# So, this is what it's come to (Sotomayor confirmation) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 27, 2009, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490 "2009-07-27T22:57:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/41 "2009-07-28T18:03:14Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > This is one the Dems should have fought harder to defeat (I think). > > Alito is a bit further right than just a conservative. > > I guess it depends if we think the Senate should rubber stamp any judicial nomination as long as the candidate is on paper qualified or if the Senators can demand some ideological balance to the court. Remember in this case we were replacing the moderate but right-leaning Sandra Day O’Connor with someone a lot further to the right. > > The President should be given the benefit of the doubt. Nominating SCOTUS justices is a perk of the office and if “your side” (whatever it may be) is in then you get your guy/gal on the bench. However, if the proposed justice is seriously skewed in ideology as to be so wholly in one camp or the other I am not sure the other side just has to take it. Isn’t it part of the checks-and-balances of government to see that one person cannot just install whoever they want (as long as they have some minimum of experience on paper) regardless of anything else? Each side is meant to balance the extremes of the other…in theory. And yet, Justice Antonin Scalia, who is clearly even more extremist in his views than Justice Alito, was confirmed in a 98 - 0 vote! Hell, he was supported for nomination by Mario Cuomo! No one was buying a pig in a poke with him; everyone knew exactly where his viewpoint lay. But the Democrats didn’t take him on, didn’t fulminate about his extremist views and didn’t lie down on the floor of the Senate chamber kicking and screaming about how unfair it was that a CONSERVATIVE judge was going to be on the nation’s highest court. Amazingly, they looked at the situation, saw that he was a rational person, crossed their fingers, and hoped that he would be a good justice, even if he wasn’t going to be a liberal justice. Which is not to say that they didn’t have politicking going on behind the scenes, just that they didn’t make a public scene about it to pander to their demoralized fan base (it was 1986, remember :p). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/42 "2009-07-28T18:07:26Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > No, you are still missing the point I’m making: > > Bork and Thomas were aberrations. Until the Bush years, and then all hell broke loose. We’ve had three nominations now this decade, and all have been over-politicized. First Dems did it, now the Pubbies did it. Well, if your point is that the nominations went smoothly except when they didn’t, fine, but that is not much of a point. If you merely pointed out that liberal or centrist justices tend to be easily confirmed ([Breyer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer), [Ginsberg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg), [Souter](http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/05/01/cbs-early-show-david-souter-evolved-liberal-views)) while only those detectably right of center trigger nasty fights, then you would be on to something. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/43 "2009-07-28T18:08:12Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Which does nothing to explain 52-48 on Samuel Alito, who is relatively unassuming as justices go, though admittedly conservative. > > Face it: the Democrats got there firstest with the mostest on this particular method of demagoguery. This isn’t the first chance the Republicans had (see Ginsburg, Breyer) for acting in kind, and they eschewed doing so previously. So you cannot simply point your fingers at this and say: it’s all those stupid wing-pandering Pubbies! > > At least be honest intellectually about it. 😉 Was it that Close on Alito? Well I guess they were trying ride the wave of anti-Bush sentiment at the time. Same thing really. Still about their own personal hides, not about sincere ideology or party (though I will say that Alito had some genuinely sketchy issues). As for Ginsberg and Breyer. That was a different time. I’m not saying the Republicans have _always_ been this much under the thumb of their base, only that they are right NOW more than they ever gave been. They hated Clinton, but Obama is making them positively hysterical. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/44 "2009-07-28T18:17:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, if your point is that the nominations went smoothly except when they didn’t, fine, but that is not much of a point. > > If you merely pointed out that liberal or centrist justices tend to be easily confirmed ([Breyer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer), [Ginsberg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg), [Souter](http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/05/01/cbs-early-show-david-souter-evolved-liberal-views)) while only those detectably right of center trigger nasty fights, then you would be on to something. > > Regards, > Shodan Boy, you really don’t want to accept the truth of what I’m saying, do you? :rolleyes: Assertion: Bork politicized nominations; Sotomayor’s hearings are a continuation of that process. Facts as I’ve pointed out: Not true; Bork was followed by several appointments, both Democratic and Republican, which followed the previous pattern best exemplified by the justice nominated prior to Bork, Antonin Scalia. It wasn’t until the polarized era of the Bush administration that the Dems decided that the political gloves needed to come off regardless of who was up for nomination. Clear now? ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/45 "2009-07-28T18:23:23Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Was it that Close on Alito? Well I guess they were trying ride the wave of anti-Bush sentiment at the time. Same thing really. Still about their own personal hides, not about sincere ideology or party (though I will say that Alito had some genuinely sketchy issues). > > As for Ginsberg and Breyer. That was a different time. I’m not saying the Republicans have _always_ been this much under the thumb of their base, only that they are right NOW more than they ever gave been. They hated Clinton, but Obama is making them positively hysterical. I’m not sure it’s Obama that’s making them hysterical; I think it’s the lack of control over the direction of the discourse. At least with Clinton, they still had a feeling of being close, and indeed, they demonstrated that by regaining control of the House in '94. Now, the discourse is going in a direction they increasingly cannot control, and they don’t understand that, and it scares them. And we can discuss why that is, but that’s another thread. But I think you are right that the change that occurred during the Bush era, as demonstrated by the fight over both Alito and Roberts (who was confirmed 78 - 22, Democrats splitting evenly, and reported out of committee by 13 - 5, with even relatively moderate Sen. DiFi voting against) has to do with politics and pandering, rather than with true devotion to the concept of “advice and consent.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/46 "2009-07-28T18:33:52Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > the change that occurred during the Bush era If you’re going to stick with that line anyway, then here it comes: _Cite?_ ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/47 "2009-07-28T18:40:42Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Boy, you really don’t want to accept the truth of what I’m saying, do you? :rolleyes: > > Assertion: Bork politicized nominations; Sotomayor’s hearings are a continuation of that process. > > Facts as I’ve pointed out: Not true; Bork was followed by several appointments, both Democratic and Republican, which followed the previous pattern best exemplified by the justice nominated prior to Bork, Antonin Scalia. It wasn’t until the polarized era of the Bush administration that the Dems decided that the political gloves needed to come off regardless of who was up for nomination. > > Clear now? But – but – but that doesn’t make the Democrats WRONG! What’s the matter with you ? Why don’t you want to make the Democrats WRONG? Are you a Usual Suspect or something? Regards, **kaylasdad99** P.S. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/48 "2009-07-28T18:54:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If you merely pointed out that liberal or centrist justices tend to be easily confirmed ([Breyer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer), [Ginsberg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg), [Souter](http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/05/01/cbs-early-show-david-souter-evolved-liberal-views)) while only those detectably right of center trigger nasty fights, then you would be on to something. Remember Souter was a Bush I nomination and not thought to be a lefty at the time. He became moderate (and hence a lefty in conservative eyes) only once on the court. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/49 "2009-07-28T18:58:20Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If you’re going to stick with that line anyway, then here it comes: > > _Cite?_ You have GOT to be kidding. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/50 "2009-07-28T18:59:26Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > But – but – but that doesn’t make the Democrats WRONG! What’s the matter with you ? Why don’t you want to make the Democrats WRONG? Are you a Usual Suspect or something? > > Regards, > > **kaylasdad99** > > P.S. :rolleyes: Democrats can be **wrong**? :eek: When did the Republicans manage to legislate THAT into place??? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/51 "2009-07-28T19:14:08Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > You have GOT to be kidding. 😛 Absolutely not. I already pointed out the brick wall the GOP put in place against Clinton’s federal judge nominees. You ignored that, and repeated again that foolish assertion that “it” didn’t start until Bush. Did you perhaps mean GHWB instead? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/52 "2009-07-28T19:16:20Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Boy, you really don’t want to accept the truth of what I’m saying, do you? :rolleyes: > > Assertion: Bork politicized nominations; Sotomayor’s hearings are a continuation of that process. > > Facts as I’ve pointed out: Not true; Bork was followed by several appointments, both Democratic and Republican, which followed the previous pattern best exemplified by the justice nominated prior to Bork, Antonin Scalia. It wasn’t until the polarized era of the Bush administration that the Dems decided that the political gloves needed to come off regardless of who was up for nomination. > > Clear now? Except for Thomas. IOW, Bork began the process of opposition to conservative justices. You keep trying to cherry-pick the ones you want to consider. Bork did not begin a process of politicizing the confirmation process. He began the tradition where Dems oppose anyone who is right of center. IOW, the only times it doesn’t go smoothly is when the Dems pitch a tantrum. Exactly as I said. FWIW, you are generally correct that, up unti Bork, the Senate generally vote based on judicial qualifications. After Bork, they did not. Not conservative = no fuss. Conservative = fuss. This has happened fairly consistently from Bork to now. Not to mention the rather silly implication that merely not voting for a nominee like Sotomayor is at all comparable to Sen. Simon (and Nina Totenberg) forcing Anita Hill to go public with her lies as an attempt to torpedo a nomination based on political disagreement. Or, as mentioned, the kind of extremist rhetoric that Kennedy and Kerry used. The notion that everything was fine until Bush is wrong. Everything was fine until Bork. Then the process of confirming conservative Justices was sidetracked. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/53 "2009-07-29T00:00:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The notion that everything was fine until Bush is wrong. Everything was fine until Bork. Then the process of confirming conservative Justices was sidetracked. Or, at the appellate level, non-right-wing justices once the Republicans took the Senate early in the Clinton era. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/54 "2009-07-29T01:29:49Z")
Personally, I think Bork disqualified himself by agreeing to be Nixon’s hatchet man. If those were his principles, I’d prefer them off the court. I also believe Anita Hill and that Thomas was a sexual harasser. For those two, politics had squat to do with my objections. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/55 "2009-07-29T02:10:41Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > So it’s finally come to this: in the process of advising and consenting, the Sentate has decided that the litmus test for approval of a justice to our Supreme Court is not the way in which the judge under consideration handles his/her duties as a judge (professionalism and judicial demeanor). Instead, it’s all about the politics, now. Who cares if they are rational, calm, decorous persons? Who cares if they are relatively moderate? It doesn’t matter. If you don’t agree with their politics, if you don’t think they will decide cases the way you would want them to, they don’t belong on the Court. The Demos started this with Bork. As far as I’m concerned, they opened the can of worms. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/56 "2009-07-29T15:12:35Z")
That’s an absolute article of faith for a certain contingent, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/57 "2009-07-29T15:17:32Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > The Demos started this with Bork. As far as I’m concerned, they opened the can of worms. OK, let’s agree for this discussion’s sake that this is true. How does it get reversed? Or is it that, once the Democrats did it, the Republicans are obligated to continue the process forever? ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/58 "2009-07-29T15:18:51Z")
Well for one thing it doesn’t have to end with a change on the Senate side; presidents could also contribute by nominating less polarizing judges. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/59 "2009-07-29T15:24:08Z")
You couldn’t get any less polarizing than Sotomayor. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2009, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/60 "2009-07-29T15:38:27Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Well for one thing it doesn’t have to end with a change on the Senate side; presidents could also contribute by nominating less polarizing judges. Yes, but seriously – political theater aside, what is the principled measure by which Sotomayor is polarizing? Honestly? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490.md?page=4)