GOP to Label Sotomayor as ‘Activist’

[JonLP24]

Source: ABC

ABC News’ Jonathan Karl reports:

Republicans are prepared for a major confirmation showdown over the Sotomayor nomination. At the start, Senate Republicans will likely make innocuous statements about the need to thoroughly review her record, but make no mistake, GOP leaders, with a big assist from outside conservative groups, will wage a vigorous campaign against this nomination.

In fact, key Senate Republicans are already on record voting against Sotomayor. When President Bill Clinton picked her for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in 1997, Republicans blocked her nomination for more than a year. Ultimately she was confirmed, but 29 Republicans voted no, including Mitch McConnell (now the Republican leader) and Jeff Sessions (now the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

“President Obama could have chosen a consensus candidate,” says a top Republican Senate leadership aide, “but he did not.” For Republicans, Sotomayor was the most controversial of the names widely reported to be on Obama’s short list.

Senate Republicans don’t expect to defeat the Sotomayor nomination. But they hope to raise enough questions about the nomination to make it a tough vote for Democratic Senators in more conservative states. They will also use the confirmation battle as an opportunity to motivate a demoralized Republican base.

Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/gop-to-label-so.html

[BeyondGeography]

1. There is no "consensus," fuckhead

[NJmaverick]

2. Republicans are lying evil assholes

that's my response

[KingFlorez]

3. Their idea of consensus would be Scalia the Nightmare Part IV

[kegler14]

4. “President Obama could have chosen a consensus candidate,"

Oh, like Bush did? Yeah, right.

[silverweb]

5. How true to form.

"Senate Republicans don’t expect to defeat the Sotomayor nomination. But they hope to raise enough questions about the nomination to make it a tough vote for Democratic Senators in more conservative states. They will also use the confirmation battle as an opportunity to motivate a demoralized Republican base.

This is the true character of today's GOP. Never a thought for what's best for the American people. Just obstruct the Democrats on everything and throw emotional sops of manufactured controversy to the brain-dead reactionary id of the reTHUG base like steak to starving bears.

[JonLP24]

8. I watched The American President not to long ago

It is more of a love story then it is about politics, however the speech he gave at the press conference is so true to the GOP as it is today and this movie was made in 1995.

Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character.

[silverweb]

14. I loved that movie.

And that quote reflects exactly what we're looking at in reality today.

The reTHUGs are good for nothing. They're liars, obstructionists, and authoritarian purveyors of fear, war, and the religion of corporatism. They exist only to protect and enrich the oligarchy.

[kimmylavin]

17. :)

Every once in a while, my husband and I will watch just that speech, to perk us up. :)

[elmerdem]

33. "motivate a demoralized Republican base"

That seems to be the only fucking thing the repubs can do at this point. Teabag=motivate the base, rush=motivate the base, cheney, hannity, beck, et. al=motivate the base. Take the fucking 20% of your knuckle dragging motivated base and disappear already so that the grown ups can govern!

[Tempest]

6. This will end badly for them

They're well on their way to losing the Hispanic vote completely and will have to tread carefully not to turn women and other minorities against them.

[Dappleganger]

7. Meanwhile, the country's going down the shitter.

The Party of NO is showing up to celebrate.

[Auggie]

9. Anything to be counter-productive, anything to be destructive.

[SoxFan]

10. "Consensus candidate"=Harriet Miers

[RDANGELO]

11. It's time to start making some noise about this activist bs.

The constitution is over 200 years old. The founders, in their wisdom, made it difficult to modify the document. As society changes over time, there is no way that every issue is going to easily fit into a box when compared to it. For instance, the word abortion is never mentioned in the constitution, but people on the right contend that the constitution forbids it. People on the left point to the fourth amendment which eludes to privacy.

The real difference here is that the people who call themselves the strict constructionists claim that they are the ones who know how to interpret the constitution and anyone who disagrees with them is an activist. They are arrogant.

[phantom power]

12. Whoa, nobody could have predicted that strategy...

:eyes:

[Kahuna]

13. Let them. "Activist judges" was their mantra in 2006 for all the good it did them.

:rofl:

[Libertas1776]

15. Oh MOG!

You're either a conservative or an ACTIVIST with these fucking people. Nothing in between. Fuck them. Not to mention the fact that calling this woman a liberal is akin to calling Obama a liberal, something they are most certainly NOT! I would make her to be moderate left at best. Do these morons actually even know what liberal actually means? :mad:

[Kablooie]

16. Of course! Anyone expect anything different. They are the party of NO!

No matter WHO Obama picked they would respond the same way.
The only goal the GOP has is to obstruct Obama in every way they can.
That's the only platform they have.

[Odin2005]

18. How predictable.

[florida08]

19. keep obstructing gopstoppers

The country is getting a birdseye view of how you operate..my way or the highway. It's why we're in the mess we are now. You don't care about the country as was well stated in the quote above. You want corporate/republican friendly shills.

[Arkana]

20. Sun To Rise In East, Set In West

[LaPera]

21. Fuck the republicans they aren't going to stop Sotomayor's confirmation. Republicans were going to

go after anyone short of a Hitler clone, whomever President Obama nominated the republicans already had their talking points for Hannity, Limbaugh and every other robot republican ready for weeks, it wouldn't of matter who Obama nominated....

The lost lying idiot republicans really believe this will show unity and power within the republican party...Stupid fucks!

[Chowlie]

22. Blah blah activist judge blah blah

The "new" GOP seems to be using the old GOP's playbook. I don't think the people are buying it anymore, though - thus 2006 and 2008 election results.

[The Blue Flower]

23. It doesn't matter who the nominee is

They're going to make a raging mess of it no matter what. And if she wanted to strike down Roe v. Wade that wouldn't be activist at all. No sir, not a bit.

[Harry Monroe]

24. Obama couls have picked Jesus Christ himself and they still would oppose the nomination

[SharonAnn]

39. Well, the certainly wouldn't have approved Him. He's too Liberal, and he's an Activist!

[EndElectoral]

25. Should do well with voter groups. GOP rejects Female Hispanic Catholic for Court. Gotta love it.

[ut oh]

26. Oh gee! What a surprize....

NOT....

Anyone Obama puts up there going to slap this label on.

The party of NO strikes again!

[Hugabear]

27. America to label GOP as racist bigots

Big shock, that they would oppose the first Latina nominee to the SCOTUS. Not just any Latina nominee, but one with considerable experience.

[droidamus2]

28. Guaranteed

Somewhere in the next few days you can rest assured that you will see Newt Gingrich on TV or radio declaring that Sotomayor is the 'most liberal' judge ever nominated and probably the 'most activist' judge as well.

[demo dutch]

29. That was a given before anyone was even nominated! Did you really expect any different?

[devilgrrl]

30. "activist" = "Knows their ass from a hole in the ground"

eom

[emad]

31. Ilya Somin, writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, lays out the conservative case against Ms Sotomayor.

From BBC News:

"I am... not favorably impressed with her notorious statement that "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Not only is it objectionable in and of itself, it also suggests that Sotomayor is a committed believer in the identity politics school of left-wing thought. Worse, it implies that she believes that it is legitimate for judges to base decisions in part based on their ethnic or racial origins."

Ilya Somin, writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, lays out the conservative case against Ms Sotomayor.
See: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_24-2009_05_30.shtml#1243346531

FROM:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8068467.stm

[Ozymanithrax]

32. Like what is new.

This is what they have done since 1980. If Republicans had a new idea, they would collectively take black and decker drill to their heads and remove it.

[Iliyah]

35. Do the

GOP have something against women who are smart?

[Zorra]

34. Heh. Like the GOP is relevant to anything else but the past. n/t

[struggle4progress]

36. Good. Dems should ask lots of questions about stuff like Bush v. Gore

[louis-t]

37. They'll call her 'activist' but will not

give any examples of her 'activist' behaviour.

[katty]

38. ReTHUGS, as usual, HYPOCRITES-they call others activist

when they are the KINGS/QUEENS of racist 'activism'--ReTHUGS wrote the book on "HOW TO" be activist.

[Seeking Serenity]

40. So what? Of course they are.

We call their nominees activists; they call our nominees activists.

We oppose otherwise (on paper) qualified nominees on ideological grounds; they oppose otherwise (on paper) qualified candidates on ideological grounds.

That does not make them more base or us more noble. It's politics, folks.

Where's the shock? Why the outrage?