Posted on 06/05/2009 1:41:32 PM PDT by seanmerc
WASHINGTON -- Is Supreme Court justice-designate Sonia Sotomayor going to have to eat her words and forget her past to win a seat on the high bench?
That would apparently appease some of her right-wing critics, who are grasping at straws in their campaign to try to derail the Hispanic woman’s nomination -- or, at least, try to rough her up a bit.
Does she have to be a narrow constructionist and interpret the law their way? Let’s hope not -- conservative jurists have had their way for too long on the high court.
If she wins Senate confirmation, Sotomayor will be the third woman appointed to the court and the sixth Catholic on the current court. She would be moving up from a judgeship on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
Fearful of the Republican onslaught, White House aides have asked Sotomayor to retract or re-phrase some past statements that her critics have seized upon.
Take, for example, her comment in a 2001 speech at the University of California at Berkeley.
"I would hope 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," she said.
The way her critics have chewed on this one sentence shows how desperate they are.
Because she thrived amidst family poverty and hardship, it seems obvious that she would have a more sympathetic and perceptive decision-making role than a judge who came from privileged circumstances. All of us reflect our history.
But White House aides are running scared. They say they wished she had used "different words."
Those trying to pick a fight over her comment exude phony umbrage. They include former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and broadcaster Rush Limbaugh.
Gingrich -- so hungry to be back in the political swing after his fall from grace on Capitol Hill -- called Sotomayor a "Latina woman racist." (He later retracted the word "racist.")
Limbaugh branded her a "reverse racist."
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo said she "appears to be racist."
It’s sad they are forced to resort to name-calling.
It’s ironic that Judge Sotomayor -- who is of Puerto Rican descent and undoubtedly has experienced racial and gender discrimination -- must fight accusations that she is biased.
As others have noted, she has a compelling life story. Her father died when she was 9 years old. She was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when she was 8 years old. She and her brother, a physician, were raised by a single mother, a nurse.
Sotomayor’s academic record is impressive. She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University, which she attended on a scholarship, and from Yale Law School. She also has taught at New York University and Columbia Law School.
She is currently making the rounds on Capitol Hill, trying to win the hearts and minds and votes of senators.
She also has to promise her detractors she will not be an activist justice like those on the liberal Warren Court that brought our country into the 20th century -- especially on the question of civil rights.
She told Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that "ultimately and completely she would follow the law" -- more than her life experiences.
She is being asked to bring nothing to the high court from what she has learned and experienced in her life.
ROTFL!!
STE=Q
Serious query here...This piece shows clearly that she’s a highly opinionated columnist. So how does she still remain a member of the WH press corps, and get to ask questions at the daily WH presser. Her credentials should be revoked.
This is just an ugly, ugly female. What a tragic way to have to go through life.
ARRRRGGHHHHHHHHHH...
GRAPHIC IMAGE WARNING INSUFFIENT. BARF ALERT FULLY JUSTIFIED.
Her credentials should be revoked torn up and burned.
There, fixed. ;-)
This is a rhetorical question, right?
She is a liberal goddess of the far left. It is the only reason she has ever been allowed in the WH pres corps.
Nope. You can't get that ugly in just a million years. She had to have been ugly from birth.
Think of it this way—Gibbs and Bam-Bam get to look at that all the time!
She ain’t going away, gets worse every day and will prolly outlive more oaks.
Simplistic pap.
I want Helen to show me the studies that show growing up poor "obviously" makes you a better judge. Why? The poor are inherently blessed by what? Their lack of worldly experience? Their subpar educational opportunities? Their generally poorer nutrition? Their lack of financially successful role models? Their limited travel opportunities? Non-exposure to the finer arts?
I want Helen to tell me what specifically it is about growing up poor that would make one a better judge. She says it's "obvious" but that just because dumbass liberals tell each other things like this in their intellectual circle jerks, and nobody ever asks them to explain what the hell they are talking about.
Just grabbed my throat and fell down.Please don't do this any more--even inquiring minds don't want to know.
vaudine
tu rn in g blue eye s fogg in g o ver...can’t l as t mu ch l ooong er.
OMG! WTF did you have to do that for!
While I do appreciate the warning label, perhaps someone should post pics of Palin or Megyn Kelly to help the men recover.
It is date night, after all.
“That would apparently appease some of her right-wing critics, who are grasping at straws in their campaign to try to derail the Hispanic woman’s nomination — or, at least, try to rough her up a bit.”
How would she like it if I said libs were “grasping at straws” when they opposed David Duke because he was a Klansman? After all, it’s not as if Duke strung up anybody. Or that he advocated a return to segregation. It was all about the racism in his heart, right?
I like to think of it as a public service. :-)
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.