home

In Praise of Sonia Sotomayor

By TChris, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:36:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Speaking of identity politics, this endorsement of gender diversity on the Supreme Court comes from a well-known Republican:

Former first lady Laura Bush says she's pleased that President Barack Obama nominated a woman for the Supreme Court. ... Mrs. Bush said in an interview broadcast Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America" that "as a woman, I'm proud that there might be another woman on the court. I wish her well."

Even better news from the same article: George W. Bush, unlike Dick Cheney, plans to keep his mouth shut about President Obama's governance. If only the rest of the GOP would follow his lead ....

< The Token GOP Minority: The Emerging Dem Majority Stumps GOP Politics | WH Fighting Back On GOP Ricci Deceptions >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    In Praise of Sonia Sotomayor | 31 comments (31 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    say what????????????????????????? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Bemused on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 08:40:51 AM EST
     You actually believe members of  an opposition party should keep their mouths shut about the majority party's governance?

      That's, shall we say, a rather peculiar belief unless one believes totalitarianism is the best system. I thinnk you might want to rethink that and critique what is said rather than the choice to speak.

    Perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 08:49:02 AM EST
    the comment was rooted in the perception that the actual GOP seems to have little of value to say, not some sort of weird belief that the opposition party is required to remain silent.

    Perhaps we should try to start the week out on the right foot by assuming the best intention for someone's words, rather than the worst.

    Parent

    There doesn't seem to be any way (none / 0) (#4)
    by Bemused on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 08:57:00 AM EST
     to interpret the statement other than as stating  the GOP should be silent.

      My suggestion was to address the substance of what is said by the GOP.


    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:11:41 AM EST
    I don't think it represents creeping totalitarianism to say, "Gawd, I wish so-and-so would just shut up."  I think it's just, you know, the sort of throwaway comment one makes when someone is being asinine.

    I'll leave off now before this becomes an early contender for silliest threadjack of the week.

    Parent

    silly? (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Bemused on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:14:55 AM EST
      That so many people on all sides seek to make the other sides "just shut up" rather than engage in constructive debate with them is perhaps the single leading cause of the sorry state of politics in this country. (Well, maybe second to the influence of money and corruption).

    Parent
    Our politics (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:39:02 AM EST
    are full of poor winners and poor losers.

    I've observed lately that Democrats tend to be poor-er winners than Republicans were.  Get used to it.  We'll see a bunch of it until the Republicans take over again -- and they eventually will.

    My reason for being ticked at the statement above is that it had shades of Obama supporter, after Hillary got out of the election.  The basic message was "she lost, get over it, sit down and shut up."  Disrespectful of other human beings.  I don't care why the person is saying it. Grouping a whole bunch of people together and saying 'shut up' to all of them with a broad paint brush is just elitist arrogance.

    I didn't hear totalitarianism in the message, but I did hear the sound of someone who doesn't realize that the pendulum swings, and that those kinds of ridiculing statements just lower you to the level of the "bad guys" you're trying to criticize..

    What would have happened if Al Gore had presided over one of the worst economic meltdowns in many, many years?  The Democrats would very likely be the minority party today, and someone else would be ridiculing them... (Krugman reminded me of that today).  Somehow the Democrats think the election was about how wonderful they were, when actually, it was a referendum on how awful things are. It didn't matter who was at the helm.  That person was going down.

    Parent

    It did matter who was at the helm (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CST on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:45:04 AM EST
    Many of us think that if Al Gore was president, there wouldn't have been one of the worst economic meltdowns in many, many years.

    The party in power was, in fact, responsible for it, and it was completely avoidable.

    The pendulum may swing between "republican" and "democrat" but the definition of "republican" and "democrat" also changes, and the country does, in fact, occasionally make permanent shifts to the left or right on certain issues.  The idea is to win the issue war so that the opposite party is eventually required to take on some of your positions.  By the time republicans do take over again, I'm hoping that they have moderated many of their positions.  Indeed, they will have to on certain social issues at the very least if they want to be a viable party going forward, due to demographic changes.

    The idea of saying "shut up" now is not so much about telling republicans to "get over it", it's more about "if you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all".

    Parent

    Your last paragraph (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by TChris on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 01:57:33 PM EST
    captures my point exactly.  How my post relates in any way to the Democratic primaries escapes me.

    Parent
    The other way (none / 0) (#5)
    by eric on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:01:51 AM EST
    is to interpret the statement is the interpretation that Steve M suggested.  One can ask that the Republicans keep their mouths shut without standing for the proposition that all minority parties should always keep their mouths shut.  Further, it obviously was a bit snark, as well.  It isn't as if the GOP would listen, anyway.

    Parent
    Oh, (none / 0) (#9)
    by Bemused on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:12:07 AM EST
      so it's OK for "good" minority parties to speak at times of which we approve, but not for "bad minority parties to speak when we disapprove?

      Pardon me, but your attempt at clean up still sounds a tad totalitarian in perspective if you ask me.

    Parent

    Have you listened to the opposition party? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by TChris on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:20:30 AM EST
    I thought the tongue-in-cheek nature of my comment was obvious, but I should have learned by now that there will always be readers who don't recognize or appreciate my (admittedly obscure) sense of humor.  If I knew how, I would underline in green every sentence I write that isn't meant to be taken literally.  Nonetheless, until members of the opposition party have something substantive to say (as opposed to, for instance, rehashing stale claims that the president hates the country he governs), I'd prefer that they exercise their right to remain silent.

    Parent
    I wouldn't (1.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Bemused on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:31:05 AM EST
     if all they have is stale dogma and personal pettiness use that fact against them. In fact, you should be glad the blowhard element is overshadowing those who might put some ideas on the table that have merit and appeal. Of course, we have a similar problem on this side of the spectrum.

      As nice as it may be to imagine a world where shallow, superficial partisans pushing personal agenda did not command an outsized share of the attention, that's not this world. In this world, the price we pay for freedom of speech is a lot of bad talk.

       My original point was simply that progress toward a better world is not furthered by "oh, shut up" even as-- maybe especially as-- snark

    Parent

    Finite Energy (none / 0) (#17)
    by gtesta on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 10:58:07 AM EST
    I believe that we only have a finite amount of energy to spend on a given day.  If we use our energy having to engage in debate with a minority political party whose views are so extreme to our own that there is no likelihood that the discussion will lead to anything useful, I say it is better to shut the debate down than to waste my time.
    I'm just not going to invest time and energy in discussing how the rights of white men are being trampled by latina women.
    Just as I won't bother debating that the proper response to being attacked by a squadron of box cutter-wielding Suadi Arabian's was a massive "pre-emptive" military invastion of other nation(s).
    Nor will I engage in debate on wheter the nation that was founded on the proposition that "all men are created equal and that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", has a right to torture.


    Parent
    criticism (none / 0) (#6)
    by Lil on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:02:01 AM EST
    criticism for criticism's sake is a problem and not very facilitative of problem solving. Like the Republican Senator (Session?) who twittereed that Obama was enjoying a trip to France, while Congress toiled away on sustantive issue. He basically called Obama a hypocrite, completely distorting, and I believe knowingly, the purpose of Obama's trip. If Bush has decided not to engage in this kind of BS, then for once, I applaud him.

    Parent
    You are addressing (1.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Bemused on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:08:22 AM EST
    substance-- essentially the lack of substance of the tweet (redundant?) whining about the Paris trip.

      That's different than opining that the GOP should refrain from commenting on Obama's governance. Of course the GOP should comment on governance -- as should critics from the Left of this Party who have complaints of a different nature.

      Why should Dick Cheney not state he thinks Obama is not militant enough and too respectful of the rights of certain people while people on the Left state they think Obama is too militant and not respectful of their rights?

    Parent

    Apparently it was Sen. Grassley (none / 0) (#10)
    by Lil on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:12:10 AM EST
    I was referring to, not Sessions.

    Parent
    As long as Michael Steele is (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 10:02:01 AM EST
    chair of the RNC, we will continue to hear a whole lot of stupid, which is so stupid that it doesn't even count as criticism - it's more like slapstick.  Once again, Maryland - also the home of Spiro Agnew - apologizes for Steele being elevated to a national stage, where he embarrasses himself and his home state on an almost daily basis.  Sigh.

    It was always my impression that Bush was following the lead of the presidents before him and keeping his own counsel, staying out of the fray (plus, I get the impression that he is enormously relieved to be out of the WH) - he may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I think he gets that with his dismal approval ratings, all his participation would do is act as a lightning rod that would make it harder for the GOP to recoup any losses in support.

    We all know that the GOP has as much right to criticize the Democratic president aa the Democrats did to criticize George Bush, so let's not get all breathless about anyone's snarky wish for less GOP noise.

    Although it is most certainly noise - pesky, mosquito buzzing around your ear noise, lawn mower at 6 am Saturday morning noise, children whining without end noise - might as well just get used to it.

    While she certainly (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 10:55:52 AM EST
    is entitled to her opinion, her opinion is about as important to me as Michelle Obama's or Oprah's or Brad Pitt's, or Carrot-top's.

    Yes, and the whole (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:16:47 AM EST
    "I like her because she has girly parts like me" doesn't add much to the debate.

    Me, I'm more interested in political leanings than girly parts.  I, frankly, would rather have a liberal white male, than a center-right female.

    Parent

    Now I'm scared (none / 0) (#2)
    by JoyP on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 08:47:04 AM EST
    Who would have thought that the Bushes would finally show a little class?  I didn't think it was in their DNA.  But, of course, compared to the Cheney's as long as she said excuse me after she burped she would upstage them.

    Actually, Laura Bush (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 11:30:29 AM EST
    generally showed much more class than any of the many born to the name Bush.  And she did, against the odds in that administration, speak up several times for women's rights.  

    Not a fan of hers, natch.  Just noting this is not entirely uncharacteristic of her to say this.


    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Lora on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 09:53:23 AM EST
    I can't help but get suspicious when someone from the GOP advises the Dems on anything.

    I don't think Laura Bush had a secret agenda in this case.

    I'm not so sure about the rest.

    Sotomayor stumbles (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 02:15:16 PM EST
    literally

    Sotomayor fractures ankle at New York airport

    She's tough. No one could (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 02:21:39 PM EST
    deny that--could they?

    Parent
    She may be tough... (none / 0) (#26)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 03:43:19 PM EST
    ...but diabetics tend to have a myriad of problems with their feet/ankles.  One has to wonder if her medical condition will hamper her recovery from this.  

    Parent
    I forgot about that. Just having (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 03:46:04 PM EST
    a broken ankle with resultant need to walk with crutches was tough for me.  

    Parent
    I was wondering the same thing (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 04:10:06 PM EST
    I am pretty sure it will at least complicate recovery.


    Parent
    Back to the topic (none / 0) (#27)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 03:45:30 PM EST
    Laura Bush may be pleased and proud, but she's also reinforcing the right wing lying point that Sotomayor was nominated just because she's a woman and a Hispanic.

    As far as Dubya keeping his mouth shut, that's a strategy that helps right wingers forget how bad he was. Cheney, on the other hand, has just set a trap for Obama. As soon as terrorists hit our country again, he gets to say "I told you so, I warned that dumb Obama that we need to use tough measures to protect our country. In spite of torture making us less safe and giving no useful info, Cheney will look like big daddy defender, just in time for 2012 elections (no doubt with what's her name by his side).

    Given the repetition of winger nonsensical criticism, TChris' sarcasm is warranted. But maybe it would have been better to say "Blab all you want, I've got my fingers in my ears."

    Well, I'm not sure (none / 0) (#30)
    by dk on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 04:23:33 PM EST
    what your point is about Laura Bush.

    I mean, all reasonable people should agree (and granted, most of the Republican criticism of Sotomayor so far is not reasonable) that a) Sotomayor is a very experienced federal judge who has excelled academically all of her life and b) of the group of very experienced individuls who have excelled academically their entire lives, a factor in why Sotomayor was chosen by Obama has to with her demographics.  I'm not certain how Laura Bush's comment reinforces a right wing lying point.  

    Look, I have no idea what Laura Bush is thinking, but on the face of it, she's saying that she's happy to see another woman on the Court.   I would be happy too (though I am reserving my own judgment until I am satisfied she is liberal enough, which so far no one on the left has convinced me of yet).

    Parent

    My point was (none / 0) (#31)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 05:05:35 PM EST
    wingers say Sotomayor was nominated just because...

    Laura Bush is right to be pleased. Many of us will be happy to see another women on the SC. Wingers aren't happy. Many of them believe that this is an affirmative action nomination. Repubs benefit by Laura Bush admitting she's glad he nominated a woman. Her honest statement reinforces their distortion of the truth just by reminding bigots that her gender is important to some people.  

    Parent

    I see your point, but (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by dk on Mon Jun 08, 2009 at 06:53:18 PM EST
    1. To me your statement came off as implying that Laura Bush had sinister motives, or even wrong-headed motives, and I just don't see any evidence of that.  Perhaps that's not really what you meant, it's just how I interpreted what you said; and

    2. I see what you mean that bigots (or anyone trying to manipulate bigots to score political points) could twist her words to serve their purposes.  But, on the other hand, it's also possible that "moderate" women who happen to like Laura Bush might look at what she said and feel emboldened to voice their pride in having more women on the Court (and in powerful positions in general).  That's actually a good thing, isn't it?


    Parent
    In Praise of Sonia Sotomayor | 31 comments (31 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment