Can I just tell you how excited I am about the political maneuvering from the Democrats on getting Sotomayor confirmed. First, the pick is brilliant. "Hey, Republicans, how do you feel about your declining percentages of Hispanic voters. Does that bother you? Does it? Does it?" Then, on the day she was announced Leahy used the exact same talking points as Obama. More time on the bench than any nominee in the last 100 years; compelling personal story; etc. Obama continues to occasionally say pretty words about her, while Leahy goes on Meet the Press and talks about how upset he is to hear leaders of the Republican party like Limbaugh and Gingrinch call her a racist. Leahy magnanimously acknowledge that the now emasculated Republican Senators, like the one sitting to his left, had thankfully broken ranks with their party leaders and abstained from such comments. Finally, today on the way in I heard this argument (reprinted from my Progress Report)
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) -- explaining that Sotomayor has already suffered "some of the most vicious attacks," including allegations of "bigotry" and "racism" -- said that he "intend[s] to give her an opportunity as soon as possible to answer" them.
In other words, these attacks intended to stall her confirmation are the very reason we should move forward quickly. BRILLIANT!
It is so weird to be on the winning side of the PR battles.
6 comments:
Not that it takes away from your comments on Democrats not sucking as badly as they normally do, but two comments I have on Sotomayor:
1) The comments she made were both sexist and racist. She said, out loud, that she believes that hispanic women are more likely to make good judgments than white men. I don't know that I think you can cast that any other way than as a racist and sexist comment. Is she a racist/sexist in how she applies the law? It would appear not, if my reading about somebody else's research into the subject is correct, but it's not silly to be concerned about that or to want her to talk more about it. It was only seven years ago. It doesn't excuse calling her a racist, but there is room below the Limbaugh hyperbole to ask legitimate questions.
2) It was the Democrats who innovated the filibuster of judicial confirmation hearings. *If* the Republicans manage to stall things, it's the Dems' chickens coming home to roost.
And as it happens, I think she'll be easily confirmed and serve reasonably, her previous opinions, the ones I've read and read about, seem awfully reasonable.
"1) The comments she made were both sexist and racist. She said, out loud, that she believes that hispanic women are more likely to make good judgments than white men." True, although I think what she meant, based on the O'Connor comment she was responding to was that they would decide things differently. But it is not what she said.
"2) It was the Democrats who innovated the filibuster of judicial confirmation hearings. *If* the Republicans manage to stall things, it's the Dems' chickens coming home to roost."
Which one of the several extremely conservative justices on the Court did the Democrats filibuster?
"And as it happens, I think she'll be easily confirmed and serve reasonably, her previous opinions, the ones I've read and read about, seem awfully reasonable."
Agreed. She is not the liberal I would have hoped for, but neither is Obama.
I can't quite help myself here:
1. You're buying into the right-wing distortions, Matt. Did you read the speech? Sotomayor did not make any such carte blanche assertion, and the context of that one line is terribly important. Almost the entirety of that speech is dedicated to the question of how one's life experiences shape a judge's perspective and whether that does -- or should -- affect their rulings. She wonders whether cases specifically on sex or race would have been decided differently had they been decided by affected minorities -- then notes that most of the seminal civil rights cases were decided by white male judges anyway. Ultimately the key line has the oft-omitted qualifier, "I would hope" that those experiences would lead to better rulings, which absolutely changes the meaning of the line from a flat assertions that "latinas are better" to "I would hope that our latina experiences would enhance our jurisprudence." Not racist at all. I should also point out that Alito expressed a very similar sentiment in his confirmation hearings that as the working class son of immigrants his life had shaped his approach to the law, but since his skin isn't brown nobody thought it was a racist comment.
2. Actually, it was the GOP who first filibustered a judge (not that it really matters): Abe Fortas. It's pretty indisputable that judicial obstruction was a GOP forte in the nineties, but being in the majority they could kill Clinton's nominees by simply never holding hearings on them. Jim, the dems did successfully filibuster a number of W's appeals nominees (Estrada and Pickering jump to mind), but the counter to that was that they did so because the GOP dropped the "Blue slip" process which essentially required both senators from the home state of a judge to approve the nomination. But in the last three years the GOP's use of the filibuster has broken all previous records. But I have to be honest that I have a hard time finding any moral virtue in either side of arcane parliamentary procedural shenanigans. It's just a game and there's no "right" or "wrong" to the way it's played.
Jim, the dems did successfully filibuster a number of W's appeals nominees (Estrada and Pickering jump to mind), but the counter to that was that they did so because the GOP dropped the "Blue slip" process which essentially required both senators from the home state of a judge to approve the nomination.
I was asking about justices. We have four extremely conservative hardliners in Alito, Scalia, Thomas & Roberts. The Democrats did not prevent these guys from moving through is my point.
You make a good point about the "I would hope" language as being important. But I think the sentiment if read carefully still means that Latinas are better at deciding cases. I think if she were writing a paper on it she would have used different words.
1. You're buying into the right-wing distortions, Matt. Did you read the speech?
Yes I did, and don't accuse me of buying into anything. The only introduction I had into the shortened quote before I read it was George Stephanopoulos. Her saying "I would hope" makes no difference. "I would hope" in that context is saying that she believes that to be so. She needs to be forced to say she doesn't think white men are less capable of being morally correct that hispanic women. It's not a lot to ask of a Supreme Court Justice.
I agree with Jim that had she written it, it would have been differently phrased. But asking her to clarify is in-bounds since "I would hope" is clearly communicating an expectation of moral superiority. As I said, I think she'll clarify it.
Democrats were the first to attempt a filibuster of a SC Justice... Alito. It failed, but it certainly was enough to give Republicans the bad idea.
there's no "right" or "wrong" to the way it's played.
I disagree only in the sense that I think filibustering an executive nominee based on political grounds is pretty clearly obstructionist in a way unintended by the framers. They wanted the Senate to stop the President from appointing dumbasses to these posts. Alito and Sotamayor may represent politics the ruling Congressional party doesn't like, but they are most certainly qualified.
Matt, I can't agree with you here. I think you are willfully misinterpreting what she said. I agree with both of you that it could have been said better, and in fact clearly was intended for the audience of Latinas -- saying nice things about your audience is a great way, as a speaker, to get applause.
But her point is valid, quite possibly completely correct, and not at all racist unless you believe in the fiction that all people are identical in their experiences regardless of social backgrounds.
I agree that she'll "clarify" her statement with lots of happy fluffy talk about how we all are great regardless of color, and 49% of people listening will come away with the fixed belief that the Senate has just confirmed a racist judge, which is a load of crap.
As for Alito, Kerry and a couple of others *talked* about a filibuster, but there was never any support for in the caucus and Alito sailed through, so if your definition of "filibustering" a Justice is "three guys talking about one but not actually doing it," then I suppose that might be correct. But if it was a filibuster, where were the speeches? Where was Thurmond reading the phone book from the Senate floor for 23 hours? It's not a filibuster. There was a cloture vote, as there will be for Sotomayor, and he passed. And when Sotomayor's cloture vote is 63-37 or whatever, I will be happy to say that there was no filibuster on her either.
Post a Comment