Would it look or be good for Obama to withdraw Sotomayor's nomination?

[kaylasdad99]

nm. Hijack anyway.

[Liberal]

@Shodan

Withdrawing Sotomeyer at this point would be a particularly bad idea. It would resonate with Obama’s earlier difficulties finding nominees who paid their taxes, a process Obama himself says that he screwed up.

I agree with that. It is not, however, an argument against withdrawing her nomination. It is an argument about how something might resonate with Republicans.

If he can’t find a good Supreme Court candidate with a nearly veto-proof majority in the Senate, he is essentially conceding that he cannot find anyone under near-ideal conditions, and therefore can’t do one of the important roles of a President.

Well, that’s a pretty classic non sequitur: he can’t find something that will satisfy irrascible Republicans; therefore, he is making a concession. Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt. If there is Senate opposition, then it is a reflection on the Senate, and not on the president.

Doesn’t anyone remember Zoe Baird and Kimba Woods? And whoever is was the dope-smoking judge?

That was Lawrence Korda. Each person you’ve listed committed crimes. What crime has Sotomayor committed?

Obama pulling his first candidate is a sign of weakness. He opposed the Republican nominees pretty much reflexively - why is he surprised if he gets it back now? Obama got’s the power, right now. If Sotomeyer is really unqualified, why the fuck didn’t he figure that out before he nominated her? If she is, why withdraw her now?

Unlike you (I’m willing to bet), I’ve read Obama’s books. He has not done anything “reflexively” in his whole life. Her qualifications are indisputable, and are so prodigious that listing them here would be impractical because they span her summa cum laude Princeton education to her editorship of the Yale Law Journal to her hearty endorsement by the Journal of the American Bar Association — there’s just so much more experience she has had than any other justice. And that’s not just judicial experience. It is important for an interpreter to be well-rounded, and exposed to the street. Otherwise, they make idiotic translations. Her job will be to interpret the Constitution. And for that, she is highly qualified.

Also, it is “Sotomayor”. She is Latina, not German.

[Liberal]

The longest-serving Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee told CNN Radio on Thursday that, barring any surprises, Sonia Sotomayor is headed for a Supreme Court confirmation.

“If there are no otherwise disqualifying matters here, it appears to me she will probably be confirmed,” Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said.
Hatch: Sotomayor ‘highly likely’ to be confirmed, barring surprises

[tomndebb]

Diogenes, dial it back or open a Pit thread.

[ /Modding ]

[Zoe]

So far nothing unexpected has happened. In fact, the Republicans were complaining about the nomination before it was actually made. It reminded me of the singer who warms up backstage before a concert performance: “me-me-me-me-ME-ME-ME-me-ME…”

A good President is more interested in being strong that in looking strong. So far, he has chosen a winner. He’s been thinking about this one for a long time. It is typical for the opposition to be picky. Sometimes it can get serious, but so far they have nothing.

The most painful hearings to watch were those of Clarence Thomas.

[Gyrate]

@Zoe

The most painful hearings to watch were those of Clarence Thomas.

I agree. We should have been talking about his weak judicial record and the rather blatant tokenism of his nomination rather than soiled soft drink containers.

[Marley23]

@Frank

Are you suggesting that Roberts and Alito are not, in fact, somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun? :dubious:

That’s not a nice thing to call Scalia!

[Shodan]

@Liberal

I agree with that. It is not, however, an argument against withdrawing her nomination. It is an argument about how something might resonate with Republicans.

Only if you believe that Republicans are the only ones who think Obama screwed up the nominating process. As the Obama quote shows, they aren’t.

Well, that’s a pretty classic non sequitur: he can’t find something that will satisfy irrascible Republicans; therefore, he is making a concession.

No, if Obama can’t find a candidate who will be confirmed with a Senate majority of 59 to 41, then he is an idiot.

Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt. If there is Senate opposition, then it is a reflection on the Senate, and not on the president.

See above. If Senate opposition from a Senate with so overwhelming a Democratic majority stops a nom, then it reflects badly on the one making the nomination.

Come on - if Obama can’t find a candidate who will sail thru when his party holds a huge majority in the Senate, and when Obama’s approval ratings are still around 65%, then he isn’t going to be able to find a candidate at all.

Sotomayor has said out loud what lots of liberals think in secret - that the color of your skin means you are better at this or that - as long as that skin isn’t white. It’s not particularly surprising that a black President would embrace this kind of race-based qualification vetting. What is surprising is that he would have difficulties justifying it with 59 other clowns in the Senate who will vote for anybody he trots out.

It’s like that Lani Guinier thing again - if the President didn’t know she peddled this kind of thing, then he shouldn’t have nominated her. If he did know it, then either talk about how it is true, or shut up and find someone else.

Regards,
Shodan

[Marley23]

@Shodan

Sotomayor has said out loud what lots of liberals think in secret - that the color of your skin means you are better at this or that - as long as that skin isn’t white.

Oh lord, why are all those colored people are so racist? Are they just naturally less tolerant than us white people?

Shodan is right that it would reflect poorly on Obama if he could not get Democrats to approve his nominee, but that doesn’t look remotely likely.

[Gyrate]

@Shodan

Sotomayor has said out loud what lots of liberals think in secret - that the color of your skin means you are better at this or that - as long as that skin isn’t white. It’s not particularly surprising that a black President would embrace this kind of race-based qualification vetting.

Nice. And stop reading my mind (since you appear to know what we liberals “think in secret”).

By the way, have some context for her remarks (the oft-quoted bit is bolded):

@Politifact

Sotomayor spoke briefly about the contributions of women judges and attorneys in race and sex discrimination cases, while acknowledging that Supreme Courts made up completely of white men have made seminal decisions on those issues. It’s in that context that Sotomayor made the statement heard round the world via YouTube.

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences…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 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.”

Sotomayor later concludes that “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…I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”

So people’s experiences color (sic) the decisions they make. Shock!

@Shodan

What is surprising is that he would have difficulties justifying it with 59 other clowns in the Senate who will vote for anybody he trots out.

Riiiiiiight…because the Senate Dems have proved so compliant about everything else. How’s that Guantanamo closing going with the Senate?

[Shodan]

@Marley23

Oh lord, why are all those colored people are so racist? Are they just naturally less tolerant than us white people?

No, they’re much better. Their experiences lead them to accept or reject facts, and base their judgments accordingly.

This is a good thing, apparently. At least it seems to be the sort of thing Obama wants on the Supreme Court.

Regards,
Shodan

[Richard_Parker]

@Liberal

That was Lawrence Korda. Each person you’ve listed committed crimes. What crime has Sotomayor committed?

I don’t think Kimba Wood committed any crimes. Did she?

[Quartz]

@Shodan

Sotomayor has said out loud what lots of liberals think in secret - that the color of your skin means you are better at this or that - as long as that skin isn’t white.

Umm…

It’s not particularly surprising that a black President would embrace this kind of race-based qualification vetting. What is surprising is that he would have difficulties justifying it with 59 other clowns in the Senate who will vote for anybody he trots out.

:eek: Boggle :eek:

[DSeid]

Shodan, does this quote bother you as much?

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

[villa]

@ArchiveGuy

I’m not holding my breath:

OK - it’s getting a harder position to defend each decision. But I can dream!

I admit, I haven’t followed his role in decisions closely. It’s been a pretty busy time here since he got nominated. Oh well, that sucks.

[DSeid]

Not a surprise that Republicans in the Southwest are trying to distance themselves from this line of attack.

“I think it’s terrible,” Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told NPR’s “All Things Considered” Thursday. "This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent.”

[Terraplane]

@Shodan

Sotomayor has said out loud what lots of liberals think in secret - that the color of your skin means you are better at this or that - as long as that skin isn’t white. It’s not particularly surprising that a black President would embrace this kind of race-based qualification vetting.*

How is this not an outright racist statement?

*Bolding Mine

[Cheesesteak]

@Shodan

Their experiences lead them to accept or reject facts, and base their judgments accordingly.

Clearly no white man would allow his experiences to affect his judgments.

[Shodan]

@Cheesesteak

Clearly no white man would allow his experiences to affect his judgments.

Based on his ignoring facts? I guess that would a Good Thing, wouldn’t it?

Unless you agree with Sotomayor that Latinas are inherently superior to white men.

It would be interesting to find out which facts Sotomayor’s background will lead her to ignore. Maybe someone will ask her that during her confirmation hearings.

Regards,
Shodan

[Richard_Parker]

I think this my favorite mode of disingenuous argumentation. You assume some false premise and then become all indignant about it.

Why don’t any conservatives care that Sen. Hatch eats babies?! He’d probably get asked about it by the media if they weren’t all in his pocket.

If you want to practice some sincere argumentation, Shodan, you might consider proving that her comments mean she will ignore relevant facts.