Hatching A Plan

Did Senator Orin Hatch just do what I think he did?



Republicans are still bitter at the fact that Sotomayor is on the Supreme court, so getting a cheap shot against her when the time presents itself will always get you in the good graces of people like Limbaugh and Beck. Hatch knew precisely what he was doing - lying. Ironic, isn't it.

It would have been nice for Chuck Todd to press Hatch on this, but that's not what he's known for doing. And that's one thing that really irritates me about interviews like this - when the anchors are presented an opportunity to challenge anyone that makes specious claims like this, they simply don't do it as much and as often as they should. Then again, maybe they are afraid that they will be accused of "badgering" the person being interviewed. Palin pulled that same stunt and got away with it when she couldn't answer even the simplest of questions.

I don't expect Hatch or any Republican to vote for her to be confirmed, so to hear a Republican talk about what they would and wouldn't like to hear is a complete waste of airtime.

Sotomayor's Cyberspace Knowledge

Presented here without comment is some very interesting information on Sonya Sotomayor and experience that no other Supreme Court Justice has.

In 2002, Sotomayor wrote a decision (.pdf) nullifying Netscape’s online click-wrap agreement, which demanded binding arbitration of disputes between Netscape and its customers. The “free download” button for Netscape’s browser software was high on the web page, with the user-agreement well below.

“We conclude that in circumstances such as these, where consumers are urged to download free software at the immediate click of a button, a reference to the existence of license terms on a submerged screen is not sufficient to place consumers on inquiry or constructive notice of those terms,” Sotomayor wrote.

Consumers sued Netscape claiming browser “cookies” amounted to illegal eavesdropping. Netscape claimed the click-wrap agreement demanded out-of-court arbitration. As we all know, it turned out that “cookies” are lawful and mostly harmless.

In a December case, Sotomayor joined in a unanimous appellate decision on the 2001 Patriot Act. The ruling limited the application of the automatic gag orders that bind ISPs that receive an FBI “national security letter” — a type of self-issued subpoena demanding information on a customer.

“If confirmed, she will be the first justice who has written cyberlaw-related opinions before joining the court,” the TechLaw blog wrote.

More from Wired.

Of Quotes And Scary Labels

On of the set pieces on the Fox"Nation" website takes a small snippit from an article by Pittsburg's KDKA reporter Jon Delano. In it, Delano highlights what Sonya Sotomayor's former classmates have to say about her.

But the "Nation" could care less about what former classmates have to say about Judge Sotomayor. Their headline reads "Soto Quotes Socialist Leader On Yearbook Page"

Here's the quote referenced.

I am not a champion of lost causes but of causes not yet won.

It's a rather nice quote. It speaks of standing up for what you believe in, standing up for those that are kept down, of making yourself and your country better.

However, once you attach the word "Socialist", there's a new element to the story. No longer is the quote seen for what it really is, as it has been turned into something anti-American, something dangerous, something that conservatives can use. It's become a weapon of fear - fear of the unknown.

So, who is the Socialist "Leader" anyway?

Was it François Mitterrand of France? No.

The dreaded Hugo Chávez? No.

It's not Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, or even Lenin.

Have you ever heard of a man named Norman Thomas? Neither had I until I read this article.

The quote can also be found on a plaque located in the Norman Thomas 1905 Library at Forbes College Princeton University.

Make no mistake about it, Fox - in all its various forms and faces - have used the word "socialism" ( as well as "fascism" ) to such an obscene extent that they no longer hold the original definitions with which they are intended to be used. They are put in place of more accurate descriptors.

Rather than being intellectually honest with their audience and say that they simply disagree with a person, be it Sonya Sotomayor or anyone else, they use words like "socialist" to provoke fear.

This is what the Conservative movement thrives off of, promoting fear, ignorance, and the mass distribution of misinformation.

Hannity Hyperbole

When I watched this last night, all I could do was laugh.



The first thing in Hannity's show, as in most, is it's acceptance of willful ignorance. Pat Robertson is a perfect example of such.

He knows nothing of judicial practice, law, and rarely - if ever - speaks any truth to power about the religious sect that he claims to represent. And, in that respect, he is a perfect candidate for a guest on Sean Hannity's program.

But the part that really gave Hannity a tickle in his pants was the court case he cited last night. This case was also part of an "investigation" by on of the Fox"News" beauty-queen-reporters. The only problem with Hannity's commentary and the "investigation" of the firemen who were not promoted was the direct relation to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

From Newshounds:

As the New Haven Independent reported, the NAACP, the ACLU and the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters have come out in favor of the city, citing concerns that the case threatens to eviscerate laws — particularly Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — that afford opportunities for African-Americans to advance. The vast majority of New Haven firefighters are white. The black firefighters union wants the city to “re-examine the promotional process and the results of the test” under the guidelines of Title VII. They point to an earlier federal ruling which noted that firefighting ability, not the ability to pass a test, is the most important factor in evaluating a firefighter's job performance.

Nothing piques Hannity's interest more than the hint that "the white man" is being picked on. So, what does Hannity do? He calls her a racist, of course.

But, who are these "mainstream Americans" that Hannity mentions in the opening of his program? Do they think as he does, that Judge Sotomayor is "racist", that she's this alleged "radical"? Are they Fox"News" viewers? Are they predominantly white? The later two are almost a guaranteed yes. The former is only likely should they not be able to make up their own minds and rely on people like Sean Hannity for their information.

Later in the program, Hannity had on two guests ( Ed Gillespie and Lanny Davis ) to discuss the "racial/sexual component" as it relates to Sotomayor's ability ( or from Hannity's perspective, her lack thereof ) to be a fair-minded member of the Supreme Court.



Never one to be able to accept or even attempt to understand a rational and honest answer like the one Lanny Davis gave, Hannity does his "throwing the hands up and whining" schtick.

The reality of the situation is that no one, no matter who it may be, that is nominated or offered a job by a Democrat will pass muster with people like Sean Hannity. They whine and cry about how they want to bring America together, but offer no plans to back these claims up. They speak about "mainstream Americans" but this general discription obviously doesn't include blacks, latinos, or any other ethnic group which conservatives claim to accept, they just aren't allowed to mention their heritage.

Sonya Sotomayor will be confirmed. Not simply because the Democrats have a 12 to 7 advantage on the Judiciary Committee, but because Sotomayor has a very moderate record. Her statements about "policy" as it relates to the Appelate courts are accurate and have been shown to not be controversial to anyone except those that are attempting to cast her in the roll as "radical", "racist", or "dangerous".

More from Media Matters and Newshounds.

Riding The Edge Of Racially Divisive Dialogue

Glenn Beck teeters on the edge of a full-blown conspiratorial breakdown at any given moment during the day. Watching his "Civilist Of Wars" show over the weekend, I got the feeling that his head would explode at some point - just like that scene in Scanners.



I'm starting to wonder if Beck drinks before he does his shows.

---------------------------------------------------------

Rush Limbaugh loves to use the "reverse racism" meme as often as he can.

Seeing as he can't come out and call Sonya Sotomayor a "wetback", and you just know he wants to, he uses her race against her differently.

Limbaugh had this to say of Sotomayor on his radio program today:

She ruled against the white firefighter Ricci and other white firefighters just on the basis that she thought women and minorities should be given a preference because of their skin color and because of the history of discrimination in the past. The law was totally disregarded. That's what I mean when I refer to her as a reverse racist. Obama himself is one, the chip on his shoulder that he brings to office. If people just listen to what he said over the course of his career, it's unmistakable. I know the media is going to harp on this reverse-racist stuff, and I just want all of you to know that I am perfectly willing to back it up and I'm proud that I said it. It happens to be true.

Of course he wants her to "fail". You shouldn't even have to ask.



For Rush, it's a given that he has issues with women in power. He has problems with people that aren't white. He simply has problems dealing with the very real fact that his party loses so many arguements, by and large, because he and they can't accept the fact that Americans come in all shades and colors, all opinions, all backgrounds, and nothing they do will ever be able to erase that.

Am I asking Rush to be tolerant of people of alternate ethnicity? Absolutely not. To do so would be such a futile exercise that it is beyond laughable.

Glenn Beck is a totally different animal all together. He says and does things not simply because they fit into his canted view of the world, he says them because he knows that it will make him more money, get him more spots on various Fox"News" shows, knows that it will cause people to disagree with him. His problems lie within the very real fact that he is utterly clueless. Well, clueless to anything except how many zeros he has to the left of the decimal-point in his bank account.

To put it another way, he has lost the plot. This isn't just simply ignorance that we are dealing with, it is rank stupidity on a level not seen since Steven Spielberg decided it would be a good idea to re-edit E.T..

Although both these poor excuses of men - who actually give credence to the theory that we are descended from apes - are from two areas of the racially-ignorant spectrum, they are shining examples of why many/most of the Republicans in this country are seen as racist or supportive of racist actions.

The trick is, give yourself enough room to get out of being called a racist. That's why Limbaugh uses the "reverse-racism" line. He can get out of it if he talks fast enough and ties together completely divergent subjects in one mass of cholesterol and cigar smoke filled rant.

Beck is simply just crazy enough to say things like "nigger", "wop", or "spic". He'll just deny saying it, have some sort of crying spell on his Fox"News" show, and have Jonah Goldberg explain how it's "Liberal Fascists" that made him do it, and then demand an apology from Whoopie and Barbara Walters.

More from Media Matters

The Reactions Of A Demagogue

Not suprisingly, the conservative fringe-Right have set off on their "any smear that sticks" campaign against Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonya Sotomayor.

They are using this 35 second clip of Sotomayor making comment on policy and the court of appeals:



To which, our example - Hot Air's court jester Ed Morrissey - reacts as one might think he would:

Not only do we have Sotomayor essentially admitting that she sees lawmaking as the purview of courts, but a speech given in 2001 makes Sotomayor sound like the kind of identity-politics hack that most people saw in Lani Guinier when her appointment in the Clinton administration went down to defeat.

If she’s that erudite in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee when answering this question, the Republicans won’t have to push hard to bounce Sotomayor out of the Supreme Court. She knew she’d overreached and couldn’t even explain herself in front of a friendly audience, who realized quite well that her backpedaling was entirely self-serving and incoherent.

The only problem with Morrissey's statement that this is somehow "controversial" is that it, in point of fact, isn't.

Stoney Brook University law professor Jefferey Segal sees Sotomayor's statement as completely within the bounds of the truth.

....the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy.

Segal's statements are echoed by Hofstra University law professor Eric Freedman.

It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals... It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue.

One element of judging, obviously, is issuing precedent...But if the thing were squarely disposed of by existing precedent they probably wouldn't go to the court of appeals for it. Their lawyers would say, forget it... So this is where you get clarification for cases without precedent.

I would be surprised if you got a different opinion from a fair-minded observer in the legal world.

The conservative Right, as well as the whole of the GOP, could seriously shoot themselves in the foot if they attempt to block Sotomayor's appointment simply on the grounds that they can. The reason being, is that they greatly need the vote of the Hispanic community. But, Sotomayor shouldn't be accepted simply because of her ethic heritage. Considering we are speaking of a very reactionary group of politicos, I'm not going to be holding my breath waiting for them to ask honest questions during her confirmation.

Michelle Malkin takes a slightly different road, as she casts Sotormayor as an angry Hispanic prone to outbursts.

Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament,” and who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.

Malkin, as well as her equally reactionary compatriots, are citing a case in which a panel that Sotomayor sat on affirmed a dismisal of claims by white firefighters. This, coupled with the "angry latino" meme that Malkin is using, is used to further construct the point ( albeit flacid ) that Sotomayor will side against "whites".

At issue, claims that Sotomayor is dismissive and utterly inexperienced, are a bit to flimsy to actually take hold.

Tom Goldstein, of SCOTUSBLOG writes of the conservative-Right's claims, in particular the Ricci v. DeStefano case they are addressing:

The public neither understands nor cares about the publication practices of the courts of appeals. It also is easily able to accept a judge’s recognition of the lawmaking effects of her decisions and the influences of her background. There just isn’t any remotely persuasive evidence that Judge Sotomayor acts lawlessly or anything of the sort.

The "angry hispanic prone to outbrursts that doesn't like white people" meme falls completely apart even with the most minimal of review efforts.

Fox"News" and conservative pundits have been on the offensive against Sotomayor even before she was chosen.



Matt Yglesias at Think Progress points out that, as is standard with conservatives, many on the Right seem to have a problem with a woman in power.

I recall a lot of issues being raised during the Samuel Alito confirmation fight, but at that time I don’t remember anyone raising questions about the intelligence of a Princeton/Yale Law graduate who’d done time on an Appeals Court.

And if you're looking for some "bottom-of-the-barrel" reaction to Sotomayor's pick, look no further than the place where people believe in the United States of America and its ideals.

I'm not going to fall over myself praising Obama for this pick, but her record is perfectly in line with other "liberal" judges that have served on the SCOTUS. There is little, if any, information that shows that she is going to be this alleged "radical" that the conservative Right is claiming she is. However, unless someone were to the Right or equal to Ronald Reagan, there is no satisfying anyone within the conservative movement.

When we are attempting to discuss something seriously, it's almost too much to ask them for even a shred of intellectual honesty.