The Occasional Observer

How can I not be concerned? Not when she is on record as saying that one's race, ethnicity, and gender does effect the way a judge rules:

I accept the proposition that, as...[a] former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.

Not when she flatly admitted that judges "make policy," before embarking on a half-hearted, wink/nod attempt to double-back.

Heck, this woman is on record as saying that a Latino woman should be expected to make better decisions than a white male, for no other reason, I suppose, than her gender and ethnic background.

Now, I'll give her the benefit on this one, b/c it almost sounds like a joke. I'd like to know the context before branding her a racist.

But that said, this is the type of governance we're apparently in line for. After all, there is virtually no chance of stopping this or any other Obama nominee until (and unless) we change the balance of power in the Senate.

By the way, I love how the Dems are so proud that they are nominating the first hispanic to Supreme Court! Never mind that it's an arguable point, as some consider Justice Cardozo the first hispanic justice.

But hello!!!???? Bush would have already nominated the clearly qualified Miguel Estrada to the Court had the Dems not torpedoed his nomination with a multi-year filibuster that was unprecedented. Never before had a Circuit Court nominee been filibustered (Supreme Court nominee Abe Fortas had been filibustered, but it was clear he was going to be voted down by a wide margin had his nomination reached the Senate floor, unlike Estrada, who in all likelihood would have been confirmed).

Meanwhile, for all those Democrats whining about the need for a quick (read: rushed) hearing culminating in a prompt Senatorial rubber stamp, allow me to offer this list of Bush nominees who, in addition to the aforementioned Miguel Estrada, were denied an up or down vote for years before their nominations were ultimately confirmed, defeated, or withdrawn:

Terrence Boyle (nominee from 1991-1993 and 2001-2007 without a vote)
Priscilla Owen (5/01-5/05, confirmed)
Charles W. Pickering (5/01-1/04, recess appointment, not confirmed)
Carolyn Kuhl (6/01-12/04, withdrawn)
David W. McKeague (11/01-6/05, confirmed)
Henry Saad (11/01-3/06, withdrawn)
Susan Bieke Neilson (11/01-10/05, confirmed three months prior to her untimely death from cancer)
Richard Allen Griffin (6/02-6/05, confirmed)
William H. Pryor (4/03-6/05, confirmed)
William Gerry Myers III (5/03-1/07, withdrawn)
Janice Rogers Brown (7/03-6/05, confirmed)
Brett Kavanaugh (7/03-5/06, confirmed)
N. Randy Smith (12/05-2/07, confirmed)
Stephen Murphy III (6/06-4/09, withdrawn from Circuit nomination)
Raymond Kethledge (6/06-4/09, confirmed)
Peter Keisler (6/06-3/08, withdrawn)

Oh, and BTW, virtually all the above nominees were rated "well qualified" or "qualified" by the ABA.

I'm not suggesting, mind you, that Sotomayor's nomination be held up for years. That wouldn't be good for the Court, nor for the nation.

But the Dems are shameless hypocrites.