It wasn’t just the Dems. The Republicans felt the need to preface most of their statements with paeans to her upbringing before citing their various reservations. “Almost to the point of head-patting condescension” is very apt here, however.
And yes, a whoosh indeed.
OK, thats . . . WTF?!! 
Oh, c’mon! Surely you’ve heard o’ them self-hating Negroes?
One of the failed Ben & Jerry flavors, actually…Peachy Placenta.
Anyone want to predict the Senate vote? I say she gets all the Dems and 10 of the Pubbies, maybe less. She’ll get Graham, McCain, Snow, the other Maine Senator, and a few more.
I don’t have a prediction, but a question. Scalia was confirmed 98-0. Ginsberg was confirmed 96-3. Neither of these happened very long ago, and neither has what I would consider to be cross-aisle appeal. What has changed in the last few years?
What’s changed? It’s a Democrat doing the nomination, at a time when the Republican strategy is a lockstep rejection of the usurper’s every move.
I finally watched a bit of the hearings, and had to quickly turn it off because it’s nauseating. Sessions is being his usual inane self, and Sonia is having to repeat herself over and over for his drooling idiocy.
Here’s the thing, the stuff she says about appellate judges making policy, the struggles to remain impartial, and that judge’s backgrounds influence how they see cases ia all absolutely true. It’s the reality. She points out things that almost every single practicing lawyer I’ve ever met already knows. But it pulls back the facade and shows the world as it is. And reality isn’t Sessions strong suit.
I like her because she apparently has a solid grasp of the reality of being a justice and that she acknowledges it. Kudos to her for that.
Interesting hypothesis, although it seems an odd explanation as to why Roberts and Alito got so few Democratic votes.
The politicization seems to have gotten worse ever since Bork’s rejection.
CNN just showed a graphic defining “per curiam.” This is much, much nerdier than typical TV news.
The Republican Party. In the last 10 years, the Republicans have become entrenched as a party of Party Over Country. They marched in lockstep with the ruinous policies of Bush II and they march in lockstep against the relatively moderate policies of Obama. They’ve become the Party of “NO!”
I was going to soften this, and say that both parties have retrenched to the point of gridlock. But then I remember how the Democratic Congress caved to Bush II throughout 2007 and 2008 and realize that it’s mostly the Republicans that are the contrarians.
Your hypothesis does not stand up to the test of reality-- Alito and Roberts. The question was what changed since Scalia and Ginsburg, not what changed since last year. The Democrats have shown more partisanship than the Republicans on this issue, but then they’ve had more chances to do so, too.
Your latter sentence I agree with wholeheartedly. I believe we’re seeing the end result of that increasing polarization now, but it’s aggravated by the Republican Party’s current rejectionist approach to dealing with the reality of their electoral losses and erosion of political power.
Roberts and Alito were antithetical to many Democrats because of their potential to haul the Supreme Court even farther to the right than it already was – which potential has been realized since they joined the Court.
Sotomayor, given her record, is unlikely (as far as anyone can ever predict how a new Justice will shake out over time) to change that balance, and yet the Republican response to her in main part has been, not “Ah, good, at least the balance of the Court isn’t likely to change much” but instead “Radical leftist activist racialist liberal destroyer of all that is good and patriotic AAAAA-OOOOOOGAH!!!”
Agreed that, on the subject of SC nominees, the scales balance between the Dems and the Repubs. On other stuff, though, the Dems have shown no spineage at all. Even WITH a Democrat in the White House, the Senate Dems act like they’re not a majority. The Left has been increasingly incensed with Harry Reid, to the point that there have been calls to primary him when he’s next up, just to get him out of the Majority Leader position. The man just has no spine whatsoever. And the rest of the Democratic Senate (with few exceptions) is just as bad.
How was the swap of Rhenquist (fairly conservative) for Roberts something that had the “potential to haul the Supreme Court even farther to the right than it already was”? :dubious:
If you think this fight is big, imagine what would happen if one of the court’s uber-conservatives steps down or dies. Anyone Obama would pick would be at the center of as huge a shit storm as the Republicans could possibly create.
That’s true. The big swing was Thomas for Marshall, and then to a lesser extent Alito for O’Connor.
I always think of the Alito and Roberts picks as being at the same time. Roberts I didn’t worry about, though maybe I should. It’s not so much a liberal vs conservative thing but a legal philosophy one. While O’Connor was generally conservative, she was a legal pragmatist. The Court has made a very unhealthy shift to the dominance of textualism, and hopefully that can be addressed over the next few years. Given the influence of the Federalist Society over the years and how it has gotten its claws into the federal courts, I’m not overly optimistic, though.
There is something to the claim that the brimstone had burned down a bit in Rehnquist’s belly, and that he was not as willing to cast aside long-standing precedents, even those that he had disagreed with when they were first decided. His evolution on the Miranda warnings is a case in point - he had been a critic of the initial Miranda decision, but when given an opportunity to repudiate it thirty years later, he wrote the majority decision upholding Miranda (7-2), noting that the warnings had become ingrained in national culture without any apparent ill-effect either on law enforcement or the republic generally. One could argue that perhaps if the fundamental tenets of Griswold or its progeny had come before him late in his career, he might have voted to uphold those tenets for the same reasons. For purists like Scalia and Thomas, a wrong decision remains wrong (and they were the two dissenters who would have voted to overrule Miranda.)
It also depends on how you define conservative. Rehnquist was far less likely to find a statute unconstitutional than Scalia or Thomas. One could argue that a truly conservative judge is more likely to uphold a statute passed by the people’s representatives, whereas an activist is one more likely to strike them down. That’s not the definition usually bandied around, but it is one dimension of activism that should receive greater attention.
One might say it started with Bork’s nomination.
I’m unimpressed with Sotomayor’s performance so far.
Granted, it is very hard to judge a so-so performance in these things. The nominee is under tremendous pressure to be boring while being provoked and to answer technical questions without getting overly technical. But I was hoping for a stellar performance. This could have been her chance to rebut charges that she wasn’t bright enough to be an associate justice. She comes off, to me, as overly scripted and either overly nervous or not especially good on her feet.
Roberts managed to come off as charming and smart while being boring and bland. But then I guess Roberts wasn’t being called a bigot, too.
I don’t think her performance at confirmation hearings has any bearing whatsoever on her actual qualifications, I’m just saying I think she missing an opportunity to wow people or change any minds (if only of the viewers at home).