Skip to content

Republicans Rip Bush Pick

May 26, 2009

Although they overwhelmingly approved George H.W. Bush’s U.S. District Court nominee for the Southern District of New York way back in 1991, most folks in the GOP are now roundly condemning that same individual, moderate Judge Sonia Sotomayor, now that President Obama has made her his choice to replace George H. W. Bush’s moderate Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Confused? You’re not alone…

Even in 1998, most republicans eventually approved Judge Sotomayor to the position of Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, when she was nominated by Bill Clinton. So why the hyperbolic vitriol this time around? Can’t be her moderate decisions, some would say she’s been right-of-center on several high profile cases.

On abortion, she sided with Bush in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush. Wanna talk First Amendment? She sided with Giuliani in Pappas v. Giuliani. How about discrimination, or, reverse discrimination? The big case here is Ricci v. DeStefano, and no one yet knows Judge Sotomayor’s role in that case; although the Court’s decision is up for review by the Supreme Court, it’s not expected to be overturned.

Well, if it’s not due to any of her rulings, why is the most qualified nominee in half a century unqualified? I sure as hell don’t know, but I’m sure the Party of No can’t wait to enlighten us all…

Advertisements
11 Comments leave one →
  1. Wellsy permalink
    May 27, 2009 12:42 am

    It’s more than a little disingenuous to claim she’s “Bush’s pick” when there was an agreement with Democratic Sen. Moynihan that he’d get to select every fourth judicial appointment to that court. And the reason folks are taking issue are her statements regarding gender and ethnic identity influencing court decisions, and that the Court of Appeals makes law, which clearly isn’t the role of the judiciary.

    It’s not just partisan sniping, but I doubt you’d believe that as you’ve clearly already bought into the “Party of No” BS the DNC is selling you. I wonder how you’d respond if the RNC had come out with something similar in Bush’s first term regarding his judicial appointments. Oh, that’s right. Dissent is only patriotic when one side does it.

    In any case, Sotomayor, when she’s most likely confirmed, won’t change the ideological balance of the court, so all of this is a lot of ado over nothing.

  2. May 27, 2009 5:34 am

    Well, you’ve thrown a lot of stuff out there. Luckily, I’d already planned to answer those criticisms in upcoming posts. Your responses are always welcome.

    • therushreport permalink
      May 27, 2009 6:40 am

      Can you imagine how long any white male nominee would have lasted if he would have made the same comment about a latina? Nothing was taken out of context. You are just making excuses for a bigot.

      • May 27, 2009 5:28 pm

        Please read my post “the melting-pot and the salad bowl” for my response.

  3. May 27, 2009 8:58 pm

    P of V, you are really stretching your case here and are starting to look blind, misinformed, and just as much of racist bigot as she is.

    By the way, as I commented on my site, 60% of her cases have been overturned. Let me say that again, 60%. That is a far cry from what you have been claiming all day. Look it up. I found it in just a few seconds.

  4. May 27, 2009 9:12 pm

    60%. Right. Five cases in total, three were reversed, and those by 5-4 decisions. Your point?

  5. May 27, 2009 9:19 pm

    That means that sucks, is the point. That is called a pattern and with enough cases in blossoms into a full blown record. Secondly, how do you possibly reconcile or decision in the firefighter’s case. If you are for that decision then there is really no discussion on this topic.

    • Brian Eason permalink
      May 28, 2009 1:12 pm

      Setting aside the small sample size, which apparently hasn’t phased you, 60% actually means she’s an above average judge. The Supreme Court typically reverses 75% of cases it chooses to rule on.

      Check the link for proof: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/washington-times-supremes-uphold.html

      If anything, the fact that she’s only had 5 selected means she’s probably ruling with the Supreme Court more often than not — the Court doesn’t often pick cases it agrees with.

  6. May 27, 2009 9:23 pm

    Secondly, how do you reconcile her obvious racist thinking.

    excuse the typos in the earlier comment.

    • May 28, 2009 1:41 pm

      I have written two posts since this one where I have dealt with your questions. Have you read them both?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: