Sonia Sotomayor

After one of the WORST activist based decisions in history, that of April 2, 2007, which gave the EPA the power to treat auto CO2 emissions as an environmental issue, the Supreme Court seems to have finally put its robes on straight and actually READ the Constitution they are sworn to abide by. The court struck down major portions of the bill, especially those relating to the government’s regulation of free speech.

Senator John McCain’s support for this widely unpopular bill turned many Conservative and Independent voters against him, myself among them. That, and his support for amnesty among other “across the aisle” excursions, probably made him unelectable to anyone but party insiders. Frankly, I voted for him only as a vote against Barack Obama.

One hopes that the Supremes would continue their study of the Constitution for what it actually says and not in support of activist goals. It should be noted that President Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, voted against the people of this country.

Supreme Court Of The United States

A number of other things have happened that should have Conservative patriots concerned since Scott Brown overturned Barack Obama’s brown, wormy apple cart. Nancy Pelosi, looking much like she had just bitten into one of those apples, admitted that they did not have the votes for the passage of Obama /Pelosi /Reid care. That’s a good thing, that’s a very good thing. Democrats are scrambling to come up with something that doesn’t smell of defeat and absolute retreat for their boss, while in the face of an indisputable message from the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Obama announced that he would seek a ONE POINT NINE TRILLION DOLLAR increase in the debt ceiling. I’d say “WHAT?!!!” But I used that yesterday. In does point to the incredible disconnect between mainstream America and the ideologically-driven Democrat government, that in the face of a clear message to the contrary the administration would continue down this politically suicidal path.

President Obama also announced the government takeover of the school loan program, another ONE HUNDRED AND THREE BILLION DOLLAR government takeover. There were another 36,000 jobs lost last week, bringing job losses in the ‘Obama recovery’ to some 480,000 since the beginning of the Obama Presidency. Meanwhile, the Feds are planning to give PROTECTED STATUS to 200,000 Haitians. This begs the question, just who the heck is protecting AMERICAN CITIZENS?

Here’s a question to France and that ODIOUS blowhard in Venezuela… where are your aid convoys to Haiti? Gee, guess they must have been delayed. But then we saw the way France treated it’s colonials and how Chavez treats his citizens.

There are Conservatives lining up in challenges to the leftists all over the country and the march to defeat the attempted takeover of our country continues. Now is not a time to slack up or to rest on yesterday’s accomplishments. Now is the time for action. Action begins in your communities. Action begins with you.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

In an op-ed published in Time last month, Republican political consultant Mike Murphy wrote, "[it] was a huge shock to the GOP when Barack Obama won Republican Indiana last year. The bigger news was how he did it. Latino voters delivered the state. Exit polls showed that they provided Obama with a margin of more than 58,000 votes in a state he carried by a slim 26,000 votes. That's right, GOP, you've entered a brave new world ruled by Latino Hoosiers, and you're losing."

I was on the ground in Indiana during much of the 2008 election campaigns working as an Organizing Fellow on the Latino Steering Committee for then-Senator Barack Obama's Campaign for Change in East Chicago. When I began work there in July, many Latino voters were undecided, having supported Hillary Clinton during the long, dramatic Democratic Primary that had opened many wounds.

What persuaded many East Chicago Latinos whom I met to ultimately vote for Obama in '08 was that they felt vilified by the Republican Primary's chest-thumping over immigration reform -- led by then-Congressman Tom Tancredo.  East Chicago's Latinos also shared the increasingly widespread disillusionment with the GOP over the Bush administration's two terms in the Oval Office, terms that left a disproportionately high number of Latinos from places like East Chicago dead on battlefields in the Middle East. These were but two of the many, many grievances East Chicago Latinos had that Republican candidates failed to effectively address during the campaign, if they addressed them at all.  

So...why didn't Republican candidates immediately move to evaluate, engage and inspire Latino voters in the aftermath of then-Senator Clinton's withdrawal?  This was a question I asked my fellow "Hopemongers" throughout the campaign.  The most common response I got was that Republican campaigns were catering to ideologues' anti-immigration bravado.  I found this response to be implausible in that it called into question the competence of the Republican Party's strategists, who horsewhipped their Democratic counterparts through most of the last three decades of American politics.  Or to put it particularly, many foul political qualities are now synonymous with Karl Rove's name; incompetence is not one of them.  

A more plausible variant of the "anti-immigration bravado" responses that were occasionally offered was that anti-immigrant ideologues were indispensable in the existing Republican campaign finance structures; but there is little evidence to support this claim.  

Whatever the reason the GOP chose to ignore (and in many cases, offend) the Latino vote, without it, the party's future would appear to be a series of increasingly humiliating election losses.  According to research done by the Pew Hispanic Center, "Hispanics now make up 22% of all children under the age of 18 in the United States -- up from 9% in 1980."  And the majority of these children [read: future voters] are the U.S. born offspring of immigrants.  One can thus surmise that the current and future states of the American electorate is one in which immigration will not be a vague historical statement of "uniqueness", but a flesh and blood reality of a vast, rapidly growing demographic of potential voters.  To continue to vilify the "illegal aliens" as "criminals" is just the sort of messaging that could create at least one generation of Latino voters with a deep-seated tendency to vote for the Democratic Party's candidates similar to the unanimity Ronald Reagan inspired among Evangelical Christians for the Republican Party.  The difference here is that Evangelicals were a noisy fringe of the overall demographic, whereas Latinos are poised to someday replace Caucasians as the majority demographic in the United States.

Murphy suggests that "[a] smart GOP would be deeply in the microloan and free-English-lessons business in immigrant communities," and that it would also avoid seeking the "cheap applause" of the anti-immigration right.  To Murphy, "cheap" is a quantified word.  He "made a career out of counting votes" and thus recognizes that a serious strategic approach to the GOP's future must accept that the electoral value of noisy anti-immigration posturing is plummeting at a rate roughly commensurate with its ability to win national elections. 

Republican Party strategists should take to heart the extreme sensitivity in the media during this week's Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor to any remark that can be spun into an overall ethnic-, "race-" and gender-related diatribe by Republican lawmakers (and therefore, the Republican Party) against all Latinas (and therefore, all Latinos).  This should come as no surprise to today's GOP strategists, as it was their predecessors who perfected the tactics that are now used against them. 

But Obama's in the White House now, and earlier this year the New York Times reported that "comprehensive immigration legislation, including a plan to make legal status possible for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, would be a priority in [President Obama's] first year in office."  While I have my doubts about just how much of a first year priority comprehensive immigration reform will prove to be, it will be a priority during President Obama's first term; and when comprehensive immigration reform happens, the party that calls it amnesty will fare far worse on election day than the one that supports it as necessary, justice, emancipation, etc.  However it's fed to the media, behind closed doors, what Mike Murphy's vote-counting counterparts in the Democratic Party see in comprehensive immigration reform is 12 million potential votes.

Unless the Republicans prefer losing successive elections by increasingly wide margins, they should encourage Republican lawmakers to stand with President Obama on comprehensive immigration reform.  I know.  I know.  But they broke the law!  They steal 'merican jobs!  They don't even speak English! etc.  The fact remains that a most of them are already us, as in We the People, as in citizens with votes to cast.  And many more of them will be of voting age or naturalized into the electoral processes very soon.  Republicans can't prevent this, and Democrat lawmakers are happy to let a Republican colleague look like a "racist" hillbilly asshole for interrupting a Supreme Court nominee during her confirmation hearing.

Therefore, Republicans should go out of their way to make comprehensive immigration reform as painless as possible.  Obama has mentioned having illegal immigrants pay a fine, as criminals.  Republicans on Capitol Hill could oppose this aspect of the reform bill as a show of good faith to the demographic at the heart of their landslide losses last fall.  Furthermore, Republican Party messaging has always revolved around the rhetoric of the "bootstraps" party of self-determination, manifest destiny, and the importance of family.  Well, these are the very principles that brought successive generations of Latino immigrants to the United States. 

Finally, when their man from Oklahoma, Senator Tom Coburn, interrupts a Supreme Court nominee by attempting to get on television with an innocuous "You'll have lots of 'splainin' to do," call him on it.  Blog, tweet, phone, email, etc. to let him know that interrupting a Supreme Court nominee with a wisecrack--any wisecrack--is not what he's paid to do during a Supreme Court nomination hearing, especially a wisecrack Time can easily interpret as "invoking a phrase familiar to fans of the 1950s sitcom I Love Lucy, on which Lucy's long-suffering husband Ricky Ricardo (Cuban-American Desi Arnaz in real life) would often utter the refrain in exasperation at his zany wife's antics."  But before any of this can happen, Republicans must first recognize that the rise of the Latino voter is as inevitable as a naturalization process for the suspected twelve million undocumented immigrants in the United States.  Failing to do so is to insist upon the Republican Party's indefinite political irrelevance.

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.

By  Rose Pedenko 

My father passed away in December of 2007 at the ripe old age of 104, just two months shy of his 105th birthday.  To the last year of his life, he swore thatVick’s VapoRub was a cure-all for everything that ailed him.  Who am I to argue, after all, he died of old age. 

It got me to thinking that the English language was very much like Vick’s VapoRub in our family and that it is likely the answer to much of what ailsAmerica today. 

A host of problems stem from an inability or lack of will by immigrants to grasp the basics of our national language.  “English-Only” legislation is perpetually thwarted by liberals, educators, and politicians to advance their respective misguided agendas—and we see the impact of the dismal results on our children.  Bi-lingual education in our schools has been an unmitigated failure. In less than 50 years, it also has become not only absurd but politically incorrect to be an English-Only adherent or proponent. 

The English language is the fundamental tool we use to read and thus understand the world around us. It allows us to thrive and succeed in this country -- unhampered by the limitations imposed by tyrannical governments or radical religions on its citizens around the world.  In America, thus far, we have been free to choose our own paths to self-actualization. 

Before any members of the PC crowd get huffy, my parents were legal non-English speaking immigrants from Mexico.  Total immersion into this English speaking culture was a necessity prior to the late 1960s, not an option.  There were no crutches to impede our progress like “Press 1 for Spanish.”  It was a sink or swim assimilation.  Becoming an American occurred almost effortlessly, not because we had no other choice, but, more importantly, because we wanted to be Americans. 

We spoke Spanish at home to be understood by our parents, and in turn, guided them through the initial language hurdles.  It was both a privilege and a test of their own determination to become American citizens, particularly at a time when citizenship classes and exams were not offered in their native language.  And I never once heard them complain about an unfair cultural challenge, or that the government should make it easier for them. 

Fluency in both cultures became seamless, and apple-pie-laden patriotism was our dessert. 

Today, many on the left laugh derisively over that little understood and antiquated fervor to become an integral part of the American fabric which was so inextricably woven into our flag 232 years ago. 

I’m not embarrassed nor hindered in this fervor for all things American by the likes of Bill Maher or David Letterman.  It is neither pedestrian nor witless to believe in the principles that made this country great. 

My parents’ children grew up knowing they are honest to goodness red-blooded Americans.  There was no “Mexican-American” moniker to identify or categorize us -- we knew who we were and are, and wear it with pride.  Our unaccented English paved the way into a society where the only person to blame for holding you back was yourself.  You choose success over failure, and it is not guaranteed or handed to you.  And that is the precious freedom held most dear by legal immigrants. 

This then begs the question, do we, by and large, create the prejudices that feed on themselves as a way to cope -- now that diversity has been shoved down our throats?  When we reject what it means to be an American, it creates baggage that should have been left at the border.  Today, immigrants have been taught they can have the best of both worlds.  They can retain their culture (which is the excess baggage) while taking advantage of U.S.freedoms and benefits without paying for it.  What remains are cross-cultural expectations that will never be realized because they no longer fully identify with either country. 

So many of the cultural problems we face can be traced to this forced acceptance of diversity, and a lack of language skills which impedes progress.  PC guilt, inculcated by do-gooder academics, has led to anger arising from lawbreakers earning rewards they would not otherwise be entitled to.  It made this week’s Supreme Court reversal of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s prior ruling very sweet indeed. 

One language is the glue that produces unity, and unity in a people breeds strength.  Right now, unity and strength are sadly lacking in this country.  Our political parties are divided and our nation has been rendered weak by appeasement.  America is turning into a Tower of Babel by the left’s efforts to reach their Utopian ideal. 

The day we can all celebrate American holidays and traditions together, and bring those exotic ancestral spices to the table for the purpose of conversation, will be the day divisiveness takes a back seat to what drives this country forward--English. 

Happy Independence Day.

There's been much gnashing of teeth on the Right about some rather simplistic attacks on Judge Sonia Sotomayor charging her with being a "racist".

Well, this is inflammatory, overblown and self-defeating.  It's pretty obvious that the frequent and deliberate "wise latina" comments don't rise to the commonly understood level of the term; nor is there evidence in her opinions that rises to this level.

On the other hand, a less emotionally charged term might fit here.  Do the numerous speeches given by Judge Sotomayor represent that she believes in multiculturalism?   

The traditional American cultural template is that while each group that enters our society enriches us, all join in a common nation sharing common goals.  E Pluribus Unum and all that. Multiculturalism turns this on its head, that we are members of separate groups first, and Americans to the extent we choose to align ourselves.

from Wikipedia: 

In 1991, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., a former advisor to the Kennedy and other US administrations and Pulitzer Prize winner, published a book with the title The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. Schlesinger states that a new attitude — one that celebrates difference and abandons assimilation — may replace the classic image of the melting pot, in which differences are submerged in democracy. He argues that ethnic awareness has had many positive consequences to unite a nation with a "history of prejudice"; however, the "cult of ethnicity", if pushed too far, may endanger the unity of society. According to Schlesinger, multiculturalists are "very often ethnocentric separatists who see little in the Western heritage other than Western crimes." Their "mood is one of divesting Americans of their sinful European inheritance and seeking redemptive infusions from non-Western cultures."

There's a big difference between the usual bean counting by ethnic, geographic and political groups (which it's clear Judge Sotomayor has engaged in) and being a multiculuralist.  I too want to see people of my background properly represented in the institutions of society. A multiculturalist wants to do this to change the institution itself. It's reasonable to ascertain if a nominee seeks to accomplish that and determine how comfortable we are with that approach.

The frequent appearance by this jurist before a group labelling itself "La Raza" is a reasonable place of inquiry: to what extend does she share this group's goals and agenda and to what extent does that influence her future judicial conduct?  Certaintly it is as reasonable a point of inquiry as whether a jurist is a member of the Federalist Society? 

In this venue, the summary treatment of the Ricci case may provide insight: that a reverse discrimination claim appeared not to be of sufficient weight  to warrant an elaborate legal  review. Perhaps the Judge doesn't see when do we reach the end of the affirmative action road as viewed by Justice O'Connor?.

I also reject that all Hispanic lawyers and jurists are of similar mind on these points: to that end I'd like to hear from the likes of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz on this nominee's agenda.

In the late 1990's former NYC Mayor Giuliani challenged the application of multiculturalism in the administration of justice.  His approach was "One City, One Standard".  As a NY resident, it should be hard for the Judge not to have an opinion on the wisdom and efficicacy of Giuliani's race-neutral approach to governance.  The rest of America ought to get a sense where she stands on this. 

And abrasive name calling simply makes it easier for her to duck the important philosophical questions she ought to address. 

Judge Sotomayor is an experienced appellate jurist who is qualified to be promoted and probably will be confirmed. Are we going to use this to make this a teachable moment on what judicial policies we favor, or will we just let this pass?  

I read over the week end that Sonia Sotomayor's decision against a plaintiff in a New York case involving the 2nd Amendment was based on her contention that the protections of our Bill of Rights only apply to the Federal Government!    

Tell me it ain't so.

While I think I understand the 10th Amendment, I also assumed that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights protection supersede state legislatures. Perhaps I am wrong on this score and freedom of speech, of religion, of a free press can now all be taken away from us at the whim of our state legislatures -- who would have imagined.

ex animo

davidfarrar

This is devestating.  In 2006, Sotomayor dissented on this case, arguing that because Latinos and Blacks make up a disproportionate portion of the prison population (because they commit a disproportionate amount of the crime) they are covered under the Voting Rights Act.  This argument is patentedly absurd on it's face, not to mention it's sheer nuttieness.

Anyone who thinks felons are covered under the Voting Rights Act has NO BUSINESS on the Supreme Court.  The last thing we need are politicians pandering to felons.

As a sidenote, this is another reason the abomination that is the Voting Rights Act should be repealed.

The debate over whether and how much Senate Republicans should oppose Sonia Sotomayor is grinding along. I personally don't think it's the worst thing in the world if Republicans got more aggressive than they currently seem to be comfortable with, and for the following reasons. 

Not Blowing the Whistle on a Solid Liberal Like Sotomayor Creates a Bad Precedent for Decades to Come. The left is trying to spin the Sotomayor nomination as a pick in the mold of what moderate conservative John Roberts was to Bush -- a moderate liberal "slam dunk." In reality, she is more like the liberal Sam Alito, whose strongly conservative tendencies were seen as a suitable replacement upon Rehnquist's death (remembering that Roberts first had to clear a lower conservative bar to replace Sandra Day O'Connor). Is there any doubt that Sotomayor wouldn't at least tie Ginsburg and Stevens as the biggest liberal on the Court?

The calculus is this: if you let a leftist judge sail through where an Alito would get at least 40 no votes you create a precedent whereby it's considered okay for Obama or future Presidents to nominate far-leftists with impunity, while conservatives always have to jump through extra hoops. The President gets his judges most of the time, but differences are made at the margins.  Republican Presidents will always have an incentive to be more cautious or play games with Supreme Court picks, as Bush tried to do in nominating Harriet Miers, which was initially seen as a play to placate Harry Reid, who wanted a non-judge.

In past years, Senate Democrats have been far, far more aggressive in stalling Bush judicial picks than even Republicans were in the late Clinton years. Republicans played up their light treatment of liberals Ginsburg and Breyer during the 2005 court fights, even coining the term "The Ginsburg Precedent" to legitimize bipartisan support for an ideologue with judicial credentials, but where did this get us exactly? The media's playing up the danger of opposing a minority is cruelly ironic in light of the Democrats' shameful treartment of Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown, and their specific strategy of Borking minority conservatives to lower courts to head off a future Supreme Court pick. Schumer and Co. play for keeps, and Senate Republicans should not be afraid to do the same when we are talking about lifetime appointments. 

We Can't Be Afraid of Legitimate Criticism of the "First" Minority. Much hay has been made of how delicately Republicans will have to handle the first Latina nominee, as though the media assumes that the GOP's first instinct would be to race-bait.

Well, here's some news: Sotomayor is not the only "first" minority on the political scene today the media routinely shields with a protecting coating because of the genuine historicity of their rise. Another lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Many of the same reasons for treating Sotomayor "delicately" were brought up as reasons for treating Obama delicately last year, so much so that the heroic self-conception of the press as a check on the government has become disturbingly laughable.

Republicans cannot shy away from legitimate critcisms of Sotomayor's job performance and judicial philosophy, just as we will have to learn to more effectively criticize Obama. If you concede the point that criticism of an historic, "first" minority is out of bounds, that doesn't say much for GOP prospects for the next eight years.

At the same time, we will need to ostracize those who would bring ethnicity into the equation. If Republicans don't like the tenor of the opposition, we should not be afraid to nuke the bad actors on our side while amping up criticism of Sotomayor's legal record. The trick is not so much being delicate but being rough both with the left and certain people on the right to insulate against charges that our opposition is anything other than policy-based. The ideal messaging to my mind would be as follows:

1. Tom Tancredo is an idiot.
2. Sotomayor's decisions, her stated penchant for "making policy" from the bench, and her high reversal rate among those she aspires to join all render her nomination profoundly troubling.
3. Tom Tancredo is still an idiot.

Remember also: Supreme Court fights are inherently elite D.C. fights. Don't expect voters, even Latino voters, to passionately engage. Most people correctly perceive the Court as being far removed and even irrelevant to their daily life and whether they will keep their job -- and that's as it should be. Has there ever been a mass movement for or against a Court nominee, even a Thurgood Marshall, a Sandra Day O'Connor, or a Clarence Thomas?

I can't believe Bill O'Reilly bought the racial premise on this nomination hook line and sinker.

Disappointing, to say the least....

The fact remains this Supreme Court nominee endorsed Judges userping the constitutional role of politicians; shouldn't politicans rebel?!?

Again, I'm skeptical we can keep her off the court; I do, however, think we can pin her down on certain legal positions that can only benefit us once the Supreme Court hears issues of Flag Burning, Patriotism, and the 10 Commandments.

I hope this helps.

Cahnman out.

As expected, and widely predicted even before the choice of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court was announced, portions of the right wing have been engaging in their usual politics of personal destruction to distort Sotomayor’s record and engage in character assassination. In this case the right is actually divided. Some conservatives see attacks on Sotomayor as part of their grand strategy for 2012 of painting Obama as a leftist, and many other conservatives  just fall into character assassination as a Pavlovian response to any action from a Democrat.

In contrast, some conservatives realize that it is counter to their goal of receiving greater Hispanic support to someone who is probably the first Hispanic nominee. I wonder if any on the right are also beginning to realize the degree to which their reliance on the politics of personal destruction has backfired, with even many who might not vote against them based upon their beliefs now wishing to disassociate themselves with the Republican Party and conservative movement due to their unsavory tactics.

There is far too much material and too little time to quote everything of relevance here so I will try to choose some of the best links. A case such as this is an example of both the blogosphere at its worst and best. At worst the blogs permit the right wing echo chamber to repeat the same lies and distortions, allowing good conservative sheep to quickly learn which lies to repeat. At best the blogoshpere has quickly presented far more actual analysis than has been present in the news media.

To begin, The Scotus Blog has presented a summary of her decisions in posts here, here, and here. Her decisions have often been on narrow, technical grounds and only provide limited insight into her views on the types of issues considered by the Supreme Court (despite attempts by the right to mischaracterize her as having a far left record ). There are some favorable signs with respect to her views on First Amendment rights.

There are many blog posts responding to the character assassination from the right, such as from Adam Server here and here,  John Cole, Matthew Yglesias, Digby, Steve Benen, Chris Bowers (here and here), Nate Silver, Greg Sargent,  Media Matters,  Joan Walsh, Mahablog, and Ta Nehisi Coates. They include responses to some of the more prominent attacks from the right including distorted claims about her decisions being overturned, claims about her competence,  their rants against empathy, and statements taken out of context to claim she is racist or sexist.

Hopefully these links contain the facts with regards to all the falsehoods already being spread by the right wing noise machine–at least so far. The fiction writing ability of the right far exceeds their competence or principles, and we can expect many more comparable lies to be spread.

While conservatives quickly launched a smear campiagn full of misinformation on Sonia Sotomayor, it looks like it might already be fizzling out. There is no doubt that some right wing bloggers and talk radio propagandists will continue to repeat the same lies indefinitely. Those indocrinated in far right propaganda have a tough time shaking it off regardless of how much evidence is presented that they are wrong.  There are still some who claim that Obama isn’t a natural born American citizen and that there is some validity to the discredited claims of the Swift Boat Liars against John Kerry. There are also some signs of rationality as some conservatives realize that, barring some unexpected revelations, none of their false claims will be enough to prevent Sotomayor’s nomination from being approved.

The right wing attacks have been based on limited and distorted evidence and are so weak that even some conservatives are not able to go along. Some such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich are making claims that she is a racist–a claim which certainely takes a lot of chutzpah considering the record of the GOP. These claims were based upon taking a few lines out of context from a lecture given in 2001. The simple fact that claims of racism are based upon a single lecture from almost eight years ago should already raise some red flags as to the validity of the argument. Rod Dreher reviewed the statements which earlier had him thinking she was racist in context and conceded,  I was wrong about Sotomayor speech.

They have made an even weaker argument in dishonest claims that sixty percent of her cases were overturned by the Supreme Court. This argument is so deceitful that it might help open a few more eyes as to the dishonest tactics regularly employed by the right wing noise machine. They leave out the important facts that she only had five cases reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court typically reverses 75% of circuit court decisions that rules on. Having three cases reversed is hardly meaningful. This actually represents 2% of her total cases, far less than the 60% number misleadingly cited by the right.

The attackers also claimed that Sotomayor has a far more liberal record than she actually has. Her decisions have offen been based upon narrow technical grounds specific to the individual case  as opposed to ideology. The conservatives who have actually looked at her record are finding that she is far more centrist and far less ideological than they first heard. She has a very limited record with regards to abortion, and opponents of abortion rights found that her record was not what they expected. Steven Waldman wrote:

One has to assume Obama wouldn’t have appointed Sonia Sotomayor without some indication that she’s pro-choice but — based on very, very little information — I wonder if she might not end up being an abortion centrist.

First, in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, she actually ruled against the pro-choice group on Constitutional grounds.

Second, in Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford, she ruled in favor of the rights of anti-abortion protestors.

Neither of these cases dealt with the merits of abortion. Nonetheless, it’s interesting that in the two cases we know of that related partly to abortion, she took the position that pro-life groups would have wanted (albeit for reasons unrelated to Roe v. Wade). At a minimum, these cases would seem to indicate that, if she is pro-choice, she didn’t let those views affect her view of the relevant law.

While some bloggers and right wing pundits will repeat any attack, the arguments are appearing to be too weak even for the Senate Republicans. Mike Allen reports that any Republican opposition to her is fizzling out quickly:

More than 24 hours after the White House unveiling, no senator has come out in opposition to Sotomayor’s confirmation.

“The sentiment is overwhelming that the Senate should do due diligence but should not make a mountain out of a molehill,” said a top Senate Republican aide. “If there’s no ‘there’ there, we shouldn’t try to create one.”

So far there is certainly no ‘there’ there in the accusations being fabricated by the right. The attacks upon Sotomayor are so weak, and so transparently false, that if they have any impact it should be to increase the backlash against the Republicans. It takes a certain amount of chutzpah for the Republicans to raise charges of racism against others and only their most hardcore supporters can even listen to such claims without chuckling at them. Maybe Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice is on to something and their attacks are being orchestrated by a mole out to further destroy the Republican Party:

In instance after instance since Obama’s 2008 election and the Democratic sweep of Congress, the GOP is proving itself to be not so much “stuck on stupid” as much as “stuck on preaching to its (already convinced) choir.” It seems oblivious to the fact that OTHER voters — from critically important ethnic and age demographics — need to be courted which means being at least partially on the same cultural wavelength. Today’s Republican party is seemingly Super-glued to the slash-and-burn, characterize and demonize conservative talk radio political culture.

It’s hard to imagine that a party that has problems with independent voters and Latino voters so going out of its way to repel voters it needs, unless there is a Democratic mole inside the GOP instigating these comments.

Calling her a racist will get lots of publicity but it’s going to drive many Hispanic voters away in droves. And so will the faces delivering this message: the well-fed, sizeable face of multi-millionaire private- jet-owner Limbaugh, sitting in front of his mike, and the very familiar face of Gingrich. Many Americans (who are not millionaires or who aren’t conservative Republicans) will look at and compare the two GOPers’ life narratives with that of Sotomayor. Even worse: many independent voters, Democrats who may not be enamored with Obama, and moderate Republicans have already distanced themselves from the GOP. This latest barrage at Sotomayor now clearly is part of a pattern: no matter what the issue, the GOP is responding now with demonization in attempts to stir up hot button resentments and/or political rage.

And even worse for the GOP: its unlikely to resonate among the younger voters the GOP will need to regain footing in the 21st century.

So, except for getting nods of approval and cries of “That’s the way, go get ‘em!” from Republicans, what gains will Republicans (via talk shows, Gingrich and weblogs) make in accusing Sotomayor of being a racist — except, rightfully or wrongfully, causing some on the fence to conclude that those Republicans raising the racism issue could perhaps be mistakenly talking about what they are seeing when they look in the mirror?

A mole might be the most rational explanation for the manner in which the Republicans persist in utilizing tactics which drive away rational voters, but unfortunately what we are seeing is the actual mindset of the conservative movement.

Barring any unexpected findings she will be easily confirmed. The manner of the right wing attacks are now one of the most  significant aspects of this story, considering that any pick would have been subjected to similar lies from the right wing. Their distortion of her judicial record is very similar to how the right typically distorts voting records, such as taking an up or down vote on an overall budget and then launching attacks based upon saying a Senator voted for or against a specific item in the budget.

In a democracy  it is an extremely serious issue when votes are being influenced not by the actual facts or serious discussion over different viewpoints but based upon repeated campaigns of distortion such as this. It is important for a democracy to work for the voters to be working from accurate information, not the misinformation regularly spread by the right. It would be both legitimate and healthy for the democratic process if conservatives responded to a nominee with an honest discussion of the areas where they disagreed. Instead they ignore her actual record, as they also do with political candidates, and launch attacks based upon fabrications created by distortions of the record and taking statements out of context.