"A copy of the 1994 speech was included with the questionnaire she submitted for the 1998 confirmation. A Sotomayor supporter sent both to me."But it does mean that we have to explain why it wasn’t challenged the first time around. (My friday night margarita down the street just got harder if I also try to do it in a way that won’t make the GOP seem like useless lumps.)If she made the same comments twice it’s more odious, not less.
The question would have to be, "What else was going on in 1994, which might have kept this on the back burner, or completely off the stove?" And a possible answer would be, "The Congressional Post Office and the Congressional bank scandal." You have to admit, we were pretty excited back 15 years ago about other things than a Federal judge being impolitic. Sotomayor was legitimately not that big a deal before being nominated to SCOTUS. There were bigger fish to fry.
And that the future end of quotas, foreshadowed by Sandra Day O'Connor in her last major affirmative action opinion, is now.
Yeah. I don’t buy it and I doubt the buddies would either.
Congressional franking scandal or not - if they had her on record (the record they read for her approval!) as saying something they considered racist she should have been called on it by SOMEBODY. Even just a minor objection. Or maybe a vague grunt of disapproval. SOMETHING
Instead, they were silent implying that either it was not seen as that big a deal to promote a racist or that they didn’t find the comment that objectionable.
This just puts a nasty taste in my mouth. Especially when you combine it with that article that came out a few weeks ago about how the GOP only offered any obstruction back then to prevent her from having a totally unopposed approval in case Clinton nominated her for the SCOTUS.