Oops! RNC Accidentally Releases Their Sotomayor Talking Points To The… Media!
Honestly, can these people walk and chew gum at the same time? At the very least they should consider banning their members from using technology.
Whoops. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has apparently inadvertently released its list of talking points on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
Included on the released list were a few hundred influential Republicans who were the intended recipients of the talking points. Unfortunately for the RNC, so were members of the media. [emphasis mine]
h/t: The Hill
Click on the link for the predictable. After reading them it’s easy to see which point against Judge Sotomayor will generate the most faux outrage.
To be clear, Republicans do not view this nomination without concern. Judge Sotomayor has received praise and high ratings from liberal special interest groups. Judge Sotomayor has also said that policy is made on the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Let’s debunk this nonsense right away.
“She’s not wrong,” said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. “Of course they make policy… You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy.”
As Segal noted, one of the most recent cases heard by the Supreme Court — itself a court of appeals — involves the strip search of a 13-year-old who school officials believed was carrying ibuprofen. “There is no clear knowing statement whether officials can be sued for that sort of behavior,” he noted. “So when justices come up with a decision on that, they would be making policy.”
Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University, was equally dismissive of this emerging conservative talking point. “She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals… It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue.”
Freedman, who was a classmate of Sotomayor’s at Yale Law School, noted that while the Supreme Court will decide roughly 90 cases a year, the court of appeals will weigh in on “many thousands.” They are, indeed, “the final stop for the most important decisions in the federal system.” They also are the forums where vagaries and gray areas of the law go to be clarified.
“One element of judging, obviously, is issuing precedent,” Freedman explained. “But if the thing were squarely disposed of by existing precedent they probably wouldn’t go to the court of appeals for it. Their lawyers would say, forget it… So this is where you get clarification for cases without precedent.”
Not that I expect these statements to deter Republicans, who seem unable to function in anything other than full reactionary mode. They have become a joke of a party – a party not only completely incapable of having serious discussions on serious issues (tele-prompters and mustard, anyone?), but also a party incapable of sending a flippin’ email to the right people.
Tags: President Obama, Republicans, Supreme Court
I can’t believe what has happened to the well-disciplined Republican party in a few short years. As they’ve been driving away the moderates, have they also driven away the competents?
I must add, I can’t believe how awesome this is for Obama and Democrats in the Senate. They should already have a witness list lined up, like Jeffrey Segal and Eric Freedman.
Perhaps Republicans will go with their least persuasive talking point – that she’s not smart. I would love to see her weave circles around the idiots in the Senate.
Instant STFU –
“What term do mental health professionals use for people who lack empathy?”
They are so embarrassing. The email screw up is just a symptom of a bigger issue. And if Republicans really believe that the higher courts don’t influence policy, then why are they constantly fighting for “pro-life” judges.
Sheesh, they need to make up their minds.
Excellent STFU, VC. I will make sure to ask that question when the issue pops up… which, I fear, will be more often than not!
Republicans only want lab-grown sociopaths for the courts.
And don’t forget that these folks don’t exactly mind when “policy” gets set the way they want it.
Talk about chestnuts…
Shorter RNC: Oooga booga! Run for the hills everyone. Pee pee feels warm on my leg.
Since Obama has become president, has there been a run on Depends? The Republicans are scared of everything it seems.
True to form, Rush Limbaugh today said he hopes Sonia Sotomayor fails. Limbaugh spent the first hour of his show bashing the appointment. “Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes.”
Some people never learn.
Elsewhere on the right, from Huckabee: The appointment of Maria Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama’s campaign promises to be a…blah, blah, blah.
Can’t even get the name right but he’s got a press release ready.
When will it end? Can someone just shoot them and put them out of their misery?
First, Sotomayer is qualified for the bench even if, as some contend, she isn’t an intellectual giant. Sotomayor, a judge on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was named a U.S. District Court judge by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, and was elevated to her current seat by President Clinton.
Sure, she’s a moderate liberal, no more disqualified than a moderate righty to sit on the bench. Her appointement replaces someone of the same judicial mindset, helping keep in place a divided court that can’t make sweeping decisions. While the right would love to portray only their vision as the proper one on the court, judicial activism falls on both sides. See John Roberts who has yet to side with the people. Nevertheless, a McCain appointment would have moved the court to the right and Obama’s appointment will keep the court at least somewhat divided. That’s a good thing.
But what is really striking is the political genius of Obama. This is a can’t lose pick. You might remember Laura Bush expressing dismay her husband did not select a woman for one of his two SC appointments. Supreme Court picks get a lot of attention and rightfully so. Besides the impact it has on the direction of American law, it has an impact of how people perceive the President’s attempts to place minorities in key positions. While Bush put middle aged men on the bench, Obama choose a Hispanic woman. Don’t think for a second that won’t pay political dividends at the polls.
And it puts the republicans on the defensive. A Woman. A Hispanic. O my.
Obama played them again.
So while Rush and the talking heads attempt to push sweeping labels, my guess is women and Hispanics aren’t going to like that very much. For a party that is now mostly a regional collection of white evangelicals and rednecks from the southeast, this threatens to push them over the political edge.
No matter how republicans proceed, in the end, Obama and the democrats will be perceived as the party of inclusion, further narrowing the republican base and putting them in a no win situation.
Just brilliant.
Questions and Answers.
Would Sotomayor have been selected if she was not Hispanic.
Would she have been considered if she was not a woman?
Were any white males considered?
Is she the most qualified person for this position?
Did Obama support any of Bush’s nominees?
The answer to all is NO.
Mike Protack
“Were any white males considered?
When ever you think you’ve read Mike Protack’s stupidest blog comment. Don’t say, “Well this is the very limit. He can not go beyond this in stupidity. This will be the stupid comment touchstone for years to come.”
Just don’t let yourself think that. Banish that thought. Because in a day or two you will read something even stupider.
So speaks the Clarence Thomas of Delaware.
anonie,
When will it end? Can someone just shoot them and put them out of their misery?
get with Del Dem offline on that one
Mike,
You are awesome. Thank you. With you as an outspoken member of the GOP, the party hasn’t got a prayer. Keep pushing your nonsense.
Obama won the election. He picks the nominee, and she’s going to sail through. Those are the facts. The other indisputable fact is that few Supreme Court justices ever turn out exactly like they are expected to. Case in point, the guy who’s seat is up.
Unfortunately, there’s an ideological cottage industry on both sides of this that uses every SCOTUS appointment to boost their fundraising. They did it with Roberts and Alito and they’ll do it here, too.
And by August, it’ll all be over.
Sad, but true.
Here I go, getting into a pissing match with a skunk, which only guarantees everyone comes out stinky…
Hey, talking-points-GOP-Killer, this comes from the old gum under your shoe. Which part of George HW Bush do you now find intolerable and unacceptable in terms of his judgement?
From UI’s earlier post, the part in regard to the wiki entry:
At the very least they should consider banning their members from using technology.
I think the State party has someone that can fix that for them…except the State party apparently was totally unaware of it until this past weekend.
STFU Moment #2:
If there’s no role for empathy in jurisprudence, then answer me why is there multiple levels of murder, assault, etc, in our legal code?
A murder is a murder; a beating is a beating. Is this really the conservative mind-set or is it just to be a POS contrarian without any just standing?
Is there not precedent for the consideration of aggregating and mitigating circumstances, as it pertains to sentencing?
So if I do something absolutely horrible to a conservative’s loved one, and he/she kills me. I really do hope that they’re ok with life behind bars or a hot shot in the veins….because anything less would be, how can I put it???….Empathetic.
I hate reading my grammatical errors, lol!