Future Nominations Are at Stake in Hearings - ugh

[scentopine]

I don't think anyone posted a remark about this... if so apologies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/us/politics/16assess.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

"By forcing Judge Sotomayor to retreat from Mr. Obama’s desire for justices with “empathy,” Republicans have effectively set a new standard that future nominees will be pressed to meet. The Republicans hope their aggressive questioning of Judge Sotomayor on race discrimination, gun control and the death penalty will make it harder for Mr. Obama to choose a more outspoken liberal in the future.

Liberal activists, by contrast, hope the hearings demonstrate that a Democratic president has nothing to fear from Republicans who have not rattled Judge Sotomayor. If she is confirmed by a commanding vote that includes a number of Republicans, the activists argue, they will have given Mr. Obama more political running room next time to name a more full-throated champion of liberal values."

What bugs me about this article is the sentiment that

1 - there are two political parties republicans and liberal activists

2 - that republicans are projected as the the party in power and the main party in these proceedings and all negotiations revolve around them

3 - Souter is called a liberal.

Argh - this is a classic case of making things up in order create horse race tension. On the other hand, democrats are still behaving like they are in the minority party and its easy to see how this reporter would take advantage of that fact.

Sotomayor is about as centrist and uncontroversial as they come. And a gift to republicans who obviously are obligated to bloviate about liberals but privately they believe they dodged a bullet. If we had real power, we'd pull an Alito or Scalia while Obamas public approval allows him to afford some popular risk.

As long as we continue to sacrifice our principals, sacrifice our freedoms and accommodate mediocrity from our party leadership the republicans will always have undeserved influence. It doesn't make them right - just damn effective in controlling public policy. Apathetic voters will never come to understand that a real democratic change can be good because we quickly negotiate change out of the deal in favor of small tweaks to the status quo - we make a lot of noise, produce a few whiffs of smoke, not much else.

As unemployment approaches 11% and Goldman Sachs average pay approaches $500K per employee we'll keep hoping for change. When republicans regain power I assure all the willing capitulators at the leadership of our party, that they will be ruthless and we'll wonder why we didn't do more when we had the chance.

But I digress... argh.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. Bullshit -

these "hearings" are nothing more than chances for the opposition party to make political points with the folks back home. Before TV, there were no hearings, and there is no Constitutional requirement for these dog-and-pony shows.

Sotomayor hasn't changed a thing about how he views the law, she's been perfectly rehearsed for this nonsense, and it's simply a latter-day hurdle over which she's flying.

Obama's getting his woman on the Court, and the next nominee will do the same dance, but nothing in the nominee's judicial temperament will ever change, don't worry.

That article is nonsense..........................

[Spazito]

2. Wow, what a crock that article is...

All quotes from conservatives' opinions on how they viewed the hearings, nothing slanted there :sarcasm:

It is quite the opposite which is why the need for this kind of crap to be spread. Sotomayor walked out of there without the repubs and their henchmen laying a glove on her.

The republicans came off like the racist scum they are and that's a good thing.

[scentopine]

3. and the irony is...

That this article discusses Sotomayor talking to American people as children and they present this to us in an piece of watery pablum.

Message to New York Times - "Republican Activist Supreme Court" try that word combination once and a while. Have you seen many liberal activists lately? Huh? Really? Where? - oh you mean the ones simply asking for justice for torture, or access to real health care, or demanding investigation not amnesty for wall street? Oh - that makes us liberal activists? I thought that made us America citizens. How about Dick Cheney or Scalia or Alito - why aren't they considered republican activist judges and other Dicks? They certainly are more active than most liberals these days. Yet they are "republicans" and we are liberal activists in the margins.

Argh.