The Right's supremely flawed opening argument against Sotomayor

[babylonsister]

The Right's supremely flawed opening argument against Sotomayor
May 28, 2009 6:01 pm ET
Karl Frisch


President Obama could have nominated just about anyone to fill Justice David Souter's seat on the Supreme Court, and the conservative movement would have reacted just as they have to his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Don't take my word for it. The Right made its intention to oppose Obama's nominee -- no matter who it was -- abundantly clear in the weeks leading up to the president's selection. They see the nomination process not so much as a necessary function of our democracy but as an opportunity to, in part, "help refill depleted coffers and galvanize a movement demoralized by Republican electoral defeats"; "build the conservative movement"; and "prepare the great debate with a view toward Senate elections in 2010 and the presidency."

Worse than its conviction of the president's nominee for high crimes against conservatism -- before there's even been a trial -- is the convoluted "evidence" media conservatives have presented to the American people as part of its opening argument against Judge Sotomayor.

By now you've no doubt heard Exhibit A -- Sotomayor's February 2005 comment at a Duke University School of Law forum that the "court of appeals is where policy is made." This, they claim, proves that Sotomayor would be little more than an evil activist jurist on the bench. Her words -- taken out of context time and again by conservative and mainstream media outlets -- make clear that Sotomayor was simply explaining the difference between district courts and appeals courts. Her comments were in sync with the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States' explanation of the federal appellate court's "policy making" role. That's a view even conservative legal god Antonin Scalia seems to share and even go beyond, having articulated the "policy making" role of the courts himself and noting that "the judges of inferior courts often 'make law.' "

For Exhibit B, we find media conservatives in a huff over not only Obama's stated intention to nominate someone possessing "empathy" among other qualifications but also Sotomayor's 2001 comment that a "wise Latina woman" might bring a little something extra to the bench in adjudicating race and sex discrimination cases. Conservatives in the media leapt at the president's "empathy" comment, typically portraying it as proof of Obama's intention to nominate a liberal activist to the Supreme Court rather than a jurist committed to the Constitution, even though the president said that his nominee would demonstrate both.

Equally disjointed has been the Right's reaction to Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment, as numerous conservatives in the media have savaged her as a racist and a bigot. Radio talker Rush Limbaugh, de facto leader of the conservative movement, said of Sotomayor, "So here you have a racist. You might -- you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. ... Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one." Marching in lockstep with El Rushbo, Fox News crazy man Glenn Beck said Sotomayor's comment "smacks of racism" and is "one of the most outrageous racist remarks I've heard," adding the following day on his radio show his assessment that "I think she's a racist. I think she has decided things based on race." Never one to skip an opportunity to slight a person of Hispanic descent, CNN host Lou Dobbs called Sotomayor's comment "racist," describing her nomination as "pure, pure absolute pandering to the Hispanics, and, you know, filling in the box on one more minority."

more...

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200905280038

[Atticus]

1. I realize that this is an over-simplification, but

this isn't just the usual suspects spouting their usual racist, sexist, mean-spirited drivel. This is Corporate America trying to influence the composition of the SCOTUS because they feel this administration's appointments could cost it money.

We've all heard the advice to "follow the money" when trying to find out why things happen. I've come to believe that this is just an indirect way to ask "Which mega-corporation or group of same is benefitting or feels threatened?" In this instance, I don't think they have any real hope of denying Ms. Sotomayor a seat on the Court. But, they will permit/encourage the fundies to rake in millions of dollars by scaring the hell out of intellectual cripples. The fundie wingnuts will then "owe" the "God-fearing corporations with a conscience".

It is the NEXT SCOTUS vacancy that will bring the all-out death struggle. Sotomayor to replace Souter does not alter the Court's ideological composition much at all. But, if, say Clarence Thomas decides to step down, the big money folks will argue that since the liberal Obama administration forced the "activist liberal, etc., etc. Latina chic" on this "right of center" nation, it "owes" the country a conservative or less-than-liberal judge. They will then unleash the well-financed Christian Taliban and they will launch their version of Jihad on a country still trying to rebound from the disaster of the Bush years.

As long as we continue to accord special citizen status to soul-less corporations who value profit over patriotism and whose event horizon seldom extends beyond the next fiscal quarter, we will continue to be afflicted with mean-spirited moral pygmies like Rush, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, Hannity, et al polluting the public's airwaves with their sophomoric twaddle.

[bemildred]

2. Well, the point is, it's Obama they want, Sotomayor is just incidental.

And you are right, it is about the money, this is the USA, and therefore it is always about the money. And we need to make damn sure that Obama gets to picks lots more USSC justices.