How To Lose Women And Hispanics In One Fell Swoop
As if the Republican Party hasn’t purged enough. Inhofe brings on this gem.
“Of primary concern to me is whether or not Judge Sotomayor follows the proper role of judges and refrains from legislating from the bench. Some of her recent comments on this matter have given me cause for great concern. In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.” [emphasis mine]
And here are a few more pieces of brilliance…
Mike Huckabee refers to Judge Sonia Sotomayor as Maria Sotomayor. Aye Carumba!
The Politico says that Republicans are in the difficult position of perhaps needing to hold their fire because of the political dangers of attacking a “Latina single mother.” (via TPM) [emphasis mine]
I gotta tell you… these white men are getting on my last nerve. Do they not realize how insulting it is to throw race and gender into this debate? Maybe just for fun they could ponder how menapause will effect her judgement, or if she’d rule to make Cinco de Mayo a National Holiday. It’s statements like this that show the real problem for the GOP. They just don’t get it; they really don’t see why the above comments are so insulting to women and Hispanics. (And my point will be proven in the comment section.)
Tags: Republicans, Sotomayor, Supreme Court
So Democrats attacking Linda Chevez, Alberto Gonzales, and Estrada was ok because Latin Republicans don’t count. The Republicans are being very respectful as the quote you used shows.
And my point has been proven in the 1st comment. You don’t get it, David.
these white men are getting on my last nerve
This is the story of my life.
🙂
With respect, I don’t think that you do. Democrats attacked and even filibustered Hispanic nominees who were Republican. It didn’t mean that they hated Latinos. Republicans are not going to attack this Judge. They will ask questions and make points. As AG Gonzales said this morning, the fact that she is Hispanic doesn’t exempt her from her record.
I believe that she will pass muster and be confirmed. No one will even remember who voted no.
If she wasn’t a Hispanic woman, she wouldn’t have been chosen. Race entered the debate in the selection process.
Don’t cha love it when a Republican justifies some totally illogical point by citing a quote from AG Gonzales? It’s sorta like quoting Daffy Duck as a reason to ban hunting.
the fact that she is Hispanic doesn’t exempt her from her record.
Exactly right. And you will find that Democrats opposed these folks for their records — not because of their ethnicity. Chavez because she had a long history of wingnuttery especially on labor issues and the Gonzales pushback was focused on how BushCo went to Iraq.
And Brian — you do know that if Alito and Roberts hadn’t been white men, they wouldn’t have been picked, either?
Cassandra – yep.
My point was that complaining about race and gender entering the debate when Obama’s presidency has been all about breaking racial and gender barriers with nominees is nearly ridiculous.
I wasn’t taking anything away from her accomplishments, but it is easy to assume that the reason she was on the short list of nominees was because of the ability to break those barriers. It was a consideration at some point, or else they wouldn’t be touting the fact that she was the first Hispanic female nominee.
My point is that the Obama admin fired the first shot in the race issue battle, why complain about the discussion when you bring the topic up?
They fired the first shot by picking a Hispanic woman?
Please. Then you missed the hoopla around picking Condi Rice or Alberto Gonzales.
You don’t get to the shortlist because you overcame your circumstances, you get to the shortlist because there is a body of work that is indicative of your judicial performance.
The real point here isn’t so much the ethnic background (altho this works politically for Obama right now), but the knee jerk reliance on the racialized bits of the Southern Strategy by repubs.
As if Roberts and Alito were asked to live by this:
her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.
Well Hispanics liked Bush. They provided him with his margin of victory. I understand Democrats trying to pay back the Latin voter for their support. We all know that they are important swing voters. We also know that they are smart enough to know that questions about someone’s positions is not an attack on them or else they would have never voted for Democrat.
The first Hispanic Justice would have been Estrada if Dems did not block his path to the appeals court even though the Bar called him well qualified. Voters are smarter than Democrats think they are. I think it is insulting to say that questioning a Judge’s view of the court is somehow attacking every Latin citizen in America, every woman, and every one who had a single mother.
Do you all even have a straight face when typing this stuff?
You know what, David? You’re right. Keep on this path. I predict a wonderful future for your party. Maybe you could even suggest serving rice and beans at Judge Sotomayor’s hearings while playing music from West Side Story… cause that’s the path you’re on, and it’s insulting and demeaning.
Regardless of ethnicity, we should all be concerned about any judge who doesnt support civil liberties. Its insulting to question her for her “aggressiveness”, as if women should be passive, stand behind your man idealogy.
This woman is at best a moderate, not a liberal and her voting record has been supportive of corporations.
There is no doubt she is qualified, but no one knows where her vote will be when it comes to our civil liberties. GH Bush nominated her for Federal judge what does that tell you?
Well since you never really read what people say here — just take in enough to sort through the right talking points to type out — you don’t have much stand to ask about straight faces when typing. Estrada was not especially good at answering questions if I remember his hearing correctly and — basically — the man was a right wing ideologue. Not center right, but full metal wingnut.
What really chafes in the discussion is the assumption that because she’s a Hispanic woman that she isn’t the best person for the job. She went to Yale and Princeton, and she did it without the advantages that the upper class has.
Do conservatives not realize that there is a form of affirmative action for rich kids? It’s called “legacy” and George W. Bush benefited from it. He got into Yale because his father was an alumni. Conservatives also have their own boxes to check when they pick a judge, like Federalist Society membership.
I think our country has suffered because of insufficient representation of women and minorities on the court. Why do we think 8 men and one woman make up the best of the best to decide our laws. I can think of at least 3 recent decisions that really suffered from the lack of women on the bench (and Ginsberg let them have it, too!)
Carhart (partial birth abortion) – Kennedy wrote for the majority and he cited regrets that women would have later. That’s a bunch of paternalistic bullshit. It’s treating women like children that need to be protected from their own decisions.
Lilly Ledbetter – that was a terrible decision about pay equity. They ruled that Ledbetter, who was discriminated against in pay for her whole career, could not collect the difference. Luckily Congress took Ginsberg’s advice and amended that law so that no further screw ups are possible.
I don’t remember the name of the case, but the one where a 13 year old girl was strip-searched for Advil. They ruled that it’s alright for schools to strip search children. Ginsberg also blasted them for that decision.
I think she herself brought her own race into the discussion. No?
Was the fact that Roberts has young children debated? Was he asked how he would juggle raising his kids and his responsibilities on the bench?
Now this is interesting.
George H.W. Bush on Clarence Thomas:
Republicans, for empathy before they were against it. Flip-floppers!
All four of the short-list finalists were women. OF COURSE her gender and ethnicity were taken into account.
The mistaken notion here is that they should not be.
I would point out that Republicans, faced with replacing Justice Marshall, chose an African-American. Nobody thought or suggested he would have been the No. 1 choice in a color- and gender-blind world.
But as far as the “best qualified” person is concerned, let’s keep in mind that an enormous number of well-qualified people are eliminated based on their political philosophies — Democrats pick liberals, Republicans pick conservatives.
Unlike these other characteristics we’re discussing, political philosophy is something the candidate has chosen willingly. Yet we have no problem with eliminating half the field on that criterion alone.
It’s not only the qualifications of the person that’s taken into account, but also the needs of the Court. Fulfilling those needs gives the Court more weight with citizens, ergo validity.
You contrarian fuck-heads don’t (or can’t) get this…..
I wouldn’t use the GHB defense with conservatives on the empathy statement. He gave us her in the first place not to mention Souter. They would say, my point exactly. His over judicial appointment record was positive but he had some real zingers.
I agree with Geezer on this one. The best qualified myth is just that. You could search the nation for a year to find the best qualified person and then you would find that everyone doesn’t agree with you.
The question is are you highly qualified or not? There are many objectives which must be taken into account. Representation of different perspectives is a valid one.