Home › Blogs › Ironman's blog ›

Frank the Firefighter, meet Joe the Plumber

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 07/11/2009 - 08:53
in

Well, looks like the lefty elitists have found another blue collar hero to impugn in their quest for power

Successful New Haven plaintiff Frank Ricci is now targeted for an inquisition by the Orwellian group "People for the American Way"

Once upon a time just conservative nominees got "Borked"  Now we've expanded the universe to anyone who says "boo" about the record of a liberal nominee.

Yes, Frank Ricci, a fireman who filed a lawsuit, is going to get the "Joe the Plumber" treatment from the lefty personal destruction machine.

Guess that's just something about liberal lawyers and media types. They claim to love the working class; but seem to revel in mocking and maligning individual members of said group.

Judge Sotomayor would be well advised to repudiate this sort of "help" from lefty slime merchants. Unless, of course, she thinks her case should be decided on the basis of chilling the first amendment rights of her critics, and not on the objective merits.

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Give it a break

Submitted by cr on Sat, 07/11/2009 - 20:16.

Yes, Dems are no strangers to playing hard ball in politics. Bork and Estrada should have been confirmed but weren't, but don't make it out like Dem are the only people who do this kind of shit. If Reps weren't making Ricci out to be the hinge of Rep opposition ot Sotomayor, he probably wouldn't be called. To make a case out of this one decission on her career is pointless . . . and is drummed up by Reps to arouse the base.

Joe was/is a your regular guy who inserted himself into politics, and republicans (not dems) elevated a normal guy to rockstar status. He has no place at this hearing.

------------------------

Actually the article you site is very good, mentioning the nature of confirmation ('a blood sport') process and Anita Hill. It not partsin but you've made it out be.

Thank god for blogging.

The President said his criteria was "empathy"

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 07/11/2009 - 20:20.

So, having "opened the door", it seems quite appropriate to bring forward a plaintiff who believes he did not get a fair shake from Judge Sotomayor.

Had the President made judicial experience or acumen the key criteria, then Frank Ricci would be out of place. But when you set the table, the other side gets to bring plates.

Is talking "opening the door"?

Submitted by cr on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 17:38.

First, I think the Ricci case is very interesting case and one that should be talked about in seriousness. The confirmation process is rarely that. However, her part in that case was minor. And talking about 'empathy' the president was talking ex temporaneously.

Empathy isn't a bad thing. It's what seperates us from psychopaths. But that aside, she has a very long record, especially for asupreme court nominee. The Ricci case is being used merely to trash a nominee. Whether you agree with the decision or not (she merely didn't overturn the earliar ruling as part of a panel of judges) this case is being extrapolated by republicans to tarnish a judge who has actually been previously vetted by both dems and republicans. She's not an out of the blue candidate . . . she's been on the radar for some time.

Now, Democrats have done the same crap that Republicans are now doing. It's shamefull on both sides. One one person of a case pops up at one of these hearings, it's simply not the forum for that. We don't have trial by someone showing up because they are anithema to reason. I think Clarence Thomas is a totally crap judge, but if Anita Hill wanted bring charges of sexual harasment against him, she should have done so earlier. Same with Jennifer Flowers against Clinton.

Frank Ricci is a sympathetic guy, but one guy does not make a case. And now Dems get put in a position of trashing that guy (opposition research), and the Reps will say "look at those mean, mean Dems" when really they'd do (have done) the same when the circumstances were flipped.

 

 

really....

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 19:33.

let's see,, the Republicans want to understand why Sotomayor took just one paragraph to decide Ricci's case when it took the SCOTUS 93 pages---which is entirely within the traditional role of "advise and consent" and deals solely with her professional record--and you equate it to trying to smear a hearing witness.

I suspect you didn't fare too well on the "analogies" portion of the SAT 

oh and . ..

Submitted by cr on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 20:08.

yes, ask away. That's not a big deal. But why bring in the fireman? It's nothing more than point scoring. Why bring up the 'empathy' thing over and over again. And Reps have been jumping over the case since the ruling. A ruling that was handed down 5-4. There's simply nothing here to get out of this case. 

 

 

Vox Populi

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 20:43.

There's simply nothing here to get out of this case. 

I presume then there's another reason Sotomayor's poll standing declined? Looks like the 5 were better received than the 4 on this one.

Hey, if it's that much of a waste of time why aren't the Democrats inviting the whole New Haven Fire Department to appear?  What have they got to fear from an irrelevant witness?

This is easy

Submitted by cr on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:11.

1.  Judges don't get elected.

2.  I'll be listening to just about every boring minute today in the confirmation on CSPAN. I want to know:

     a.  Who is calling Ricci

     b.   Why are the calling Ricci

     c.    What they ask Ricci

Good info is hard to come by but the only thing I surmise is that Dems might call Ricci if Reps make the confirmation about this case . . . which they've already started doing.

I'll be happy if Reps don't make the confirmation about this one case and no one calls Frank Ricci to the stand. And until I hear what I hear, I'm not coming to any conclusions.

Call me crazy but....

Submitted by americanmale on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 18:38.

For a democratic nominee, she might not be that bad.  She's catholic,  She has strong family roots.  She's probably pro-life at the end of the day...albeit she would never admit that now.  Under republican leadership, she'll sway conservative.   Heck, she is a lot better than what they could put up there seeing they have the uber slam dunk majority.

My guess is that they are just hoping for us to fight.  They'll take anything to throw her to the wolves.  I say we let her slide unconditionally.

 

Sotomayor isn't the most problematic pick they could have done..

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 19:35.

But I really think we need to do a 'teach-in" anyway since Obama will try to get a less qualified and more ideological pick the next time.

 

How do you know that?

Submitted by cr on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 20:12.

Are you psychic?

So the Rep strategy now is to be a bunch of assholes to a qualified candidate so that in the case that there is an unqualified candidate you can be really good at being a bunch of assholes rather than being stupid assholes?

 

 

One thing I do know

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 20:28.

is your favorite word wasn't on the LSAT or the Multistate.

I'll handle the law. When there's a question whether the Domino's pizza from California or Memphis is best, please chime in.

It's from New York

Submitted by cr on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:14.

no debate. What's my favorite word?

the wedge

Submitted by cr on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 20:00.

She basically decided not to overturn the earlier verdict . . . should she have written more? I don't know, but she didn't break any laws and did what was in her right to do in her position. Those people then had the option to take it to a higher court . .  which they did and won. She never issued any statements after, personal or professional. That is how the law works, and that is how it is meant to work. There's nothing strange here.

Judges (of any flavor) are in a tough position. Some decisions are difficult, more difficult than political punditry make it sound. If you take ANY judge and do some five-minute synopsis of a case, there are some you are going to agree with and some you are not. But that's not my or your job.

However, there are judicial reviews and you can look over verdicts of the span of a certain career and come to some idea of what that judge is about. Before she was nominated, Republicans had looked at her rulings and came to the conclusion that she was a pretty good candidate. Really, by all analysis, she's pretty moderate. Show me any review of her record in total that says she sucks, and I'll be happy to read it. But I haven't seen one yet. I just here grumpy Reps nitpicking at this one case or a couple of extemporanneious remarks.

Thinks if the biggest promotion of your life hinged not around your career, but one week you were on the job? Or a couple of comments you made to some collegues.

People bitch about politics and nothing getting done and this is the reason. Partisan hacks (of both parties)  who have nothing to do but shit on anything with the wrong label on it. It's devisive and non-productive.

 . . .  and what the fuck does my SAT scores have anything do with anthing. Is there a minimum standard for this site? It doesn't seem so. I don't know what my scores are off-hand but I think my GRE and GMAT's were around the nintieth percentile. I'm starting my masters this fall from Canegie Mellon in Software Engineering. I already have two bachelors. Does that qualifiy me to comment on one of your posts?

Or does that now make me an elitist prick? I'm too educated.

I defer to Judge Jose Cabranes on this one

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 07/12/2009 - 20:35.

He's a bit brighter than I am.

He thought that a single paragraph was wholly inadequate. Basically it appears that the panel chose to salute the lower court decision without independent analysis, and in light of the shredding the SCOTUS (majority and dissent) did to Judge Janet Bond Arterton's lower court opinion, this was not a prudent move.  Although the current President did get away with voting "present" a lot; so it's not like maybe there's a soft spot for this.

I will say that had a Republican nominated Sotomayor the Left would be screaming about the Doninger decision and how awful Judge Sotomayor was on free speech issues. Since the foul mouth yuppie princess lost her court case, I actually like the Judge's decision on that one.

 

right and . . .

Submitted by cr on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:28.

But what you're talking about is one judges oppinion of one case.  I disagree with collegues frequently. That doesn't mean they suck, that just means I disagree with them in that scenario. She's been reviewed by other lawyer associations and has been given high marks. Looking at her career she's actually tough on crime and not preferential racial discrimination cases.

The sad thing is that most candidates for the bench have been researched long before their nominated, unless you do a Harriet Miers. The confirmation process is about political posturing and gamemanship. Dems will win double big on this because they forced Reps to drop Estrada (not a bad guy) and they were able to slide in Sotomayor. The get a win on a woman, and in the hispanic vote.

So how do you play an inevitable loss? Minimize the damage:  be respectful and confirm her. Don't lose any more hispanic votes over someone who's down the middle. If she was a raging lefty, sure, go to war. But Sotomayor isn't worth it. As in the law, you win some, you lose some.

As for the Ricci case and the one paragraph, she's going to get asked about it. So we'll see what she says. It'll be interesting.

------------------

And always, excuse my spelling in grammer. I love participating in politics but don't have much time for the nicities of proofing my comments.

let me restate the problem again

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 19:52.

since I think we are in agreement Sotomayor is not the Robert Bork of the Left.

The point here is to establish ground rules to deal with the next nominee who will be in all liklihood the Left's Robert Bork.

Deciding Sotomayor was confirmable for reasons unlikely to apply to future Obama nominees ( a decade as appellate jurist;  experience as a prosecutor) and explaining the factors justifying a "no vote" ( multiculturalism; second amendment; property rights) in the process is important.  It need not stoop to personal attacks on the nominee and I think Rush and Newt's rather broad brush did no one any good. 

We are talking a long game here over the judiciary, not trying to win or not lose a news cycle. So neither the quick slash or the grip and grin is gonna work in this venue.

 

Fair enough

Submitted by cr on Tue, 07/14/2009 - 08:30.

As I said in another post, I can see Obama having up to three nominations during his time in office. Listening yesturday, you saw Republicans not digging at her so much as making a case of Obama's judgement.

That works if he goes left on future nominations, but it doesn't if he only goes slightly left. What then? Maybe these confirmations will go quicker and smoother  . .. although I doubt it.

However, I think the damage is done. I admit I may be wrong. We are talking about politics, but Dems won on striking down Estrada and scoring big with Sotomayor. Obama and the Dems are currently playing this game right. Reps can only hope for a fumble.

 

Links of London - This

Submitted by dizhi on Sun, 08/09/2009 - 09:02.

Links of London - This exquisite range is available from our online shop as well as free delivery on all orders– Visit us now! Links of London, Pandora and Links of London is one of the best online jewelry stores. A wide selection of fine quality gold, silver and diamond Links london Online shopping for quality Links of London jewelry in the Jewelry store; the latest fashions in engagement rings, earrings, pendants, lockets Links of Bracelets links of london Charms links of london sweetie Charms Links of london Necklaces Tiffany