Sotomayor Doesn’t Suit Yoo
As Republicans mull their response to the naming of a Latino woman to the Supreme Court, they have the benefit of legal scholarship from John Yoo, who suggests that Sonia Sotomayor would be “voting her emotions and politics rather than the law.”
George W. Bush’s torture expert is troubled by the nominee’s lack of legal “firepower.” He points out, “There are no opinions that suggest she would change the direction of constitutional law as have Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, or Robert Bork and Richard Posner on the appeals courts.”
Disregarding for the moment the murmurs of “Thank God!” from the Left, Yoo’s commentary may reflect a shrewd legal strategy in his own self-interest. As the lawsuit against him by convicted terrorist Juan Padilla winds its way through the courts, Yoo may be setting the stage for asking Judge Sotomayor to recuse herself if it reaches the Supreme Court.
Padilla is suing Yoo as one of the architects of unlawful policies that led to his designation as an “enemy combatant,” detention in a military brig and the interrogations he underwent there.
Ironically, the Obama Justice Department is siding with Yoo in deeming a civil suit an inappropriate vehicle for this issue, however much the Administration has reversed and repudiated his legal judgments on torture during the Bush era.
MORE.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “Sotomayor Doesn’t Suit Yoo”
Nope. That would not work. If it did, then every lawyer with cases going to SCOTUS would use it to get the set of Justices they wanted.
“As Republicans mull their response to the naming of a Latino woman to the Supreme Court….”
Phrases like this is what makes the study of the liberal mind so fascinating. Primarily designed for inter-moonbat communication, this sentence conveys to the like-minded the agreed to thought that republicans would have a negative response to a Latino woman being named to the Supreme Court.
Of course, no republican or conservative has any problem with a Latino (or any other) woman being named to the Court. We do have a problem with an unabashed left wing activist being foisted onto the Court under the cover of her ethnicity.
If it wasn’t for strawmen and prejudice notions of the right, it’s hard to imagine what the left would talk about.
Do you think Robert may have fantasies about marching arm and arm with Sotomayor through some Republican gauntlet in a Selmaesque barrio while the fire hoses and dogs are used to prevent her journey? What courage liberals have!
Keep living the dream while I consort with my right wing associates to find a response to this Latino problem.
Sorry Jwest. Conservatives are very much making gender and race a part of the “debate”.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270013
jwest may miss the point here. Politics is all about perception, sometimes to the exclusion of reality. Currently, Republicans (albeit unfairly) are “perceived” as anti-Latino. This is primarily the result of opposition to immigration reform – “perceived” as anti-Latino. See for example the increase in Democratic vote by Latinos and increased Democratic Party identification by that demographic. For comparison, refer to the Latino vote for GWB in 2000-2004. Note also that Latinos are the fastest growing ethnic demographic among voters.
It is the “perception” of being anti-Latino, not any reality, that causes Republicans to “mull their response” to the nomination of a Latino for Supreme Court Justice. And rightly so. They simply cannot afford to feed that “perception”.
Your post speaks to an ideal world where all understand that Republicans are not anti-Latino and that we should assess this nomination on its merits. That is an admirable position. But, American politics is a Colossium death match that is neither ideal nor admirable. The Democrats would savor the opportunity to paint Republican opposition to Sotomayor as anti-Latino racism, and the Republicans would be wise to avoid that trap.
Just a tag on to my prior post.
“Lionel Sosa, A Texas Republican ad maker who designed Latino outreach for GOP presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, said that opposing Sotomayor 'would be one more nail in the Republican's image coffin in terms of Latino voters.' ” LA Times, May 27, 2009.
Well said, tidbits.
However, you, in turn, may be missing jwest's calling out of Stein for teeing up the “mulling” as being tied solely to “Latino woman” as if that's what is all about 100% of the time.
As you visit here, watch how the so-called non-partisan editors here use presumptive and/or sweeping generalization first sentences to lead to their implicit or explicit conclusions about why Dems/liberal are superior to Republicans/conservatives.
Kattenburg, in turn, prefers to plagiarize a googled item from newshoggers to project what a state senator from Kansas says is representative of about 50,000,000 other “non-Democrats”. Komrade Chris does the same thing by projecting Limbaugh and Levin as the entirety of conservative thought.
As I see it, perception is politics is made important because perception (or more accurately, promoting misperception) is the only currency the Democrats trade in, be it here or in real life.
CO -
I take your point. Unless you object, I may also adopt your more accurate “promoting misperception” in further ruminations on American politics, though I disagree with limiting it only to Democrats, as Republicans are just as guilty.
Chris,
You’re misreading Media Matters (a worthless site).
Republicans are not making gender or race an issue. Sotomayor is being labeled a racist and a bigot, which is demonstrably true, but the fact that she’s a Latino woman has not been held against her.
Hmmmmmm. Yoo says “There are no opinions that suggest she would change the direction of constitutional law as have Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, or Robert Bork and Richard Posner on the appeals courts.” So Yoo and the Republicans are specifically for “judicial activists” now? I guess as long as changing the direction of constitutional law is in the “right” direction, it's ok, huh?
LOL And Thurgood Marshall was also a racist bigot because he didn't have a 'old white male' perspective on civil rights and stuff like Jim Crow.
Why is Kattenburg being attcked by the 'nuttery'? The posy is by RS. CO I hope your wife doesn't Levin herself…
You know, tidbits, if we actually had some conservatives writing articles here, we could test your hypothesis!
CO -
You guest author as a conservative/libertarian, and I'll guest author as an undisciplined pseudo-intellectual. You could then rip apart what I have to say, and I could do the same for you…all in good humor, of course.