Along Party Lines the GOP Opposed the First Latina Justice.

To be fair, a whole lot more stink was raised about her stance on issues rather then her race. It would be more fair to say "Along Party Lines the GOP Opposed a Liberal Justice."; her pro-abortion stance, for example, drew a lot of ire.

 

Might as well clarify, her "alleged" pro-abortion stance based on the whole "settled law" thing, as well as her stances on a whole lot of other issues including I guess the reverse discrimination thing. You can argue racism all you want, but I'm personally convinced that for most of the dissenting GOP members, it was more an issue of her being too liberal for their constituents and a false perception of her being an activist. They also tried to slap Obama down while they were at it. I really don't think this is to do with being uncomfortable with minorities.

I mean, it's not like the GOP went en masse to say "no to Latinos". Alberto Gonzales despite the sad sack of bulls*** that he pulled, is living proof of this.

 

I understand you're nothing but a party guy, but the furthest thing from politics should be pandering to a certain ethnic group. Democrats are quick to call everyone racists, but how do you get past racism when all you see is racial issues?

 

That's glynch for ya.

 

I'm actually offended by Glynche's accusation. Race Card crap. Has NOTHING to do with race...its all about the issues.

 

agreed. It was a complete trash post.

 

Most GOP senators will oppose anyone Obama nominates for the Supreme Court because that's just the way it is. If Sotomayor wasn't Latina, the opposition would have been even more fierce, but IMO her minority status actually forced the GOP to tone down some of their rhetoric (Newt the Nut being an exception). The next nominee will likely be treated rougher.

This one was easy. You ain't seen nothin' yet. The next one won't get 68 votes, I promise. If he selects a lefty to replace a righty, expect a royal bloodbath. My hope is there are no more vacancies until after the 2010 mid-terms. After next November, I have no problem with a Supreme Court nominee war being a defining issue for 2012, but we don't need that right now.

 

so is that why they spent two days questioning her about her statement on race instead of her actual decisions. you're right it was all about the issues.

i'm glad the GOP is pissing off latinos and hispanics. its the last nail in the coffin. oh well they still have miss, tenn, al, ky, and a few other states.

 

Imagine that...a Supreme Court justice states that a Latina will come to a better decision than a white person, and there are questions about it?

Had she not shot off her mouth in public about race, it wouldn't have been an issue.

 

Not a wise move by the GOP.

 

LOL, one statement 7 years ago, about a case about race. yeah, she her mouth off. in the very next line she says that past white male justices were more than capable of making decision about race. but yeah, it was an "issue"

thanks for proving my point

 

They had to decide between appeasing their "base" (who wanted them to flog her with all their might) and not offending many Hispanic voters. It was an easy choice since Hispanics are not a key part of their constituency. It was a valid point to bring up, but spending too much time on the "wise Latina" remark was a big mistake.

It was a "no win" situation the GOP made worse. They will live with the consequences.

 

Yes, that's exactly what the statement said, she's a latina supremacista -

get a clue, you are smarter than that.

 

No one was digging the ricky ricardo jokes and 'activist judge' references from the GOP. I thought they were classy one liners.
:sarcastic smiley not working:

 

If she was a politician, it would not be a big issue for me. But when you are one of the most powerful persons in the land, you're expected to uphold the law, regardless if it seems unfair. IMO, the supreme court should have nothing to do with politics and people who swing far in either direction shouldn't be considered. That said, she seems to be fairly center and the other choices could be much worse. What I do not approve of is the nomination being use to appease the Hispanic vote.

 

The rationale behind selecting Supreme Court nominees has been political for decades and that will never change. Get used to it. And while I'm not into appeasing segments of the population either, I think it's good to have our first Latina justice. As long as the person is well-qualified for the position and isn't too much of a trailblazing wing-nut either way, I think the Senate vote should be overwhelmingly yes.

Bush's first choice, John Roberts, was a slam dunk. His 2nd choice, Harriet Miers, was beyond disgraceful. Obama's first choice was a slam dunk (IMO). I sure hope he doesn't blow it with his 2nd nominee like Bush did.

 

No, I will not get used to it. This kind of mentality is the exact reason why our government is screwed up and its the reason why we are in a severe recession. We should not accept that politicians are corrupt, lying thieves.

 

She will be a liberal judge. Why would conservatives show support? Saying they should just because she is a hispanic female is dumb.

 

Her actual quote as printed from her speech reprinted in the New York Times...

"Second, I would hope 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."

So...yes, what I posted is exactly what she said.

I personally believe it is all a bunch of rhetoric, but to call out that it led to questioning as a point against the GOP is absurd.