Comments on: Sotomayor: She Deserves Respect

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:39:51 +0000

Again -- you don't have all the facts. Keep in mind that I don't support any specific ideology; I even subscribed to Sojourners magazine for a period in the 1980s but found it a little too liberal for my tastes when it came to certain issues and thus didn't renew it.

Anyway, what I've consistently said about the history and MO of the modern conservative movement is provable from multiple sources; however, no such proof of corresponding liberal movement exists (if there were the conservatives themselves would tell you about it). You have chafed at my accusations of nefarious motives on the part of the political right; trouble is, there's way, way too much evidence.

This is why when people complain that, say, Miguel Estrada and Clarence Thomas were not given their due as representing their race, so to speak, they're actually talking through their hats because they were nominated, as I said earlier, to look diverse when the conservatives who set them up in the first place want nothing to do with diversity. Several weeks ago a minister complained on Facebook about 95 percent of African-Americans voting for Obama in the last presidential election; I responded that, were he a conservative Republican, he wouldn't get anywhere near that amount of electoral support. (And he blasted me for bringing that up.)

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:04:57 +0000

Would that also apply to you?

By: xfree9

xfree9 — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:52:20 +0000

Too bad. It was a good use.

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:48:24 +0000

Certainly not.

By: xfree9

xfree9 — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:45:58 +0000

“color the way someone sees…”

pun intended?

By: xfree9

xfree9 — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:40:24 +0000

I called you “liberal” because you've called yourself that.

By: xfree9

xfree9 — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:39:43 +0000

I can't prove you wrong, because you are unwilling to believe that you could be wrong.

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:32:20 +0000

I'm also a “born-again” Christian (though I never liked the term). So what?

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:31:29 +0000

Then prove me wrong. Truth be told, you can't — because the cold, hard facts simply don't favor your position. (Why do you think that we journalists get labeled as “liberal”? We tell the truth and you just don't want to hear it — and whose fault is that?)

By: xfree9

xfree9 — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:24:12 +0000

He's a liberal journalist. What else would you expect?

By: xfree9

xfree9 — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:23:50 +0000

Nope, ando is right. You spin, dude. You ignore completely that it's your perspective that you propose as “facts.”

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:57:09 +0000

Nixon was the master of that; his whole game was to split the Democratic Party, and he did that in part by nominating Southern conservatives — who in those days were generally Democrats — to Federal benches.

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Fri, 29 May 2009 02:13:52 +0000

You wish. Just because I bring up facts inconvenient to the conservative position doesn't mean I'm “spinning.”

By: letjusticerolldown

letjusticerolldown — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:16:32 +0000

Why do you think the nomination/confirmation process has always been so politicized? I just don't recall it before Judge Bork–but I haven't lived forever.

By: Wonder

Wonder — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:11:06 +0000

I think the rationale for making SC appointments permanent was to provide a stabilizing effect that wouldn't be subject to the shifting winds of politics

By: Eric77

Eric77 — Thu, 28 May 2009 21:51:03 +0000

I support decency and respect in the confirmation process. Decency and respect should rule the day even if Sotomayor wasn't a racial minority. Her race should have nothing to do with the fact that she deserves respect.

And simply hoping that she isn't confirmed or arguing that she doesn't deserve to be on the Supreme Court isn't paramount to disrespect. It might be bad judgment or bad politics (as Dowd argues) but it isn't disrespectful. I won't go as far as to defend the way Limbaugh went about expressing his views, but there's nothing disrespectful about his views.

Unfortunately the decency of the confirmation process started to decline well before now.

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution." - Sen. Edward Kennedy

Speaking of a lack of decency...

If it wasn't for the one decision - Roe vs. Wade - Supreme Court confirmations would be a lot less fractious. If I were King for a day I'd amend the Constitution to make Supreme Court terms 10 years so there wouldn't be this battle royale every time a vacancy opens up.

By: ando

ando — Thu, 28 May 2009 21:39:24 +0000

Spin away, bluedeacon. That's what you're good at.

By: sepherim

sepherim — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:55:59 +0000

rolldown, I don't disagree with your conclusion but the courts have always been just as politicized as they are today. Check the history. The remarkable thing is that every once in a while they get something right in spite of that politicization. That of course excludes the current do-nothing court of John Roberts.

By: sepherim

sepherim — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:52:26 +0000

Didn't I see her singing “I like to be in America” in West Side Story? Wasn't she one of the Sharks?

By: BlueDeacon

BlueDeacon — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:27:26 +0000

Not really, because what we're talking about is not the beliefs she holds but the ones he holds. And besides (as she pointed out), a difference in background will almost by definition color the way someone sees the very same law.