June 3, 2009
ON THE RADIO JUST NOW, RUSH LIMBAUGH toyed with the idea of supporting Sonia Sotomayor — on the theory that, raised as a Catholic, she might be secretly pro-life. Is it a risk Obama would have taken? Perhaps it is. I assume the Democratic Party would do very well if the Supreme Court happened to overrule Roe v. Wade.
ADDED: “I think she is a woman who is well-steeped in the law and well-steeped in precedent. And I believe that she has a real respect for precedent, and that she was not just saying that. And if that is really true, then I would agree with her. And I believe it is.” The Senator attests too much, I think.
AND: I think I’ll try another comments experiment on this one. I noticed that Dr. Helen was impressed that, on my previous experiment, there was “no anger, mudslinging or trolling.” But there also wasn’t really a topic, other than commenting per se. This post is much more of a challenge. I’ll be moderating — with a light hand. Stay on topic, and let’s see how good the discussion here can be.
YET MORE: I’ll have to listen again in the podcast of the radio show, but I suspect Mr. Fastbucks is right when he says: “This is reverse psychology. He’s baiting the libs into a litmus test on her.”
lorien1973 says:
Thus bolsters my argument that a pro-lifer would support a pro-lifer who disagrees with them on everything else; over a pro-choicer who agrees with them on everything else.
June 3, 2009, 2:18 pmMPH says:
I sadly have to agree with what lorien1973 said.
Disgusting…
June 3, 2009, 2:21 pmastroboy483 says:
Lorien,
Of course. We both agree I shouldn’t shoot and kill you even if we disagree on everything else, right? That is how the pro-life (or pro-birt) camp sees things. Nothing trumps this issue for them/us.
June 3, 2009, 2:23 pmFeng2008 says:
Catholics! Judges! Politics!
MUD FIGHT!!11!!
June 3, 2009, 2:23 pmA to the F says:
Not being particular educated or well versed in the law (I dropped out of law school the first week of class), could someone explain to me:
June 3, 2009, 2:24 pm1) why it is a bad thing to let the individual states determine the legality of abortion?
2) how abortions past the stage of viability do not constitute murder?
formwiz says:
Have to disagree with you on your statement that the Demos would do well if Roe is overturned by Her Honor’s vote. I think the feminists would freak the way the conservatives did over McCain and the Dems would pay heavily. Since they never got the ERA and more women are taking the Mommy track (with all due respect), abortion is about all they’ve got left.
June 3, 2009, 2:24 pmMason says:
Priorities.
June 3, 2009, 2:24 pmFred4Pres says:
Would the Democrats (and Obama) do well if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade? Hmmm. An interesting stategy to wedge the Christianists from the GOP. I am sure Rahm, Alexrod, Carville and the rest of the Democratic insiders are working on this secret plan day and night…
No. Not really. It would back fire and back fire badly on Obama. Although I can imagine Hillary just praying something like this happens to Obama. That would just be a wonderful day for her.
I would eat popcorn and watch the resulting fireworks, but that is not coming anytime soon. Obama is a true believer on abortion on demand.
June 3, 2009, 2:29 pmBruce B says:
Ted Kennedy is Catholic too. Can someone remind me what his stance on abortion is?
June 3, 2009, 2:29 pmStephen Snell says:
Rush and Sonia would have some… interesting looking kids.
June 3, 2009, 2:31 pmTex Lovera says:
Could she be in “stealth” mode, telling Feinstein what she wants to hear?
I doubt it personally. Besides, hasn’t it really only been those appointed as “conservative-leaning” who have drifted to the opposite side?
June 3, 2009, 2:31 pmRoy Mustang says:
I don’t care if she is pro-life. What matters is that she arrives at her conclusion based on her personal whims rather than the Constitution.
Of course, right now all of the anti-Constitutional empathists are on the pro-choice side whereas the Constitutionalists are correctly determining that the Constitution is silent on abortion and the matter should be left up to the states.
June 3, 2009, 2:32 pmChristopher says:
I wish people, to include Senators, would wait and read her questionnaire form that she has yet to fill out, before they glowingly praise her. I know that it may be a formality and you’ll find her true judicial style from her own precedent, but let’s see what she has to say when given direct questions, before you tell the world “She’s exactly what we need”.
June 3, 2009, 2:32 pmStephen Snell says:
And what’s Ted Kennedy’s stance on waterboarding? Do ya have to wait until the next morning to find out?
June 3, 2009, 2:32 pmic says:
I think Rush is trying to sabotage Sotomayor. He supported Hillary in the primary. Who is in the White House now?
June 3, 2009, 2:32 pmMike Hassinger says:
What lorien1973 said.
The idea that someone is “secretly pro-life” b/c they were “raised a Catholic,” as if you could have a pro-life ’sleeper’ get appointed to the Supreme Court is beyond laughable. It’s beyond Dan Brown laughable.
The days when ‘Catholic’ = ‘anti-abortion’ are long gone. And hasn’t there been a 5/9 majority of Catholics on SCOTUS since around 2003? What are they waiting for?
June 3, 2009, 2:33 pmStephen Snell says:
“It’s beyond Dan Brown laughable.”
IMPOSSIBLE!
June 3, 2009, 2:34 pmMichael says:
This makes sense to me. Life trumps every other possible political consideration.
Abortion is ghastly barbarism. Period. It will probably mean the end of our civilization, but assuming we survive the Dem Party would be greatly blessed if it could get the vicious animals known as pro-choicers – aka abortion supporters, procurers and indiustrial technicians – off its wagon.
June 3, 2009, 2:36 pmJason (the commenter) says:
If Sotomayor ended up not just being pro-life, but helping overturn Roe vs. Wade, it might help the Democratic Party, but I think it would be very bad for Obama. He’s already had lots of problems with his other appointments (Biden included) and this would show even more poor judgment on his part.
June 3, 2009, 2:36 pmMike says:
“there was “no anger, mudslinging or trolling.” But there also wasn’t really a topic, other than commenting per se.”
—-
That’s because the trolls don’t know comments are available yet. . . give it a couple of days.
Regards,
June 3, 2009, 2:37 pmdan-O says:
The idea that Sotomayor is a stealth pro-lifer is ludicrous.
I think Rush is just up to his usual mischief. He often toys around with different ideas like this just to get people talking about different issues.
June 3, 2009, 2:40 pmStephen Clark says:
A variation of Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos”?
June 3, 2009, 2:40 pmMike G says:
It’s at least amusing to contemplate Democratic senators fearing that and knowing, post-Bork, that they created the circumstances by which no one will ever get a straight answer from a SC nominee again.
June 3, 2009, 2:40 pmGranddaddy Long Legs says:
“…here was “no anger, mudslinging or trolling.”
I want all of you losers to visualize me angrily slinging mud all over the place.
Did you do it? Good. That makes me the first troll in Instapundit history.
June 3, 2009, 2:40 pmJackson says:
I think Rush was instigating. He’s not actually going to support her because of a pro-life stance she likely doesn’t have. But he’s trying to get the left to start asking some questions about the pick as well. For one thing, when a Republican asks her a question they’re going to get screamed at for ‘picking on’ her. Now the Dems have a reason to ask some questions as well, which they weren’t planning on doing at all until (perhaps) now.
June 3, 2009, 2:41 pmSwamp Rabbit says:
secretly pro-life? Hmmmmmm kinda’ like Osama’s secretly muslim?
OsamaHusseinIslamObama
June 3, 2009, 2:42 pm(the terrorist/pirate/media choice)
-It’s never too early to campaign-
Mark in Spokane says:
Empathy!
June 3, 2009, 2:42 pmXWL says:
I disagree with the ‘wise latina’ crap, I disagree with the whole ‘empathy’ being a primary factor as to what makes a good jurist, and I hate that the only pool of candidates from which Justices get drawn seems to be Ivy leaguers (or at least private school educated, only two public university grads in the past 60 years on the court).
But, I believe the constitution is clear, the President nominates, and the Senate approves or disapproves, and the bar for disapproval should be very high. I voted against then Sen. Obama in part because I knew he’d pick folks like Judge Sotomayor to fill vacancies. So even though when Senator, Pres. Obama violated my standard grossly and perniciously, I still believe folks who believe the constitution means what it is written to be (and nothing more) must support Sotomayor, even if they are certain she doesn’t hold the same view. Everyone in the GOP should support the Sotomayor nomination, because she is qualified, she doesn’t seem to have any disqualifying baggage in her past, and the politics of the appointment were already decided at the ballot box in November of 2008.
With that said, the GOP should still use the hearings to delineate the differences between conservative and liberal judicial philosophies, and what precisely will be at stake should more liberal jurists ascend to the Supreme Court. They should vote to affirm the President’s nomination, and remind voters that their vote is the one that counts, not the votes of a few Senators.
June 3, 2009, 2:43 pmMichael Lane says:
Would a wise Catholic woman make a better decision than a white man? Maybe this is the point where one’s phenotype begins to matter.
June 3, 2009, 2:44 pmWitNit says:
The problem with Sotomayor and those who support the Legal Realism school of law is simply that they undermine democracy by neutralizing the power of the voting booth.
When unelected Federal judges routinely make law, what recourse do the people have? With legislatures, they have voting power. With judges, what?
And when Supreme Court Justices routinely make law, the entire amendment process of the US Constitution is neutralized.
Time for State Legislatures to act by supporting a Constitutional amendment that restrains all Federal judges from creating law. I wonder how the language could be effectively framed…
June 3, 2009, 2:46 pmWichita Bill says:
We are hoping here in Wichita that the Tiller deal will help us push the snake-handler wing of the Repub party farther out of power. The Schiavo deal scared a lot of boomers because they know they will have to make that big decision with their parents. This deal should open a lot more ideas and wake some up to what is really up.
We finally got rid of the ID in the school boards and monitor who runs every election to keep them flushed from the system.
Maybe move the state to a purple status. Heck even ole fire and brimstone Sen. Brownback moved from the evangelicals to a Catholic. So a few hail Marys should have him covered now.
We think at times certain actions would help wake people up, but then the Islamic nonsense doesn’t seem to wake many up…as our President is about to show us. Even the Muslim Brotherhood is invited to his speech….how sad
June 3, 2009, 2:47 pmJadedByPolitics says:
Here is my take on this pick….I expect the Republican Senators to do their due diligence in their questioning with regards to “empathy” and the “living” document….the Constitution is neither. I then expect them to give her a pass and here is why…she is NO MORE LIBERAL then Souter and the pick by Obama was to incite racism in the minds of Americans with regards to the American public DO NOT GIVE IT TO THEM. The real fight will be on the next pick. Obama is NEVER going to pick a Conservative so embarrass him and the Democrats with their lead in to the hearings of the “racist” Republicans by not biting!
June 3, 2009, 2:49 pmRobert says:
Limbaugh might support Sonia if she’s a “Pro Life Racist”. Ha! I think Limbaugh is having some fun and laughing his arse off at the reaction.
June 3, 2009, 2:50 pmBrad Nelson says:
“Thus bolsters my argument that a pro-lifer would support a pro-lifer who disagrees with them on everything else; over a pro-choicer who agrees with them on everything else.”
Given that Obama is sure to send up only far-left nominees, it makes sense to throw your support behind the one that happens to be pro-life. Additionally, if you believe that abortion is the murder of the most innocent and helpless among us, it is an issue that weighs heavily regardless of the other (less consequential) decisions that a potential Supreme Court Jusice is likely to make. That said – the argument is moot because there is no chance that the “wise Latino” is pro-life.
June 3, 2009, 2:50 pmrichardb says:
I doubt that Judge Sotomayor will offer much on her abortion views as she can easily deflect by saying she can’t comment upon a potential future case.
In fact I don’t think anything will stick to this nominee.
White males in congress won’t want to linger too long on her stupid “wise Latina” comment for fear of looking weak and anti-hispanic. Dems will not want to probe deep at all since she is Obama’s girl.
June 3, 2009, 2:51 pmShe sails thru imho.
Moron Pundit says:
Most leftists are Catholics-In-Name-Only when it comes to abortion. Certainly, in the case of Sotomayor, her identity as a member of the female group would easily trump her identity as a Catholic which I imagine is something to be ashamed of on the secular left.
June 3, 2009, 2:52 pmRobert Cunningham says:
Overturning of Roe would be DEVASTATING for the Dems….they are totally invested in the absolute, exclusive and unconditional right of a woman to procure an abortion at any time for virtually reason….they want this right created by judicial fiat to be utterly unburdened even by the most reasonable conditions on its exercise, such as notification, waiting periods, even conscience clauses.
Overturning Roe, declaring that the Constitution does provide an essentially unfettered right to an abortion would thereby open the issue up — to democratic legislative action to adopt the reasonable restrictions on abortion supported by various subsidiary constituencies in our federal system. The Dems would then have to campaign against, say, partial birth abortion, parental notification, waiting periods, spousal notification, no aboretion for sex selection, no culling of twins, etc. These are overwhelmingly supported by the public and the Dems extremist abortion on demand constituencies would DEMAND that they oppose these popular actions. They would be trapped and presented as extremists and would be unable to hide behind the courts any more to avoid the issues.
ANY legislatively enacted restrictions on abortion that are remotely reasonable are a huge win for the pro-life side; while at the same time being a defeat for the abortion on demand side….the pro-life side has no where to go but up, while the abortionists — and Dems — can only lose what they have by an over-ruling of Roe. Politically, it would be devastating for the Dems and they will do anything they can to preserve Roe therefore.
June 3, 2009, 2:53 pmChris Thiele says:
Given the Obama camp’s track record on vetting nominees I don’t think that Rush’s supposition that Sotomayor is a closet Pro-Lifer is that impossible. However, I do think that it is about as possible as Rush backing Sotomayor for a seat on the Supreme Court.
June 3, 2009, 2:53 pmJason (the commenter) says:
XWL : “I disagree with the whole ‘empathy’ being a primary factor as to what makes a good jurist…”
How do you even judge someone else’s ‘empathy’ anyway? I think it’s cover to let you pick people for another reason (like race).
June 3, 2009, 2:53 pmCecil says:
A wise Latina woman such as Sotomayor will not overturn Roe and its progency (assuming Roe can even have progency). It is fantasy to think she could be Obama’s Souter.
June 3, 2009, 2:53 pmJohn says:
You never know. Souter was sold to GHW Bush as a solid conservative. Bush, at the advice of the ever hapless John Sununu, chose him over Ted Olson. Wouldn’t it be some good karmic payback if Souther’s liberal successor ended up over turning Roe v. Wade. If Roe were overturned on the vote of a Democratically appointed Justice, it would be armagendon for the Democrats.
I agree that Rush is just baiting the Dems. If they go into abortion, they necessarily have to go into the fact that Sotomayor is a Catholic. That would not play well among Catholics.
June 3, 2009, 2:54 pmMikeB says:
Just quiz her on judicial philosophy and her opinions on the Constitution. Relentlessly.
I do believe Rush is trying to sow some worry on the left. That sounds like a fine idea if it means she has to expound upon her judicial philopshy in a substantive way.
June 3, 2009, 2:54 pmthomas roddewoerm says:
Rush has been obsessed with MSNBC lately. He complains that entire segments of shows, like “Countdown with Keith Olberman” are devoted to reacting to what he says. I think he’s trying to play games with MSNBC here.
June 3, 2009, 2:55 pmCecil says:
Er, that’s progeny.
June 3, 2009, 2:55 pmrbj says:
“Stephen Snell says:
And what’s Ted Kennedy’s stance on waterboarding? Do ya have to wait until the next morning to find out?
June 3, 2009, 2:32 pm”
Mary Jo Kopechne is unavailable for comment.
Sorry if that’s troll like. Just couldn’t resist.
Rush knows when to be provocative, to keep his ratings high. He loves to yank Democrats’ chains, and does it well, IMO. I would seriously doubt that, given the circles Judge Sotomayor has had to travel in in order to get on the radar screen for US C. of Ap. and SCOTUS nominations, that there aren’t those, such as well placed politicians, who know what her abortion views are. Presumably they are Democrats and would have already whispered to Dear Leader to not nominate her.
June 3, 2009, 2:55 pmJackson Laurence says:
I have to agree with the commenters who think it laughable that Judge Sotomajor is some sort of closet pro-lifer. I just can’t believe that a President who couldn’t bring himself to sign the BAIPA hasn’t satisfied himself to the nth degree that his candidate is completely pro-choice.
June 3, 2009, 2:56 pmKent says:
I think people are forgetting Rush’s tongue-in-cheek counterspin humor. He often presents the conservative mirror image of a liberal position so that A) liberals might recognize how stupid they sound when you reverse the characters but not the logic and B) conservatives may laugh at those liberals. With “spin doctor” becoming a household word under Clinton with so much lawyering of up to equal down, this was the environment where this humor formed. (O’Reilly’s “the spin stops here” slogan came from the same era). Both are somewhat obsolete in that younger viewers/listeners have no idea where all this came from. It’s a bit like watching Benny Hill for years before seeing Winston Churchill tell jokes during WWII. You immediately realize what effect Hill was going for with his mannerisms. The quickest way to tell Rush is getting in this mode is when his tone gets very sonorous.
What Rush is REALLY saying is that just as Bush was conned by Souter being a stealth liberal, wouldn’t it be ironic if the same thing happened to Democrats? It’s also a play on the anti-Catholic bigotry that has inundated the court from the hard left for the last few years, in circles where the word “Catholic” is spit rather than spoken. It’s basically a way of telling the left A) if Catholics are so bad, why do you like this one? and B) if it was so great that Souter did what he did, how would you react if it happened to you?
June 3, 2009, 2:56 pmRoux says:
And Rush casts his bait in to the Left Gulf…. I wonder what he’ll catch.
June 3, 2009, 2:57 pmBob B says:
I am much more interested in knowing the veracity of the rumor that
June 3, 2009, 2:57 pmshe has “been overturned by the SCOTUS 60% of the time her decisions have been appealed,” than I am in pursuing the racism and abortion sideshows.
It seems to me all of the hoopla is designed to distract us.
Jim in Alaska says:
Not really germane. Can’t see the forest for the trees. Question shouldn’t be will she support this or that issue but will she assure issues and laws brought before her are constitutional, -rather than interpret the Constitution to support the popular sentiment of the moment or Law Of The Day.
but…….
June 3, 2009, 2:58 pmTom says:
Rush has a way of getting the Dems to dance like puppets. I’ll bet there are a lot of anxious phone calls being made right now by avid pro-abortion folks concerning Sotomayor’s thoughts on the issue. It probably hadn’t occurred to them to question her position on the issue before today.
I don’t think that will affect her ultimate confirmation, but who knows? These are strange times.
June 3, 2009, 2:58 pmFormer Belgian says:
@A to the F: leaving the loaded m-word aside, it is worth mentioning that even in (bioethically speaking) super-liberal Holland, abortions are illegal past the limit of “reasonable expectation of viability” (currently defined by the Dutch Ministry of Health as 24 weeks), and punishable by up to 4.5 years in prison. The only exception is danger to the mother’s life.
This in a country where abortions are otherwise depenalized if carried out by licensed providers and with certain formal requirements (5-day waiting period, informing mother of consequences and alternatives, parental consent below age 16,… plus additional restrictions in the 2nd trimester).
If you want to see the heads of snooty anti-American Euros (”the US is a Christianist theocracy!”) explode, point out that US legislation on abortion is in some states more permissive than even in Holland.
[Relevant legislation: articles 82a and 296 of the Dutch Penal Code, and the Law on Termination of Pregnancies of May 1, 1981. If you understand Dutch or trust Google Translate, more at:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortus_provocatus#Abortus_in_Nederland
]
June 3, 2009, 2:58 pmTim P. says:
My first thoughts have been stated quite eloquently above. Namely: What lorien1973 said, and Ted Kennedy is also Catholic, but is staunchly pro-choice abortion.
But on whether overturning of Roe v Wade would be bad for Republicans, let me add this. With the apoplexy on the Left over Obama following Bush’s national security policies and his back tracking on several Lefty issues, if an Obama nominated Supreme Court Justice helped to overturn Roe, the Left would go moon-bat crazy. Obama would lose much of his support. Not the state-run media, of course, but a lot of the far left.
Overturning Roe would energize the base of both parties like nothing in recent memory. And taking the argument back to the various states would be a good thing for the country. We need these wedge issues (like abortion and gay marriage) to be debated and decided locally, not legislated from the bench. You know – the whole “Democracy” thing we have going in this country.
June 3, 2009, 3:00 pmDADvocate says:
I happened to catch Rush making that statement. (The only ten minutes I’ve listened to Rush this year. I only listen to the radio in the car. I wasn’t interested in Bill Cunningham’s subject and listened to Rush for a few minutes before switching to music.) I think Rush was being tongue-in-cheek. It is curious how many Catholics are on the SCOTUS bench.
I wonder when liberals, like astroboy483, will quit spreading their hate speech. “We both agree I shouldn’t shoot and kill you even if we disagree on everything else, right? That is how the pro-life (or pro-birt) camp sees things. Nothing trumps this issue for them/us.”
June 3, 2009, 3:01 pmKelly says:
I guess you have to be a regular Rush listener to get what he is doing. There is obvious doubt on the pro choice side as to how Sotomayor would vote on the issue of abortion. Rush is simply rattling their cages by saying he could support her if she turns out to be pro life.
June 3, 2009, 3:02 pmNony Mouse says:
Along with several other commentors (Roy, Mike, Dan), I have serious reservations with expending brainpower any sort of “secret leanings” based on rumors.
June 3, 2009, 3:02 pmIt’s like Perez giving Obama a pass on his stated political beliefs, since the POTUS probably doesn’t mean what he says. Sotomayor is only getting in trouble with her wise something remarks because she published them, at a time when they weren’t crucial to her career.
To XWL, I firmly believe that she deserves a straight up-or-down vote. However, I believe that the bar for approval, rather than disapproval, ought to be high. It keeps out the not-quite-graduated from automotive engineering grad students who were in the campaign.
Barnabus says:
Hey, what happened to diversity?…the court already has it’s Catholic quota.
June 3, 2009, 3:02 pmGreg H. says:
I suspect Rush is creating a tar baby with this.
June 3, 2009, 3:04 pmHuey says:
Seriously. We’re going to get a lib in SCOTUS. That’s a given. If we can get one who is pro-life (unlikely, even here), then that’s as close to a “win” as we can get.
June 3, 2009, 3:04 pmIgnatius Loyola says:
Senator Feinstein was raised as a Catholic and graduated from Sacred Heart High School in San Francisco.
June 3, 2009, 3:04 pmJohn says:
“Hey, what happened to diversity?…the court already has it’s Catholic quota.”
Yeah. She is an ivy league educated Catholic who practices con law. Not exactly something new. Diversity would be someone who joined the military out of high school, went to a state law school and became a distinguished attorney in another field like commercial transactions or anti-trust law. Now that would be diversity. But someone like Obama, or Sotomayer for that matter, has rarely if ever actually interracted with someone from such a background.
June 3, 2009, 3:06 pmAnn Althouse says:
“You listen to Rush?”
Sure! I subscribe to the podcast and listen all the time. I’m not even ashamed of it. Look: I even told the NYT I did and they included it in this article about me: “Ann Althouse, 58, is a law professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison who blogs about politics, law and cultural whatnots in a sharp, occasionally ribald tone. She admires Rush Limbaugh, voted for George Bush in ’04 and Barack Obama in ’08. She attracts derision and applause from 500,000 monthly visitors.”
June 3, 2009, 3:06 pmJohn says:
Ann,
What did the reporter say when you told him that? I would love to have seen the look on his face. I mean to you might as well told him you are a member of NAMBLA.
June 3, 2009, 3:07 pmtom swift says:
“and the Senate approves or disapproves, and the bar for disapproval should be very high.”
Funny, I don’t remember the Constitution saying anything about how high “the bar” should be. So far as we can tell from the text, those dead white guys may have intended for the Senate to reject the appointee if they didn’t like her hat. The Senate is allowed to be trivial – and a good thing too, else they’d be a constant disappointment.
In the general case, the Senate is not the servant of the President any more than the President is the servant of the Senate, despite all the disapproving noise we heard over the past eight years whenever Bush refused to defer to Congress as if it was his boss. The fact that the President thinks the candidate to be a suitable choice hardly obligates the Senate to rubber-stamp the nomination. “Advice and consent” implies that the Senate is allowed – indeed, expected – to make up its own mind. The concept of “checks and balances” can hardly work any other way.
Judge Sotomayor is clearly unqualified because she has a mystical idea that her judicial instincts are superior solely by virtue of her ancestry and her chromosomes. She said so herself. To which this not-quite-dead white guy says, “Hogwash!” It is nothing but a convenient prejudice, a bigotry, and a lousy way to evaluate judicial skill.
June 3, 2009, 3:09 pmFred4Pres says:
John: Camile Paglia is a big Rush fan too (and Hannity).
June 3, 2009, 3:12 pmAndrew the Noisy says:
For me, it would be a wash. Yes, the dis-enshrinement of Roe v. Wade would be a Good Thing on a number of levels: 1) it would end the public presumption in favor of abotion, 2) it would be a blow against the Great Penumbra and judicial activism, and a blow in favor of states’ rights and federalism.
But Sotomayer’s obvious leftism would nullify those gains. This is not a woman who favors federalism as I see it, nor would be, save by accident, a bulwark against bureaucratic tyranny and government activism.
Besides, there’s absolutely no guaruntee she’s pro-life, or pro-life enough to matter.
June 3, 2009, 3:15 pmAcme Litmus Paper says:
We are putting on a third shift.
June 3, 2009, 3:19 pmThank You Rush Limbaugh.
Sincerely,
Acme Litmus Paper
Gaslight, NM
mark l. says:
maybe not a stealth candidate like souter…
but she does have a lot of empty spots that I think the dems forgot to fill in for themselves. beyond her being a hispanic female, which may very well corrolate with being a liberal, does not exactly verify it.
they really don’t have a litmus test, do they?
the private catholic school tells me a lot. nuns have a way of putting students in their place, with emphasis on personal responsiblity. you don’t succeed in catholic school without some indoctrination into responsiblity.
i’m guessing sotomayor would have voted with the SC majority on the 2007 decison to uphold the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act {Gonzales v. Carhart}.
her history of being a member of Maternity Center Association doesn’t speak to me of someone who is an advocate of abortion, but rather as an advocate of the mother AND infant’s health.
bottom line?
June 3, 2009, 3:20 pmshe’s the very best candidate the gop could hope for. it doesn’t get much better than this. given her diabetes and age, bush picked his two for the long haul, while obama’s is more an answer to the ‘urgency of now’.
Paul says:
Your point, Ann, is the politically cogent one. If the question of abortion were returned to the state legislatures, that’d be a big boon to Democrats. Republicans want abortion as an issue, no doubt. But they don’t want actual political accountability for it.
But this is all neither here nor there. If Sotomayor proves to be an unreliable on Roe, I’ll eat my hat.
June 3, 2009, 3:21 pmJack is Back! says:
With all due respect to the commenters who proceeded me – I am a Catholic, a practicing Catholic and a member of a 12,000 member church. As a large church with a Pre-K3 to 8 Catholic school we are especially active in all aspects of Catholic doctrine and education. It is my experience that a very large majority of our members (I would say over 90%) are very much pro-life and very much anti-abortion. The Dan Brown crowd of Catholics as well as the pro-choice crowd of Catholics are probably less inclined to call themselves practicing Catholics – that is they go to church regularly, tithe, go to confession and receive communion and participate in a number of church activities like KoC, guild, CCD etc. Sotomayor from what I know is not a very active practicing Catholic but is a Hispanic who was raised Catholic and may retain a lot of the moral values we have accepted as part of spiritual life. But on to the actual point of Rush’s new enthusiasm – he is faking it (like Obama is faking it on gay marriage). We all know Rush and he is perpetrating another of his “operation Chaos” fakes that will only get the left and the Dems all discombobulated and snapping at each other. I can’t wait until this makes it to the MSM especially NBC and MSNBC.
June 3, 2009, 3:21 pmJohnFN says:
So how you feeling about that Obama vote now?
June 3, 2009, 3:24 pmRAZ says:
Ann, Do you think the GOPers will introduce the parties to the New Haven case at the confirmation hearings? Reading Dr. K’s column, they would make very sympathetic figures for the face of reverse discrimination, and it would be interesting to see an appellate judge face the dyslexic plaintiff and explain that since he is a white dyslexic applicant and not a black dyslexic applicant, he doesn’t deserve the job promotion. Just wondering.
June 3, 2009, 3:24 pmLaserlight says:
“Beyond Dan Brown laughable”
I’m hard put to come up with anything less plausible than a Dan Brown plot. The best I can manage on the spur of the moment is “an invasion of ancient Egyptian zombies at a nudist ski resort being defeated by interstellar bisexual unicorns whose computers happen to interface perfectly with ours” … no, that’s still a lot more believable than DaVinci Code.
June 3, 2009, 3:24 pmjackson1234 says:
This is a riot. If it were to emerge that Sotomayor was pro-life, Democrats suddenly would agree with Limbaugh that the judge shouldn’t be confirmed due to her “racism.” Limbaugh has gotten the last laugh on this one, and the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. I have no idea what Sotomayor’s Roe position is, but watch is become a huge issue now.
June 3, 2009, 3:26 pmPablo says:
A to the F has it down. That’s pretty much the whole thing. But, why this question of viability? There’s plenty of 25 year olds whose life isn’t too viable. We can’t just off them, can we? Life is precious and delicate. Just as . . . say . . . the environment is precious and delicate. If we spent one tenth of one percent of the effort protecting life as we spent on the dubious efforts which “protect” the environment, there wouldn’t be an argument to have.
The real argument is between respecting life and respecting convenience. Women who favor “choice” don’t want to be inconvenienced. How sad that that’s all it is to them. It’s an inconvenient truth that seems little talked about. Hey! an inconvenient truth! That’s catchy! Somebody should do something with that!
June 3, 2009, 3:26 pmrandy says:
Sotomayor’s membership in La Raza is a non-starter for me regardless of her views on abortion.
June 3, 2009, 3:27 pmJohn says:
I think the Ricci case is some made of TV entertainment. Republicans need to go after her on it and make her explain her decision. It is an example of the kind of ugliness that the left likes to pretend doesn’t exist. Yes, Sotomayer will get confirmed. But the Left ought to have to pay the political price of finally being the party of petty racial payoffs in discrimination for getting it.
June 3, 2009, 3:28 pmRetiredE9 says:
To change the subject just a little. One of Rush’s caller asked, who identifies themselves as “wise”?
Can’t recall too many in my life…well, maybe one.
June 3, 2009, 3:29 pmxv1942 says:
To the Romans the “Rule of Law” was the highest concern. Not the feelings of the Jurist. To the Founding Fathers the “Rule of Law” was the assumed and understood backdrop in determining the proper course. So the question to ask the candidate jurist for the Supreme Court is will they rule based on what the law and Constitution says or based on how they feel.
Of course since this is a lifetime appointment if there is the slightest chance they will rule based on feelings rather that what the Constitution says then the Senate should vote against her. That determination has to be made on the basis of her previous public utterances.
Currently it would appear based on her past public utterances that she will most likely vote with how she feels. All testimony in the Senate is of course just hot air. Once the confirmation is gained it matters not a whit what was said.
June 3, 2009, 3:31 pmJimbo says:
Paul: You have got to be kidding me right? Conservatives would love for abortion issues to be handled at the state level, nothing would kill the Democrats more. The sole reason the Democrats hold so much of the woman vote is because of this issue.
If this went to the states, abortion would not be illegal anywhere, but the days of abortion on demand no matter the viability of the child, would be over.
The Dems get to use the politics of fear on this issue due to it being decided only at the Supreme Court level. Many states would would quickly hammer out a compromise on this issue taking it out of the scarey category. This would lose the Democrats some of thier core votes.
No way do the Democrats want that to happen, that is why they created the litmus test in the first place.
June 3, 2009, 3:37 pmGreggums says:
I agree that overturning Roe would help the left just as the end of the Soviet Union helped the left: by freeing them from defending or covering for something inherently indefensible.
June 3, 2009, 3:37 pmKaren says:
“Thus bolsters my argument that a pro-lifer would support a pro-lifer who disagrees with them on everything else; over a pro-choicer who agrees with them on everything else.
June 3, 2009, 2:18 pm”
I find it hard to understand why some people simply do not revere life. If you can let babies die who have survived a botched abortion, where is your soul (President Obama)?
Be that as it may, Rush’s point was that there could be a silver lining to the Wise Latina’s confirmation. Not that he was all hot to have her confirmed now.
Frankly, having listened to Rush for years now, I think I understand him better than people who lap up what the state-run media (ie Democrats) choose to serve up. He is enjoying the anticipated discomfiture of Democrats over this particular issue.
June 3, 2009, 3:37 pmjackson1234 says:
This is a riot. If it were to emerge that Sotomayor was pro-life, Democrats suddenly would agree with Limbaugh’s past assertion that the judge shouldn’t be confirmed due to her “racism.” Limbaugh has gotten the last laugh on this one, and the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. I have no idea what Sotomayor’s Roe position is, but watch it become a huge issue now.
Thank you, Mr. President. You may have put the last nail into the coffin for identity politics with this nomination.
June 3, 2009, 3:37 pmSukieTawdry says:
Whatever Rush said or meant is less important than our talking about what Rush said or meant. In fact, it’s rather the point. How he must love the way in which media, both the legacy and the new, assist in his self-promotion. The man certainly knows how to market his product (not to suggest that he doesn’t have sincerely held beliefs which, of course, he does).
June 3, 2009, 3:37 pmMars vs Hollywood says:
“an invasion of ancient Egyptian zombies at a nudist ski resort being defeated by interstellar bisexual unicorns whose computers happen to interface perfectly with ours”
Ron Howard is shopping the script as we speak.
Seriously, though, anyone who thinks Roe v Wade wasn’t the first question Obama asked of his short list of nominees is kidding themselves. There is no chance.
June 3, 2009, 3:38 pmEJCII says:
I have wonder how she would answer the following question?
When does life begin?
June 3, 2009, 3:39 pmDarrell says:
Forget the racism accusations, forget the abortion stance. If 60% of her rulings have been overturned by the Supreme Court, she’s obviously not qualified for a seat on that court.
June 3, 2009, 3:41 pmfallibilist says:
According to the 10th paragraph of the this article, a Gallup poll says that Catholics are less likely to be pro-life than Protestants.
Rush Limbaugh pays too little attention to facts about the outside world and too much attention to his own opinions.
June 3, 2009, 3:41 pmPatrick1 says:
This may have been said already, but what about the possibility that Obama in a hurry to change the subject from the economy and obsessed as any liberal is with identity politics got in a hurry and named his version of Souter?
June 3, 2009, 3:42 pmMeade says:
Ann Althouse says:
“…the NYT… article about me…”
Wait. Don’t you mean the article about ME?
June 3, 2009, 3:42 pmGRW3 says:
No way she could be secret pro-lifer? Well the guy she is replacing was touted as reliable conservative the could get throught Borking, un nomination process.
Maybe as a ‘wise-latina’ she more aware of how well Margaret Sanger’s (Planned Parenthood founder) plan to use abortion to reduce the impact of minorities on the country has worked than the typical liberal. Just because minorities most often vote Democrat does not mean they ascribe to all their left wing ideas. It was the minority vote that killed gay marriage in California after all.
This is actually a golden opprotunity to get the people who target everyone who does not agree with them for ‘racist’ treatment on the hypocrit record. Illustrating absurdity with by being absurd, it’s one of his standard techniques.
June 3, 2009, 3:43 pmPatrick, Mayor of Scrotumwah Iowa says:
I’d just like to say Good Luck. We’re all counting on you
June 3, 2009, 3:43 pmSybilll says:
If you don’t think this was intentional sabbotage by Rush, go to ANY liberal forum and see the emotion he has stirred. Nice one, Rush.
June 3, 2009, 3:44 pmBrent Michael Krupp says:
Not sure how much the Dutch example actually tells us. “The only exception is danger to the mother’s life” -> she’s depressed about being pregnant -> she might kill herself -> we need to let her get a 39th week abortion to save her life. Exceptions for the mother’s health turn into a loophole you can drive a truck through.
June 3, 2009, 3:45 pmhappyfeet says:
I don’t get in what world he’s living that abortion is such a singular issue he would support this lady just cause of that. That’s weird and shallow. I think Mr. Limbaugh might could have some stupid in his head even if he’s usually an amiable and reasoned sort of fellow.
June 3, 2009, 3:45 pmLockestep says:
There is no way any SC in our lifetimes will overturn Roe. We’ve had nominal pro-life Presidents for 20 of the last 28 years, and in that time the court has not even been close to an overturn. Hoping the first nominee of a pro-choice President will somehow turn into a persuasive, coalition-building voice capable of convincing four other justices to throw the last 40 years of precedent out the door is borderline delusional.
June 3, 2009, 3:46 pmMark Buehner says:
I’ve really come to dread SCOTUS openings these days. Whoever is nominated, the other side will turn them into the anti-christ. Honestly, its Barack Obama. Does anyone really think he’s going to appoint someone less liberal under ANY circumstance? His next pick might be Rev. Wright if this one is knocked down. He won, she’s qualified, and she’s going to get approved. I understand the Dems voted against Roberts and Alito, so go ahead and vote against her. But shut up about it. Lets talk about something that might make a damned bit of difference.
June 3, 2009, 3:47 pmStephen Clark says:
@Meade: Too funny!
June 3, 2009, 3:48 pmzzzzzzzzzz..... says:
Still no trolls…..But the dude who wrote about when abortions are allowed in Holland had a great point. I am not smart enough to know when life begins but after 6 months it is a baby.
June 3, 2009, 3:49 pmhappyfeet says:
um… Instigating a national chit-chat about abortion while the nation descends into a dirty socialist torpor is something other than a diabolically clever strategy I think.
June 3, 2009, 3:49 pmDark Eden says:
I definitely got the sense Rush was just saying this to make the left doubt her nomination themselves, since Republicans don’t have the votes to stop her anyway he may as well take a stab at it. What does he have to lose?
June 3, 2009, 3:50 pmBen says:
Well, what the heck. She’s going to get confirmed anyway, and then it’ll be too late to figure everything out, anyway…
June 3, 2009, 3:52 pmPatrick1 says:
As for Rush, he is doing what he does better than anyone today, driving liberals nuts. He knows that if there is the slightest hint that she might be pro-life they will collapse in liberal hysteria.
June 3, 2009, 3:52 pmmhw says:
There is no realistic chance of overturning Roe v Wade.
However, there is a realistic chance of finding various laws by States constitutional where the laws restrict late term abortion or require counseling, etc.
This field has been in play for the past few years and the balance on SCOTUS is close.
So, in this there might be a benefit to confirming Sotomayor for even the moderates.
June 3, 2009, 3:53 pmKent says:
Apparently Politico and by extension Yahoo News has taken the bait.
“Rush Flips; may support Sotomayor” is the current headline. Apparently, either they think they can play this as if he actually does support her, or they got suckered in. Either way, they look stupid.
June 3, 2009, 3:54 pmJoe says:
I think Limbaugh’s manuever is working.
The ludricrously liberal Yahoo News Headlines just put up “Limbaugh says he might support Sotomayor”.
I think that’s going to make core liberals sit up and wonder what they aren’t seeing….in other words, it’ll loosen her support.
June 3, 2009, 3:55 pmDark Eden says:
“Rush has been obsessed with MSNBC lately. He complains that entire segments of shows, like “Countdown with Keith Olberman” are devoted to reacting to what he says. I think he’s trying to play games with MSNBC here.”
Actually I think its the exact opposite. The impression I got was that he thinks its funny that MSNBC is so obsessed with him and like you said, devotes entire segments to what he has to say. He made them a challenge to go a month without mentioning him (or whatever it was) because without him to beat what would they say on MSNBC?
He’s not angry or obsessed, he’s laughing at MSNBC. Deservedly so.
June 3, 2009, 3:56 pmGregory Koster says:
I can only hope that Intrade will sponsor a contract like this:
“Sonia Sotomayor joins Roberts, Alito, Thomas, & Scalia to overturn ROE 5-4.”
With Tim Geithner in the Treasury, this would be a great opportunity for the despised-by-The-One middle class to get a share of all that Chinese gravy pouring in from overseas.
Meanwhile we can conclude either that a) Lush Blimpblob has stopped swallowing pills and is now injecting it directly into a vein at 200 pounds pressure or b) laughing like hell at the feminists who run around in a panic, shrieking that all is doomed. For God’s sake: William Brennan, the driving force behind ROE was Catholic. Democratic Catholicism is about as Catholic as Andrew Sullivan is conservative. The only drawback to Blimpblob’s antics is that it might induce some GOP senators to vote for Sotomayor. Sotomayor is going on the Supreme bench short of Der Tag breaking out. The ideal situation in this case is for a party line vote. This will allow the Right to mock and deride Sotomayor as divisive, just as the Left has for Thomas, Roberts and Alito.
June 3, 2009, 3:57 pmhappyfeet says:
Who’s getting suckered exactly though? Headlines intimating that Mr. Limbaugh’s stance on this or that issue is pivotal is exactly what the dirty socialists’ “Rush Limbaugh is head of the Republican Party” campaign was designed to achieve.
Don’t ever imagine that Barack Obama’s media is not very very good at what they do.
June 3, 2009, 3:59 pmHelenW says:
So, Obama has nominated a bigoted, anti-Constitutional, reparation-minded, morally-confused, shameless post-modern marxist clown to the SCOTUS. IOW, someone just like himself. When does this get to be interesting and informative?
Call me when we learn that she just cleaned up her tax returns from the past decade. I could use the larf.
June 3, 2009, 4:03 pmmark l. says:
i think there is too much faith in the ability of the WH to screen people…
they’ve done an incredibly bad job of screening thus far.
they wanted a hispanic female, and sotomayor was the closet thing they could find. is there another hispanic female out there, that the left would rather have? or the right for that matter?
i have a feeling the decision tree went like this…
rahm tells obama to go with a “female/hispanic”.
they go to the judiciary committee.
schumer, in a self promoting way, pushes sotomayor, instantly vouching for her without checking. feinstein, in her own conservative way, fails to promote a name without being sure, and would never finish her vetting before Chuck. she might have come to the possible choice of Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, but never quickly…
the wh wanted the answer by a certian time period, fienstein wavers, while schumer thinks he is getting a big victory for his homestate and ‘brays’ very loudly about how certain he is.
“And if that is really true, then I would agree with her. And I believe it is.”
June 3, 2009, 4:03 pmfeinstein just hedged…
Brian says:
I missed out the first time around. Commenting on Instapundit cool, man. As for Rush, he sure knows how to get attention, doesn’t he?
June 3, 2009, 4:10 pmJeff says:
Hey, since this site has now become another cheer-leader for the Obama administration (THE EFFECTIVENESS of Tim Geithner,COMPARING SOTOMAYOR TO JUDGE PICKERING and others) , is there another site out there that honestly criticizes the government?
June 3, 2009, 4:10 pmIt feels like reading propaganda now…
Irish Rabble says:
Wow, commenting on Instapundit… this feels somehow rebellious, like the kids taking over while Dad is away and having a party in the mansion.
To the point: Why would anyone think that someone being a Catholic means they’d be pro-life, secretly or otherwise?
June 3, 2009, 4:15 pmPaul says:
Jimbo, supra:
“Paul: You have got to be kidding me right? Conservatives would love for abortion issues to be handled at the state level …”
Oh, I’m sure conservatives would love for these issues to be handled at the state level. But Republicans wouldn’t …
June 3, 2009, 4:17 pmlooking closely says:
A to the F:
Do I really have to? OK
>>1) why it is a “bad thing” to let the individual states determine the legality of abortion?
Because some of the States might then outlaw the procedure. If you believe that women deserve the right to choose themselves, then you won’t like that outcome. Hence you’d want abortion legalized by fiat on a Federal level (eg as Roe v Wade did).
>>2) how abortions past the stage of viability do not constitute murder?
This is a semantic argument.
“Murder” is defined as unlawful killing of a person. If abortion is legal, ipso facto, it isn’t murder.
If you want to define a fetus as an immature human (which I think is pretty self-evident) then you could characterize abortion as “homicide” (ie the taking of a human life).
If you don’t think a fetus is a person, then it isn’t murder OR homicide.
June 3, 2009, 4:17 pmJohn says:
I don’t think she is such a shoo in. The Ricci case and the “wise latina’ speech are the kinds of things that really piss people off. Once the hearings start there is going to be a lot pressure on Red State Dems to vote against her. Also, she has a reputation for being very difficult in person. That doesn’t bode well for her doing well during confirmation.
June 3, 2009, 4:20 pmHans says:
Sotomayor is a fat lesbian nazi. Obama had to nominate her to avoid being assasinated by La Raza.
Disclaimer: To the best of my knowledge, nothing in the above paragraph is true. It certainly does not reflect my beliefs. I just wanted to see how long it will take for Bill O’Reilly to quote my “blog post on Instapundit.”
June 3, 2009, 4:22 pmOregonJon says:
What a waste of time. The lady will be confirmed. Since there is no possibility of keeping her off the court, just go along with the tribal politics the Democrats are using. Why irritate the growing power of the Hispanic tribe? At best make a few principled comments while saying the it is the president’s choice and while you disagree with several items there is nothing in her record that disqualifies her from service. There is no reason not to be gracious in defeat.
June 3, 2009, 4:24 pmlooking closely says:
Her religion is a red-herring. Sotomayer is conventionally liberal/activist in every other legal way, why should anyone assume that she is a “secret” pro-lifer? It doesn’t make any sense.
The fact that the Obama administration itself raised this issue is even more evidence that its irrelevant. They’re just trying to erode what turned out to be unanticipated resistance to this nominee.
As to Rush. . .he’s amusing entertainment. I’ll start to take him seriously when he holds elected office (which will be exactly. . .never).
June 3, 2009, 4:27 pmRoy Mustang says:
“Sonia Sotomayor joins Roberts, Alito, Thomas, & Scalia to overturn ROE 5-4.”
The integrity of the Constitution is more important than the lives that would be saved. Judicial empathy/Living Constitution/Make S*** Up is illegitimate and contrary to the rule of law….whether the empathy is on your side or not.
June 3, 2009, 4:28 pmFat Man says:
There is an old Russian saying: “When a poor man marries, the night is short.”
Why is it that Justices who grow in office, grow liberal. Why can’t they be like most old folks and grow more conservative.
That said, it is fun to contemplate the idea of some doctrinaire leftists’ heads exploding, if La Sotomayora joins the dark side and tosses Roe in to the trash can it should have been tossed into many years gone by.
Nah, never happen, Linda Greenhouse would use her enormous buck teeth to rip La Sotomayora’s heart out of her body.
I think Rush is playing with liberal heads.
June 3, 2009, 4:36 pmSSG Jeff (USAR) says:
I expect her to be as pro-life as, oh, John Kerry.
June 3, 2009, 4:37 pmGlenn says:
I would invite any Senator to make a colored copy of the “Hand of Hope,” hand it to the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, and ask her: “is this a human being that is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness delineated in the United States Declaration of Independence”? (enter “Hand of Hope” into the search block on foxnews.com to see a picture of a baby fetus clutching the finger of a surgeon while in his/her mother’s womb). Although not a quote from the Constitution of the United States of America, I am convinced her answer would speak volumes.
June 3, 2009, 4:37 pmBarnabus says:
OK…from the “Give them an inch and they’ll want a mile file” …enough of the tease…We’ve tasted freedom and we want full comments all the time. Gather at your keyboards people…we’re going over the ridge.
June 3, 2009, 4:38 pmRay says:
She has already shown that the rights of white firemen have little meaning so it would lead one to believe that other’s rights are of little value.
She gives the appearance of being most interested in protecting her own rights. If so, she has already cut the deal with Obama and abortions will continue on her watch.
June 3, 2009, 4:38 pmJames says:
I think that if the Republicans want to rattle cages (they probably don’t have a chance to vote her down), that they should review the hearings on Miguel Estrada, and use those as a starting point for questions at the hearing for Ms. Sotomayor. If the Democrats object, then they can say that the questions were asked at previous hearings.
June 3, 2009, 4:39 pmmark l. says:
“Gather at your keyboards people…we’re going over the ridge.”
when I found out IP was on vacation, I moved into his house. wonder what reynolds take is on squater’s rights.
ps. he is out of milk and i’m taking the picture he has of himself, nixon, and elvis.
June 3, 2009, 4:47 pmDrider says:
You do understand why Rush said he would consider this pick if she was pro life.
Answer:
June 3, 2009, 4:51 pmBecause she ISN’T prolife or she wouldn’t have been picked.It as satire on Rush’s part with a brilliant twist…………It gets the after life contriceptive people thinking about how the pick hasn’t touched on the subject and it bugs them, they will fret and want answers.
Doh-San says:
(No time to read all the way thru all the comments, but…)
Could it be that Sotomayor is a stalking horse? Are conservatives and libertarians being set up so that they will offer less opposition to the candidate being held in reserve?
Stranger things have happened.
June 3, 2009, 4:53 pmDean says:
Confirming Sotomayor because you suspect she “might be pro-life” seems a lot like voting for Obama because you suspect he “might be more moderate then he seems”.
June 3, 2009, 4:53 pmI would rather argue for someone who “might” actually respect our Constitution.
SarcastiCarrie says:
@A to the F
@Former Belgian
Abortion past the point of viability is complicated. There are a variety of conditions that are not currently found until the “Big 20 Week Anatomy Scan” (anencephaly, Down syndrome, arthrogryposis, other trisomies, translocations of genetic material, hydrocephalus). This ultrasound is usually scheduled between 18 and 22 weeks. 22 weeks is already pushing the cusp of viability. It takes a day for the radiologist to review the films from the ultrasound. Then an amniocentesis is often ordered and you’ll wait for an appointment for that and the results can take two weeks. Then, if something is found, you’ll need to get an appointment with a genetic counselor and wait another week. You’ve now just spent three weeks to a month gestating a baby whose chance of survival outside the womb can be low. So, even if you started at 18 weeks (and most doctors prefer to schedule it at 20 weeks or later because of better views of the formed organs), by the time the results are in, you are already at 22 – 26 weeks along.
Now, reasonable people can disagree whether one should terminate a pregnancy where we know that the woman will not be leaving the hospital with a living baby or whether the woman should be compelled to continue and deliver a still born baby or suffer a neo-natal death. Most women seeking late-term abortions are not doing it because they are lazy and forgot to have an abortion during the first trimester. They are doing it because something terrible has happened (either to them or to the fetus). Some suggested reading on “Kansas Stories” can be found at http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/
A country with no abortion at all is a country where an ectopic (outside the uterus) pregnancy can kill women because either you stop cell division of the embryo (abort) or the woman dies.
June 3, 2009, 4:54 pmJohn says:
OK…from the “Give them an inch and they’ll want a mile file” …enough of the tease…We’ve tasted freedom and we want full comments all the time. Gather at your keyboards people…we’re going over the ridge.
June 3, 2009, 4:38 pm
Althouse will erase all evidence of this before he returns like Tom Cruise fixed the house back up in Risky Business. This will never stand. It will be like it never happened.
June 3, 2009, 4:59 pmPhil Singleton says:
It seems to me the key issue is whether one should support a judicial nominee of whatever views if that nominee probably wouldn’t even qualify for jury duty, as pointed out in this parody:
http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/05/updated-obamas-first-nominee-for.html
June 3, 2009, 5:00 pmthomass says:
lorien1973 says:
“Thus bolsters my argument that a pro-lifer would support a pro-lifer who disagrees with them on everything else; over a pro-choicer who agrees with them on everything else.”
So demanding agreement on more issues is some how better?
Single issue people are annoying. People that demand you follow the whole party line are insufferable.
June 3, 2009, 5:01 pmLily says:
Well maybe if we behave ourselves and have a reasonable discussion Glenn will let us stay when he comes home.
June 3, 2009, 5:02 pmRetiredE9 says:
Who routinely refers to themselves in the third person? Is that a legal thing? Or just…weird?
June 3, 2009, 5:04 pmdebbiesm says:
Were I in the Senate, I would vote no, using the same kind of argument that Barack Obama used when he voted against John Roberts:
“The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.”
Only I would say something like this:
The bottom line is this: I will be voting against Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Sotomayor will show herself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also an impartial judge who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the preferential impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that she can recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society, but that she will put aside any biases she has in order to dispense blind justice. I hope that her jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of political correctness.
June 3, 2009, 5:15 pmQwinn says:
“ps. he is out of milk and i’m taking the picture he has of himself, nixon, and elvis.”
You… you drank the “milk”? Dude… -dude-… Glenn makes his “milk” in a -blender-…
June 3, 2009, 5:15 pmhappyfeet says:
Again with the noticeable spike in page views from just enabling comments on one thread. The fruit, it is hanging not particularly high I think.
June 3, 2009, 5:50 pmQwinn says:
A 1991 speech has just been discovered where she says almost exactly the same thing as she did in 2004. Ace of Spades has a post up about it. The main difference people are noticing is that back then she was just wiser than men for being female, not female and latina. People are taking this as evidence that she didn’t “misspeak”. But there’s a much bigger difference here.
The main leftist bleat in response to the first quote was that “You are ripping out of context!11!1!1eleventy!1! She was only talking about being wiser/better in discrimination cases!” I heard this tons at Ace, at Volokh, and other sites. It was the consensus lefty talking point in response to that quote.
Never mind for the moment the bizarre and idiotic notion that judges who have been victims of the crimes they are litigating are somehow sure to give a better judgment. From now on, all trials of black men convicted of mugging white men should be adjudicated by white men! It’s the only way to be fair!
As I said, never mind that. Cause what we suspected was a pure BS defense in the original quote, we now -know- to be a completely BS defense.
I just read this entire 1991 speech, and ya know what? Her point isn’t -about- “discrimination” cases. The biggest example she gives to support her quote about women being wiser than men is in how women on the jury of the Menendez Brothers trial voted to acquit while the men to convict. And this is her proof for what she says later, that by “better”, she means women will be more -compassionate- judges.
It’s sexist and bigoted as all hell, and it’s most certainly got NOTHING to do with being only “better” in discrimination cases (which would’ve been a ridiculous point even if accurate). In 1991, she thought as a woman she was better than a man, period, and since then, she’s added that her latina-ness makes her better than whites. That’s -all- there is to it. Will her defenders cease the neverending BS to cover up her sexism and racism? Of course not. New lefty meme coming up… that is if anyone else besides me notices that their last one just got blown out of the water.
Qwinn
June 3, 2009, 6:10 pmLockestep says:
Re: John, Lily et al
Ann will have us all look into her Men In Black device. No comments, no memory, no problem.
June 3, 2009, 6:10 pmgarrett says:
The way I see it, there are about six groups that sit at the head of the democratic party table and they make the rules for the national democratic party. Those six are: the abortion on demand group, the naacp group, the GLT group, the gettys, the rothschilds, the queen of england, and while he was alive Colonel Sanders.
If any of the first three object then a dem pol gets nothing. No support, no funding, no national office, etc. This is why Bill Clinton and Al Gore both changed their views on abortion. Sure they will pull out Casey in PA to run saying they have a pro life dem in the senate, and they will let him vote against abortion issues, but they will pressure him to vote for votes of cloture, votes on amendments, votes on rules to advance all of their topics he just gets to vote against the final bill.
Right now the liberals effectively have abortion on demand they can only lose ground. The conservatives can only gain ground. This position hardly every presents itself in American politics. This one is so because it is in the most difficult to change locations, made up of whole cloth in the minds of a majority of nine people in black robes. It is the most stupid way to make policy.
When the SCOTUS overturns Roe, all fifty states will have different laws and those laws will change probably yearly. Any law on the books will take power away from that first group I mentioned above, they will not like it. It will be fun to watch.
Abortion is not a big issue in other countries because their legislatures make laws and satisfy most of the people.
Rush is playing the media very deftly here. Maybe Sotomayor is staunchly pro-choice/pro-abortion, but there are a whole lot of devout hispanics in this country that really do not like abortion. The conservatives and republicans need to make sure they know that the hispanic being touted in the state run media is not of the same mindset as they are.
Personally, I would have liked to see the republicans when they were in power to pass a law putting a $300 tax on every abortion. If you want something to happen less often, tax it.
June 3, 2009, 6:12 pmQwinn says:
Er, sorry, the earlier speech just discovered was from 1994, not 1991.
June 3, 2009, 6:19 pmLou Gots says:
Except for that one glimmer of insight from MHW, everyone seems to have lost sight of how the appelate judicial process is supposed to work. Cases are to be decided on the simplest grounds available. Precedents are not to be overturned if they can be modified, limited. distinguished. Roe v. Wade is not to be overruled, where cases can be decided which chip away, chip by chip, the elective abortion death machine. If we have been watching baby-murder jurisprudence, we should know that this process has already started.
No longer is the discretion to slaughter one’s child a “fundamental” right, the mere “chilling” or “burdening” of which violates the Constitution. No longer are laws preserving the right to life considerd inseparable wholes, such as would incur the invalidation of a whole statutory scheme on the basis of a single defect. The handwriting is on the wall, for this is how constitutional doctrines evolve. Who knows, Senora Sotomayor may very well drive the stake deeper into the monster’s heart–stranger things have happened.
June 3, 2009, 6:46 pmKaren says:
“SukieTawdry says:
Whatever Rush said or meant is less important than our talking about what Rush said or meant. In fact, it’s rather the point. How he must love the way in which media, both the legacy and the new, assist in his self-promotion. The man certainly knows how to market his product (not to suggest that he doesn’t have sincerely held beliefs which, of course, he does).
June 3, 2009, 3:37 pm ”
It’s not self-promotion, it’s promotion of thought. Too many Americans don’t think at all – the “received wisdom” from the state-run fawning media certainly isn’t conducive to thought.
June 3, 2009, 6:52 pmTom DeGisi says:
“Most women seeking late-term abortions are not doing it because they are lazy and forgot to have an abortion during the first trimester.”
According to Dr. Tiller, (as quoted by a Tiller opponent, Phill Kline) most women seeking late-term abortions are doing so because they didn’t have the money to have an abortion during the first trimester.
Maybe Mr. Kline was misquoting Dr. Tiller.
Yours,
June 3, 2009, 6:56 pmTom
MochaLite says:
No way we’ll know her abortion position before confirmation so, while important, it is irrelevant. What is relevant is what we do know – she found in favor of “disparate impact” over individual accomplishment. She should not be a judge at all.
June 3, 2009, 7:41 pmMochaLite says:
BTW, Glenn, thanks for opening comments. They’re fun!
June 3, 2009, 7:44 pmBill Ferrin says:
So she is anti free speech, pro eminent domain, and thinks that the rule of law should bend according to government policy. But she is pro abortion.
June 3, 2009, 7:59 pmDerick Schilling says:
Justice Kennedy is Catholic, and joined O’Connor and Souter in the Casey plurality opinion that preserved the “core” of Roe.
A to the F: the Constitutional basis for forbidding state legislatures from outlawing abortion is that a woman’s decision about whether to have an abortion is an exercise of personal liberty protected under the 14th Amendment from undue state regulation.
Bob B: Sotomayor has had 5 of her decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court and has been reversed 3 times. I hope Prof. Althouse will correct me if I’m wrong, but my sense is that this isn’t unusual, since the SC often takes cases in order to reverse what the Circuit Court has done. (Justice Alito had two of his opinions reviewed by the SC while he was a Circuit judge and both of them were reversed.) Most of Sotomayor’s 380-odd opinions as a Circuit judge were never reviewed by the SC.
John: between her graduation from Yale Law School and her appointment to the 2d Circuit, Sotomayor served as a criminal prosecutor in state court; was in private practice, specializing in international business litigation; and served as a federal trial judge. This is a background different from the other 8 justices, so she’ll bring career diversity to the Court.
It’s likely her decision in the Ricci case will be reversed by the SC and remanded back to the district court. This means it will be an active case when she’s before the Senate, and she may well decline to discuss it.
June 3, 2009, 8:21 pmMasterThief says:
Turnabout being fair play, and after watching all the nominally Republican appointed justices who have “evolved” into judicial liberals to the great delight and encouragement of the media (Greenhouse of the NYT et al.), having a Democratic appointed justice who “evolves” in the opposite direction would be a welcome surprise just for the level of howling rage it would inspire among the left.
Of course, Rush probably ruined any chance of this by calling her a racist. Engage your brain before you open your mouth next time, douchebag.
June 3, 2009, 8:34 pmtelcogod says:
Sonia is a Catholic like Tiller was a Lutheran.
June 3, 2009, 9:44 pmHarry says:
This is a serious comment – neither satire nor sarcasm involved. She is physically ugly. In the extreme. I find her to be bitter and believe that to be a result of her physical appearance. Ergo, I don’t want a bitter, angry person as a member of SCOTUS. As you may have heard, bitterness may be added to the DSM-V. It’s a mental defect, folks…
HPN
June 3, 2009, 9:47 pmdatechguy says:
That would all come down to two points:
First of all is she an actual practicing Catholic who goes to a Church that actually believes in the sacraments.
If she is then that argument is valid in terms of pro-life.
The 2nd point is that any democratic president is going to appoint someone who supports democratic positions 90% of the time. William Donohue has articulated this position.
The problem with doing this is it give democrats a pass on something that they would use to disqualify a republican. I think that as conservatives we should fight, even if we lose.
June 3, 2009, 10:23 pmCountry Squire says:
If Glenn were to enable comments I would end up spending all of my time here. And if I’m going to be here anyway I guess I might as well volunteer to help moderate the comments since it is going to require an Army of Davids….
My comment is Rush is just stirring the pot. Sotomayor is as Catholic and pro life as Nancy Pelosi. The only thing Republicans can do is to use the hearings as a teachable moment and hope the general public is awake.
June 3, 2009, 10:44 pmIrish Rabble says:
Gawd, will people STOP criticizing the ability of women to do their jobs because of their physical appearance?!! I don’t even like Sotomayor as a SCOTUS candidate, but I swear, I’ll write a letter in support of her if I see another comment about her being “ugly.” She’s not, for one thing.
June 3, 2009, 11:06 pmJB says:
“Thus bolsters my argument that a pro-lifer would support a pro-lifer who disagrees with them on everything else; over a pro-choicer who agrees with them on everything else.”
And that’s fairly stupid considering that God is the greatest abortionist ever. He aborts 25% of pregnancies in the first three months.
June 4, 2009, 3:04 ambandit says:
I actually sort of agree with Limbaugh and others in supporting her. You’re going to get a rubber stamp liberal vote from her or whomever else Obama puts forward. At least in her case she’s going to be completely irrelevant.
June 4, 2009, 8:02 amELC says:
“I assume the Democratic Party would do very well if the Supreme Court happened to overrule Roe v. Wade.” Sure. That’s why the Democratic politicians try so hard to make sure anti-Roe appointees get onto the Supreme Court. They can’t wait to have to fight the issue out in legislatures all over the country. Oh… wait….
By the way, JB, your interesting observation is quite the argument for eliminating murder from the criminal codes: everybody God made dies sooner or later, right? So God is the greatest murderer or all, right? Geesh. If one does not see a distinction between what happens according to the course of nature and what happens because of deliberate human intervention… well, one doesn’t see much at all.
June 4, 2009, 8:40 amTim O says:
“The only thing Republicans can do is to use the hearings as a teachable moment and hope the general public is awake.”
The Republicans have had the podium for the last decade and America has finally awakened. Thank God. The lesson that will be learned is how narrow and out of the mainstream Republican values are.
Oh, and thank you Irish Rabble for being a stand up guy(?), if they have to resort to attacks on Judge Sotomayor’s physical appearance, it pretty much means they don’t have any other argument and are stupid and shallow.
June 4, 2009, 11:41 amtrentk269 says:
I don’t know folks. Most of you apparently don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh often enough to understand his frequent use of deadpan irony. Amusingly, Rush has convinced the liberal media to take up his “musings” and feed them to the liberals out there who have historically borked potential anti-abortion judicial candidates.
Superb. And he’s only using half his brain just to make it fair.
June 4, 2009, 11:55 amNony Mouse says:
@SarcastiCarrie
June 4, 2009, 12:34 pmI think you’ll find that the vast majority of people who favor life include the life of innocent women, and do not believe that if something goes very wrong, her only option would be to pray for healing. For the very reasons you chose to outline, a ban without medical necessity clauses wouldn’t be practical in this country.
@Irish Rabble
Ability isn’t about beauty; calling someone you don’t like ugly does seem rather second grade, doesn’t it? That said, calling someone’s phrases ugly can occasionally be spot-on, and some of the ‘beautiful people’ can manage some of the ugliest excuses for behaviour. I’m not likely to inspire throngs of admirers (think Anthony Euwer), so I’m not as likely to dismiss ability in non-runway ready packages. But I still think the bar should be set high for SCOTUS nominations, and from what I’ve seen so far, Estrada was a better pick than this lady. That being said, Sotomayor has more judicial experience than Harriet Miers, but that’s rather faint praise, and opposition to Bush’s pick was not limited to the dems/libs.
Harry says:
@ Irish Rabble: she’s ugly as crap – now go write your letter. I made a case against ugliness in general (and its outcomes, in specific) and it was not directed at either gender. How you constructed a sexist strawman is beyond me…
@ Nony: second grade? Is that the best you can do? I was discussing the outcome – not the absolute – of ugly. If you can’t follow a simple argument, there’s not much I can do to help you.
HPN
June 4, 2009, 1:50 pmsusan says:
Is anyone growing weary of all the deception?
For example:
Feminists speak of defending women’s rights YET often wish rape upon the female who isn’t part of the Feminist groupthink.
Catholics speak of protecting innocent life YET most end up empowering the extremist abortion procedures, one which leaves the baby to die in dirty hospital linen closets after the baby manages survives the first abortion.
Jews voting for the guy who hates Jews YET hating the guy who defends Jews.
Gays beating upon Mormons who believe marriage is between a man and a woman YET worship like-he-is-a-rock-star Obama who also believes marriage is between a man and a woman.
Demanding free health care YET has the money to see Broadway shows, Springsteen concerts, buy silconed tits and botoxed faces, wear $500 shoes while enjoying five vacations per year.
I am tired of the duplicity and deception; what I do not understand is how can so many wise, intelligent and Ivy-degreed people can be so easily duped.
June 4, 2009, 1:51 pmNony Mouse says:
I try not to go below fifth grader mentality on a regular basis, simply because I do not wish to be beaten with experience. I do not believe that ability refuses to dwell in non-runway ready packages. I also refuse to believe that being considered plain by one’s friends or ugly by one’s enemies absolutely makes one bitter or angry. Mother Teresa wasn’t a looker, but she was a lovely human being. Moreover, I said as much in that post.
June 4, 2009, 5:20 pmIf, rather than saying, “I don’t like the way she looks, therefore she must be mean (or ‘bitter’) because I don’t like the way she looks, and I don’t want that on SCOTUS” you were to say, “I find her to be a bitter person based on [state your case], and I don’t want that type of person on SCOTUS” you’d both have something that was not a strawman of your own and have had something substative and possibly thought provoking rather than superfluous leaning to partisan.
Rusty says:
The Anti-Choice Nazis are just as much terrorists as the Al Queda (Roeder anyone) and Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are instigators of terror against those who have earned the right to decide what to do with their own body.
Why is it okay for the “right” to support an illegal war based on lies that has slaughtered thousands of Iraqi children?
Why do they continue to support the slaughter of Gazan children in support of a corrupt government in Israel?
I guess George Carlin was right – it’s okay to kill them once they’re out of the womb.
June 4, 2009, 6:54 pm