SCOTUS: Right Wing Objections To Sotomayor In A Nutshell

Here we have the very essence, the core if you will, of right wing objections to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination. I give you the intellectual stylings and logical superiority of Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton:

David Shuster: "What evidence do you have that she would put her feelings and politics above the rule of law?"

Tom Fitton: "Because President Obama chose her."

She was nominated by a Democratic President. Ergo, she must be unacceptable without any factual foundation as to why. 

Taaaa daaaaaaaaaah.

It isn’t as though this is a shocker, given that GOP Senators fired off a letter to President Obama a while back demanding that his judicial appointments be to their conservative liking or else:

[GOP Senators] insisted that Mr. Obama begin by appointing holdover Bush nominees who were never confirmed by the Senate. There is no need to do so, and Mr. Obama should not.

The Republican senators are also demanding veto rights over nominees from their states….

It is particularly strange to see Senate Republicans raising the specter of filibustering nominees. When Mr. Bush was doing the nominating, Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah and a former Judiciary Committee chairman, warned Democrats that filibusters “mired the judicial-confirmation process in a political and constitutional crisis that undermines democracy, the judiciary, the Senate, and the Constitution.”

Do as they say at the moment, not as they used to say you should do at the top of their lungs because it no longer applies to them. So there.

Confusing? It’s meant to be.

When I was a young lawyer, a highly respected judge took me aside and gave me a bit of advice that I never forgot:  always over-prepare, that way you know more than anyone else in the room when the tough questions come flying from the bench; know your opposing counsel and your judge — their strengths, their weaknesses, and their blind spots — so you can work around them; and never ever back down…unless you are about to piss off the judge, in which case thank the judge, shut your mouth and sit down fast.  

How does this apply to the right wing’s objections to Sotomayor?  

When you review her opinions — and there are a lot — you get a feel for her as a legal technician, narrowly crafting her writing to fit the facts and the law under the individual circumstances of the case at bar in so many of these opinions. This is not a judge who tends to legislate broadly from the bench.

In other words, on the merits, it will be a very difficult argument for the right wing to make any substantive case against Sotomayor. 

So the GOP is trying to work around the weak spot, which is that Senate Democrats tend to fold in a slight breeze.  The White House had better be prepared to force some spine stiffening, because a GOP hot air breeze is coming whether they like it or not.

As a former Yale Law classmate said Sotomayor’s "tough to pigeonhole." Far more "rule of law" than political bench activist, from all I’ve read thus far.  SCOTUSblog’s read appears to be the same: see their part I, part II, part III, part IV, and and civil appellate opinions.  (Great stuff here, btw.)

Which means we’ll be dealing with the obscure, the absurd and the illogical over the next few days from the right wing.   Oh.  Joy.


 
80 Responses to "SCOTUS: Right Wing Objections To Sotomayor In A Nutshell"
Lindy | Wednesday May 27, 2009 05:47 am 1

Morning, Christy. Do you think her confirmation is iffy? I guess I better write to Sen. Landrieu. Ok, and Sen. Vitter too, but I have to wash my hands afterwards.


Millineryman | Wednesday May 27, 2009 05:59 am 2

Good morning Christy. The Dems in the Senate need to stand up to this crap form the Repubs. How do they think it will play in the Latina community if the Democrats allow the attacks to go on unanswered?


Beerfart Liberal | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:09 am 3

[GOP Senators] insisted that Mr. Obama begin by appointing holdover Bush nominees who were never confirmed by the Senate.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You.

Lost.

Dig?


jayt | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:10 am 4

SCOTUS: Right Wing Objections To Sotomayor In A Nutshell

interesting how most right wing objections, arguments, policies, etc. fit into that particular type of shell…


Beerfart Liberal | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:10 am 5
In response to Beerfart Liberal @ 3

correcrt that

[GOP Senators] insisted that Mr. Obama begin by appointing holdover Bush nominees who were never confirmed by the Senate.

You.

Lost.

Dig?


Beerfart Liberal | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:12 am 6
In response to Beerfart Liberal @ 5

where’s the quote I cut and pasted about the GOP demanding that Bush appointments be confirmed? Oh well.

Hilarious. They raiding Rush’s medicine cabinet?


jayt | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:15 am 7
In response to Millineryman @ 2

The Dems in the Senate need to stand up to this crap form the Repubs. How do they think it will play in the Latina community…

the trick, methinks, will be in not only pointing out the repubs’ crap, but also doing so in a way that encourages them to keep diggin’ that hole….


SouthernDragon | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:15 am 8
In response to Millineryman @ 2

Now that the Latino vote is leaning Dem the Party will take them for granted like they did AA’s all these years. Nobody ever said Dem party leadership was very bright, with the notable exception of Gov Dean.


SouthernDragon | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:16 am 9
In response to Beerfart Liberal @ 6

Ya gotta hit refresh if ya think somethin’s missin’. It’s a feature, not a bug.


bobpine | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:17 am 10

This nomination is only the pre-lem,its the “NEXT” one where you will really see the fur fly.


eCAHNomics | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:18 am 11
In response to jayt @ 7

One of the callers on cspan pointed out that she hoped the Rs would keep doing what they’re doing because in the next election they’ll be dead.


eCAHNomics | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:19 am 12
In response to bobpine @ 10

Another R.C.?


JimWhite | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:20 am 13

Good morning, Christy. When I worked my way back to Stuart Taylor’s screed on Sotomayor’s Olmos lecture in Berkeley, I had to put up an Oxdown pointing out just how deranged his analysis is. He seems to have been an early adopter in criticizing her for that one famous sentence from what is a very nuanced, self-aware speech.

It really looks like these guys are struggling to find anything to use against her that will have traction. They are just a swarm of ineffective gnats right now and their frustration is very entertaining.


Lindy | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:24 am 14

Time to get to work. Everyone have a good day!


foothillsmike | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:24 am 15

Which means we’ll be dealing with the obscure, the absurd and the illogical over the next few days from the right wing. Oh. Joy.

So what is new?


eCAHNomics | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:27 am 16
In response to JimWhite @ 13

Thanks for the diary.

However, I did hear a stat (sorry, didn’t save the link) that Sotomayor has voted 95% with her R colleagues. If true, I wonder what diff her race & gender actually makes.


BearCountry | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:31 am 17

Of course, she can’t be very smart because she is Hispanic, and we know they don’t actually achieve academically except by getting inflated grades from bleeding heart teachers. Anyway, the dem leadership (reid and obama) will probably cave after a few days and “discover” something that had been “hidden” during the vetting. The WH will then have to find one of the former bush nominees that the dems will be willing to swallow.


msmolly | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:31 am 18

Good morning from NW Indiana, Christy and pups.

Interesting that Turley’s main reservation about Judge Sotomayor is that she’s not “visionary” enough, that her opinions haven’t made it into some legal top-ten. Maybe Christy or Jayt could elucidate? Do Obama’s other reputed short-listers have such opinions? (IANAL, obviously.)


demi | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:32 am 19
In response to eCAHNomics @ 16

My remembrance of that was that those 95% of the times where when the R vote was in the majority. That’s the difference, I think. Believe it or not, there may be issues that R’s and D’s agree on. It would be different if she voted with the R’s on cases that the D’s were the majority vote. Does that make sense, ’cause I’m still on my first cup of coffee.


marymccurnin | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:33 am 20
In response to BearCountry @ 17

I am hoping this is where Obama takes a strong stand. The power of his presidency is at stake. Maybe I am just a romantic.


eCAHNomics | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:36 am 21
In response to demi @ 19

Yes, it makes sense. I’d like to see some more extended discussion of that. I listened to most of democracynow this morning, which did an extended discussion of her nomination, but I don’t remember their discussing her voting record. (I was in & out, so I might have missed it.)


WarOnWarOff | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:38 am 22
In response to BearCountry @ 17

Harry Reid guest stars this week on a very special “Ow, My Balls!”

/Idiocracy


eCAHNomics | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:40 am 23
In response to BearCountry @ 17

That is of course complete projection. The Rs always seem to find members of disadantaged groups to promote who couldn’t get where they are without affirmative action. Point being to get Ds to criticize member of groups that normally vote D. Gonzales & Thomas being the poster boys.


demi | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:41 am 24
In response to msmolly @ 18

Christy had this to say, yesterday…
I’ve been reading a lot of her opinions of late — they are geared toward mechanics of law and common sense resl world application, and not toward overarching theoretical implications. So it doesn’t surprise me that Turley — whose intellect tends toward theory and larger construct — doesn’t jibe with her approach. Truly.
It was in her second thread of the day, if that helps.


oldgold | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:42 am 25
In response to WarOnWarOff @ 22

I thought they were hermetically sealed inside a mayonnaise jar under Funk and Wagnals’ porch?


Millineryman | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:46 am 26
In response to WarOnWarOff @ 22

That makes the assumption that he actually has a pair.


JimWhite | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:48 am 27

Gosh, I seem to recall a chorus of “up or down” insistence for votes on Bush nominees. Those days are gone. They’ve morphed to “up and down” with the teabaggers.


WarOnWarOff | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:49 am 28
In response to oldgold @ 25

Actually, it was a Fuddruckers… ;)


msmolly | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:49 am 29
In response to demi @ 24

Thanks, Demi….I did see that. I was just wondering what sorts of opinions the other candidates may have that Judge Sotomayor lacks. I don’t travel in legal circles so I am not familiar with any of the people who were on the short list, and Turley didn’t elaborate.


msmolly | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:50 am 30
In response to JimWhite @ 27

They’ve morphed to “up and down” with the teabaggers.

Ewwww….it is way too early in the day for THAT mental picture.


demi | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:50 am 31
In response to eCAHNomics @ 21

I’d like to see some more extended discussion …
So, would I. Doesn’t happen often enough, I think. More short comments. Fewer discussions. ymmv *g*


eCAHNomics | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:51 am 32
In response to msmolly @ 29

One of the guests on democracynow this morning made the same point as Turley, but without a lot of elaboration. IANAL so I can’t get into the weeds on it.


Crosstimbers | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:54 am 33

It seems to me that a good thing if the insane faction of the Republicans continue screaming and throwing their own feces while the few remaining semi-rational ones and independents look for some place to go. It helps for Democrats to keep pointing out that the right wing groups are just trying to create hysteria in the asylum to get donations. Finally, it doesn’t hurt for the left to mildly complain about the choice. Anybody towards the middle of the political spectrum would have to be further repelled at the Republican base.


msmolly | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:55 am 34
In response to eCAHNomics @ 32

It occurs to me that for this first vacancy, someone without well-known “visionary” opinions gives the nutjobs less to attack. So far it seems the critical comments that are becoming the opposition’s talking points are easily refuted by the facts.


eCAHNomics | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:57 am 35
In response to msmolly @ 34

As I recall, Turley used Thrugood Marshall as the example. Made “good” decisions but didn’t have a lasting influence. Wanted someone to counterbalance Scalia.


bgrothus | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:58 am 36

She was raised, or at least born, into a Catholic family. I am sure she is pro-choice. But she probably never ruled on that.

Seems to me the Rs spent most of the ammunition they had on her before her name was announced. Thin gruel. Obama went with her knowing they have little to no ammo remaining.


eCAHNomics | Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:59 am 37
In response to bgrothus @ 36

How do you know she is pro-choice?


msmolly | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:02 am 38

Apologies if someone has already posted links to SCOTUSblog, but Hilzoy over at Washington Monthly calls it out as a tremendous source of Sotomayor’s opinions — for non-lawyers:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c…..018353.php Sotomayor: The Record


msmolly | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:02 am 39

Crap. I miss Edit. Sorry. Link works but it looks messy.


bgrothus | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:04 am 40

eCahn, I don’t know. I cannot imagine that BO would put anyone up who would overturn Roe. I just don’t think she has a paper trail and would not answer on it any differently than Roberts, etc.


bgrothus | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:06 am 41

Oh, and I have a lot of confidence in Michelle. I think her input would have been important. On these matters, I am very happy to have her in the WH.


eCAHNomics | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:07 am 42
In response to msmolly @ 38

Thanks for the links. I’ll read later.


eCAHNomics | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:08 am 43
In response to bgrothus @ 40

Thanks. I haven’t read anything on Sotomayor’s views on abortion. I’d guess it might be because she’s never issued any public opinion on the subject. If she’s pro-choice and said it, I’m sure we’d have heard about it from the Rs already.


Knut | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:09 am 44

It’s an odd mind-set, the wingnut mindset. It was a shock to a lot of people who weren’t paying attention that wingnuts do not regard any position other than their own as legitimate. It’s actually worse than that. Their mindset is uniquely about power. It doesn’t really matter for what purposes that power is exercised (the corporates use the wingnuts for their own purposes), but that they alone exercise it. It is a totalitarian mindset.

Obama’s advantage over the common run of Dems is that he figured this out from the get go, which is why he offers them compromises knowing that they will be turned down. He does have to compromise with the true power structure of this country comprising the military industrial complex, the financiao sector, and major segments of the private sector (health, pharmaceuticals, big chemistry, oil, etc.). Probably the most dangerous thing that could happen — and it almost happened under Bush — would be for that sector to be captured by the wingnuts, as happened in Germany. A big piece of Obama’s politics is to prevent that from ever happening.


Christy Hardin Smith | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:09 am 45

Morning all — had a headache this morning and laid down for a little bit to let some tylenol kick in. Must have dozed off because I just woke up. Arrrrgh. Sorry to miss the discussion.

Wrote this before taking The Peanut to school this morning. Laying down seemed like such a good idea at the time…


foothillsmike | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:10 am 46

The last thing that the rethugs want to have happen is Roe being overturned. Without this battlecry there would be no reason for them to exist.


Millineryman | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:11 am 47
In response to foothillsmike @ 46

Stopping marriage equality is being groomed as the latest and greatest battle cry.


Twain | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:11 am 48

Does it really matter who or what Sotomayer is because the Rs have been howling and screeching since Souter announced that he was retiring. They would say the same things about anyone O had nominated. Their game is carved in stone.


Christy Hardin Smith | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:14 am 49
In response to foothillsmike @ 46

It is quite an effective fundraising tool. Just ask James Dobson.


Christy Hardin Smith | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:16 am 50
In response to Twain @ 48

There was a quote from Richard Viguerie (I think Jane put it up yesterday in one of her posts) saying they had fundraising packets ready to go — they were just waiting to add in the nominees name to the screed.

If that doesn’t say everything about a lot of these groups, I don’t know what does.


cbl2 | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:20 am 51

Good Morning Christy and Firedogs,

was looking for something else over at Moonie Times and found a poll w/ comments about Judge Sotomayor – uh mah gawd – thought I’d walk in on a klavern


demi | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:20 am 52

Welcome back to the land of the awakened.
I’m sure people have already mentioned this, but can you tell us when the confirmation hearings are planned to start?
Seems like some of the questions people have about her record and opinions will be answered there.
As far as RNC talking points and objections go, I think I have a pretty good idea of why they disagree with progressives. The fear, the need for power, all the stuff we’ve discussed at the Lake on a variety of issues. But, not saying we can’t discuss them again. *g*


Christy Hardin Smith | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:21 am 53
In response to msmolly @ 18

In my experience, the folks who practice in the nitty gritty of the law appreciate the succinct, non-theory practical application type of opinions a lot. Academics, who tend to work and live in the realm of theoretical applications and legal philosophy don’t always.

Turley is a different story because he is both an academic and a practicing appellate lawyer — but he was in the camp that was rooting for a firebrand liberal mind on the court rather than a technician and coalition builder. Someone like Erwin Chemerinsky, for example, who would make a fantastic justice on a theoretical level because he is a long-term thinker on philosophical grounds, and has spent a lot of his time fighting through battles and rhetoric to make his points.

While that would have been immensely satisfying from a political perspective — and I adore Chemerinsky on a personal level, too, as well as for his brilliant arguments — I think with this particular Court and it’s personalities and make-up at the moment, a technician with people skills may be a more effective choice over the long haul. It’s not sweeping change, it’s more incremental — but it’s the possibility of change versus no change at all because something sweeping would have shut a lot of doors with Kennedy’s swing vote in my opinion.

Does that help?


eCAHNomics | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:21 am 54

Tancredo calls Sotomayor a racist.


Christy Hardin Smith | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:21 am 55
In response to eCAHNomics @ 54

Shorter Tancredo: ”Pot, this is kettle. And I don’t like you because you are brown.”


foothillsmike | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:22 am 56

Not having to rely on facts is one of the rethugs strengths among their base. All they have to do is feed their crap into the dogma.


twolf1 | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:23 am 57
In response to eCAHNomics @ 54

He gets his talking points from Limbaugh — though he didn’t heed Rush’s advice and add “reverse” to “racist” to “soften it up.”


eCAHNomics | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:23 am 58

They never go quietly into the night, do they?


Christy Hardin Smith | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:24 am 59
In response to demi @ 52

It will be a few weeks before that gets started. They’ll do the traditional walk around introductions of Sotomayor sitting down with Senators to talk one on one, introduce herself on a personal level, answer a few questions for them.

It’s traditional for all potential nominees to SCOTUS. I particularly remember those awkward photo ops with Senators and Harriet Miers where she looked thrilled to be in a room with them and they looked like they wanted to be anywhere but there.

Once that is done, then there will be something set up in Senate Judiciary. I should get a heads up on the scheduling and, once I do, I’ll let you all know.


Christy Hardin Smith | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:25 am 60
In response to eCAHNomics @ 58

And why does Dick Cheney leap to mind? *G*


eCAHNomics | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:27 am 61

And why is it always the most obnoxious ones? (Rhetorical Q.)


twolf1 | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:27 am 62

Christy Hardin Smith | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:27 am 63
In response to Lindy @ 1

Absent some crazy revelation that didn’t show up during vetting being trotted out, I think she’s pretty much a good bet for confirmation. But it never hurts to nudge, just in case.


Twain | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:28 am 64

Some newspaper (Baltimore, I think) referred to Sotomayer as the child of Immigrant parents – from PR ???! Some people are too dumb to tie their shoes.
Guess that’s why Kookie Roberts thinks Hawaii is ”exotic”


Christy Hardin Smith | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:30 am 65

I meant to mention in the post above that you really need to watch the full on nutter clip to get a feel for the right-wing attack machine turning itself on whether or not they have anything at all to really be ticked about. It’s breathtakingly empty stuff — and hilarious. I do not know how Shuster isn’t just rolling on the floor laughing, frankly.


demi | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:31 am 66

Thanks. Chuck Grassley on Cspan just now said it might be determined by how quickly they can move other votes to the side to make room.
And, Ha, I remember those photos too. Poor Harriet. I doubt we’ll have that fun with this nominee. Also doubt that embarrassing, gushy love notes to the president will surface.


iamsam67 | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:33 am 67

This is what fox considers criticism?
Fox news v Sonia Sotomayor, easy confirmation people!?!


oldgold | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:33 am 68

In my experience, the folks who practice in the nitty gritty of the law appreciate the succinct, non-theory practical application type of opinions a lot. Academics, who tend to work and live in the realm of theoretical applications and legal philosophy don’t always.

Other than the L- Ones, my experience is the no one pays too much attention to the “academics.” Except for Professor Gilbert, who many L- Twos and L-Threes
came to revere and depend upon.


kcwells | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:35 am 69

The right-wing nimcompoops would accuse Sonja of overpopulating the world if she offered us a genuine cure for cancer.

I have no hope for the media wingnuts – they are polluting our country with hate speech.

We need Obama to improve our public educational system – An intelligent nation is a strong nation….and we’re neither.


foothillsmike | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:36 am 70

What I have heard is mid July.


becca656 | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:38 am 71

I said yesterday, this is Obama’s last really good chance to show that his team can vet a candidate properly. After all the previous attempts to get someone through, particularly good nominees for the roles they were proposed for, Obama can’t let her have even one little problem going back four generations because her grandmother’s problem in the Bronx in 1950 will be held up for scrutiny and prevent her from being confirmed, whether she had anything to do with it or not. No tax problems, no illegals working for her, no drug problems, no abortions…. and I seriously believe she can’t have anything like this going back at least four generations.


Christy Hardin Smith | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:42 am 72
In response to oldgold @ 68

Yeah — you actually practice law, so you know exactly what I mean on this one. *g* The theory rarely translates to anything you can use on the fly in a courtroom, and the theoretical opinions almost always cause more problems in the “what the hell does this mean” attempts at interpretation than the straight out practical application drafting ones that are written for practicing lawyers and judges to follow.

I love the nitty gritty arguments on theory because I’m nerdy that way. But they give you only a little wiggle room in the lack of clarity for argument’s sake, not really guidance on how you should move forward or clear boundaries for how you shouldn’t. And, in that way, they are just less useful in the day to day, but may in some way allow for legal advances at some future point.

It’s the age old argument between Jefferson’s ideals and Adams practicality writ legal, I think. I love to read them both, but in the end, you want the thing that helps you get the job done in the moment even though you really need the pull and tug of one on the other to make things work well over time.


Christy Hardin Smith | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:42 am 73
In response to foothillsmike @ 70

That’s what I’ve been hearing, too, although nothing is set yet. It’s most likely, given the calendar and timing needs and such.


Christy Hardin Smith | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:47 am 74

Fresh thought up top, for anyone who wants one. Just FYI.


jaango | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:56 am 75

Over the years, I have found many advocates for the “post-racial” Era, and now, they will be found to be of an inconsequence in the political arena. To wit, the Latino political advisers are ‘coaching” the Republican Senators and their staff not to oppose Judge Sotmayor on the premise that she is a Latina. And that’s advice that not going to be accepted.

Her legal history relative to “god, guns, and gays” is at best, superficial, and thusly, the Achilles Heel that the GOPsters will attack, and thereby, revert to their historical behavior. First, it raises a wealth of dollars, and secondly, this overall effort will be sold to the rank and file as a “test run” on President Obama’s second opportunity to replace the fifth vote with a candidate that reflects a potential center-left shift on SCOTUS.

And being a Native from the Sonoran Desert, I am an Optimist and expect that Judge Sotomayor will achieve, at a minimum, 65 votes, and from my knowing that the Senate contains 35 hard core conservative votes. And these Senators will not relent regardless of their always pending ‘affection’ for the Chicano votes across America.

As such, Senator Kyl from our Arizona, is a good indicator since he epitomizes the John Bircher view of poliltics. He is sooo far Right that I believe that he tends to get lonely out their in right field and where many are hesitant to permit themselves to be seen by their voting constituency. And if permitted, Kyl will drag them out their, as he usually does being the second ranking GOP member in the Senate.

Consequently and despite the theatrics of the GOP, Judge Sotomayor is a shoo-in.

Jaango


Fern | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:02 am 76
In response to msmolly @ 18

I am not a lawyer either – but that strikes me as an excessively high standard to which to hold someone.


msmolly | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:15 am 77

Thanks, Christy. I think I “get” where Turley was coming from, and I admire him tremendously, but I guess my question is what visionary, well known and quoted opinions do the other short-listers have in their backgrounds that Judge Sotomayor doesn’t have. He implied that they did and she didn’t. I had never heard of ANY of them before the Souter announcement.

No big deal, just curious. And your explanation was very helpful!


goldpearl | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:18 am 78

there’s a judge & prosecutor somewhere in spain right now nodding & saying proceda!


msmolly | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:23 am 79
In response to oldgold @ 68

Other than the L- Ones, my experience is the no one pays too much attention to the “academics.” Except for Professor Gilbert, who many L- Twos and L-Threes came to revere and depend upon.

OK. what on earth are THOSE??

(Careful, or I’m gonna start throwing around techie computer terms. *g*)


Christy Hardin Smith | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:33 am 80
In response to msmolly @ 79

L-Ones are first year law students. The twos and threes are the next two years of schooling levels.


Sorry but the comments are closed on this post

Close