A Liberal Backlash to Obama’s Pick? Huh?
EmailThere is discussion in the morning papers of a liberal backlash to Obama’s pick for the high court — Sonia Sotomayor. Yes, you read correctly, concern among some liberal circles over her position on a (the?) core issue — abortion rights. One question — is this a smokescreen meant to blunt the fears of the right?
ABC’s Rick Klein summed up it in this morning’s "Note":
Some abortion rights advocates are quietly expressing unease that Judge Sotomayor may not be a reliable vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 abortion rights decision," Charlie Savage writes in The New York Times. "In a letter, Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, urged supporters to press senators to demand that Judge Sotomayor reveal her views on privacy rights before any confirmation vote."
"Some liberal legal groups are raising questions about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, citing her relatively moderate judicial record and her skimpy paper trail on crucial issues like abortion, gay marriage and the death penalty," Politico’s Lisa Lerer reports.
She is "the most conservative choice that President Obama could have made," E.J. Dionne Jr. writes in his Washington Post column. "Liberals should not take the bait of the right-wingers by allowing the debate over Sotomayor to be premised on the idea that she is a bold ideological choice. She’s not. But if conservatives succeed in painting this moderate as a radical, they will skew future arguments over the court."
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
“. . . and her skimpy paper trail on crucial issues like abortion, gay marriage and the death penalty,” – Politico’s Lisa Lerer
Correction please.
That should be
issues like abortion, garriage and the death penalty.
Someone please inform Lisa Lerer.
Thanks.
Posted by: Noz | May 28, 2009, 10:17 am 10:17 am
Sotomayor’s record is not conservative – - quite the opposite, that is why some conservatives are not in favor of her. Her own words (about being a female/Latino, her voting on abortion, her voting on the fire-fighters issue, etc.) prove she is not. The liberal media will paint her they way they want the gullible to view her. The media – - yes, ABC, NBC, CBS & CNN are all left-leaning and trying to deflect the real issue.
Posted by: Reeba | May 28, 2009, 10:59 am 10:59 am
“Noz | May 28, 2009 10:17:03 AM—”garriage”…what? homophobic neologisms. your parents must be so proud.” – Paul Wall
Hey Paul, settle down man, clear your head and think.
Garriage is an eloquent solution to this same sex union issue.
Same sex unions are not the same thing as Marriage.
That is what the people of California recently said.
Bob and Martha Sacramento don’t want what they have to be viewed the same as David and Greg San Francisco.
Call same sex unions Garriage.
Then Garried folks can go out and petition their government for rights like hospital visits of a dying loved one and family health care inclusion.
The same sex crowd would have a much easier go of it and meet little resistance.
It’s a win win baby.
Posted by: Noz | May 28, 2009, 11:58 am 11:58 am
I think ALL QUESTIONS should be answered before any choice in made in politics. Why are we in such a rush? It makes no sense. Making the right choices and choosing the correct course of action should be #1 above all things. Whichever side of the political spectrum your on, we can all agree on that, right?
Posted by: Dan Burkard | May 28, 2009, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
Noz, put your hate away. Conservatives are tired of the leftist moves to erase conservative values under the guise of development. It’s not called marriage if it’s between 2 men, or 2 women. By definition marriage (in the traditional dictionaries, new ones change the term wrongfully.) is a union between a man and a woman. There would have to be a new name for what the gay’s are demanding. Gay unions perhaps? Or else we belittle the definition of words, and the sacred respect people hold for marriage. If you can’t respect that, then don’t expect respect back.
Posted by: Dan Burkard | May 28, 2009, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
I think another most important word “larriage” is missed in these discussions.
Posted by: narumanchi | May 28, 2009, 1:20 pm 1:20 pm
Folks, keep in mind that a Supreme Court Justice should look at the laws and judge them based on the intent of the law as it was written and interpret it without personal views or public pressures. I think its a waste of time to ask someone what their stand is on key issues, because it shouldn’t matter. The one and only question that should be asked is “Will you reside as SCJ by interpreting the law as written or are you going to cave in to the polotics and personal agendas of others or yourself”. As for left, right, liberal, conservative ? It shouldn’t matter if you appoint the right person.
As far as the Garriage comment? That is a waste of time too… People need to spend more time getting along than trying to brand people. Maybe the real answer is to ban the word marriage and then let everyone have a civil union !! Then there shouldn’t be any issue, right ?
Posted by: Pete | May 28, 2009, 1:27 pm 1:27 pm
Two huge problems: One, she has openly said how she looks forward legislating from the bench. Two, she has an extreme track record of discrimination – against whites.
Posted by: Jim Nyman | May 28, 2009, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm
I’m a life-time Democrat and absolutely against abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. My problem with Republicans is they only respect the life of the very wealthy once they are born. After that, the rest of us are on our own as far as their political agenda goes. Still, nothing was done about Roe vs. Wade from 2000-2006 when there was an inept Republican President, a Congress too busy making certain fat cats became fatter, and a conservative-dominated Supreme Court more concerned with making certain a Republican was elected President over Al Gore. Republicans are not going to overturn abortion: they love it as a wedge issue. They’ve controlled Congress the majority of the years and done nada, zilch, zero about abortion. They pull it off the shelf for each election and the naive Catholic bishops start to tell us for whom to vote. If there were four justices determined to overturn Roe vs. Wade at the first opportunity why in the world didn’t they do it with Souter there? Abortion, gun control, inducing paranoia, and gay marriages are all the waning Republican Party has left about which to talk.
My personal opinion, for what it’s worth, coincides with a bright and analytical President named Obama. Everything possible should be done to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions. To me, abortion as a replacement for responsible sex and birth control is simply wrong. Of course, this means sex education and the availability of birth control to all who need it. It’s about time the drug companies “share the pain” and make the pill as cheap as possible, and other medically sound and safe birth control methods should be available in the U.S. as they are in European countries.
The Catholic Church has no credibility in the area of sexual mores, not after the disgusting hypocrisy they’ve consistently displayed with the ugly problem of pedophiles in their ranks.
Posted by: Igor | May 28, 2009, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm
Geez, it’s Jack Kennedy all over again. Because she’s Catholic, Judge Sotomayor is going to disregard the Constitution? Get over it! Readers, you know how the manipulation process works. Someone puts a bug in your ear, legitimate or not… and all of a sudden there’s an issue. Give the President some credit, please. The Reps are just trying to stir up trouble, and any issue will do.
But the way, why doesn’t Cheney’s daughter offer to be waterboarded in his stead? Cowards!
Posted by: Carol B | May 28, 2009, 1:43 pm 1:43 pm
Historically speaking, one’s record tends to mean very little regarding a supreme court nominee. Once on the bench each justice tends to vote very independently and sometimes very differently from their previous record. Earl Warren is the classic example, but there are many others. The only legitimate questions are : Will you seek to interpret the laws inthe light of the U.S. Constitution? And will you seek promote the general welfare of the citizens by maintaining the rights of both the individual and the society as a whole? In a society governed by case law, everything depends on the case.
Posted by: Dr_JHP | May 28, 2009, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm
“Noz, put your hate away. Conservatives are tired of the leftist moves to erase conservative values under the guise of development.” – Dan Burkard
What hate?
Garriage is a solution that works for both sides.
“The only legitimate questions are : Will you seek to interpret the laws inthe light of the U.S. Constitution?” – Dr_JHP
Well I’d say there are more than 2 legitimate questions to ask Sonia but that one is the most important one for me.
Upholding the principals the founding fathers put forth is extremely important.
Posted by: Noz | May 28, 2009, 4:24 pm 4:24 pm
Thank you Igor for a well articulated discourse. Totally agree. But, am concerned about the racial quota issue. Do you know Sotomeyer’s take on color?
Posted by: sprowlindak | May 28, 2009, 7:27 pm 7:27 pm
I know that she hasn’t used it in an affirmative action way, just as Obama hasn’t. In fact, Obama didn’t even check the minority category on his application to Harvard Law.
This woman has come up the hard way. She’s where she is because of grit and hard work, two qualities that have nothing whatever to do with color or undeserved advantages. We need to become color blind in this country because the future looks to be very colored, indeed. We can’t listen to cretins such as Limbaugh talking about something as utterly ridiculous as “reverse racism.” White, black, red, yellow, etc. what should count is a person’s willingness to work as hard as he/she can to become whatever he/she can. From everything I know of her, Judge Sotomayer is where she’s at precisely for the reasons I’ve outlined.
What should be inquired into is what’s happened to equality of opportunity in this country. I really have to wonder why billionaires have to be given tax breaks, tax loopholes, offshore tax havens, etc. while the rest of us pay their share. There’s something basically unfair when Warren Buffett claims his secretary is taxed at a higher rate than he is. The tea party folks need to read a little history and learn that during the Eisenhower years the fat cats paid much higher taxes than they do now and this was true even during the Reagan years. Many of these people have a ten mile head start in the so-called world of competition already without, for example, cutting the estate tax, which again would only be a gift horse for the likes of Paris Hilton. Look how hard she’s worked and studied to get where she is.
Posted by: Igor | May 29, 2009, 12:12 am 12:12 am
Sotomayor will be the sixth Catholic on the supreme court. It is Obama’s payback for the Catholics’ support in getting ahead of Hillary. Sixth Catholic is vailed as a woman and latina by the Catholic controlled news media. Will she vote for freedon values or for Catholic values.
Posted by: Bruce Buller | May 29, 2009, 11:20 am 11:20 am
Is there a problem with the fact that Sotomayor is a Catholic?
I thought people were glad that Obama is ‘inclusive of all people’.
I thought the democrats claimed to be the ‘most tolerant’ regarding all races, religions, and beliefs.
What happened? Are there now exceptions?
Posted by: ddg | May 29, 2009, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm
The “Catholic controlled media”? I guess there is more paranoia in America than I thought.
Posted by: Igor | May 29, 2009, 6:00 pm 6:00 pm