The Sotomayor Nomination: An Opportunity for Republicans to Reestablish Their Identity

President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court will pose difficulties for Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Sotomayor’s personal story is deeply compelling, and she is the first Latino nominee to the High Court. Republicans need to reach out to that important voting block. But they also need to reestablish their identity, which has been rooted, from the time of Lincoln, not in the “identity politics” that has so dominated the Democrats’ agenda in recent years but in the fundamental idea that every American should be treated as an individual, nowhere more clearly captured than in our national motto, E Pluribus Unum—from many, one.

Here is an opportunity for Republicans to reestablish that identity, if they handle it smartly, because there is much in Judge Sotomayor’s record to suggest that she subscribes to identity politics. She has made statements to that effect that will have to be explained, which if made by white men would be roundly and rightly condemned. And the Ricci case that the Supreme Court will hand down next month, just before Senate confirmation hearings are likely to begin, will tee the issues up nicely. The case was brought by a sympathetic plaintiff, suffering from dyslexia, who studied hard for a neutral fireman’s promotion exam, only to be told by the city of New Haven, after he had scored well, that the results would be thrown out because they were racially unbalanced. The appellate panel reviewing the district court’s decision, on which Judge Sotomayor sat, summarily upheld the district court’s dismissal of the complaint, refusing to grapple with the constitutional issues at stake. If ever a case cried out for “empathy,” this was it—not for Mr. Ricci, who was asking for no empathy, but for the principle of equality before the law, on which he staked his claim of racial discrimination against the city.

But Democrats too should be raising those questions, because equality before the law and the rule of law are indifferent to party. Tragically, however, the judicial confirmation process has been thoroughly politicized in recent years. After the stormy confirmation hearings in 1987 and 1991 for Judges Bork and Thomas, President Clinton’s nominations of Judges Ginsburg and Breyer sailed through the confirmation process with little opposition and even less acrimony. With the return of Republican nominees after the election of George W. Bush, however, Senate Democrats resumed their scorched earth practices, starting with appellate court nominees and continuing to the nominations of Judges Roberts and Alito to the High Court. Hearings were never held, filibusters were threatened, and reputations were tarnished. In such a climate, it is difficult to have reasoned discussion of the issues. If past history is any guide, we can expect Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will fully support Judge Sotomayor. It will fall to Republicans, therefore to draw out both the judicial and the constitutional philosophy of the nominee.

And they will have much to work with. Not only has Judge Sotomayor made what can only be called reckless statements about the role that race and gender does and should play in judicial decisionmaking, but many of her decisions bring that out. Then too there are cases that may give some “Red State” Democrats pause, like the per curiam decision last January of the Second Circuit panel on which  Judge Sotomayor sat, which held that the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms does not apply against the states. Throw in the likely challenges ahead to President Obama’s sweeping assertions of power over the economy, and there is more than enough to keep Senators busy as they carry out their responsibilities to advise and consent.

Still, it is Republicans especially who will be tested by these hearings—tested to see what, if anything, they stand for. 

Roger Pilon is the Director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute.

1.8
Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (5 votes)

Comments

That's fine...

...however, her line about the Court of Appeals setting policy should be the foundation of our opposition.

To say that the Appeals Courts make policy

To say that the Appeals Courts makes policy is to say the sun rises in the east.  It is where the vast bulk of decision making about unclear laws (and there are many) is done.

 

There Is A Method To Obama's Madness

There is a method to Obama's madness in this selection, and an agenda.

From all accounts, he is going to make a major push for amnesty again this year for the illegal immigrants, and what better way to use for the public than his "new" Supreme Court justice and what a shining example of what type of citizens all those illegals will eventually make. 

Why do you think he traveled to Arizona TWICE already, a state that is demanding that the fencing be secured, and whose very lives are on the line now every single day.  A state with the highest automobile theft rate and identity theft in the nation, and in which many have been made homeless due to the property thefts and crime this situation has created since the first Reagan amnesty in the 80's.  Insurance rates are now sky high for auto and home insurance property.  Phoenix is now the kidnapping capitol of the world.  And last week the cartels just busted out 30 cartel members from a Northern Mexico jail.

There wil be war in the street s of Arizona if this comes to pass, and he is gearing up for the final blow.....using Ted Kennedy's illness and his new judge as the trump cards.  If a suit if filed, guess what, now he has someone in the court to accuse the other justices who might hold with the American citizens rights of "hate speech," and "discrimination" during their en banc session.

What a conniver.  This guy is truly, truly unbelieveable.  And I would like to see his law school diploma at this point, as it doesn't appear he's even read the Constitution, much less is a Constitutional lawyer.

Let's get mellow

1. Sotomayor is from Puerto Rico; they're automatically citizens so, all other things being equal, they shouldn't be as supportive of illegal activity as almost all Mexican-American leaders. And, she's not going to appeal to other Hispanics except out of pan-Hispanic ethnic nationalism grounds. That should be discouraged.

2. The only reason there's illegal immigration in the first place is because people refuse to do things in an effective way. If you want to do something effective, push this plan.

Betsy, neither Repub's or dem's care...

... about our plight down here in the border states.  I have to laugh at VP Cheney's monumental hypocrisy as of late when he attempts to beat the drum of National Security.  Accusing the Obama admin (and rightfully so) of being lax in that area.  When he and his former boss apprehended and then released tens of thousands of OTM's (Other Than Mexican) from states that sponsored terrorism, no less.  Released them out into our society of which they're still out roaming about causing whatever mischief they will.  Neither party cares.  We should face that hard reality.

Regarding Sotomayor, this will separate out all the rino's.  There is no good reason for any Republican to vote for this nominee.  Sen. Obama opposed both of Bush's nominees and so should all Republicans.  Lets see who among them still has a backbone. DD

Arizona? i'm sorry, I know people there.

who built all those bloody expensive houses? illegal and legal immigrants.

They're gone now. no work.

Kennedy's illness somehow plays a part in a war? you're konked.

elitists hangin' w/elitists...

...living in their gated communities w/armed security guards, no doubt.  And that describes the sort of folk running the GOP these days.  Ignorance is bliss.  Out of site, out of mind.

But outside of those gates there's a whole new world.  Quickly becoming a sub-3rd world barrio.  DD

umm... yeah. my contacts in Arizona

used to be immigrants -- till the job climate got so bad that they went home.

(yes, I do know how shitty Arizona can be. shitty climate and minutemen. bad combo)

A comparison

In the world of politics, it's turning out that "Slick" Willy Clinton has nothing over "Greasy" Barak Obama.

This is an opportunity . ..

Sotomayor will be confirmed, and Republicans should do so without significant fight. This is a chance for Republicans to show deftness of touch by raising important issues but not being overt obstructionists.

I wouldn't bet money on it actually happening, though. It may happen in certain parts. It'll be interesting if the leadership takes that stance but base does not. What then?

It's a good chance for the leadership to gain credibility beyond the base. As the post has said, confirmation hearings have been rocky since Bork. I, personally, would like to see Reps do better than Dems during Alito and Roberts. It's hard to be the example, rather than fall back on relieing on Cheney to stoke the fire at the base.

This is less about Dems (she's exactly who the Dems would naturally pick) than about Rep reaction to a shrewed decision by Obama.

REPS . . .  DON'T TAKE THE BAIT!

good point

about getting credibility beyond the base. i would say 99% of americans wouldn't be able to name the current supreme court judges, let alone the last 4 supreme court decisions. To the average american: Obama picked a Hispanic woman, that woman graduated at the top of her class from princeton, and apparently, since she is replacing souter, won't switch the court's balance. in other words: blah. during a recession, with social issues on the back burner, no one really cares....

except the base. do republicans want to be viewed as "obstructionists" just to please 10% of the voting population that will consistently vote republican anyway?

You are correct

She will be confirmed.  But not before a few people jump at the option of looking like idiots intead of keeping their mouths shut and looking statesmanlike.  Politicians do not understand that Google can find everything you ever said.

Get ready for the "Up or down vote" that Jeff Sesions demanded for Alito, to be thrown back in his face.

Get ready to hear how George H.W. Bush praised Clarence Thomas in part for his "empathy."

And then get ready for these originally Republican ideas to be denied by their authors.

yes, and ...

I think it's really b.s. to think that court nominations aren't purely political. In theory, the US has (should have) a good field of candidates for this position; however, just like CEOs of a company, a presidential nominee

1. Has basic qualifications and experience (Think Harriet Mayers).

2. Fits the presidents ideology of direction in the country is going.

OR

3. Serves some political purpose.

At that level, judges interpret the law. If something gets to the supreme court, that case by way of process and substance (the supreme court has the option of choosing cases) has something relevant beyond the letter of the law.

All other issues are political play. I just can't believe that Robert's age wasn't a factor in putting him as chief justice. That doesn't mean he's not qualified, just it was a factor that put him above the other qualified judges. Obama picked Sotomayor because she was qualified and her being a woman and hispanic makes her a politcal poison pill to attack.

A truely beautiful pick handed to Obama by Republicans. And as long as the current conditions exist, he can keep pursuing this strategy. He can do it on the lower courts as well though not as blatantly.

Maybe thats the bigger lesson here: an obstructionist strategy only works for inclusive minorities? Ahh, maybe.

 

credibility beyond the base

The so-called leadership has NO credibility WITH the base.  Yes, this pick is a trap. And the GOP can take advantage of it if they do so "cleverly."  When have you ever seen the GOP do something cleverly.  If the "leadership" does not oppose this candidate, protesting her legal position and public statements, then when should the GOP oppose something or someone?  If the GOP lets this one sail by because they are afraid of bad press, then the GOP is dead as a national party.  The GOP will get pilloried. The GOP may lose votes among the "latin" populace. But pandering to them does not get votes either.  And the press will always consider the GOP a menace.

If the GOP cannot stand up for its principle against one that takes legal stands that iare against everything the GOP is supposed to stand for, then, the Democrats have won.

there's no win or lose.

That's the problem with sections on both sides of the aisle. We don't have a winner-take-all system. It's a 'win-some-lose-some' system. People often talk of Reagan, but maybe one of the best things about him was that he always had some respect and a smile, in defeat and loss.

Republicans have nominated most of the justices on the court, and the last two. I just don't see where America is going down the tubes because one Democratic president picks a pretty centrist judge. Maybe you disagree with a ruling here, or a personal statement there, but that's life. That's everyone.

So let's say this is WAR!!!! . . . . I don't see it that way, but for whimsy . ..  most military people will tell you, pick your battles. There are such things as tactical loses. Unless National Enquirer digs up something, this woman is very qualified. That's all that's required for confirmation . . . period. Libs don't like Scalia or Thomas, but guess what . . . they have to live them. The haven't consigned the country to hell. This is why we have many justices appointed at different times by different presidents.

Kick back, have beer, throw pillow at the TV and move on! Once she's confirmed, she's just one cog in a very large machine.

Here we go again!!!!!!

The right wing lunatics are out roaming around like zombies ready to attack anything that looks like a democrat —lol. The circular firing squads are starting to assemble, and the de facto leader Rush Limbaugh calls President Obama  and Judge Sonia Sotomayor racists and hopes they both fail---- Go Rush go! The party of small ideas and shrinking numbers is out trying to  work their magic again to make more and more voters disappear from their ranks. Will this be the cataclysmic event that drives the republicans to extinction like the dinosaurs?

 

They can't resist

The conservative base and special interest groups can hardly resist the bait. Attacking Judge Sotomayor is going to bring in a lot of fundraising dollars.

But there are several republicans in the senate who grasp the implications of attacking Judge Sotomayor. They will vote for confirmation despite the screaming howls of the base.

confirmation can be prevented

If the Republicans can prevent the nomination from leaving committee then Sotomayor will not be confirmed.  All it takes is guts on the part of the GOP.

It's rich with irony, no?

Some of the comments here, for sure, are simply too rich with irony to be ignored.

First, we have the usual band of bellyaching purist conservatives and LibbieLoons who thought, just last fall, it would be a fitting punishment for the GOP to lose the WH, lose the Senate, shrink their base in the House because the GOP was no longer "pure enuff" for their brand of hardcore politics.  Damn the RINOs like Dole, Chaffee and others... burn 'em at the stake for failing to adhere to the one truth faith of "It's conservative or damnation".  Well, Sotomayor and the Stimulus bill and the GM takeover are the price to be paid as your punishment for the fundamentally disloyal act of political suicide you thrust upon the Party.

Now, we have those same self-serving, disloyal policy-snits trying to demand the GOP Senators act appropriately or --once again--- we'll damn 'em to Hell and Highwater.

And as "cargosquid" ridiculously notes... it has to be in Committee, no less... or else.  In Committee? Do you even understand how Congressional Committees work, idiot? Stupid, mindless demands made by the very people who wouldn't know "party loyalty" if it bit them on their ample backsides.

Sorry, the Senate Judiciary Committee is made up by a membership split intended to guarantee that the ruling majority party (ps> it's the Democrats, btw) controls the Committee in every plausible instance... and if not, there's Rule 103-A(1) which allows the Chair to adjourn the meeting until a quorum can be secured... just in case those pesky minority members on Committee pack the room.

Despite the nonsense noted in other comments, what the GOP needs to do is to draw a line that Sotomayor is qualified, is a model for progress and achievement for all Americans and immigrants and to point out that she fails to meet the Party's core principle of appointing judicial constructionists, not judicial activists.  But the Pres has earned his right to appoint his choice to SCOTUS --thank you conservatives and LibbieLoon-atics who couldn't stomach voting for McCain.

THAT needs to tbe the only and singular message that arises from the face2face meetings, the Committee hearings, the Senate floor vote and from all the talking heads aligned with the GOP.

And if the racist, bigoted anti-immigrant conservative loudmouths on talk radio start making fun of Judge Sotomayor's background, the Party leadership needs to turn on them and kick their racist butts back into the cave from whence they came.  Solidly.  Roundly.  Loudly.  Publically.

Now that is what "guts" is all about.  Not some stupid demands from disloyal policy snits.

Except for the name calling

You actually had a good point.  All of the objections to Sotomayor need to be base on her qualities as a judge.  No one is talking about her ethnic background or her sex. 

So, if a conservative on talk radio is against illegal immigration, he's a racist or a bigot.  You expect me to be accurate on the Judiciary committe, which btw, CAN be stymied due to NO votes, yet you say things like that.  So far, the only persons I've heard talking about race are the Liberals.  NOT the conservatives or Republicans.  I voted for McCain.  I held my nose, because I loved my country more than I hated McCain as the candidate.  The GOP lost because we had a poor candidate.  All we ask is that Republicans actually act like they stand for something.  Will you also call for the Democrats to solidly, roundly, loudly, and publcally denouce THIER bigots?  Apparently you have your panties in a wad because conservatives ask the party to actually, you know, SUPPORT THEIR OWN PLATFORM.  And you blame the conservatives for chasing away people like Specter.  Specter left because he's an opportunist hack. Not because the party  chased him out.  He was miffed that members of the party asked him to vote with the party.  He had voted with the Democrats enough that he was unreliable.  Other Republicans state things that are indistinguishable from the Democrats.  Or they blame conservatives for losing elections in which conservative values were not mentioned.  The only conservative candidate was Palin and her presence increased the turnout. 

Blaming conservatives for Obama is nonsense.  McCain was supposed to draw the moderates.  Apparently, having even the most moderate candidate does not work in getting Republicans elected. 

 

Try to stop spinning like a whirling dervish.

Right, right, right "you voted for McCain" and the "GOP lost because of the candidate"... you lost me on those first few lies.  Got a bridge for sale in NYC, too?  Check in the mail?

But let's keep our focus, Cargosquid, ok?  Where you really lost me was when you demanded that the GOP stand up and defeat Sotomayor's nomination IN COMMITTEE.  The GOP can't deny the nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee, you twit.  It isn't in the majority.  It doesn't control the hearing.  It doesn't have the capacity to call witnesses to rebutt Sotomayor UNLESS THE DEMOCRAT CHAIR allows it.

And the chances of that happening? 100,000 to 1.

You noted: "If the Republicans can prevent the nomination from leaving committee then Sotomayor will not be confirmed.  All it takes is guts on the part of the GOP."

Tell us all, squidword, how exactly the Senate GOP members serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee can accomplish that feat?  And let's be clear, the Senators serving in MINORITY STATUS on the Sen Judi Comm are not "the GOP".  That's a label usually reserved for the RNC or RNC Chairman, Michael Steele.

The answer:  They can't.  They can't stop her nomination in Committee.  They can't stop the Democrats from getting a floor vote.  They can't stop her from serving.

However, your 4.1m policy-snit soc-con friends could have stopped it if they had been loyal and voted with the GOP last Nov... and now it would be Prez McCain serving and he surely wouldn't have picked Sotomayor given that he was one of 29 Senators who voted against her the last time.

I'm sorry the farRight isn't happy about President Obama's first choice for SCOTUS.  But you guys helped get him elected.  You were out to teach America a lesson; remember?  You thought punishing the GOP would be good move and snap the Party back into the farRight mode; remember?

I hope Sotomayor and Obama's multi trillion dollar deficit sticks in your collective craw and you choke.  You deserve every minute of discomfort.  And you deserve the political slagheap out in the wilderness for making this nomination possible in the first place.

umm... actually

if none of them vote on her, I believe she doesn't leave committee. consult David Waldman at congress matters for details/contraindication.

umm... actually you and David Waldman got it wrong, bub.

The Senate Judi Comm amended its Executive Business Meeting orders shortly after Leahy became Chairman.  The Sototmayor --like any of the 875 judicial nominations-- will be first heard in Committee, then follow-up questions raised in the hearings are prepared and the nominee is given 21 days to answer.  Then the nomination comes back to the Committee under its EBM rules for referral to the floor. The Chair controls the process entirley --without exclusion even if, in EBM, the entire committee membership were to vote against a ruling of the Chair... which would be unlikely in the 1st place. All the GOP members can vote NO in the EBM and her nomination still goes to the floor... it's simple majority under EBM rules.

I wish if David really thought that "Congress Matters", he'd stay abreast of the change in rules and orders.  For a political hack deep in the DailyKos, I guess being accurate is secondary to being sensational?

And you, of all people here Maleficent, should know the perils of quoting anyone on DailyKos as some authority figure.  Those guys make the Libertarian Loon-atics look sane by comparison!

as I said, I think Waldman does a good job

I don't remember always where I'm quoting things from, and I read a LOT. Got a citation for what you're quoting (you're quoting it in enough detail for me to think you aren't doing it off the top of your head, and cites always add credibility).

Plenty of folks on DailyKos are experts in their subject matter. I feel free to quote them as appropriate -- be it about strip mining, influenza outbreaks, or what it means to be stalked by the FBI (that was the 60's, btw).

Of course you think Waldman does a good job...

just like you probably cheer for Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow and lots of other farLeft creeps.

I still think that someone who references the DailyKos proves automatically that they are a few bricks shy of a full load... and woefully ideological in the extreme.  If we need extreme, we've always got ChrissyMatthews and NancyBoToxPelosi and the DailyKos.

because a talk about fly ash

or influenza preparedness is so ideological.

I like comedy. I cheer for Colbert and Stewart because they're funny and marginally educational. Got any rightist comics to recommend?

 

holy shit, the newyorker was funny!

http://www.thenewyorkerstore.com/product_details.asp?mscssid=5G69KSCT0H3...

RAY-SIST TAWK SHOW HOSTS! HEELP!!

Better scurry back to Saginaw & smash your radio - lol.

Anyway... Affirmative-Action knuckle-draggers surround themselves with AA knuckle draggers - color me surprised. Note the slavering about the whole "disadvantaged background" in the press - it's not like anyone 0bamugabe appoints is likely to have anything above the neck. So to divert attention, the confirmation hearings devolve into Li'l Orphan Annie -esque tearjerker garbage.  Can't say it's a big surprise - Odinga's bastard promised us "empathetic judges" and predictably we get some ill-tempered Puerto Rican head case. Considering the state the "Grand" Old Party's in now, my advice to them would be to sob & snivel with the best of the dems & get it over quickly. 

9'o'diamonds has a soul as black as carbon...

What a bunch of unmitigated, utter racist drivel you spew out of that blacken, corrosive mind of yours.

"Odinga", "Obamugabe", "PR headcase"?  The only knuckledragger in these parts is you and your pre-Civil War era bigotry.

Frankly, the GOP doesn't need bigots like you coming over from the Libertarian Party with a fresh set of white sheets over your head.  Stay with the crackheads over there, will ya?

The GOP needs to be surgical

about opposing this candidate. They do have a responsibility to ask the hard questions. And this lady has a track record. I hope she realizes that a Google search will bring all of her words and actions to light.

As far as alienating the Hispanic base . . . not so much. Puerto Ricans are U.S citizens, and their agenda is different from the Mexican/Central American agenda-namely becoming legal in the U.S. There has been some initial elation in some quarters, but at the end of the day this is not like a Mexican -American getting the nomination.

 

To prove you wrong, here is a Mexican-American from your state

 

Chicago Tribune

Lionel Sosa, a Texas-based Republican ad maker who designed Latino outreach for GOP presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, said that opposing Sotomayor "would be one more nail in the Republicans' image coffin in terms of Latino voters."

"When you're anti the first Latina on the Supreme Court, you're anti-my-family. . . . I would take it that these people are anti-Latino," Sosa added. "The worst thing the Republicans can do is oppose her."

A bit of background on Lionel Sosa from Time, 2005

Growing up in San Antonio, Texas, the son of Mexican immigrants, Lionel Sosa was expected to learn a trade, defer to gringos and vote Democratic. But he was so impressed at age 13 by Dwight Eisenhower's version of the American Dream during a televised speech at the 1952 Republican Convention that he decided he wanted to be a rich businessman—and a Republican.

Two decades later, as a struggling ad-agency owner, Sosa helped U.S. Senator John Tower win his 1978 re-election bid with 37% of the Hispanic vote; no Republican in Texas had ever won more than 8%. Soon clients like Bacardi rum, Dr Pepper and Coors beer came seeking his advice on how to woo the Latino market, eventually turning Sosa & Associates into the largest Hispanic advertising agency in the U.S. At one point it was billing more than $100 million annually.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan reached out to Sosa, who created gauzy, feel-good ads that focused on the candidate rather than the issues, promising Latinos that Republicans shared their values of family, personal responsibility and hard work. "It's an insight Ronald Reagan gave me," says Sosa, who has worked on six presidential campaigns. "He told me Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet." With Sosa's help, George W. Bush snared an estimated 40% of Latino voters in 2004, a huge jump from Bob Dole's 21% in 1996. Semiretired, Sosa, 66, now spends most of his time painting and writing (his latest book, Think & Grow Rich: A Latino Choice, is due out next year), but if he gets the call in 2008, he'll be back on the stump.

 

Yes and I suppose

that the Chinese, Japanese,Vietnamese, and Koreans all have the same interests because thay are Asians.

Ignorant redneck.

I'm just setting the record straight

Sorry, but once again you've made a completely baseless and completely wrong statement, I'm just setting the record straigtht.

You: opposition to Sotomayor will not alienate the Hispanic base.

The Hispanic who helped to create the Hispanic base: I feel alienated as hell!

 

Got it

so if you were in charge of hispanic marketing for ,say, Geneal Mills, you would dig up one article that supports your primary bias and then start spending? In your case, probably.

I would micro segment, test, interview, and then determine the real attitudes are of hispanic consumers. Figure out what the acculturated and non -acculturated hispanics would buy and at what price.I would then taylor a message toward these specific groups and develope products that suit their individual tastes.

Saying that "hispanics support this, or hispanics support that" is ignorant.

You diminish them to being as non -thinking as you, and that simply isn't true.

See Prop 8 . . .

 

yeah, right

I would micro segment, test, interview, and then determine the real attitudes are of hispanic consumers.

Right - and you did all these things before concluding:

As far as alienating the Hispanic base . . . not so much. Puerto Ricans are U.S citizens, and their agenda is different from the Mexican/Central American agenda-namely becoming legal in the U.S. There has been some initial elation in some quarters, but at the end of the day this is not like a Mexican -American getting the nomination.

Or did you just jump to the conclusion that best suits your fantasy view of the world?

This situation is exactly the same as with you and Gitmo and torture. In that case, you aren't willing to listen to the what the military experts say. And in this case you aren't willing to listen to the opinion of a guy who has a proven track record of expertise with regard to the the Hispanic community vis a vis the Republican Party.

 

No

You fail, Miss intellectually dishonest liberal.

I was pointing out that you can not paint hispanics with a broad brush.

You catagorize and label people. Its pathetic really, and I have better things to do than waste my time agruaing with a bigot like you.

 

You cannot paint Hispanics with a broad brush - says the man who

You cannot paint Hispanics with a broad brush - says the man who paints Hispanics with a broad brush!

Your original position:

As far as alienating the Hispanic base . . . not so much. Puerto Ricans are U.S citizens, and their agenda is different from the Mexican/Central American agenda-namely becoming legal in the U.S. There has been some initial elation in some quarters, but at the end of the day this is not like a Mexican -American getting the nomination.

Your current position:

I was pointing out that you can not paint hispanics with a broad brush.

You catagorize and label people. Its pathetic really, and I have better things to do than waste my time agruaing with a bigot like you.

Also, this morning, on another thread, you posted:

most hispanics are against gay marriage and abortion

Absolutely splendid.

I guess what you are really saying is that it is OK when you paint Hispanics with a broad brush, but others cannot do it.

Which goes nicely with your idea that you can speak for Hispanics, but Lionel Sosa cannot.

 

Oh you need to look at a map

Puerto Rico isn't in Mexico.

Hope that clears it up for you. Look on Wiki if you don't belive me.

And by the way "Hispanic" isn't a country. Off to the internet with you now. Learn! Learn!

Lonestar Bill, wrong AGAIN

If you capitalize "Texan", as I'm sure you do, then you also capitalize "Hispanic".  From Wikipedia:

Hispanic is a term that historically denoted a relationship to the ancient Hispania (geographically coinciding with the Iberian Peninsula). During the modern era, it took on a more limited meaning, relating to the contemporary nation of Spain.Still more recently, the term is used to describe the culture and people of countries formerly ruled by Spain, usually with a majority of the population having Spanish ancestry and speaking the Spanish language.

How can one man be wrong so often? 

 

So Next Right Nando says

Hispanic is a country.

This is delicious! Why don't you book a vacation there?

As you have already demonstrated elsewhere, your reading

comprehension skills are remarkably poor.

My post says:

Hispanic is a term

A term is not a country. Texas is not a country. Latin America is not a country - but we capitalize it. See how that works? No, you probably don't.

 

At least I knew

Hispanic isn't a country. Looks like you learned something new today, and thats a good thing.

Like you "knew" that Hispanics wouldn't identify with Sotomayor

untill I posted the words of the guy who built the Hispanic base for W, saying he totally identifies with her.

The press is catching up to me

It seems my position is being validated in the press. You must feel stupid.

 

Many Latinos are elated that Obama has nominated a Hispanic, and they relate to her story of success from humble beginnings.

But some would have preferred to see Obama nominate a Mexican-American considering that they make up 70 percent of the nation's 47 million Latinos.

"The argument could be made for (a Mexican-American nominee)," said Raul Yzaguirre, former head of the National Council of La Raza, one of the nation's largest Hispanic civil-rights organization. He is now presidential professor of community development and civil rights at Arizona State University. "I want unity, so I am more inclined to overlook those things and say, 'Let's work together.' "

Though Puerto Ricans and Mexicans share a common language, Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens and are not considered immigrants like Mexicans, said Louis DeSipio, a political-science and Chicano/Latino studies professor at the University of California-Irvine.

As a result, Sotomayor could be less sensitive to immigration issues she may face as a Supreme Court justice than if she were Mexican-American, DeSipio said.

Luz Sarmina, president and CEO of Valle del Sol, a non-profit community-based Latino organization in Phoenix, said that she was thrilled with the choice of a Hispanic but admits that she would have liked to have seen Obama nominate a Mexican-American.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/05/27/20090527scotus-latino0527.html

See, I give you this insight before the experts. Try some original thought!

Ohy yes, that is devastating

Many Latinos are elated that Obama has nominated a Hispanic, and they relate to her story of success from humble beginnings.

Oh yes, that is devastating.

Checkmate

My Original Post:

As far as alienating the Hispanic base . . . not so much. Puerto Ricans are U.S citizens, and their agenda is different from the Mexican/Central American agenda-namely becoming legal in the U.S. There has been some initial elation in some quarters, but at the end of the day this is not like a Mexican -American getting the nomination.

From the Arizona Republic (the next day):

Some analysts caution that Republicans, who have already seen their support among Latinos decline sharply over the issue of immigration, risk further alienating Hispanics by opposing Sotomayor.

But even Latinos are taking a careful look at her nomination.

Though Puerto Ricans and Mexicans share a common language, Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens and are not considered immigrants like Mexicans, said Louis DeSipio, a political-science and Chicano/Latino studies professor at the University of California-Irvine.

As a result, Sotomayor could be less sensitive to immigration issues she may face as a Supreme Court justice than if she were Mexican-American, DeSipio said.

Luz Sarmina, president and CEO of Valle del Sol, a non-profit community-based Latino organization in Phoenix, said that she was thrilled with the choice of a Hispanic but admits that she would have liked to have seen Obama nominate a Mexican-American.

Just drop it, you look foolish.

Very amusing

If selected passages from one article in the Arizona Republic were the final word on anything, then John McCain would be president right now!

But that's OK - you go ahead and stand under the "Mission Accomplished" banner!

Lionel Sosa has outlined the peril for the GOP Senators...

as political sage Karl Rove has noted on more than a few occasions to the farRight bigots on talk radio... the Latino vote was one that the GOP worked very, very hard to cultivate since the days of RonnieReagan.  We blew it when we allowed the farRight anti-American bigots to label all immigrants as illegal and demonize the group just because some lilly-white, undereducated Arkansas redneck couldn't get a job at the chicken plant.

The illegal immigration bigots on farRight talk radio, parading as a para-voice for the GOP, stabbed a knife 2 ft deep into that voter block.  The GOP leadership knows it has to work to repair the damage... if rednecks and racists on the farRight aren't called on the carpet by Michael Steele and others for their anti-immigrant, anti-Latino, anti-Hispanic rhetoric, then the GOP has a long, long, long row to hoe and there won't be any migrant workers in the fields helping 'em, either.

 

So why doesn't the GOP

start pushing for a path to legal status for the current illeagals (which has to be done at some point and it doesn't appear to be on Obama's "to do" list), while closing the border?

 

Umm, Lonestar, we did and you soc-cons trashed us...

The Senate package pushed by McCain and backed by Geo Bush did exactly that --reformed immigration laws, created a path for illegals but not at the expense of properly legal immigrants awaiting citizenship, pushed border security reforms and expenditures linked to demonstrable benchmarks on reforming employer sanctions... etc.

And, as I recall, the farRight trashed Sen McCain's proposals, trashed Bush, trashed the memory of Pres Reagan's heroic stand to reform immigration the last time... whether it was RushBlow, LouDobbs or RoyBeck of NumbersUSA or CATO and Heritage... trashed, trashed, trashed by them all.  In fact, the farRight called it McAmnesty.  It failed narrowly to pass in the Senate.

For nearly another year after that defeat of immigration reform, soc-cons were still whining about illegals, painting all immigrants as illegals, painting all immigrants as brown-skinned heathen from Mexico or drug dealers raping white women on American main streets across the US... and on and on.

Obama's "Don't Do It Now List" also includes repealing DADT, extending federal income tax benefits to same sex partners, devolving the military to JimmyCarter levels... wanna do those in order to bolster the GOP?  Nawh, didn' think so.

Question for you: Were you even awake during the last election cycle?  Good God.

Well Mr. Michigan- Matt

1) I am not a so con.

2) I have three children that are half Central American. They are a tad brown, especially this time of year.

3) I went through the process of legal immigration with their mother

4) I think we need a path to legalization for those illeagals that are here currently.

Now, with regard to your short memory:

The Senate package pushed by McCain and backed by Geo Bush did exactly that --reformed immigration laws, created a path for illegals but not at the expense of properly legal immigrants awaiting citizenship, pushed border security reforms and expenditures linked to demonstrable benchmarks on reforming employer sanctions... etc.

And, as I recall, the farRight trashed Sen McCain's proposals, trashed Bush, trashed the memory of Pres Reagan's heroic stand to reform immigration the last time... whether it was RushBlow, LouDobbs or RoyBeck of NumbersUSA or CATO and Heritage... trashed, trashed, trashed by them all.  In fact, the farRight called it McAmnesty.  It failed narrowly to pass in the Senate.

The problem, as I recall, is it did nothing to address the border issue, so the long term problem was not going to be resolved, and in fact would make the problem worse by rewarding those that can make it accross the border.

For nearly another year after that defeat of immigration reform, soc-cons were still whining about illegals, painting all immigrants as illegals, painting all immigrants as brown-skinned heathen from Mexico or drug dealers raping white women on American main streets across the US... and on and on.

Really? Sounds like you've OD'd on Kos.

Question for you: Were you even awake during the last election cycle?  Good God

Yes i was.