Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, in a written statement, said Tuesday he's concerned Sotomayor has shown "personal bias based on ethnicity and gender."
"Judge Sotomayor will need to reassure the country that she will set aside her biases, uphold the rule of law and interpret the Constitution as written, not as she believes it should have been written," said Smith, who will have no vote in the matter, as the confirmation is a Senate matter.
Fox News website, yesterday.
The ethnicity and gender of the Supreme Court as it stands now is a little... let's call it monolithic, shall we? One woman on the bench, and she's said to be retiring this year. Still, maybe the people criticizing Sotomayor have legitimate legal soncerns having nothing to do with her hispanicity.
Deferring to people's own pronunciation of their names should obviously be our first inclination, but there ought to be limits. Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English (which is why the president stopped doing it after the first time at his press conference), unlike my correspondent's simple preference for a monophthong over a diphthong, and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn't be giving in to.
-Mark Krikorian, THE CORNER
Oh that big tent... there's a reason there's so much room in there. It's because they keep chasing out the hispanics, the blacks, the gays and anyone who voices an opinion they don't want to hear. Basically it's Rush and a bunch of people carrying Rush around.
13 comments:
Say, how did Dick Durbin refer to Miguel Estrada when Bush had appointed him a few years back?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004305
"They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."
Before I comment, I wonder if you could tell me specifically what you think this paragraph implies.
Sotomayor is a political activist of the most extreme kind.f She is no judge. She should be opposed and with vigor.
"Of the most extreme kind?" Really? What did she do, blow up some stuff? Always rule against conservative causes? I'm dyin' to see you back THAT one up.
To me, it implies that Durbin was concerned that Republicans would gain the support of more Hispanic voters if Estrada was placed in a high court position by Bush.
Durbin was less concerned about Estrada as a litigator, but more concerned about what it would do for future voting potential.
What do you think it implies?
I'm glad I asked, WAMK, because that was my interpretation as well. I'm pleasantly surprised that you didn't go for "Democrats hate Mexicans!" or something like that. Apologies for assuming the worst.
Still, in the context of this post I have to wonder why you brought it up.
Because Democrats are more concerned with playing identity politics, than in putting the most qualified person on the bench in a lifetime appointment.
Democrats were worried that Republicans might be looking down the road at a SC appointment with Estrada, so they blocked him. Couldn't have the other Party (who they constantly say is racist/bigoted) put a "new" minority on the bench before they did. So they ignored his credentials, and focused on the color of his skin.
But now we have an unqualified (for a spot on the highest court in the World) Hispanic woman, and the Dems want us to ignore her lack of qualification, and instead focus on the color of her skin, and her "story".
Interesting that you recognize what Durbin was doing, yet fail to see that Obama is playing identity politics with this pick.
Do you feel Sotomayor is the best choice for the high court?
And you asked why I posted this in this thread?
Because of this little snippet you wrote: Oh that big tent... there's a reason there's so much room in there. It's because they keep chasing out the hispanics, the blacks, the gays and anyone who voices an opinion they don't want to hear. Basically it's Rush and a bunch of people carrying Rush around.You imply that the Republicans are the racist, bigoted, homophobes, yet your guy was the one focusing on race.
I think you can tell who the one is focusing on race by seeing who mentions it more. I don't remember Obama repeatedly saying Sotomayor will finally bring some Latina goodness to the court; he says he chose her because she's a qualified jurist.
And a fairly uncontroversial pick based on her record, unless you're you need to use her to raise money from a bunch of... well, never mind.
Do you think she is the best choice for the Supreme court?
I honestly can't say. She was an early pick by journalists who cover that beat.
So who IS the best choice? You must have someone in mind.
She was one of several picks by many journo's. Doesn't mean she is the best choice, does it?
As far as someone I have in mind, there isn't anyone. I've just looked at the info available so far, and she doesn't appear to be an exemplary judge. While I'm sure she is a fine judge, I don't think she is the "cream of the crop", which we should strive to put on the bench.
As I have said before, I have no problem with Obama putting the most liberal person in the world on the bench. He won, that's his call. I would just hope that person to be an exceptional judge, which I do not believe sotomayor to be.
Well then, your input is logged and noted.
Post a Comment