Where's the Outrage?

For years, the Right has been very clever at coming up with novel ways to argue their point of view  Here’s another. Mark Karlin from Buzzflash has the story. Scotus also has the lowdown.

Antonin Scalia is guilty of initiating the theft of the 2000 election from Al Gore through a stay he issued forcing the stop of the State Court ordered recount in Florida, and his subsequent coordination a 5-4 majority to annoint George W. Bush as President.

But as of just yesterday, August 17th, he also added state sanctioned murder to his list of crimes.

Scalia was one of just two written dissenters (along with his puppet, Clarence Thomas), who ferociously challenged the notion that the Supreme Court should ensure that an innocent man not be put to death.  That’s right, Scalia — in common sense terms and not the legal mumble jumble that he dazzles the likes of Harry Reid with (BuzzFlash once wrote an editorial about how Harry Reid thought Scalia so brilliant he might consider voting for him for Chief Justice at the time — such is the sad mindset of our Democratic Majority Leader) — asserts that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents an innocent person from being executed.

No, we are not making this up. Scalia — although he uses arcane justifications of state vs. federal jurisdiction and that tidy trials shouldn’t be challenged — argues that the governmental legal system is not prohibited by the federal Constitution from killing the wrong person, in the name of — excuse me while I throw up a little in my mouth — “justice.” [Read more →]

Tags: Civil Liberty, Supreme court by ecthompson
No Comments »

Pop the champagne! The Supreme Court has a new Justice. I believe she will be great.

From WaPo:

Sonia Sotomayor was sworn in Saturday morning as the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court in a brief ceremony that completed a remarkable ascent for a Puerto Rican girl from the South Bronx.

Sotomayor, 55, rested her left hand on a Bible held by her mother and raised her right hand as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. administered a pair of oaths that made her the 111th justice to serve on the nation’s highest court. She pledged to “administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.”

The chief justice had slightly flubbed the wording of the oath of office when he swore in President Obama in January; this time he held a piece of paper containing the oath for Sotomayor. Occasionally Roberts looked down as he recited the words. (more…)

Tags: Supreme court by ecthompson
No Comments »

I think it is probably okay for me to say Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was as qualified as any Supreme Court nominee in recent history. Congratulations to her and her family!! She will be great.

Republicans were going to oppose anyone that Barack Obama had chosen. Their goal is to obstruct, obfuscate and delay. They could not delay or obstruct this nomination although they tried. Instead, the Republicans think they have changed the rules of the game. Now, they believe that no Supreme Court nominee can be empathetic. In my opinion, the Republicans painted themselves into a corner. I think it will cost them at the ballot box for years to come. They painted Sotomayor as dumb, stupid, a racist and a feminist. Minorities and women will not reward them for smearing her. In the end, it really doesn’t matter what she said outside the courtroom as long as her opinions and rulings were solid. They were solid. There is no doubt that they were. This is why the Republicans attacked her on her public statements.

Watch the video:

What’s next? This is one of the things that I’m concerning myself with at this time. Who is Barack Obama’s next choice to sit on the Supreme Court? I think that there is a lot to consider. Most importantly, unfortunately you have to take this into consideration, what will the Senate look like. If the choice is between now and the midterm elections, I would suspect that Barack Obama would pick someone who is a strong moderate. Again, I think you would pick someone who is relatively low profile. If the Democrats pick up a few more seats in 2010, I would look for Barack Obama to choose someone who is more liberal than Sonia Sotomayor. This would make things very interesting.

Here are a few names to keep in mind Elena Kagan, first woman to serve as solicitor general and was the Dean of Harvard Law school, Harold Koh, Dean of Yale Law school, Leah Ward Sears, Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. I look for Obama to lean more towards women. Women are clearly underrepresented on the Court.

There are a few other names that are floating around which would include Janet Napolitano, former governor of Arizona and now Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and Governor Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan. Although both of these women would be great I think they would have a hard time confirmation. The process has become so politicized and politicians are filmed constantly. I’m sure there’s some footage of each one of these women saying things that will inflame and incite conservatives. There’s no reason to go down that road.

Tags: Legal, Supreme court by ecthompson
No Comments »

Really busy at work. Trauma is one industry in the US that really is recession proof, sadly. My schedule is crazy. Flipping from days to nights.

Anyway, from Political Animal:

• At the start of a two-day summit between the United States and China, President Obama emphasized the fact that the relationship between the two countries will shape the 21st century. The U.S. delegation for the talks will be led by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
• New home sales in the U.S. far exceeded expectations last month, showing the largest increase in more than eight years.
• Images from intelligence satellites of Arctic ice bolstered the evidence of global warming. The Bush administration kept the images hidden; the Obama administration has released them.
• Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have announced their opposition to the Sotomayor nomination. No big surprise.
• The $644-million Community Stabilization Program in Iraq has been suspended due to alleged widespread corruption.
• Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, in what I believe is a first, seems to be hitting the campaign trail, hoping for a second term.
• How can policymakers pay for health care? John Kerry’s idea about imposing an excise tax on “gold-plated Cadillac” insurance plans seems to be generating quite a bit of support.
• In the wake of the controversy surrounding Skip Gates’ arrest, racial slurs at The Root have become a real problem.
• Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is real sorry he suggested last week that the U.S. needed to prepare for a possible military confrontation with India.
• It was a pleasant surprise to see Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) acknowledge that United States has detention facilities that could safely hold Gitmo inmates. Alas, he’s still wrong about the policy. [Read more →]

Tags: Countdown, Iraq, Obama administration, Party Politics, Supreme court by ecthompson
No Comments »

I found this on BnB and it is very funny:

This being said, she was cool under fire today. Still, I marveled at her ability to remain on point and pleasant throughout the day’s proceedings. I posted over at Jack & Jill politics that I kept waiting for her to jump up, put her hand on her hip and say, “Look here, papi. Whatchu see is whatchu get, right?” In my soap opera, she goes all Rosie Perez a la Do the Right Thing with Sessions as Mookie. Much as I would have enjoyed that, that’s exactly what they want to see. They want to see a loud, gum-smacking, neck-rolling, “spicy Latina” breaking them off a piece of her mind. Not gonna happen.

Today they re-dredged the “wise Latina” question and tried to get her to say that she was an abortion-loving rabble-rousing radical terrorist. Um yeah, it didn’t work. She stuck to the jurisprudence and referenced logical standards of impartiality for every wackadoodle scenario they threw at her. It was so off the wall at one point that I expected Jack Lemon and Walter Mathau to come out and announce that this was all a gag promoting Grumpy Old Men 3 – They’re back and elected to public office!

Let the record reflect that had it been OneChele in front of them today, the conversation would’ve gone a little differently:

“Ms. Chele, thank you for appearing in front of us today.”

I smile. “Umm-hmm, no problem. Anything for Barry, so what’s on your mind?”

“Ms. Chele, can you share with us your opinions on abortion?”

Frowning, I answer. “That seems rather personal. I think we should let grown folks handle grown folks’ business.”

“So you refuse to answer?” [Read more →]

Tags: Fun, Obama administration, Supreme court by ecthompson
No Comments »

Senator Jeff Sessions was rejected back in 1986 by the Senate for a federal judgeship. He clearly made some racist statements.

From AP: Witnesses accused Sessions of calling a black lawyer a “boy,” of describing church and civil rights groups as “un-American,” of agreeing with a statement that a white civil rights lawyer was a “disgrace to his race,” and of saying he thought the Ku Klux Klan was all right until he learned members smoked marijuana.

So, Senator Sessions launched an all-out assault against Judge Sonia Sotomayor because she … Well, you decide, why.

Tags: Legal, Senate, Supreme court by ecthompson
No Comments »

David Waldman of the Daily Kos and Congress Matters has the best summary of everything Sotomayor.  Live blogging at a couple of places – Scotusblog and Congress Matters.

From DK:

All Congress-watching eyes are expected to turn today to the Senate Judiciary Committee, as they begin their consideration of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. And the Committee, aware of the intense interest, will be live streaming video of the hearing, which they’re wisely making available in blog-embeddable format. So that’s exciting in itself. They know where the interest lies.

Thinking of popping some popcorn and watching the proceedings? If it’s Sotomayor you want to hear from, make sure you get lunch first. And maybe a nap. Because although the hearings are expected to be gaveled into session at 10 a.m., the first order of business is opening statements. From the Senators. Nineteen of them. For up to ten minutes apiece. Plus statements of introduction from home state Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirstin Gillibrand.

That’s Washington for you. Three to four hours of opening statements — plus a lunch break — before the person you’re supposed to be talking about even gets to say anything. And then, once she makes her own opening statement, they’ll adjourn for the day. It will take an entire day to “open” things with statements. You want to see someone ask a question? Come back tomorrow.

Meanwhile, some resources:

Interested in embedding the video in your blog? Judiciary Committee Dems have made it easy. Just follow this link, choose your format, and (theoretically) you’re good to go. Video clips, highlights, etc. to be made available throughout the day here.

Plenty of good previews circulating online, too. (And if you find any more good ones, throw us a link in the comments.)

Why not start here, with Adam Serwer of TAP?

And perhaps something from Daniel Schuman of the Sunlight Foundation?

Myths vs. Facts, from Ian Millhiser at the Center for American Progress? [Read more →]

Tags: Legal, Supreme court by ecthompson
No Comments »

Conservatives have been attacking affirmative action and the 1964 Civil Rights Law since the Reagan administration.  The Supreme Court has reversed the lower court (Second Circuit Court of Appeals with Sotomayor).  More later…

From AP:

The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. (more…)

Update: One thing is clear. The Supreme Court did nothing to clarify the situation, but instead muddied the waters. The Supreme Court seems to be saying that if you did not intentionally discriminate, then no discrimination exists. This must be just my overly simplistic way of reading this decision. This is obviously a false hypothesis. It’s clearly possible to discriminate against blacks, women and other minorities without doing it “intentionally.” Proving intent would be nearly impossible in most discrimination cases.

This case also points out some of the problems I have with some conservatives who say that judges need to “interpret the law.” The Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly states that you cannot discriminate based on race but then it goes on to say when an employer can discriminate based on a “protected trait.” So how do you balance these things? The mantra, “interpret the law,” rings hollow.

The Supreme Court focused on a test that was given to these firefighters. Now we know from years of testing students that some tests can reveal racial bias. We know from an elegant study by Stanford researcher that minorities will perform worse a particular test if they are told that this is a test of intelligence. If minority students are told that this is a problem-solving test these students do perfectly well. Their scores are as good as their White counterparts. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s arguments seem to be solid when she states, “In so holding, the Court pretends that “[t]he City rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white.” Ante, at 20. That pretension, essential to the Court’s disposition, ignores substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used. The Court similarly fails to acknowledge the better tests used in other cities, which have yielded less racially skewed outcomes.”

Finally, the Supreme Court has breathed just a flicker of hope into the anti-Sotomayor crowd. Over the next 24-48 hours, some conservatives will try to move quickly to capitalize on this momentum. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, they’ll say, is somehow unfit for the Supreme Court because she has a ruling that’s been overturned. This, of course, is a ridiculous statement. Nonetheless, I suspect conservatives will try to push this and get as much mileage out of this is possible. As Glenn puts it — In light of today’s ruling, it’s a bit difficult — actually, impossible — for a rational person to argue that Sotomayor’s Ricci decision places her outside the judicial mainstream when: (a) she was affirming the decision of the federal district court judge; (b) she was joined in her decision by the two other Second Circuit judges who, along with her, comprised a unanimous panel; (c) a majority of Second Circuit judges refused to reverse that panel’s ruling; and now: (d) four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices — including the ones she is to replace — agree with her.

Put another way, 11 out of the 21 federal judges to rule on Ricci ruled as Sotomayor did. It’s perfectly reasonable to argue that she ruled erroneously, but it’s definitively unreasonable to claim that her Ricci ruling places her on some sort of judicial fringe.

Update II: Balkination has more technical questions about this Ricci decision and how will it affect the Voting Rights Act.

Tags: Civil Rights, Supreme court by ecthompson
10 Comments »

It appears that Gov. Mark Sanford’s mission to Argentina was contraindicated. Then again, his extracurricular activity was also contraindicated. Maureen Dowd from the New York Times has some interesting comments on the governor’s split personality.

California approaches a July second deadline without a budget. The state comptroller is going to be forced to hand out IOUs. I thought Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in order to fix California’s budgetary woes. The last governor who was running record deficits, shortly after being reelected, was ousted on a special election. So what has “the Terminator” done to fix the budgetary problems?  I thought that he said that he knew how to fix this.

I spoke yesterday at a rally for universal healthcare. I keep reading the stuff coming out of Washington and it seems like universal confusion. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel stated, “I think we’re in good shape.” Maybe he’s looking at a different healthcare plan. What I see formulating in Washington looks like that amorphous hybrid like that thing in the movie, The Blob.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was on Meet the Press. He was talking about healthcare and healthcare reform. He stated that the Republican Party believes in giving Americans a choice in healthcare.I guess he meant a choice among insurance companies since he does not support a public option.

We’ve been assured that Iraqis are ready to handle their own security.

House minority leader John Boehner is not happy with the American Clean Energy and Security Act. This is a good thing. This means is might not be simply a corporate giveaway.

62% of Americans believe that Judge Sonia Sotomayor should be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

TMZ reports that Billy Mays, longtime pitchman for OxyClean, was found dead this morning. The night before he had a “hard landing” at Tampa’s airport. There is some question of whether he was wearing a seat belt or not, since he hit his head.

Tags: Healthcare, House of Representatives, Obama administration, Party Politics, State and Local Politics, Supreme court by ecthompson
No Comments »

But according to data compiled by SCOTUSblog, Sotomayor’s reported 60 percent reversal rate is lower than the overall Supreme Court reversal rate for all lower court decisions from the 2004 term through the present — both overall and for each individual Supreme Court term. Using SCOTUSblog’s data, Media Matters for America has also calculated the reversal rate for only federal appeals court decisions:

Tags: Supreme court by ecthompson
No Comments »

Today’s Roundup comes from the Political Animal. Foolishly, I’m trying to get some of my work done. I’m happy to say that I have Representative Susan Fisher on my show this week. We will be talking about the North Carolina state budget and several of her other initiatives.  I will also have Angela Kelly from the Center for American Progress. We will discuss comprehensive immigration reform.

* Busted: “The government is charging Angelo R. Mozilo, the former chief executive of the mortgage lender Countrywide Financial, and two other company executives with civil fraud. The Securities and Exchange Commission said Thursday afternoon that its case also accused Mr. Mozilo of illegal insider trading.”

* Sonia Sotomayor finished the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questionnaire in record time. Bonus points for turning it in early?

* A court has ordered South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) to take $700 million in stimulus money, whether he wants it or not.

* Immigration reform this year?

* President Obama’s policy towards Israel is being undermined by lawmakers in his own party.

* How dishonest is Liz Cheney’s political analysis? She’s willing to say things Dick Cheney has already rejected.

* Ezra explains, “The toxic loans portion of Tim Geithner’s Public Private Investment Program looks to be officially dead.” [Read more →]

Tags: Economy, General, Immigration, Legal, Rep. Susan Fisher, Supreme court by ecthompson
No Comments »

As usual, there’s so much to talk about.  I start off discussing the California Supreme Court and its upholding the ban on same-sex marriage.  I readily admit that I did not read Proposition Eight.  I also must say that I’m not criticizing the court, but it is clear that this is an untenable situation.  In the United States we are supposed to be equal.  What ever the state recognizes as a union between two adults (whether that is marriage, civil unions or Vulcan mind melding) should be the same for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals.  The state should not discriminate.  The benefits two partners get should be available to gays and lesbians.  To me it is a simple case of civil rights.  General David Patreaus was on FOX News.  I play a rather long clip of him as he explains why Guantánamo needs to be closed.  He also states that we need to trust our justice system.  I was very surprised and pleased by his statements.  Finally, I give an update on the swine flu (Influenza A: H1N1).  There are now almost 9000 cases in the United States.  They’re have been over 15 deaths reported.  The swine flu is not going away.  We need to continue to be diligent.

I interviewed Dr. Jonathan Kotch from UNC Chapel Hill.  He is part of a group called Physicians for National Health Program.  We discuss the important aspects of health care refor, how we need to improve patient access and patient care.  Whatever system we come up with needs to be portable and cost-effective.  One of the big questions is whether the single-payer plan would be a viable alternative.  If the reason for health care reform is primarily cost, then what value does insurance add?  This is an excellent discussion.

Linda Monk is a constitutional scholar and author of the fabulous book, Words We Live By.  She is a graduate of Harvard Law School.  I invited her on the show to discuss what we should look for in a Supreme Court Justice.  A candidate for the Supreme Court should interpret the law narrowly.  There shouldn’t be an attempt for broad, over-arching interpretations.  We also discuss Barack Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.  This is a great discussion and well worth a listen.

I wrap up the show with more discussion on healthcare.  In my opinion, healthcare needs to be more integrated.  Physicians have to find a way to work together better.  As patients become more and more complex, there’s a need for better communication.

Enjoy the show.

 

 The Errington Thompson Show 5-30-09 [52:45m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Tags: Civil Rights, Healthcare, Podcasts, Senate, Supreme court by ecthompson
2 Comments »

Liberals are nothing but whiny, Volvo-driving tree-huggers.  Can you believe what Sotomayor said now?

Here’s what she said in response to a simple question.

Questioner: Can you comment just about Sonia Sotomayor, and what she cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what’s important to you in life?

SOTOMAYOR: … I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.

SOTOMAYOR: I don’t come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn’t experience those things. I don’t take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.”

When I have cases involving children, I can’t help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that’s before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.

Oh, wait… my bad.  This wasn’t Sotomayor.  It was Samuel Alito during his confirmation hearing.  The whole thing should read like this:

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito’s Nomination to the Supreme Court

U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what’s important to you in life?

ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.

ALITO: I don’t come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn’t experience those things. I don’t take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives. ….

Well, that’s something else entirely, isn’t it?  What does say about Alito?  What does say about empathy and live experience?  More from Keith Olbermann (watch the video):

Tags: Bush Administration, Countdown, Party Politics, Supreme court by ecthompson
No Comments »

I mentioned this yesterday in a comment.  Conservatives are grasping at straws.  I believe that this nomination is a done deal.  Conservatives are desperately looking for any reason they can find to stop this nomination.  The other thing that Conservatives are doing is filling their coffers.  They are sending out mailers and emails with Sotomayor’s face on them.  They are asking their faithful for money and, if I’m not mistaken, money is pouring in. This is politics since the mid-1990s.  It is ugly and it is partisan.

From Crooks and Liars:

Rachel Maddow uses a baseball analogy to debunk the talking points the media is using coming from a Washington Times article on Sonia Sotomayor’s reversal rate. Media Matters has the breakdown as well.

Wash. Times, CQ uncritically report criticism that Sotomayor’s Supreme Court reversal rate is “high.” From the article:

In a May 27 article headlined “Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court,” The Washington Times uncritically quoted Conservative Women for America president Wendy Wright saying that Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court reversals — which the Times reported as three of five cases, or 60 percent — were “high.” Similarly, on May 26, Congressional Quarterly Today uncritically quoted (subscription required) Wendy Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, claiming that Sotomayor “has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed, indicating that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court.” In fact, contrary to the claim that a reversal rate of 60 percent is “high,” data compiled by SCOTUSblog since 2004 show that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 60 percent of the federal appeals court cases it considered each year.

The Times reported that “[t]hree of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents.” The article then quoted Wright’s assertion that Sotomayor’s “high reversal rate alone could be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record.” But according to data compiled by SCOTUSblog, Sotomayor’s reported 60 percent reversal rate is lower than the overall Supreme Court reversal rate for all lower court decisions from the 2004 term through the present — both overall and for each individual Supreme Court term.

Tags: Obama administration, Rachel Maddow Show, Supreme court by ecthompson
1 Comment »

Here’s what I don’t understand. Where was all of this energy when George H. W. Bush appointed her in the first place?

From AL:

… I have to say that I’m somewhat shocked by the sheer brazenness of the Republican attacks on Sonia Sotomayor. I expected the standard “I oppose her because she’s liberal, not because she’s Hispanic” line, but instead nearly all the criticism seems to explicitly revolve around her ethnicity. She’s a racist, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh are telling us. She’s an affirmative action mediocrity, says the Weekly Standard.

Putting aside for a moment the deeply offensive and counterfactual nature of these attacks, I’m led to wonder whether the GOP has completely lost its collective mind. If you want to have any hope of ever getting another Hispanic vote, here’s a tip: at least pretend that your opposition to Sotomayor has nothing to do with her race.

More importantly, though, take a step back and look at how insane this “identity politics” criticism is. As far as credentials go, Sotomayor is virtually identical to the last Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito. They went to the same undergraduate school, Princeton (where Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude). They both went to the nation’s top law school. And they’ve had successful law careers that led to successful tenures as federal Appeals Court judges. But somehow because Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican descent as opposed to Italian descent, she is somehow less qualified. That’s nonsensical and insulting on several levels. Moreover, these same conservatives bristle as the suggestion that Clarence Thomas was less qualified than others for the job of Supreme Court Justice. He went to Yale, after all.

From TP:

Since President Obama announced Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court this morning, conservatives — such as Karl Rove — have publicly questioned whether she has the qualifications and “intellect” for the job. Today on CNN, however, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said there is “no question” that Sotomayor is qualified:

GONZALES: I have no questions in my mind about her qualifications in terms of education, experience. A president is not required to nominate the most qualified person to the court. I think he’s obliged to nominate someone who is well-qualified, and I think by any measures, she is well-qualified. I think there are legitimate questions about her judicial philosophy.

I’m not sure that I would want to take an endorsement from Alberto but I think that is shows who crazy the Right has become.  Someone that President Bush (the greater) nominated has now become so totally unacceptable to the Right.  In a way I think that all of their froathing at the mouth is good.  When Obama has the opportunity to choose someone else for the court sometime in the future he can choose a true liberal.  He can choose someone that will act as a counterweight to Scalia, Roberts and Thomas.

Tags: Media, Obama administration, Party Politics, Supreme court by ecthompson
11 Comments »

President Barack Obama has chosen federal appeals judge Sonja Sotomayor as his nominee to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court.  I am positive that the White House has vetted this nominee thoroughly.  I’m sure they’ve looked for domestic servants or gardeners who were being paid under the table and I am positive they looked to see whether she has had illicit affairs with men or women.  Tax problems or illicit affairs are really the only things that can hold up this nomination.  She is a product of Princeton University and Yale Law School.  She was appointed to US District Court by President George H. W. Bush and was elevated to the Court of Appeals by President Clinton.  This woman looks outstanding on paper.

Glenn has words of praise.

From NYT:

President Obama announced on Tuesday that he will nominate the federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, choosing a daughter of Puerto Rican parents raised in a Bronx public housing project to become the nation’s first Hispanic justice.

Judge Sotomayor, who stood next to the president during the announcement, was described by Mr. Obama as “an inspiring woman who I am confident will make a great justice.”

The president said he had made his decision after “deep reflection and careful deliberation,” and he made it clear that the judge’s inspiring personal story was crucial in his decision. Mr. Obama praised his choice as someone possessing “a rigorous intellect, a mastery of the law.”

But those essential qualities are not enough, the president said. Quoting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Mr. Obama said, “The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience.” It is vitally important that a justice know “how the world works, and how ordinary people live,” the president said. (more… )

Tags: Obama administration, Supreme court by ecthompson
6 Comments »

For reasons that are unclear (my friend sent me a link) I opened an article of Thomas Sowell’s.  If I haven’t taken my medicine (Pepto-Bismol and Prilosec), I try not to read his work.  His writing is almost indistinguishable from whatever the Republican party line is.  So, today the party line is “Empathy” versus Law.

When you start from this position, you can’t find any place that’s reasonable.  His premise is that it is impossible to be empathetic and follow the law at the same time.  I completely reject that premise. Just because you have empathy for someone or some cause does not mean that they’re necessarily right or that they’ve necessarily follow the law.  The definition of empathy according to Merriam — Webster is the “action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.”  Nowhere in that definition does it say to ignore the law.

It is 2009.  The Supreme Court is made up of seven old White men, one Black man (who hates the fact that he is indeed Black) and one old White woman.  How does this Court represent America?  As these nine Americans deliberate on everything from civil rights to civil liberties to torture to property rights, would the decisions of this Court change if there were five women and four men (which would be much more representative of the population of the United States?) Thomas Sowell argues to consider such things as race and gender proves that we have “strayed from the purpose of law.”  Really?  How?  If I’m looking at five qualified candidates (use whatever definition of qualified you want to use) and four of them are White males and one of them is a White female shouldn’t gender be discussed? If not, why not?  It would be different if we lived in an equal society where women and minorities have been treated equally for hundreds of years, but that’s not the case.  We live in a society where everybody is not equal;  therefore, women and minorities may see a situation differently. They will view some laws differently than White males. It is this diversity which makes America great.  Shouldn’t we try to get this same type of diversity on the Supreme Court?  The answer is, of course, that we should.

The fact that this columnist decided to lower himself by comparing Barack Obama’s oratory skills to that of Hitler’s makes me want to vomit. The comparison debases his argument.

Sowell then launches into the danger of picking someone who doesn’t understand the Constitution.  So the fear is that Barack Obama will choose Beyoncé or Jennifer Lopez to be on the Supreme Court?  Where’s my emesis basin? What did Thomas Sowell write about Samuel Alito? Justice Alito wrote an extensive paper on the Unitary Executive back in 2000.  There’s no mention of such a thing in the Constitution.  As a matter of fact, the founding fathers were very much aware of King George and his dictatorial ways.  The Constitution was written in order to prevent one person from wielding all the power.  That was the purpose of three, dare I say it — co-equal — branches of government.  Yet, Samuel Alito supports such a radical idea.  A quick literature search finds that Mr. Sowell did write about Samuel Alito but never mentioned that unitary executive theory.  I wonder why. Maybe because it wasn’t in his talking points script that he was given that day.

Tags: Party Politics, Supreme court by ecthompson
8 Comments »

Reality is completely strange and unpredictable. President Barack Obama is juggling 10 or 15 major crises. Now there reports that Justice David H. Souter plans on retiring. At age 69, Souter is far from the oldest justice on the Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens is 89. I thought Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who just underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer, would retire soon. She’s given no indication that she is planning on retiring any time in the near future.

To underscore how far the Republican Party has drifted to the right, David Souter was nominated by George H. W. Bush. David Souter is now thought of as a liberal.

It is clear that Barack Obama would choose a thoughtful, conscientious, pro-choice liberal to replace David Souter. There is speculation that he would choose a woman. Whatever liberal he chooses will not substantially change the balance of the court.

My question is: how hard will Republicans fight against a pro-choice nominee?  I think the fight will be to the death and extremely ugly.  Obama will have to choose someone who can stand up to 19 times the scrutiny that Harriet Miers got. The Fox News crowd will be apoplectic. On the liberal side, there are a lot of factions that would like to be appeased –civil rights activists, women’s rights activists, environmentalists and gay-rights activists are just a few of the groups that I can think of off the top of my head.

WaPo has more:

White House advisers have been drafting lists of potential replacements virtually since Obama took office, and the list is said to also include Stanford University law professor Kathleen M. Sullivan, Kim McLane Wardlaw of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm and Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears. Souter, who has been on the court since October 1990, was nominated by President George H.W. Bush on July 25, 1990, to a seat vacated by William J. Brennan Jr. He was confirmed by the Senate on Oct. 2, 1990. (more… )

Tags: Obama administration, Senate, Supreme court by ecthompson
5 Comments »

From McClatchy News:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has undergone surgery for an apparent early stage pancreatic cancer, the court’s public information office is reporting.

The 75-year-old Ginsburg underwent the surgery at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Her attending physician, Dr. Murray Brennan, (ed note: Dr. Brennan is one of the premiere surgeons in the country) said Justice Ginsburg would probably remain in the hospital for between seven and 10 days.

Ginsburg reported having no symptoms prior to the discovery of a lesion during a routine annual check up in January at the National Institutes of Health. A scan found a small tumor, approximately one centimeter across, in the center of the pancreas.

Ginsburg has served on the Supreme Court since being appointed by President Clinton in 1993. The graduate of Cornell University and Columbia Law School is one of the most liberal members of the court.

Tags: Obama administration, Supreme court by ecthompson
No Comments »

Friday Evening News Roundup

• I’m very happy to announce that tomorrow on the Errington Thompson show, I will have as my special guest Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos and author of Taking on the System-Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era.  I’ll also be giving away tickets to Oliver Stone’s new movie W!! Tune in tomorrow at 9 am (Eastern standard Time). (streaming here)
• Good news! Nancy Reagan has been released from the hospital. Nancy Reagan is currently 87 years old. She fell sometime last week but did not seek medical attention until this week. She has a pelvic fracture.  As a trauma surgeon, I’ll just say that falls among the elderly are a leading cause of death. I wish the former first lady well.
• There seems to be an accounting stumbling block in the treasury’s “rescue plan”. Current accounting rules prevent banks from counting the infusion of cash from the treasury as part of their core capital. If banks are unable to do this, they will continue to appear shaky. It seems as if they should probably have had this worked out before they announced it as the cornerstone of their plan.
• The Supreme Court overturned an Ohio circuit court’s ruling today. As you recall, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had directed Ohio’s Secretary of State to verify hundreds of thousands of voter registrations. This will not be the last major play in Ohio with a regards to registering voters. I promise.
• The Obama campaign has asked US Attorney General Michael Mukasey to expand the powers of the current special prosecutor looking into the US Attorney scandal. The Obama campaign wants to look for illegal links among the White House, the RNC and the Justice Department with regard to trying to “rig” the election toward Republicans.
• Yesterday Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska took the stand in his own defense. Senator Stevens is accused of accepting more than $250,000 worth of renovations and gifts from convicted millionaire Bill Allen on his retreat. Today in his cross-examination Senator Stevens got testy. If I were looking at certain jail time, I guess I would get testy also.
• Christopher Buckley, son of conservative guru William F. Buckley, Jr., has just endorsed Barack Obama and resigned from the conservative journal that his father started, The National Review.
• Radio talk show host Ed Schultz was on “Fox and Friends” early this morning. He was asked a ridiculously stupid question about Joe the Plumber which he tried to answer, but he kept getting interrupted. After the third or fourth interruption, he simply got up and walked off. Good for him!
• So the Boston Red Sox were down to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays 7-0 midway through the seventh inning. They lead the best-of-seven series three games to one. The series was basically over. All the Devil Rays had to do was not give up eight runs in two and a half innings. They couldn’t do it! The Boston Red Sox scored four runs in the seventh inning, three in the eighth and one run in the bottom of the ninth to win the game 8-7. An absolutely an amazing comeback.

Tags: Civil Liberty, Election 2008, Senate, Supreme court, US Attorneys by ecthompson
No Comments »