This is why I love The Twitter. In one recent tweet, one local liberal taunts CNN’s John King: “You know, #sotomayor is *not* that liberal. I’m not sure if **I** support her. Hey John King, you found one! @cnnbrk.”
Then a few places down, Politico tweets a link to one of their stories: “Sotomayor starts taking hits from right: Top conservatives describe her as a hard-line libera.. http://tinyurl.com/pkptxy.”
So who is Judge Sotomayor? Is she a justice who isn’t liberal enough for self-described liberals? Or is she a “hardline liberal who would impose her personal agenda on the Court?”
My guess is that to the GOP, aka the Grand Obstructionist Party and the party that hopes for Barack Obama to fail, it doesn’t matter that she may be a reasonable moderate.
Their lips may say “fair hearing” for Sotomayor, but their rabid, glassy-eyes say, “obstruct at all costs!”
So expect to hear lies, obfuscations, and demonization from Republican opposition during the confirmation process. But it’s certainly will not be because of any real disagreement with Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record.
The real reason they will oppose President Barack Obama’s selection is that even during these trying economic times, when putting aside petty partisan differences and delaying power-struggles in order to work with the opposition is in the best interest of the American people, that’s the very last thing they want to do.
You liberals are all the same. Complaining about how “conservatives want Barack Obama to fail” and all that garbage. When are you going to wake up? This nation is falling apart and all Obama is doing is spending his way out of it. He said in a press conference the other day that this our country is out of money. So what is he doing to fix this problem? If I were him, I would get off my ass and do something about it instead of blaming everything on “the last eight years.”
Mary,
Yes. The Court interprets how cases relate to the Constitution. And there are three branches, which is why it is generally bad for Courts to make policy.
Regarding the Warren Court, I think that Brown and Baker were very wise decisions because in both cases there was no likelyhood that lesislative remedy was going to happen. In such rare instances where there is no political recourse (segregation and one man / one vote were such instances), the Court had a responsibility to act.
Contrast that with the removal of prayer in schools. First, that should have been a decision left to the several states. But, even if one rejects the federalism argument, there were excellent arguments for judicial restraint.
For example, the Court read the First Amendment far more narrowly than at any time in history. We had almost 200 years of basically harmonious relationships between religions with the Courts taking a broader view of the Establishment clause. Certainly there were abuses but not so many that all manner of religions flourished here.
Another example would be Miranda. The Court could have encouraged Congress to enact legislation that would deal with problems relating to police and suspects.
I also blame the Warren Court for laying the groundwork for Roe. Roe is the perfect example of the Court meddling in an issue (unlike Brown and Baker) where the states were sorting out the issue for themselves.
The difference between the two parties is that Democrats are willing to reserve judgement until they personally hear from the nominee during the confirmation process. Republicans planned on obstructing whoever Pres. Obama chose from the very day Justice Souter announced his retirement.
MM, have you even been paying attention for the past 8 years? See these press releases from your party chair from the day the Alito and Roberts nominations came out.
DNC Chairman Howard Dean on Alito: “Alito’s record suggests an activist judicial philosophy bent on rolling back the rights and freedoms that all Americans value. Alito has sought to limit the rights of women and people with disabilities in discrimination cases, demonstrated an open hostility to women’s privacy rights even in basic reproductive health matters, has a record of hostility toward immigrants, and tried to immunize employers from employment discrimination cases. It is particularly troubling that President Bush would nominate a judge who would reverse American progress and make the Supreme Court look less like America on the same day that most Americans are honoring the life and legacy of Rosa Parks.” (Democratic National Committee, “Howard Dean On The Nomination Of Samuel Alito To The Supreme Court,” Press Release, 10/31/05)
Dean on Roberts: “It is disappointing that when President Bush had the chance to bring the country together, he instead turned to a nominee who may have impressive legal credentials, but also has sharp partisan credentials that cannot be ignored.” (Democratic National Committee, “Statement By DNC Chairman On The Nomination Of John Roberts To The Supreme Court,” Press Release, 7/19/05)
Please, Mark, feel free to ignore the second part of my response to you.
And please, if it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to “interpret the law,” then whose is it? Isn’t that why we have 3 separate but equal branches of government?
And I’m just dying to hear which one of Chief Justice Warren’s rulings you think was too “activist?”
Mary,
Please. The knives were out for Bork from the time Reagan picked Scalia for that vacancy. And the same was true for Thomas.
I am one Republican who wishes that we could appoint people of learning and wisdom from all sides of the political spectrum so that the Court was less political.
This is one of the prices that we pay for the excessive activism of the Courts since Warren. The more that activist judges try to interpret the law to make public policy, the more likely we are to get partisans picked for the Court.
And let’s hope she receives better treatment than Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer. The facts are, Mark, that ideological posturing is nothing new. The difference between the two parties is that Democrats are willing to reserve judgement until they personally hear from the nominee during the confirmation process. Republicans planned on obstructing whoever Pres. Obama chose from the very day Justice Souter announced his retirement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/us/politics/17conserve.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all
Mary,
Are you suggesting that the Republicans will’Bork’ Judge Sotomayor? She will certainly receive better treatment from Republicans than Judge Bork or Justice Thomas got.
But why intrude on your partisan fantasy with facts?
[...] » Their Lips say Fair Hearing, But Their Eyes…Posted 25 minutes [...]