Looking at the cross currents of historical and contemporary events
I think it will be pretty hard for the Republicans to block this choice. She seems to be a good bipartisan pick.
I was interested to read that she was first appointed by George Sr. It seems like in the old days there used to be a republican party that was, well, fair and balanced (tm). Now they unashamedly announce they are trying to figure out how to block a choice -- before they even know who the choice is!
It's interesting to note that when Clinton put her on the Court of Appeals the Republicans opposed her on the grounds that she might then become a Supreme Court prospect. They never stop. It's utterly amazing. Within an hour or two of the nomination Rush Limbaugh called her a racist. I say, let them oppose and call her all the names in the book--that way they will continue to look absurd in the eyes of the American public.They (Conservative Republicans) certainly have become top notch in self destruction. Think about it--a Puerto Rican nominated by Black president is RACIST-it's too,too much to contemplate--my brain hurts. These guys are about to blow the Hisapanic Vote for the next twenty years.
I just heard one of the Republican Senators (from Iowa) who voted against her the last time. He doesn't remember _why_ he voted against her -- he's hoping he might have given a speech so he can find out! -- but it sounds like he's ready to do it again, if nothing else just for consistency's sake. You're right, Robert. It's madness out there. Rush Limbaugh also said Powell supported Obama because they both are black. They are trying to hold on to a very tattered remnant of what this country once was.
Well, good luck coming up with 40 senators to try to block her. I don't the Republican Party will unite behind this one and there is nothing in her judicial record to turn off Blue-Dog Dems. Sotomayor is a done deal. The Repugs better hope Obama picks someone more contentious next time around.
Like Robert said above, I heard Roger Simon pointing out last night that the right is branding her an affirmative action pick -- even though she was top of her class at Princeton and was not a "legacy" student like some we might mention. Basically the message is that no matter what your background and no matter how hard you work and no matter what you achieve in life, if you are not white you will always be an affirmative action hire. Otherwise why would you be there? That's not a particularly compelling argument to encourage Hispanics or others to run out and vote Republican.Interestingly, they also said that McCain, from Arizona, has gone out of his way to compliment her.
Funny, because when she was up for Appeals Court Judge, McCain voted against her, along with Sessions and plus or minus 20 other Republicans.
Well as they say, the times (or demographics) are a changing. Barring any unforeseen problem, I think it will be very hard to vote against someone who is so clearly qualified just because she is Hispanic or a woman or worse, maybe a Democrat. Particularly if you want to get reelected in the Southwest.Yesterday, msnbc showed the Democratic votes for Thomas that came from the South -- and he was clearly unqualified. Still is as far as I can tell. One would hope that the Supreme Court would not be a political battlefield, but I don't think that's going to happen in our lifetimes. I guess maybe it's time to pull out some of those histories about Jefferson et al. and the courts and see what it was like then.
I would think that her saving the '95 baseball season would cut across political lines, if nothing else,"She issued an injunction that banned baseball's management from establishing its own work rules in the absence of a new collective bargaining agreement, and clearly blocked any attempt that management would have made at the time to try to play the '95 season with replacement players, which means scabs. This was a time in baseball when both sides, players and owners, were behaving hideously. Put any smart, decent judge up against them, and he or she is going to look like a living saint every single time." http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2009/05/26/2009-05-26_judge_hr_ended_strike.html
Of course, she took the side of labor.
This should be an interesting hearing:http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/29/1947578.aspx
Right wingers tried to accuse her of racism or subversive politics because of her association with La Raza. They allege ''la raza'' means ''the race'' in Spanish and that this group is in partnership with Atzlan which demands California/Southwestern separation from the Union.First of all, La Raza means ''the community'' and it shows that the group aspires to strengthen minorities so that they can be in full partnership with the majority. Second, La Raza is NOT associated with Atzlan and has openly condemned its racialism:http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/42452Lastly, if separation constitutes racism then the Republicans should condemn Governor Perry of Texas for daring to say that his state should secede from the Union. Naturally, the Pukes have nothing to say about his supposed racism.
This is such a self-defeating attempt by Republican blow hards. I thought Newt was smarter than that. No one is more racist than Jeff Sessions, but even he knows when to hold his cards.