Racially-tinged inferences, snide liberal bashing and shameless pandering to anti-intellectual sentiment


 Craig Crawford APTLY SUMS UP the collective performance of Republican senators at the Sotomayor hearings — and warns that the next Obama administration nominee for the Supreme Court will be decidedly more liberal. 



  1. Mike Carroll

    Trail Mix is an appropriate name for that blog. Lots of dried fruit and nuts.
    That said, Sotomayor deserves to be confirmed by any historical measure of the process. Her experience and credentials are more than sufficient although RICCI and “a wise Latina woman…” are certainly red flags though not sufficient in and of themselves to justify rejection.
    However, I hope every Republican Senator votes against her although I doubt they have the courage to do so.
    Why? Quite simple really. As a Senator, Obama voted against both Roberts and Alito even though he acknowledged that they were qualified. Might as well let him know that others can pander to the looney fringe of their base and play by Chicago rules. Secondly, Republicans historically have accepted Democratic nominees (Ginsburg 97 affirmative votes and Breyer 91) while Democrats have played the scorched earth scenario with Republican nominees since Bork. Time to play by the same set of rules.

  2. Mike Carroll: I, too, hope every Republican senator votes against her. It would be a political disaster for the GOP among women and Hispanics.

    As blogger Wayne Lively has observed, Republican attacks on Sotomayor “are finding the ears of one group, only. White men. ONLY. Calling her a racist absolutely insures that Hispanic voters are once again being reminded that the GOP thinks of them as second class citizens. Women are a group that is especially sensitive to what they are hearing about her. This is a disaster of epic proportions for the Republican Party.”

    So, I hope you and other conservatives will lean on any Senate Repubs who seem to be wavering with regard to the Sotomayor vote. Tell ’em to stand tall against this self-styled “wise Latina woman.”

    Don’t be deterred, Mike, by the political math that portends for the Republicans many years of wandering in the wilderness if they can’t carry the female and Hispanic votes.

    The GOPs can cater all they want to angry white men. America’s new political demographics are not on their side. The bubbas and the theocrats are increasingly outnumbered in this country.

    Republicans have lost the popular vote in four out of the last five presidential elections, and they’re down to a measly 40 seats in the Senate. The road to recovery from that dire situation does not include unified opposition to Sonia Sotomayor. On the contrary. That will only make matters worse for them.

  3. Mike Carroll

    Pat-There is something to be said for standing on principle rather than politics. Your party might want to try it sometime.
    By the way, Republicans opposing Sotomayor makes them racist but Democrats preventing Miquel Estrada from his place on the Court of Appeals is just fine, Right?
    What hypocrisy.
    I would rather wander in the political wilderness.

  4. Mike Carroll

    And by the way Pat, it did not escape my notice that your response failed to address the substance of my original post. Thats OK. If I were you I would want to change the subject too. Hard to defend the indefensible isn’t it.

  5. Mike Carroll: It might interest you to know that Miguel Estrada wasn’t terribly popular among his fellow Hispanics. His nomination was opposed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the United States Hispanic Leadership Institute, and the William C. Velasquez Institute.

    But, hey, the white Republicans thought he was aces.

    Oh, and as for “standing on principle,” spare me the bogus claim that Republicans are known for that. Any gang that toadies to the the disgusting likes of Rush Limbaugh has no principles the rest of us should emulate.

  6. Mike Carroll

    “His nomination was opposed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the United States Hispanic Leadership Institute, and the William C. Velasquez Institute.”
    and just what would be the political leaning of the listed groups? Wouldn’t be far left would it?
    Cue the crickets on Pat responding to the substance of my original post.

  7. Mike Carroll: Two things:
    1) You have keenly discerned that none of the Hispanic groups that opposed Estrada’s nomination was a right-wing group. Huge surprise there.

    2) Regarding the points in your first comment (my response to which you’ve so impatiently demanded), we could have a lengthy exchange about our respective views on the proper role of the Senate in confirming (or not) Supreme Court nominees. But I don’t have the time tonight to do the subject justice (no pun). Perhaps tomorrow or over the weekend.

    Suffice it to say for now that I think the system serves best when Senators take into account ideology as well as experience and judicial temperament. I don’t think the Constitution made the Senate a partner in the deal just to serve as a rubber stamp on the grounds that the president has a “right” to choose whomever he wants for the high court. That goes for Obama, too. The fact that he won the election shouldn’t give him the right (politically speaking, not legally) to nominate just any Joe Schmo to the court and expect him to be confirmed.

    But anyway, more about this later.

    Perhaps it would be best for me to write a full-blown post on the matter. I’ll think about it.

  8. Mike Carroll

    Fair enough.

  9. Neftali

    Typical of Pat to link to a “blog” article which makes an opinion that is not backed up by any evidence.

    This CNN article does a little better job of summarizing the hearings:


    I’m particularly fond of this exchange:

    Sen. John Kyl: … Do you agree with him (President Obama) that the law only takes you the first 25 miles of the marathon and that that last mile has to be decided by what’s in the judge’s heart?

    Sotomayor: No, sir. That’s — I don’t — I wouldn’t approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. He has to explain what he meant by judging. I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can’t rely on what’s in their heart. They don’t determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law.

    Take that, Barack Obama.

    But for once, I have to disagree with Mike Carrol. Just because the liberals pander to the looney fringe doesn’t mean the Republicans should follow in their childish example. Republicans should nominate Sotomayor because she’s earned the position. There are clearly worse judges Obama could have nominated. And who knows…perhaps she might pull a “reverse-Souter” and slowly migrate to the right.

  10. Mike Carroll

    Neftali-if you ever met my children they would tell you that I emphasized when they were young that their actions had consequences. That is the point of my suggestion. Liberals, much like children, have to be taught that their scorched earth policy for Republican nominees will have consequences. How else will they ever learn.

  11. Neftali

    How else will they ever learn? Well, children can also learn by example. There is very little to be actually gained by sequestering in this nomination. Just do the right thing and vote for her.

    Republicans would be best served to focus their energies where the liberals can do the most damage (like their socialized medical reform policies, stopping cap & trade, forced unionization through card check, educating the public what an idiot Obama is on terms of foreign policy, etc…)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *