Good morning.
- When one is a crook.
- A look at the catholicism of two Obama appointees, one basically lapsed the other possibly linked to liberation theology.
- A call for sanity.
- Mr Obama as one of three detestable men.
- Ms Sotomayor and Princeton.
- Men in Chicago.
- An important book on fighting small wars.
- Heh.
- Some thoughts on learning Greek.
- On the “experience” question.
- Japan and nuclear devices.
- Ms Sotomayor’s compelling life story, which is compelling in a way that Mr Thomas’ and Mr Alito’s were not apparently. Just as Ms Rice was neither Black nor a woman. More here.
- The haert and God.
- Co-induction.
Ms Sotomayor’s compelling life story, which is compelling in a way that Mr Thomas’ and Mr Alito’s were not apparently. Just as Ms Rice was neither Black nor a woman. More here.
I think Obama would respond that life story is compelling but not sufficient for voting for a nomination. While Alito and Thomas (probably more Thomas) also had compelling life stories, their judicial philosophy wasn’t right for the court. The right is free to actually make that argument with Ms. Sotomayor, but as you pointed out the right has crafted a stance that Congress should always vote for whoever a President nominates unless there’s gross corruption or a grossly unqualified person.
A call for sanity.
An interesting take becuase I didn’t expect to agree so much with Krauthamer. I think it’s clear that a lot of the back door attacks are directly due to the position that you have advocated that Congress should accept whoever is nominated (barring gross problems) without question. While this may seem like it avoids politics it actually excites it all the more. Instead of engaging in a debate on judicial philosophy, the right attempts to ‘get’ the nominee with spurious backdoor nonsense like unnamed clerks who say the nominee isn’t ‘that smart’ or has a temper. These are the kind of charges that are ideal for politicization to exploit but wouldn’t be necessary if Senators could simply say what they want. Let the right say anyone who is not in the mold of Alito and Thomas isn’t acceptable to them on the court. Some on the left can take the opposite position and the moderate center can say Alito/Thomas are find on the court as long as there’s 5 other people who are not Alito/Thomas.
Boonton,
I’m unclear on how a call (from myself at least) for both sides to accept the nominee barring gross problems leads to the conclusion you expect. I don’t think “the right” has embraced that view. They like you are fighting for the Senate right to vet the nominee. I made that claim during the Bush nominee battles and have not changed my tune when the nominee is from the other side of the aisle. I have not seen anyone noting Hamilton’s thoughts on the matter, which in seem prescient given the last two decades of judicial confirmation battles.
You paint the judicial philosophy of Alito and Thomas as being identical. That is confusing I think (and wrong). So, … can you point to where the left has made an expository defense of Ms Sotomayor on the basis of her judicial philosophy (and not her life story).