Starr’s attack of rightwing realism is more evidence, if any was needed, of what I said from the get-go: Sotomayor is not a radical.
By Steve Russell / The Rag Blog / June 20, 2009
Kenneth Starr, who certainly lives over the political right edge of the earth, has endorsed Sonia Sotomayor. And even acknowledged that Barack Obama is his President!
Starr’s attack of rightwing realism is more evidence, if any was needed, of what I said from the get-go: Sotomayor is not a radical. More’s the pity. She’s a moderate liberal who will probably rule pretty much like the Justice she is replacing, David Souter.
She was not my candidate. Diane Wood was my candidate, and Diane’s way to the left of Sotomayor while remaining mainstream enough to get confirmed.
That said, I become more rabidly pro-Sotomayor every day.
The right must not be allowed to do what they are trying to do to her. It’s dishonest, and if it succeeds it basically means lots of our kids (in the greater community sense) can never serve on the Supreme Court.
The latest hoo-hah is they got on her for belonging to a women’s club.
If there is anyone here who can’t see the difference between a men only club and a women only club, please go stick your head in a bucket because you are not fit for the real world. And last time I looked, I still had a penis, difficult as it is to see over my stomach. My wife says it’s still there.
And that business about the National Council of La Raza being like the KKK. Oh right. NCLR lynched how many people? NCLR burned how many churches?
I’m disqualified from federal court consideration because I’m too old, but should I be disqualified because I’ve held office in two different Indian Bar Associations? Does that make me a racist?
What I’m getting at is that every possible nominee to the Court who is not a white male is threatened by the nature of the attack on Sotomayor. It’s not that they are against her, it’s HOW they are against her. Those arguments cannot be allowed to stand.
Well, this hurts. I totally agree with most of what you said.
Call me a dreamer, but I do think Sotomayer will soon begin to vote far more liberally than you suspect. Remember Earl Warren.
You may be right but the tenor of the debate is such that how she will vote in this or that case is really not the point.
The method of attack cuts though great swaths of minority and women lawyers.
To name one who in my opinion was a great asset on the Court: Thurgood Marshall.
Could he get past the flak field being sent up against Sotomayor? I don’t think so, and I’m not interested in any screening method that would keep Thurgood Marshall off the Court.
Or Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who is ailing and may be the next vacancy. She taught at two major law schools, but her lasting impact on the legal profession was her work for the Women’s Rights Project of the ACLU. Does that make her a sexist?
Many of the lawyers I most admire are threatened by this method of attack. Applying the proposed standards retroactively, you keep some very good judges off the federal bench.
In Texas, Gabrielle McDonald. Remember when the KKK tried to recuse her in the case the Southern Poverty Law Center brought in defense of the Vietnamese shrimpers who got their boats burned by the KKK?
If the attack on Sotomajor is valid, then McDonald was too black to hear the KKK case….