The confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor was assured yesterday when White House Press Secretary Gibbs claimed that the Judge said she used a "poor" word choice by suggesting Latinas might have some experience worth bringing to the Supreme Court. Update: Obama called much of the criticism "nonsense," but then added, in an interview with NBC:
“I’m sure she would have restated it,” the president said. “But if you look in the entire sweep of the essay that she wrote, what’s clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through.
“That will make her a good judge,” Obama said in the interview, which will air in its entirety next week in a two-part NBC News special on life in the White House.
The news came as a relief to Lanny Davis, who had urged just such a clarification. And it was welcomed by all who feared that such non-anglo experiences might actually enter into internal Court discussions with Sam Alito or even affect future decisions. The six remaining white guys were particularly relieved.
As readers here recall, this scarecrow foolishly argued that Lanny Davis’ advice to the White House, to clarify that Sotomayor was not a racist, was silly. Fortunately, the White House rejected this strawman argument and followed the wiser Davis. A number of benefits will naturally flow from this wise decision:
1. It admits she said something wrong, even though she didn’t, thus removing that dispute from the discussion of her qualifications;
2. It concedes that the most racist jerks on the right were correct, when they weren’t, thus liberating them to speak out more so that we can have a more robust debate with no charges out of bounds;
3. It concedes that diversity viewpoints on the bench are not a good idea but rather a front for racism against the dominant race, even though it isn’t, thus avoiding a contentious debate with morons;
4. It tells the Left that whenever Lanny Davis becomes frightened, the WH will cave, so that we know what to expect;
5. It sends a big SCREW YOU to all of us who have been speaking up for their nominee against vicious attacks that were splintering [the other] party, thus ensuring the survival of a two party system — one fearful, the other crazy, and together incapable of governing the country;
6. It gives cover to Republican Senators who want to pursue the phony point in confirmation hearings, without fear of being identified with their most outrageous supporters;
7. It gives cover to the media for continuing to cover this phony Republican talking point, so they don’t have to feel ashamed for not doing their jobs;
8. It undercuts the last two or three sensible Republicans who were trying to distance themselves from the crazies, thus making everyone have to get along;
9. Almost forgot, it will strengthen democracy, by helping the crazies – uh, loyal opposition — raise funds, by proving their attacks are effective and should be expanded.
I don’t know what I was thinking.
Update: What digby says.





57 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
Incredibly stupid of Gibbs to have missed the opportunity to scold the wingnuts for omitting from their analysis of what Judge Sotomayor said the all-important word HOPE. Here’s what she said:
By validating the rightwing frame, that Sotomayor said something WRONG, Gibbs forgot that the wingnuts aren’t actually talking about what she really said. And by omitting from their arguments the word HOPE, they are missing what Americans voted for in Obama.
Such an easy argument to make, really, and so sad that he blew it.
Gibbs hardly ever misses a chance to disappoint, though.
Hmmm . . . I hear the dulcet tones of Rahm in #5.
Rec’d
You were thinking the same thing I was, Scarecrow, and I just about puked watching NBC busily ginning up this distorted smear campaign from the RN…and have we heard from C yet?
Shame shame shame on Teh Village. We have had enough of you.
Actually, she has not made that statement. Obama made it for her.
I hope she comes back and says “No, I wont! What I said was correct and properly worded and almost exactly what Judge Alito said earlier. Only bigots would feel that a Latina would be less able than a white man to recognize her biases from her background and subdue them.”
Scarecrow, thanks for your wonderful glaring light on the conservative/Republican insanity on the Sotomayor nomination.
I am so sick of their arrogance, stupidity gross bias. I am sickened by Obama’s failure to speak justly.
I agree with Cobernicus, hoping that Sotomayor will way hell no I won’t take it back. Thanks Scarecrow for continuing to lay out the ongoing insanity of the political scene, regardless of the issue.
Blessings to all
No recommend button?
I recommend!
I think if a Diary gets ‘promoted’ to the upper left hand spot on Oxdown Front Page, it loses the Recommend button.
Well, if the tighty righties think this is an admission then they’ll use this as their line of questioning in the nomination hearing. Who will have the last laugh? The White House because the republicans proved to be the racists they are by their line of questioning of Sotomayor. It could be a WH setup. Love it if it is.
This reminds me a little of the book & movie “The Human Stain” by Phillip Roth. It’s not that the spin doctors don’t get it. It’s obvious she was making the case that the Judiciary would be better if it were more diverse, not that all Latina judges make better decisions than all white male judges.
The sentence was phrased the way it was to mirror the language of a quote in the same paragraph. The “sound bite” quote was questioning this quote “a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases”. If she had known that most people would only hear one cherry picked sentence from the speech, she may have written it differently, but the Republican’s would have just made up another excuse to attack her.
Justice Alito:
Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.”
I watched these chattering fools with this read yesterday: Obama bravely takes this distraction off the table…
Wanted to puke.
But it gave Rush Tubby a chance to compare her to David Duke….now, you know, that really takes class and stupidity. Let them ask her some questions about that analogy.
It’s a day later and NBC Nightly News is still pushing the distorted semi-quote. This episode is as much a judgment call on the media as the Rethugs. They are partners in their racist manipulations.
Last night KO was shaking his head at the silliness of the capitulation, and while watching CNN live on-air.
Even the BombasticOne is guffawed by the TeamObama el foldo.
I didn’t think we had elected a President who was gonna take advice from Lanny Davis. In fact, I recall Democrats specifically rejecting that option.
I’m not sure which is more galling – Lanny Davis getting out front of this inevitability, or TeamObama giving his advice the nod.
I’m not convinced Sotomayor is a good choice, not that it matters much at this point. Even a sane Senate confirmation process (unprecedented) wouldn’t uncover any useful information and since every contest with the GOP these days quickly shifts into some schizophrenic alternate reality this one is likely to be even more of a pig-fluffing circus than usual.
Meanwhile Pat Buchanon and Tom Tancredo have been all over calling Sotomayor a racist. I wonder if they will take off July 8 to attend the sentencing of the guy who runs their respective organizations. Since he plead guilty to a hate crime against a black woman in DC.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..n-July-8th
Yeah, that is ugly.
Tancredo & Buchanan will throw a parade for the ‘nice young man.”
There have been some great, fairly recent, Supreme Court justices.
– Earl Warren. Right-wing California governor. Nominated by Eisenhower. What a surprise.
– Hugo Black. Number-one defender of First Amendment rights. Former KKK member.
Sonia Sotomayer: She’ll fit right in. A servant to the power structure.
Sure, support her, because she’s been nominated by Obama.
Guess what: I could give her a quiz on certain aspects of the law, and she’d fail.
She’s a political nominee. She’ll do OK. But won’t be great.
So glad you have your crystal ball handy but I think it has a crack in it.
I could give you a quiz on spelling, and you’d fail. So what’s your point?
I would withdraw my name before I would agree to this idiotic “restatement.” It’s pitiful and looks weak.
And Gibbs and Obama could not even agree on how pathetic it should sound. Perhaps they were trying to out-grovel each other.
What she said was not that “Latinas might have some experience worth bringing to the Supreme Court.” It’s fine that you don’t have a problem with what she said but then why spin it? I think a clarification was called for and am glad they made it.
Can we just have them vote and get it over with please?!
I know I’m always happy when someone else clarifies what I said.
I’ve read elsewhere that Obama was over-writing Gibbs, but I disagree. I think Gibbs was blazing the trail for Obama, so that his statement didn’t resonate so loudly. Once there was a headline “WH Corrects Nominee” it wasn’t so hard for the headline to change to “Obama Corrects Nominee.”
And it all happened on Friday; watch it get trumpeted on the Sunday gasbagfests.
Of course, neither Obama nor Gibbs addressed what the judge said or what she was actually talking about; that, I am afraid, is lost.
Does anyone know if e-mails to the WH actually get read by a real person? Just wondering, because if they don’t I will just quit sending 1 or 2 every day.
My point is this:
She doesn’t know anything about the law in particular areas.
She’s correct politically.
Offensive to me that what Sotomayor really said, the context, was not addressed by the WH. I think that it’s a somewhat craven strategy to seem to be ‘apologizing’ for her.
That being said, I can’t help but think that once confirmed, Justice Sotomayor will remember a lot of what was thrown at her by the right, and will see a bit more clearly that she is not really respected by the right wing types because they seem unable to acknowledge that a woman is able to do the job as a member of SCOTUS, and she will reemmber who selected her, and she will move a little to the left. Not out of revenge, but as a counter to the sexism and racism that the right displays with no apparent shame.
Randi Rhodes did a better defending Sotomayor’s comments this week than Gibbs or Obama, she took the time to enunciate the setting of the remarks and show the right wing noise for the hot air that it is. I cannot see what the WH hopes to gain by this wimpiness…
They probably get read before being filed under some category or other. As long as they are non-threatening :-) I’d say keep sending them. It’s a worthwhile endeavor even if it turned out the only benefit is that you had an opportunity to vent.
Which “particular areas” are you referring to?
Tax law.
I am not qualified to assess her legal expertise. I agree that politics played a substantial role in her selection, i.e. Republican senators would not be able to make a substantive case against her. The harshest and most trivial condemnations are coming from people currently outside government.
Your forte, I presume?
Yes.
If Obama can’t stand up to Rush, then…
Hey, OFG — how ya doin?
So, because she’s not an “expert” in YOUR area of expertise, she’s just a “political” appointment, right?
(*disclaimer: I’m just passing time ’til Late Nite)
Tim Geithner is not an expert on tax law either, and he’s our Secretary of the Treasury.
That gives you time to read a really good new Frank Rich column.
Tim Geithner is not an expert on anything but enriching his Wall Street buddies.
Good stuff… got any more?
Talk about damning with faint praise
Looking at the context of the comments and the reporting as a whole, i thinl the Lanny Davis spin will be something Obama will wish he could take back, but not so much.
I just hope the Administration does a better job framing Health Care.
And I wonder of the SCOTUS kerfluffle is a little handy misdirection for the redmeateaters.
As far as I can see, the most important factor in appointments is intellect. And Sotomayor appears to have that.
Don’t tell ART45.
Intellect is so passe
But can’t you imagine the embarassment to all concerned if under close questioning she forgot something about tax law or promissory estoppel? And what if she didn’t have a computer or the right law book or any clerks and if all parties forgot to brief or argue the case? There she would be: not an expert on everything. Now get a good tax attorney in there…
Richard Clarke from WaPo:
The Trauma of 9/11 Is No Excuse
I think you made my point better than I did. I am a pretty subtle guy, though…
;~P
Nice… The old “We shit our pants” defense…
I’m bracing for a disappointment on health care reform. Watch what happens in the debate about the features of the “public health insurance option.” There are about four different definitions, from delayed for now, meaningless to “same as medicare,” and my bet is it will not be the latter.
The inspiration for the architecture of the Bush Presidential Library should be a giant skid mark.
You were clear; I redundant.
Thersday nite on Saturday upstairs!
!!!111!!1!1!
Specialist needed @ 34.
What Obama was saying is that, obviously, in a rarefied atmosphere of rabid kooks just prior to a Supreme Court nomination, Sotomayor would rephrase the sentence so it could not be conveniently “quote mined” by morons. He’s just pissing on the fire and letting Newt stand in the steam.
Probably read on the way to the shredder. But I keep writing anyway. Calling, at least you get a real person. This number gets you there faster: WH switchboard, 202-456-1414.