U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has resigned from the all-women Belizean Grove club — waiting for Friday to try to bury the announcement in the weekend news. Sotomayor did not express any personal concerns or regrets about joining an exclusive club and only stated that she did not want it to be a “distraction” from her record.
In a letter to the Senate Judiciary, Judge Sotomayor explained “I believe the Belizean Grove does not practice invidious discrimination and my membership did not violate the Judicial Code of Ethics, but I do not want questions about this to distract anyone from my qualifications and record.” It is the type of Beltway statement that leaves me cold. Before this nominee, liberals fought any nominee who belonged to an exclusive club confined to men or whites. Here, Sotomayor does not regret joining or oppose the exclusivity of the club — only regrets that it has proven controversial. If she likes discriminatory clubs, I would have much preferred her to regain a member and defend her decision. This announcement would only seem normal in Washington: abandoning the association for the express purpose of avoiding any personal repercussions.
Sotomayor was often suggested as a nominee for George W. Bush and has a fairly conservative voting record in some areas like free speech, police abuse, and student rights.
For the full story, click here
Charles Grashow could have cast his vote for McGovern in 1968 if he lived in South Dakota.
McGovern was elected to the Senate in 1962 and reelected in 1968 and 1974.
“What say you?”
“my first vote was very proudly cast for Greorge McGovern in 1968”
charles grashow,
You are right I don’t know anything about you save that you didn’t cast your first vote for McGovern in 1968 since McGovern didn’t run as the Party’s candidate until 1972. He did not run in any primary contests in 1968 either. So I guess I do know that you play fast and loose with history, or you are the type of hypocrite who pretends to be something he is not.
“I’ve been a life long progressive – lived on several communes in my hippie days as well”
A “Lifelong Progressive” wouldn’t have made these statements:
“Hypocrisy thy name is liberal.”
“I expect better from my friends on the left”
A “Lifelong Progressive” is not someone who would separate
himself from the Left, or do a blanket characterization of liberals in that manner. I doubt that you are what you claim and so you would be open to the same charge of hypocrisy that your bestow on others. However, since I admittedly don’t know you and giving you the benefit of the doubt, I would be forced to look to your further post above.
In it you change your thrust from liberals and leftists to the Democratic Party. You claim anti-war credentials and yet push aside opprobrium towards the total Republican decision for and entanglement in the wars.
“What once Democrats could argue was “Bush’s war,” they now officially own.”
You state this as a purported ant-war person and yet show no interest in the fact that the Bush Crime Family committed war crimes in pursuing the war and created it through a fabric of lies. My take is that you have no interest in Bush and Cheney being prosecuted for this treason, since you evince little interest in it.
There is only one way to take any of what you have to say seriously and that would be for you to categorically state that Bush and Cheney lied us into war and that they were war criminals in the prosecution of that war. Anything less than that proves that you are indeed a hypocrite for acting under the color of beliefs you do not share in order to pursue your childish notions of propaganda.
I say you’ve done nothing to save yourself from the allegation you’re a hypocrite calling others hypocritical. And your assessment of “ownership” of the war is pure wishful thinking. You still want to play partisan hack games. IT’S NOT ABOUT PARTY, IT’S ABOUT CRIMINALS. You want to point fingers at party? Well guess what, sport, just like in real life you end up with 4 fingers pointing back at you.
What I say is you shouldn’t waste our time defending criminals if that’s your best effort. The most egregious criminals are in fact Republicans. They started the war against a country that hadn’t attacked us based on what they readily admit are lies, pardon me, “intelligence errors”. They are criminals first and Republicans second as far as starting an illegal war and trampling the Constitution goes, but that in no way excuses the Dems that enabled them. Pelosi and Reid both should go to prison if they knew about torture but that in NO WAY excuses your boys in Bush Co. Aiding and abetting as well as conspiracy are still crimes. You want to blame Congress? Fine. They got some of that coming to them, but the pooch was screwed on the Republican’s watch at the White House and it was REPUBLICANS who pushed trashing the Constitution to make money for their buddies. Just like the Insurance Lobby right now is trying to assert their “ownership rights” over the DNC to try to kill national health insurance, Big Oil and Saudis told their slaves at the RNC (and a few Dems too) they had purchased through the scumbags on K Street and made sure that the Saudi crimes were never addressed because Exxon and Halliburton could steal Iraq’s oil instead of stomping the crap out of Riyadh which is what would have happened after 9/11 if justice were being served. They knew it’d be easy to get the boy chimp to believe Iraq was responsible for an attack carried out by Saudi men and money. Just get Rummy to throw some Bible verses at the end-of-times zealot and he’d jump through whatever burning hoop the military and Big Oil pointed him toward as long as Daddy’s Friends Made Money and George’s Oedipal complex got massaged. But if you want to just want to keep casting things in terms of “Dems Bad, GOP Good”, you’re either disingenuous, have a partisan agenda, are intractably naive, are not paying attention to what actually happened, are more susceptible to propaganda than most, are intractably stupid or some combination of the above. You don’t strike me as stupid and you know what they say about processes of elimination. That’s what I say.
All things Sotomayor from:
_________________________________
The National Law Journal’s ongoing coverage of the confirmation process of Sonia Sotomayor as U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Check back for updates.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202430758593&The_Sotomayor_Nomination&slreturn=1
_________________________________
Currently:
_________________________________
Sotomayor, word by word
2d Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s thoroughness usually finds its way into her writing and offers partial explanation for what some see as a weak spot in her résumé: long, plodding opinions that review every moment in the case history and cite, explore and dispose of every point made in the briefs and arguments.
_________________________________
“Before this nominee, liberals fought any nominee who belonged to an exclusive club confined to men or whites. Hypocrisy thy name is liberal.”
“And this proves what? I expect better from my friends on the left”
charles grashow,
If this is the best you can do and I suspect it is, why should I go further to refute it, when it is inane on its’ face? Buddha is correct, you need to bring more than this to the table to elicit anything more than a dismissive ho hum.
First of all you know nothing of my background – my first vote was very proudly cast for Greorge McGovern in 1968 and I’ve been a life long progressive – lived on several communes in my hippie days as well
You have no idea how furious I am with with the Obama administration in terms of civil liberties, not investigating the war crimes committed by the past administratio, etc
My point is that if a judge was nominated to the Supreme Court by a republican president and that judge was found to be a member of an all white club the shouts from the left would be of such intensity that people would get headaches
Hypocrisy is what it is – the size means nothing – so Mike’s argument that the Bush administration was worse is meaningless in terms hypocrisy
Another example – the Dems were screaming holy hell when Bush would ask for war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan
Now the Dems are in charge so what happens
http://www.alternet.org/world/140715/shame:_the_'anti-war'_democrats_who_sold_out_/?page=entire
In a vote that should go down in recent histories as a day of shame for the Democrats, on Tuesday the House voted to approve another $106 billion dollars for the bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and increasingly Pakistan). To put a fine point on the interconnection of the iron fist of U.S. militarism and the hidden hand of free market neoliberal economics, the bill included a massive initiative to give the International Monetary Fund billions more in U.S. taxpayer funds.
What once Democrats could argue was “Bush’s war,” they now officially own. In fact, only five Republicans voted for the supplemental (though overwhelmingly not on the issue of the war funding). Ron Paul, who made clear he was voting against the war, was a notable exception.
This vote has revealed a sobering statistic for the anti-war movement in this country and brought to the surface a broader issue that should give die-hard partisan Democrats who purport to be anti-war reason for serious pause about the actual state of their party. Only 30 Democrats voted against the war funding when it mattered. And these 30 did so in the face of significant threats to their political future from the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. That means that only 30 out of 256 Democrats are willing to stand up to the war and the current president presiding over it.
What say you?
Charles,
For one thing, Mike impeached your ability to call anyone hypocritical . . . and be taken seriously by a critical thinker anyway.
You who is without sin be the first to cast the first stone because if you throw out a charge you yourself are guilty of, people are going to laugh and throw the rocks back at you. There are reasons D.A.’s and judges are generally not felons. Avoiding that impeachment trap would one of those reasons.
You got what you deserved from your weak statement – a dismissive reply. You may be disappointed with your “friends on the left” but you have nothing on the disappointment the world has with your “friends on the right”. Partisan hackery is so counterproductive when what we are at heart addressing are CRIMES. Left, right, R, D, who gives a damn? They’re criminals in the Bush Administration and the Congress (ESPECIALLY the Senate) and the White House continue to enable them and protect them from prison. The label “criminal” overrides the other BS. So by all means, play the partisan card to protect criminals. It shows a lot about your character too.
And please continue to bluster about with your partisan sniping. Continue because if that’s the best you’ve got, Mike is going to chew you up. We need negative examples around here too, even if they are amateur efforts more suited for the kiddie pool. And I say kiddie pool because your attack was the equivalent of “You lib-ur-alls are all hypocritical weenies! Nanny nanny boo boo!”
You’ll have to bring a better game than that to this playground unless you just like getting stomped. The Big Kids play here.
Mike Spindell
1, June 22, 2009 at 10:49 am
charles grashow,
I would need a large book just to list the hypocrisies of those you would probably call conservatives. The predominant one was that GW Bush lost the 2000 & 2004 elections and none of those you probably support said a word, except in support of him. That was hypocrisy that bordered on treason.
And this proves what? I expect better from my friends on the left
This is an example why we must thoroughly vet prospective Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, etc.
Every human being is a hypocrite about something and—most often—hypocritical regarding many aspects of life. Only the best of us understand that troubling, innate human trait and strive to overcome its grip over us by following and adhering to the trifecta of our Republic: the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights et al.
Currently, I am still a proponent of Ms. Sotomayor’s appointment. Bear in mind, the delay that will occur without her appointment and the possible interim SCOTUS rulings that will mostly be conservative splits while the USA is awaiting Obama’s second horse in this race, if Ms. Soto finishes out of the money, in the rear of the pack.
Her resignation from the club, after such was reported in the press, would indicate one of two (three) things:
(1) She was unaware of the ABA rules (or simply didn’t care)
..or..
(2) she wants her sin to be forgiven (much like a speeder should not receive a ticket, because they slowed down when they saw the lights in their rear-view mirror).
Neither demonstrates the desired character that I would expect from a Justice on our highest court.
charles grashow,
I would need a large book just to list the hypocrisies of those you would probably call conservatives. The predominant one was that GW Bush lost the 2000 & 2004 elections and none of those you probably support said a word, except in support of him. That was hypocrisy that bordered on treason.
Before this nominee, liberals fought any nominee who belonged to an exclusive club confined to men or whites.
Hypocrisy thy name is liberal.
I found this news item to be quite disturbing. This club was a typical irrelevancy thrown in to besmirch her. With her resignation, which no doubt resulted from conversations with Administration people, she/they expose a triangulation tendency that would make Bill Clinton proud. I, however, was most disenchanted and still am, with triangulation as a political strategy. This is a strategy of weakness, rather than craftiness. Ultimately, triangulation means there are no basic principles, only political necessities. I am becoming highly skeptical of this appointment, which I originally viewed with favor and will again call/write the WH & Congress to make my views known.
One other point needs to be made and that is about the the Judges’ inspirational background. Her rise is indeed a remarkable one and shows a combination of high intelligence and perseverance. However, poverty and depredation does not ensure empathy and understanding for those coming from similar milieu’s. Sometimes this familiarity breeds contempt.
So while her story may inspire, it is very possible she learned the wrong lessons, or sided with those very forces which oppressed her and those in her situation.
AY,
It’s a good thing you know better then. 😀
Buddha,
If I did not know better I’d think you were not a support of the Good Ole White Boys Club. White Boys Network. Coming to a Sct Nearest you.
AY,
In Re Thomas & the White Boys Club
Thomas can’t be a racial turncoat. Thomas isn’t black. He’s Neocon Republican-colored. It’s in the brown family of colors all right for those of you wondering.
Sotomayor, on the other hand, the more I learn about her, the more she and Obama look like just more of the same evasive and illegal action endorsing Bush-it. I already completely and totally disrespect Scalia and Roberts (two of the three most revolting Justices in the history of SCOTUS, including Rehnquist to round out the lineup). I won’t make it personal, but it’d be real easy as they are to a one not the kind of people I’d want living next door to me based on their personalities or lack thereof. So by all means, let’s appoint another person who thinks corporations are more important than people and that law is only for the little people. It has worked out so well this far. But as far as Sotomayor goes? I’m done with her. Don’t want her on the Court. After watching her flounder about in the media for a bit, I really think she’s going to be counterproductive to human and civil rights. She’s not up to the task of taking on the Roberts/Scalia cabal either ethically or intellectually. She’s a placeholder for the status quo – you know, that status quo of kissing up to Exxon and DuPont and AIG and Wal-Mart (instead of working for the citizens and the best interest of the country) that has brought this country nothing by economic pain and ruination in addition to an illegal and unnecessary war that those in Washington now are completely spineless about closing down and jailing the fascist criminal instigators.
Screw business as usual. Or didn’t you morons in DC get the memo last November?
Start fixing things Washington or don’t be surprised when the torch-bearing mobs eventually show up. You don’t like that idea? START DOING YOUR DAMN JOBS AND UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION INSTEAD OF YOUR CHECKBOOKS, YOU VENAL SCUMBAGS. Otherwise, the day politicians start dying for their myopic stupidity and narcissistic vanity, don’t come to me for help . . . I’m not on YOUR side since you’ve spent the last 8 years pissing on the Constitution directly or helping the Neocons and the Corporatists do the same. Sotomayor is not a friend to We the People. She’s just more of the same low quality bullshit we’ve gotten in nominees lately. Someone the lobbyists and ideologues can manipulate. She’ll have to go a long way to prove to me otherwise at this point. I doubt she can (to my satisfaction).
This is dumb. It’s like Geithner “forgetting” to pay his taxes and remembering he should get that done before confirmation. She belonged to it. Resigning before confirmation is a meaningless gesture. At least we got some cold hard cash out of Timmy! Maybe she can pay this year’s dues to the Tresurery?
rafflaw,
The reason I chose Thomas as opposed to Roberts is he is part of the White Boys Club. Not that I am aware of has he had the ability of any affirmative action programs work to his benefit.
It is sad when, you have someone with the apparent potential to do greater things for the betterment of man kind you get a racial turncoat, such as Thomas.
He should be passing on the legacy as opposed to more restrictions of the same. I am not going to say that I have been pleased with affirmative action programs, but for the greater good, come on. How much abject poverty can one stomach in ones life. I do believe that poverty is a state of mind as well.
The big issue is not whether she was in or not in an all female club. The issue is whether she will be a progressive voice on the Supreme Court and not another neocon shill like the Roberts gang.
The more I think of her potential as a jurist the more concerned that she has the potential to be even more conservative than Thomas.
But a Girls gotta do what a girls gotta do.