An ideological choice: Time for Republicans to put up a fight

It had all become too much. After three days spent fending off Senate Democrats' relentless badgering, including insinuations that he was racist, anti-woman and a liar, Samuel A. Alito Jr., President George W. Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court, was asked directly by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, "Are you a bigot?" Justice Alito responded, "I'm not any kind of bigot."

It was then that Martha-Ann Alito, the nominee's wife, burst into tears and promptly exited the room, creating the most indelible memory of her husband's confirmation hearings.

Obama at first said he was looking for someone with lots of "empathy" for the "hopes and struggles" of losers, but with Sonia Sotomayor it looks like he decided to zero in on *stupid* instead. In Sotomayor, Obama had found someone in the likeness of Obama (albeit with Manuel Noriega's face).

Among Sotomayor's much-heralded "disadvantages" is apparently the lack of any brains. She is so obviously lightweight, one liberal reporter has noticed it. Jeffery Rosen wrote in The New Republic that Sotomayor "'is not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,'" in the words of one former clerk for the court she currently sits on. Rosen noted that "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" doubted Sotomayor's "ability to provide the intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices." Most of these former clerks and federal prosecutors are Democrats.

In the Ricci v. DeStefano case, "empathetic" Sotomayor empathetically ruled against 'white firefighters' who were denied promotion because they passed an examination for promotion. Since the test didn't yield any qualified black candidates, the New Haven authority, out of a profound sense of fairness, canned the test results and gave no promotions. Frank Ricci and his firefighting colleagues, who were discriminated against, filed a lawsuit, arguing they were discriminated against. But the fervently stupid Sotomayor thinks the test was "racist". But one of the 'white firefighters' is Hispanic. The vicious Klansmen who formulated the test messed up.

Ruling as part of a three-judge 2nd Circuit panel, Sotomayor upheld the case's dismissal. The court grappled with the mountains of briefs and extended oral arguments in the case by issuing a lengthy ruling consisting of a one-paragraph opinion.

Sotomayor's lunatic decisions get routinely reversed on appeal, so the firefighters' case stands an excellent chance before the Supremes.

Speaking of lunatic decisions (besides nominating Sotomayor), in the Maloney v. Cuomo case, Sotomayor ruled that the 2nd Amendment which states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means that states can infringe all they want, that infringing is OK so long as it's not the feds doing the infringing. This puts Sotomayor to the left of the 9th Circuit Court, earning her the label "centrist" in the media.

The "centrist" and "moderate" Sotomayor is against laws keeping convicted felons from casting ballots because it "disqualifies a group of people from voting" -- darling groups such as cop-killers, the Manson family, etc. She's ruled against the EPA doing cost-benefit analysis to find the 'best technology available' -- out of fairness for inferior technology. Sotomayor routinely apologizes to convicted criminals during sentencing.

But if the goal in picking Sotomayor was finding someone sufficiently out of step with normal Americans to appease the Democrats' nut base, it worked. Even Kim Jong-Il is happy. He fired three more rockets in celebration!

Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"

I am curious. How can Republicans vote against her when they voted for her back in the early 90’s with a Republican President?

I am baffled by the premise of your question. Is that a "gotcha?" Because I don't think "Republicans, then" are "Republicans, now." What does one thing have to do with the other. Are they supposed to be part of some collective hive-mind?

Republicans, Independents and even Democrats are objectively individuals, whether they deny it or not.

And most of the GOP members are going to vote for this ding-bat anyway, because of the Hispanic Vote Fantasy.

I am over sixty years old and started following politics early as a senior in high school working as Press Chairman for the Youth for Goldwater in Houston, Texas. As all those years have rolled by, it has never ceased to amaze me how blatantly the Liberal Democrats freely lie, cheat and steal and they get away with it.

They accuse the Republicans of a ‘Culture of Corruption’ while Dems fore and aft are up to their necks in wrong doing. They condemn “Greedy” bankers as being behind the subprime mortgage crisis for plying the poor and illegal immigrants with home loans they could never pay for all the while never mentioning it was the Liberal Democrats behind laws that forced the bankers to make those loans to the unqualified poor and illegal immigrants.

They conveniently do not recall approving enhanced interrogation methods in 2002 while calling in 2009 for prosecution of those who used such techniques to prevent more 9/11s.

Bill are approved granting government funds to companies Democrat lawmakers spouses own large stakes in yet this is treated as if it is all according to Hoyle. Democrat earmarks continue to go to pet leftist projects to nowhere while President Obama reneges on his promise to end all earmarks.

Threats of writing stern letters of complaint has not stop either North Korea's recent nuclear test nor missile tests, so why should the same Obama “Apology & Appeasement” policy work on Iran or any other foe of the United States?

Now our Left Wing Democrat President nominates a candidate for the Supreme Court that has no intention of following the Constitution nor the rule of law unless it follow her personal Liberal, judicial activist view. She claims that by virtue of her race and gender she is more worth of making the ‘correct’ decisions than the typical white man. If this is not racist, then what is?

So, the only question we have left to answer is who will survive when our government lead by Obama, Joe, Nancy, Harry, Barney, Ted, Hillary, etc is nuked by our North Korean, Iranian or Muslim Terrorists foes?

We know who will be blamed for all this? We will, of course, we Typical Conservative Republicans.

The only possible silver lining in this whole coming armageddon is the fact Conservatives will come out of the rubble armed, the surviving left wing will not. Perhaps then we can finally have a full accounting and ultimate justice.

BipartiSonia [Andy McCarthy]

It’s at the top of the Left’s talking-points that Judge Sotomayor was first put on the bench by a Republican president, George H. W. Bush, in 1991. That’s pretty funny when you think about it — the Bush seal of approval is not usually thought an imprimatur by the Left, and it wouldn’t likely be much comfort to conservatives given that Sotomayor’s district court nomination came around the same time GHWB put Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. But there is even less to it than meets the eye.

The appointment of judges, U.S. attorneys, and other high federal offices filled by presidential appointment has been controlled for eons by the U.S. senators from each state. That is because a nominee must win confirmation by the senate, the rules and customs of which permit a single senator to block consideration of a nominee. For years and years (until Schumer beat D’Amato), the U.S. senate delegation from New York was split — one Republican, one Democrat. In order to keep the peace and, more importantly, to ensure that the senator from the party out of power (i.e., not in the White House) did not use senatorial privileges to block appointments desired by the party in power, there was an arrangement in New York: for every X number of appointments controlled by the party in power, the party out of power (from 1980 through 1992, the Democrats) would get Y number (a smaller number, but at least something, which is better than nothing). I believe in 1991 it was on the order of 2 Democrat appointments for every 5 Republican appointments.

That is how Sonia Sotomayor was nominated by Bush-41. She was a selection of Democratic Sen. Pat Moynihan. The Republicans agreed to her appointment in order to ensure that Moynihan would not block nominees urged by Republican Sen. Al D’Amato.

It is surely true that Judge Sotomayor is a Bush-41 appointee, and I have no doubt that our regrettably race-and-ethnicity-obsessed Republican Party would point to her appointment by Bush as more proof of how indulgent they are of Hispanic sensibilities. But Sotomayor was not a Republican idea; she was a Republican accommodation.

05/26 11:11 PMShare

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.