We Stand With Sonia Sotomayor
By David Neiwert Saturday Jun 06, 2009 9:00am
[Poster by Favianna Rodriguez for Presente.]
The Right is throwing every little bit of ugliness they can at Sonia Sotomayor in hopes of derailing her nomination to the Supreme Court.
They've called her a racist. They've compared the National Council of La Raza to the Ku Klux Klan. They've called her a "lightweight" and "anti-white." They've suggested she lacks the right temperament, since she's just another stereotypical hot-blooded Latina. They've even suggested she's unfit to be a judge because she menstruates.
OK, we get it, fellas. The kid gloves are off.
Presente has organized a grassroots campaign to let ordinary citizens send the following message to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
We are outraged by the smear campaign against Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Instead of discussing her record, right-wing activists have sought to question Sotomayor’s intelligence and temperament, and suggested that her racial identity will prevent her from ruling fairly. This thinly veiled racism and sexism is not only insulting to Sotomayor, it's an affront to anyone who believes that a nominee should be judged on her record, not her heritage or skin tone.
The reality is that Sotomayor is an accomplished judge who would start with more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court justice in 100 years. In her more than 3,000 panel decisions and almost 400 opinions, she has consistently protected the rights of working Americans and become one of the nation’s most respected legal minds. Sotomayor is not only a superbly qualified nominee; she is a powerful example of the American dream and knows how the law affects the daily lives of Americans.
I stand with Judge Sotomayor, and urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to give her nomination a speedy hearing and a positive confirmation.
Go here to sign it.
Login or Register to post comments.
I get that the Republican attacks are easily debunked b.s. I also get that she is certainly well qualified for the post.
But so is Chief Justice Roberts. What makes Sotomayor a progressive nominee for the position? Is it really nothing more than identity politics?
If so, we might want to watch out. Identity politics can give you Clarence Thomas.
I don't know why the progressive community should be "standing behind" her when she is yet another "moderate" that is only hated by the right because she has been picked by Obama who they detest for no rational reason since he's continuing and expanding many of their favorite Bush policies, because she's latina and a woman. Just because the right-wing hates her doesn't automatically mean the left should embrace her. Personally, I'd love to see a true progressive "activist judge" nominated since the right will b!tch either way and then we'd actually have some progress in steering this country away from the lingering cliff on the right.
I feel the same way. At first I thought this was a very safe choice and she was picked just to get a quick confirmation so we can move on to other things. But the Repugs have proven to be masters of making mountains out of molehills while they completely ignore their own Everest-sized Crapheap. At this point I really wish I had a president that would say,"Oh yeah?, You don't like this moderate? Well here's a real lefty you can scream about, Fuck all of you"
:)
Justice William Jefferson Clinton.
Not only would I support him but watching the top of every repubs head similtaneously explode would be awesome.
Exploding heads!!!
Rule of law!!!!
Too old.
Justice Mario Cuomo.
.
I have been against Mario Cuomo ever since he said back in the 80's that the outcry against public housing in Tuckahoe NY was OK, because it was "class based," not "race based." He can kiss my fat hairy tuchus.
?
It makes his hairy ass less itchy.
That would really make the right wingers' heads explode.
Goldwater Girl. Would have to explain insensitive remarks about the late Ms. Wynette.
I would pay good money to see that happen!
Dennis Kucinich! Now, there's a white male politician I can admire!
.
Forget Dennis-nominate his hot brit wife!
Jaysus, people.
Standing behind her has nothing to do with identity politics. Indeed, it's about refuting white male identity politics -- the primary reason for the right's opposition to her. We stand behind her because of her extraordinary qualifications and her sound legal reasoning. I don't think the fear of Catholicism is a legitimate reason to be concerned, either.
Agreed.
O'Reilly is a bigger threat of violence than the Papacy. It's days of mayhem are behind it.
you mean the Pope isn't waiting on a boat in the Potomac ready to tell all the Catholics on the court how to decide on it's cases?
snark/
that many are actually recovering Catholics.
actually recovering and plain recovering? Do the sprinkle stains give it away or the knee braces?
/
Chama, I think. I saw the crutches. Didn't see them thrown away.
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=percentage+of+curren...
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=percentage+of+curren...
They don't deserve representation on the bench?
Imagine the reaction of white males identity arguers if that were the case.
Dave Neiwert:
Ok. She's well qualified and has "sound legal reasoning." So what? Chief Justice Roberts is well qualified and has "sound legal reasoning," but those were certainly not sufficient reasons for progressives to stand behind him.
If this is about "refuting white male identity politics," then why not another Clarence Thomas?
I suppose we're just left with "she's someone the Right is complaining about, so we should get behind her."
That's not good enough.
I agree - She's not a bad choice, but really, the only reason everyone is "standing" behind her is that it was this administration's pick and it didn't offend our sensibilities. It's a little nauseating actually, as I constantly accused republicans of doing the exact same thing... being puppets. She's a scotus pick and will probably merely take up the positions of the guy she's replacing... whoopdeedooda... one of a thousand who would.
Sotomayor's confirmation would put six Roman Catholics on the SCOTUS.
I just don't know.
That's my feeling exactly.
SCOTUS is a secular court, but it's looking more and more like the Taliban, or the Ayatollahs.
Who cares what branch of Christianity it is... would you rather an evangelical? In all likelihood it's going to be someone christian, so catholic is as good as the next.
Big woop
You always have to stand when a judge enters or leaves the court.
sit, or kneel?
.
rightwing neocon fascist nazi corporatists are attacking a candidate or nominee it is most likely that I will support that person.
jeeze...can't you use words the right way?
neoconservative = former Marxist
nazi = national socialist
fascist = corporations merging with the state (i.e. NOW)
they are all corportatists/evil bastards, I agree 100%
however, right wing people (or Americans) believe that Rights come from something greater than the government (or the King), and thus this is the Natural Law -- Natural Rights, this is why we have a Constitutional Republic, a Declaration of Independence and a US Constitution
you can argue against our original Constitutional Republic in favor of your ill-understood liberal democracy without natural rights, that's fine -- but you can't call your country the United States and you can't call yourself an American
READ A BOOK!
Frenchie.
I'm inclined to agree with Ron more than you, Jacobin. You got lots of things screwed up there.
Nazi = fascist, and was all about merging corporations with the state (I'm not sure if the national organization of women is even a corporation). It was socialist only in name.
Neo-cons are not remotely former Marxists.
The right/federalists at the time of the Constitution's writing were just parochial. Anybody who was championing defense of Natural Rights was a progressive and Jeffersonian. The only Constitutional Right that the right-wing is favoring is the tenth amendment - oh, and maybe the second, when a liberal is in office.
Well there's the Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Repbulics, does that mean they'e both republican?
And every piss-pot dictator claims to be representing the people, when all he's doing is protecting his, his family and his friends (even though they're probably kept on a close leash.)
Should we believe them too?
Don't kid yourself that there was anything socialist about the National Socialists. Sometimes a word is just a collection of letters used to deceive. See: "No Child Left Behind" and "The Clear Skies Act of 2003".
The Nazis were most definitely fascists.
And, sure, neocons are former Marxists, although Marx himself would probably disavow them as such, as he did during his lifetime with every movement which claimed to be Marxist. You'd be closer calling them former Trotskyites, and spot-on describing them as former Schactmanites- the key word being former.
But neoconservatism in the US doesn't apply to much outside of the world of foreign policy- it's best defined by it's aversion to diplomacy and reliance on unilateral warfare (if there's a trace of domestic socialism left in the neocon platform, I don't see it) to forward the national interests. This is how the neocons parallel the Nazis.
Maybe you should read some more books. I'll suggest you take your time, because if you skim through you'll probably miss some key points.
earth to Ron, the corporate fascists own the media and own Obama like they owned Clinton and Bush and so forth
they call themselves the Council on Foreign Relations (or Council OF Foreign Relations if you are the mental midget that is Bill Maher), they publish Foreign Affairs journal where they openly talk about the world supranational collectivist state...
oh and one other thing, THEY PRINT YOUR MONEY THAT IS YOUR POCKET, they are British Imperialists collectivists Anti-American criminals.
David Rockefeller OWNS the NY FED via JPMorgan and the CFR's Think Tank is called the David Rockefeller Studies Program, he's a Fabian Socialist who promotes Economic Integration (GATT, NAFTA, SPP)
It ain't that hard to figure out! We are on your side, we are all against these evil people but both the Dems and Republicans are in on it.
So, maybe you can explain how the CFR wants us to have a 40 hour work week and child labor laws. Or are they corporate fascists with a soft spot for mine safety?
What are you advocating? You're not a Paullette, are you?
get to that admission, but it is there (at 12:07). And we didn't even have to use waterboarding!
So?
Racists and radicals are a fringe group and shrinking all the time. The vast majority has no problem with this justice. When she is confirmed we'll look back at these nutjobs and remember it was clowns like Limbaugh that stirred them up.
haha, okay.
but the court of appeals doesn't make policy.
Judge Andrew Napolitano = a Good Judge
it's very easy to understand, but you can't because you don't know what Natural Rights are and the Natural Law (i.e. the things that the American and French revolutions were based on)
that's because a bunch of British Imperialists taught you via www.historians.org that American collectivism is good and truth is relative and that centralization of power always helps society
when Fascists/collectivists teach you education and history, is it really a surprise that you don't know the truth? think, c'mon
Napolitano is a text book corporate stooge. He hosts a show on Fox.
And, yes, the Court of Appeals is where policy is made. That is a de facto statement. It's like saying that the chief of police is responsible for corruption in his department.
Fascists do not equal collectivists, and who are these American collectivists of whom you speak? Noam Chomsky?
Haven't you heard. Only a corporatocracy of elites pretending to be of the people can preserve an egalitarian democracy.
The Courts of Appeal set precedent which is the judicial equivalent of the term policy, unless the Supreme Court later overturns their decision, which in effect becomes another precedent (policy).
You keep mistaking Natural Law with Constitutional Law, they are not necessarily one-in-the-same.
And some scholars say the French Revolution was more sweeping than the American, although I'm not sure I agree, but your drawing a false parallelity between the two.
You know not the definition of the words you use.
"Liberal" means one thing, not many!
I am a Liberal. I am a Democrat.
Sonia Sotomayor is not a liberal. She is not a democrat. She doesn't understand Natural Rights and thus is not a good judge.
I am liberal. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. Ron Paul is a liberal. That is liberalism. Freedom, liberty, the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution -- libertarianism.
I don't care about YOUR politics. Call yourselves whatever you want, but don't take good words (liberals, democrats) and define them with Third Way economic fascist ideas!
Earth to you guys, it wasn't just Clinton, Tony Blair and Rahm Emanuel who endorsed Third Way centrism, it was Benito Mussolini too! Look it up. Oh yah whatever, I know.
Real liberals = classical liberals
Fake liberals = Progressives = Third Way Fascists
This is what the HISTORY books say, not me. THINK.
reflect on the disgusting nature of pig's feet for heaven's sake.
so I will wander long and hard in the wilderness trying to figure out if you are right and, if so, how I could have gone wrong in the land so blessed by natural law and Ron Paul.
read The Closing of the American Mind by Professor Allan Bloom
then you will understand why you don't
book and understand why I don't, will you come back and explain what I don't? Bring a blue book.
Don't what, not read The Closing of the American Mind?
Don't badger him. Unless he is from Wisconsin or has a wiener dog.
Ron Paul is not a liberal. He is a parochial bigot who wants a smaller pond in which to enforce his tyranny of the majority.
See: Ron Paul v. right to privacy
for American women to practice his loving on.
Hahahahaha.
Ron Paul is definitely not a liberal. At least not the way we use it around here.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Bircherite faux libertarian = liberal.
If you're a Paulite, Jacobin, you are not a liberal either. You are at best a very confused and deluded libertarian.
As a latina, I am really disappointed by the hesitation expressed by other bloggers. We are more conservative than so-called progressives and,yes, most of us are Catholics. But we have supported the Democratic party for the most part. And what do we get for our loyalty? She's not progressive enough. Other possible candidates, Clinton or Cuomo, for example, would be better, someone more progressive than her.
We latinos can never satisfy white people, whether you are liberal,conservative, extremists because we don't think exactly as you do. I expect Republicans to be against our advancement,and I am familiar with the nitpicking of so-called progressives. In short,in my 71 years, I have learned that we are just used by all sides. don't
both conservatives and some liberals. The conservatives with their racism, and then some of the liberals who are repeating a milder version of the Republican comments on Ms. Sotomayor's "racism."
I've even been accused of racism for saying that these comments are hurtful to me as a Latina. It sucks.
What if I don't care if she's a Latina?
I certainly don't figure she's a racist for her comments about what she brings to the bench as a Latina.
What if I'm worried that she's just not as protective of civil liberties as I'd prefer?
What if I'm worried that she would think that the Exxon v. Baker case was correctly decided, or that the Bong Tokes for Jesus case was rightly decided?
referring to the racists, both conservative and liberal.
I sure hope, annaleigh, that you aren't referring to me saying your comments a couple months ago - that indeed were based solely on race and in a derogatory way - was how you were "accused of racism for saying the comments hurt you". Can you play the victim any more blatantly? That would be pitiful... But really, I think that is what you're referring to and it's highly disappointing that's all you took from it.
When you accuse people of being racist for crossing the street in front of you (you thought they were scared of you or something) or for serving you a free drink (again, you thought a restaurant owner was scared of you because he gave you a free drink... huh?), then maybe you are viewing the group you're accusing with some racist tendencies. I was not the only person who pointed that out when you originally posted it.
It was not my intention. I signed the petition for Judge Sotomayor, but I threw out Mario Cuomo's name, because I am a New Yorker, and I am highly respectful of his intellect. There will be more openings on the Court, you know. Just putting him out there.
hmm... are you talking for all Latina women?? really?? Last I checked Latina women were rather diverse, didn't all hold the same view, don't all look alike, don't all vote the same and don't all believe that because of their sex and race they are entitled to nobody complaining about Sotomayor... jesus, get over yourself.
You said you (*all latina women) have been loyal to the Democratic party... ok, why? were you just being "loyal" so that you would get paid back someday, or were you being loyal because you believed in the principles espoused?
You said you (all latinos) can never satisfy white people because you (all latinos) don't think exactly as white people do... Something would be very wrong if all Latinos or Latina women thought the same way. You're implying they do. That's pretty bad.
Overall, your comment was ridiculous. It was shortsighted, anti-empathetic, and based completely on race and sex.
I was glad to do something to support Sotomayor and encourage an end to the race-baiting. I don't know that she's the progressive I'd been hoping for, but she is well qualifed and I have been so disgusted by the Republican Party and their talking heads' treatment of the matter.
she is well qualified for a liberal democracy without natural rights
I absolutely hate Rush, Michael Steele, Dick Cheney, Rove, Bush and all these criminals who pretend to be Republicans. They attack Sontomayor for dumb stupid self-serving reasons. They are fools.
The "new liberals" are in power, so why not prosecute the torturers, the attorneys, Cheney, Bush et al?
Obama is PRESIDENT! End the war! 2011! How many Americans will die from today until then!?
Indefinite Detention? Obama makes me weep, for I thought and prayed that he was a true radical -- one who would break the corporate state of evil perpetrated by the Federal Reserve and the warmongering CFR.
Obama has the power, I wish he'd do something great like he promised.
watch Richard Haass on Bill Maher -- that is the EVIL in the world. Listen to what he said, that Americans want to keep 50,000 Americans in Iraq forever? Haass = President of the CFR, oh but he has no power.
On much of this, I can agree with you; although I think Sotomayor may be fine. All of her past judgments had to be made on precedent, so we don't really know how she'll come down on things, but I'm willing to trust her. She certainly seems qualified and intelligent.
Always in the background during the first term is the funding for the next run, and by the second term, they must try to maintain support for their party. Uh oh! A lose-lose situation. Damn.
What about term limits for Supreme Court justices as well?
That way we don't have the mini-dramas over every choice.
I recall that Oliver Wendell Holmes asked Potter Stewart (?) when they both got put on the bench, to let him know when he was begining to become less effective as a justice due to age. Finally after years on the court Stewart did so, and Oliver Wendell Holmes immediately wrote out his resignation.
*
Ditto.
or pro-lifers, or any other name-calling troll. :)
The interesting thing about conspiracists is when you provide evidence of the spuriousness and speciousness of their arguments, they'll claim that's just part of the conspiracy.
It's a tautology.
It doesn't matter whether it's for a politician, Kennedy assasination theories, 9-11 theories, Roswell, Secular Humanism, Trilaterial Commissions et al, it remains the same:
The proof of a massive governmental conspiracy is in it's lack of proof.
(That's not to say we shouldn't be wary of certain movements like the WTO and economic regionalism that seems to work to our disadvantage.)
that they can't back up their claims with proof. Very convienient!
However, when the booshies insist they have proof of WMD's, contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, or that some simpleton is a terrorist on trial, they conveniently classify the document.
I see both sides of things
That's why I fall down alot.
:D
nothing else, then people's concerns about racist and sexist attacks should not bother or affect you.
Unless, of course, you believe it's acceptable to throw feminism and anti-racism out the window just long enough to get the nominee you want...
judge sotomayor's treatment by the usual suspects and their crew and followers has been abysmal, hateful and an embarrassment to reasonable people everywhere. the court would be fortunate to have her sitting with them. signing petition is a chance to commit to justice and fair play -- literally.
Bravo! :)
about Sotomayor. I would like to have seen someone significantly more progressive. This feels like it has Rahm Emmanuel's hands all over it. And I'm not a fan of the Rahm man.
about [easily-proved to be non-extant] negative qualities was all about her backers having to focus on what Sotomayor ISN'T, as opposed to having to explain what Sotomayor IS.
extremely hot-headed response -- or fervently held-view depending on your sense of fair play, eh?
imho only.
thanks for the heads up.
i was going to add that there's a diversity of opinion on judge sotomayer here as well but it is there and is obvious. so ad hominem comes to mind
btw. the comment was intended somewhat ironically in that the judge is battered about on this issue of being hot-headed owing to her background but that reasonable persons parse this differently, ie, fervently held. and the statement was/is value neutral in its content and intent when read with a clear mind and conscience.
Lemme guess, Chris: You are one of those conservatives who despises "activist judges," am I right.
Well, there's no way Sotomayor could have ruled the way you liked in the New Haven case without completely bending the law. In other words, without being an "activist judge."
LG&M has an excellent post on this.
You might wanna take good hard look in the mirror when it comes to charges of hypocrisy.
I'm not impressed by the quote her opponents use about her being Latina might help her make better decisions, because who claims that their background would mitigate against them?
The main problem is that because she raised the gender/ethnic background, even in suitable venues, opens her up to bias accusations.
But for the most part no one can prove background helped her make any bad decisions. If anything, it might force her to bend over backwards to prove her "fairness."
George Bush lost the popular vote, stole the election and no one prevented him from installing 2 right wing conservative activist judges. Obama won an electoral vote landslide mandate....even greater landslide had the nation of Texas been allowed to secede...so f*ck the GOP and what they think about Sotomayor.
I stand with truth, not a party not a group, or a race but with truth. As the individual that i was thought to be.
Login or Register to post comments.