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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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, which you seem never to have encountered more than 2 words of. The money shot:
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.”
