It’s been most interesting reading the breathless reaction from the right on teh Twitters, replete as it is with #TCOT hashtags. While Drudge’s red text and Kristol’s consistently-wrong-about-everything column highlight the fact that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is to the left of people like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, it’s interesting to see how little traction all of that gets nowadays. Granted, I don’t listen to Limbaugh anymore and the remainder of my exposure to right-wing talk radio has likewise been diminished, but in speaking with people anecdotally today – people who pay attention to this stuff – Sotomayor’s selection is met with shrugs and mouth-noises hoping she does a great job.
The hissy fit of the day™ seems to be that Sotomayor once said that judges make policy. Well, they sort of do. They have since the days of Marbury v. Madison.
I also heard that she’s a liberal activist judge. That she’s been overturned more than other judges. I even saw at least once Tweet accusing her of being stupid. Or mean to lawyers.
The information is generally either linking to a New Republic article by Jeffrey Rosen about Sotomayor, (which the author later expanded upon), or there’s no supporting factual information whatsoever.
I don’t know how the right wing will be able to say with a straight face that Judge Sotomayor, who grew up in a housing project and graduated from Princeton and Yale, who has been on the federal bench since 1992, is stupid, but something tells me there are at least a few constituencies that will be downright pissed off by this direction of supposed “inquiry”.
Sotomayor is liberal, but not overly so. She is the very embodiment of the American dream. She is not easily pigeonholed, and one wonders why the reaction on the right is so instantaneously, breathlessly false.
Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed, and she will ably serve. This is why we win elections, folks.
(Cartoon courtesy Marquil @ EmpireWire.com)
The Buffalo Record 
Do you have a problem with the fact that she thinks Latina women make better judges that white men?
I don’t have a problem with anything else that she has said (that I have heard), including the policy-making issue. But reverse discrimination kinda bugs me, because you can get away with it in our society. No one could ever get away with saying that white men would make better judges than Latina women (though neither statement is true of course). Hell – look what happened to Summers when he said men make better scientists than women (though he found a new job).
Yes, pity the poor Rich White Male who has been so grossly underrepresented on the nation’s highest court.
110 Supreme Court Justices, 106 Rich White Males.
But let’s rake over the coals a Hispanic female who dares challenge the orthodoxy of the racial makeup of the federal bench for most of our history.
This isn’t about pitying anyone of any group. That’s kinda the whole point. And asking about comments she made is not raking anyone over any coals. This is about whether race makes someone a better or worse judge. Care to address that central point?
I guess that’s why the Democrats lost the elections of 1980,1984,1988,2000,and 2004. Plus the House in 94, 96, 98,00,02, and 04.
Because EVERYONE agrees with you!
80,84 and 88 were a result of the last totally useless President, the anti-semitic Jimmy Carter.
Remember what Sheets Byrd said in 2000? the Clinton Legacy—Republicans in control of the House and Senate, and a Republican in the White House.
Again—Tend to your own fucking garden before you toss about the stones.
I don’t remember that being much of an issue in the last election, Pundit. If it’s true, though, are you saying that when Republicans win elections it is because the American public wants to roll back 100 years’ worth of constitutional jurisprudence?
Sorry, I should have added “at least in part”.
@ Russell The Torture Apologist – ” I don’t remember that being much of an issue in the last election, Pundit.”
Once again, if you don’t think about it or hear about it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. It just happens in the real world, not the torture fantasy world you inhabit.
That doesn’t even make any sense in this case, Humanist. I followed the election quite closely, as did most people on here. If I didn’t hear about it, then I am certain it was not part of the debates because I watched them all, it was not brought up in any commercials because they were all available online, none of the talking heads or surrogates pushed this issue because it was not a regular topic on any news show or in the print media. If you have evidence that it was part of the campaign, then present it. If not, stop the pettiness.
Besides, you’re the one that has the problem thinking things don’t exist if you don’t experience them personally. Clearly you were right in saying no one in the US links Jewish people/Israel to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You sure won that argument.
@ Russell The Torture Apologist – “I followed the election quite closely…If I didn’t hear about it, then I am certain it was not part of the debates because I watched them all…none of the talking heads or surrogates pushed this issue because it was not a regular topic on any news show or in the print media”
Well then….if Russell The Great Political Maven/Torture Apologist didn’t hear about it, then it damn well didn’t happen!
Except……not. The issue of the candidates’ possible shaping of the Court during their administrations was raised many times during the campaign. You really, really need to get out more and experience the world around you before spouting off like a moron.
BTW, I know you didn’t see it, but Phil Leotardo totally bit it in the Sopranos finale.
Also, “Clearly you were right in saying no one in the US links Jewish people/Israel to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan”…..except that I never said “no one in the US links Jews or Israel to the Iraq & Afghanistan wars.”