The Early Conservative Line of Attack on Judge Sotomayor

The Provocateur ^ | 05/26/2009 | Mike Volpe

[fiscon1]

I didn't want say much until the pick was chosen because speculation seems to be a useless exercise. Why discuss the qualities of a nomination of someone that hasn't been nominated yet. That said, I did lay out the general strategy that the Republicans should follow in the debate that will follow the nomination. The choice of Sotomayor doesn't really change that strategy at all. Obama's choice of Sotomayor needs to be placed in the context of his overall radical agenda. The Republicans have an opportunity to frame this choice as part of an overall radical redistributionist agenda that, done correctly, will help build a narrative for 2010.

[Brad’s Gramma]

clickit

clickit

clickit

[Kansas58]

Great Strategy!

One other point: The best way to prove that one is NOT a “racist” is to ATTACK, on the issues, those who disagree with you, REGARDLESS OF RACE!

There are plenty of Latinos who would listen to a strong conservative point of view, if only we all had the guts to argue with the liberals on this appointment!

This is an opportunity to win on the issues, even if we can not stop the eventual appointment!

[muawiyah]

She's had type 1 diabetes since she was 8 years of age. She's just about 55 years of age.

It's pretty obvious she is quite lazy and does not tend to her insulin needs properly. I doubt she is going to be able to handle her court duties.

[Man50D]

This is not only offensive but frankly racist. I am really sick and tired of minorities getting away with patently racist comments that whites would never get away with.

We've come far enough that certain groups of people should no longer be considered minorities.

[Nephi]

I would oppose her publicly, right now, based on the fact that she has gone on the record advocating in contravention of the oath she will have to affirm.

[Nephi]

It might’ve helped if had included the oath. Most have probably heard, by now, her intention to “empathize” from the bench.

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

[paulycy]

My two cents:

I consider myself an equal protection conservative.

Every individual is a minority of one and therefore every single individual has the full protection of the Constitution.

Once you insert race, gender etc. into the discussion you are now talking about groups (classes) in which the individual’s protection can be lost in the crowd.

SO: If we somehow talk about ours as an equal protection party instead of groups/classes/race/gender, etc. then I think we can make some headway. In this particular case the SCOTUS nominee gives us the example to use for this argument.

Equal Protection is more positive than the racial profiling she supports.