home

Sessions, Hatch, Supported Extreme Right Wing Group Accusing Cabranes, Sotomayor Of Terrorist Links

Ian Milheiser has the details about the support given by GOP Senators Sessions, Hatch and McCain to the extreme Right Wing group Committee for Justice, which is running an ad accusing Puerto Rican judges Jose Cabranes and Sonia Sotomayor of cavorting with terrorists:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), a member of the Judiciary Committee, was a featured guest at a Georgetown fundraiser for the Committee for Justice in 2003. According to the New York Times, the event raised at least $50,000 for the right-wing group that is responsible for the recent Sotomayor slime piece. . . . The right-wing group also has other ties to GOP Senators. CFJ’s Chairman of the Board worked on John McCain’s presidential campaign as a “Director of Conservative Outreach.” . . . Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) defended CFJ and its [2003 ad attacking Senator Leahy as "anti-Catholic" (ironically, Leahy is Catholic)] on the Senate floor:

There has been an awful lot of railing about this ad by the Committee for Justice. . . . I say it is legitimate commentary.

Are Sessions, Hatch, and their conservative colleagues still willing to defend the Committee for Justice and argue that it is “legitimate commentary” to imply Sotomayor [and Cabranes] [are] terrorist[s]?

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | Sotomayor Hearing Live Blog, Day 2, Blog 3 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    You're Having Way Too Much Fun! (none / 0) (#1)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 01:06:39 PM EST
    :-)

    I just love the names these (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 01:18:29 PM EST
    organizations choose for themselves: Committee for Justice.  I mean, who, after all, is not for justice?

    I guess the PR/image consultants discourage names that better describe what these organizations are really all about, since who would want to openly support an organization called "Committee for Racism, Sexism, Homophobia and White Supremacy?"

    I mean, look at the minority witness list for the Sotomayor hearing: do we think that the organization Linda Chavez represents, "Center for Equal Opportunity" is really about equal opportunity?  Does "Americans United for Life" advocate for the lives of anyone but the unborn?  Does anyone think the "Independence Institute" is really about independence?

    These hearings certainly have not been the GOP's shining hour; when I listen to Jeff Sessions, or John Cornyn or Tom Coburn or Lindsey Graham, I feel a sense of shame that we still have people in this country - and these in particular are in the upper echelon of the government - who cannot bring themselves to regard people who are not like them - because of gender or ethnicity or sexual orientation or class - as being their equal.  Whose comfort level is reached in keeping people from realizing their full potential, rather than helping them get there.  Who have more regard for the contents of a woman's uterus than they do for the woman herself.

    Not a proud moment for them, and really not a proud moment for the nation itself, to have showcased the tiny little minds we've entrusted with seats in the US Senate, much less seats on the Judiciary Committeeit.

    truth be told, (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 03:45:22 PM EST
    those guys creep me out, and i'm not easily creeped out. in my career, i've dealt with some high-level white collar criminals. those i expect to have a lady macbeth reaction to because, well, they're slimy by nature. i just shouldn't get that same feeling from members of the senate.

    Parent
    One would think (none / 0) (#3)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 01:30:21 PM EST
    that certain Republicans in key states could be induced to disavow these ads.

    Sessions and Hatch are presumably not in that group, but still.  I wonder what John Cornyn would say.

    going out on a limb here, (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 02:31:44 PM EST
    Are Sessions, Hatch, and their conservative colleagues still willing to defend the Committee for Justice and argue that it is "legitimate commentary" to imply Sotomayor [and Cabranes] [are] terrorist[s]?

    and guessing yes, they will. i know, i know, you're shocked of course, as are we all. NOT!

    as if it matters one whit to their base. they don't give two nanny goat sh*ts what you or i think, we aren't their target audience. they know judge sotomayer will be confirmed, that was always a given, absent a dead body in the basement.

    this kabuki theater is for the home folks, come the next election campaign.

    oh, as an aside, in re ricci: 8 out of 13 (61%) judges (1 district court, 3 appellate, 9 USSC)  hearing the case agreed with judge sotomayer's position. how, exactly, does this put her out of the "mainstream"?