Conservatives Blast Obama’s Hispanic SCOTUS Nominee As ‘Not The Smartest’ And An ‘Intellectual Lightweight’
Conservatives Blast Obama’s Hispanic SCOTUS Nominee As ‘Not The Smartest’ And An ‘Intellectual Lightweight’
When the media began floating Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a possible Supreme Court nominee, one of the first comprehensive articles to come out was a piece by Jeffrey Rosen in The New Republic. In the piece, Rosen allowed unnamed sources to attack Sotomayor as “not that smart” and lacking “penetrating” questions on the bench.
Many conservatives are now making this argument one of their principal lines of attack against Sotomayor’s nomination. This morning on WTOP, Curt Levey, executive director of the right-wing Committee for Justice, compared Sotomayor to Harriet Miers:
I would point you to the Harriet Miers nomination under the second President Bush. She was also many people felt and intellectual lightweight, picked because she was a woman, people felt. And even though Republicans controlled the senate, she ultimately had to withdraw. And that could happen here. This is someone who clearly was picked because she’s a woman and Hispanic, not because she was the best qualified. I could certainly see red and purple state Democrats gawking at it and she may very well have to withdraw her nomination.
Similarly, over at the National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru calls Sotomayor “Obama’s Harriet Miers.” This morning on Fox News, Karl Rove questioned whether she was smart enough to be on the Supreme Court. “I’m not really certain how intellectually strong she would be, she has not been very strong on the second circuit,” he said. Citing Rosen, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes said that Sotomayor was “not the smartest.” Watch a compilation:
These attacks started even before Sotomayor was named. The National Review’s Mark Hemingway earlier said that Sotomayor was “dumb and obnoxious.”
But as even Fox News’s Megyn Kelly admitted this morning, Sotomayor’s credentials are “impressive by almost any standard.” In fact, at the ceremony announcing Sotomayor this morning, Obama said that her legal and academic achievements were the most important factors in his decision to nominate her:
While there are many qualities that I admire in judges across the spectrum of judicial philosophy and that I seek in my own nominees, there are a few that stand out that I just want to mention. First and foremost is a rigorous intellect, a mastery of the law, and an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions. Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, and an understanding that a judge’s job is to interpret, not make law. To approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.
Coming from a housing project in the Bronx, Sotomayor ended up graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton. She also was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. Sotomayor then went to Yale Law School, where she served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) said on Fox News this morning that of all the nominees, Sotomayor “brings the most in terms of judicial experience — in terms of serving on a federal court — in 100 years.”
SCOTUS Blog has pointed out that women and minority candidates for the Supreme Court are often portrayed as not being smart enough for the job. As Matt Yglesias has also written, underscoring this point, “I recall a lot of issues being raised during the Samuel Alito confirmation fight, but at that time I don’t remember anyone raising questions about the intelligence of a Princeton/Yale Law graduate who’d done time on an Appeals Court.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Conservatives Blast Obama’s Hispanic SCOTUS Nominee As ‘Not The Smartest’ And An ‘Intellectual Lightweight’
– - Oh, I agree. Sotomayor is certainly no Harriet Miers.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:00 am- – Yes, that was Snark dialed up to 11.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:02 amIt goes to 11, man…
Don’t even look at it… don’t even breath on it…
May 26th, 2009 at 11:04 amConservatives Blast Obama’s Hispanic SCOTUS Nominee As ‘Not The Smartest’ And An ‘Intellectual Lightweight’
– - Two words for you Wingnuts: George Bush.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:06 amNew Republic writer Jeffrey Rosen
I haven’t read enough of Sotomayor’s opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor’s detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths.
And THIS is the guy that the right wingnuts are getting their talking points from….
May 26th, 2009 at 11:06 am“Bush’s Brain” doesn’t think Sotomayor is intelligent enough??
That has to be the best endorsement she could possibly get.
Quite honestly, I don’t think most of Sotomayor’s critics are smart enough to evaluate her intelligence.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:07 amWell… for once the conservatives are in an area they’re intimately familiar w/…
“Not the smartest”… and “intellectual lightweight”…
May 26th, 2009 at 11:07 amOS Says:
Harriet Miers was flaming liberal. Period.
___________
You’re funny.
No… really… you are.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:08 amOS Says:
Harriet Miers was flaming liberal. Period.
My point, exactly. [Quite honestly, I don't think most of Sotomayor's critics are smart enough to evaluate her intelligence.]
May 26th, 2009 at 11:09 amThey will smear her on rumor and innuendo, it’s the Republic’s way of operating. They have no one they can quote, except for anonymously, who are saying she is dumb or obnoxious. All the people who are on record praise her highly.
Now, also wait for them to go after her because she has diabetes. On the other hand, they may leave that one alone because Roberts has epilepsy, something he failed to tell the committee that interviewed him. Because of that, they may leave her diabetes alone because they won’t want Robert’s epilepsy to become common knowledge.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:11 amConservativeForProgress Says:
There you go, playing the race/national origin card and the gender card already.
More proof of my thesis.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:13 amSo how about graduating summa cum-laude from Princeton, editing the Yale law journal, serving as Asst DA in NYC, then being nominated to Appeals by George H W Bush?
The “judicial activism” argument is idiotic – it reveals either deep dishonest (with self and/or others) or a profoundly immature understanding of language.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:14 amComing from a housing project in the Bronx, Sotomayor ended up graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton. She also was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. Sotomayor then went to Yale Law School, where she served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:14 amThese are the credentials of intellectual light weight? I wonder what that makes Rove Limbaugh and Newt certainly not in a position to question the intellect of this selection. Better pick another meme than the lightweight one
Keep in mind, these are the people who voted twice for The Worst President Ever™.
Da Banksta
May 26th, 2009 at 11:15 amThe GOP is going to look like morons with these attacks on Judge Santomayor. I’m sure claiming she’s unqualified (because she’s a female and a minority) will attract even more women and minorities to the GOP.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:16 amIt will be so funny seeing a bunch of old white guys questioning her during the Senate hearings.
OS Says:
Progressive hypocrisy knows no bounds…..
And what “hypocrisy” would that be moron? Because we see no comparison between Sonia Sotomayor and Harriet Meiers?
Answer this. How many years had Harriet Meiers served as a judge of any kind? How many “opinions” of any sort was Meiers known for?
Even the Republics hated the Meiers nomination. They knew she was a lightweight.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:16 amConservativeForProgress Says:
There you go, playing the race/national origin card and the gender card already. Her race/national origin and gender have nothing to do with the debate over whether or not she is qualified. The question is whether or not she is the best person available for the job. If she is, confirm her. If she isn’t, don’t confirm her. It’s that simple.
***
sonia sotomayor
or
maria sotomayor?
:)
:)
May 26th, 2009 at 11:16 amConservativeForProgress Says:
Remember those words… and call a hypocrite a hypocrite when the circumstances dictate it…..
May 26th, 2009 at 11:17 amConservatives Blast Obama’s Hispanic SCOTUS Nominee As ‘Not The Smartest’ And An ‘Intellectual Lightweight’
After watching some pearls of intelligence in the GOP side, read Boehner, Palin, Bush, and a long list, well, talk about throwing stones from a glass house…
May 26th, 2009 at 11:17 amConservativeForProgress Says:
There you go, playing the race/national origin card and the gender card already
And who would that be who is “playing the race card”? There was not one post regarding her race before yours. So, I guess that makes you “it” moron.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:17 amI highly doubt her confirmation- or lack thereof- will be anything like Harriet Myers. Ms. Sotomayor actually has experience on the court. Plus she was appointed to positions by both H.W. Bush and Clinton! She should be a great choice. Congrats!
May 26th, 2009 at 11:18 amSo the Repubs are complaining about someone who is allegedly ‘not that smart’. Well, it’s a change from claiming anyone more left than they are who went to an Ivy League school as an ‘intellectual elitist’.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:18 amRight, OS! That’s right! That’s right! And her flaming pink communism is hard to contain! Keep it coming, brotha!
May 26th, 2009 at 11:19 amObviously Stupid
Conservative stupidity knows no bounds. My GOD you are ignorant
May 26th, 2009 at 11:20 amConservativeForProgress Says:
17. That can’t be true. Obama has only run once.
***
bush, george w.
here, maybe this will “refresh”
your short term memory.
:)
how are you coming with
those “fifty links”?
:)
:\
May 26th, 2009 at 11:20 amConservativeForProgress Says:
17. That can’t be true. Obama has only run once.
Your attempts at humor are woefully inadequate. I advise you to go back to being a “cut and paste” troll. You do much better there.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:20 amWow. After four months in office, you’re willing to declare Obama “Worst President Ever™”?
Based on what, exactly?
What blunders has President Obama committed that would earn him this distinction in your mind, C4P? What decision that he has made has had such a profound impact on the nation that you confidently claim this title for him?
I’m really curious to know.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:22 amYankhill Says:
I highly doubt her confirmation- or lack thereof- will be anything like Harriet Myers. Ms. Sotomayor actually has experience on the court. Plus she was appointed to positions by both H.W. Bush and Clinton! She should be a great choice. Congrats!
The Conservatives are going to have a hard time with the fact that Bush appointed her first. If she’s an “intellectual lightweight”, I guess that means that Bush appointed an intellectual lightweight to a high court position.
I wonder if papa Bush will come out and support the woman he first appointed. I’m betting he won’t.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:23 amConservativeForProgress Says:
A reasonable comment but WRONG. We have no obligation to overlook this pattern of attacking any Dem nomination as being not too bright when it is THERE. How in the world did they come up with not too bright with her academic credentials? It seems like whenever a minority is nominated the right comes up with this not too bright argument regardless how vapid and without merit. I am sure it would benifit your side if we just IGNORED this fact but we dont have to.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:23 am“Conservative” and “intelligence” are two words that do not belong in the same sentence. See McConnell, Boehner, Palin, Cheney (Liz and DICK), every Bush to hold public office, etc.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:23 amWhat a surprise. The wingnuts have been telling us for weeks that they will filibuster the nominiation, not even knowing who it will be, and today come out against the nomination. I take it as more of the party of no and obstructionism. The wingnuts have nothing. They have no platform and they are void of ideas. The wingnuts are a dying party fighting for their last breath. The apologists are the bottom of the 28% that still makes excuses for W the AWOL coward and five deferment Dick.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:25 amConservativeForProgress Says:
17. That can’t be true. Obama has only run once.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Then you return to form as the ignorant punkass troll you truly are. Obama has been president a fast four months and you are just blatantly stupid. Bush will be hard to beat as the worst president in modern times at LEAST if not of our entire history. You just cant help being a moron.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:25 amralph the wonder locust Says:
Perry logan Says:
Keep in mind, these are the people who voted twice for The Worst President Ever™.
ConservativeForProgress Says:
17. That can’t be true. Obama has only run once
Wow. After four months in office, you’re willing to declare Obama “Worst President Ever™”?
Based on what, exactly?
What blunders has President Obama committed that would earn him this distinction in your mind, C4P? What decision that he has made has had such a profound impact on the nation that you confidently claim this title for him?
I’m really curious to know.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:22 am Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
Don’t you know? C4P is a fan of the Salem’s judicial system. He has judged Obama and Sotomayor far before he even knew his names.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:25 amConservatives blast Obama’s nominee.
You could see this coming a hundred miles away.
OS = Obviously Stupid
May 26th, 2009 at 11:26 amCFP is pissed off cuz Gonzo isn’t on the SCOTUS
*must be their
May 26th, 2009 at 11:26 amDoesn’t the right wing in our country constantly run for office on the idea that intellectual elites will be ruin our nation. So now they are decrying a woman for not being an intellectual elite?
My head might explode from the irony.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:27 amConservativeForProgress = Oxymoron not just moron.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:27 amlook at all the right wingers spinning out of control
I don’t know much about this nominee, but, given the track record of CFP, OS, Proud, Special Jay, etc, she must be a great choice if they freak out like they do over it.
Of course, they would freak out over anything Obama does because that’s what their radio tells them to do.
Poor little right wing cowards.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:28 amEugeneDebs says:
Obviously Stupid is not only willfully ignorant, but proud of it.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:29 amYou right-wingers think you have all the answers. Bush put a couple of extremist corporate-blowing restrictionists (incorrect usage, but counter to this theory that ruling against the common folk is merely “interpreting” the constitution. bullshit. you want the law to be a rite of passage to the big boys and something akin to the lottery, an uphill battle to the people who make this country work, the individuals.)
I talk of a far-left agenda needed just to restore our coordinates to (0,0) — the origin, or the center. That applies to the supreme court, too. But the truth is, Sotomayor is not far to the left. I won’t be peddling petty shit, but I will question as necessary her effectiveness in restoring balance to the court.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:29 amOh, good. Parenting advice from a guy who can’t even tie his own shoes. Good thing the French invented velcro, eh, C4P?
May 26th, 2009 at 11:30 amConservativeForProgress Says:
Have you actually read any of her opinions?
Have you? I think it’s fair to assume that a Federal Judge is probably smarter than anyone here, unless there’s evidence to the contrary. Thus, the burden of proof lies with her critics. As they are criticizing her first and trying to find out what her opinions are second, it’s fair to assume that whatever criticisms they’ve presented thus far are unsubstantiated.
It’s pretty clear from both the attacks and the comments of many here that wingnuts can’t tell any two women apart.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:30 amConservativeForProgress
You are stupid CPunk. I am not angry. I know you have been programmed by the Limborg master that does your thinking for you to talk about libeal anger as much as possible since we started fighting back against stupidity and hostility like yours but what makes you think only ANGER would motivate us to do so. I amuse myself slapping morons like you around thats it. I think it appropriate to fight fire with fire and enjoy myself. I get you are too stupid to understand anything that isnt black and white but nuanced responses ARE possible. Try to remember that it isnt MY fault that YOU are a moron
May 26th, 2009 at 11:30 amConservativeForProgress Says:
How blind you are Bilbo. I call for an up or down vote without fillibuster, and call for the nominee to be voted on based on her qualifications, not her race or gender, and still you blindly attack. How partisan, hypocritical and stupid, yet typical of you. Have you actually read any of her opinions?
***
a leading republican speaks out.
cfp…?
oh that’s right, huck is a republican
(and an extreme right wing religious
fanatic!), and cfp would never criticize him
would you cfp?
:\
:)
May 26th, 2009 at 11:31 amSorry,
the best person for the job, is not available for this JOB. They are off making millions and living a good life free from political BS!
Surely there is no “1″ BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB? I would have preferred Miers to Alito or Roberts. Just to more “conservatrons”.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:33 amUncle Ho Says:
Obviously Stupid is not only willfully ignorant, but proud of it.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
True, it makes me nostalgic for the days when people were ashamed to be so stupid
May 26th, 2009 at 11:33 amInteresting that they love GWB, not at all an intellectual, but can’t handle this woman because that feel she’s not smart enough. So, dummies for President… that’s ok, but we cant them have on our court? I’d prefer smart people having both jobs.
call me crazy
May 26th, 2009 at 11:33 amI don’t think anyone should question Fred Barnes expertise regarding stupidity. He’s demonstrated it, spoken it and lived it.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:33 amConservativeForProgress Says:
38. 39. Can you let the anger go, just for a moment? Lighten up. Your children will thank you for it.
***
that’s a bit presumptuous for you,
isn’t it?
:)
May 26th, 2009 at 11:33 amAs you say, without evidence to prove the contrary, I think it’s a safe assumption.
But keep in mind, one might have made the same assumption regarding Congresspeople, before Michelle Bachmann,
May 26th, 2009 at 11:33 amThat should have been “Just 2 more CONSERVATRONS.”
May 26th, 2009 at 11:34 amFor ALL of her rethug critics…
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on November 27, 1991, to a seat vacated by John M. Walker, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on August 11, 1992, and received commission on August 12, 1992. Service terminated on October 13, 1998, due to appointment to another judicial position.
If what you say is true, what does that say about the rethugs that loved her b4?
Choke on it!!!
May 26th, 2009 at 11:35 amAbsolutly McWars. The right packs FAR RIGHT extremists like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas then scream bloody murder about anyone not on center right by a Dem. With those four on the bench Obama should have gone for someone so far left they would have embarassed Che Guevara. We need about four of THOSE to even things up or the bench will tilt right for decades. I think we should have gone for at LEAST Lawrence Tribe.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:36 amConservativeForProgress Says:
Tommy: you should really try switching from vinyl to digital. Your record is broken and your talking points are stale.
Let’s see if we can find common ground here:
There should be an up or down vote on Pres. Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, without fillibuster.
There should be an up or down vote on the next President’s nominees, without fillibuster, even if (s)he is a Republican.
Nominees should be voted up or down without regard to their race, color, national origin, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or physical handicap.
The best person available for the job (and willing to take it) should be the nominee.
Agree?
***
“fifty links”
still waiting.
:)
May 26th, 2009 at 11:36 amConservativeForProgress said:
“There should be an up or down vote on Pres. Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, without fillibuster.”
I tend to disagree. Filibusters should be used in these situations if it warranted way more often than they are with simple legislation.
reason is that this is a lifetime appointment to a very powerful position of authority. There’s no going back. On simple legislative issues we can always go back and correct possible mistakes.
I see where you are coming from with this idea, but Supreme Court picks should have the highest amount of scrutiny. That includes picks made by Dems or Repubs.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:38 amConservativeForProgress Says: The best person available for the job (and willing to take it) should be the nominee.
There’s your problem with your proposl – we define ‘best person’ in polar opposite terms…
May 26th, 2009 at 11:39 amThat doesn’t mean I think a filibuster is warranted here. Sotomayor seems imminently qualified and their should be no issues here. But the senate has the job of vetting her properly.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:39 amsorry CFP, your pretending to suddenly desire intelligent debate does not nullify your previous ignorant talking points
you are a reactionary right winger that thinks America is too weak to defend herself without resorting to torture or war
that makes your uninformed opinion irrelevant
May 26th, 2009 at 11:45 amConservativeForProgress Says:
How blind you are Bilbo. I call for an up or down vote without fillibuster, and call for the nominee to be voted on based on her qualifications, not her race or gender, and still you blindly attack. How partisan, hypocritical and stupid, yet typical of you. Have you actually read any of her opinions?
And where was my “attack”. All I did was point out that you were the first one on this thread to bring up race where you were indicating otherwise.
You are not too bright, are you?
May 26th, 2009 at 11:47 amconservative for progress Says: The best person available for the job (and willing to take it) should be the nominee. Agree?
You keep saying that, but what do you mean by “best person available for the job” ?
The Republicans are calling Sotomayor a lightweight, but based on what? Having the same professional qualifications as Alito (Harvard, Yale, Appeals Court experience)?
Then why is Alito a SCOTUS judge?
Why ISN’T Sotomayor the “best person available for the job”? What grounds do the Republicans have for threatening to filibuster?
May 26th, 2009 at 11:47 amIsn’t J-Lo available, “Jenny from the block.”, or Denny Krane!
Lets be serious, like her politics or not she is a qualified candidate for SCOTUS.
Final Offer: Gloria Allred!
May 26th, 2009 at 11:49 amI appreciate your endorsement of my post, Eugene.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:49 amConservativeForProgress Says:
Tommy: you should really try switching from vinyl to digital. Your record is broken and your talking points are stale.
Once again, you attempts at humor are a miserable failure. Please try to keep to your right wing talking points. It is much more your forte.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:50 amI’m still waiting for C4P to say why he thinks Obama is the worst president ever–other than the fact he’s a democrat. I’m not even going to bring up the race thing, because I have yet to hear a conservative admit that they have a problem with a black man being president–although I know that lots do.
So, again, C4P, why–after only 4 months in office–is Obama the worst president ever. Do make outrageous comments here unless you are prepared to back them up. Come on, big fella, stun me with your blinding intellect. I’m waiting.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:52 amThis is what comes from a party that put W Bush in the White House. Give me a break. If they didn’t tell lies, they wouldn’t have anything to say. Consider the source. Who said this and how smart can they be to be a republican.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:53 amI meant do NOT make outrageous comments unless you are prepared to back them up.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:53 amwhat’s even more hilarious is that idiot doesn’t even understand what my band’s intitials stand for: ERE
Electronic Recording Ensemble – EVERYTHING is digital, even the drums (live drummer on digital pads)
what a gomer
May 26th, 2009 at 11:53 amThe way this whole thing is going to play out is R’s hate women and Hispanics. I’m not saying that’s actually the issue, but unless they’ve got a specific credible problem with her to point at, any vague or specious criticisms they spew are just going to look like racism and/or sexism. Not that that’s going to stop them, which is fine with me.
.
ralph the wonder locust Says:
But keep in mind, one might have made the same assumption regarding Congresspeople, before Michelle Bachmann,
Right. She provided evidence to the contrary. And continues to do so daily.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:53 amswilliams41 Says: “Sorry,the best person for the job, is not available for this JOB. They are off making millions and living a good life free from political BS!”
By that ‘logic’ the best soldier or nurse in the world should be a millionaire too.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:53 amswilliams41 Says:
the best person for the job, is not available for this JOB. They are off making millions and living a good life free from political BS!
Why do people continue to idolize people who make lots of money despite continuing daily evidence that a great many rich people are hardly competent or particularly deserving of their good fortune?
Making sound legal judgements is not the same thing as making lots of money.
.
swilliams41 Says:
I would have preferred Miers to Alito or Roberts. Just to more “conservatrons”.
What? And Bush’s personal lapdog wasn’t a “conservatron?”
May 26th, 2009 at 11:57 amSo what would Conservative Republicans know about intellect?
May 26th, 2009 at 11:57 amThe subject of intelligence is out of their league.
78. I was proping a hypothetical. We have many talented and qualified citizens who would not be considered for SCOTUS because they may be openly gay, black , diffrent political leaning etc.
My main point is there are many who are qualified, not all are called.
Back to Gloria Allred…
May 26th, 2009 at 11:59 ami’ve always believed republicans were either criminals, zealots or idiots (or some combination of the three). i’ve seen nothing here to challenge that belief.
still, arguing with them and calling them names is like railing against the rain. they won’t stop and they won’t listen.
leave the low rode to those most familiar with it.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:01 pmthe right wing and repubs are going into meltdown over this; judicial watch and redstate are already attacking:
http://blahgblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/what-are-they-thinking/
May 26th, 2009 at 12:02 pmAs a complement to that great post by Eugene, sure, we’re pretty liberal people, but we also tolerate non-ideological pragmatists. Problem is, because of the division stoked especially hard by the Bush Republicans and the fruits of their labor (Alito, Roberts), some nominees that are otherwise great aren’t considered enough to drain the swamp. So that higher standard ends up poor reflection on them, unfortunately. It goes to show the scope and depth of the hell hole that is the status quo.
Jonathan Turley said her legal opinions were not intellectual forceful — any qualms about his views?
May 26th, 2009 at 12:02 pmChimpy McFlightsuit was a Retard and these idiotic Rethugs have a nerve to question this women’s brain.
Talk about Hypocritical.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:03 pmIf the wingnuts want to criticize Sotomayer’s intellect, I recommend we do a celebrity episode of “Who’s Smarter Than A Fifth Grader” staring Bush II vs. Sotomayer.
When Sotomayer utterly humiliates Bush, she should be appointed without ado.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:03 pmMy main point is there are many who are qualified, not all are called.
Back to Gloria Allred…
Sotomayor has been called… back to Sotomayer.
You don’t get to make this call swilliams… Obama does and did.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:04 pmMy view: if Judge Sotomayor is making this many cancervative heads explode and whipping them all into this much of a frenzy, she must be the right person for the job…
May 26th, 2009 at 12:06 pmMy main point is there are many who are qualified, not all are called.
Back to Gloria Allred…
Although I’m glad to see you concede that Sotomayor is qualified swilliams…
May 26th, 2009 at 12:07 pmloki1958 Says:
leave the low rode to those most familiar with it.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I disagree. We TRIED that for the first decade or so of Limbaugh and Coulter. It got us seen as weak and not willing to fight for our principles. I say we need to show we can beat them in the debate halls and if they want to take the argument into the gutter we can beat them there too.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:07 pmBilbo: I know you will scoff at this, but something odd has been happening to TP lately. For the past few days, I see a post and respond to a post, but then my post is put above that post, putting things out of order. Things are not being posted in order for some odd reason. Even this morning, there were two posts before mine on the “open thread,” but then mine was posted at #1. I don’t know why that happens.
Sometimes ThinkProgress messes up the posting order, when the posts are made at the exact same minute. At least that’s my theory.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:07 pmWTF? They supported and elected a president that was (Not The Smartest’ And An ‘Intellectual Lightweight’ so what are the complaining about?
May 26th, 2009 at 12:10 pmOMG! I’m shocked! And, of course, we all know how brilliant and intelligent all those Rethuglican critics are. And, after such a brainiac as George W. Bush having been our president for 8 years, we have ALL been so exposed to such an intellectial heavyweight for so long. Oh, the horror!
May 26th, 2009 at 12:10 pmFrom the Curt Levey quote in the TP post, C4P:
Who’s playing what now?
May 26th, 2009 at 12:18 pmYou guys got nothing… again.
Amazing that, despite all the chicken-little fear mongering by right wingers, when what they oppose gets voted in anyway and the sky doesn’t fall, they lose all credibility, and still do not learn their lesson.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:18 pmPointing out that CFP is dishonest is like pointing out that the sky is blue.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:19 pmLet’s see. The conservatives are calling Sotomayor an “intellectual lightweight?” As if Harriet Meiers was a paragon of judicial knowledge and experience! She wasn’t even a judge! Sotomayor has judicial experience and an exemplary academic background. Clarence Thomas has said almost nothing from the bench in years on the highest court, so one wonders if he has had much input on decisions aside from a vote. As usual, the hypocrisy from conservatives is laughable.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:20 pmAt the Weekly Standard, Michael Goldfarb writes, “[O]n the issue of diversity, Obama seems to have the views of a 21-year-old Hispanic girl — that is, only by having a black president, an Hispanic justice, a female secretary of State, and Bozo the Clown as vice president will the United States become a true ‘vanguard of societal ideas and changes.’”
Medley of neurotic, bigoted and pathological thinking with a hint of bitterness, anyone?
May 26th, 2009 at 12:20 pmOS is still stuck on “with us or against us”
what a binary thinking little coward
May 26th, 2009 at 12:30 pmApparently, “liberal” Jonathan Turley is also attack her as “not that smart.” And, for good measure, Turley’s attacking Thurgood Marshall for being the same.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:31 pmOS Says:
You progressives are backing a Bush appointee? LOL!
>>>
you conservatives are opposing a bush appointee?
LOL!
:)
May 26th, 2009 at 12:33 pmYeah. And you regressives are opposing a Bush appointee.
See, we’re capable of accepting others beyond a strict ideological focus. I can understand how that concept throws you into a tizzy.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:34 pmBilbo: I know you will scoff at this, but something odd has been happening to TP lately. For the past few days, I see a post and respond to a post, but then my post is put above that post, putting things out of order…
TP has been customized to recognize your importance and bump you up the line somewhat.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:35 pmjoey,
googled
“liberal” Jonathan Turley is also attack her as “not that smart.”
here’s what i got.
:)
May 26th, 2009 at 12:37 pm>>But as even Fox News’s Megyn Kelly admitted this morning, Sotomayor’s credentials are “impressive by almost any standard.”
By what standards wouldn’t her credentials be impressive?
May 26th, 2009 at 12:41 pmRWeSafer Says:
>>But as even Fox News’s Megyn Kelly admitted this morning, Sotomayor’s credentials are “impressive by almost any standard.”
By what standards wouldn’t her credentials be impressive?
***
joey?
:)
May 26th, 2009 at 12:43 pm“Not the smartest” and “Intellectual lightweight”?!
That is freakin’ hilarious! From the party who’s titular head couldn’t graduate college and dropped out (Rushie); A President who graduated Yale with a C- average (W); a candidate who graduated 5 from the bottom of his class (McCain); Should I go on? Sounds like a major case of projecting…
May 26th, 2009 at 12:43 pmThere you go, playing the race/national origin card and the gender card already. Her race/national origin and gender have nothing to do with the debate over whether or not she is qualified. The question is whether or not she is the best person available for the job. If she is, confirm her. If she isn’t, don’t confirm her. It’s that simple.
Bah I skipped some stuff but I’ll go back. Anyway this from the guy who thinks Liz Cheney has an excellent record of public service.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:44 pmJoe,
He was saying it on MSNBC. He’s said it in at least 2 segments that I’ve seen.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:44 pmOS Says:
You progressives are backing a Bush appointee? LOL!
Why Obviously Stupid, should the fact that she was a Bush appointee disqualify her in your eyes?
May 26th, 2009 at 12:47 pmJoey09 Says:
Joe,
He was saying it on MSNBC. He’s said it in at least 2 segments that I’ve seen.
***
1) find it.
2) link it.
***
you can do this. don’t be an
“intellectual lightweight”.
:)
good luck.
;|
May 26th, 2009 at 12:48 pmEugeneDebs Says:
loki1958 Says:
leave the low rode to those most familiar with it.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I disagree. We TRIED that for the first decade or so of Limbaugh and Coulter. It got us seen as weak and not willing to fight for our principles. I say we need to show we can beat them in the debate halls and if they want to take the argument into the gutter we can beat them there too.
I couldn’t agree with you more Eugene!!
May 26th, 2009 at 12:49 pmglogrrl Says:
OMG! I’m shocked! And, of course, we all know how brilliant and intelligent all those Rethuglican critics are.
Good point – of the people complaining vaguely about her background thus far, none of them are really qualified to judge her legal rulings. Those who are have consistently said she’s a great judge.
.
RWeSafer Says:
>>But as even Fox News’s Megyn Kelly admitted this morning, Sotomayor’s credentials are “impressive by almost any standard.”
By what standards wouldn’t her credentials be impressive?
The ideological litmust tests of the extreme fascist right wing. That’s about it.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:53 pmAdd Ivy League reputation to the long list of W’s wreckage. Even conservatives, in the quiet of their heart of hearts, say Princeton?-Bush(!) went to Yale then Harvard–what are her other intellectual credentials?
May 26th, 2009 at 12:53 pmThe funny thing about Michael “wingnut” Goldfarb’s rant is that he practically describes the Bush administration.
Why is diversity good when a Republican does it but bad if Pres Obama does it?
Oh, right: IOKIYAR
May 26th, 2009 at 12:55 pmHere are Turley’s comments:
May 26th, 2009 at 12:58 pmhttp://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2601944&ref=fpblg
Why are you so anti American?
May 26th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Jeffrey Rosen
Curt Levey
Ramesh Ponnuru
Karl Rove
Sheesh…
May 26th, 2009 at 12:59 pmThat said, I can also link a Yale Law Professor who thinks the opposite of Turley. Turley’s assessment of Scalia is flat out wrong in my opinion.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:59 pmRacism/genderism plain and simple. These clowns can’t stand the idea of someone other than a white male being smarter and in just about everyway better than them.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:00 pmSotomayor was good enough for the GOP back in 1991, under another Bush, but isnt now?
Flip Flop!!
May 26th, 2009 at 1:00 pmShe was Dubyas counsel. But really is that the whole of your argument?
May 26th, 2009 at 1:02 pmBuckarooBanzai Says:
Here are Turley’s comments:
http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2601944&ref=fpblg
***
how oh no.
joey was quoting out of context.
how disappointing…
:)
May 26th, 2009 at 1:03 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
“SCOTUS Blog has pointed out that women and minority candidates for the Supreme Court are often portrayed as not being smart enough for the job.”
That play of the race and gender cards was posted before my #11.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Translation from the native wingnut language
WWWWAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH stop noticing the way the right treats minorities. WWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH its playing the race card. WWWWWWAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH let the right BE bigoted if you NOTICE and comment on the bigotry its playing the race/gender card. WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH
May 26th, 2009 at 1:08 pmYet they loved Alberto and Harriet, two lighter than air intellectuals.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:09 pmOstentatiously Simpleminded says
Something else ignorant and worthless. The only card in his deck. Isnt it time you stopped wasting oxygen that a higher lifeform coul be using you MORON?
May 26th, 2009 at 1:11 pmwatchdog Says:
Except the RACIST part of the rightwing that is. It is SO stupid to pretend those NOTICING the racism are the ones fomenting racism. I mean its galactic level stupid but brainwashed drones like YOU will buy anything you are told to think
May 26th, 2009 at 1:20 pmJoe,
May 26th, 2009 at 1:20 pmWhy would you defend Jonathan Turley on this? Oh, can you explain how being an “intellectual lightweight” is different from being “not that smart?” They’re synonymous, or at best, what Turley said was euphemistic. Also, are you saying that liberals should be upset that Republicans are attacking the intellect of Sotomayor, but we should be fine when one of our own attacks her on the same intellectual grounds?? Do you know the definition of hypocrisy?
Yawn, by the end of the week they will be calling her lucifer and demanding she step down.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:20 pmIt’s funny how right-wingers talk all about how poor people, particularly poor minorities, should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and not look to anyone to help them achieve a minimum standard of living, but when confronted with someone who actually did so without relying on wingnut welfare, they go apoplectic. Apparently, the only paths to success are wingnut welfare and being a legacy.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:24 pmBozo the Clown is no longer our vice president. That ended with the Bush adminstation.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:34 pmHey, Ogre Shite and blotchpuppy – if *we* are the racists you say we are — then why aren’t we opposing the nomination of Sotomayor…?
It’s only you Teabaggers who are opposed – am I right?
Uh-oh. You’re busted again, pukies. :o/
May 26th, 2009 at 1:39 pmThis is racist baiting, period. The woman graduated at the top of her class at an Ivy League school. They’re trying to play on racist stereotypes. Just plain ugly.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:45 pmJoey09 – what’s your point exactly?
While I generally think highly of Jonathan Turley, I’ve heard that he’s a member of the Federalist Society which might be a good thing to keep in mind hearing his opinion on anyone who is NOT a member.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:50 pmWha? Wha? Wha? There’s an echo, echo, echo, in here, here, . . . ?
May 26th, 2009 at 2:10 pmHang in there loki1958. Don’t be intimidated.
Some people need to remember who won the last election:
the cool calm levelheaded one or the angry, hotheaded, hostile
one?
R.T. I enjoy your humor even if c4p doesn’t.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:18 pmBefore somebody steps up and starts calling her an “intellectual lightweight” or whatnot, we’re going to have to seriously vet their credentials as an intellectual to sit in judgement. Oh wait, they don’t have any? OK then.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:52 pmThey should know about intellectual lightweights, these conservatives. They don’t know anything besides the ad hominem attack or the straw man argument. That is all they have…
May 26th, 2009 at 3:03 pmGo back to **REGENTS** and get a **REAL** JD
May 26th, 2009 at 3:04 pmwatchdog Says:
Is TP trying to turn this into a race thing? Nobody keeps racism alive better than a caring liberal.
Actually the thing keeping racism alive is all you racists. I mean, I think that would be obvious.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:14 pmHa haa, Huckabee can’t even know get her name right, and he’s smearing her anyways.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:17 pmLeave to “Fox News Channel” to question her intelligence. Bunch of white guys and some dumb blondes. And if am not mistaken, that blonde has a law degree from somewhere. Maybe Liberty, Pat Robertson’s institution of higher learning.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:20 pmThe wingnuts think they have the perfect setup…question the credentials of a minority/female candidate and then when we call them out for it, blame US for “playing” the race/gender card. Enough is enough.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:27 pmOn ‘empathy’ Media Matters has this: “Media figures and outlets have focused on President Obama’s statement that empathy is one of the qualifications he would seek in a Supreme Court nominee, but they have not noted that then-President George H.W. Bush cited “great empathy” in his remarks announcing his selection of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.”http://mediamatters.org/research/200905260034
May 26th, 2009 at 4:07 pmagain I get into this thread late, but the “Limborg master” ….
ROFLMAO !!!
May 26th, 2009 at 4:20 pmThis will be great fun!
She’s liberal enough that the wingnuts have to go claws out. Which means the Republicans have to be nasty, or they risk primary fights next year. Which means they piss off Hispanics, a large and growing group. Which means they put Texas and Arizona in play.
Oh, and one more thing. She’s going to be confirmed no matter what. So the Republicans lose the battle and the war on this one. Now who said that we liberals disapprove of torture? The Republicans will be chained to a rock while a large bird eats their liver. I’ll be laughing all the way!
May 26th, 2009 at 4:27 pmOh, one more thing. Yes, Republicans, it IS about “identity politics.” You bet your ass it is. Now: Get going with that fight. Make my day.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:29 pmMark Hemingway needs to rethink his Obama blast.
It wasn’t that long ago we had a president who thought he was the hotshot QB on the high school football team, being led by the obsessive, miserly VP of a head coach who asked, “Who are we going to KILL…and how are we going to Lie!?!” to inspire the administration each and every day.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:42 pmUnless we find out Sotomayor has been writing love letters to George Bush like those “you’re the greatest” letters from Harriet to George, then Sotomayor automatically gets a Smarter-than-Harriet button.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
May 26th, 2009 at 5:24 pmFurther evidence that the GOP’s “judicial criticism” amounts to a pre-planned campaign to oppose whoever Obama would have picked regardless of who they were or what their actual positions were… check this out:
Note how they all use the same phrasing? They don’t actually have opinions in terms of thinking about it and coming to a conclusion. Rather, they got their “opinions” from the same faxed talking points memo this morning.
I imagine the people who live in their states have got to start wondering about just who their elected representatives are actually representing.
May 26th, 2009 at 5:52 pmYeah, you’ve got to love the talking points. They’ll last for a few days, until the wingnuts led by Limbaugh make clear that sliming Sotamayor is a litmus test. And then comes the deluge.
Remember, there’s going to be a special election in Texas when Hutchinson runs for governor. The TX Republicans are certifiable, so you can expect them to make complete fools of themselves. Now wouldn’t that be a kick in the ass if the 60th Democratic senator is a Texan elected because the nutcases just couldn’t help themselves?
And then there is Arizona, where McJerk is up in 2010. He voted against Sotamayor twice. His colleague, Kyl, is a charter member of the Nutcase Brigade. Interesting times for the Republican Party! Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.
May 26th, 2009 at 8:35 pmWell, this should be easy for the women and hispanics to see the total hate and discrimination that the Republican party has for them. Within 20yrs when the hispanics are the majority, the Repubs will be begging for a “white man” for the court. They won’t even care if he is qualified… they will just want him to be OLD.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:05 pmOf all of the potential arguments that right-wingers such as Rove and Buchanan could develop against the nomination of Sotomayor, the most inflammatory and bigoted and by all accounts, the least valid is the notion that she is not intellectual or intelligent. Her academic credentials speak for themselves. I suspect that this particular criticism is a matter of some “complexion”.
The GOP is obviously going to attack Obama’s choice for SC justice, no matter WHO is selected. It’s the nature of the game both sides play. It’s what they do.
Unfortunately, with respect to the Republican Party, lately it is ALL that they do.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:52 pmabman57 Says:
…the least valid is the notion that she is not intellectual or intelligent. Her academic credentials speak for themselves.
I’m of a mind that anybody who shoots off their trap about how “intellectually qualified” she is needs to have their own intellectual qualifications vetted thoroughly and publicly.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:17 amCouple of reasonable objections I think worth noting:
Her history of court decisions is lackluster at best (See Turley). I don’t think we need to fall into the Tim Geithner “only one for the job” trap again with an important choice like SCOTUS, it shouldn’t be unreasonable to do the homework and find someone who really has the sterling credentials.
#2. This justice has gone on record as an activist who feels justices should “make policy”, and also, the “discriminatory” position that being a minority woman, she is better suited to interpret the US constitution. These statements are very unsettling, and I think should disqualify her. I’m sure there are plenty of other qualified candidates..
We shouldn’t be so hasty to settle for less. We must consider the the source as well….not much of track record with picks from the guy who recommended her. Lets take a little extra time with this one and really make sure this isn’t another big mistake…
May 27th, 2009 at 2:29 amPaulMorphy Says:
Couple of reasonable objections I think worth noting:
Her history of court decisions is lackluster at best (See Turley). I don’t think we need to fall into the Tim Geithner “only one for the job” trap again with an important choice like SCOTUS, it shouldn’t be unreasonable to do the homework and find someone who really has the sterling credentials.
Obviously, the Obama SCOTUS team has done more “homework” than anybody, and this is who they came up with. Nobody else has worked more on the issue.
.
PaulMorphy Says:
#2. This justice has gone on record as an activist who feels justices should “make policy” -
The context:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/where-policy-is-made-soto_n_207570.html
Case closed. STFU.
.
PaulMorphy Says:
- and also, “discriminatory” position that being a minority woman, she is better suited to interpret the US constitution.
Better than the however-many white guys they already have there. Please explain how another white guy would be “better suited” than her.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:44 amEl Bruce,
Your arguments are not terribly compelling.
Regarding the first — you may be willing to take the Obama teams word for it that she’s qualified, but I think we better go ahead and take an objective look into the credentials. Conservative or Liberal, never underestimate the politicians capability to make mistakes or work in their own self interest.
On the second part, if you “listen” to Sotomayor, it is plainly obvious that she believed that her job on the court of appeals was to make policy. She was clearly downplaying this in a tongue in cheek way, which is clearly illustrated by her sarcastic and comdedic tone. Arguable, but if you really listen to this clip in an unbiased way, you can see she supports this view. Maybe we could give her the benefit of the doubt — It will be good question to aske at the confirmation.
Your third point was the weakest, and skirts the issue. Sotomayor is the one who implies that race and gender have bearing on her qualifications. If all the justices where white males, would you select clearly inferior judge just to avoid having another white male on the bench. If you really believe in the country and the justice system, you must support the “most qualified” candidate.
Interestingly, there is a reverse discrimination case at the Supreme court now, which Sotomayor previously rule on, and was criticized for.. you may want to check into it.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:05 amAppeals courts do set policy, which is the different between appellate and district court …
… which was the point.
You can’t evaluate arguments if you’re ignorant of the issues at hand.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:55 amMaybe someone already mentioned this but the GOP lost that argument of intellengence when they brought Sarah Palin onboard…I mean please. How dare they question this woman’s intellengence and qualifications for the Supreme Court when they had a dimwit run for Vice President! The rest of them ain’t so bright either. McCain graduated 5th from the bottom of his class….only in America.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:02 amALERTING TP: Bill O’Reilly, while Amanda Carpenter was his guest put comment #18 by CParis on his screen while talking about judge Sotomayor: “It will be so funny seeing a bunch of old white guys questioning her during the Senate hearings.”
Now this is no doubt a racist statement but O’Reilly broadcast it as if a writer from TP wrote it. Pretty slimy, isn’t he? Comments like CParis’s appear on liberal AND conservative blogs (how often is anybody’s guess), but O’Reilly never airs the latter. What a tool.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:02 pmChucko33, O’Reilly aired two idiotic remarks from conservative bloggers immediately prior to airing two remarks from liberal bloggers. That’s a fact, and anybody who doubts it should watch the clip from the show! In fact the conservative blogger remarks were more outrageous than the liberal remarks. And he made it CLEAR that it was bloggers, no the websites themselves. Your lying or you weren’t paying attention. Which is it?
May 28th, 2009 at 1:52 pmWhen will the race card quit being played? I could make a strong case that the Democrats are more racist than the Republicans. I could also make the opposite case.
Deflect arguments away from the issues and gain votes and power by calling conservatives “racist”. It is a winning formula.
It comes down to politics. There is much to be gained by painting the opposite party as racist. The Democrats are winning the propaganda war when it comes to race, but that’s all it is, propaganda with no substance behind it.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:00 pmSniper, you are 100% wrong! O’Reilly and Carpenter made NO such distinction between blogger and commenter.
Watch the segment again here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/28/oreilly-targets-commenters/
You see Sniper, there’s a REASON Hot Air and TP called out O’Reilly on this, and it’s because O’Reilly combed through comments on these sites without saying who authored these despicable quotes. That is wrong and sleazy.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:48 pmBTW, I think HotAir and TP, as much as I like them calling out O’Reilly are irresponsible for not disowning and taking down the outrageous comments that appear on both sites (CParis’s comment at #18 is still here – and disturbingly, 6 people “recommended” it). It doesn’t matter if you’re a blogger or a commenter, a racist statement has no place here.
May 29th, 2009 at 12:58 pmAnd finally Sniper, O’Reilly has to understand that next time he “polices” the Internet, he has to make clear whether or not he’s talking about a BLOG AUTHOR or a BLOG COMMENTER. That way he won’t smear a whole website(s) like he did on that segment. Got it? I hope so.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:15 pmfine
sikis
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:48 am