# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/101 "2009-07-31T01:14:12Z")
It’s hardly surprising so many people would have doubts about her, given how ferociously and unrelentingly she was attacked from the git-go by massed choirs of Republican politicians and right-wing pundits. ---
**Author:** ![nameless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/779978/32.png) [@nameless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nameless)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/102 "2009-07-31T01:20:26Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > Or, they could be acknowledging that she’s not overwhelmingly popular with the American people. [CNN conducted a poll](http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/10/sotomayor.poll/index.html) a couple of weeks ago that showed that “almost” half of people (47%) of people like her, 40% don’t, and the rest are unsure if they like her or not. In the face of such overwhelming love, you’re surely right that they’d draw people in if they supported her. Or not. Meaningless. Sotomayor polls well for a presumptive Supreme Court nominee. From [here](http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/roberts-sotomayor-alito.html). > [@Nate Silver](#): > > By this very rudimentary analysis, Sotomayor rates as a slightly more popular selection than Samuel Alito and Harriet Miers, and slightly less popular than John Roberts. > > Still, the differences are small across – just barely on the fringes of statistical significance – the board. In certain ways, it’s disappointing to see that the public wasn’t better able to distinguish Roberts, who objectively speaking was a strong nominee, from Miers, who, um, wasn’t. It seems like 80 percent of the public is making a snap judgment on the basis of partisanship (which should, of course, be helping Sotomayor because of the Democratic plurality right now) whereas only a small fraction are actually looking at the nominee’s credentials. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/103 "2009-07-31T14:58:28Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > Or, they could be acknowledging that she’s not overwhelmingly popular with the American people. [CNN conducted a poll](http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/10/sotomayor.poll/index.html) a couple of weeks ago that showed that “almost” half of people (47%) of people like her, 40% don’t, and the rest are unsure if they like her or not. In the face of such overwhelming love, you’re surely right that they’d draw people in if they supported her. Or not. Her popularity is irrelevent. I would seriously doubt that even a tenth of those 40% have read even one of her decisions. Like **EddyTeddyFreddy** said, I would consider that more the fault of the GOP for attacking her non-stop as soon as her name was announced. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/104 "2009-08-04T15:13:56Z")
Brief update: [McCain says he will vote “No” on Sotomayor](http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-criticizes-mccains-sotomayor-vote-2009-08-04.html): [QUOTE=Senator McCain] There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor has the professional background and qualifications that one hopes for in a Supreme Court nominee. However, an excellent resume and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one for a lifetime of service on the Supreme Court. [/QUOTE] Can we get this vote over with already? What’s the hold-up? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/105 "2009-08-04T16:11:19Z")
> [@ShadowFacts](#): > > Brief update: [McCain says he will vote “No” on Sotomayor](http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-criticizes-mccains-sotomayor-vote-2009-08-04.html): > Can we get this vote over with already? What’s the hold-up? At one time I actually had respect for him…☹ ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/106 "2009-08-04T18:25:52Z")
> [@ShadowFacts](#): > > Brief update: [McCain says he will vote “No” on Sotomayor](http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-criticizes-mccains-sotomayor-vote-2009-08-04.html): > Can we get this vote over with already? What’s the hold-up? The vote will be this week. The Senate has elaborate procedure rules, which are only suspended when both parties agree, and the Republicans refused to suspend the rules and allow expedited movement on the issue. Thus, after the hearings were over, they requested the full time allowed under the rules to consider the “evidence” before allowing a committee vote. The committee having reported out, the Republicans have requested the full time to prepare for the floor debate, and vote. The Democratic leadership decided to make the vote on the nomination confirmation be the last piece of business before adjournment for the “summer” recess. IOW, politics as usual. 😛 At a guess, she’s gonna be confirmed about 65 - 35. I am proud to say that one of the votes in favor is going to be Sen. Lindsey Graham, R - SC. Sen. DeMint has already said he’ll vote no, but that’s no great shock; there aren’t too many senators to the “right” of Jim DeMint. But the fact that Sen. Graham has seen his way clear to ignoring the partisanship of the issue and confirm her in the absence of clear indication she’s not qualified is a good thing. Might make me think twice about the man. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/107 "2009-08-04T19:45:18Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > The vote will be this week. The Senate has elaborate procedure rules, which are only suspended when both parties agree, and the Republicans refused to suspend the rules and allow expedited movement on the issue. Thus, after the hearings were over, they requested the full time allowed under the rules to consider the “evidence” before allowing a committee vote. The committee having reported out, the Republicans have requested the full time to prepare for the floor debate, and vote. The Democratic leadership decided to make the vote on the nomination confirmation be the last piece of business before adjournment for the “summer” recess. > > IOW, politics as usual. 😛 What do the Republicans in the Senate gain from these delaying tactics? Are they feverishly searching for some big scandal that might tank her? Are they just being obstructionist for the sake of it? And, to be fair, are any of them seriously using the time to evaluate her testimony and reach a conclusion? Is this SOP for SC nominees? I have been under the assumption that everyone has pretty much made up their mind at this point, but maybe I’m wrong. ---
**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:** [August 4, 2009, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/108 "2009-08-04T19:53:20Z")
They’re playing to their constituents. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/109 "2009-08-04T19:55:03Z")
They’re also trying to show they’re relevant. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/110 "2009-08-04T20:00:27Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > They’re playing to their constituents. And narrowing the field of said constituents down even more. This is a nomination that they can’t even filibuster at this point, and they’re going to further alienate the second largest minority in the country in order to score points with their fringe-a-wacko base. ---
**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:** [August 4, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/111 "2009-08-04T20:14:50Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > And narrowing the field of said constituents down even more. This is a nomination that they can’t even filibuster at this point, and they’re going to further alienate the second largest minority in the country in order to score points with their fringe-a-wacko base. True, but the fringe-a-wacko base controls the primaries. These guys are all guarding their right flanks. If the current elected Republicans don’t play themselves as sufficiently crazy and anti-Obama, somebody else will. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/112 "2009-08-04T22:37:15Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > They’re playing to their constituents. Some of them are but most of America is for her nomination. Many are toeing the conservative party line even if it goes against their constituents. They don’t have the balls to face Fox News or Rush Limbaugh if they step out of line. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/113 "2009-08-04T22:54:59Z")
But she voted to ban nunchucks! That is a clear volition of our 2nd Amendment right to bear funny-sounding weapons. That makes her just like Hitler! ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/114 "2009-08-06T16:24:45Z")
Via Andrew Sullivan: > [@](#): > > “In an effort to honor the life and service of Strom Thurmond, Senator Lott made some comments that he probably wishes he had phrased differently. I do not believe Senator Lott meant to be malicious or racist with the comments he made. I believe he was merely honoring a great American on his 100th birthday […] I do not believe he harbors racist sentiments in his heart,” - Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), December 13, 2002. > [@](#): > > “There is no other way you can interpret [Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” speech]. She thinks that a woman with her experience can make a better conclusion than a white male – and to me, I consider that racist,” - Inhofe, August 4, 2009. In other words, IOKIARDI. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/115 "2009-08-06T17:27:53Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > Via Andrew Sullivan:In other words, IOKIARDI. Not necessarily. Lott said that if Strom had been elected, the country would have been better off. That’s not an explicit endorsement every single one of Strom’s policies; it’s a general belief that, on balance, the country would have been better. Lott is not, then, explicitly endorsing Strom’s racist beliefs. The “wise Latina” remark, on the other hand, if believed to be intended to be taken literally, is an explicitly racist claim. Now, I’ve already said many times I favor Sotomayor’s confirmation, and I don’t believe her remark was intended to be taken as a literal endorsement… but you cannot credibly claim Inhofe’s words refer to the same thing in both cases. In other words, your argument stinks like yesterday’s diapers. ---
**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:** [August 6, 2009, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/116 "2009-08-06T17:40:08Z")
But Sotomayor never said what Inhoffe claims she said. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/117 "2009-08-06T17:52:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Lott said that if Strom had been elected, the country would have been better off. That’s not an explicit endorsement every single one of Strom’s policies; it’s a general belief that, on balance, the country would have been better. Lott is not, then, explicitly endorsing Strom’s racist beliefs. You’re conveniently ignoring that Thurmond’s _entire campaign_ in 1948 was based on preserving segregation. You might as well deny that a supporter of George Wallace in 1968 was not endorsing it, either. Please. > [@](#): > > The “wise Latina” remark, on the other hand, if believed to be intended to be taken literally, is an explicitly racist claim. The fuck? Do you even know what context is, or just enough to use or discard whatever it takes to make your case? [The whole text](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1), which you seem never to have encountered more than 2 words of. The money shot: > [@](#): > > Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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. > > Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown. > > However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage. THAT’s racist? > [@](#): > > In other words, your argument stinks like yesterday’s diapers. Try harder next time. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/118 "2009-08-06T18:05:39Z")
[Vote on Sotomayor’s nomination should be in about an hour.](http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/06/sonia.sotomayor/index.html) [Quote=CNN] Judge Sonia Sotomayor was expected to easily win Senate confirmation Thursday as two more Republican senators announced their support for the country’s first Hispanic high court pick. The final day of debate is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m., with a vote on her nomination scheduled for about 3 p.m. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/119 "2009-08-06T18:56:52Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > But Sotomayor never said what Inhoffe claims she said. Well, what she said was: _Second, 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._ If that statement is taken out of the context of her entire remarks, and one focuses myopically on that line, it can certainly be read to say, “Wise Latina rules better than white male.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490/120 "2009-08-06T18:59:25Z")
So ydo ou retract that assertion about it being an “explicitly racist claim” or not? :dubious: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-this-is-what-its-come-to-sotomayor-confirmation/504490.md?page=7)