Republicans also get a nominee who likes showing off and whose YouTube moments and Google insights cause people to wince. There are likely to be more revelations like Stuart Taylor's find last Saturday of this Sotomayor gem in a speech at Berkeley: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Invert the placement of "Latina woman" and "white male" and have a conservative say it: A career would be finished.
The media has also quickly adopted the story line that Republicans will damage themselves with Hispanics if they oppose Ms. Sotomayor. But what damage did Democrats suffer when they viciously attacked Miguel Estrada's nomination by President George W. Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second-highest court? New York Sen. Chuck Schumer was particularly ugly, labeling Mr. Estrada a right-wing "stealth missile" who was "way out of the mainstream" and openly questioning Mr. Estrada's truthfulness.
Sounds like the Democrats are racists, doesn't it, the way they attacked Mr. Estrada? Or are they, according to political correctness doctrine, exempt from being labelled racist because they're Leftists? Seems that way, the way things go these days. Something stinks about that.
I believe the point here is that, in this day and age of Leftists controlling the Big Media and the state apparatus, as well as the executive and legislative branches, and the judicial, if Obama gets his way, conservative folks naturally know they need to tone their language down below that with which the Democrats always get away, because the conservative-hating Big Media will be all over them all the time for anything that could be twisted out of context.
Nonetheless, Republicans must treat her with far more care than Democrats treated John Roberts or Samuel Alito and avoid angry speeches like Sen. Ted Kennedy's tirade against Robert Bork. The GOP must make measured arguments against her views and philosophy, using her own words and actions.
The Ricci case is an example: Whites were denied fire department promotions because of a clear racial quota. Ms. Sotomayor's refusal to hear their arguments won her stinging criticism from fellow Second Court of Appeals judge José Cabranes, a respected Clinton appointee.
Apparently there's a lot of inconvenient truth pointing to Judge Sotomayor's lack of fitness to be a judge, let alone a SCOTUS judge. It appears that the GOP realizes that they should simply point this stuff out calmly and logically. Otherwise, they'd be giving the Left something to grab onto so they could then say, "hey, look, they're angry and crazy", and the GOP knows that when Leftists say such things about them, the Big Media will be there to cover it, and, boyoboy, they'll cover it a LOT, because they love to bash Republicans in ways they ought to also bash Democrats for the same stuff but won't, because the Big Media is mostly Democrat/Leftist.
But, you know, when a Republican like Bush appoints judges to the SCOTUS, the Democrats, the Left and the Big Media become big crybabies and scream bloody murder and say all kinds of unfair, illogical, unsubstantiated things because they don't want a judge who won't be "liberal-activist", as they know that they need judicial activists (or judges with "empathy", as Obama prefers to euphemize, to use a nice-sounding word to describe something very, very wrong and bad).
Why is it that the Left gets away with this screaming and unhingedness, this insane behavior, whereas if conservatives merely opine that a judge's own words and rulings make her a probable racist, that's somehow unacceptable? Come on! After all, we're talking about putting someone in a position to decide very serious stuff. Can we really, with a clear conscience, really accept someone like Sonia Sotomayor, a suspected racist, being appointed to the Supreme Court of the U.S.?
SEE ALSO: Sotomayor’s focus on race issues may be hurdle
'The American ideal is that justice should be colorblind,' GOP senator says
Now conservatives say her strong identification with such race-based approaches to the law is perhaps the strongest argument against her confirmation, contending that her views put her outside an evolving consensus that such race-conscious public policy is growing obsolete.Reading the article, I see the communications tactic of the Left on this issue. They're making unsubstantiated claims, following the illogical subconsciously-affective messaging of "Obama was elected, therefore the People agree with whatever he does and whatever the Left wants, and this means that if you oppose us, you're crazy and extreme, so get with the program".
“The American ideal is that justice should be colorblind,” said Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “As we see people like Barack Obama achieve the highest office in the land and Judge Sotomayor’s own nomination to the highest court, I think it is harder and harder to see the justifications for race-conscious decisions across the board.”
Mr. Cornyn added, “This is a hot-button issue and one that needs to be confronted head on.”
The Left has nothing to go on here. They're just sloganeering and such. They're not pointing to anything concrete that demonstrates that Ms. Sotomayor would be a good judge, becuase the well-reported evidence indicates otherwise.