The Talk Radio Card

Can Sonia Sotomayor’s US Supreme Court nomination be propped up until September by utilizing a talk radio-bashing strategy? At the Radio Equalizer, see why I believe this approach won’t be enough to avoid a public vetting of her record. You might recognize a name or two in the piece.

Advertisements

40 thoughts on “The Talk Radio Card

  1. Below is the context of her comments, which is not nearly as alarmist as Rush, Sean and Newt would have us believe. While the reactionary sturm and drang may be good for Rush and Hannity’s ratings, they are not helping the party. They are fomenting the Republicans’ reputation as a party of exclusion. There is a well known media strategy that says in a nutshell that it is easier to get someone who listens two days a week to listen for three or four than it is to get a new listener. Talk radio can make a lot of hay now with the base, but as long as they stay on the low road and there are no strong Republican voices to act as a counterpoint, they play right into Obama’s hands. Rush as the head of the party is a winning strategy for the Dems.

    …Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.

    “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

    Her remarks came in the context of reflecting her own life experiences as a Hispanic female judge and on how the increasing diversity on the federal bench “will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”

    In making her argument, Judge Sotomayor sounded many cautionary notes. She said there was no uniform perspective that all women or members of a minority group have, and emphasized that she was not talking about any individual case.

    She also noted that the Supreme Court was uniformly white and male when it delivered historic rulings against racial and sexual discrimination. And she said she tried to question her own “opinions, sympathies and prejudices,” and aspired to impartiality.

    Still, Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality “is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.” She added, “And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

    She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives.”

    “Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” she said.

  2. How many times have her decisions been overturned? She’s a member of LaRazza?

    I hope that radio makes ALL of her history known.

  3. We are swapping one prog for another… what’s the biggie?

    It’s not like Scalia is leaving and being replaced with Sotomayor.

    The balance of the court will remain the same, with Kennedy being the swing vote on lots of issues.

  4. The big deal is this:

    Presently the court is broken. It has justices like ginsberg and others that believe you can legislate from it. You have justices that read foreign law into our law when it’s clearly not there, nor is there any provision for it to be there.

    The idea is to fix the court and place a justice that knows, understands, and has likely read OUR laws and knows who is supposed to make them. Sorry this La Raza, card caring, racist is NOT fit to be a judge, much less be a judge on the highest court in the country.

    The idea of balance on the court is ludicrous. What ever happened to the idea of picking the best person for the job regardless of ethnic background? Wouldn’t that provide for a truly colorblind society?

  5. By all means, examine her rulings, discuss them, debate them, etc.

    Stay out of the whole “reverse racism” quagmire. The Karl Rove playbook isn’t working in this environment and the neo-con tenets of fear and loathing do a disservice to the party.

    Here’s a link for some info on La Raza if you’d like to check it out.

    http://www.nclr.org/content/viewpoints/detail/42500/

  6. I see “Truth in Media” has most of the buzzwords flying today. The only ones you’re missing are “Haliburton”, “Dick Cheney” and “Bush lied!”

  7. bjd:

    “The idea of balance on the court is ludicrous.” Ludicrous? Really? Can I wager a guess that you are a white man? I guess when the Framers were establishing the checks and balances of our three branches of government they were wasting their time, right? Who needs balance?

    “What ever happened to the idea of picking the best person for the job?”

    There are a variety of factors which contribute to making a decision for who is the “best” person for a job. Life experience is certainly one I consider important for any justice. Gender and race are important as well.

    The Supreme Court has always been dominated by white men. Currently there is only one woman – ONE – on the court. And never a Hispanic. I’m as pleased as punch with the nomination.

    How ironic now to hear the real racists calling SS a “racist”.

  8. now I’ve heard it all…..Magpie regrets being a cheerleader……oh, how different her life would have been if she was not shaking her pom poms, oh so many years ago down in new bedford.

    yeah, right, Mag. Your real regret is that you’ve gotten too old to be a cheerleader. Maybe you can “play” cheerleader for Jim?

    Now there’s a pic I’d pay to see on the web. Telephoto lens anyone?

  9. piratetoby:

    Your ethic assessment of me makes me wonder what “racists” ideas you harbor. Suffice to say I think you’d be very surprised of my background. A true colorblind society is one that places / makes NO determination of ANY kind, good or bad, on the basis of race. If only 1 Hispanic passes the the test to advance in the fire department, then so be it. To say that since no Blacks passed, and only 1 Hispanic passed we’re not going to promote anybody is racists. No other way to call it.

    “Ludicrous? Really?”

    What do you need glasses??? Maybe a dictionary??? You don’t understand big words like that? YES, it’s is absolutely LUDICROUS!!!

    The court is an of itself balance, to the other 2 branches of government. So by your ideas are we supposed to have judges “balanced” between those that want to write / make law from the bench and those that wanting to add into our laws FOREIGN laws not part of our system that did not come from the legislators, with judges that know and understand US law and fulfill their obligation correctly?

    I would suggest to you that you review some grade school history on the United States and its government. Learn how many branches of government we have and what their duties are. Then after you understand the schoolhouse rock episode “I’m just a Bill”, you won’t look like an ass when you post here.

    Identity politics is killing this country.

  10. bjd:

    Don’t need glasses, know the definition of ludicrous, and have gone well beyond grade school history with a Masters in Public Administration.

    Your original comment on “balance”:

    “The idea of balance on the court is ludicrous. What ever happened to the idea of picking the best person for the job regardless of ethnic background? Wouldn’t that provide for a truly colorblind society?”

    I responded to your premise of balance in regards to ethnicity. You respond w/:

    “So by your ideas are we supposed to have judges “balanced” between those that want to write / make law from the bench and those that wanting to add into our laws FOREIGN laws not part of our system that did not come from the legislators, with judges that know and understand US law and fulfill their obligation correctly?”

    How does anything I’ve written lead you to this conclusion? On my “ideas”? Rather than challenge my post on balance, you’ve changed your original “ balance” premise (based on ethnicity) and come back with an argument of balance based on ideology.

    And I look like the ass?

  11. No Truth in Media, Your MediaMatters/DNC?Think Progress/Move.on/White House Talking points and Smear the questioner tactics aren’t working. The truth is that Sotomayor is not even fit for the bench she is on.

  12. I reiterate:

    Her appointment will have done nothing to alter the current SC breakdown /decision on 99.99% of cases. No big deal.

    If Bar-O gets to replace a conservative jurist, then you can commence to whining.

    It really is that simple.

  13. It is a simple truth that one who views the world through the lens of race and makes broad sweeping generalizations based on race is in plain point-of-fact, a racist – their left or right leanings not withstanding.

    The best test is to take the statement or position in question and plug in a different race, gender, religion or national origin and see whether the statement is any more or less acceptable to you.

    If your opinion of that statement or position then changes you are a racist.

    For example, when you hear the term “BLACK POWER!” (accompanied by a raised, clenched fist) Do you feel empowered / aggressive / outraged / threatened?

    How about when you hear “WHITE POWER!” (also accompanied by a raised, clenched fist) ?

    Does your opinion change?

    If so, you’ve got some soul searching to do. Unless you already know that you’re a racist.

    This was Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream. To live in a society where people are judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.

    It was a noble goal then and is illustrative of an undeniable, fundamental good then, and it is now.

  14. Softy, I agree. I can’t be bothered responding to anything else on this nomination. I have gotten just sick to death of all the constant bitching and whining. Not just here. Everywhere.

  15. piratetoby:

    My guess is your education is from a public school.

    Your post:

    “There are a variety of factors which contribute to making a decision for who is the “best” person for a job. Life experience is certainly one I consider important for any justice. Gender and race are important as well.”

    Exactly what does gender and race have to do with knowing the law? Do hispanic women get different laws from white men? Are their laws different from blacks? They are there NOT to make laws, but to know OUR laws. If we apply the laws differently to different people then the courts might need “balance”.

    We have 1 set of laws for ALL people, no matter what race, color, creed, or sex. The idea that they can be applied differently to different people goes against the very fiber of this nation. So are you saying “… dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” doesn’t apply because a Justice didn’t have the same experiences as you did?

    If you needed a difficult medical procedure, are you going to base you doctor choice on what life experiences that doctor had? Will your choice be made on gender? You can do that, I’ll find the best person for the job for me. Let me know how that works out for you.

    The idea that “balance” must be on the court is ludicrous. The court IS balance to the other branches of government. The court must know the law, their duties, and to see that the law is applied fairly. How it matters that a judge had this experience or that is irrelevant. My point is that a potential justice that is a member of La Raza, is overturned half of the time, and said policy is made in the appellate court, just to name a few, is not fit to serve as a judge, never mind a Supreme Court Justice. This is ALL about ideology and has never been about race. Hence the statement:

    Balance on the court is ludicrous.

    Yes, you do look like an ass.

  16. It is quite funny watching ugly Eagan sticking up for ugly Sotomayor with the same zeal and relish that she has in attacking someone genuinely appealing and attractive (Palin). I guess it says as much about Eagan as it does about Sotomayor.

  17. bjd – You should know that knowing the law is just one part of Supreme Court choices. They have long been political. Also, think about this, was Chief Justice Robert Taney’s decisions on Dred Scott political in any way or was he just looking cooly at the law and nothing but the law? Any study of American history reveals the court as certainly very much a part of the society it represents and therefore is subject to the turning tides of its given era.

  18. Staffer,

    The lady is blindfolded for a reason. The court should see the facts, understand the law, and apply it the same to everybody.

    If the tides turn in an era, contact your law maker, not a judge, and have them do their job.

    There shouldn’t be any political choices to a position that lasts forever. The court is broken because of political picks. Because it has been done in the past, does not justify a reason to continue a flawed tradition.

  19. bjd – Have you studied the court leading up to the Civil War? Was it “blind” with Dred Scott? The court has long been used as a weapon in the executive branch’s arsenal. Just look at what FDR tried to do with the court to get his New Deal stuff through. The “law” has always been intrepreted. I mean, do you think the ruling on Plessy vs. Ferguson should still stand because the court in 1896 “saw the facts”. Of course not. The court made an interpretation that was wrong and it took over 50 years to change it but change came nonetheless. Do you also believe in such notions as “unbiased history”.

  20. Truth in Media: the comments must have been somewhat alarmist, because the Obamists this afternoon said Sotomayor made “a poor choice of words.”

    The comments are flat-out racist. More racist was her Ricci ruling, which will likely be overturned just in time for her confirmation hearings.

  21. Staffer,

    Yes- the court has “long been used as a weapon in the executive branch’s arsenal”, yet it continues to take a backseat to other issues during elections, relatively speaking. It certainly did in this past election.

    Why is the very same law interpreted differently? What is it that makes the difference? I say one’s perspective is directly related to one’s experience. Life experiences. Compassion can influence understanding/interpretation.

    Brilliance by any justice needs to be accompanied with a caring heart.

  22. I would add that one’s cultural lenses certainly influence decisions. Roger Taney (not Robert as I previously wrote), is a case example. He was a product of well to do slave owners in tobacco country. Now, do you think this had some influence on his interpretation? Of course it did.

  23. staffer:

    Because it has been done in the past, does not justify a reason to continue a flawed tradition. Why do we need to continue a with a pattern that is so obviously flawed?

  24. Wow, I guess the truth really hurts. I’m not responding to talking points, just giving the view of someone who has voted Republican a number of times in the past but feels pushed away from the party. I was 50/50 on McCain/Obama until McCain picked Palin and betrayed his own beliefs. The Republican position on social issues and their myopic execution of foreign policy lost me and many of my moderate bretheren. I voted for Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 in 2000 (but not 04). I am fairly liberal domestically but very conservative internationally so I am a vote that can be changed, but I’m so disillusioned by the Republicans because I feel like they no longer offer me a viable choice and the malfeasance of of the last eight years has all but forced this hard left turn.

    Toby has far more patience and time to debate this than I, but Staffer made a key point when he used the word “interpret”. The law is not binary code. I agree with BJD’s assertion that the world should be race neutral, but if a test is given and only white people pass, we need to at least look at the test to see if it accurately measures the requirements of the job or if it carries some sort of inadvertent bias.

    Our founding fathers were prescient in many ways but far from omnipotent. I know the masses are going to come down on me for this, but the world now bares little resemblance to the 18th century (hell, it barely resembles the 50’s), so limiting ourselves to doing things as they have always been done is a deterrent to future success.

    “Change” is scary, but necessary.

  25. “Change” means tolerating racist comments as long as they’re from acceptable sources?

    No thanks. You don’t eradicate racism by transferring it from one group to another.

  26. I guess some would rather re-hash “Scotto Bloggo” style talking points rather than really talk about a subject in depth (not you piratetoby…you’re on the ball).

  27. How can an informed, respectful discussion take place with people who call you an ass if you disagree with them? It’s unfortunate because this is the branch of government I’m most fascinated with. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with an opinion by a justice, I’m always curious to know how they came to their interpretation/conclusion. Do you think the justices call one another an ass if they disagree?

    Thanks for the compliment, Staffer. I don’t know how much on the ball I am, but I do know that I’m always curious, and always try to learn something in a disagreement/discussion.

  28. A little off topic but Joe of the “Joe and Huggy” is clearly flustered by one of his fellow gumba’s – named “Vito” – who just called in and told him to “grow a pair” and also called him a “pussy”. Awesome. I mean, it is pretty clear that Joe has become a big p.c. butt-kisser who is desperately trying to become some sort of national radio personality.

  29. Severin is going to be so obedient and careful upon his return. I predict his show will be a p.c. borefest. I mean, his show was pretty bad before this all went down.

  30. I’m of the glass half full variety, so I see reinstating Ms. Jay as a good thing. Gives us more opportunity to goof on him before he f’s up again and for good. You know he will. It’s in his nature.

  31. all I can say to all the comments and commentators is Does anyone care about the country or are we having dummies like all of you make stupid insincere remarks whether it be sotomayor or severin. You will learn that Islam will rule all of you. Women get your burkas ready

  32. Why did Rush Limbaugh have to predict Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court … ? Couldn’t he have predicted some body else ?!? “Talent on loan from God” …

  33. You are an ass if you believe that “rich experiences” will make a better justice. Being a justice is exactly the opposite. You need to remove your “rich experiences” to do it correctly.

    For example: you’re jumped by a gang of “same ethnic group punks” while waiting for a bus in New Orleans. You end up in a fight, you, your date, and 3 gang members end up at a hospital. A new fight starts at the hospital. Making a long story short, to “expedite things” no charges are filed as long as everybody goes home.

    Now, years later, you find yourself as a judge and oddly enough a case involving the very same ethnic group “youths” shows up in your court room. Do you rely on your “rich experiences” to determine anything about that case or do you follow the rule of law?

    Does it matter what ethnic group this gang is? Relying on your “rich experiences” means applying the law differently to different people. That is exactly what the court should NOT do. If you have a problem with how the law is written, or if it’s slanted to favor a particular group, CHANGE THE LAW WITH YOUR LAW MAKER! You are an ass if you believe differently.

  34. bjd:

    You are the ass is if think life experiences does not make one a better person, and therefore a better judge. Life experiences do not mean granting favor to the same ethnic background one belongs to. It does not mean applying the law differently to different people. It means one’s life is enriched by their experiences.

    When one is interpreting the law, their life experiences will combine with a variety of factors. including one’s interpretation of the Constitution, one’s language/vocabulary, cases cited, writing style. It DOES NOT allow an exemption of following the rule of the law.

    And, by the way, your “example” was ridiculous. A gang attacks two people, 5 people end up at the hospital and no charges get filed? Dumb ass scenario.

  35. Quoting Colonel Hunt:

    “pirate, you DUMB ASS”,

    Have you ever been to Mardi Gras? I went to the hospital with a broken nose (1). I drove one of the attackers into the bus stop sign, he needed stitches (2), my girlfriend nailed one of these assholes in the groin (3). She was cut from something. Went mostly because I was going, but had her hand cleaned out and looked at (4), the 5th was with them. (Maybe he didn’t have any other place to go, I don’t know nor do I care.)

    Classic case of “he did – they did”. Wasn’t living in New Orleans at the time, so pressing charges would have possibly required more trips down there then I had time for, especially when it’s the word against word and during Mardi Gras. Yeah, I guess that’s a rarity, a fight during Mardi Gras, imagine that. (Do you know the difference between English Law and French Common Law?)

    On the subject of life experiences, did you ever hear any of Thomas’s life experiences? Maybe that doesn’t apply because he doesn’t write law from the bench like your babe Sonya. Sonya by the way has been overturned 60% of the time. That translates to a grade of 40%. That’s a failing grade. She doesn’t belong on the court she’s on, much less a court that can’t be corrected by a higher one. (She needs that seeing how she gets so many things wrong.)

    The very essence of being a judge is being able to remove any / all “rich life experiences” from a decision. Hell she’s advertising that she will NOT exclude her “rich life experiences” from cases, she’s going to use those as a basis for her decision. Shouldn’t a judge use the law?

    If this is your idea of a qualified judge, you are a dumb ass. A shining example of why the education system needs to be fixed, and need to learn a lot more about US Government and where laws are made. Hint, policy is NOT made in the Appellate Court and should NEVER be made by someone that’s only correct 40% of the time if there is no other court that can correct her.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s