It was seven years ago today that some guy started a blog:I am progressive. I am liberal. I make no apologies. I believe government has an obligation to create an even playing field for all of this country's citizens and immigrants alike. I am not a socialist. I do not seek enforced equality. However, there has to be equality of opportunity, and the private sector, left to its own devices, will never achieve this goal.
Posted May 26, 2002 12:57 PM
Josh Marshall: Standing Torture lawyer Yoo speaks out against Sotomayor.
- BarbinMD: Child Testicle Crushers Unite Against Sotomayor
Okay, it's just one advocate for crushing the testicles of a child, but it's certainly a big name in the world of torture-enablers; former Justice Department official, John Yoo.
Some deep thoughts from Yoo (via the official Republican talking points):
President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor shows that empathy has won out over excellence in the White House.
The White House chose a judge distinguished from the other members of that list only by her race.
Republican senators will have to conduct thorough questioning in the confirmation hearings to make sure that she will not be a results-oriented voter, voting her emotions and politics rather than the law.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Yoo also says:
Sotomayor’s record on the bench, at first glance, appears undistinguished.
Of course Yoo did set the bar pretty high when he helped write distinguished opinions like this:
Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.
Benen: PETRAEUS WEIGHS IN, SUPPORTS OBAMA POLICY...Andrew Sprung compares Bush to Obama:
Obama's "trust me" is different in kind from Bush's. Bush meant "trust my gut," trust my good-faith effort to keep America safe, trust me not to abuse an authority that acknowledges no Constitutional bounds whenever a threat to national security can be invoked. Obama's trust me means "trust the process as I lead you through it."
That leaves ample space, of course, to oppose his policies on the merits. I for one am not convinced that we should accord the government the power to detain persons without trial. But I would be disposed to listen assuming Obama makes the case in more detail.
Obama is scrupulously careful about laying down the rules of engagement when he seeks a new authority. Supporters need to be equally rigorous in developing criteria to support or oppose. Personally, until I see evidence of an egregious error in judgement, I remain disposed to give him the benefit of the doubt.
When Defense Secretary Robert Gates endorsed President Obama's policies on torture and closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Republicans were unmoved. Gates doesn't count, they said. He may have been Bush's Pentagon chief, but he's not a neocon, and he now serves at Obama's pleasure.When Colin Powell (Bush cabinet) endorsed the same policies, Republicans were still unconvinced. Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a Bush appointee, doesn't count, either.
Fine. How about David Petraeus?
General David Petraeus said this past weekend that President Obama's decision to close down Gitmo and end harsh interrogation techniques would benefit the United States in the broader war on terror.
In an appearance on Radio Free Europe Sunday, the man hailed by conservatives as the preeminent military figure of his generation left little room for doubt about where he stands on some of Obama's most contentious policies.
Indeed, Petraeus seemed to reject the Republican arguments altogether, embracing only those interrogation techniques "that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention." The administration's plan for Guantanamo, Petraeus added "sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."
Sam Stein added, "The remarks appear to be the first from Petraeus since the closure of Guantanamo and Bush Administration use of enhanced interrogation techniques became hot-button partisan issues. They couldn't come at a better time for Obama."
Now, I've been critical at times of Petraeus (and Powell, for the matter), and I'm not suggesting their arguments have merit only when I agree with their conclusions.
The point is that Petraeus' position makes the Republican attacks that much less credible. In most GOP circles, there's practically a religious reverence for Petraeus, and yet he now seems to have no use for the right's single most important arguments of the day.
As a matter of policy, Obama is obviously right and his detractors are clearly wrong. But as a matter of political optics, we're now dealing with a situation in which the president's position -- the one the right thinks is dangerous, naive, and terrorist-friendly -- has been endorsed by Bush's Defense Secretary (Gates), Bush's chairman of the Joint Chiefs (Mullen), Bush's Secretary of State (Powell), and the general Bush tapped to head U.S. Central Command (Petraeus).
On the other side, we have Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and some craven members of Congress.
BarbinMD: Predictable Attacks Against Sotomayor Begin
The predictable attacks against Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor are rolling in:
- Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee called Sotomayor’s appointment “the clearest indication yet that President Obama’s campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric.”
- Charmaine Yoest, the president of Americans United for Life, blasted Sotomayor as “a radical pick that divides America.”
- The Judicial Confirmation Network circulated a memo from its counsel, Wendy Long, calling Sotomayor a “favorite of far-left special interest groups” who will “indulge ... left-wing policy preferences instead of neutrally applying the law.”
- Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele released a restrained statement, declaring: “Republicans will reserve judgment on Sonia Sotomayor until there has been a thorough and thoughtful examination of her legal views.”
- Mitt Romney called the pick "troubling."
- Then there's the .02 from the titular head of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh: Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes! She’d be a disaster on the court. Do I still want Obama to fail as President? Yeah. AP you getting this? He’s going to fail anyway, but the sooner the better.
And from some Republicans who will have a vote on the nomination, a common theme:
- John Cornyn: She must prove her commitment to impartially deciding cases based on the law, rather than based on her own personal politics, feelings, and preferences.
- John Thune: It will be important to determine if Judge Sotomayor will decide cases based on her own personal feelings and political views, or the bedrock rule of law."
- Chuck Grassley: The Judiciary Committee should take time to ensure that the nominee will be true to the Constitution and apply the law, not personal politics, feelings or preferences.
- Jeff Sessions: Of primary importance, we must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law, calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one’s own personal preferences or political views.
The empathy attack is on and the parrots are out in force.
Yglesias: At Last, Someone to Stand up for the White Man!
One issue I’m interested in with regard to the Supreme Court is civil liberties and executive power. On most issues, I basically assume that anyone who Obama picks is going to have views I’m satisfied with. But Democratic presidents are, you know, presidents and often don’t worry too much about presidential power run amok. So I thought I’d look and see what the libertarian Cato Institute has to say about Sonia Sotomayor’s record, since they follow these issues closely.
Well, Roger Pilon slams her as “the most radical of all the frequently mentioned candidates before him.” In the course of his condemnation he mentions her ruling in just one case, Ricci, and makes no effort to mount an argument on the merits against her position. In a second Cato post on Sotomayor, Ilya Shapiro slams her as an “Identity Politics over Merit” pick. In the course of his condemnation he mentions her ruling in just one case, Ricci, and makes no effort to mount an argument on the merits against her position.
Thank God there’s a think tank looking out for the white men of the world.
Benen: ATTACKING SOTOMAYOR'S INTELLECT...
Attacking Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor for being insufficiently right-wing makes perfect sense. Attacking her intelligence is not only ridiculous, it's offensive.
Sotomayor, a lower-court nominee of both the H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations, has a background that should shield her from such nonsense: top of her class at Princeton, Yale Law School (editor of the Yale Law Journal), successful big-city prosecutor, corporate litigator, trial judge, district court judge, appeals court judge. She's earned the respect and admiration of her clerks, colleagues, and the lawyers who've argued before her. Sotomayor's intellect is not in doubt.
And yet, it's the issue some of the far-right's leading activists have decided to hang their hat on.
This morning on Fox News, Karl Rove questioned whether she was smart enough to be on the Supreme Court. "I'm not really certain how intellectually strong she would be, she has not been very strong on the second circuit," he said. Citing Rosen, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes said that Sotomayor was "not the smartest."
This is, alas, not new. Two of the guys on the National Review's crew said Sotomayor is "dumb." In a now-infamous piece, Jeffrey Rosen quoted unnamed sources arguing that the judge is "not that smart." This morning, Curt Levey, executive director of the right-wing Committee for Justice, said Harriet Miers was an "intellectual lightweight" -- and Sotomayor is like Miers.
Adam Serwer noted, "[T]he subtext of such arguments, which any person of color in the Ivy League has faced, is that people of color who accomplish anything resembling success are simply the undeserving recipients of preferential treatment. Note that this line of argument was raised against the president of the United States, and persisted among the right for some time. Isn't it a funny coincidence that all accomplished people of color are secretly dumb?"
I'd just add that if Rove, Barnes, Levey and their conservative cohorts -- a group that is in no position to question anyone's intellectual prowess -- have legitimate evidence to back up these doubts about the judge, they should present it. Otherwise, this entire line of attack is cheap and insulting.
- Commenter zeitgeist on May 26, 2009 at 2:57 PM
I tried to run it through the Wingnut-to-English decoder ring, but got two different results:
This morning on Fox News, Karl Rove questioned whether she was white enough to be on the Supreme Court. "I'm not really certain how white she would be, she has not been very white on the second circuit," he said. Citing Rosen, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes said that Sotomayor was "not the whitest."
But, unfortunately, I also got this result, which the decoder ring found equally plausible:
This morning on Fox News, Karl Rove questioned whether she was male enough to be on the Supreme Court. "I'm not really certain how phallically strong she would be, she has not been very male on the second circuit," he said. Citing Rosen, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes said that Sotomayor was "not the most hung."
Guess you'll have to take your pick.
- commenter SecularAnimist on May 26, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Steve Benen wrote: "... this entire line of attack is cheap and insulting."
Of course it is -- it has been carefully crafted, focus-group-tested and scripted for maximum appeal to hardcore Ditto-Heads who listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News. "Cheap and insulting" is what they love.
I can just picture Rush's scriptwriters brainstorming, "is there any way we can make this cheaper and more insulting?"
No comments:
Post a Comment