The 2 Americas
Tweet
The more sane America supports the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The other, smaller, America has a spying dirty trickster leading the opposition.
45 Responses to “The 2 Americas”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I love the wingnuts. They just cannot help themselves. They think everyone is as racist as they are. They went nuclear on her the instant her name was mentioned. They didn’t pace themselves at all, they just went ballistic right out of the gate.
Don’t they understand how much damage they are doing to their own party? Every day that Newt or Rush or Inhofe tries to talk shit about her ensures that another hispanic voter that will NEVER vote GOP. Remember those people, wingnuts? The largest growing demographic in the USA? The people that Karl Rove tried to woo over to the GOP side to get a permanent republican majority???
Please, wingnuts, keep it up. Keep shrinking that party down further, further! Make sure you are a permanent regional party from the south for the next few decades.
Ahem:
The level of support for Sotomayor is similar to what Gallup initially found for past nominees who were confirmed by the Senate, including Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Samuel Alito. Americans were slightly more positive toward John Roberts’ nomination.
So, while you were spraying spittle across your screen at the nomination of Alito and Roberts, the sane people in the US had a different view.
So, while you were spraying spittle across your screen at the nomination of Alito and Roberts, the sane people in the US had a different view.
So now the conservatives are spraying spittle at their screens.
What does that make the rest of us who aren’t?
Except when Roberts came up I knew he was qualified to sit on the court. Unlike Miers, Roberts was qualified. Did I oppose him idealogically and would I vote against him? Sure. But he was clearly qualified, as is Judge Sotomayor despite conservatives claims otherwise.
They went nuclear on her the instant her name was mentioned.
To be fair, They would have immediately cranked up the Mighty Noise Machine if Jesus* were nominated.
*Of Nazareth, not The Jesus.
EXCELLENT point, Oliver. Qualifications and ideology are indeed two different things.
But he was clearly qualified, as is Judge Sotomayor despite conservatives claims otherwise.
Really? Whose questioning her credentials? I’d like to see some evidence of conservatives arguing that she’s not qualified. And I don’t want to see the drivel ‘evidence’ you’ve supplied in the past of comments or some lone conservative blogger that gets 4 page views a day.
I don’t want to hear that nonsense. Conservatives have questioned her legal temperament, they’ve questioned her ideology and they’ve brought up legitimate issues regarding her views on race as it pertains to judicial conduct. She said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her
experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Ok, Samuel Alito was found to have said:
“I would hope that a wise Italian man with the richness of his
experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black male who hasn’t lived that life.”
He would have been tarred and feathered Oliver and YOU would have been leading the charge. The media would have never let up on it and he would have been forced within DAYS to withdraw his nomination.
Yes, there’s going to be some conservatives that are going to go overboard, just as there are liberals who reacted to every Bush judicial nominee as though he was appointing Satan himself and wouldn’t be happy unless every appointed judge is a clone of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
That doesn’t explain away the fact that people have raised serious and legitimate issues with regard to Sotomayor’s nomination and for you to sit there and claim conservatives have been questioning her qualifications is just bullshit.
He would have been tarred and feathered Oliver and YOU would have been leading the charge.
Except Alito said just as much.
I oppose people like Alito because of their crazy bullshit ideology. Republicans and conservatives like yourself continually display an intriguing brand of flexibility about one bringing one’s background to the table on these issues. You know, depending on who the President is.
IOKIYAR and whatnot.
The problem is, on the right, those people are the leaders.
and they’ve brought up legitimate issues regarding her views on race as it pertains to judicial conduct.
No, they didn’t bring up “legitimate issues” Jay. They–and you–brought up 32 words from one speech given 9 years ago, stripped of all context. If you want to know anything about Ms. Sotomayor’s “views on race as it pertains to judicial conduct,” there is an abundant record. Her detractors take pains to ignore it.
Except Alito said just as much.
What he said is not even close.
I oppose people like Alito because of their crazy bullshit ideology.
Oh really? And what’s that exactly? You’re good at regurgitating other people’s nonsense, but you have trouble at times explaining such things for yourself.
No, they didn’t bring up “legitimate issues” Jay
Sure they have.
They–and you–brought up 32 words from one speech given 9 years ago
What does the fact that she said it 9 years ago have to do with anything?
stripped of all context.
Oh horseshit. It’s just amazing how “context” is a legitimate excuse for liberals when they say something is controversial. Her entire speech (and yes I read the entire thing) comes off even worse as she essentially admits that she cannot be impartial in her rulings and such statements not only deserve, but demand intense scrutiny. If appointed, she’ll be serving until she decides to leave.
But of course, that’s not possible in the realm liberal orthodoxy. Any such questions and criticism are immediately tagged as “racist” because it is much easier to shout people down than to engage them in a discussion of ideas.
Her entire speech (and yes I read the entire thing) comes off even worse as she essentially admits that she cannot be impartial in her rulings…
Jay, don’t come here whining about “orthodoxy” if that’s what you walked with from Sotomayor’s speech.
Every time Jay posts, ten Hispanic Americans decide never to vote Republican ever again.
And by the way, elections have consequences. Try not to act like such a WATB.
” because it is much easier to shout people down than to engage them in a discussion of ideas.”
Then by all means, let’s have a discussion of ideas.
I think it appropriate, if we are going to have a discussion of ideas, that we focus on Judge Sotomayor’s actual decisions from the bench since that is surely the most accurate indicator of her judicial philosophy, judicial skills, intellect, and tempermant. So let’s go:
1. Much has been made of the allegation that Sotomayor would place empathy, particularly empathy toward minorities, above a correct interpreation of the law as it applies to the facts. Do you think her opinion in Pappas v. Giuliani supports this allegation and, if so, why?
2. Similarly, in Norville v. Staten Island University Hospital, Sotomayor affirmed the dismissal of emplyoment discrimination claims brought by a disabled African American employee because the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving that the Hospital made siimilar accomodations to disabled white employees. Do you believe that her refusal to expand the scope of the discrimination statutes is indicative of an intent to legislate from the bench and create new law and, if so, why?
3. Does the Jocks v. Tavernier case support the view that Sotomayor holds a broad, pro-police view of the permissible grounds a police officer may use when making an arrest? If not, please explain.
4. With regard to the Ricci case which, will likely be reversed by the Supreme Court, opposition to that decision seems predicated on the argument that Sotomayor’s decision involved legislating from the becnh. Please discuss whether or not the decision indicated it was following current law already on the books and whether or not the court indicated it was following prior case law in the Circuit that compelled its findings. What aspects of the Ricci decision actually created new law?
That should do for a start.
Oh Lonya, don’t be silly. None of your issues has been sufficiently covered by Limbaugh or Hannity for Jay to have any response.
Really? Whose questioning her credentials? I’d like to see some evidence of conservatives arguing that she’s not qualified.
Seriously? Because I’ve heard an endless supply of “She wasn’t qualified to get into Princeton”, “She’s the candidate of affirmative action”, and “She’s not qualified to sit on a jury, let alone the Supreme Court”.
as she essentially admits that she cannot be impartial in her rulings
Are you clowning on purpose? Or are you just unable to stop yourself?
Actually, she says exactly the opposite in her speech, Jay.
No, they didn’t bring up “legitimate issues” Jay
Sure they have.
That’s it? “Did so!” is the best argument you’ve got?
They–and you–brought up 32 words from one speech given 9 years ago
What does the fact that she said it 9 years ago have to do with anything?
It means there are 9 more years of her record you can examine to see if the “legitimate issues” of her supposed racism are real or just another Republican fake outrage of the week. Really, is this how you think our country should evaluate Supreme Court justices? On the basis of an innocuous sentence or two from a speech from a decade ago?
You realize that’s entirely nuts, don’t you?
I’m fascinated to hear a thoughtful response from “Jay” to “Lonya’s” challenging questions.
But those are essay questions, here’s a mathematical reality:
Out of 96 cases that alleged discrimination, Judge Sotomayor knocked down 78 of them.
In over 81% of the cases where someone had alleged they had been discriminated against, Sotomayor ruled against them.
Whatever empathy Sotomayor may have felt for those people, it did NOT show up in her rulings.
The handful of remaining cases where Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the person alleging discrimination appear to have all been ruled strictly on the rule of law. That includes the Ricci case, which was also ruled on strictly in terms of the law.
Right wingers were looking for an activist right wing judge who would inappropriately allow their “empathy” for the white males to bias their ruling on the Ricci case. They might find that on the Supreme Court but they didn’t find it in Judge Sotomayor court room, she ruled based on what the law demanded.
Which was a significant theme of Sotomayor’s speech: Rising above ones personal experiences and ruling strictly on the basis of the law.
———————
Read about the Pappas v. Giuliani case where Sotomayor ruled that a racist white cop should keep their job after being fired for mailing racist literature.
———————
Right winger “Jay” shows he’s not paying attention with his claims that right wingers weren’t questioning Sotomayor’s qualifications.
But it’s especially cute that he demands that lefty’s make him a list of the right wingers who were questioning those qualifications.
It’s kind of a weasley way of getting your opposition to do your homework for you.
BUt it’s possible that “Jay” completely missed the sleazy Jeffrey Rosen whisper campaign that slimed Sotomayor and has been subsequently used by right wingers to question her qualifications.
It’s also cute how ill-informed “Jay” was of right wing Supreme Court Justice Alito’s ethnic pronouncements when Alito claimed that his Italian immigrant roots make him better qualified to oversee immigration cases because he would have empathy for them.
It’s even cuter that “Jay” decides to give an empathetic reading to white male Sam Alito’s claims of empathy.
As for activist right wing Justice Roberts, I don’t see him as qualified, he uses his empathy for the rich and powerful to create activist legal interpretations that warp and rewrite law.
Republican Justices Alito and Roberts are the essence of IOKIYAR = It’s OK If You Are Republican because Rules are for other people.
I thought the leader of the opposition was Rush Limbaugh. Is there a way you can forward all the JournoList messages so we conservatives can keep up with who our “leader” at any given moment is supposed to be?
Thanks.
From the Gallup poll that Oliver linked to, it seems that only 50% *of Republicans* are of the opinion that Sotomayor’s views are “too extreme”. 22% of Republicans have “no opinion” on the matter.
There is no strong ideological reward for the Republicans on this issue. It merely “energises” a part of the “base” and alienates nearly as many.
On top of that, a majority of Independents (54%) say that they want Sotomayor confirmed. Only 27% of the Independents want the nomination denied. This bolsters the view that there is not a lot of “low-hanging fruit” among the Independents for the Republicans to peel off. Just a few days ago, Gallup showed only 25% of Independents self-identify as “conservative”. So much for the Republican strategy of winning back a majority with “core principles”.
There is no strong ideological reward for the Republicans on this issue. It merely “energises” a part of the “base”
For them, that is the ideological reward. Lying in order to badmouth Sotomayor is an exercise in a shared struggle. It creates a common experience, a shared language, and a new reality that the rest of the world doesn’t share. While it’s not useful for winning elections or functioning as a rational person, it helps morale amongst the right-wing dead-enders.
I’m one of those independents with a conservative streak and I know the Republican leadership is 98% insane.
The thing about “independents” is that the “independents” ranks were recently swelled by former Republicans that are completely disgusted with the current crop of Republican leaders.
And that means that the remainder of the Republican Party is meaner and even more insane than what repulsed those former Republicans.
I don’t think independents can be pulled into what remains of the Republican Party as easily as people think.
But than Republicans have rarely ever lost by underestimating the stupidity of those they are trying to
conappeal to, so I don’t count Republicans out. Yet.Every time Jay posts, ten Hispanic Americans decide never to vote Republican ever again.
And every time you post, you bring down the average IQ level of everybody in the comments section. Jaim, let me know when you ever have anything of intelligence to say. When you do, I’ll call hell and tell them to enjoy their snowball fight.
Actually, she says exactly the opposite in her speech, Jay.
Um, no she did not. You must not have read the same speech I did.
That’s it? “Did so!” is the best argument you’ve got?
Oh but I’m just supposed to accept your premise as true? GMAFB dude. If you want more of a response, provide more of a challenge than “Did not!”
It means there are 9 more years of her record you can examine to see if the “legitimate issues” of her supposed racism are real or just another Republican fake outrage of the week. Really, is this how you think our country should evaluate Supreme Court justices? On the basis of an innocuous sentence or two from a speech from a decade ago?
Oh please. Spare me your lectures on the standards of evaluation ok Quaker? The statement and speech is part of the overall process that is taking place in evaluating her capacity to serve as a Supreme Court justice. And her statement was not innocuous. She specifically stated that her background as a Latino woman makes her more qualified than white men to reach proper judicial decisions in certain cases. That is not debatable.
Lonya your attempt at a discussion is commendable, but all you’ve done is set a bear trap and I’m going to step into it. Pappas v. Giuliani was a first amendment case so race was never an issue.
In addition, Norville v. Staten Island University Hospital was pretty much and open and shut case. Nobody is saying that in every single decision Sotomayor has rendered in a case where a minority is involved, she rules as she pleases and doesn’t follow the law.
Question 3 is similar to question 1 in that it has nothing to do with the case at hand. The focus of the case was far more narrow then you make it out to be. It had to do with whether a perpetrator’s invocation of an emergency can negate probable cause and the court ruled that it cannot.
As for Ricci, no new law was created. But her conduct in terms of her ruling is at question. This was an important case. Like Obama said, 95% of most cases aren’t a big deal. It’s that 5% that should be examined closely and the Ricci case is one of them. As I said, it was an important case that raised significant legal and constitutional questions and yet she issued her ruling devoid of nearly any legal reasoning. Ironically, the Bush appointee was called out by Clinton appointee Jose A. Cabranes who wrote: “The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”
Many cases fall into the category of no-brainer. It’s the reason why most people couldn’t tell you about nearly any of the Supreme Court docket. But there are those very important cases and Sotomayor’s ruling in the Ricci case deserves intense scrutiny. Now so much for her decision but how she reached that decision. Since she didn’t explain herself then, she should be required to explain herself now once the case gets overturned.
Oh and for the record, I am not really opposed to Sotomayor’s appointment. From everything I have read about her, she is certainly qualified and has the necessary background and skills to be an effective Supreme Court justice. That doesn’t change the fact that she doesn’t deserve a pass on being scrutinized and shouting “Racism!” when it happens is the behavior of intellectual lightweights.
Oh horseshit. It’s just amazing how “context” is a legitimate excuse for Rush Limbaugh, Beck and O’Reilly when they say something is controversial.
Fixed that for ya, Jay.
The statement and speech is part of the overall process that is taking place in evaluating her capacity to serve as a Supreme Court justice. And her statement was not innocuous. She specifically stated that her background as a Latino woman makes her more qualified than white men to reach proper judicial decisions in certain cases. That is not debatable.
That is not debatable? The statement and speech is an entirely phony outrage cooked up by people who want to create a bankable controversy. Even you, Jay, can’t pretend that this is a rational way to evaluate a judge.
As for her supposedly “racist” speech, I can see you’re not up to the task of providing context. Once again, I see I’ll have to do it for you.
The judge says she is aware that she, as a human, has biases. She professes a vigilance in examining how her own biases and making an effort to exclude them from her judgments.
Now please explain how this means “she admits she cannot be impartial in her rulings.”
shouting “Racism!” when it happens is the behavior of intellectual lightweights
…but shouting “racism” is OK when it’s done by Republican leaders? Nice.
The judge says she is aware that she, as a human, has biases. She professes a vigilance in examining how her own biases and making an effort to exclude them from her judgments.
In much the same way that Sam Alito said he also is a human and has biases.
Ok Quaker, I call your ‘context’ and raise you another dose:
If you choose to sit there and continue blubbering that Republicans are just being big meanies and have not raised valid concerns, be my guest.
…but shouting “racism” is OK when it’s done by Republican leaders? Nice.
Unreal. You sit there and attempt to lecture me about context and then you supply a retort based on something I wrote yet totally taking it out of context.
Nice work.
If you choose to sit there and continue blubbering that Republicans are just being big meanies and have not raised valid concerns, be my guest.
Okay, Jay.
Sotomayor’s speech is not about how she, herself, is incapable of being impartial as you wrote above:
The speech is, rather, about the impossibility of impartiality, period. Now the question of whether it is possible for any human being to be truly objective in any matter is is a philosophical question that has been debated from time immemorial. If you want to jump in an argue that perfect impartiality and objectivity is possible in a judge, then go for it.
But you have to start your “intense scrutiny” a step prior to accusing Sotomayor of making decisions based on her race and gender. To do otherwise, is the behavior of an intellectual lightweight.
It is only after Sotomayor has stated her position on the impossibility of impartiality, that she proceeds to identify some of the factors that may and do influence a judge’s decisions:
So Jay, before freaking out about the last sentence of the graph above, what is your position on the first?
Do you believe that personal experience affects the way judges makes sense of the cases before them?
If you choose to sit there and continue blubbering that Republicans are just being big meanies and have not raised valid concerns,
You like that word, blubbering. The way you use it, though, it seems to have a rather indefinite meaning. In this sense, it seems to mean: Won’t accept Jay’s word as final and beyond question. If that’s what you were going for, then I am, indeed, blubbering.
Unreal. You sit there and attempt to lecture me about context and then you supply a retort based on something I wrote yet totally taking it out of context.
Then don’t just sit there. Add context. I know it’s not something you’re accustomed to doing, but I believe you can do it!
In this instance, you’re calling one group “intellectual lightweights” because you say they’re making a phony charge of racism. At the same time you give Republican shouters a pass for doing even worse.
Does your logical trickery take work or has it become effortless with repetition?
Talk about myopic.
You like that word, blubbering. The way you use it, though, it seems to have a rather indefinite meaning. In this sense, it seems to mean: Won’t accept Jay’s word as final and beyond question. If that’s what you were going for, then I am, indeed, blubbering.
No, it just means that you’re bitching about people raising valid concerns about Sotomayors record and possible judicial temperament and writing it off as nothing but cheap politics. “No they didn’t bring up legitimate issues Jay so there!” Granted, I added the “so there” but that’s essentially what you said.
In this instance, you’re calling one group “intellectual lightweights” because you say they’re making a phony charge of racism. At the same time you give Republican shouters a pass for doing even worse.
Wrong. They are two different scenarios. Valid criticism is shouted down by claims of racism because that’s easier to do than to rebut the criticism itself. Newt Gingrich didn’t fend off criticism but criticized her by saying she was racist because of the statement she made in her speech. Is he right? I don’t think he is. But her comment certainly demands to be explained in more detail. As I said though, if a white man had made the same comment about a black person, that would have been the end of it. And no, Samuel Alito’s comments were nothing like that. At all. It’s stupid to compare the two.
No, it just means that you’re bitching about people raising valid concerns about Sotomayors record and possible judicial temperament
Let’s rewind the tape, Jay. Here’s what you wrote that prompted my response:
and they’ve brought up legitimate issues regarding her views on race as it pertains to judicial conduct.
Now have Ms. Sotomayor’s critics brought up anything other than her 32-word quip as “legitimate issues regarding her views on race”? If so, you can win the day right here. Give us a list of the “legitimate issues.” On the other hand, if all you’re giving her critics credit for is this one quote (OK, two if you consider that she said it twice) then all your woofing is for naught. Your “legitimate issue” is a 32-word quote.
Valid criticism is shouted down by claims of racism because that’s easier to do than to rebut the criticism itself.
I see. If a Republican says it about a Supreme Court nominee, it’s “valid criticism.” If a Democrat says it, it’s a “high tech lynching.”
That about cover it?
What the hell, let’s throw the 3-pointer:
“No they didn’t bring up legitimate issues Jay so there!” Granted, I added the “so there” but that’s essentially what you said.
You really ought to read all the way to the end of my comments, Jay. There was quite a bit after the part that made it through the tough outer layer of your skull:
Because I can’t resist:
Still, you were right to question “consultation” for Supreme Court Justices. You’ve just exposed another fissure b/t Bush and his base. Wanna have a say about who goes on the court? Win a f#$($in election!! SaveFarris, Jan. 31, 2006
If you insist!
Thank God for minority representation on the Supreme Court. Thank you Clarence Thomas.
Thank God for minority representation on the Supreme Court. Thank you Clarence Thomas.
Who has been paid while barely participating in the proceedings. He doesn’t ask questions, he doesn’t write opinions, and he votes with the other four every time. He is a member of a minority, but whether he is a member of the SCOTUS is open to question.
Thank you, Thurgood Marshall! Did you forget about him?
Opinions written by Clarence Thomas :
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?thomas
You’d think a poorly educated, completely unqualified affirmative action Supreme Court appointee like right winger Clarence Thomas would have more empathy for others in circumstances like his.
But no, right winger Clarence Thomas was fast to pull up the ladder behind him.
Right winger Clarence Thomas follows the Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.
fafaroo, by the way… that was absolutely perfect.
Frank, stop pretending that you know anything.
He doesn’t ask questions, he doesn’t write opinions, and he votes with the other four every time. He is a member of a minority, but whether he is a member of the SCOTUS is open to question.
Thank you, Thurgood Marshall! Did you forget about him?
Gad you’re an idiot and your historical knowledge is extremely poor. Oh and your statement is racist to boot.
You laughingly criticize Thomas for no asking questions, but reveal your poor knowledge of Supreme Court history by thanking Thurgood Marshall, a justice who like Thomas, often was silent during oral arguments.
Thomas does write opinions. In fact, he will often write opinions even when siding with the majority. He, like Justice Stevens also writes his own opinions.
The attacks that Thomas just sides (they don’t ‘vote’) with other conservative Justices, in particular Antonin Scalia is nothing but latent racisn, as if a conservative black justice must be nothing but a puppet of like-minded white peers.
Repack,
I can see you know very little about Thomas. He is, in my mind, the purest soul on the bench.
So, Jay, do you want to have a discussion about Sotomayor’s speech and the question of impartiality or does your whole idea of “intense scrutiny” begin and end with “She’s the real racist! So nyah nyah.”
Gad you’re an idiot and your historical knowledge is extremely poor. Oh and your statement is racist to boot.
Considering the source, it’s almost like winning an Academy Award to be called names by you. There is no higher praise.
They like me. They REALLY like me! I’d like to thank all the Little People who made this award possible, starting with with the littlest, Jay.
If you saw me in my daily life and who I spend my time with, you would have a hard time making any claim of racism on my part stick. I go to places where the only other white guys have badges and guns, and they wouldn’t go there without them.
Tyro wrote:
“While it’s not useful for winning elections or functioning as a rational person, it helps morale amongst the right-wing dead-enders.”
Yes, I understand that. The point I am making, however, is that the polling numbers among Republicans point to the Sotomayor nomination breaking down into a pretty decent wedge issue against their own Party rather than a “rallying point”.
On any given “morale-building” issue, there always seems to be about 30% of the Republicans who aren’t “on board”. That’s a lot for a Party with a such a strongly top-down organisation and tight messaging.