In 1998, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was one of just seven Republicans to break ranks and approve Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. But today on MSNBC, Hatch said that although he found her suitable for the federal bench then, he now might have problems with her:

HATCH: In 1998, for the circuit court of appeals, I did vote for her because I believe in giving the president due deference, especially for circuit court of appeals nominations.

But now we’re talking about the most important court on Earth. We’re talking about the court of last resort. We’re talking about a court that everyone of us takes great interest in. And now we’re talking about a woman who has been in the federal judicial system since 1992, who has all kinds of decisions that she’s made, all kinds of opinions that she’s written, who has written articles, who has spoken in public — all of that has to be looked into.

Watch it:

As Brian Beutler points out, “Hatch cites, among other things, an article Sotomayor wrote in 1996 — two years before he supported her confirmation to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.”

Transcript: Read more

In an interview with the New York Times, GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz — who recently penned a health care messaging memo instructing Republicans to attack President Obama’s health reform efforts by criticizing the deficiencies in foreign health care systems — concedes that Republicans will label Obama’s reform effort a “government takeover” of health care, regardless of the actual proposal:

Is it a correct description of the president’s plans for reform?
We don’t know what he is proposing. We want to avoid “a Washington takeover.”

But that’s not at issue. What the Democrats want is for everyone to be able to choose between their old, private health-insurance plan and an all-new, public health-insurance option.
I’m not a policy person. I’m a language person.

Indeed, “rather than challenging the tenets of American reform proposals, Luntz establishes a straw man argument against a non-existent health plan.” As Democratic strategist Paul Begala observes in a recent retort to the Luntz memo, “Because they know they cannot win the argument honestly, Republicans are resorting to mendacity.”

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Republican members of Congress have been trying to subtly raise questions about Sonia Sotomayor’s objectivity — simply because of her non-traditional race, gender, and upbringing. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) said today that he is concerned Sotomayor has shown “personal bias based on ethnicity and gender.” Similarly, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said in a statement today that Sotomayor may be subject to the “undue influence” of her race and gender:

Of primary concern to me is whether or not Judge Sotomayor follows the proper role of judges and refrains from legislating from the bench. Some of her recent comments on this matter have given me cause for great concern. In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.

Responding to Inhofe, The American Prospect’s Dana Goldstein writes, “Yes. Because the worldviews of John Roberts, Sam Alito, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia are not impacted at all by their white male identities. White men are raceless and genderless, haven’t you heard?”

Since President Obama announced Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court this morning, conservatives — such as Karl Rove — have publicly questioned whether she has the qualifications and “intellect” for the job. Today on CNN, however, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said there is “no question” that Sotomayor is qualified:

GONZALES: I have no questions in my mind about her qualifications in terms of education, experience. A president is not required to nominate the most qualified person to the court. I think he’s obliged to nominate someone who is well-qualified, and I think by any measures, she is well-qualified. I think there are legitimate questions about her judicial philosophy.

Watch it:

Of course, Sotomayor may not want the endorsement of one of the most incompetent Attorneys General in history.