RNC fumbles Sotomayor talking points

[EarlG]

Received via email from The Hill just now...

Whoops. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has released to the media its list of talking points on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

The talking points went to 500 influential Republicans who were the intended recipients.. Unfortunately for the RNC, members of the media were also on the list.

Here are the talking points:

President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is an important decision that will have an impact on the United States long after his administration.

Republicans are committed to a fair confirmation process and will reserve judgment until more is known about Judge Sotomayor’s legal views, judicial record and qualifications.

Until we have a full view of the facts and comprehensive understanding of Judge Sotomayor’s record, Republicans will avoid partisanship and knee-jerk judgments – which is in stark contrast to how the Democrats responded to the Judge Roberts and Alito nominations.

more...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rnc-fumbles-sotomayor-talking-points-2009-05-26.html

[Ezlivin]

1. Generally what comes out of an ass is steaming hot

And has many other unsavory characteristics.

[bemildred]

2. Boy, that really tells you what they are nervous about, doesn't it:

"Further eroding the rights of the unborn and property owners;

Imposing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage;

Stripping "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and completely
secularizing the public square;

Abolishing the death penalty;

Judicial micromanagement of the government's war powers"

[EFerrari]

4. Is it just me or are none of those talking points very sharp?

They're sort of dispirited.

[bemildred]

9. It all sounds great to me.

"completely secularizing the public square"

But you are right, the writing does not crackle with energy or wit.

[bridgit]

3. They step on this one they'll be stepping on H.W., let's see just how dumb they really are

[MarjorieG]

5. Mild for them, must have been deliberate to show fairness, yet Conservative.

[Catshrink]

6. Additional Talking Points

These are clearly designed to fire up the base -- what else do they have left but the hard-core fundies?

Justice Souter’s retirement could move the Court to the left and provide a critical fifth vote for:

Further eroding the rights of the unborn and property owners;

Imposing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage;

Stripping "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and completely
secularizing the public square;

Abolishing the death penalty;

Judicial micromanagement of the government's war powers.

[Blasphemer]

7. They got nothing.... she'll be easily confirmed...... nt

[book_worm]

8. basically exactly what Mitch O'Connell said this morning.

[merh]

10. I'm confused are the unborn considered property now

by the right?

Further eroding the rights of the unborn and property owners;

And what rights have been eroded for property owners? Are they talking about the buscho SCOTUS ruling that property can be taken for public good to serve the corporate needs? That erosion is on their back and they need to take responsibility for their wacky conservatives that give corps so many "rights". However, I do agree it needs to be corrected.

[get the red out]

11. Only the female unborn , and minority unborn

While male fetuses rule with the RepubliKKKans!

[unblock]

14. no, they're concerned about the rights of fetal homeowners

:rofl:

[merh]

15. Oh, I know what they mean

Further eroding the rights of the unborn wealthy, taking away their inheritance and their god given right to be the upper class property owners.

[starroute]

16. Probably code for "rich people and big corporations"

It's the whole "takings" jargon that they use whenever some rich guy or corporation wants to pave over a swamp or cut down a forest without concern for the environmental impact.

[lpbk2713]

12. The Grand Obstructionist Party remains true to form.

Under the sun there is nothing new.


:eyes:

[progressoid]

13. Additional Talking Points:

Justice Souter’s retirement could move the Court to the left and provide a critical fifth vote for:

Further eroding the rights of the unborn and property owners;

Imposing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage;

Stripping "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and completely
secularizing the public square;

Abolishing the death penalty;

Judicial micromanagement of the government's war powers.


Doofuses.

[cascadiance]

17. If they go down the path of her "following constitutional law"...

... then ask whether she would consider the "court clerk activist" notion of "corporate personhood" is legally supported by the constitution or not...

...

The confirmation process will help Republicans, and all Americans, understand more about Judge Sotomayor’s thoughts on the importance of the Supreme Court’s fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law.

Republicans are the minority party, but our belief that judges should interpret rather than make law is shared by a majority of Americans.

Republicans look forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor’s legal views and to determining whether her views reflect the values of mainstream America.

...

Seems like the Rethugs are just "asking for it" for this question to be looked at! Rethugs, you open this can of worms, I'll make sure to prompt Feingold and Leahy to ask these sorts of questions to make you pay the price for your corporate masters!

[unblock]

18. seeing as souter was reasonably reliably on the "left" side of the court,

it's rather hard for the republicans to sell the argument that ANY pick to replace him could POSSIBLY move the court to the left.

and it should go without saying that the "left" side of the court these days is not necessarily "left" by any other standard, it's merely not bat-shit crazy right-wing extreme. souter was a bush appointee, after all.

[gratuitous]

19. Chuck Todd fumbled this morning, too

I was just heading out the door as the Today show threw the mic to Chuck Todd, who confessed that any nominee, even a ham sandwich, was guaranteed to get 25 "no" votes from the Senate Republicans. I didn't have time to hang around, but I'm pretty sure nobody had the bad taste to wonder on air, given Todd's correct pronouncement, whether NBC would waste everyone's time and pollute the public discourse with this obvious demagoguery. Of course they will. Every one of the (at least) 25 Republican Senators will be treated with 100% deference, nobody will call them on their naked partisanship, and they'll each get a full airing of their opinion, untrammeled by facts.

But at least NBC admitted up front that they know how this little game of judicial three card monte is played. They just won't give a flying fuck.

[opihimoimoi]

20. The Pubs sneak in a "PUT DOWN"...thats all they do...whine and pine...

Distract, denigrate, demonize, etc

[spanone]

21. sounds like they've got nothing

[prolesunited]

22. Yes, we would have a *major* crisis in the U.S. if they took God out of the Pledge

You know, the pledge written by a socialist to sell flags, with God only written in in the '50s to protect us from the godless commies. :eyes:

The GOP sure holds a low opinion of the U.S. citizenry and its party faithful.

[lib2DaBone]

23. How bad can they attack her?

After all.. it was Supreme Commandant Herr Bush senior who nominated her the first time?