- ‹ previous
- 1269 of 8902
- next ›
Why Grover Norquist Is Happy With Sotomayor
Yesterday, as the political and media world was processing President Barack Obama's nomination to the Supreme Court of federal appellate judge Sonia Sotomayor, I noted that his decision could split the right. Social conservatives immediately called a crusade against Sotomayor, but Senate Republicans and GOP chair Michael Steele were keeping their powder dry, obviously concerned about the political consequences of attacking the first Latina nominated to the highest court.
And more evidence of a possible split between the party's base and its leadership in Washington is emerging. I asked conservative strategist Grover Norquist if he believes the Sotomayor nomination would revive conservatives and become a rallying point for the right. "Is the organizer in you happy this happened?" I asked. Norquist emailed a reply: "Yes. Unifies the right. She said what conservatives fear liberals really think--on judges making the law, racial quotas, personal interests trumping the law." In other words, Sotomayor is the right's bogeywoman. And Norquist wants to see his side go after her.
Richard Viguerie, a founder of the modern conservative movement, also yearns for an anti-Sotomayor crusade. The day after her nomination was announced, he declared:
The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor unites all wings of the conservative movement--economic, foreign policy, social, traditional, neocon, and libertarian--in a way we haven't seen since the early Clinton years.
Judge Sotomayor frightens all conservatives. As the debate over her nomination heats up, conservatives will provide the primary opposition to Sotomayor and will quickly launch a massive educational campaign using direct mail, the Internet, talk radio, cable TV, You Tube, and other forms of new and alternative media.
Viguerie blasted Steele for not leading the charge against Sotomayor:
It was sad to read that Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele's comment on the Sotomayor nomination reflected the typical reaction Americans have come to expect from Republican politicians when he said that Republicans will reserve judgment on Sotomayor.
No wonder conservatives now look to talk show hosts and other unelected conservatives for leadership, rather then wet-finger Republican politicians who always seeming to be waiting to see the direction of the political winds.
Viguerie also expressed suspicion that the Senate Republicans may wimp out: "It remains to be seen how active and effective Republican politicians will be on this historic fight." The initial signs cannot be heartening for Viguerie and like-minded conservatives. Like Steele, Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who sits on the Senate judiciary committee, issued a statement calling for review, not opposition. He said, "It is imperative that my colleagues and members of the media do not pre-judge or pre-confirm Ms. Sotomayor."
Viguerie doesn't have the clout he once possessed, when he was the direct-mail king of the right. But his anger and disappointment, no doubt, are shared by other conservatives. The question is how many rightwingers do crave a campaign to annihilate Sotomayor--and what might satisfy them in terms of Senate Republican opposition. It's unlikely that the GOPers can amass the votes to block or filibuster the nomination. Might they , for appearances' sake, be able to mount some sort of obligatory (and ultimately unsuccessful) opposition that appeases their base but doesn't peeve Hispanic voters? That would require a political mastery that Senate Republicans have not demonstrated in years. Norquist's and Viguerie's conservative comrades may well indeed unite against Sotomayor, but unless new anti-Sotomayor ammo appears, they are likely to end up disappointed by both the new Supreme Court justice and the Republican Party.
UPDATE: In a subsequent email, Norquist says that he's not worried about Senate Republicans turning tail on the Sotomayor nomination: "They are completely on message. They are avoiding the [Ted] Kennedy rush to the floor to denounce Bork before there is any national discussion. Knowing what we have on her on tape, her decisions, and her rate of being overturned and the quota decision that may be overturned before she gets voted on….the news for her just gets worse. Why announce opposition now? Just stay neutral. If she looks worse overtime there is plenty of time to decide to vote no. Also, let the other team make their case. I want many Dems out on the limb for quotas and ending the Second Amendment. Don’t underestimate the gun issue aspect of this."
You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.






























Norquist
Why the hell does Norquist get 1 minute of airtime? I hear even Republicans avoid him at parties. I hear better arguments from crazy homeless passing on the street.
This is getting old...
Every time a new issue comes up we get the same scenario: 1) Extremists on the right begin absurd, meaningless and hyperbolic rhetorical attacks. 2) A few in their party refuse--lack the energy?--to jump on the big fat Kabuki Theater bus, preferring to maintain some dignity. 3) The harpies, shrews and nags who think they run things in the "new republican party" begin harassing those folks until they finally release a barely feigned agreement or apology.
Why, oh why, oh why can't we all just ignore them in hopes they will finally go away?
Sotomayor is Bad News--Period!!!
Read Sotomayer's Dissenting Opinions:
+ Kelsey v. County of Schoharie:
Sotomayor’s Dissenting Opinion = requiring a newly admitted jail inmate to disrobe in front of a corrections officer = strip search violation of the Fourth Amendment (and any reasonably intelligent corrections officer should know this)
+ USA v. Juan Vincent Gomez Castrillon:
Sotomayor’s Dissenting Opinion = money laundering conviction should be vacated = evidence didn’t amount to guilty beyond a reason doubt = defendant drove $500,000 to meeting with agent / defendant was lookout / defendant had $6,000.
+ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.:
Sotomayor’s Dissenting Opinion = Trucking Company shouldn’t have rejected job applicants on medication that might impair driving ability = truck driving is a broad class of jobs (this though the employer only saw applicants as unfit to perform a certain job for which they were seeking applicants)
+ Thomas Pappas v. Mayor and Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New York:
Sotomayor’s Dissent Opinion = Police Officer kept receiving letters asking for contributions, so he anonymously returned racially bigoted materials = he was fired = majority opinion—“For a New York City police officer to disseminate leaflets that trumpet bigoted messages expressing hostility to Jews, ridiculing African Americans and attributing to them a criminal disposition to rape, robbery, and murder, tends to promote the view among New York citizenry that those are the opinions of New York’s police officers.… In the words of Justice Holmes,‘A policeman may have a constitutional right to [speak his mind], but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.’”= dissent opinion—where an employee serves no supervisory role, the danger to an agency’s successful functioning is minimal = also the “statements” were made while off-duty = also anonymous nature—“… the Department should have swept the matter under the rug hoping no one would ever learn the facts; and if it chose instead to bring charges against Pappas, it has only itself to blame for the resulting harm to its reputation …”
+ S.H. Croll v. M.Y.Croll:
Sotomayor’s Dissenting Opinion = married couple (US Citizens) residing in Hong Kong got divorced and the Hong Kong Court decreed that the child can not be taken from Hong Kong without both parents consent = mother took the child to US = majority decision—child cannot be returned to father in Hong Kong = Dissent Opinion—child can be returned to Hong Kong.
+ L.N. Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda:
Sotomayor’s Dissenting Opinion = Burmuda should be recognized as an independent state—rather than a British Overseas Territory.
+ USA v. J. Gori:
Sotomayor’s Dissent = as officers listened in, a busted drug dealer called his source = when source was busted with kilo of cocaine = he said someone in apartment 1M had given him the cocaine = cops went into the lobby pending further instructions = when pizza delivery came to apartment = cops were afraid of being exposed = cops stood on either side of delivery guy = when door opened cops ordered everybody into the hall = guy consents to search of apartment = busted for cocaine…= majority opinion—quotes Katz (389 US at 351)“A suspect in her open doorway becomes ‘as exposed to public view, speech, hearing, and touch as if she had been standing completely outside her home.”= dissent opinion—“’[t]he right of the people to be secure in their … houses …’”=“…the Fourth Amendment has drawn a fine line at the entrance to the house.”
Michael's copying and pasting
Don't anyone bother too much digging through Michael's posts. He copying and pasting this same stuff on multiple threads.
http://www.ravensblog.net
Judge Sotomayor
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees. - 14.05.09 NY Times
A white male is capable of understanding a person of color, naturally, provided his worldview is liberal. That has always been the prevailing Democratic orthodoxy. Now, imagine switching around "wise Latina woman" (which is redundant, of course, as the suffix 'a' implies that the person in question is a woman) and "white male" and imagine the fall out. A white man making such a statement would be pilloried. Of far greater importance than Judge Sotomayor's verbal misstep lies the fact that she seems to fall in so well with Barack Obama's notions of empathy. It is beyond troubling that a former law professor, now in position to nominate jurists to our nation's highest tribunal, cannot grasp the concept that a judge's role in adjudication requires that he or she judge a case by the facts, dispassionately, and without regard to the race, creed, color, sex or religion of its litigants. Equal justice means that a wealthy white Protestant man and an impoverished Catholic Hispanic woman receive equal treatment before the law, and in the midst of one another - nothing more, nothing less. Is that really that difficult of a concept to comprehend? Equally distressing is Judge Sotomayor's support of affirmative action, a viciously bigoted and intellectually feeble piece of outdated and unproven social engineering if there ever was one. Perhaps the most sickening and distressing aspect of the upcoming nomination process is that those in opposition may not dare criticize Judge Sotomayor without coming under fire due to her sex and ethnicity.
Sotomayor is no more a latin
Sotomayor is no more a latin than the man on the moon,she is a Portugese jew.
i believe she is Catholic
i believe she is Catholic
so what?
so what?
Sotomayor Nomination
This whole thing reminds me of a WWF wrestling melodrama (including David Korn's melodramatic hyperbolic prose). By next week the Minnesota Supreme Court should finally end Norm Coleman's obstructionist blocking of Senator-elect Al Franken's 6 month old victory. Along with new caucus member Arlen Spector, Al will make the 60 vote fillibuster-blocking majority that the Democrats need to work their will.
At this point, (when Franken finally makes the fiillibuster-proof majority) it will be time for both the White House and the Democratic super-majorities in both houses of Congress to either put up or just shut up.
cool
waiting for the outcome.
sotomayor
Really, can't people just do their own research. I haven't found anything reliable that makes Sotomayor a bad choice. She is certainly qualified and even though I don't agree with all of her decisions, I have to say that I don't know her reasoning. She may have valid points.
Sotomayor is no more a latin
Sotomayor is no more a latin than the man on the moon,she is a Portugese jew.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, she is Puerto Rican and a Roman Catholic. Cordozo, a former Supreme Court justice was the Portuguese Jew. It has been contended that he was the first Hispanic but Hispanic generally appears to refer to those in the New World who are of Spanish descent such as Mexicans and other Central Americans, Puerto Ricans and others from the Islands and South Americans but not Brazilians.
thank you for this nice
thank you for this nice article..thanx more
شات مجلة حواء مسجات منتديات عالم حواء العاب بنات العاب