Comments on: Obama, Sotomayor, and the Double Dog Dare

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Wed, 27 May 2009 03:05:45 +0000

What the Sotomayor vote will show is that the so-called moderate Blue Dog Democrats are not really moderate at all. They will all willing vote for a Supreme Court Justice who will push to eliminate private owner of guns. to limit political speech, to limit private ownership rights, and to justify every form of race based social engineering.

Now is the time for the Blue Dogs like Jim Webb and Tester to prove that they will not be lead around by the nose. I doubt that will step up and demonstrate true leadership but will support a liberal activist judges who will eliminate many of the things that they claim that they support.

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:05:22 +0000

Thank, AR.

Boy, I betcha the TMV lefty authors must have threads all over the place when Hoover made such an overt Zionist-loving nomination like that!

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:35:22 +0000

CO – Cordozo was a Portuguese Jew.

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Tue, 26 May 2009 17:48:30 +0000

First Hispanic?? What ethnicity was Cordoza…….Irish?

“Strong play” for Obama?? With 59 votes, he ought to be able to get Mickey Mouse confirmed. More aptly, this is a safe play……..she's not particularly distinguished as a game changer……..and has done the time.

If noise is made, it will only be for noises sake.

By: shannonlee

shannonlee — Tue, 26 May 2009 17:03:26 +0000

They will confirm her…they can't politically afford to drag a hispanic women through the mud. CS is right, they'll confirm, but make sure that we are all aware of how much they disagree with her judicial philosophy.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:44:05 +0000

The best way for the GOP to avoid the trap is to agree to confirm her, but not to agree with her judicial philosophy. They shouldn't block the nomination but they should make it clear that the reason for not doing so is the same as they argued when the Dems succeeded in voting down Bork and almost succeeded in voting down Thomas- the fact that the confirmation process isn't meant to be based on agreement of ideology.

At the same time, it's perfectly legitimate to voice disagreements with her judicial philosophy and for activist groups to use this pick as a rallying cry to take back the WH before the Democrats are able to tip the court's balance toward liberal activism.

By: PWT

PWT — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:35:45 +0000

To Obama, not to Meiers.

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:22:03 +0000

“Double dog dare” is right, and the GOP will take it for sure. Were they smart, they'd take AR's reality-based position and let it go. But they won't, further pushing Hispanics and women from their fold and trotting out the tired “activist judges” line, as if that means anything. All SCOTUS judges “act” to define laws based on their reading of the laws and the Constitution.

By: tidbits

tidbits — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:16:10 +0000

PWT -

Focusing on the optics…have we seen a situation like this before? Sure we have. The “black” seat, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, Reagan's determination to name a woman, Sandra Day O'Connor. This is not to say that any of these three were unqualified, just to point out that “optics” are often in play on both sides of the aisle in Supreme Court nominations.

BTW, based on experience and intellect, 18 years on the federal bench, 2nd in her Princeton class and Yale Law, she has the qualifications. The argument against her is ideological, not experiencial.

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:13:28 +0000

"(S)ources who are concerned over how liberal she is and, of course, the usual cries of foul over her being a “liberal activist judge.”

Well of course they say that. She is. But that is beside the point. I said when Bush was President elections have consequences, and it is still true. This is one of the perks and prerogatives of being the President - to nominate candidates that fit his/her views of judicial philosophy.

She may not be to my liking, but she is qualified to serve as a SCOTUS associate justice, and should be confirmed. Hell, she WILL be confirmed. The only question is with how much histrionics.

By: Jazz

Jazz — Tue, 26 May 2009 15:58:12 +0000

The qualifications are all available if you follow the link chain, both at NYT and Findlaw. I do sincerely hope that you aren't looking to compare a person with more than thirty years on the bench, experience as a federal prosecutor and an editor of the Harvard Law review to Harriet Miers, are you?

By: PWT

PWT — Tue, 26 May 2009 15:51:25 +0000

What I find most interesting about this nominee, is that all the support seems to be based on the 'optics' rather than on her qualifications. Have we seen a situation like this before….