But first, the QOTD, BarbinMD: Which leads us to a classic case of, rock, meet hard place, because the very people given the "leaders of the party" label -- the Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich wing of the party -- aren't struggling at all. They've come out against Sotomayor in full attack mode, calling her, among other things, a "reverse racist," a "radical," and a "disaster." And it probably doesn't help when the media outreach person for the Republican National Committee is retweeting claims of racism against Sotomayor.
Josh Marshall: Bachmann Comic Debuts!
No kidding. It pretty much had to happen. The Michele Bachmann comic book is set to go on sale.
This is separate from just Bachmann herself, who of course seems like a comic book. This is a real comic book. See the cover here -- it even has the flying imams.
Benen: 'A LOT LESS PROVOCATIVE AND TROUBLING'....
It's a 32-word quote: "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." That line, from a speech Judge Sonia Sotomayor delivered in 2001, is necessarily a disqualifying remark for a Supreme Court nominee, according to a variety of conservatives.Indeed, those 32 words not only have prompted some of the right's more unhinged activists (Gingrich, et al) to call for Sotomayor to withdraw from high court consideration, it's also prompted many more conservative leaders (Limbaugh, et al) to smear the nominee as a "racist" and a "bigot."
It's why I was I was impressed by this item from conservative writer Rod Dreher, who took the time to read the entire 2001 speech. The headline of his piece today reads, "I was wrong about Sotomayor speech."
Taken in context, the speech was about how the context in which we were raised affects how judges see the world, and that it's unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Yet -- and this is a key point -- she admits that as a jurist, one is obligated to strive for neutrality. It seems to me that Judge Sotomayor in this speech dwelled on the inescapability of social context in shaping the character of a jurist. That doesn't seem to me to be a controversial point, and I am relieved by this passage:
"While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases."
Relieved, because it strikes me as both idealistic and realistic. I am sure Sotomayor and I have very different views on the justice, or injustice, of affirmative action, and I'm quite sure that I won't much care for her rulings as a SCOTUS justice on issues that I care about. But seeing her controversial comment in its larger context makes it look a lot less provocative and troubling.
Good for Dreher. He and I agree on practically nothing, but I appreciate the fact that he took the time to read Sotomayor's speech and was willing to admit that he was mistaken about its meaning.
I suspect any intellectually honest and serious observer would read the same speech and reach the same conclusion. The "controversy" over the remark is little more than a foolish exercise, launched by partisans who couldn't be bothered to do with Dreher did: read the whole thing.
This "wise Latina" matter may be at the top of the right's list of talking points, and I really doubt Limbaugh, Gingrich, & Co. care about the integrity of their criticisms, but if this is the best they've got against Sotomayor, it says more about them than her.
Benen: DISGRACED FORMER LAWMAKER REFUSES TO GO AWAY....
BarbinMD( DK): GOP Struggles To Avoid The Racism Label ... FailsThe lead story on CNN's political blog right now:
Rush Limbaugh isn't the only one calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist. Newt Gingrich is, too -- and he's demanding that Obama's pick to the Supreme Court withdraw her nomination. [...]
On Wednesday, Gingrich tweeted: "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman.' new racism is no better than old racism."
Moments later, he followed up with the message: "White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."
I see. The disgraced former House Speaker, who hasn't served in public office for over a decade, and has no relevance or influence in the Senate at all, wants to see Judge Sotomayor withdraw. I guess the administration won't have much choice but to get right on that.
As hard as this may be to believe, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs encouraged the public and members of the Senate to "look at more than just the blog of a former lawmaker."
(I know, I know, Gingrich's Twitter feed isn't the same thing as Gingrich's blog. The prior features Newt's madness in smaller bursts.)
So, once again, we're back to the common question: why are Newt Gingrich's silly ideas the lead story at CNN's political site right now? And why does CNN treat his rants as political news on a nearly daily basis? Were his screeds surprising? Were his accusations of racism against Sotomayor compelling? Is there any chance at all that anyone will actually care whether Newt wants to see the nominee withdraw?
Just a few days ago, the Republican Party was struggling to disassociate themselves from the Party of No label, and now, with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United State, the new battle cry is, "We are not racists":
Lionel Sosa, a Texas-based Republican ad maker who designed Latino outreach for GOP presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, said that opposing Sotomayor "would be one more nail in the Republicans' image coffin in terms of Latino voters."
"When you're anti the first Latina on the Supreme Court, you're anti-my-family. . . . I would take it that these people are anti-Latino," Sosa added. "The worst thing the Republicans can do is oppose her."
The Senate's Republican leadership, aware of the potential pitfalls, began conferring Tuesday with several Latino strategists, seeking their assessment of conservative opposition.
The GOP's dilemma on Sotomayor is the latest example of the party's internal struggle over how to reinvent itself at a time that its voter base is increasingly dominated by Southern, conservative white men.
Which leads us to a classic case of, rock, meet hard place, because the very people given the "leaders of the party" label -- the Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich wing of the party -- aren't struggling at all. They've come out against Sotomayor in full attack mode, calling her, among other things, a "reverse racist," a "radical," and a "disaster." And it probably doesn't help when the media outreach person for the Republican National Committee is retweeting claims of racism against Sotomayor.
Nono is very happy.
Kurtz (TPM): Parody?
Are The Hill -- and anti-Sotomayor operative Curt Levey -- really suggesting that the judge's fondness for Puerto Rican cuisine is a handicap for higher office:
Sotomayor also claimed: "For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir -- rice, beans and pork -- that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events."This has prompted some Republicans to muse privately about whether Sotomayor is suggesting that distinctive Puerto Rican cuisine such as patitas de cerdo con garbanzo -- pigs' tongue and ears -- would somehow, in some small way influence her verdicts from the bench.
Curt Levey, the executive director of the Committee for Justice, a conservative-leaning advocacy group, said he wasn't certain whether Sotomayor had claimed her palate would color her view of legal facts but he said that President Obama's Supreme Court nominee clearly touts her subjective approach to the law.
"It's pretty disturbing," said Levey. "It's one thing to say that occasionally a judge will despite his or her best efforts to be impartial ... allow occasional biases to cloud impartiality.
We're looking into whether this was a joke, because, really, it can't be serious, can it?
Late Update: Our crack news editor Justin Elliott, who caught this passage in the first place, also flags for me the use of the verb "claimed" to describe Sotomayor's assertion, as if they're hedging against this not being a true statement. You really need an eyewitness for solid confirmation because otherwise, what, it might be a faked love for rice, beans, and pork?
Later Update: It's no joke.
Matt Yglesias: Sonia Sotomayor and Identity Formation
As anyone who knows me can attest, I don’t have what you’d call a strong “Hispanic” identity. Three of my four grandparents are Jews from Eastern Europe. My paternal grandfather, José Yglesias, was a Cuban-American born in Florida. But that puts the family’s actual Hispanic ancestry pretty far back in the past. He grew up in a Spanish-dominant immigrant community, but spoke English fluently. My dad grew up in an English-speaking household and knows some Spanish. I took a semester of Spanish at NYU one summer. And Cuban-American political identity in the United States is heavily oriented around a highly ideological far-right approach to Latin America policy that neither I nor anyone else in my family shares. The Yglesiases emigrated from Cuba before the Revolution, José was initially a Castro supporter, and though he gave that up he and my dad and I all share what you might call anti-anti-Castro views.
But for all that, I have to say that I am really truly deeply and personally pissed off my the tenor of a lot of the commentary on Sonia Sotomayor. The idea that any time a person with a Spanish last name is tapped for a job, his or her entire lifetime of accomplishments is going to be wiped out in a riptide of bitching and moaning about “identity politics” is not a fun concept for me to contemplated. Qualifications like time at Princeton, Yale Law, and on the Circuit Court that work well for guys with Italian names suddenly don’t work if you have a Spanish name. Heaven forbid someone were to decide that there ought to be at least one Hispanic columnist at a major American newspaper.
Somehow, when George W. Bush affects a Texas accent, that’s not identity politics. When John Edwards gets a VP nomination, that’s not identity politics. But Sonia Sotomayor! Oh my heavens!
At any rate, Ann Friedman wrote a great piece on the hypocrisy of this back during the Democratic primary. And I think this item from Neil Sinhababu on constructing political identities is insightful. I think conservatives are playing with fire here, and underestimating the number of, say, Mexican-Americans in Texas who didn’t think of themselves as having a great deal in common with Puerto Ricans from New York who are waking up today to find that in the eyes of the conservative movement normal qualifications for office don’t count unless you’re a white Anglo.
Yglesias: Sotomayor Risk is Primarily on the Downside
Shailagh Murray and Michael D. Shear write that “An all-out assault on Sotomayor by Republicans could alienate both Latino and women voters, deepening the GOP’s problems after consecutive electoral setbacks.” But on the other hand, “sidestepping a court battle could be deflating to the party’s base and hurt efforts to rally conservatives going forward.” It seems to me that it should be easy enough to get the conservative base riled up about something else in the near future. I recall that as recently as last week, the conservative base was furious that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi didn’t want to torture people.
In terms of Latino voters, meanwhile, the problem facing Sotomayor’s critics is that she’s almost certainly going to be confirmed. And, once confirmed, she’ll be the first Latina justice on the Supreme Court. Soon after that, there’s going to be an inspirational Sonia Sotomayor biography for kids. Probably two, since one will be in Spanish. Responsible parents and teachers of poor Latina students are going to want to point to her life as an example of how if you work hard and stay in school, you can succeed in America despite many disadvantages. Indeed, look at this editorial in today’s edition of El Diaro (English translation here):
Tras la muerte de su marido, Celina Sotomayor veló por sus dos hijos. Les dio techo y proveyó el pan de cada día. Los guió en medio de las vicisitudes y tentaciones de la adolescencia en EE.UU. Como tantas mujeres latinas, es la roca de la familia.
La hija de Celina, Sonia, tuvo que seguir probándose en instituciones dominadas por hombres – en la Universidad de Princeton, en la Facultad de Leyes de Yale, en la Fiscalía de Manhattan, en tribunal de Nueva York. Cada paso requirió gran trabajo y una seguridad inquebrantable.
Para la madre y la hija, hubo pocas latinas que pudieron servir como modelos a seguir y guiarlas. Hoy, gracias a sus luchas y su arduo trabajo, podemos decirle a nuestras hijas: estudien y podrán llegar tan alto y tan lejos como la juez Sonia Sotomayor.
They’re saying that when Sotomayor was growing up under difficult circumstances, there weren’t a lot of examples she could look up to. But today, thanks to the hard work of Sotomayor and her mother, we can say to our daughters that if they study that can go as far as Sonia Sotomayor. Senators who don’t fight and scrape against Sotomayor’s confirmation will take some crap from their base. But Senators who do fight and scrape to derail her nomination are going to become the villains in a story that a lot of kids are going to hear from their parents and teachers.
BarbinMD (DK): Rush Limbaugh: The Republican Party Is "Today's Oppressed Minority"
From the titular head of the Republican Party:
"If ever a civil rights movement was needed in America, it is for the Republican Party. If ever we needed to start marching for freedom and constitutional rights, it's for the Republican Party. The Republican Party is today's oppressed minority, and it know how to behave as one." The GOP, Rush continued, know to go to the "back of the bus" and drink from the right water fountain. Rush then assured us that he is an "intellectual," whereas Obama is a "narcissist." And just in case you're not sure what that means, Rush elaborated: "He's like Narcissus." Washington, D.C., Rush concluded, is the "Old South" for Republicans, and they are comfortable being an "oppressed minority."
Please mock and deride.
Blue Texan: Republicans: Gender, Ethnicity and Empathy Shouldn’t Matter for Judges, Unless They’re Conservatives
Since the GOP pushback on Sonia Sotomayor consists mainly of screaming "identity politics!" and "empathy!", it's worth remembering -- yet again -- how both are totally OKIYAR.
Sandra Day O'Connor, chick vote bait.
According to Ronald Reagan biographer Lou Cannon, during the 1980 presidential race between Reagan, the Republican nominee, and Democratic President Jimmy Carter running for re-election, Reagan had a small lead over Carter as of mid-October. But Reagan's political strategist Stuart K. Spenser, concerned that support from female voters was slipping, wanted to close the perceived gender gap. The strategist and his boss discussed ways to win back women and the idea of naming a woman to the Supreme Court was born.
Before any public announcement was made, some Reagan staffers questioned the decision. If the court's first vacancy was the position of chief justice, his pledge to nominate a woman would be controversial. Reagan hedged his bets; on October 14 in Los Angeles, he promised to appoint a woman to "one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration."
Antonin Scalia, Italian-American proof of the American dream.
STROM THURMOND: Judge Scalia is now cast in the role of a symbol. Certainly, he creates great pride by being the first Italian-American who will sit on the Court. However, he also serves as a symbol in an even larger context. Judge Scalia, a first-generation American and the son of an immigrant, has been chosen by the President to be a member of the Supreme Court. By dedication and hard work, Judge Scalia has reached the apex of his chosen profession and stands as proof of the vitality of the American dream.
Clarence Thomas, paragon of empathy.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I have followed this man's career for some time, and he has excelled in everything that he has attempted. He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor.
Clarance Thomas, inspirational African-American.
RUSH: And your grandfather, with the rules and his high expectations of you, all of this is profoundly inspiring, which is exactly why I'm happy you're here today, because these are the things that people don't know about you. All of this sounds like a pure recipe, Mr. Justice Thomas, of being really devoted to yourself. You had some great role models, your grandfather especially. You came from a background that was...Well, I use the word "unfair." It was just unfortunate, but you don't seem to have allowed any of it to be an excuse for not being the best you could be. ...
In a segregated part of the country, then, how did he deal with you and your brothers in teaching you or informing you about race and what you faced in your future as a result of being African-American? ...
They're seeing you exactly as the civil rights coalition feared from the first day of your nomination that you would be seen: a genuine, humble human being who has become, in their fearful view, the way they look at you is, you are now the most powerful African-American man in the country, and you have shown that it can be done without them.
Miguel Estrada, shiny Hispanic example of what's possible in America.
Republicans prefer to portray Mr. Estrada principally as an inspiring example of an immigrant reaping the rewards of America. Mr. Estrada came to the United States from Honduras when he was 17 and spoke little English.
...
''Here's a kid who comes to our country, works hard, learns the language. He's a brilliant jurist,'' President Bush told a gathering of Hispanic civic leaders at the White House in one of the many events held by the administration to promote Mr. Estrada's nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. ''I want this man to serve as a bright example of what is possible in America.''
Such crass identity politics!
Don't these Republicans understand that the only quality that matters in a judge is his ability to
side with the powerfulimpartially call balls and strikes?
DougJ: An enigma wrapped inside a riddle, shrouded in an American flag
Modern conservatism is nothing if not self-contradictory. It stands athwart history yelling “stop”, but it would never interfere with the free market forces that drive history. It worships Burke and Oakeshott, but it distrusts anyone who’s read a non-Regenery book in the past year. It believes that Ivy League pedigree is a true mark of distinction, but finds that everyone at an Ivy League school—except Robert George and Harvey Mansfield—is a pinko commie. It rejects science and polling, but believes that a few surveys are all it takes to prove that feminism is a failure.
None of this is surprising. In fact, it is exactly what you would expect from the love-child of William F. Buckely and John Birch.
But it can make for an incoherent message. Part of the reason Republican attacks on Obama haven’t worked is that they alternate between describing Obama as an arugula-loving, elitist mastermind who will lead us to commusociafascism and as a watermelon-eating nitwit who will unwittingly cede our sovereignty to North Korea.
I think the same thing is happening with Sonia Sotomayor. They can’t even decide whether to make fun of her for eating Puerto Rican food or to paint her as a fancy-pants who only pretends to like it. It reminds me a bit of the mother-sister scene from “Chinatown”: she’s an elitist, no, she’s a wetback, she’s an elitist, no she’s a wetback. SHE’S AN ELITIST AND A WETBACK!
It’s hard to see how this is going to work.
John Cole: They’ve Gone Plaid
The evidence keeps piling up against Sotormayor, and now President Gingrich has joined Tom “Nuke Mecca” Tancredo and Rush Limbaugh in deciding she is a racist:
On Wednesday, Gingrich tweeted: “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman.’ new racism is no better than old racism.”Moments later, he followed up with the message: “White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs responded to Gingrich’s criticism at Wednesday’s briefing.
In other news, Nate Silver has the greatest blog post title ever:
“Grandmother of World’s 23rd Best Economist Posthumously Offended by Sonia Sotomayor’s Spending Habits; Will Obama Withdraw Nomination?”
Is that unfair? You be the judge:
Apparently, the new Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is an example of the latter. The Washington Post reports that the 54-year-old Sotomayer has a $179,500 yearly salary butOn her financial disclosure report for 2007, she said her only financial holdings were a Citibank checking and savings account, worth $50,000 to $115,000 combined. During the previous four years, the money in the accounts at some points was listed as low as $30,000.
My grandmother would have been shocked and appalled to see someone who makes so much save so little.
Nate unpacks why this is such a ridiculous statement, and shoots any number of holes in the ridiculous argument, but what I thought was amazing was how unaware Mankiw was of the America the vast majority of people live in around him. How about a show of hands of people who have less than $50-115,000 sitting around in their savings account. Yeah. That is kind of what I thought.
Meanwhile, Karl “Permanent Republican Majority” Rove thinks she might be stupid:
Rove – “She is competent and will be confirmed….She has an interesting and compelling life story…”Charlie – “She is very smart.”
Rove – “Not necessarily.”
Charlie – “What do you mean? She went to Princeton where she graduating with honors and then went on to Yale Law School….”
Rove – “I know lots of stupid people who went to Ivy League schools.” The crowd applauds.
Sotomayor didn’t just attend Princeton, she graduated summa cum laude. She didn’t just attend Yale Law School, she edited the Yale Law Journal.
***Last night I noted that the only question the Republicans needed to answer was whether or not they are going to filibuster, and then figure out what to do from there. If not, they should go into damage control, and by all appearances it seems like they will not filibuster:
Sessions appeared on the Today show, and said that Sotomayor “has serious problems.” And he urged against rushing through to a confirmation. “But I would think that we would all have a good hearing, take our time, and do it right,” he said. “And then the senators cast their vote up or down based on whether or not they think this is the kind of judge that should be on the court.”However, he also added: “I don’t sense a filibuster in the works.”
Instead of realizing there is no real political upside here and spinning into damage control, they seem to have gone berserk, and I haven’t even visited NRO, the Weekly Standard, or any of the various wingnut blogs I regularly read. Most of what is quoted here is from top-tier Republicans- former elected officials and the leadership and brains of the party (with the exception of the Nate Silver post). Meanwhile, as usual, one guy sort of gets it but is helpless to do anything:
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told CNN Radio Tuesday the party that he hopes will include more Hispanics must be cautious in how it scrutinizes a groundbreaking Latina judge.“You want to be careful,” he said when asked about juggling Hispanic outreach with potential opposition to Sotomayor, “You don’t want to be perceived as a bully.”
But overall, the new Republican leader is calling for the GOP to avoid the explosive rhetoric attached to many Supreme Court fights.
“I think our party right now will avoid the partisan knee-jerk judgements that typically come with these things,” Steele said.
The funny thing about this is that despite all his faults, Steele has, for the most part, seen all the landmines his wingnut cohorts are tap-dancing through, but can’t do anything about it. And what makes that even funnier is that Michael Steele will be the one blamed for the GOP fail in 2010, when there was, quite literally, nothing he could do.
No comments:
Post a Comment