Rush Limbaugh on Sonia Sotomayor Nomination "Reverse Racist"

[Seabee1973]

Are the two you mention above as outdated as Unions in this country? Last I checked Unions have screwed the pooch in just about every place they've been involved (not that they haven't historically done well in providing a better workplace at times). I don't say this as someone who thinks all Unions are irrelevant or w/o some value but to state that all justices should be pro union is just a bit baffling to me. I think it has be viewed in a case by case manner. I mean does a company of say, 25 people need to be unionized? Can it survive if it does?

I think unions have outlived there purpose in America Do we really need a fill your car up union and such?

[IHOPSkins]

......But what I really like about Obama's choice is that Republicans are taking the bait .........

Republicans?.........

The Case Against Sotomayor

Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her.

They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,"

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085

[GibbsFactor]

True enough, this is for life, so we best do our due diligence with her. And if she's not considered bright, that's all I need to say 'nay'.

[ljs]

ok, posted this in the other Sotomayor thread...

George HW Bush appointed her in 1991 to the US District court in New York.

yeah, all Republicans hate her:doh:

I wish people would do a lil more reading on this before taking on such a political fight. I'm not a fan of hers yet, may not be ever. I'm still reading and thinking it over.

However, For Obama to nominate someone that GBush41 appointed, What does that really say? (yes that Rush is stupid, but what else?)

[Bang]

I'm still reading and thinking it over.

WHAT?!?!?! Are you crazy?! Don't you know you're supposed to have an opinion already pre-formed based on what you already assume your party will back?

What are you, a commie?

However, For Obama to nominate someone that GBush41 appointed, What does that really say? (yes that Rush is stupid, but what else?)

I think it says he's trying to bring things more to the center, and it also may be a bit of an olive branch towards the Republicans.

~Bang

[Hiro]

Haven't we learned that there's nothing productive or truly meaningful that comes out of this hack's mouth? The guy can't admit it when anyone from the Democratic party does ANYTHING right, and he's contradicted himself so many times that he's all but destroyed any credibility he has. He is a man that needs to just go away ... :doh:

[DjTj]

Of course IHOP would be the one to drudge up that TNR editorial from a few weeks back. It was pretty hotly debated and roundly criticized for its use of anonymous sources, which is summed up nicely here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/05/tnr/

True enough, this is for life, so we best do our due diligence with her. And if she's not considered bright, that's all I need to say 'nay'.

Other than the anonymous whispers from the Jeffrey Rosen, there is little evidence to suggest that she isn't bright.

From Glenn Greenwald:

My perception of Sotomayor is almost the exact opposite of the picture painted by Rosen. I had a generally low opinion of the intellect of most judges -- it's one of the things I disliked most about the practice of law -- but I found her to be extremely perceptive, smart, shrewd and intellectually insightful. The image that has been instantaneously created of her as some sort of doltish mediocrity, based on nothing but Rosen's water-cooler chatter, is, at least to me, totally unrecognizable. Of the countless federal judges with whom I had substantive interaction over more than ten years of litigation, I would place her in the top tier when it comes to intellect. My impressions are very much in line with the author of this assessment of Sotomayor, who had much more extensive interaction with her and -- unlike Rosen's chatterers -- has the courage to attach his name to his statements.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/05/tnr/

I think there's little doubt of her intellect. I do think Rosen is right to point out that she won't really be a liberal Scalia - she's not a renowned liberal academic scholar and she won't be pushing some kind of revolutionary new interpretation of the Constitution. She has spent most of her career in the real world, as a prosecutor, an intellectual property lawyer (copyrights and trademarks), as a trial judge and an appeals court judge.

On pure intellect, Elena Kagan probably would have been a stronger choice. Diane Wood is also on that level, and both she and Janet Napolitano had much more political experience ... but I think Obama likely chose Sotomayor because she has spent more of her career in the "real world" - outside of politics and outside of Washington dealing with real cases.

Her humble background is probably what put her over the top ... In many ways, she seems similar to Sandra Day O'Connor - very bright but not really an ivory tower kind of intellectual. She should be pragmatic in her decisions and will probably surprise the liberal establishment at times. It will certainly be interesting to see what happens. Judicial confirmations have become great theater in Washington over the past couple decades.

[Thiebear]

My wife, a Puerto Rican, has voted GOP in 4 of 5 Presidential elections, the only exception being Al Gore in 2000. She is a fairly die-hard conservative. Far more conservative than I am.

Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, today, did more to push her towards the left than anything I've said in 12 years of marriage.

Be veeery careful when talking **** about latinas.

I said the same thing about Powell: No matter how conservative 65 or 80% you allow them to vote the minority once in a lifetime vote free of charge.

It's the human thing to do.

[GibbsFactor]

Well there is something to be said about one's "common sense". I'd like my Supreme Court Justices to be of superior wisdom in a perfect world.

[Predicto]

The Right has its marching orders from General Rush.

Go to freerepublic and enjoy. Every single person there is calling Sotomayer a racist now. The Foxnews message boards are the same. This is what they are going to hinge their opposition on.

[NavyDave]

What the heck is Reverse-racism?

2001 Sonia Sotomayor

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.

Of course if a white male said the opposite it would be met with humph its no big deal

[DjTj]

2001 Sonia Sotomayor

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.

Of course if a white male said the opposite it would be met with humph its no big deal

She was talking specifically about discrimination cases where she thinks a minority would have done better, and she also recognizes that she has some shortcomings:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, 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 Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also 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.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. 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.

http://volokh.com/posts/1242399411.shtml

[NavyDave]

Her stance (Circuit court opinion) in the New Haven fire fighter reverse discrimination case dismissing their claim which may be overturned by the Supreme Court, doesn't show her being color blind.

[Destino]

I was aked by some union members in 99 or 2000 pickiting a non union grocery store in california why i was shopping there. I said lower prices they said why do you like lower prices i said because i can save more money. They were pissed and started calling me names and stuff because i was supporting a non union store.

Who cares? A few mad idiots don't mean a hell of a lot. In a country where executives of failing companies take home millions I find it hard to talk about unions first. Let's talk about leaders that fail at leading taking him salaries that look like lottery winnings before we talk about workers that actually DO THEIR JOBS making middle class salaries.

[mjah]

He's IRRELEVANT to the Republican party.

That's the first time I've ever seen that typed. Maybe you meant it in a different sense, just to suggest that he's not an office-seeking politician. But anytime a guy in Steele's position has to reverse himself and kiss the ring, that ring's owner is (borrowing your caps) EXTREMELY RELEVANT to the party. Limbaugh knows what's up. He is perfectly lucid about his influence on the Republican party. He simply talks directly to tens of millions of individuals, rather than to the politicians.

Please show me an instance where conservatives keep magnifying statements made by an irrelevant Democrat who is not an official voice of the party.

That's apples and oranges, as Rush is not an "irrelevant Republican." Even if he was, first you'd have to show me a far-left liberal microphone jockey who reaches the same size audience as Limbaugh. 'Cuz conservatives aren't going to bother to take it to a guy who reaches only a fraction of Limbaugh's 14+ million listeners per week.

[ECU-ALUM]

Dear Santa,

All I want this year for Christmas (besides a winning season for the Skins and a division title) is for Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore to battle in Celebrith Deathmatch.

[81artmonk]

If what Rush said about her in her case against the White firemen are true, than, yes she should be denied. jher lack of experience should be another factor.

It was for Bush's appointees, so it should have been and it should be for a supreme court justice.

IMO regardless of politics they should at least be so qualified that no one doubts their qualifications. It shouldn't be that they are a hard worker and overcame overwhelming life situations to get to where they are now. This isn't a reality program but supreme court justice.

[DjTj]

If what Rush said about her in her case against the White firemen are true, than, yes she should be denied. jher lack of experience should be another factor.

It was for Bush's appointees, so it should have been and it should be for a supreme court justice.

What questions are there about her experience? She has been a federal judge for 17 years, which is more experience than any current Supreme Court Justice had when they were appointed. It's more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court Justice in the past 100 years. How can there be any question about her experience?

IMO regardless of politics they should at least be so qualified that no one doubts their qualifications. It shouldn't be that they are a hard worker and overcame overwhelming life situations to get to where they are now. This isn't a reality program but supreme court justice.

And what questions do you have about her qualifications? She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and graduated from Yale Law School. She was appointed to the federal bench by George H.W. Bush and promoted by Bill Clinton. Her resume stands equal to any other Supreme Court Justice.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104542828&ft=1&f=1001

Where are you getting the idea that she is not qualified? :whoknows:

[deejaydana]

Here is the little dirty trick that Liberals on this board (and at large) try to play on the weak minded: Rush is an elected official of the Republican party. This plays well with anyone under 30 years old. Here's the skinny: the GOP holds people to a higher standard. I don't come on this board and act like Olberman is an elected rep of the Dems and I don't call him out for his behavior. It is just intellectually bankrupt (but that is where some people come in on ES).

Predicto: you should be, as a guy of your age & experience, ashamed of yourself to conflate what Rush says with being the same as something straight from the mouth of an elected Republican or of the party. The GOP has done to date nothing to rebuke Sotomayor and you freaking know it. I really think you're better then that. I'm hoping to see it. I hope you wake up tomorrow with the resolve to be more honest, to yourself and to your friends on this board.

[Burgold]

Here is the little dirty trick that Liberals on this board (and at large) try to play on the weak minded: Rush is an elected official of the Republican party. This plays well with anyone under 30 years old. Here's the skinny: the GOP holds people to a higher standard. I don't come on this board and act like Olberman is an elected rep of the Dems and I don't call him out for his behavior. It is just intellectually bankrupt (but that is where some people come in on ES).

I wrote this in response to Mickalino earlier in the thread, but I think it answers you fairly well. Your premice is faulty and dishonest. We treat Rush as a powerful voice within the Republican/Conservative philosophy and that's because he is especially within a thread that's about what Rush Limbaugh said. No one confuses or tries to project Rush as an elected official. Few would believe that Rush does not as a spokesman, political analyst, citizen, and agitator try to influence politicians. He is, of course, within his rights to do so. We all should write to our Congressmen if we feel passionately about an issue. He writes to Congress using his radio and threatens them with the force of his popularity and the implication that he can drive votes.

I think that conservatives have done this with Olbermann and periodically have doen it with Colbert and Stewart who are also members of the media. There have also been dozens if not millions of attacks on the liberal media that magnify an "irrelevent" reporters position and wedges it for political advantage.

I think that some of this criticism is fair and even proper.

Regardless, the media certainly retains its right to criticize and analyze its own. Thus, when one of its members goes off the ledge... whether it's an Imus, a Greaseman, a Coulter, or a Rush there is a clustering of reports. This happens for several reasons.

1) It's an easy story.

2) These are people with a big pulpit and they are influential. Their voices carry to many people.

3) Their language does get inserted into the political landscape and politicians use them (or try to) to generate a message or convey an attack.

[DGreenistheBest]

If it is true that she has been overturned 80% of the time, that is interesting and something that should be looked into.

According to CNN, she has a 99% rate of NOT being turned over.

[Rocky21]

He sounds high.

You can't be a patriot and want the President of the U.S. to fail at his job. Period.

[#98QBKiller]

Here is the little dirty trick that Liberals on this board (and at large) try to play on the weak minded: Rush is an elected official of the Republican party. This plays well with anyone under 30 years old. Here's the skinny: the GOP holds people to a higher standard.

Replace the bold words with:

Conservatives

Michael Moore/Olberman/etc.

Democratic Party

Democratic Party

In that order and you've just found yourself the modern American, two-party political equation. It's a never-ending pissing contest and both sides do it. Don't pretend like it's only "those damn libruhls."

[TimmySmith]

Let's talk about leaders that fail at leading taking him salaries that look like lottery winnings before we talk about workers that actually DO THEIR JOBS making middle class salaries.

How are workers on strike DOING THEIR JOBS?

And why is the auto labor cost (the actual employee pay) twice as much per car for union shops (which are failing) than non-union shops (which are succeeding)? To blame one side is simply ridiculous.

[Henry]

Here is the little dirty trick that Liberals on this board (and at large) try to play on the weak minded: Rush is an elected official of the Republican party. This plays well with anyone under 30 years old. Here's the skinny: the GOP holds people to a higher standard. I don't come on this board and act like Olberman is an elected rep of the Dems and I don't call him out for his behavior. It is just intellectually bankrupt (but that is where some people come in on ES).

Actually, it's the GOP who's been acting like he's an elected official. No one on this board made the head of the RNC choke on his criticism of Limbaugh. No one on this board made Cheney tell the world Limbaugh was a better Republican than a former GOP Secretary of State. Noone on this board told that former Secretary of State to get into a war of words with Limbaugh. No one on this board told a GOP former governor and cabinet member to launch an attack on Limbaugh.

No one in the Democrat party did either. If the GOP doesn't think Limbaugh is a significant force within their party they sure aren't acting like it. Don't blame the rest of us for coming to the logical conclusion that the GOP cares greatly what this guy says.