Comments on: Who Is Sonia Sotomayor?

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sun, 03 May 2009 12:13:49 +0000

ottovbvs: Back in Moynihan's time, there were genuinely conservative Democrats, like Fritz Hollings and John Stennis and Robert Byrd (at the time).

To compare Daniel Patrick Moynihan to these men is absurd.

In the Lyndon Johnson Administration, Moynihad helped formulate LBJ's so called "War on Poverty".

According to Wikipedia:

"He voted against the death penalty, the flag desecration amendment, the balanced budget amendment, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, the Communications Decency Act, and the North American Free Trade Agreement."

NAFTA, as you know, was signed by President Clinton, who also supported the death penalty. So Moynihan was to the left of Clinton on at least both these issues.

By: ireign

ireign — Sun, 03 May 2009 11:52:29 +0000

ottovbvs-If you think Moynihan was a very conservative Democrat than you are either very young or you have no concept of the political spectrum. Moynihan expressed some concern about affirmative action and about partial-birth abortion but he almost never bucked the Democratic line.

And no, it was known that Moynihan recommended her. She has always been a Democrat. Obviously, Bush's handlers knew her political affiliation.

Don't believe me or having trouble using google-"In 1991, Sen. Daniel Patrick Monynihan recommended Sotomayor to the first President Bush, who made good on a promise to appoint a Hispanic judge to a district court in New York."http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_president_obama_bronx_judge_sonia_sotomayor.html

"Ironically, George H. W. Bush appointed her to Federal District Court in 1991. She being a moderate and the appointment being part of an overall deal between senators to appoint other Bush people, made this possible."http://law.rightpundits.com/?p=101

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Sun, 03 May 2009 10:31:08 +0000

ireign
7:44
Bulldoglover100, she is a liberal Democrat regardless of who appointed her. She was appointed based on Senator Moynihan’s recommendation and was probably part of a deal to get Democratic support on other legislation.

…..Daniel Patrick was very conservative democrat and you’re just speculating on why she was appointed. GHWB was an excellent president and he just as probably appointed her because she was a well qualified hispanic woman and he was trying to created diversity on the bench. An admirable goal.

By: ireign

ireign — Sat, 02 May 2009 23:44:46 +0000

I don’t agree with Sotomayor’s outlook but that is why I am a Republican and she is a Democrat. Her views seem pretty standard for a liberal Democrat. Not sure why this is especially newsworthy.

Bulldoglover100, she is a liberal Democrat regardless of who appointed her. She was appointed based on Senator Moynihan’s recommendation and was probably part of a deal to get Democratic support on other legislation.

By: A.B.

A.B. — Sat, 02 May 2009 23:11:09 +0000

idrake: “the problem with Judge Sotomayor’s statement is that it demonstrates a pre-occupation with victimhood. Her autobiography belies the victimized status she contends Hispanic or Latino women face in American society.” Well said. In other words, her actions are dictated by a facade she has chosen, to avoid ostracism. A little harsh, perhaps, but those are her expressed sentiments, it is hard to surmise anything else.

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 02 May 2009 22:08:33 +0000

Frum’s not stating any opinion on what she’s written, he’s just putting it out there. My guess is that the people on the right are complaining about her stance about keeping her heritage. On one hand, you could argue that no other immigrants clung on to their heritages for long, the quickly assimilated into American society. On the other hand, you could argue that the situation is a little different when it comes to Mexicans, since Mexico is right next to us. If it didn’t come down to the different languages being spoken, nobody would probably even notice.

By: Bulldoglover100

Bulldoglover100 — Sat, 02 May 2009 17:14:41 +0000

I told you yesterday David that this would be Obama’s choice…and he chose someone appointed to the bench by George H.W Bush…and yet we still hear childish keening from the wing nutters…..

By: tarazeigler

tarazeigler — Sat, 02 May 2009 15:28:18 +0000

sinz54: re-read Egil Ha’s post. I think you are seeking to find liberals were there aren’t any.

idrake: do you really want to argue that Latina women haven’t (historically) faced unique challenges in American society?

David, I am really not sure what the point of this post was. I am guessing NM isn’t supportive of this candidate, but I see nothing in this that is really negative. In fact, it sounds like she sought out resources on her own and worked hard to get to her position, with very little structural help. As far I understand it, that is something we should celebrate and encourage. She does talk about the importance of continuing to identify with the Latino community. Do we really take issue with that? In the future, some sort of clarification statement would be helpful when posting outside material.

By: idrake

idrake — Sat, 02 May 2009 14:59:56 +0000

I think the problem with Judge Sotomayor’s statement is that it demonstrates a pre-occupation with victimhood. Her autobiography belies the victimized status she contends Hispanic or Latino women face in American society.

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Sat, 02 May 2009 11:26:12 +0000

sinz54
wrote 8 minutes ago

I agree that AA goes off the rails at times and have probably outworn their usefulness but without them minorities in this country would not have made the advances they have. For every recent abuse I can find earlier egregious ones that disadvantaged minorities. AA laws were part of the process by which we have become a more integrated society without disastrous social upheaval.