E-Mail 'Robert Gibbs warns the GOP to "be careful" of the way they talk about Sotomayor' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Robert Gibbs warns the GOP to "be careful" of the way they talk about Sotomayor' to a friend

Loading ...

20 Responses to "Robert Gibbs warns the GOP to “be careful” of the way they talk about Sotomayor"

Mwalimu Daudi says:

May 27, 2009 at 9:41 pm

Mickey Edwards, the former GOP Congressman from Oklahoma, warns Republicans against opposing Sotomayor.

Is it just me, or is the majority of the GOP “elite” seem to be curling up and going fetal?

At any rate, it is safe to say that Edwards is taking Gibbs’s threat to heart and won’t buck the Narrative..
MarkJ says:

May 27, 2009 at 10:07 pm

Well, Mickey’s unsolicited advice illustrates why I’m glad he’s the former GOP congressman from Oklahoma.
Great White Rat says:

May 27, 2009 at 10:56 pm

Typical leftist hypocrisy…it’s now clear that ST is right: Sotomayor’s most important qualification is her ethnicity.

But there could have been a Latino on the Supreme Court well before this – except the Democrats blocked a nomination to the Appeals Court bench primarily because they didn’t want George W. Bush to get credit. Remember Miguel Estrada?

And remember the internal Democrat staff strategy memos that show why he was Borked?

They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible.

In other words, the Democrats have played identity politics with the judicial nominations right along. Just like they do with national security. I know, I’m just shocked too.
Bear1909 says:

May 27, 2009 at 11:28 pm

Can a Latina step up and interpret the Constitution in a manner befitting of an accomplished practitioner of the law? Sure one can. But what if her decisions have been overturned more than a manhole cover?

This woman is scandalously biased and filled with Latina rage. Dump her.
Bear1909 says:

May 27, 2009 at 11:30 pm

By the way, every time the Soetoro camp “warns” us about anything we should give him and his whuss staff the middle finger salute. I dont care what their agenda is: THE FIRST AMMENDMENT MAKES THIS COUNTRY WHAT IT IS— AMERiCA.

I despise these people.
Bear1909 says:

May 27, 2009 at 11:31 pm

And what about the detonated nuke over in NORK? Are we supposed to be careful about that too, Mr. Gibbs? Are you idiots doing ANYTHING about that?!?! Or are you just kissing Latino voter butt?
Carlos says:

May 28, 2009 at 12:02 am

Let’s see. She made a statement that’s so racist she could be arrested for a racial crime per donk legislation. She has the highest rate of overturns in history. And she has the mental acuity of one of the Special Olympians Obama disparages so easily.

Yeah, she’s a shoe-in because she’s a typical lib.

And why are the elephants worried about losing the “latino” vote? Seems to me the champion of giving our country away, one J. McCain, didn’t get a whole bunch of their votes, so what makes them think playing nicey-nice with the mental midget will improve their chances of getting even one more such vote in 2010 or 2012?
Glenn Cassel AMH1(AW) USN RET says:

May 28, 2009 at 7:35 am

Straight up, OK. Can I have a piece of this little dirtbag? I know it is pointless but administering a well deserved thrashing to an individual who obviously needs one is something that is required every now and then. And little bobbie gibbs is in desperate need of a good old fashioned ass whipping!!!!!!!!!
vegas art guy says:

May 28, 2009 at 9:24 am

Glenn, go get yourself a press pass and have at it! You could write for Stars and Stripes…
Karmadancer says:

May 28, 2009 at 12:56 pm

I dunno, guys. Lately the MSM out here seem to smell blood in the water….and it isn’t GOP-flavored for once. They’ve been hitting awfully hard on the “latino women understand things better” comment, noting its inherent prejudice.

Let’s see how far reporters go with this.
Karmadancer says:

May 28, 2009 at 1:11 pm

OK, here’s what I was trying to say but couldn’t, written by someone much better at writing than I am :

But Republicans can use the process as a teaching moment, not to tear down Ms. Sotomayor on personal issues the way the left tried with Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, but to educate Americans about the proper role of the judiciary and to explore whether Judge Sotomayor’s Constitutional principles are as free-form as they seem from her record.

From the Wall Street Journal

Hmmm.
Carlos says:

May 29, 2009 at 3:56 pm

Sotomayor seems to be to the Constitution what Hitler was to “Kumbaya”: all talk and a completely different agenda.
Anon says:

May 30, 2009 at 12:18 am

“Sniffy” Gibbs is so patronizing that he makes The One look less so. This is a difficult thing to do.
alchemist says:

May 30, 2009 at 9:31 am

You know, she actually has a history of cases that you can read through. I think these too be all more informative than a single sentence in a single speech.

SCOTUSblog actually has a a done a pretty good job of going through decision by decision to determine her views and temperment. If you are determined to tear her down, that’s a good place to start.
Mwalimu Daudi says:

May 30, 2009 at 12:29 pm

You know, she actually has a history of cases that you can read through.

Indeed. We can begin with Ricci v. DeStefano, where Sotomayor ruled against the plaintiff because he was a white male. Or will the argument be that we cannot examine “a single case”?

Or how about her “compelling personal history”? Even AP admits that she spent most of her childhood in a middle-class neighborhood and not a poor Bronx one, as Obama and other supporters falsely claim. Sotomayor went to an excellent private Catholic high school out of the reach of most families. At Princeton and then Yale, she agitated for even more racial special privileges.

Let’s let AP (not exactly a conservative Republican propaganda organ) pick up the “compelling story”:

[Sotomayor] climbed her way up through New York’s Democratic power structure boosted by its ultimate brokers over those years — Gov. Mario Cuomo, Mayor Ed Koch, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. That’s the access of a partner in a corporate law firm, not a kid from the South Bronx.

She now earns more than $200,000 a year and owns a condominium in Greenwich Village, a neighborhood of million-dollar-plus homes. Her brother, Dr. Juan Sotomayor, is a physician in North Syracuse, N.Y., whose practice doesn’t accept Medicaid or Medicare — programs for the poor and elderly — according to its Web site.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gybh1tAJNK3I6fP1gJUsFOhJe5AAD98G55BO0

In other words, she is yet another snooty out-of-touch rich liberal snob who used her ethnicity and high-powered connections to climb the ladder of success. Washington is hip-deep in them.

Perhaps you had better stick with the “single sentence in a single speech” angle, since Sotomayor’s “compelling personal history” is not compelling at all, and her judicial record tends to back up her racist views. But take heart! Racism is quite chic in the Democrat Party these days. Even David Duke has seen the light and sounds like an anti-war liberal Democrat.
Mwalimu Daudi says:

May 30, 2009 at 1:14 pm

OOPS – it looks like Sotomayor believes that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states.

Well…in addition to not considering her racist diatribe it appears that we now have two cases that we should not examine. Pretty soon all of Sotomayor’s record will be off-limits.
Carlos says:

May 30, 2009 at 2:01 pm

Her actual record, as is any record of any Zero nominee, is quite off-limits except for what our grand and glorious leader wants us little people to have.
Lorica says:

May 30, 2009 at 4:07 pm

All I care about is how often she has been overturned by the Supreme court, and from what I have heard it is way to frickin’ often. I want to know how a justice who has been overturned 75% of the time, gets a seat on the very court that is overturning her. Where is the logic in that?? – Lorica
sisu says:

May 30, 2009 at 4:08 pm

Twitter suspends SissyWillis due to “strange activity”…

Twittering suspended? Passionate bird watcher and listener Tiny is uncomprehending at the thought. Checking in on our twitter account this afta, we were horrified to learn that we’ve been blackballed on accounta “strange activity”: Account Suspended…
Great White Rat says:

May 31, 2009 at 12:23 pm

Alchemist refers us to an analysis at SCOTUSblog that absolves Sotomayor of any bias in her rulings. As usual, alchemist’s references have a number of problems.

First, you’re assuming the analysis itself has no bias. That’s clearly wrong. Scroll down just a little in alchemist’s link and you find a previous post by this same Tom Goldstein. Here’s what he says BEFORE doing his analysis:

In the rush the find Sotomayor’s “biases,” media personalities and conservative opponents latched onto her Berkeley speech.. (note the scare quotes – GWR)

It seems to me that these numbers decisively disprove the claim that she decides cases with any sort of racial bias.

Shorter Goldstein: This is what I believe, and now I’m going to look for evidence to support it.

This is like having Ted Kennedy examine evidence about whether Barack Obama is a spendthrift, and then concluding “Of course not”. You’d certainly believe that, right???

Second, the analysis is loaded with false comparisons based on how “republican” judges voted. Golstein and alchemist apparently forgot that David Souter is a “republican”. This is a meaningless comparison meant to prove Sotomayor is mainstream.

Third, it relies on cherry-picked cases – those that Goldstein classifies as “discrimination” cases. How did she rule on other cases? Does it give any indication how she rules on “non-discrimination” cases involving a minority on one side and a Caucasian on another? No…that’s conveniently left out.

Fourth, the analysis ignores her high rate of reversals, as Lorica noted.

If this situation were reversed – picture a white male nominee saying his race and gender mean he can render a superior judgment to a Latina woman – alchemist would be off on one of his rants about shredding the Constitution.

In point of fact, saying your “life experience” makes you more qualified to judge a case will disqualify you as a juror. The irony is that Sotomayor’s comments mean she could not serve on the jury of one of those cases based on her prejudice. So maybe alchemist can explain why, if she couldn’t be on the jury in one of those cases, why she should be allowed to judge those cases.

Comments are closed.