Santorum claims liberal justices dissented in Ricci in order to ‘protect’ Sotomayor’s nomination.
Santorum claims liberal justices dissented in Ricci in order to ‘protect’ Sotomayor’s nomination.
On Tuesday, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum discussed the Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano on Frank Beckman’s radio show. The ruling overturned a decision made by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and two other judges on the 2nd Circuit. Though Santorum made the common conservative claim that all nine justices actually disagreed with Sotomayor, he went further than most, claiming that the liberal justices who dissented, particularly Justices Souter and Stevens, only dissented in order to “protect” Sotomayor:
SANTORUM: I could be wrong on this, but believe it or not, politics does inject itself into the Supreme Court and I think there were probably a lot of justices who may or may not have been on that side of that issue, but came down on that issue that way in a sense to protect her because she knew she was coming on the court, had to make sure she could get on the court. And to me, this should have been a nine-nothing decision. You know, there are a couple, you know, like Ginsburg, who is very much like Sotomayor, probably would have felt this way. But guys like Souter and Stevens and you just wonder why are they making decisions like this. This is, you know, identity politics and quotas and race-based kinds of decisions that really have no place in our Constitution.
Listen here:
As esteemed Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse noted in an op-ed this week, the court’s ruling wasn’t really about Sotomayor and her colleagues. “One thing that is clear from reading the Supreme Court’s 89 pages of opinions in the case is that Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues played by the old rules, and the court changed them.” wrote Greenhouse. “Although ‘Sotomayor Reversed’ was a frequent headline on the posts that spread quickly across the Web, it was actually the Supreme Court itself that shifted course.”
Transcript:
BECKMAN: Now, let’s talk a little bit about what happened on the Supreme Court yesterday.SANTORUM: Yeah.
BECKMAN: The Ricci case came up and the Supreme Court overturned the decision that had been made by Sonia Sotomayor and her appeals court. That favored the New Haven city council and not the firefighters who claimed they’d been discriminated against.
SANTORUM: Right.
BECKMAN: By reverse discrimination. What does that mean for Sotomayor’s hearings in the Senate? Is it still a done deal that she will be rubber stamped or will this have an impact?
SANTORUM: Yeah, I think the fact that it was a 5-4 decision and the person she was replacing came down on the same side that she came down on is going to help her. I — I don’t, I could be wrong on this, but believe it or not, politics does inject itself into the Supreme Court and I think there were probably a lot of justices who may or may not have been on that side of that issue, but came down on that issue that way in a sense to protect her because she knew she was coming on the court, had to make sure she could get on the court. And to me, this should have been a nine-nothing decision. You know, there are a couple, you know, like Ginsburg, who is very much like Sotomayor, probably would have felt this way. But guys like Souter and Stevens and you just wonder why are they making decisions like this. This is, you know, identity politics and quotas and race-based kinds of decisions that really have no place in our Constitution.
BECKMAN: Judge Ginsburg wrote that this decision knocks the pegs out from under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
SANTORUM: Yeah, that’s, you know, this is this distorted view. You know, I guarantee you that nobody who was involved in the Title VII, putting the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s had any idea that this would be the result. You know, Title VII was to make sure that people were judged on the content of their character and race was not used against them. It wasn’t meant to use race as a hammer to make sure that freedoms and opportunities and meritocracy that’ve ruled this country is eliminated.
BECKMAN: We’ve got an editorial in the Free Press this morning suggesting we need, we need new legislation now to deal with the race issue in the work place. Do we?
SANTORUM: No, no, no. Absolutely, we do not. I mean the bottom line is that we have the president of the United States who’s an African-American. We have people that are able to rise in our society and accomplish things that heretofor back in the 60s was inconcievable when these things were put together. You know, we need a level playing field. We don’t need, you know, we don’t need a playing field, you know, every one of us has a background where someone, you know, whether you are an Italian who was discriminated against or a black or a woman or whatever, we’ve all had discrimination. We’ve all had crosses to bear throughout, throughout the course of our country where our country has fallen short of true equality. That doesn’t mean that we need to continue to make reparations today for things that happened hundreds of years ago or even twenty or thirty years ago. The bottom line is we need to seek toward equality and opportunity and stop using categories to elevate people because of past injustices.
BECKMAN: Rick Santorum, always appreciate the time, thanks so much.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
1) Why is this man’s opinion of any value whatsoever?
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:12 am2) Repugs try to make a mountain out of a molehill on this issue, as they don’t know what they’re talking about.
3) The facts of the case and her decision indicate she is anything but an “activist” judge.
4) What will it take to have the likes of Santorum, Tancredo, Armey, Fred Thompson and other far-right losers disappear?
“SANTORUM: I could be wrong on this”
That would be the perfect title for his Biography.
Since he’s always wrong.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:17 amdidn’t think you could get your haed that far up your arse
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:31 amRicky, you got me thinking, the converse of your analysis could also be true. The conservative judges may have wanted to play politics with Sotomayor’s nomination. Nah., I assume the Supreme Court Justices’ takes their jobs seriously, every member. What is it with conservatives; they will call into doubt any institution to make a political point.
I am completely amazed with Santorum’s thoughts.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:39 amI don’t think he is working with a full deck of cards.
SANTORUM: I could be wrong on this,
Yep. You opened your mouth and voiced your opinion, and, as per usual, you were wrong on this.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:39 amSantorum is and always will be a dick – he was cursed at birth with this and it will always be his fate. Or maybe he’s simply stupid.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:41 amOr, gee, maybe the other five judges voted the way they did to diminish Satomayor. Santorum has a freakishly simple mind.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:44 amDear Rick….Instead of talking out of your Cheney about something you know nothing about, why not just stay with topics you can understand? Like…why not have your kids play with an aborted fetus again. At least that is something you don’t have to lie about. Unless you were on the Supreme Court and a party to the discussions on Ricci you really have no basis for any comment. Of course that has never stopped a Repignican from opening its mouth.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:56 amSupreme court justices have Lifetime appointments. To think that they are acting for political or financial reasons is idiocy.
I couldn’t disagree more with Scalia or Thomas…but I don’t doubt they actually BELIEVE what they are saying.
Sotamayor WAS following Legal Precedent….just like an Appeals court judge is Supposed to do. And she is quite capable of Making that point during her conformation hearings.
Case closed.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:57 amThis is another case of projection, actually it looks like the conservative majority on the court overturned the New Haven case to hurt the Sotomayor nomination. Since the court reversed previous precedent in this case, it is more likely they were influenced by political consideration than careful consideration of case.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:00 amRICK SANTORUM IS A TOOL…THE THOUGHT OF HIM MAKES ME CRINGE
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:14 amJudging by the Republican use of projectionism, it is much more likely that the Activist 5 (who rewrote existing law here) are playing political games.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:16 amWhat, the thread is an hour and a half old and no trolls yet? They must be having a busy day at McDonald’s.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:31 amWhy is PRick Santorum asked his opinion on anything? He is inconsequential.
PEACE
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:31 amSantorum must be a mind reader to makes such claims. Or just nutty as a fruit cake.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:32 amWell, Ricky, that would mean the the five conservative judges voted to damage the nomination. Isn’t that bad?
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:32 amPRick stole tens of thousands of dollars from the financially strapped school district in Pennsylvania where he maintained an empty house so he could call himself a state resident. The cash was used so Mrs. PRick could homeschool her litter of PRicklettes in their McMansion in Virginia.
PEACE
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:40 am>>What, the thread is an hour and a half old and no trolls yet?
Hmmmm. Seems to me some of the “progressives” here have used some pretty ugly language in describing those with differing opinions.
I’m a life long liberal, and I have little respect for those whose ideas of political discourse is name calling and ugly jibes, regardless of their politic allegiances.
If you’re going to pursue the truth, you have to be prepared to change your mind (at least at times.)
I suspect those whose political quivers are mainly filled with sad little twisted arrows of name “cleverness” for the most part aren’t prepared to listen to other views, much less actually be willing to change their minds.
Your mileage may vary….
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 amThe conservative Supremes acting like a bunch of activists just took that argument away from the Republican senators. Too bad they’re too stupid to think a step ahead.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 amSantorum as an incumbent lost %9% to 41%. What does he know about politics?
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 amthose pursuing truth are rarely engaged in such opinion dependent activities such as political ideologies…
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:55 amThe real question is why does the Privacy Center not follow the spamming rules…
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:59 amThat moron Sick Rantorum is still angry that the voters gave him the heave-ho.
When will progressives start a television news channel to counteract the poison of FoxNews?
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:17 amdbadass said: >>those pursuing truth are rarely engaged in such opinion dependent activities such as political ideologies…
Perhaps. But some of us are so engaged. I personally don’t see where holding opinions and pursuing truth are somehow mutually exclusive. (Your mileage may vary, of course.)
BTW: I see political ideology as a useful tool because we simply can’t take time to critically evaluate every idea that comes along – we need a filter to “automate” the process.
But: no tool is perfect for every situation…. (”To a hammer, everything is a nail,” as they say.)
I believe the “trick” is to recognize when some fact or idea or view is such that there is a need to devote extra time to critically evaluation. (It seems to me there could be an interesting discussion of what factors should alert one to bring on the critical analysis and set aside the ideological quick tests.)
BTW, in my experience, those left of the aisle are less willing to uncritically accept any weird idea that comes down the pike. (In one forum I participate in, there are frequently “ideas” floated from the right that quickly fall to snopes and/or factcheck. Rarely do such ideas/observations from the left defeatd by such applications of reality.
OTOH, in my experience there are jerks on both sides of the aisle, as well as reasonable ones.
Would you be interested in such an exploration/discussion?
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:24 amstacks upon stacks of papers are just coming in about this woman. the democrats need to stand back because the republicans are seeking at least a three month warrant from the fbi to investigate this nomination. democrats are required to leave the premises while republicans do the process of checks and balances.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:33 amHow is Santorum suddenly an unimpeachable source regarding the Supreme Court?
Oh. Yeah. That’s right. He’s a republican.
They’re experts on anything they want to be at the given moment.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 amthe great GOPsby Says:
——————————————————————————–
stacks upon stacks of papers are just coming in about this woman. the democrats need to stand back because the republicans are seeking at least a three month warrant from the fbi to investigate this nomination. democrats are required to leave the premises while republicans do the process of checks and balances.
============================================================
You are insane! This is the kind of unhinging the right wingnut fringe is doing. You are all batshit crazy and should be locked up in the insane ward. The woman has been on the bench. There is nothing to hide. The freaking idiot rethugs voted for her twice before. Now take a chill pill, you are in idiot.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:23 amWhat, Ricky?? You “could be wrong”…? COULD BE wrong?
Hah. I think you massively overestimate yourself to think that you could ever be RIGHT on anything, you sanctimonious turd.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:30 amthe great GOPsby Says:
——————————————————————————–
stacks upon stacks of papers are just coming in about this woman. the democrats need to stand back because the republicans are seeking at least a three month warrant from the fbi to investigate this nomination. democrats are required to leave the premises while republicans do the process of checks and balances
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
GOPsby,
I am afraid you give the Republican side way to much credit. There is no understanding of checks and balances, just obstruction.
“The republicans are seeking at least a three month warrant from the fbi to investigate this nomination.” Sotomayor is a sitting judge, are the Republicans considering impeachment of this judge.
You wonder why the RNC is sinking into obscurity? The public is looking for good government and this is what they offer.
Looks like the midterm election is the only cure!!!!!
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:01 pmrjw.progressive Says:
Hmmmm. Seems to me some of the “progressives” here have used some pretty ugly language in describing those with differing opinions.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 am
Frankly, I don’t care what you profess to be, you have arrived here using the typical tactic of a rightwing troll professing to be a “lifelong liberal.” Maybe that was unintentional, but that remains to be seen.
Many of us have been commenting at TP for over five years, so we know the trolls who are blatant racists, or who are here simply to disrupt — you do not. So maybe you could drop your holier than thou attitude, and we can get to know one another.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:24 pmFriends of mine in Pittsburgh STILL can’t figure out where Rick “man-on-dog” Santorum is getting his mind-expanding (misnomer) drugs….Evidence points to him making them himself……and with his point of view, that’s the ONLY place he could be getting them…
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:38 pmOnly when those differing opinions are pretty ugly.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:56 pmWTF does an American Taliban reactionary wingnut, like Rick “the dead fetus cuddler” Santorum know about liberal opinions? He should stick to his own areas of expertise, such as beastiality.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 pmZooey: Frankly, I don’t care what you profess to be, you have arrived here using the typical tactic of a rightwing troll professing to be a “lifelong liberal.” Maybe that was unintentional, but that remains to be seen.
I’m sorry you thought I was trolling. I was simply trying to point out that, at least in my opinion, name calling is a form of trolling.
Your mileage may vary.
I personally don’t think that criticism of trolling is (at least necessarily) a form of trolling itself.
Re my past as a “life long liberal:”
I am glad you’re willing “remain to see” stuff.
Tell you what, click on my name above or the link below and check out my recently begun blog.
I’d be more than happy to discuss any of the “rightwing trolling” or rightwing views you find there.
Or, perhaps we can discuss the un-redacted part of my FBI files from the 60’s. Or my connections with the defendants in the Harrisburg 7 case. Or my work for Pacifica Radio back then. Or, or, or….
>>Many of us have been commenting at TP for over five years, so we know the trolls who are blatant racists, or who are here simply to disrupt — you do not. So maybe you could drop your holier than thou attitude, and we can get to know one another.
Actually, I was thinking mainly of the term early in the thread “Repugs” and of a couple of crude words in connection with Santorum’s name. I don’t recall any references in the thread to individual posters so it seems to me that references to blatant racists or disruptive participants were misplaced.
And I’m sorry you think I think I’m “holier than thou.” I believe that political discourse is best served by respectful discussion and I will stand against name calling by right wingers as well as left wingers. Just as, for example, I will stand against racism or sexism or other forms of bigotry or discrimination when I see them.
(And yes, as a general rule, I don’t form favorable impressions of folks who resort to name calling. If that is “holier than thou” so be it. I believe if you read the thread, you will find most of the people posting here feel ‘holier than’ Santorum and the other Sotomayor critics. As well they should. It seems to me that criticism can easily be, and often is, mistaken for self-righteousness.)
Again, as I said in my first post in this thread: your mileage may vary.
Come on over to http://rjw-progressive.blogspot.com/ I’d really like to get some good discussions going there.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:08 pmI must say, it has been much more acceptable form “man on dog”, SANTORUM to spew these inane comments as a private citizen. Instead as a U.S. Senator.
What I don’t understand is the continued media affection and voice that is provided to him after all this time?
If anyone wants to ask Santorum question(s). Why not ask him his opinion on his political colleage Ensign or better yet ask Santorum if he thinks God wants Gov Sanford wife Jenny to submit as a woman should by taking Sanford back and does God want Sanford to resign as Governor or stay on?
By staying on I don’t mean staying on the Appelation Trail…!
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:17 pmrjw.progressive Says:
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Thanks for clearing that up.
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:27 pmBTW, Zooey,
I completely agree with the “Gnu Horizons” Obama quote on your site.
I just hope/wish/pray it’s more than wishful thinking!
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:14 pmSo according to Santorum, the SCOTUS is a heavily politicized body.
In that case, what is the value of their decision on the Bush elections ?
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:57 pmi recommend a prolonged hold on this nomination and i recommend it be prolonged, through the end of the year.
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:58 pmIn other words the Conservative wingnuts on SCOTUS legislated from the bench. They did what the wingnuts are always claiming liberal judges do.
In other words, the wingnut lying continues without a hope of their ever stopping. A leopard can’t change its spots!
July 4th, 2009 at 9:48 amGOPsby
You are a flaming idiot. Nuff said!
July 4th, 2009 at 10:02 amDid it ever occur to knucklehead Santorum that the conservative majority was trying to embarrass Sotomayor and perhaps bring her down. They could have held the case over to the next term and avoided the appearance of meddling with the nomination.
July 4th, 2009 at 10:37 amI don’t know that the court ruled to save Sotomayor’s nomination, but it is disturbing how ridiculous Ginsberg’s dissent was. The city has the right to set the rules and then arbitrarily change them when the people they want don’t measure up? Shifting sand has never been a recipe for success. The city discriminated against the men who succeeded in the parameters placed before them. How Gisberg, et al, could see it any other way is breathtaking. Ricci is dyslexic for crying out loud. What could be a better liberal poster child than that? Defense of this is mindless ideology, plain and simple.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:37 pmdrew3rd
Drew you are conssistantly stupid. You NEVER know what you are talking about and are taking ignorance to all new levels. The City has a right to abide by existing civil rights laws like the one that says civil service tests have to be related to the ability to do the job. Once the racial disparity reared and they were CHALLENGED on exactly that point they didnt think they could show the test DID measure the ability to do the job nor a business necessity. That left them open to a lawsuit they didnt want to fight so they suspended the test till a better one could be used. Try for once in your sad life to have some dim idea what you are talking about rather than spew out for us what Rush TOLD you to think
July 4th, 2009 at 9:49 pmDiversity, is always painful on some level-for both parties! But this question is not fundamentally caused by our differences, themselves:
July 4th, 2009 at 10:29 pmReason#1 Times change quickly, even unknowably, and human beings grow slowly in our understanding of things; people adapt to those inevitable, changes.
Reason#2 As times change, people’s ‘experience’ changes!
More often than not, tomorrow’s situation will be inconceivable; so that the present understanding of a neighbor’s ‘tomorrow’, will also be painful…and enriching!? And also, broadening of one’s own perspective!! (And in rare cases, may lead to friendships, and contracts!?)
Thank you very nice Online Müzik Dinle Müzik Dinle Türkü Dinleme sitemize bekleriz, Ayrica bu Muzik Dinleme ve Türkü Dinleme Kürtce mp3 Sitemizede Bekleriz.
July 5th, 2009 at 12:42 pm