Remember how much we KNEW we had to win this one, for good Supreme Court Appointments?

[NYC_SKP]

Well, this is our moment.

More to come...

:applause:

[babylonsister]

1. This is IT! Thank you, President Obama! nt

[Captain Hilts]

2. Yes. I wish more people had realized this in '04. nt

[Uzybone]

3. +1

A great day for America

:applause::applause::applause:

[Eric J in MN]

4. I'm glad that Obama didn't let the smear article stop him from nominating Sonia Sotomayor

Glenn Greenwald:

Jeffrey Rosen's New Republic smear of Sonia Sotomayor's intellect and character -- based almost exclusively on anonymous, gossiping "sources" -- is such a model of shoddy, irresponsible, and (ironically enough) intellectually shallow "journalism" that it ought to be studied carefully. Standing alone, it reveals quite a bit about anonymity-dependent "reporting" generally, The New Republic specifically, and how much of our political discourse is conducted.

Most of the gaping flaws in Rosen's piece have been fully highlighted by others. While most of those criticisms have focused on Rosen's horrendous use of anonymous sources -- one of the most apt reactions to Rosen's piece comes, appropriately enough, in the form of well-earned derision from Wonkette -- I highly recommend this post from Law Professor Darren Hutchinson. As Professor Hutchinson conclusively documents, one of the only issues raised by Rosen that was anything other than anonymous gossip -- a claim that one of Sotomayor's judicial opinions was harshly criticized in an "unusual" footnote by another Second Circuit judge -- is totally false. In fact, it's so obviously false that, as Hutchinson suggests, it could be the by-product only of Rosen's extreme sloth or (ironically enough again) his lack of intellectual capacity. Just read Hutchinson's post for an idea of how vapid, bereft of worth and downright misleading is Rosen's attack on Sotomayor.

[NYC_SKP]

5. I hadn't seen that article.

Shoddy, irresponsible, and intellectually shallow "journalism" seems to be the norm virtually everywhere.

Thanks!

:toast:

[Patiod]

6. Peter Boyer did a similar smear on Wesley Clark

in the New Yorker a few years ago. All gossip, very little substance.

[Sparkly]

7. Yup!

VERY important.

[Raffi Ella]

8. This is the sentiment I'm feeling this morning-

exactly what you said.

I was so full of emotion listening to him announce her nomination - such an important day in America. I feel so grateful and relieved right now, like I can breath again; the process of true progression has begun.

[NYC_SKP]

9. Thanks. These are lasting changes that benefit future generations, it's pretty big.

And a much needed counter to the feelings of dread that we felt as first one, then another vacancy came up while Bush JR was in office.
These two added to two chosen by his father and two by Reagan.

It's high time that we have more than two Dem selected justices!

:toast:

[Raffi Ella]

12. imagine what a different Country this would be

if Democrats had been in power more over the last few decades...pretty big indeed.



To America and her potential and to all of Us that made this moment possible: :toast:

[madmax]

10. Heart felt post

:hug:

Yes We Can
Yes We Will

[Raffi Ella]

14. .

Yes. :hug:

[NYC_SKP]

15. +1

:grouphug:

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. Yes, because the worst possible thing for this country would be

another Bush Crime Family appointee on the Supreme Court.

Oh wait a minute........ :hide:

[Jennicut]

13. She has not much to do with Bush. Pat Moynihan recommended her.

Clinton promoted her. I think you need to look at her record. She is a liberal. Sorry, but that argument does not really fly.

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. I doubt she's a Liberal by any definition of the word that existed more than a year ago

But I suppose she's an adequate replacement for Souter. Chimpy or Palin would have picked worse, to be sure. Hopefully the replacements for Ginsburg and Stevens will be better.

That said, I'm over this one..... and hoping that there isn't worse news in about 12 minutes.

[Jennicut]

17. More then adequate. Comparing her to anyone a Rethug would have picked is laughable.

[ClarkUSA]

18. Your doubts are baseless. Here's why --->

Sotomayor ruled in favor of minimum wage for homeless workers in class action suit
Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8432716

This, plus her baseball and her New Haven rulings all sound pretty progressive to me.

Also, the head of the liberal Constitution Accountability Center has high praise for Sotomayor.

"We already know that she is a brilliant lawyer who is committed to ruling based on the Constitution and the law, not on her own personal political views," said Doug Kendall, president of the liberal Constitution Accountability Center, in an e-mailed statement this morning.

However, she is strongly opposed by conservative groups, who -- like her supporters -- began to issue statements criticizing her nomination even before it was announced. And even the Obama administration had differed with one of her more controversial decisions.

"Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written," said Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, in a statement e-mailed to reporters this morning. "She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one's sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench."

[girl gone mad]

24. She's definitely NOT a liberal.

Voting 95% of the time with Republican colleagues? NOT a liberal. No way, no how.

[CreekDog]

20. Souter was a Bush appointee

:eyes:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC_SKP]

23. .

:rofl:

[CreekDog]

19. Who would McCain and Mitch McConnell have come up with?

:shrug:

[vaberella]

22. Jonathan Turley? n/t