How Should Republicans Deal With The Sotomayor Nomination?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, May 28, 2009.

  1. A Supreme Court nomination is one of those classic Washington moments when careers and reputations are made or lost. Much of what goes on from day to day under the Capitol dome is useless wheelspinning or jaw jacking, of interest only to lobbyists or activists. A Supreme Court nomination is the polar opposite. It rivets the entire country.

    Of course, every talking head and political consultant know this and are desperate to throw in their two cents worth. The subject du jour has been how should the republicans respond? Pretty much the consensus, not just from the usual media lefties but respected republicans as well, has been that they should proceed with extreme caution. Vin Weber and Joe Scarborough both made this point, as did White House Press Secretary Gibbs. The clear implication is that strong criticism will alienate hispanics, perhaps women as well, and ruin any hopes the GOP has of erecting its long-wanted Big Tent.

    Some of today's warning chorus was no doubt prompted by Newt Gingrich broadside at Sotomayor, in which he basically accused her of being a racist. Rush and other conservative talkers have made essentially the same point, harping on her claim to law students that a latina woman's life experience somehow would lead her to make better decisions than white males.

    In her favor is a compelling rags to judicial robes personal story and an apparently superb academic record, ie Princeton summa and Editor of the Yale Law Review.

    Republican Senators face an additional problem. Most of them still hold to the traditional view that a president is entitled to have his nominee confirmed unless serious problems emerge, and that the nominee's politics should not be a factor. Democrats of course have long abandoned this approach, and opposed superbly qualified candidates like Robert Bork, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alioto solely on the basis of politics. They also took the low road, attempting to destroy Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas, and making an issue of Justice Alioto's religion (catholic).

    Republicans face a choice. They can continue their unilateral disarmament in confirmation battles. Or, they can accept that one must fight fire with fire. Sotomayor no doubt will be confirmed whatever they do. So why take the risk of opposing her?

    The answer should be clear. Despite her appealing personal story, Judge Sotomayor is badly out of step with the majority of voters. She is on record as being against a constitutional right to own firearms, she is apparently in favor of racially biased hiring and promotion and she clearly is a proponent of racial identity politics. Each position of course is a staple of the democrat base, but is not popular with the general public. This nomination battle gives the republicans the opportunity to identify not only her but Obama with unpopular positions. They can demonstrate that Obama made yet another dubious decision in selecting her. Plus, with a party line vote against her, they can lay down a marker for Obama that they will not roll over for the next liberal activist he sends up.

    My prediction is that they will do exactly the opposite. A few will question her aggressively, but most will not. Probably half or more of the republicans will vote to conffirm her, with much background hissing at those who want to make a fight out of it.
  2. Either way lose.

    And next time don't write so fuxxing're wasting my time with all the erasing.

  3. Lucrum


    Sounds just the the idiot that appointed her.
  4. great idea. register a party line vote against her. then in the next election the latino voters will realize the republicans have left them out in the cold too and that should get another 20 or so republicans defeated in the house.
  5. This is an idiotic statement. The whole idea that the Republicans can't oppose her because she is Latino is absolutely false. It didn't stop the democrats from trashing Alberto Gonzales, did it? It didn't stop them from trashing Clarence Thomas, and they didn't lose the black vote.

    What we see happening is we are seeing one of the most used plays of the democrat playbook. It goes like this. Put someone in power who is a member of a minority or other group which they claim are oppressed, and when that person is criticized, claim that the attack is coming because of racism. We saw them use this to get Obama elected, we are seeing it now with Sotomayor, and if Hillary was their candidate they would have claimed sexism at every turn. Count on it.

    Right now, the dems are giving their warning shot saying that if Republicans criticize her, they will call the critic a racist, and they will not even answer the criticism.

    To the democrats everyone else is a racist but it is always the dems who suggest you have to treat one person differently than another strictly because of their race.
  6. the difference is she is well qualified and was first appointed by a republican president.
  7. there is no way to stop her appointment.

    communism here we come
  8. really, Clarence Thomas wasn't qualified? What are you basing this off of?

    Do you have any idea how the system works? Its called balance of power and checks and balances. Each branch of government has checks on other branches of government. One of the checks the legislative branch has on the judical branch is that the Senate must confirm the Supreme Court pick. During this confirmation process the Senators scrutinize the nominees record. This may be news to you. To suggest that she should not be scrutinized and just pushed to confirmation because she is Latino is freaking stupid.
  9. i never said anything about thomas. preception is everything in politics. if you think that the republicans can do a party line no vote on a latino woman who was first nominated by a republican and now has 17 years experience as a judge and convince their latino supporters that this is anything more that a political vote go for it. we will see how it works out for you in the next election.
  10. She is well qualified academically. She was initially appointed to the district court by a republican but only because of a power sharing arrangement between the NY Senators.

    I don't see why one cannot oppose the actions or politics of an hispanic without it being racism. The republicans better come up with a way to do that or they will face a long road with this administration. Racial identity politics is at the very heart of what they are all about. The idea that republicans must fold every time they are opposed by a minority is just untenable in my book, although I will grant you that many in the party establishment do believe that.

    I think republicans can tie her to Miguel Estrada, who democrats blocked from the Court of Appeals on purely political grounds. It is now accepted among democrats that they are entitled to vote against any pro life nominee on that basis alone. I fail to see why the republicans should not take the same position in reverse. Roe v. Wade is terrible constitutional law, whatever one thinks of the abortion issue. Similarly, anyone on record against an individual constitutional right to keep and bear arms should be automaticaly disqualified. Racial quotas, ditto.

    If republicans handled this with some degree of finesse, it should be apparent to voters that she is being opposed because of her positions and attitudes, not her ethnicity. It really is insulting to hispanics to presume that they cannot separate the two. I have to think that the hispanics who are insulted will never vote for republicans in any case. Maybe the answer is for republicans to start getting serious about border security and amnesty and stop pissing off their own base in a vain attempt to attract the hispanic vote.
    #10     May 29, 2009