Newspaper headline: Bright, well-educated, experienced Hispanic woman is nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court. Frustrated Republican reaction is to eat the rug. Punk: When words fail you, fill your mouth.
They’re already starting the smear campaign, but they’re running into trouble: “Unnamed sources say she’s not as brilliant as she looks.” True quote from Fox News. Anonymous Gossip on Fox Denounces Democratic Nominee! That ain’t news. Besides, so she’s only somewhat brilliant? That puts her way ahead of some of her presumed future colleagues!
I thought only GOP types like Mary Cheney only ate rug…
What’s truly amazing is the rightwing hypocrisy over this.
When the Alito and Roberts nominees were being debated in the Senate, any Dem who opposed either one of them was branded an obstructionist by the righties. Then there were the constant calls for an up-or-down vote and threats of the Nuclear Option, in the event of a Dem filibuster.
And what are these same folks saying NOW?
You guessed it, threatening to filibuster.
I say let ‘em. They won’t stop this, and at the end of the day, they’ll end up even further out on the fringe than they are right now.
GOP can never match the democrats’ level of vitriol, particularly when it comes to ‘confirmation’ process. Consider treatment of judge Bork, versus judge Ginsburg - philosophical opposites.
The Dems were absolutely right to hit Bork with everything hey had. The man later revealed himself to be a right-wing religous fanatic who makes Antonin Scalia look like Oliver Wendell Holmes. ( Google ‘Slouching Towards Gomorrah’ )
The book is not a legal work, it is a compilation of criticisms, non-legal opinions about society, and etc. So what? His qualifications were never questioned - only his philosophy. Judge Ginsberg was an ACLU attorney - you can’t get much more rabidly liberal than that, and, because she too was considered qualified, the republicans, with a very few exceptions voted to confirm her, without a fight.
Do you seriously think those opinions would not have affected how he would have ruled?
Wow, petergrt, you’ve just illustrated how far to the right this country has drifted. The ACLU is “rabidly liberal”? Really?? When did defending the Constitution become such a “liberal” thing to do? Well, since I happen to be a strong supporter of the Constitution, I’m proud to be a liberal.
And, while I’m on the subject, when did liberal become a such a bad word?
liberalga57: It isn’t. (to all your questions)
Liberal is an interesting term / label. JFK was a liberal, and yet, if you read his speeches you would find that hes ideas were to the right of today’s’ republicans. By the same token, the contemporary ‘liberals’ are actually leftists - closer to Nietzsche.
ACLAU defending the Constitution? That is a joke! They seek to redefine or contort it, rather than amending it. Did ACLU do some good in the past? Absolutely. Their work of the past couple of decades however, mostly made America worse, not better.
petergrt: The ACLU contorts and redefines the Constitution? Examples, please.
Dale, that was uncalled for. It is not exaggerating events to say that our society hangs in the balance with the appointment of Souter’s replacement to the Supreme Court. A powerful, corrective revolution is underway, with Obama’s election as President, and the Democrats about to obtain a 60-seat majority in the U.S. Senate. But an adverse Supreme Court can stop and undo a lot of that.
Sotomayor’s bad First Amendment ruling on the Avery-Lewis Mills High School controversy, upholding the District Court’s right to punish the student for her off-campus speech in criticizing the school administration that cancelled a jamfest as douchebags. Sotomayor’s Court proceeded to affirm the District Court’s ruling - that is, Sonia Sotomayor and her colleague justices upheld the high school’s right to punish Doninger for her off-campus speech. Their reasoning was that schools have an obligation to impart to their students “shared values,” which include not only the importance of free expression but a “proper respect for authority”.
“Proper respect for authority” … is this what our democratic society and freedom is based upon? Last time I checked, I thought our democracy and freedom were predicated on the principle that all people have a right to express their opinions, which must certainly include disrespect for authority, if actions by the authority
David Souter was a surprise to the Republicans who appointed him and worked for his confirmation. His vote made a difference on the side of progressive and humane issues in many a Supreme Court decision.
We cannot afford or risk a Souter in reverse with this new appointment - a Justice who seems to have a progressive record, but who turns out to have an insufficient passion for protecting and strengthening the freedoms that make our country great.
I hope Sonia Sotomayor’s name is taken off the list.
“Sotomayor’s bad First Amendment ruling on the Avery-Lewis Mills High School controversy, upholding the District Court’s right to punish the student for her off-campus speech in criticizing the school administration that cancelled a jamfest as douchebags.”
Not quite. It wasn’t the “douchebags” comment. It was the fact that she told students to disrupt the school administrator’s work in order to “piss them off more” and to further disrupt school discipline. The Sotomayor court stressed that it had NOTHING to do with off-campus speech.
Things aren’t always as black and white as it may seem at first.
Why are people bringing up Bork? That was in 1987. That was a difference Congress, and haven’t there been, what 7 justices appointed since then? Five by Republicans. Some of them are pretty right-wing, no? Let it go.
But we already knew that no matter who Obama picked, the right wing would moan and complain. It was a given. But still, Bork?
Lt_Lanier brings up valid concerns.
“Why are people bringing up Bork?”
For the same reason that people are bringing up a quote Sotomayor made in 2001, distorting it, hoping to turn her into a racist:
They’re desperately looking for something – ANYTHING – to “get something” on the Democrats.
“Lt_Lanier brings up valid concerns.”
Not really, no. The person in question was NOT punished for her off-campus speech.
She will eventually learn to tolerate the Higher Courts overturning her decisions, particularly this Frank Ricci controversy, which is a total miscarriage of justice.
April 12, 2017