Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Deep thought

At least Obama nominated Sotomayor, and not Cass Sunstein.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I never trusted him on abortion, so the ROE!!!eleventy!!1! cudgel never worked on me.

And if she is against abortion, my laugh or cry reflex will kick in, and I will go around to all the sites that tried beat me with that cudgel last year, and have myself a good cackle(yes, I actually have a cackle, one I'm very proud of, thank you very much).

And then I will devote myself to primaring his ass out of office in 2012.

I've held off on calling for him to face a primary, mainly because of the hard feelings remaining after last year, because yes the person I want to run, is the person who actually won. I've only been holding off, until it looked certain that he would lose in 2012, and if so, I would hope he would be a better person, and step down instead of facing a losing battle(but he's shown little evidence of being a better person, so wev).

But if he pulls this shit, yeah he loses my vote and many others, so if the party wants a Dem in office come 2012, they'd better find out from Sotomayor NOW, NOW, NOW.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

was my instant reaction.

Sotomayor was a qualified, Hispanic woman so at the very least this is positive symbolism, much better than an underqualified minority on the fast track, as far as long term symbolism goes.

koshembos's picture
Submitted by koshembos on

whether Sotomayor is a good choice. What we need is a liberal leader or a strong populist; she may qualify as the latter.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

It's no surprise she'd have no judicial record on abortion, because the three states comprising the 2d Circuit (NY, VT and CT) aren't given to the kinds of stupid restrictive laws that give rise to challenges, nor would anti-abortion groups bother filing test cases there. I figure the lack of a record is a feature, not a bug; Obama doesn't want a fight over a nominee even though his nominee's going to get tagged as a baby-flavored-donut-eating-babykiller. Then there's the whole "bipartisan" crap.

So he picks a pro-business Bush appointee with no record on abortion worth talking about (because seriously? Those China asylum cases? C'mon). And then sends his spokesman out to further muddy the waters by saying that they never actually discussed it specifically.

Yeah. I believe that, like I believe that Clarence Thomas could have managed to go through Yale Law School the year that Roe was decided as a conservative, antichoice Catholic, and never discuss or hear discussed the case.

OTOH, he *does* seem to have some issues with his vetting process, so who knows?

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Maybe I'll get my head chopped off for this, but I'm not quite sure of the hysteria about supposedly not knowing her position on abortion. It was all over the media, yesterday, and quite frankly, while it's important to know, I don't think it's be wrong to assume that a liberal woman from the Bronx is about as pro-choice as just about anyone else on the court.

Concerned, yes, but I'm sensing hysteria from the MSM with how they were reporting it, yesterday, and it reeked of trying to sell a contrived story.

Submitted by lambert on

Look, she's a centrist!

Two key issues:

1. Executive power

2. Corporation friendly, or people friendly

On neither issue do we know anything. Look, over there! The right is attacking her!

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

a) "hysteria"?

b) I certainly want to know her position when Roe/Casey is one vote from being overturned and majorities have long been hollowing it out anyhow by upholding one restriction after another for paternalistic reasons (or just because Anthony Kennedy thinks a particular procedure is icky and women must be very, very ashamed to go through it, even without any other medical evidence to back up his conclusions). Obama's not exactly been very good about sticking his neck out to fight for women's right to control their reproduction (though he grants that we should have "some" control over our bodies, bless him), and it's pretty damn clear that he'd rather look bipartisan and avoid a fight by pushing a judge whose record says nothing about her position and whose ethnic background correlates with low support for abortion rights than to risk doing something so tacky as to put a strong liberal supporter of abortion rights on the Court to balance out those who want to crush our civil rights.

c) It's the big fucking litmus test of any judge these days.