federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court justice in 100 years. All claims about her experience and intelligence, compared with a stat like that, are exposed for what they are: partisan at best, but most likely racist and sexist.
Noted and bookmarked, Most Illustrious Blogmistress.
I am trying to understand the variety of definitions when it comes to judicial activism. Currently it seems that it means either:
a) Making crap up to fit your worldview
b) Legislating from the bench
c) Having empathy for people
“A” is obviously bullshit in any form. “B” and “C” however seem to be perfectly acceptable. The Court doesn’t legislate from the branch, they obviously don’t make laws, but strikes down crap from the other two branches. I do not understand how having empathy for people is a bad thing when making a decision. If the decision is not clear and truly relies on interpretation then why is it considered a detriment to consider those involved in the case and how far reaching the precedent would be? I’m confused.
Does it make me a bad person to wish for something bad to happen to Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Roberts/Kennedy some time in the next three years? Because I can live with being a bad person if it means Obama gets to replace one of those sacks of crap.
Incertus, Nacho Daddy on 05/26 at 02:39 PM
If that would make you “bad,” then I guess I’m Satan. Or Stalin, or Sith, or someone else wickedly sibilant.
Streisand? Sarandon?
Because, when my local newspaper showed the 5 “Justices” who voted in the majority on Bush v Gore, way back in late 2000--Rehnquist, Scalia, O’Connor, Thomas, and oh yes, Kennedy--I immediately pictured them blindfolded and with the picture backgrounds becoming a firing squad backstop.
As traitors, you see.
O’Connor of course whined about how gauche and embarrassing the President she made sure to pick that year turned out to be--after she was safely retired. Along with Kennedy, she expressed some qualms and did some hand-wringing at the time of the decision. But she’d also been overheard before, saying no way no how was she going to let some Democrat pick her successor.
So no, in my heart of hearts I’ve never been sorry for that moment of visualization.
If this be evil make the most of it. I’m with Justice Stevens (his name starts with an “S” too, you know!--oh wait, so does “Scalia") on Bush v Gore--it was a travesty from beginning to end, poisoning all it touched and still touches, particularly my respect for the basic soundness of our judiciary.
Nowadays it amazes me when their decisions actually make some sense.
Now, to push “S-s-s-submit!”
I do not understand how having empathy for people is a bad thing when making a decision. If the decision is not clear and truly relies on interpretation then why is it considered a detriment to consider those involved in the case and how far reaching the precedent would be? I’m confused.
Because, Ryan, the wingnuts Make Shit Up. Obviously when a President hopes for a candidate that has empathy, this is an indication that they will not use the law, but will instead make decisions based on tea-leaves, the plantiff’s auras, and how their ovaries feel that morning. It’s a dog-whistle for “will decide against it, which is clearly not what the law says”.
To which Amanda has given us the clear counter - “More federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court justice in 100 years”.
I agree with you that the charge is bullshit. What is the best way to counter that specific charge? Should we be arguing from the standpoint that not only is empathy good but necessary. The Constitution was always meant as a living document and as a way to protect not only the rights of the majority but specifically the rights of the minority. Without an understanding of the plight of our most pressed upon citizenry judges would be incapable of rendering any meaningful verdict outside of the letter of the law which they are supposed to be interpreting anyway. I’m just wondering how to approach this aspect of it as I feel empathy should not be ignored and certainly shouldn’t have its good name dragged through the mud.
Anyway, I have found one decent way of arguing judicial activism with right wingers. Whenever they bring up how terrible it is I usually reply “So you agree that the SC overstepped its bounds in Bush v. Gore.” Shuts them up pretty nicely.
“26 days is ample time to come up with attacks that aren’t blatantly racist and sexist, even if they are fundamentally racist and sexist.”
And just what race is Sotomayor? She looks just like my grandmother from the south of France. I never realized her marriage to my Irish grandfather was interracial until today.
Some dimwit blogger at cogitamusblog.com Amanda links to writes “Please GOP, filibuster a woman of Puerto Rican descent”
A woman of Puerto Rican descent? Sotomayor is a member of the Puerto Rican race? By that logic and scientific acumen, I guess I’m a man of New Jersey descent. I’ll put that descriptor on the next government document that wants to know my race.
Because, Ryan, the wingnuts Make Shit Up. Obviously when a President hopes for a candidate that has empathy, this is an indication that they will not use the law, but will instead make decisions based on tea-leaves, the plantiff’s auras, and how their ovaries feel that morning. It’s a dog-whistle for “will decide against it, which is clearly not what the law says”.
Aaaaaand - they’re off…
Well played Phoenician, well played.
You know what “not that bright” means when you’re talking about candidates for the supreme court? It means “doesn’t make arguments that would embarass some loner college student posting online as a libertarian.” Seriously. If you look at some of these ostensibly brilliant intellects, you see “logic” like that in Bush v. Gore, with a bunch of made-up shit cobbled together to get the result the writer wanted in the first place.
I think the republican names outside will fulminate like all getout, but the senate republicans will see reason, if only because they don’t want to be embarassed by their old footage.
I think they had a madlib all set up ahead of time, with (name) and (ethnic slur) and (sexist comment) and other personalized details as blank lines.
I’m sure we could approximate the boilerplate if we bothered to do so. It really isn’t personal - except for the slurs. The rest was decided ahead of time, just like the democrat social party.
Jim, how about this: even the Boston Globe stated that her family “immigrated” from Puerto Rico.
Right, and Obama’s mother immigrated to Washington State from Kansas. Uh huh.
The stupid burns.
Jim, how about this: even the Boston Globe stated that her family “immigrated” from Puerto Rico.
Right, and Obama’s mother immigrated to Washington State from Kansas. Uh huh.
The stupid burns.
Her parents had more of the traditional immigrant experience than someone moving from Vancouver BC to Seattle. I’d say changing language and culture, while leaving home forever, was tantamount to immigration. A Caribbean islander from Cuba, who makes it a mere 90 miles from home without being detected, is free to take up residence here, while still being considered an immigrant.
My favorite part is that she’s been talked about as being the most probable nominee for at least three weeks now and they still didn’t bother to come up with an actual line of attack.
Ms Kate,
Normally your responses are intelligible, but I have no idea what you are trying to communicate. “The stupid burns”? That really means nothing to me. For all I know it’s a compliment.
Can you state the race of Sotomayor? Saying the Boston Globe says her family emigrated from Puerto Rico does not clear it up.
If, as some predict here, that racists will attack Sotomayor based solely on her race, how are they supposed to do that without it being clear what her race is? They could end up assuming she is Italian, French, Greek, Spanish, etc. and just not even bother. And that would be such a huge disappointment to so many here who are expecting the racists to bare their vicious teeth to block her nomination.
jumpinjim:
That’s some awful hairsplitting you’re doing there, considering how many wingnuts probably think there’s such a thing as a Puerto Rican illegal immigrant (or, for that matter, a Puerto Rican immigrant). You know damn well that the people who are going to claim affirmative action really don’t make the distinction.
they still didn’t bother to come up with an actual line of attack.
They assume her deficiencies are self-evident: as a traditionally underrepresented minority, she got where she is today solely as a result of affirmative action. (Yes, even when exam grading was totally anonymous. The professors send the exam papers to a lab where gc/mass spec analysis detects traces of sofrito.) And, as a vagina possessor, she’s automatically inferior to any penis possessor.
In a high-larious comment over at althouse, one of her commenters typed something like, “if they wanted an unqualified Latina for Souter’s spot, why not pick Selma (sic) Hayek?)
Their weapons are surprise ... no ... surprise and fear!
That’s some awful hairsplitting you’re doing there,
The word you’re looking for is “sophistry.”
Don’t they call the wind Maria?
Dang it, seeker, now you’ve got that song in my head! But please, please, please, for the love of Pete, tell me that Huckabee didn’t actually call Sotomayor “Mah-rye-ah” That’d just be adding insult to injury.
Though I hope that the Republicans have the sense that the ceiling cat gave a beetle and let her through without much fuss, I’m calling my Senators anyway, and demanding that if the Republicans insist upon being stupid, that the Democrats insist upon their being stupid in a highly public way. None of this merely counting heads for cloture--make ‘em stand there and talk. But then, we’re lucky if the Dems display more common sense than my three-year-old nephew.
“if they wanted an unqualified Latina for Souter’s spot, why not pick Selma (sic) Hayek?)
Aside from the obvious “can’t keep those brown people straight” problem here, isn’t “unqualified Latina” an oxymoron in Wingnutspeak?
Then again, they don’t seem to be short on morons out there ...
The professors send the exam papers to a lab where gc/mass spec analysis detects traces of sofrito
This is actually true. I only got through law school because my readings on the Meat-and-2-Veg-0-Graph were off the scale.
Oh, sorry - I meant redundant. Getting late out here ...
In a high-larious comment over at althouse, one of her commenters typed something like, “if they wanted an unqualified Latina for Souter’s spot, why not pick Selma (sic) Hayek?)
I had no idea that Hayek had graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, was an editor of the Yale Law Review, and has over 10 years of experience as a federal appeals court judge. Since she shares Sotomayor’s qualifications, why hasn’t she been nominated?
isn’t “unqualified Latina” redundant in Wingnutspeak?
In the interest in accuracy I looked up the comment at althouse:
Hoosier Daddy said…
Since her legal skills don’t seem to be as important as her ethnicity or gender why not go with a babe and just nominate Selma Hayek?
See how just by being a man you can make a woman’s professional and academic qualifications vanish completely?
I just checked Outhouse, and she has several posts up - and she seems to be working both sides of the aisle here, complete with derisive reports on other bloggers who have made the stupid mistake of declaring Sotomayor to be “not smart” and other derisions of her abilities and experience.
<blovkquote>I am trying to understand the variety of definitions when it comes to judicial activism.</blockquote>
It means “judgifyin’ I don’t like”.
The “empathy” line is going to go down like a turd in a punchbowl. That doesn’t matter: the GOP’s argot has become so involuted that the language it speaks to itself either makes no sense or turns even more people against it.
Sotomayor “graduated summa cum laude from Princeton”
The fact that Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton in 1976 tells us a lot about 1976 and Princeton. She was admitted into one of the first coed classes at Princeton after having grown up in the South Bronx. It’s not like her benevolent host was going to let her fail, if for no other reason than the benevolent host might end up looking bad. And she got a BA which isn’t exactly a degree in Aerospace Engineering. Does anyone know what her major was?
When I was there in 2004 at my son’s graduation, a coed summa cum laude was extolling the virtues of her Princeton education. In particular she went on to discuss the reason why a shower curtain kept flying into her while taking a hot shower. Wrong. Fail.
She proposed a totally bogus theory having to do with the Venturi effect. To expound on this in front of thousands of people to show how clever a Princeton mind can be was silly to say the least. It’s unwise to equate Princeton with intelligence and intelligence with wisdom.
Who the hell calls female college students “coeds”? JumpinJim, I seem to recall you spraying your idiocy on other threads. Please stop on this one too.
And by a similar token- How the fuck would an aerospace engineering degree be useful for studying law? I mean, I know it has the magical word “engineering” in it, so people automatically assume “super smart”, but I don’t recollect using too much math in my law classes.
When I was there in 2004 at my son’s graduation, a coed summa cum laude was extolling the virtues of her Princeton education. In particular she went on to discuss the reason why a shower curtain kept flying into her while taking a hot shower. Wrong. Fail.
You must have been upset at having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on such a crappy school for your son. All those years and all of that money, completely down the drain, with your son left completely unprepared for the real world.
It’s too bad your Princeton-educated son will be living in your basement for the foreseeable future while he struggles with his job as a cashier at McDonald’s. If only you’d known what a poor quality of education they provide before you sent him there, eh?
t’s not like her benevolent host was going to let her fail, if for no other reason than the benevolent host might end up looking bad.
Bullshit.
That’s for the OTHER affirmative action admits (the legacy admits).
Your gibes don’t square with the summa cum laude. Nor do the comments about the BA do you any credit (as someone who holds both a BA and a BS). It’s a mark of utter vapidity, if not outright stupidity.
Fail. Try again.
Antigone: Intellectual property law.
How the fuck would an aerospace engineering degree be useful for studying law?
Salem Hypothesis no doubt.
Oh, and jim, that crappy “Pyne Prize” that they just kept babbling on and on about at the graduation like it was some kind of big deal? Sotomayor won one of those, too. But, hey, everyone knows that your kid would have gotten a better education at community college than he did at Princeton, so it’s not really a big deal like they kept saying. What a waste of money it was sending him to such a crappy school, huh?
Phi Beta Kappa? Your son’s gotta have, what, three or four of those? Everyone knows they hand those out to everyone who registers at Princeton, even the white boys.
Oh, and jim, that crappy “Pyne Prize” that they just kept babbling on and on about at the graduation like it was some kind of big deal? Sotomayor won one of those, too. But, hey, everyone knows that your kid would have gotten a better education at community college than he did at Princeton, so it’s not really a big deal like they kept saying. What a waste of money it was sending him to such a crappy school, huh?
Phi Beta Kappa? Your son’s gotta have, what, three or four of those? Everyone knows they hand those out to everyone who registers at Princeton, even the white boys.
Don’t forget, Sotomayor was also editor of the Yale Law Journal. Granted, everybody knows that the editor of a law journal at an Ivy League school is just another affirmative action position they give to the minority kids, because you know, President Blackzilla was the editor of the Harvard Law Review.
jim, kindly go fuck yourself.
Personally, I will always be grateful to Judge Sotomayor for saving Major League Baseball from the plutocrats owners. You can see in the description of the ruling, how she said that “the entire concept of collective bargaining [is] on trial”, that she’s not afraid to look at cases outside of a narrow frame.
Someone near the top mentioned Justice Roberts’ lack of impartiality, and I’ve been wondering: Since he claimed under oath during his confimation hearing that he would be impartial, can he be impeached? And yes, I’m aware that it’s less likely than Incertus’ fantasies.
gwangung: Fascinating link. I had always thought Mathematicians were especially susceptible to bad science (and I say this as a Mathematician): The difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, if you will.
In any case, it’s too late for me to hunt it down to confirm, but it’s quite possible that Princeton doesn’t offer Engineering degrees, as it’s a liberal arts university, not a technical institute. They like teaching their students how to think first and foremost, you see.
NY Expat, you’re a mathematician too? You’re the third one I’ve encountered in the last week. I’m starting to get this odd feeling that the liberal blogosphere is entirely run out of Evans Hall in Berkeley.
“Antigone: Intellectual property law. “
norbizness: patent law
intellectual property encompasses considerably more than patent law, the only sub-section that in any way requires a “hard” science background.
Princeton has a pretty decent engineering school. The “coed” meant Bernoulli principle, a superset of the Venturi effect. Likely she misspoke—engineers are not known for their public speaking skills or in fact for their command of the English language. Lawyers are often innumerate—they can hire those skills out.
How the fuck would an aerospace engineering degree be useful for studying law?
Salem Hypothesis no doubt.
Actually, the “simplism” and “monism” characteristic of engineers, cited in the Salem Hypothesis article, makes engineers less fit for studying law, because law students must draw up arguments for both plaintiff and defendant. The possibility of either side winning boggles the engineer’s mind.
“I do not understand how having empathy for people is a bad thing when making a decision. If the decision is not clear and truly relies on interpretation then why is it considered a detriment to consider those involved in the case and how far reaching the precedent would be? I’m confused. ~Ryan”
Empathy is Bad to convervatives, because it suggests having sympathy and fellow feeling with the powerless, poor, downtrodden and mere consumers. The repubs bristled as soon as Obama named it as a criteria, as if those sorts of people (you know who I mean) should expect any redress in the courts against their betters.
Instead, judges should naturally side in every case with the powerful, rich, influential and corporations, because those are the sorts that deserve to have judgements in their favor. The fact that strict construction lends itself to upholding the status quo is a positive to them, and never you mind that messy social justice stuff.
In short, it’s social warfare on every front, where-ever it is waged: Racial, Gender, and Class.
Hector: Some lawyers may be innumerate, but the analytic skills you learn in math or the sciences can be very useful in law school, or so I’m told. For instance, Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe did his undergraduate degree in physics, and it’s commonly held that being a math major allows you to kill the LSAT with ease.
Llelldorin: Yet another mathematician from the cabal here, though sadly not one based out of Evans Hall…
Selma Hayek?
I guess that as much as I have always run into sexism, as a white woman, I still don’t really know just how bad it is for women of color. Jesus fucking christ. Black women having to deal with the whole plantation whore mythology completely fabricated to cover up serial rape by white men, and now I guess there is some sexualized bullshit surrounding Hispanic or Latina women, where either they are Selma Hayek and fuckable, or they are...not, and then, what good are they?
You know what really galls me is this fucking old white male asshole idea that a woman and/ or a minority is going to bring gender and racial experiences to bear on their judicial decision making, and that is wrong, because everyone knows that rich white little fucking dough boys like John Roberts don’t bring their experiences as rich white little dough boys to bear. It’s just a big fucking coincidence that John rich white man Roberts ALWAYS votes in the interests of rich white men.
And please if anyone can do something about that old sack of smirking white male privilege, oh look he’s so avuncular and harmless, racist, sexist, dangerous has-been, Patrick Buchnanon, please do it. Why is he always on MSNBC? He’s not funny, he’s not cute, he’s a racist, sexist, piece of shit. I don’t give a fuck what a racist sexist over-the-hill used up white privileged white guy thinks. Please get him off my tv.
And meanwhile, I don’t even know if I want this woman on the court! Is she supposed to make me happy? is she a liberal? Where does she stand on Roe v Wade? Gay marriage? Consumer protections? Labor rights? Who the fuck knows? Obama keeps bragging on how she was first appointed to the federal judiciary by Bush Sr. and you know, just because his son is nuts and makes his dad look better, doesn’t mean the father wasn’t an actual conservative, he was. And then Gibbs is all over tv last night talking about all of the right wing reactionaires, like Rick Santorim, having voted for her previously.
Is this supposed to make me feel good?
But I am so busy defending her from racist, sexist attacks, that I don’t really have the time left to wonder, hey Obama, wtf are you doing? Because we can’t afford a mistake. Take a look at that court, and you better know, we can’t afford a mistake. I am not one to suscribe to the theory, just relax, Obama knows what he’s doing. I want to know what he’s doing. I want to know that she’s a reliable liberal vote, because if we lose a reliable liberal vote, then this country changes and pivets hard right.
She might be the Obama Admin’s Harriet Meirs. Just sayin’ ....
EricJG, if you ignore everything she’s ever done, she certainly might be!
She might be the Obama Admin’s Harriet Meirs. Just sayin’ ....
And you might be a monstrous bag of shit who fucks himself routinely. Just sayin’ ....
And meanwhile, I don’t even know if I want this woman on the court! Is she supposed to make me happy? is she a liberal? Where does she stand on Roe v Wade? Gay marriage? Consumer protections? Labor rights? Who the fuck knows?
These are very good questions, to which we have to add--what about executive power? Torture?
Obama keeps bragging on how she was first appointed to the federal judiciary by Bush Sr. and you know, just because his son is nuts and makes his dad look better, doesn’t mean the father wasn’t an actual conservative, he was.
Very true. GHW Bush, after all, appointed Thomas.
However he also appointed Souter--the very guy the new appointee would be replacing.
And then Gibbs is all over tv last night talking about all of the right wing reactionaires, like Rick Santorim, having voted for her previously.
Is this supposed to make me feel good?
Ugh. No, neither me nor thee.
That is ominous.
You see, time was, before 1992, that appointing judges was generally, ideologically speaking, at least for reactionaries, a crapshoot. Partially because we’ve had very few Democratic Presidential administrations since Nixon was first elected in 1968, and partially because the Republicans have been much luckier than the Democrats, the former have appointed the vast majority of federal judges at all levels. And yet we have these so-called “liberal judges” on the Federal bench--because guess what, if you have a process focused on appointing reasonably sane people who are reasonably smart and reasonably committed to the concept of rule of law, you don’t get authoritarian rubberstamps. Of the four justices on the Supreme Court who can be called “liberal”, just two--the two appointed by Clinton, who are the only SCOTUS justices appointed by any Democrat, since Carter got to appoint none--were put there by “liberals,” and they went through withering, negative criticism of the 1990s Republicans. The other two, Stevens and Souter, were appointed by Gerald Ford and GHW Bush.
BUT in the Bush Jr admin, and for that matter for some time before judging by the attitude of the Senate Republicans in obstructing Clinton’s choices as much as they could (which was a lot), they seem to have gotten “better” at picking candidates who would reliably implement their agenda for decades to come, no matter what.
So I too would be nervous about any judge who managed to win the approval of such Republican attack dogs in the 1990s.
But I am so busy defending her from racist, sexist attacks, that I don’t really have the time left to wonder, hey Obama, wtf are you doing? Because we can’t afford a mistake. Take a look at that court, and you better know, we can’t afford a mistake. I am not one to suscribe to the theory, just relax, Obama knows what he’s doing. I want to know what he’s doing. I want to know that she’s a reliable liberal vote, because if we lose a reliable liberal vote, then this country changes and pivets hard right.
Caton on 05/27 at 02:04 AM
I’d like to think it’s hardly possible for us to turn harder right than we already have, but of course that’s silly--just because things have been bad is hardly proof they couldn’t be worse. And, thanks to the “defection” of Justices like Stevens and Souter--and before them other Republican appointees like Blackmun and heck, Earl Warren himself--SCOTUS has always been more balanced than its partisan origins would suggest.
But even before the War on Clinton, the Republicans were already getting “better” at rigging the system for themselves; Reagan and Bush Sr appointees were not always bad, but when they were, they were (and are) very very bad indeed.
We need not just a non-reactionary, we need someone with gumption and wit to keep the active evil of “justices” like Scalia at bay.
Caton, you are right about this--I’ve just been assuming, hoping, that Obama of course realizes all this and Sotomayor is gonna be great. I can well believe that a woman of her background can both outreason the likes of Roberts, Alito, and even Sith Lord Scalia, and do so on grounds that are much more common with the thinking of the average American than the “conservative” priesthood can muster. But by golly, I have no particular reason to believe that this woman is necessarily that woman, and all your points suggest maybe she isn’t.
Because getting the kind of judge we need now appointed would have been flat impossible for Clinton, any time after the election of 1994. Maybe it’s therefore a good thing that she rose to the Federal bench under Poppy Bush?
I am sure the comments have devolved into hilarity but I just want to note that I had to turn off the Diane Rehm show yesterday, ffs, because some wanker was carrying on about how the fact that there may be one justice, one justice who is a Hispanic woman means that we’re starting down the slippery slope to a spoils system in which every ethnic group demands a judge all their own.
I love how jumpinjim managed to come over here and give us a little insight into the Rethugs’ talking point. Seriously. You can’t even graduate top of your class and have a stellar fucking resume without some privileged white asshole coming up with random excuses for why a woman (forget of color. Just a woman is enough) can’t possibly be the best possible candidate.
For fuck’s sake, Jim. Imagine getting to the top with a bunch of assholes like you grading your work and critiquing your analysis. Every word coming out of your mouth is second-guessed, and even if you’re absolutely right, your white male professor is still coming up with reasons that you’re wrong. And you STILL manage to graduate top of your class.
You fucking fuckstick.
Just cause some female engineering student did better than your precious whiteboy son at Princeton doesn’t necessarily mean all women are stupid.
jumpinjim, as a Princeton graduate, I would like you to quit maligning my alma mater. The Pyne Prize is a big fucking deal. It’s the biggest fucking deal award given to an undergraduate. Graduating summa cum laude is also a big deal, and was MORE of an honor when Sotomayor graduated than it is now (due to grade inflation a higher percentage of students have the gpa to qualify now).
What does an idiot speaking in 2004 have to do with a top law graduate with more years on the bench than any other incoming Supreme Court justice in 100 years being nominated to the highest court.
Let me guess JJim ... that wasn’t a shower curtain ... it was your white sheet.
she got a BA which isn’t exactly a degree in Aerospace Engineering. Does anyone know what her major was?
Shut the fuck up.
Seriously. You’re a fucking waste of carbon.
I think that the debate over the USSC is distracting attention from a more pressing problem to be addressed: the near total GOP-ification of the federal appellate courts. Obama should be expanding the rosters on those courts and appointing liberal stalwarts.
I do not understand how having empathy for people is a bad thing when making a decision. If the decision is not clear and truly relies on interpretation then why is it considered a detriment to consider those involved in the case and how far reaching the precedent would be? I’m confused.
You see, wingnuts live in some strange world where words don’t actually mean what they mean. “Racist” means “not always assuming that old white guys are the best at everything”. “Pro-life” means “we can kill plenty of people but can’t let women have control of their bodies”. Abstinence-only “education” means “not educating people at all, censoring information, and lying to control people”. And the list goes on. So, when they hear to word the “empathy”, they are so used to words meaning the opposite of what they mean, they just assume that it means something other than actual empathy.
There will be no filibuster, and not even one seriously attempted. We will speak about the non-role that “empathy” should have, and the idea that Judge Sotomayor’s statement that a Latina judge should “get it right” more often than a while male judge who hasn’t had the Latina’s life experiences amounts to saying that the law should not be color-blind, but most of the effort will be made to address judicial philosophy, and keep it away from Judge Sotomayor herself.
To me, the only question is whether most Republicans will vote no on principle, or vote yes as a matter of courtesy for an inevitable nominee, the way the Democrats did for John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Oh, wait . . . .
Shorter jumpinjim:
There’s absolutely no way that a non-white woman could have possibly been successful on her own. Therefore, she must have cheated.
Dana, given that I haven’t heard any outcry from the Senate Republicans about the nominee, it looks like she’s going to sail through.
The hue and cry about Sotomayor’s supposed shortcomings are all coming from aspiring presidential candidates and spokespeople people think thanks-- in short, people who want to separate you from your money during the next fundraising campaign.
“spokespeople from think tanks”. Wow. I’m really off my game this morning.
Also, Dana, you come here to post and don’t say a work of thanks to EricJG who’s been shilling for your blog for the past week? At least show a bit of gratitude, will you?
jumpinjim, Just like Sotomayor, most federal judicial nominees have a BA and a JD (undergraduate degree and law degree), along with distinguished legal careers. “A degree in Aerospace Engineering” or the like is not a job requirement or even really very useful in a legal career, so why would Sotomayor, unlike any other judicial nominee in history, need one? (Also, do you really have to agree with a Princeton graduate’s speech, in order to find something to enjoy about it? How sad.)
Caton’s concern is right on. ("I want to know that she’s a reliable liberal vote, because if we lose a reliable liberal vote, then this country changes and pivets hard right.") We do not know as much about Sotomayor’s views on women’s and gay/lesbian equality and presidential powers, for example, as we know about the views of other potential nominees like Diane Wood or nominees from academia like Kathleen Sullivan. As the NYT notes today, Sotomayor’s opinions, while detailed about precedent and thorough, tend to avoid grand vision and rooting decisions in a theory of jurisprudence.
This is of course similar to what conservatives said about Roberts in the summer of 2005, that with a solid conservative majority ready to confirm a nominee, Bush should have chosen a more reliable and known entity; Roberts was, at the time, not considered a certain and reliable conservative vote, and (gasp!) he had at one time done some work for a pro-gay group. As we know now, Roberts is a radical conservative - one who believes, e.g., that Congress could force military recruiters onto campuses as a constitutional matter in its prerogative to raise a military force, and not simply as a condition of federal funding - who hides rigid ideology behind folksiness like baseball analogies.
I had a gut feeling Roberts was a prick, and I have a gut feeling Sotomayor isn’t. That’s not good enoguh, though. And on issues like presidential powers and the “War on Terror” state of exception that is quickly becoming a rule rather than an exception, what basis is there from her opinions, even for a gut feeling, about how she would rule?
Eric’s a good guy, went to British schools, majored in aerospace engineering at the University of Arizona, went to Navy OCS, and has absolutely horrible taste in music.
GHW Bush used the word empathy when talking about his nominee, Clarence Thomas, somehow I don’t think Dana objected to Bush doing so at that time.
She might be the Obama Admin’s Harriet Meirs.
No, naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court would be akin to naming your kids’ pediatrician head of the Centers for Disease Control. They each would have the proper professional degree, and professional experience.
she got a BA which isn’t exactly a degree in Aerospace Engineering. Does anyone know what her major was?
Which disciplines offer a BA versus BS is highly dependent on historical factors at that school, and not necessarily reflective of where we logically would expect the discipline to actually end up in a categorization of “art” versus “science”.
I recall that several of the hard-core sciences offered BAs at the university I attended as undergrad.
And I have a BS . . . in English Literature.
Dana, from a certain perspective, even not counting that last crack about his taste in music, that comment about EricJG could be considered bunch of back-handed insults.
From the front page of Huffpo:
WSJ: Sotomayor’s Record Within Mainstream
Despite Democratic Bent, She Has “Sided With Corporate Defendants”
Yaaaaaaay. (Sigh.)
hp:
(puts on absolutely straight poker face)
Most people would agree that a degree in English Lit is a degree in BS.
Actually, now that I think about, Steven King has more or less said that.
Hector: Some lawyers may be innumerate, but the analytic skills you learn in math or the sciences can be very useful in law school, or so I’m told. For instance, Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe did his undergraduate degree in physics, and it’s commonly held that being a math major allows you to kill the LSAT with ease.
Llelldorin: Yet another mathematician from the cabal here, though sadly not one based out of Evans Hall…
topometropolis on 05/27 at 03:12 AM
Indeed topo! Plato’s Academy famously had written above the door “those who are ignorant of math need not enter.” And many universities consider formal logic courses as both math and philosophy credits - to the delight and later disappointment of many a liberal arts major. Usually the engineers and mathemeticians smoke the non- math English/history/philosophy majors on symbolic logic..
And meanwhile, I don’t even know if I want this woman on the court! Is she supposed to make me happy? is she a liberal? Where does she stand on Roe v Wade? Gay marriage? Consumer protections? Labor rights? Who the fuck knows?
Hilzoy has multiple links, along with a long post of her own about Sotomayor. She’s been a federal appeals court judge for over a decade—it’s not like she appeared out of nowhere and there’s no way to find out her opinion on anything.
And she got a BA which isn’t exactly a degree in Aerospace Engineering.
Hey look, another know-nothing right-wing engineer who thinks he’s people. Look at the little monkey go, he’s so cute. It seems he even think he’s got a degree worth shit, the poor little thing.
Please go back to the shop and continue building stuff using the scientific knowledge the real geniuses discovered.
(My apologies to non-asshole engineers that frequent this blog.)
Either way, if they try to kill or stall this appointment, it’s just going to draw out the period that Republicans can go on TV and continue to say blatantly racist things. I’m of two minds on this. On one hand, I appreciate that this is an opportunity for Republicans to out themselves as the party of bigots, and let the growing population of Hispanic voters know where Republicans stand on the topic of blatant, vicious racism against Hispanics. That said, when stuff gets racialized like this, it creates on the ground antagonism to rise, which isn’t good for anyone. The political gains from this have to be weighed against the real world animosity this sort of thing sows.
I have to respectfully disagree about the downside. The “on the ground antagonism” is pretty much limited to the wingnut base- which can hardly get any more antagonistic than it already is, what with having to watch one of Those People in the White House. So I say fuck ‘em, grab some popcorn and enjoy the spectacle of the Thugs self-destructing yet again.
The Dark Avenger wrote:
GHW Bush used the word empathy when talking about his nominee, Clarence Thomas, somehow I don’t think Dana objected to Bush doing so at that time.
To me, Justice Thomas proved his merit in his very brief dissent in Lawrence v texas. He said that the Texas law was “uncommonly silly,” and a waste of law enforcement dollars and effort, and that, were he a member of the Texas state legislature, he’d vote to repeal it, but that as a judge it wasn’t his role to just overturn a law he found silly.
Yaaaaaaay. (Sigh.)
If you want to get all bent out of shape over her opinions on securities litigation, go ahead:
In 2006, the judge was part of a Second Circuit panel that ruled investors couldn’t proceed with a class-action suit accusing Wall Street banks of fraudulently pricing initial public offerings. The ruling negated settlements that would have yielded investors more than $1 billion. “That ruling demonstrated that in securities litigation, she is in the judicial mainstream,” said Barry Ostrager, a partner at Simpson Thacher LLP who represented a unit of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. in the matter.
Of course, you’ll have to ignore her strong record on discrimination litigation and labor law to decide she’s a secret right-winger, but you’ll get that happy feeling that Obama Is Exactly Like Bush you seem to enjoy so much.
Again with the engineer-bashing? Don’t let a few incompetent people effect your judgment of the entire group. I’m an engineer, and I am also a Real Scientist(TM). I’m also liberal and I don’t believe in creationism or deny global warming. BlackBloc, that parenthetical apology is not enough when you are basically implying that I’m not a real genius or that I can never discover any scientific knowledge on my own. I wish everyone would keep their stereotypes to themselves and insult the trolls based on their actual incompetence.
Let us just hope she’s paid all her income taxes…
“There will be no filibuster, and not even one seriously attempted. We will speak about the non-role that “empathy” should have, and the idea that Judge Sotomayor’s statement that a Latina judge should “get it right” more often than a while male judge who hasn’t had the Latina’s life experiences amounts to saying that the law should not be color-blind, but most of the effort will be made to address judicial philosophy, and keep it away from Judge Sotomayor herself.”
Dana, as a privileged Republican white Christian male in our society, it’s probably difficult for you to understand, but a person’s background and life experiences can have a large effect on the way you see things.
The legal system is premised on the idea that proper coding of laws can eliminate/minimize misunderstandings and clarify what is legal and what is not. At the same time, there are more lawyers in America now than at any other time in history, here or anywhere. So while the law seeks to be clear and neutral, it is far from actually achieving that goal.
And in the yawning canyon between the ideal and the actual lies the world of law as applied in this country. And in that reality, what you bring to the table probably has a huge bearing on how you apply the law.
Since we live in a society that is (unfortunately for you) not comprised of only privileged Republican white Christian males, it would seem obvious and logical that not all government representatives, in Congress, in the Executive branch, or the Judicial branch should be of a single genetic heritage and a single gender.
Welcome to reality (deeply flawed though it may be...)
as a judge it wasn’t his role to just overturn a law he found silly.
Yes, I award judge Thomas points for wit. However, Justice Anthony Kennedy made much the same argument, from the opposite POV in the flag burning case that as a judge it wasn’t his role to support laws whose goals he found worthwhile, merely to ensure that such laws lined up with the constitution. There was an outcry over Kennedy for that one.
But some are more willing to praise judges for being witty like Thomas in Lawrence or Stewart in Griswold ("we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine.") rather than making a good decision.
(My apologies to non-asshole engineers that frequent this blog.)
No offense taken! 
that happy feeling that Obama Is Exactly Like Bush you seem to enjoy so much.
Complete. And. Utter. Horseshit.
Climb down from your sanctipony, Mnem.
BlackBloc, that parenthetical apology is not enough when you are basically implying that I’m not a real genius or that I can never discover any scientific knowledge on my own.
Research Scientists/Engineers unite, catgirl! I think that what BlackBloc was doing was an attempt to push EricJG’s buttons, as EricJG is specifically a person who believes himself to be much smarter than he actually is.
That said, at some point I’m going to start worrying that the engineers making themselves out to be a bunch of right-wing ignoramuses and the liberal ire against them isn’t going to tarnish our reputation entirely and feed into stereotypes among liberals in general if repeated poking at them turns into stuff we liberals star tto actually believe.
as a judge it wasn’t his role to just overturn a law he found silly.
No, merely unconsitutional and Thomas failed that particular test.
Thomas’ flaw when measured by a libertarian standard is that he believes that money should be free, but people? Not so much.
Complete. And. Utter. Horseshit.
No? You were hopping onto that bandwagon based on a headline at HuffPo when you clearly hadn’t actually read the story they were linking to.
If you don’t want people thinking that you’re searching for excuses to declare that Obama Is Exactly Like Bush, don’t spend all of your time doing it.
Dana, as a privileged Republican white Christian male in our society, it’s probably difficult for you to understand, but a person’s background and life experiences can have a large effect on the way you see things.
Of course, the fact that so many others also experience that “difficulty” is precisely one of the major sources of that privilege. And as Upton Sinclair said, it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it.
Interesting. Being an engineering graduate of a top school myself (MIT ‘88), I actually know folks from graduate school who were likely at that same graduation that JerkyJim was.
Well, I wasn’t there, so I don’t know what that “dumb woman” speaker said ... but I do know somebody who was there. I pointed him to this thread. His take: “that guy was either not listening or somehow didn’t understand what she was talking about - she wasn’t incorrect, she just simplified it for the audience”.
Well maybe not too dumb - just too hatefully biased and prejudiced to actually listen. Of course, Jim never attended a university in the 70s and 80s as a woman in a non-traditional area. If he did, he’d know there wasn’t any special help, just legions of threatened males like himself hellbent on making sure the women and minorities failed, even if that meant cheating or grading them down as much as possible.
Though I should probably direct my ire equally to Caton since I’m annoyed with him/her as well. There’s already been extensive coverage of Sotomayor’s record in multiple publications and on multiple websites just since yesterday—would it kill you to take a look at one or two of them before you start panicking that she’s a secret right-winger who’s going to make the country “pivot hard to the right”?
“To me, Justice Thomas proved his merit in his very brief dissent in Lawrence v texas. He said that the Texas law was “uncommonly silly,” and a waste of law enforcement dollars and effort, and that, were he a member of the Texas state legislature, he’d vote to repeal it, but that as a judge it wasn’t his role to just overturn a law he found silly.”
Dana, an “uncommonly silly” law would involve what you can or can’t do with a duck in a bar.
A law that seeks to single out and punish certain types of sexual behavior between consenting adults is not silly, it’s evil, a violation of privacy, and seeks to insert Tha Guvmint into things it has no business involving itself in, and should be straightforwardly regarded as such and discarded.
That Thomas can’t see the distinction is disturbing…
Dana, that’s not the point of my quoting GW Bush on Thomas, you and your fellows didn’t object to the word when used to describe Thomas, but y’all are getting crazy over the fact(or, at least worth mentioning in your comment) that Obama said that it’s a trait he wanted in his pick for the SCOTUS.
Dark Avenger, Dana seems to be saying that, deep down, he was objecting (on the inside!) when that word was used by GHW Bush to describe Thomas, but that Dana let that secret offense in his heart die down when Thomas voted to oppress gays.
That seems to be what he’s getting at.
Or, more likely, Dana and his buddies were merely told last week to get offended at the word “empathy,” and they obediently complied with the outrage-of-the-day.
Mnem, you are indulging in a flawed argument and a little bit of Obama zipper-polishing. I remember I had this debate with you and Ms Kate when Obama starting picking nothing but Republicans and Centrists for cabinet and you were all creaming yourself over one progressive being appointed assistant undersecretary subchair to a committee that nobody’d everheard of. Just because I get pissed at Obama for being insufficiently progressive doesn’t necessary mean that I’m advancing some simplistic binary argument that he’s Just Like Bush. “Not Good Enough, Dammit” is not repeat not repeat not synonymous with “as shitty as the other guy”.
Every single beltway Dem has figured out that there is no real downside to fucking over the progressives or sliding too far to the right. The left of their party doesn’t make them bleed through the eyes for it the way that the religious right does for the GOP. This is bad simply because it puts a “please fuck us over, we love it and we’ll always put up with it!” sign on our head. Push. Back. And, if you can be troubled, go over to the other thread where I detailed what sort of Justice that Obama should have appointed and my rationales for doing so.
You’re not very good at being stupid, Mnem, so don’t try again, okay? Leave “you disagree with me therefore you must agree with the enemy” to GOPists and other people dumber than you.
Actually, there is a certain genius to pushing Sotomayor out first. Any nominee would have gotten this canned bullshit flung out of the right-wing noise machine - you can tell because the talking points are all sprouting at once and are all the same, and are all ill-tailored to the candidate herself. The genius is that she is so very highly qualified and has so much experience on the federal bench that the reichwing that thinks it is clever just ends up looking stupid, ethnically-biased, and sexist as all hell to anybody who isn’t already parroting their stupid.
There is simply no questioning her high qualifications, and Obama and Rahm and the rest know that. The reichwing noise machine will fling audio poo around their echo chamber and claim that it stuck (when everything looks that way when it is covering their own eyes), but most of the world sees it for what it is when it is aimed at someone who has an extensive track record.
And Mnem, I did read the WSJ article and I have been following this rather too obsessively. Simply put, Sotomayor is a pretty typical centrist judge. You’re falling into the same error that Obama is: the erroneous belief that in dealing with radicals who move their agenda (and government and the judiciary and the legislature) to the right by miles you can respond best by a “game of inches”. You can’t. You simply can’t.
Seeker, explain? Or link, or something. I don’t remember what you are saying about me here - or I don’t remember it that way. Is this about your fetish for ideologically perfect candidates over candidates that have actual experience at doing their jobs? I hardly call that “creaming” myself ... and I was talking about the push to install an academic idealogue to a cabinet position, not and undersecretarial position as I recall.
What Ms. Kate said at 11:41. That makes sense.
Ah yes, Ms. Kate. I remember that, too. You treated “experience at their jobs” as synonymous with “no progressives”. I didn’t agree then and I don’t agree now.
Thread, as requested:
http://www.pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/this_is_not_a_time/
I don’t have a fetish for ideologically perfect candidates. I don’t like purist ideologues of any description. I just despise the notion—often bought into by progressives!—that progressives aren’t experienced or ready for the big chair or any other such nonsense. They always seem to be magically! at the bottom of everybody’s selection list of Dems in DC. I don’t advocate some sort of Leninist purity. I advocate progressives ceasing to be the Subs in DC politics and start fucking biting back. Hardball politics and advocacy is not purist; it is merely the only way to get things done.
Oh, and just on one note: Don’t forget that my suggestion of Sebelius for cabinet came through (as I recall none of you had the stones to call her unqualified whilst simultaneously calling progressives unready for cabinet)… but it happened only after the appointment of that morally, ethically and legally compromised centrist surrender monkey hack Daschle imploded in a smelly cloud of bad judgment.
(Looks at watch.) Gotta go, but don’t hestitate to fire back. I’m hoping to be back on thread by 2100 or so eastern time.
I guess the whole friendly rivalry between the engineering and natural science department, with constant back and forth ribbing of scientists calling engineers trained monkeys and engineers calling scientists airheads and ivory tower theorists, with both sides being in on the joke and having fun with it is something that is local to my university and not a generalized thing.
So I’ll knock it off.
Can I still call economists failed mathematicians?
Don’t forget that my suggestion of Sebelius for cabinet came through (as I recall none of you had the stones to call her unqualified whilst simultaneously calling progressives unready for cabinet)…
Seeker, generalize much?
I didn’t say there were problems with Sebelius because Sebelius is qualified progressive - she has run a state, she can run a governmental organization. The other progressives that you trotted out were not qualified - there is a huge difference between running an academic department or being known for ideas and the day-to-day operations knowledge required to run a huge governmental organization.
We just had an administration that DID NOT GET THAT. To suggest that more of the same - placing ideology above experience with the difficult part of the job - will be the antidote to eight years of damage by incompetent managers is folly. If Brownie were a Greenie, the result might have been the same.
Before I head out, Ms. Kate, let’s clarify the record.
You said that there were no progressives qualified for cabinet. I noted “Jim Hightower, Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Rush Holt, Sherrod Brown, Kathleen Sebelius and Howard Dean.”. You stuck to your position that there were no qualified progressives.
Now, having reviewed your own words and that thread you state that “[t]he other progressives that [I] trotted out were not qualified ...” Your words speak for themselves. I don’t have to generalize; you’ve already covered that very nicely.
Progressives = Not Ready For Prime Time, so far as you’re concerned. Kindly grow a spine and admit it.
So many have hit the Aerospace Engineer comment, but I cannot resist another. One of my pot dealers in college (good humble ct. stuff, btw) went into aerospace engineering. He was remarkable in our little group at Northwestern because he would get pissed if his GPA was over 2.5. That meant he could have spent less time studying and more time partying. He was hired by Boeing upon graduation, moved to Orange Ct. and became a Republican. In retrospect he probably always was one, but the pot made an effective smokescreeen.
Meanwhile, my math problems sets could easily take 8-15 hours per week per class. I choose the wrong major.
And, tyro he’s just proving what John Stuart Mill wrote to a conservative MP over 140 years ago:
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
Letter to the Conservative MP, Sir John Pakington (March 1866)
The other progressives that you trotted out were not qualified - there is a huge difference between running an academic department or being known for ideas and the day-to-day operations knowledge required to run a huge governmental organization.
So, by the standards you’ve just enunciated, Robert Reich shouldn’t have been appointed as Labor Secretary 16 years ago, because he wasn’t qualified to run a huge governmental organization, as history was to demonstrate:
In 2008, Time Magazine named him one of the Ten Most Successful Cabinet Members of the century,[2] and The Wall Street Journal placed him among America’s Top Ten Business Thinkers.[3] On November 7, 2008, he was selected by President-elect Barack Obama to be a member of the President-elect’s economic transition advisory board.[4]
And did you notice that he said his list of names were NOT the only folks available from the progressive side of things? So implying that he did so is disingenous, to say the least.
Seeker, again - give me the EXACT point where I said there were NO progressives who are qualified?
I know you think you are cute and all and “playing hardball politics” and such - but evidence is demanded and needed when you try to smear people with a broad brush.
In other words .. I NEVER FUCKING SAID ANY OF THAT BULLSHIT! NEVER!
To continue ... my point isn’t that progressives are apriori unqualified AND IT NEVER WAS. My point, as somebody who has professionally dealt with the fallout from the sheer incompetence of idealogue hires by the Bushco is that you HAVE TO BE ABLE TO RUN A BUREAUCRACY AND IMPLEMENT YOUR POLICY IDEAS if you are going to take a cabinet post. There are conservatives, moderates, and progressives who can do this - but many of the idealogues that were being touted for had seriously unknown capacity to actually deal with the guts of the jobs they were being pitched for, particuarly when you consider the kind of damage that Bushco wrought to those organizations already.
Reich is a poor counter-example, as he had been consulting to governments and running campaigns all along and also ran a transition team. He also inhereted a bureaucracy that was intact, not a damaged and depopulated shell like many that Bushco left behind.
Dang - I was hoping to find a truly knuckle-dragging comment thread at that Murdoch Rag called the Boston Herald, and I not only had to search for a story, they were all very positive ("she likes baseball").
No Fun!
Wow, I love that jumpinjim actually takes it as fact that being a Puerto Rican woman precludes being intelligent. No doubt he falsely thinks his pale penis makes him intelligent, too. Fascinating how backwards he’s got his relative intelligence compared to Sotomayor’s.
as he had been consulting to governments and running campaigns all along and also ran a transition team.
Consulting to governments is what a lot of academics do, so it’s not like he’s a rara avis in that respect.
running campaigns all along
Where and when before the Clinton campaign? He was a part of the McGovern campaign, as was I in a much smaller manner at the age of 13, I don’t think that is a qualification
So consulting and running a campaign helps qualify one for such a position. By that standard, James Carville would be a wonderful addition to any Democratic Administrations’ Cabinet.
He also inhereted a bureaucracy that was intact, not a damaged and depopulated shell like many that Bushco left behind.
Special pleading ill becomes you, there could still be a progressive who would have the required expertise for such challenges as you’ve noted, or are you saying that Reich would’ve failed if he had to face the circumstances you’ve outlined?
but many of the idealogues that were being touted for had seriously unknown capacity to actually deal with the guts of the jobs they were being pitched for, particuarly when you consider the kind of damage that Bushco wrought to those organizations already.
Jim Hightower
In the late 1960s, he worked in Washington, D.C., as legislative aide to Senator Ralph Yarborough. After managing the presidential campaign of populist former Senator Fred R. Harris of Oklahoma in 1976, he returned to Texas to become the editor of the magazine The Texas Observer. His first run for office was for the Democratic nomination for the Texas Railroad Commission (which regulates the oil industry), which he narrowly lost. Hightower was elected Agricultural Commissioner in 1982, serving in that capacity until 1991. His tenure was noted for fostering organic production, alternative crops, direct marketing by small farmers, strong gross materials regulations, and other programs. During that time, he also became a leading national spokesman for populist and progressive Democrats and endorsed Jesse Jackson for president in 1988. He was defeated in a 1990 upset by Republican Rick Perry, later governor and client of the political consultant and manager Karl Rove.
Yep, he’s totally unqualified, since he never had to deal with the Bushes, never had to run a campaign and he’s just a naif:
Hightower currently writes a nationally-syndicated column carried by 75 independent weekly newspapers and other publications. He also writes a monthly newsletter “The Hightower Lowdown,"[3] which has more than 125,000 subscribers. The newsletter is notable for its in-depth investigative reporting and unapologetically partisan tone in criticizing George W. Bush’s administration, which he rails against as beholden to corporations and extremist conservative political ideology. He also writes for The Progressive Populist.(ed)
Can I still call economists failed mathematicians?
BlackBloc
No, because ecomonics is a philosophy, not a science.
(Business Grad here)
Oh, and just on one note: Don’t forget that my suggestion of Sebelius for cabinet came through (as I recall none of you had the stones to call her unqualified whilst simultaneously calling progressives unready for cabinet)… but it happened only after the appointment of that morally, ethically and legally compromised centrist surrender monkey hack Daschle imploded in a smelly cloud of bad judgment.
(Looks at watch.) Gotta go, but don’t hestitate to fire back. I’m hoping to be back on thread by 2100 or so eastern time.
I think that your concerns are valid and I too wish that Obama would be more progressive in his appointments, but I think you’re being a little too hyperbolic when you say things like this:
one progressive being appointed assistant undersecretary subchair to a committee that nobody’d everheard of.
Last I checked, the U.S. Department of Labor isn’t just some little committee nobody has ever heard of. And last I checked, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis had pretty solid progressive credentials.
Is that enough? No, unfortunately it isn’t. And it is fair to say that Obama could (and should) be doing a lot more to advance solid progressives in his Administration. Truthfully, while I’m very impressed with Sotomayor’s qualifications, my one criticism is that she isn’t more of a progressive.
That said, President Obama is a center-left moderate who believes strongly in political pragmatism. And he always has been that person. What you see is what you get. We didn’t elect Dennis Kucinich to the WH, we elected a slightly liberal centrist named Barack Obama. It was easy to get up in the monumental significance of his election, but anybody who was really paying attention knew that Obama was never going to be an extremely liberal leader in the White House. As such, I can’t get too upset when a man who has never claimed to be more than just a little bit to the left acts like a man who is only just a little bit to the left.
DTG:
I’m not sure what she is, on a spectrum. She is a very careful writer. She’s not given to hyperbole. Stare Decisis is almost everything to her. Something, however, sometimes happens to a jurist when they get on the high court. There’s no one looking over their shoulder. They can’t be overturned unless they do it themselves. It causes some to blossom and some to wilt. Time wil tell. I am hopeful for her...all that empathy and stuff, ya know.
Tyro wrote:
Dana, from a certain perspective, even not counting that last crack about his taste in music, that comment about EricJG could be considered bunch of back-handed insults.
They were meant as compliments. However, in a private e-mail (private amongst an e-mail group of eight) he mentioned that he was listening to Our lips are sealed by the Go-Gos, and I’ve had that damned song running through my head all day. :(
Interesting comments,but not relevant. First ,there’s no requirement a SCOTUS member be brilliant. Secondly, even brilliant justices can write horrible opinions. Holmes is very nearly an icon; his opinion on forced sterilization is as obscene as I can think at short notice. She’s not incompetent, she has a political philosophy of which the President approves and he gets to nominate. She’s not going to change anything in terms of decisions because she’s replacing a liberal. so, let’s move on.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Amanda:
With all due respect, Amanda, I hope they take this one to the mat. Please, oh God, please. It will be murderous on them. What’s wonderful is that some of them realize it but can’t help but react to the howling mob they’ve created. The spectacle of them dancing around their base to try to not look like the race baiters they are will be worth the price of admission. Get the popcorn you ain’t never seen nuthin’ like this. Petard hoisting, anyone?