Sotomayor Said That a "Wise Woman" Would Reach Better Conclusions Than a Man, in 1994

In 1994. So she obviously believes this, as she merely dusted it off and replaced "woman" with "Latina" in 2001 for her La Raza audience.

Misspeaking?

Sure. I've written the words "dork her up the squeakhole" a dozen times but each time I "misspoke." I chose my words poorly. I meant something else.

What did I mean? I don't know. You tell me what meaning you can assign those words which you will not find offensive, and that's what I meant.

In Allah's post he references this silly bit about Rush Limbaugh mulling endorsing Sotomayor, because maybe she's pro-life.

This is silly. As a commenter points out at the link, Rush is doing his deadpan irony thing again. He's doing an "Operation Chaos" thing on the liberals, trying to get them to worry about her pro-choice cred.

Sotomayor has of course guaranteed Obama precisely which way she'll vote on Roe cases, despite the fact that she will lie under oath in her her Senate testimony and claim she is barred from discussing the subject at all.

Oh: Greg Sergeant, Super-Liberal Number 1, thinks the big story here is that "Republicans failed to make an issue of the statement" at her previous confirmation hearing.

There is a reason for that. Alfonse D'Amato and Pat Monynihan had an agreement about judges at this time -- one in four nominations, they'd allow the other to push a judge on to the courts. Sotomayor was Moynihan's pick, and the Republicans went along with it because of D'Amato's deal with Moynihan.

As Byron York explained here:

he first thing you have to understand is how judges are nominated to the federal district courts, which are below the circuit courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. The higher courts are often the stage for ideologically-based confirmation fights. The lower district courts, are, in the words of one former Bush official, "darn near patronage jobs." Senators, even those in the opposing party from the White House, wield great power over who is nominated to the district court seats in their states. And in 1991, when Sotomayor was nominated, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, and the two senators from New York were Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Republican Alphonse D'Amato.

By a number of accounts, Moynihan and D'Amato had a longstanding arrangement. "It was a special deal whereby D'Amato agreed to defer to the pick of Moynihan for one out of every four district court seats," another former Bush official told me. "That was a deal that preceded President Bush I, so basically Moynihan was picking one of four district court nominees." That deal stood even though Republicans controlled the White House and thus (theoretically) the right to choose judges for the federal courts.

And at that moment, in 1991, it was Moynihan's turn to choose, and his choice was Sotomayor. There is no evidence that anyone in the Bush I White House or Justice Department thought Sotomayor was a conservative, or even a moderate, but no one wanted a fight with Moynihan. "She was not our first choice," recalls a third Bush I official, "but she was someone who was, if we were going to get a nominee confirmed to that position -- essentially someone we had to go with."

There is no such deal anymore.

And the big story here, despite the insistence of Obama Super Booster Greg Sergeant, is that this is long and deeply held belief of Sotomayor's. She did not "misspeak," and there's not a single liberal who honestly believes she did.

Oh-- and it's almost certain no one even knew of this comment, because they don't scour the backgrounds of lowest-level federal judges as they do Supreme Court nominees.

But keep trying, Greg Sergeant. You are my hero.

Lindsey Graham Trying His Hardest to Make Me Like Him: I don't know if it'll work, but I do approve of him trying so goshdarn hard.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) gave a harsh assessment of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor Wednesday afternoon, criticizing her ideology, questioning her temperament and saying he had little intention of voting for her.

In a critical news conference following his 30-minute closed-door meeting with Sotomayor, Graham said that he would have great difficulty supporting her — and that he let her know it.

"I was very direct," Graham told reporters gathered outside his office. "I have to decide how to play this game, quite frankly. If I use the same standard that Sen. [Barack] Obama used, then I would not vote for you, quite frankly."

Graham's comments were the most critical so far during Sotomayor's dozen visits to key Senate offices over the past two days.

While Republicans do not have the votes to block Sotomayor, Graham's tough criticism is an important moment in the process because he is considered one of the top Republican legal minds in the Senate. His statements may clear the way for other Republicans to follow suit with tougher stances.

Graham argued that Obama had voted against Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito because they differed with him on ideology, and that going by that standard, he would not be inclined to support the presumably far more liberal Sotomayor.

"He used a standard, I think, that makes it nearly impossible for a person from the opposite party to vote for the nominee," said Graham.

"When I look at her record, her ideology, I'm deeply troubled," he added.

Despite the fact he's a McCainiac maverick douche-sucker, I have to confess I've always kind of liked him. Although he's been angering me since I first met him, as one of the Clinton Impeachment Managers. (He undermined his own case by stating, more emphatically than necessary, that a Senator in good conscience could vote to acquit Clinton.)

Maybe it's the Prodigal Son phenomenon, which McCain also benefits from (and Colin Powell used to benefit from): These guys disappoint you so much that when they finally do something in your favor, you become excessively grateful for their ideological homecoming.

posted by Ace at 03:18 PM

| Access Comments