BREAKING: MSNBC reports Sotomayor next SCOTUS justice

[Landslide Lyndon]

Maybe Jennifer Granholm.

Would she be the hottest Justice ever or what?

[Landslide Lyndon]

would Granholm be the first justice born outside of the USA?

No.
From the top of my head, Felix Frankfurter was born in Austria.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Sotomayor retakes the lead on Intrade:

Sotomayor 35.0
Kagan 25.0
Wardlaw 24.0
Wood 15.0
Sears 11.2
Granholm 8.0

Apparently the trashing of Rosen and his hit-piece worked well.

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/11/1928014.aspx

The SCOTUS shortlist?

According to a couple of sources in the know, there appears to be a working short list of about six names for President Obama’s Supreme Court pick. The co-frontrunners (in no particular order): Diane Wood of the 7th Circuit, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Merrick Garland of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Obviously, folks can slice this list all they want: Five are women; one’s Hispanic; one’s male; and all are in their late 40s or early 50s, except two (Wood, 58, and Garland, 56).

Keep an eye on Napolitano. For this pick, it would be surprising if Obama named someone he didn't either know well or trust personally. Wood, Kagan, and Napolitano all fit this bill (Wood taught at the University of Chicago with Obama, and Kagan and Napolitano already have top slots in the administration). As for Napolitano, remember that she endorsed Obama early on (despite Emily’s List pressure to do otherwise). And from people familiar with the president's thinking, he's been as impressed with Napolitano as anyone in his cabinet. They click. That matters....

[Landslide Lyndon]

What I find curious is that while everyone is talking about Sotomayor, nobody seems to mention the other Hispanic woman in the mix, Kim Wardlaw.

Is she considered less qualified, more divisive or what?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Why would Napolitano be on the list. The Senate would have a fiesta with ripping her apart, most notably for that report the Republicans managed to misconstrue as calling veterans possible terrorists.

Even more, the fact that she gets along well with Obama is a big reason NOT to appoint her at the Supreme Court.
Why take away from the cabinet such a competent person, which also happens to be a good friend of you? 

[Landslide Lyndon]

I'm starting to wonder if Napolitano's name is a red herring, tossed around by White House sources in order to confuse reporters. She has a close relationship with Obama, so obviously she must be in the game.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You know, it's not totally unbelievable that Obama could end up on the Supreme Court if the next president is a Democrat.

I wrote about that in another thread.
If it somehow happens, then he will be the first person to serve at the highest level of all three branches of government (President, US Senator and Supreme Court Justice).

[Landslide Lyndon]

According to the New York Times it's down to the Final Four:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/us/politics/26court.html?_r=1&hp

"The president has narrowed his list to four, according to people close to the White House — two federal appeals judges, Sonia Sotomayor of New York and Diane P. Wood of Chicago, and two members of his administration, Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano."


I still say that Napolitano is a red herring and that Obama wants to leave Kagan as Solicitor General for a couple of years before he elevates her to the Supreme Court.

So, if the NYT is correct, the big final is between Sotomayor and Wood.

(paging Ogre Mage...) 

[Landslide Lyndon]

I'm sure Obama's team has already found an explanation for that. It's a pretty easy find.

FoxNews doesn't seem to be hitting back to hard just yet. I imagine by the time we see BillO or Hanitty tonight we can expect YouTube videos, angry rants and the shaping of the conservative message.

Of course, I spoke too soon. Already pulled a quote where Sotomayor says a Hispanic woman would make better decisions than a white male.

Actually there is no need for elaborate explanation.
Just read Anonymous Liberal's post where he explains what Sotomayor meant:

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/05/more-republican-judicial-clowning.html

[Landslide Lyndon]

Democrats should hope for the Republicans to oppose her.

I bet the optics of a bunch of rich, white guys voting against a Hispanic woman who overcame poverty and rose to the top of the judicial field will do wonders for the popularity of the Republican party among Latinos and women.

Question: How will Mel Martinez vote?

[Landslide Lyndon]

I bet the optics of a bunch of rich, white guys voting against a Hispanic woman who overcame poverty and rose to the top of the judicial field will do wonders for the popularity of the Republican party among Latinos and women.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing and got depressed. God forbid you oppose someone of the same background of a group you're trying to win over politically.  

If the only reasons they oppose her are ideology and pure obstructionism, then you have every reason to feel depressed.

Unless you think that Jeff Sessions and Mitch McConnell are concerned about her credentials and intelectual heft.

Let's filibuster this racist bitch!  Who cares if she's qualified, the Dems set the precedent with their childish attempt to block Alito's confirmation.

Also, anyone who refuses to not confirm Sotomayor because she's a Hispanic is a coward.  Were Hispanics upset when Democrats tried to hold up Alberto Gonzales?  Did blacks take umbrage when the Democrats (predictably) tried to reject the first conservative black Supreme Court Justice?  There's a lot of things Hispanics care about, having one seat on the Supreme Court isn't one of them.

Someone missed the memo about not being funny anymore.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Actually, weren't the Democrats put in a political bind over the Thomas confirmation, even if they didn't all run over and support him?  I thought they felt pressure to confirm the first African-American justice.

They didn't feel enough guilt when they decided to side with Anita Hill...

Again, no outrage over Gonzales either. If we want to play this game about getting on board with historic nominations, just realize that it goes both ways. It's such a shame that this stuff defines politics. It's no wonder why some of us want out...

Of course you conveniently forget thev fact that Gonzalez was demonstrably unqualified for his post and the poster boy of cronyism.

And I remember that the Republicans bullying the Democrats was actually the norm for the last two decades (Iraq War Resolution anyone? ). Not much whining by Phil I suppose during that period.   

[Landslide Lyndon]

Of course you conveniently forget thev fact that Gonzalez was demonstrably unqualified for his post and the poster boy of cronyism.

And if some minority nominee was hilariously unqualified, you'd still be saying that the GOP will suffer among minority groups and you'd love it. Why would we suffer? Well, because we're the party of fat, old, white men opposing a poor minority and too many people are totally concerned with that aspect of the debate.

No comment from you concerning Thomas' nomination. I'm sure you would have hailed that as historic, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...what does that have to do with guilting someone to support someone else because of their ethnic/gender background?

And actually some of us were very disgusted with bullying Democrats about their supposed lack of patriotism. I've made that very clear in the past so get a clue before you post your usual nonsense.

1)I don't care about the political leanings or the ethnic background of any nominee. I live in a homogenous country and that kind of thinking is non-existent here.

Thomas was also obviously unqualified. He should have been rejected.

And yes, the Republicans don't enjoy the benefit of the doubt that the Democrats do regarding minorities. That's the price they pay for 40 years of  being the Party of White Resentment.

2)If you really were disgusted by the bullying and patriotism-mongering by the Republicans in 2002, then I applaud you.
But the fact is that identity politics is alive and well, for better or worse. Of course the Democrats will play the Latino card in order to corner the Republicans and paint them as Anti-Hispanic.
It shouldn't be like that, but then again in a perfect world we shouldn't have a racist creep like Sessions judging her or any other judicial nominee for that matter.

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/26/rnc-fumbles-sotomayor-talking-points/

Whoops. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has apparently inadvertently released its list of talking points on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Included on the released list were a few hundred influential Republicans who were the intended recipients of the talking points. Unfortunately for the RNC, so were members of the media.

I'm surprised it wasn't leaked through Twitter.  That seems to be the way the Republicans do things these days.

I guess it was a tad long to be twittered.

[Landslide Lyndon]

1)I don't care about the political leanings or the ethnic background of any nominee. I live in a homogenous country and that kind of thinking is non-existent here.

Of course you don't have to care about it there which makes it even more hypocritical that you take joy in it being an issue here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

I won't even ask why...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Predictable

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am and always have been.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough but I wouldn't take joy in it like you are (just as I didn't take joy in the fact that calling Dems unpatriotic was popular for awhile).

1)How am I hypocrite when I state the obvious? And I can assure you that I'm not jumping up and down of joy right now.

2)Thomas WAS unqualified. The American Bar Association said so.

3)If there is some joy in all that, it is coming from seing the Republicans squirm in their seats like the Democrats did for the last twenty years. You know, like when you see a movie villain gets his comeuppance.

[Landslide Lyndon]

1)How am I hypocrite when I state the obvious? And I can assure you that I'm not jumping up and down of joy right now.

Uh, what?

I'm not jumping up and down in joy because I'm tired of people trying to force me into supporting someone because their selection is racially/ethnically historic and you find it amusing that we're in this bind.

You're being a hypocrite because you expect this to be an issue here and want to guilt anyone that doesn't support this woman but don't care to see it our way even though you live in a homogenous country.

The racial/ethic angle would be reprehensible IF Sotomayor was unqualified. Since that obviously isn't the case here, it's an added political bonus for Obama and the Democrats. And they should be sued for political malpractice if they don't take advantage of the situation.

In case you don't know, I'm not in a position to guilt anybody into voting for her confirmation. I'm just a guy with a PC, commenting the latest political developments.
If you oppose her because of her judicial philosophy then fine. I'm not going to call you a bigot or anything else. You are entitled to have your opinion. 

And pardon me if I find amusing the situation in which the Republicans are, but their predicament is entirely self-inflicted. How can I not be amused when I see Huckabee rushing so much to blast Obama's choice, that he got her name wrong in his statement (''Maria Sotomayor''). 

And I really don't understand what do you want to say about Thomas. The guy is a living example of tokenism, not surpased until last fall when the world learned of Sarah Palin. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

I mentioned a reason why Thomas is considered unqualified. You can ignore it but don't tell me I havn't given any.

And the Republican's predicament is self-inflicted because they let the Tancredo wing of the party define their image regarding imigration.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I mentioned a reason why Thomas is considered unqualified. You can ignore it but don't tell me I havn't given any.

I'm sorry but saying that the Bar said he was unqualified isn't going to cut it. Can you give their reasons, please?

They don't make public neither the way their members vote, not the reasons for doing so.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Judge for yourself.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/28/us/bar-association-splits-on-fitness-of-thomas-for-the-supreme-court.html

[Landslide Lyndon]

Is there a bigger hack than px75?

Speaking of the devil...

Glenn Beck shows his class once again via his Twitter account:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/glenn-beck-can-messiah-obama-heal-sotomayors-diabetes.php

''Does the nominee still have Diabetes? Could the Messiah heal her, or does she just not want to ask? What is protocal (sic) on miracle healings?''

[Landslide Lyndon]

Is there a bigger hack than px75?

Speaking of the devil...

Glenn Beck shows his class once again via his Twitter account:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/glenn-beck-can-messiah-obama-heal-sotomayors-diabetes.php

''Does the nominee still have Diabetes? Could the Messiah heal her, or does she just not want to ask? What is protocal (sic) on miracle healings?''

Beck is such a prick.  But his inability to spell is amusing

I'm starting to think that Coburn in 2012 and Blubb are imitating him in the spelling aspect, as a form of flattery.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Speaking of Sotomayor's diabetes...

Can anyone tell me why anyone ought to care about this? I saw on the CNN ticker that diabetes groups are praising her appointment. Uh...what exactly are they saying? "We are glad a Supreme Court Justice will finally have to use an insulin pump. That is all."

Or that this appointment is a sign that diabetes is no longer an obstacle to success...

Of all the things to moan about...

I'm not moaning about it and I don't know of anyone that ever said or implied that diabetes is an obstacle to success.

It was an obstacle because it prevented her from becoming a policeman or PI, as mentioned in Obama's speech today.

[Landslide Lyndon]

LMAO!!!!!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/coleman-i-will-review-sotomayers-record-when-i-am-re-elected.php

[Landslide Lyndon]

LMAO!!!

Part II

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/conservative-whispers-to-hill-reporter-concern-about-the-impact-diet-will-have-on-her-jurisprude.php#more

[Landslide Lyndon]

I love faux white outrage. It's pretty hilarious.

What's more hilarious/disgusting is the fact that Gingrich made that comment while visiting Auschwitz.