They got nothing…

White male victimhood mongers of all genders, colors and sizes are howling like a pack of crack-addled, hydroencephalic hyenas over this excerpt of a speech by Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Why that “spic chic” [sic] thinks her judicial acumen is superior to a white man’s just because she grew up eating pig intestines over rice! But if you’re capable of reading the entire speech (without moving your lips and squoonching up your face over the polysyllabic words while doing so), it quickly becomes apparent that Sotomayor was engaged in a thoughtful analysis of the role experience plays in the judicial rulings of every human being who is appointed to a judgeship. And it inconveniently becomes clear that Sotomayor subscribes to the ideal that judges should strive for impartial application of the law.

Others raise more genteel but equally bone-headed objections based on a deliberate misinterpretation of Sotomayor’s words. Here’s past and future GOP candidate Mitt Romney’s take:

The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is troubling. Her public statements make it clear she has an expansive view of the role of the judiciary. Historically, the Court is where judges interpret the Constitution and apply the law. It should never be the place “where policy is made,” as Judge Sotomayor has said. Like any nominee, she deserves a fair and thorough hearing. What the American public deserves is a judge who will put the law above her own personal political philosophy.

But if you see the entire clip of the exchange from which the Sotomayor quote is extracted rather than the 25-second snippet that is no doubt looping endlessly on Fox News, it becomes clear that Sotomayor isn’t advocating legislating from the bench but rather explaining the difference in how appellate courts operate and the experience to be gained by serving different courts.

Romney is a dishonest cretin to imply otherwise, and his statement is particularly hypocritical coming from a smarmy bastard who has spent his entire political career pirouetting from one absolutist stance to another in a self-serving attempt to dance to the prevailing political tune.

If the early attacks on Sotomayor are any indication, once again, the GOP has nothing.

[Cross-posted at Betty Cracker. H/T to Whiskey Fire.]

Posted by Betty Cracker on 05/27/09 at 07:25 AM • Permalink

Categories: News • Politics • Election '08 • Bedwetters • Our Stupid Media • Mittens •

Share this post:

It’s a joy to watch the GOP twist themselves in knots over this. They have nothing, and they know it. All they want to do now is prolong the nomination long enough to get some traction within the 23% of voters who self-identify as Republicans.

Comment by Tom65 on 05/27/09 at 08:26 AM

I’m appalled that she seems reluctant to cite God, God’s Commandments and Natural Law as the guiding principles that bring order and cohesion to a legal framework predicated on the sanctity of Capital and the necessity of preserving my White Male Privilege.

Also, she looks a little bit like Hugo Chavez, but I’m sure a lot of them do.

If there’s any consolation for Republicans in this nomination, it’s that she is a “Puerto Rican,” which I understand is a kind of high-grade, light-skinned Mexican who’s already a non-voting quasi-citizen, and has no desire to annex California and Texas. So I guess we dodged a bullet there.

After all, we could have gotten a black or a Muslim, or even a (shudder) Black Muslim.

Regards,

The Unknown GOPer

Comment by StrangeAppar8us on 05/27/09 at 09:20 AM

Nina Totenberg gave a talk in Chicago years ago and she mentioned a revealing conversation she had with Lewis Powell after he left the Court on Roe v. Wade. Powell was seen as more conservative so his vote with the majority on that case was a bit of a surprise. He brought it up to Totenberg and said that when he was a young married associate at a law firm in Virginia, one of the clerks in the office came to him, desperate—his girlfriend was pregnant and wanted to terminate the pregnancy, and they needed money. Of course, it being illegal, Powell had to turn them down. The girlfriend somehow got the money, had an illegal abortion, and almost died. And Powell told Totenberg something like “After that, I couldn’t see how it was the business of the state to force people into that decision.”

So yes, justices DO use personal experiences. The problem, of course, is that for too long the dominant experience has been that of white male privilege, which is no less inherently biased or disinterested than anyone else’s experience, but is seen as the default mode for “reason” or “natural law.”

Comment by Oblomova on 05/27/09 at 09:50 AM

This is a horrible libel on crack-addled hydroencephalic hyenas.

We all knew the reaction to any Obama pick would be shrill yelps of outrage. However, their response to Sotomayor allows Obama to sit back while they piss off various voter blocks.

Comment by Hunger Tallest Palin on 05/27/09 at 12:13 PM

Well done, Betty! I enjoyed the “bone-headed” comment, that does sum it up for Mittens, doesn’t it (although smarmy is another apt description)

Comment by sunkawakan on 05/27/09 at 12:14 PM

The latest RW meme in the Moonie Times and the fucktardistan blogosphere is that Sotomayor is a horrible jurist because her rulings have been overturned 60% of the time by the SC.

Horrors!