The "Wise Latina"

post from Daily Kos on 13 July 2009 06:16:04 PM. © Daily Kos

Republican Senators are concerned. They're troubled. And they've introduced their game plan for the confirmation hearing of Sonia Sotomayor: she made a speech where she had the gall to say that her background and life experiences have an impact on her thinking. Just as Clarence Thomas did in 1991:

I believe, Senator, that I can make a contribution, that I can bring something different to the Court, that I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the Court does.

... and Samuel Alito did in 2006:

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

... and just as any thinking person will acknowledge, no matter what their profession.

And while the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will hammer on the Ricci case, and whine that she wants to take away everyone's guns, judging by the emphasis in lead hit man Jeff Sessions' (R-AL) opening statement:

I will not vote for — no senator should vote for — an individual nominated by any president who is not fully committed to fairness and impartiality towards every person who appears before them ... who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court.

... and in the remarks by each ensuing Republican member, the "wise Latina" is what they'll be hanging their hats on over the next few days.

Not that they think they're going to derail her nomination, but what better way to pander to the base than to regurgitate the racists attacks made against Sotomayor for the past seven weeks ... although this time veiled in concerns about "activism" and "empathy."

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/NNCoZ3iTk28/-The-Wise-Latina

Digg this

Health Care Reform: Myths vs. Facts

post from Firedoglake on 13 July 2009 06:15:07 PM. © Firedoglake

As the health reform fight moves forward, the issues people are talking about change. While it once seemed like our biggest battle was over whether we are going to get a strong public health insurance option as part of reform, that question has now[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/6311

Digg this

Doodling Liz Cheneys Name

post from Taylor Marsh on 13 July 2009 06:13:02 PM. © Taylor Marsh

The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfard is very excited today. After reading the Washington Times piece that Liz Cheney might run for office (something that was telegraphed a long time ago), he’s taken to writing Ms. Cheney’s name on[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/07/13/doodling-liz-cheneys-name/

Digg this

Where The Rubber Meets The Road (7/13/09)

post from The Liberal Doomsayer on 13 July 2009 06:10:00 PM. © The Liberal Doomsayer

As reported in last Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, here is how Philadelphia-area members of Congress were recorded on major roll-call votes last week (and I also posted here).

House

2010 foreign-affairs budget. Voting 318-106, the House approved a $48.8 billion foreign-affairs budget (HR 3081) for fiscal 2010 that provides $9.6 billion to operate the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development while funding the hiring of more than 1,300 Foreign Service officers for duty mainly in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: John Adler (D., N.J.), Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Michael N. Castle (R., Del.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), and Joe Sestak (D., Pa.).

Voting no: Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.) and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).

My guess is that both Smith and Pancake Joe voted against this because of the repeal of the so-called ?Mexico City? ban, which, as noted here, ?require(d) any non-governmental organization to agree before receiving U.S. funds that they will 'neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations'? (with funding to those organizations provided by US AID, which is funded in this bill).

However, as we know, Joe Pitts really doesn?t need much of a reason to vote ?No? to anything.

Agriculture spending cut. Voting 185-248, the House rejected a proposed 5 percent across-the-board cut in fiscal 2010 appropriations (HR 2997) to fund agriculture and food programs, rural development, and agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The amendment would have trimmed $1.1 billion from the bill's $20.5 billion in discretionary spending. The bill was later passed.

A yes vote backed the amendment.

Voting yes: Adler, Castle, Dent, Gerlach, Murphy, and Pitts.

Voting no: Andrews, Brady, Fattah, Holden, LoBiondo, Schwartz, Sestak, and Smith.

I think Patrick voted yes here to burnish his ?Blue Dog? budgetary ?cred? (can?t think of why else he and John Adler would line up with so many Repugs here ? kind of an astute vote here in a way, considering that the money was ultimately approved anyway - "having it both ways," sort of).

Food and Drug Administration. Voting 135-292, the House refused to freeze the 2010 Food and Drug Administration budget at its 2009 level. The amendment to HR 2997 (above) sought to block a proposed 11 percent, or $373 million, increase in FDA spending for the budget year that begins in October.

A yes vote was to freeze the FDA budget at the 2009 level.

Voting yes: Adler and Pitts.

Voting no: Andrews, Brady, Castle, Dent, Fattah, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Murphy, Schwartz, Sestak, and Smith.

I have to admit that I?m stumped on this one. I can?t think of why Adler would oppose this (and there?s nothing on his web site about it), particularly given that an amendment was defeated introduced here (near the bottom of the Congress Matters post) by the odious Jeb Hensarling seeking to strike funding that Adler and his fellow Jersey reps had requested for researching cranberry and blueberry disease.

Senate

Mexican border fence. The Senate voted, 54-44, to require the government to build at least 700 miles of double-layered fencing along the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border by the end of 2010. The amendment was offered to a bill (HR 2892), later passed, that appropriates $42.9 billion for the Department of Homeland Security in fiscal 2010.

A yes vote backed the amendment.

Voting yes: Arlen Specter (D., Pa.).

Voting no: Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey (D., Pa.), Ted Kaufman (D., Del.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.).

Not sure what else the ?fence? will do except isolate wildlife and encourage the use of ?coyotes? (noted here) to a greater extent that we have already ? interesting vote for ?Democrat? Arlen Specter.

Prescription-drug imports. The Senate approved, 55-36, an amendment to HR 2892 to permit individuals to import prescription drugs for their personal use from Canada. The measure would prohibit U.S. customs officers from confiscating Canada-bought pharmaceuticals at border crossings.

A yes vote backed the amendment.

Voting yes: Casey, Kaufman, and Specter.

Voting no: Carper, Lautenberg, and Menendez.

Big Pharma doesn?t like competition ? kind of a gutsy vote by Kaufman here in particular.

Firefighter grants. Voting 32-58, the Senate refused to add $100 million for firefighter grants to the Federal Emergency Management Agency budget (HR 2892, above) in addition to $810 million already in the bill for that purpose.
A yes vote backed the amendment.

Voting yes: Carper, Casey, Kaufman, and Specter.

Voting no: Lautenberg and Menendez.

This was an attempt to by Dem Rep David Price to add funding to the FIRE grant program, which (as noted here) ?helps enhance the basic operational capabilities for career, combination, and volunteer fire departments?; it was cut by about 70 percent in the Obama FY 2010 budget (though, in addition to the current funding, about $210 million in stimulus funds were set aside for fire station construction, as noted here ? not sure why a cut in firefighter funding was approved by Lautenberg and Menendez, given that their state has so many refineries).

This week, the House will debate the 2010 intelligence budget, and the Senate will take up the 2010 defense budget.

And with that, I?m outta here (off to a hedonistic blue-state locale) ? hope to rev this up again starting early next week.

Read The Full Article:
http://liberaldoomsayer.blogspot.com/2009/07/where-rubber-meets-road-71309.html

Digg this

The Day in 100 Seconds: Balls and Strikes

post from Talking Points Memo on 13 July 2009 05:57:00 PM. © Talking Points Memo

Full-size video at TPMtv.com.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/vljCOQhhljI/the_day_in_100_
seconds_balls_and_strikes.php

Digg this

Don't Let Wells Fargo Be a Roadblock to Economic
Recovery

post from Open Left - Front Page on 13 July 2009 05:55:00 PM. © Open Left - Front Page

Wells Fargo is a roadblock to economic recovery. That's what members of the United[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OpenLeft-FrontPage/~3/dsgWiV8kLMc/dont-let-wells-f
argo-be-a-roadblock-to-economic-recovery

Digg this

Conservative media distort Ginsburg interview to
claim she "thought Roe v. Wade was a way to weed out undesirables"

post from Media Matters for America - Latest Items on 13 July 2009 05:51:05 PM. © Media Matters for America - Latest Items

Following a July 7 New York Times Magazine interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, conservative media have distorted Ginsburg's comments on abortion to claim that she, in the words of Fox News and radio host Glenn Beck, "thought Roe v. Wade was a way to weed out undesirables." In fact, in the interview, Ginsburg was attributing that sentiment to others.

From the New York Times Magazine interview:

Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae -- in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

Instances of conservative media figures and outlets that have distorted Ginsburg's interview to smear her are listed below:

During the July 13 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh read a portion of Ginsburg's comments and stated, "I think in Ruth 'Buzzi' Ginsburg's case, when she says that she thinks Roe was about population growth, particularly growth in populations you don't want to have too many of, she's probably thinking about aborting conservatives." He went on to add, "Now, what's astounding about this is that a matriarch of modern liberalism was candid about the underlying objective of the abortion movement -- that is to rid society of entire populations deemed unworthy."

During the July 13 edition of his radio program, Beck stated: "[H]as anybody really talked about Ginsburg and what she said last week about how she thought Roe v. Wade was a way to weed out undesirables? Excuse me?" He went on to assert that "progressives believe and always have -- look up the history of Planned Parenthood -- that it is a way to weed out undesirables. Now we have a Supreme Court justice who said, yeah, well that was pretty much my philosophy."

Despite providing the relevant transcript from the Times interview, a July 8 WorldNetDaily article claimed that "[i]n an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it 'populations that we don't want to have too many of.' " The article was linked to by the Fox Nation with the headline, "Ginsburg: I Thought Roe Was to Rid Undesirables."

A July 8 post on the National Review Online blog Bench Memos also provided the relevant portion of Ginsburg's comments but concluded, "Gee, Justice Ginsburg, would you like to tell us more about your views on those populations that 'we don't want to have too many of'?"

From the July 13 of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

BECK: I'm going to talk a little bit about the Sotomayor hearings today. But I think this is just another classic case of misdirection. She is expected today to address the "wise Latina" bullcrap that she -- that spilled out of her mouth not once, not twice, but five different times. Meanwhile, while we're paying attention to this, there's a lot of other things that are going on, including -- has anybody really talked about Ginsburg and what she said last week about how she thought Roe v. Wade was a way to weed out undesirables?
Excuse me? I thought this was about a woman's right to choose. No, the progressives believe and always have -- look up the history of Planned Parenthood -- that it is a way to weed out undesirables. Now we have a Supreme Court justice who said, yeah, well that was pretty much my philosophy. Is anybody talking about that? The coming -- the coming full implementation of the ideas of the progressive movement is absolutely horrifying. Sotomayor, she is a -- I, you know, I think that she is a -- she's a Trojan horse.

From the July 13 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: The Sunday New York Times published a recent interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg, and after expressing her annoyance over a 1980 decision that forbids using Medicaid tax dollars for abortions, Justice Ginsburg said this -- I want to quote it: "Frankly, I had thought at the time that Roe was decided that there was concern about population growth, particularly growth in populations we don't want to have too many of, so that Roe was going to then be set up for Medicaid funding for abortion," unquote.
Now growth in populations we don't want to have too many -- that's Planned Parenthood. That was the original goal of Planned Parenthood. The original goal of Planned Parenthood was to abort various minorities out of existence. That was the original purpose. I think in Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg's case, when she says that she thinks Roe was about population growth, particularly growth in populations you don't want to have too many of, she's probably thinking about aborting conservatives. But the problem with that is it's the liberals that are aborting each other, or themselves -- their future generations.
Now, what's astounding about this is that a matriarch of modern liberalism was candid about the underlying objective of the abortion movement -- that is to rid society of entire populations deemed unworthy. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an early proponent of this. You know, it's called eugenics. And her aim was to wipe out the African-American population.
Other infamous world figures acted upon similar instincts using other means to object -- achieve their objectives: concentration camps, mass gassings, so-called ethnic cleansings. Planned Parenthood's no different -- Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood no different than any of the people that used concentration camps, mass gassing, so-called ethnic cleansings.
And what's just ironic as it can be is that the primary supporters of Planned Parenthood are liberals. And it's -- but here comes Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg just out of the box admitting what this is all about.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.mediamatters.org/~r/mediamatters/latest/~3/eVTymv67YE0/200907130042

Digg this

Day 1 of Sotomayor hearings: Balls and strikes.

post from Think Progress on 13 July 2009 05:50:00 PM. © Think Progress

During his confirmation hearings, John Roberts famously established what he viewed as the job qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice. ?It’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat,? he said. (His record has proven contrary to that statement.) While discussing the candidacy of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, many Democratic Senators referenced — and refuted — Roberts? ?balls and strikes? analogy during today?s hearings. ThinkProgress? Victor Zapanta compiled this entertaining video compilation. Watch it:

video details and more

As David Waldman writes, the ?balls and strikes? analogy is ?a ridiculously restrictive comparison, of course, given that most cases that reach the Supreme Court (at their own choosing, by the way) aren’t about balls and strikes. If they are, they’re generally not granted review.?

TP?s Ian Millhiser live-blogged today?s hearings. Check out his coverage here.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/13/sotomayor-balls-and-strikes/

Digg this

Media still can't find context of Sotomayor's
"wise Latina" comment

post from Media Matters for America - Latest Items on 13 July 2009 05:38:37 PM. © Media Matters for America - Latest Items

In the daysleading up to Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, which began July13, several media figures and outlets have repeated or uncritically reportedRepublican distortions of Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments without providing thecontext for her remarks. As Media Mattersfor America has repeatedly noted, when Sotomayor made the"wise Latina"comment, she was specificallydiscussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining"race and sex discrimination cases." Moreover, in criticizing or reportingcriticism of Sotomayor's comments, they havealso failed to report similar comments by Justices Clarence Thomas andSamuel Alito regarding the impact theirbackgrounds and personal experiences have hadon their judicial thinking.

In her 2001speech, delivered at the University ofCalifornia-Berkeley School of Law and published in 2002 in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, Sotomayor stated:

In ourprivate conversations, Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum has pointed out to me thatseminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from SupremeCourts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significantbut I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases beforethe Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largelypeople of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, JudgeConnie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, andothers of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice[Ruth Bader] Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental inadvocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality interms and conditions of employment.
Whetherborn from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, apossibility 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 [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old manand wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am notso sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnikattributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure thatI agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, therecan never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with therichness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusionthan a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Let us notforget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice [Benjamin] Cardozovoted 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 genderdiscrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be somyopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds areincapable 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 onthe Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issuesincluding Brown.
However, tounderstand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing togive. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand theexperiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept theproposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and peopleof color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges chooseto see.

Sotomayordelivered nearly identical remarks in at least four other speeches from 1994 to 2003.

Furthermore,during his 2006 confirmation hearing, Alito asserted:"When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people inmy own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background orbecause of religion or because of gender. And I do take that intoaccount." Similarly, during Thomas' confirmation hearing, Sen. Herb Kohl(D-WI) asked, "I'd like to ask you why you want this job?" Thomasreplied, in part, "I believe, Senator, that I can make a contribution, thatI can bring something different to the Court, that I can walk in the shoes ofthe people who are affected by what the Court does."

Mediafigures and outlets advancing the distortion of Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments include:

On the July13 edition of CNN Newsroom, shortly before the beginning of Sotomayor'sconformation hearing, CNN's Gloria Borger stated:

BORGER: I think it is an historic moment,and I think it's pretty clear the kinds of questions that you're going to hearRepublicans asking. She did make a very controversial remark in a speech that awise Latinawoman would issue a better opinion than a white male judge. I think you can besure she's going to be asked about things like that.

Laterduring that program, after airing Sen. Jeff Sessions' (R-AL) openingremarks, CNN's Wolf Blitzer stated:

BLITZER:Jeff Sessions, the Republican ranking member, the top Republican on the SenateJudiciary Committee, himself a former judge, with some very, very strong words,outlining a theme that no doubt he and other Republicans will focus on duringthe course of the questioning of Judge Sotomayor. That, simply put, some of hercomments are not appropriate for a United States Supreme Court justice.Specifically, the comment -- now widely publicized -- that she made at theUniversity of California-Berkeley School of Law back in 2001, when she saidthese words: "I would hope that a wise Latinawoman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach abetter conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

On the July13 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Megyn Kellyinterviewed Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) about Sotomayor's confirmation. She introducedthe interview by stating:

KELLY:Well, one of the topics expected to come up during this week's controversialhearings is a statement made by Sotomayor back in October of 2001. Speaking atan event at the University of California at Berkeley,Sotomayor said, quote, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of herexperiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a whitemale who hasn't lived that life."

After Kylstated that it's "a bad thing" Sotomayor meant "that members of the court whoare persons of color" will "make decisions based upon a particular agenda thatthey hold," Kelly asked:

KELLY: Buthow do you get to that, Senator, because Judge Sotomayor is not going to gobefore Congress today and say, "Yes, I believe that people of certain color,people of minority descent are gonna make better judges than white judges." Imean, that would be a potential deal-breaker, and I think this woman is smartenough to know that. So how are you going to satisfy yourself that that is notwhat she secretly believes, despite what she may tell you?

On the July13 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, correspondent Jamie Colbycited "statements she's made" such as "being a Latina woman would make her potentially abetter decision-maker than a white male. Those will all come up in the hearingstoday."

On the July13 edition of NBC's Today, correspondent Natalie Morales stated:

MORALES:Senate Judiciary Republicans are promising fair but tough questions onSotomayor's past rulings, especially cases involving discrimination and race issues.They're also set to press her to explain what she meant when she said a wise Latina woman could cometo a better conclusion than a white male.

A July 13FoxNews.com article, which "the Associated Presscontributed to," stated that the "most fertile ground for Republicanquestioning appears to be on race and ethnicity, focused on Sotomayor's'wise Latina' comment and the white firefighters from New Haven, Conn.,who won their Supreme Court case last month. In a speech in 2001, Sotomayor said she hoped a 'wise Latina' oftenwould reach better conclusions than a white male without the same lifeexperience."

As MediaMatters noted, in a July 13 Time magazine article, Jay Newton-Small and Sophia Yanwrote:

Sotomayorhas used the "wise Latina"phrase repeatedly in speeches dating back to 1994. In one speech in 2001 shetagged on the line "than a white male who hasn't lived that life."Republicans, who prefer judges that claim total impartiality to the law, do notlike that Sotomayor's decisions are influenced by her life experience.

On the July12 edition of NBC's Nightly News, correspondent Pete Williams assertedthat Sotomayor will "be pressed for an explanation of her now well-knownstatement that 'a wise Latinawoman would more often than not reach a better conclusion' as a judge 'than awhite male.' "

On the July12 edition of CNN Newsroom, correspondent Kate Bolduan stated that"Republicans are also sure to press Sotomayor on herpast statement that a wise Latina woman would reach a betterconclusion than a white male." She then aired a clip of Sessions stating thatSotomayor "advocated a view that suggests that your personal experiences, evenprejudices -- she uses that word -- it's expected that they would influence thedecision you make, which is a blow, I think, at the very ideal of Americanjustice."

In a June12 Chicago Tribune article, writers David G. Savage and JamesOliphant wrote:

Given alifetime appointment, will she be a justice who views the law through a liberallens because of her Latinaheritage?
Inspeeches, she said "gender and national origins ... will make a difference inour judging" and added that a "wise Latina" will "more often than not reacha better conclusion than a white male."
Or will shefollow her long track record as a careful and moderate judge who sticks to thefacts and the law?

A July 12 McClatchy Newspapers article stated that critics "also zeroed inon her statement in 2001 that her 'hope' was that a 'wiseLatina with the richness of her experiences would more often than notreach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.' "

A July 11 NewYork Times article stated that during her confirmationhearing, Sotomayor "may explain ... what she meant when shesaid that a 'wise Latina woman' might render better decisions than a white male."

From theJuly 13 edition of CNN Newsroom:

BLITZER:Gloria, this is real history right now. She would be only the third woman everto serve on the United States Supreme Court, and the first Hispanic ever toserve on the U.S. Supreme Court.
BORGER: That's right, for whom English wasnot her first language. I was reading that in some of our research before. So Ithink it is an historic moment, and I think it's pretty clear the kinds ofquestions that you're going to hear Republicans asking. She did make a verycontroversial remark in a speech that a wise Latina woman would issue a better opinionthan a white male judge. I think you can be sure she's going to be asked aboutthings like that. And liberals are concerned themselves about whether she's ontheir side on issues like abortion and race. They're not quite sure about that.
[...]
BLITZER:Jeff Sessions, the Republican ranking member, the top Republican on the SenateJudiciary Committee, himself a former judge, with some very, very strong words,outlining a theme that no doubt he and other Republicans will focus on duringthe course of the questioning of Judge Sotomayor. That, simply put, some of hercomments are not appropriate for a United States Supreme Court justice.
Specifically,the comment -- now widely publicized -- that she made at the University ofCalifornia-Berkeley School of Law back in 2001, when she said these words: "Iwould hope that a wise Latinawoman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach abetter conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Jeff Toobin,let me start with you. Were you surprised by how robust Jeff Sessions' initialcomments were?
TOOBIN: Iwas. I thought he would wait a little bit, but this was bombs away from theget-go. And I just think what's worth thinking about here is that there is anissue before the Supreme Court now that is going to dominate these proceedingsjust below the radar, which is, does the Constitution allow affirmative actionanymore? Does the Constitution allow a university to consider race inadmissions, to allow a police department or a fire department to consider raceas one factor in promotions?
That issuereally separates the liberals from the conservatives on the court. Sotomayor isgoing to be asked about that in various ways. It was the underpinning of thecase that Sessions was making. Chief Justice Roberts is making a big push onthe court to create no more room for affirmative action under the Constitution,and I think that's just something to think about as we move forward.

From theJuly 13 edition of Fox News' America'sNewsroom:

KELLY:Well, one of the topics expected to come up during this week's controversialhearings is a statement made by Sotomayor back in October of 2001. Speaking atan event at the University of California at Berkeley,Sotomayor said, quote, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of herexperiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a whitemale who hasn't lived that life." Joining us now from Capitol Hill, SenateJudiciary member Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona.Senator, good morning to you.
KYL: Goodmorning, Megyn.
KELLY: So,just to start off, that was not the only time Sotomayor made that comment.She's made it repeatedly as -- by some counts as many as seven times. So, theWhite House is going to have a tough time seeing her live up to its statementon that comment where President Obama said she may have misspoke. Having saidall that, how much hay can you make out of that, and could that potentiallyderail her confirmation?
KYL: It'snot a matter of making hay out of it; it's a matter of finding out what shereally believes. Because if she believes it, and you're right, she has said iton numerous occasions, this was not just a slip of the tongue -- and by the wayit was reprinted in a law journal which she obviously edited, so she was verycareful about what she said. But if she really means by that, that members ofthe court who are persons of color, as she puts it, will make better decisions,and will make decisions based upon a particular agenda that they hold -- andshe encourages that there be more and more of those judges appointed to thecourt, that's a bad thing. As we all know, judges are supposed to be likeumpires in a ball game, calling the balls and strikes, not changing the rulesof the game. Even the American Bar Association [inaudible] --
KELLY: Buthow do you get to that, Senator, because Judge Sotomayor is not going to gobefore Congress today and say, "Yes, I believe that people of certain color,people of minority descent are gonna make better judges than white judges." Imean, that would be a potential deal-breaker, and I think this woman is smartenough to know that. So how are you going to satisfy yourself that that is notwhat she secretly believes, despite what she may tell you?
KYL: Well,that's the question all of Americawill have to decide. If we point out that she has said this over and over andover again with the same terminology, and then in her hearings she says, "No,I really didn't mean it," the question for the American people to judge is,which Judge Sotomayor do you think is going to be deciding cases once she's onthe Supreme Court and is there for her lifetime and not accountable to anyoneelse. That's why this is so important. There is nobody to provide a check and abalance on someone once they get to be on the United States Supreme Court
KELLY:Senator, there's been a lot of talk about whether senators like yourself fromArizona, which has a high Hispanic population, will go easy on the nominee forfear of alienating Hispanic voters or Latino voters. What is your response tothose who are concerned you may do that?
KYL: I'mnot going to go easy or go hard. I'm just going to ask questions, asdiplomatically but as firmly as I can, and I don't think in this day and ageanybody here in Washingtonvotes yes or no on a nominee based upon their gender or their ethnicity. It shouldn'tbe done, and frankly, it isn't done.
KELLY: Isthere any chance that the Republicans attempt to vote this nominee down orattempt to garner the votes to somehow filibuster this nominee? We did see thatattempt with Justice Alito. You've got the chairman of your committee, PatrickLeahy, a Democrat, who wanted to filibuster Sam Alito, not to mention PresidentObama, who was then a senator who wanted to filibuster Sam Alito. Any chancethe Republicans, despite the numbers that are against them now in the Senate,attempt that with respect to this judge?
KYL: Idon't think so. We haven't so far. Everyone is free to make their own judgmenton this. We are not going to do, as you said, what President Obama and ChairmanLeahy did on the Alito nomination and try to successfully conduct a filibuster.In first place, we don't have the numbers, as you pointed out. But we don'toperate that way. Everybody is free to make their own decision. And I haven'tdecided yet; I am anxious to see what she says. I also think it's importantbecause according to a very recent survey by the Rasmussen group, which is avery respected polling concern, the majority of Americans oppose herconfirmation right now, and that includes large majorities of both women andHispanic and Asian voters.
And, by theway, independent voters, by something like 23 or 24 points, oppose herconfirmation. So, the American people are looking skeptically at her nominationI think because of all of the controversy that [chief political correspondent]Carl [Cameron] pointed out before and that you've noted just now. That's why Ithink she has a job to do here. It's not up to us to try to trip her up or goeasy on her or anything of that sort, but rather to elicit the informationthat will enable the American people to judge her and those of us on thecommittee to make our decisions as well.
KELLY:Understood, yes. The latest Rasmussen poll, conducted July 1, says 39 percentof Americans do not favor her confirmation, 37 percent do, which was a slidefor her from an earlier poll. Senator John Kyl, we'll be watching. Thanks somuch for being here.
KYL: Thankyou, Megyn.

From theJuly 13 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

COLBY: Butwhat is different about the confirmation hearings that you'll see today here onFox than the other two that she's been through for the district court and alsothe appellate court is a record of some 3,000 decisions she participated in,and also statements she's made, as you've heard. Public policy considerationsshould be a part of decision making, she said, knowing that that isn't thegeneral feeling among lawyers in the legal community, and also that being a Latina woman would makeher potentially a better decision-maker than a white male. Those will all comeup in the hearings today, definitely the empathy factor President Obama said hewants is in play when it comes to ethnicity.

From theJuly 13 edition of NBC's Today:

MORALES:President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, faces lawmakersthis morning on Capitol Hill, as confirmation hearings get under way. SenateJudiciary Republicans are promising fair but tough questions on Sotomayor'spast rulings, especially cases involving discrimination and race issues.They're also set to press her to explain what she meant when she said a wise Latina woman could cometo a better conclusion than a white male.

From a July13 FoxNews.com article, which "the Associated Presscontributed to":

The mostfertile ground for Republican questioning appears to be on race and ethnicity,focused on Sotomayor's"wise Latina" comment and thewhite firefighters from New Haven, Conn., who won their SupremeCourt case last month.
In a speechin 2001, Sotomayorsaid she hoped a "wise Latina"often would reach better conclusions than a white male without the same lifeexperience.
By a 5-4vote last month, the high court agreed with the firefighters, who claimed theywere denied promotions on account of their race after New Haven officials threw out test resultsbecause too few minorities did well. The court reversed a decision by Sotomayorand two other federal appeals court judges.

From theJuly 12 edition of CNN Newsroom:

BOLDUAN:Republicans are also sure to press Sotomayor on her paststatement that a wise Latinawoman would reach a better conclusion than a white male.
SenatorJeff Sessions is the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
SESSIONS[video clip]: She has advocated a view that suggests that your personalexperiences, even prejudices -- she uses that word -- it's expected that theywould influence the decision you make, which is a blow, I think, at the veryideal of American justice.
BOLDUAN:Democrats, including the committee's chair, will no doubt come quickly to Sotomayor's defense.
LEAHY[video clip]: She has the experience and the cases that show her to be amainstream judge. Anything else is nitpicking.

From theJuly 12 edition of NBC's Nightly News:

WILLIAMS:But she'll be pressed for an explanation of her now well-known statement that awise Latinawoman would more often than not reach a better conclusion as a judge than awhite male. Some Republicans say her record shows she's too willing to allowher own feelings to intrude, something they say that's at odds with otherjudges.
KYL: Whohave laid out the traditional way in which you decide cases with impartiality,laying your biases and prejudices aside, and just using the law. She, ofcourse, looks to other factors, like empathy, like whether it's popular inforeign countries, and that sort of thing.
WILLIAMS:Republicans will ask about a ruling she endorsed that said the SecondAmendment's protection of the right to own a gun does not apply to the states,an issue that has divided the federal courts. And they'll ask why she joined aruling against white firefighters in Connecticutwho claimed reverse discrimination. They sued when the city threw out apromotion test that would've helped them, but not black firemen. The SupremeCourt reversed that ruling just last month.
The hearingwill last four days, maybe five, and the Democrats hope to have the full Senatevote on the confirmation by early August before Congress takes its summerbreak, Lester.

From theJune 12 Chicago Tribune article:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor will go before a Senate committee this week and be pressed toanswer questions that have lingered since President Barack Obama made her his first choice for the Supreme Court.
Given alifetime appointment, will she be a justice who views the law through a liberallens because of her Latinaheritage?
Inspeeches, she said "gender and national origins ... will make a differencein our judging" and added that a "wise Latina"will "more often than not reach a better conclusion than a whitemale."
Or will shefollow her long track record as a careful and moderate judge who sticks to thefacts and the law?

From theJuly 12 McClatchy Newspapers article:

Five othermembers of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals joined the decision, which theU.S. Supreme Court overturned late last month.
Criticsalso zeroed in on her statement in 2001 that her ''hope'' was that a "wise Latina with the richness of her experiences would moreoften than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't livedthat life.''
Formercolleagues and court adversaries, however, said that Sotomayoris no extremist. If anything, her years as a prosecutor have made her moresympathetic to law enforcement.

From theJuly 11 New York Times article:

Beyondchecking those boxes, though, nominees usually decline to express views onother legal issues. The protocols are looser when it comes to questions aboutbiography, professional experience and statements made off the court.
Judge Sotomayor may choose to veer from thescript in a few places. She may explain what role empathy ought to play in ajudge's work, what she meant when she said that a ''wiseLatina woman'' might render better decisions than a white male and whatshe did as a board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fundfor more than a decade before becoming a judge.
Republicansenators have said they will press her about her role with the group. ''Duringher time there,'' Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on theSenate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement, ''the organization tookextreme positions on legal issues ranging from the death penalty to abortion toracial quotas.''

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.mediamatters.org/~r/mediamatters/latest/~3/Av1grY9mCBY/200907130040

Digg this

The GOP's continued war on empathy

I expected Republicans to resort to race-baiting in their fruitless effort to stop the inevitable confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The party of Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, and the old Dixiecrats simply can't help themselves. That's why only 7 percent of Latinos have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party.

More surprising has been the war on empathy. We polled that question back in mid-June.

Do you think empathy is an important characteristic for a Supreme Court Justice to possess or not? Yes No 18-29 63 17 30-44 47 34 45-59 55 26 60+ 46 35 White 41 39 Black 81 4 Latino 79 4 Other 79 5
Men 48 34 Women 56 24

[...] Same question as above:
Do you think empathy is an important characteristic for a Supreme Court Justice to possess or not?
Yes No Dem 73 12 GOP 18 56 Ind 54 28

Every demographic polled thought empathy was a good value to have except ... Republicans, while whites were fairly evenly split (not surprising given their heavy over-representation in the GOP). It is this very question that ultimately holds the answer to the GOP's current troubles.

Look closely at the crosstabs. What are the three groups that have abandoned the GOP in droves, costing them hugely at the polls? Youth voters, Latinos, and independents. And as Republicans spend the next weeks trashing the concept of "empathy", keep in mind that it is further alienating those very groups (as well as African Americans, Asians, and other rapidly growing non-white groups).

For the longest time, the GOP kept its hostility toward empathy fairly well-hidden. In fact, it pretended otherwise for the sake of electoral viability, as Jonah Goldberd complained in the National Review when assessing the root causes of Bush's failures:

But in the background there was an even larger problem: compassionate conservatism.

As countless writers have noted in National Review over the last five years, most conservatives never really understood what compassionate conservatism was, beyond a convenient marketing slogan to attract swing voters. The reality--as even some members of the Bush team will sheepishly concede--is that there was nothing behind the curtain. Sure, in the hands of Marvin Olasky and others, compassionate conservatism had some heft. But Karl Rove's translation of it into a political platform made it into a pseudo-intellectual rationale for constituent-pleasing and Nixonian "modern Republicanism."

Got that? As conservatives themselves note, Bush and Rove wielded compassionate conservatism as an empty political ploy to win "swing voters". And "compassion" is no different than "emapthy". So, the last Republican to have electoral success (even though he lost the popular vote) was a Republican who pretended to be emphatic. Now, his party has determined that Bush failed because he tried to be compassionate, and they've resorted to openly sneering at the word.

STEELE: ... Crazy nonsense empathetic. I’ll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind. Craziness.

Problem is, people want empathy in their government. And if Republicans aren't going to provide it, they will cede the electoral battlefield to the one party who will. And really, who are we to complain about that?