The first step in rebuilding a party is acknowledging where we have misstepped and using that as a ladder to gain ground on the leading party, the Democrats. Sotomayor is VERY experienced judge- why deny that when she has sat on a bench nearly her entire life, been taught and versed in law at two Ivy League Schools, and clearly KNOWS her craft.
The issue Republicans should be fighting, and what scares me about Sotomayor is her UNDERSTANDING of the nature of a judge, and the REASON why she was picked in the first place! Did Obama even consider ONE male for this position? No he didn't- the short list was notably compromised of strictly women. Was that because NO males were qualified? If that's the case, so be it. But if a male was qualified would Obama have even CONSIDERED him? The imposition I grasped from the process was that Obama was actively seeking a woman, or a minority, or in best circumstances both, REGARDLESS if there were just as qualified males. Were there males just as qualified as Sotomayor? Were they not considered BECAUSE THEY WERE MALE? And that, my friends, is the scary deduction that conservatives should be flooding the airwaves with, not tired rhetoric arguing against her education, which is spectacular, or her affiliations with La Raza and other groups that really have no bearing on her judgeship. And this is why Republicans continue to get low rating. EVERYONE should be considered for a job such as a Supreme Court appellate judge...there should be NO automatic disqualifier such as RACE or SEX. That is simply wrong.
To keep it succinct, the final point I'll make is the unique disadvantage conservatives face on this issue. Fight Sotomayor's confirmation vehemently, and we risk alienating a large portion of the Hispanic population who are understandably elated with having one of their own finally ascending to the highest court. On the other hand, if Republicans roll over on blatant issues such as these, whose to say we won't do it more in the future. However, seeing as she should be confirmed with more than 60 votes in her favor, it is more politically expedient for the right to grudgingly ACCEPT her confirmation and continue to point out the sexist and "reverse" racist implications that the President's choice of Sotomayor highlights.
These are some pretty bold claims friend. Would you be able to provide a source for the assertion that Judge Sotomayor is "seeking diversity through quota fulfillment " or is "using race as a mitigating factor"? Judge Sotomayor's "understanding of the nature of a judge" is extensive. I suspect you are referring to Judge Sotomayor saying "All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made". Why do you thing legal defense funds prospect for candidates who have clerked in the court of appeals? There is an area of overlap between interpreting amd making law. When a case is decided in a particular way it sets precedent and becomes new or slightly altered law. Judge Sotomayor was saying that is why legal defense funds pursue those who have worked in the court of appeals.
ReplyDeleteWhen professionals achieve a certain level of experience and ability for all intents and purposes they can be considered interchangeable. If you were running a football team or a corporation it is generally advisable to actively pursue candidates from various backgrounds and experiences. You look at a pool of applicants who in most cases are as good as each other. When that happens you measure the assets of the candidates against the assets you already have. All other things being equal you select for what you don't already have like looking for left handed pitchers.
The Republican party lost ground because it had the Congress and White House for 6 years and failed to deliver prosperity for most Americans. GDP growth slowed under them, unemployment rose, the economy imploded, and a higher percentage of the American people fell below the poverty line. A higher percentage of the American people lost their medical insurance and whole swaths of the population lost their retirement money to corporate robber barons. This happened on the Republican's watch so the Republicans paid for it at the polls. If after 4 years unemployment is higher, GDP grew slower than under Bush 2, and there a more people living below the poverty line I'm sure the American people will vote out the Democrats.