Mark Levin highlighted two new damaging blows to Sonia Sotomayor's nomination at the start of his show Wednesday night. First, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post's Who Runs Gov site found that Sotomayor said almost exactly the same thing about "wise Latina women making wiser decisions" in 1994 as she did in 2001.
Second, and more shocking, via Ed Whelan on the Bench Memos blog on NRO, former New York Times and Newsweek legal reporter Stuart Taylor asked his friend K.C. Johnson to look at Sotomayor's Princeton thesis. Johnson was disturbed that Sotomayor declared herself a Puerto Rican nationalist and dismissed the U.S. Congress as the "North American Congress" or the "Mainland Congress."
First, I'm curious as to when Sotomayor ceased being a Puerto Rican nationalist who favors independence -- as she says she does in the preface. (The position, as she points out in the thesis, had received 0.6 percent in a 1967 referendum, the most recent such vote before she wrote the thesis.) I don't know that I've seen it reported anywhere that she favored Puerto Rican independence, which has always been very much a fringe position....
Second, her unwillingness to call the Congress the U.S. Congress is bizarre -- in the thesis, it's always referred to as either the 'North American Congress' or the 'mainland Congress.' I guess by the language of her thesis, it should be said that she's seeking an appointment to the North American Supreme Court, subject to advice and consent of the North American Senate. This kind of rhetoric was very trendy, and not uncommon, among the Latin Americanist fringe of the academy.
This morning, Whalen updated the Puerto Rico material with Sotomayor wanting an "affirmative action plan" for Puerto Rican statehood in the Yale Law Journal in 1979.
Here's a piece of the 1994 speech where Sargent found:
Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that "a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.
Sargent is a liberal blogger, and he brought up this speech to make the point that Senators at Sotomayor's 1998 confirmation for the appeals court were given this speech transcript, so if they allowed it then, why object now? But he was also forced to concede that this rerun also disproves the liberal theory that Sotomayor "misspoke" or simply stumbled into a "poor choice of words."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
sotomayor
June 4, 2009 - 10:14 ET by east tennessee johnSo let's see if the GOP members of the North American Senate have the guts to challenge this nominee. I bet they don't. I suspect she's only a stalking horse, to maybe defeated or withdrawn making the replacement selection an almost automatic.
It doesn't take guts
June 4, 2009 - 10:27 ET by mattmLet's see if they have the intelligence to challenge this nominee. If they care about their own political future and that of their Party, its platform and the country, they will do everything in their power to stop this nominee and expose O-bomb-us and his ilk for the dangerous ideological idiots they truly are.
Anyone who says the Bench is where policy is made is unqualified to sit on ANY court. And if the GOP caucus in the Senate are too stupid to challenge her, then, well that kind of explains why they're in the minority, doesn't it?
etj
June 4, 2009 - 13:32 ET by larry on LIi think you hit the nail on the head, it was my first thought after the airing of the 2001 video and now we have the same statement made much earier. she is a decoy .
Whitey Tighties
June 4, 2009 - 10:39 ET by 76UnitedI know she's American of Puerto Rican descent, but doesn't she realize that her skin color is white? I doubt she's a direct descendant of Borincan, so she is as white as they come. My father is from Spain, and he's white. A friend of mine was born in Cuba, and so were his parents, and their parents. He has white skin and blue eyes. This whole notion that Latina and white can't be one in the same is distressing.
Would she consider herself the same race as Roberto Clemente even though he has black skin? Or, is she one of these self loathing white people who doesn't want to admit that they have European ancestry. What's wrong with being of European descent? Isn't what people like Sotomayor and Obama want to accomplish what white leaders are now doing in Europe?
Look Republicans, she can pass without your votes, basically. So unify and vote no like Obama did for Bush appointees. Sack up!
Unlike Sotomayor,
June 4, 2009 - 11:15 ET by Clear thinkerUnlike Sotomayor, Conservatives are NOT racists. If any Republicans still have the guts to call themselves Conservative then they should vote AGAINST her nomination. It's that simple!
http://iamnotaracist.wordpress.com/
Sotomayor
June 4, 2009 - 11:03 ET by SemusI so sick of this. I have decided, not that one vote matters much, but anyone I don't care what their party affiliation is, if they vote to allow this nomination to proceed I will never support them. I don't care if they're running against Obama, whom I dislike as much as I dislike the Clintons. I simply won't vote. Also if the Repulican party doesn't fight this tooth and nail I'll never donate another penny to them. They must understand what appeasement means and that it doesn't work. These hate america people cannot be appeased, give an inch one day and they'll go for the throat the next.
"if the Repulican party doesn't fight this..."
June 4, 2009 - 11:10 ET by SickofLibsUnfortunately, I don't think even salamanders can regenerate testicles in only two months.
First time I have laughed
June 4, 2009 - 11:20 ET by sanergononlibFirst time I have laughed today, thanks
It's the 2nd
June 4, 2009 - 11:05 ET by slickwillie2001I am far more disturbed by her position on the 2nd Amendment, she thinks that it does not apply to the states. Without the 2nd Amendment, the government can take away all of our other rights at their pleasure. It's more important than the First Amendment.
Liberals can look at the Constitution and pull some kind of 'right to abortion' out of their butts, or excuse me, their penumbras and emanations, but somehow can't understand the plain language of the 2nd Amendment?
Sotomayor's Gun Control Position Could Prompt Conservative Backlash: http://www.foxnews.com
PS: Re 'hispanic', the nonsense that hispanic is some kind of separate race is of course just that, nonsense. It may be too late to fight that battle though.
Dodomayor on the Second Amendment
June 4, 2009 - 14:04 ET by Sergeant ROCKNo kidding. She is an idiot when it comes to the Constitution. But, in her defense, you don't need to be that sharp on such things when you're an activist judge in the first damn place!
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Would it really be so bad if
June 4, 2009 - 11:10 ET by Radical1979Would it really be so bad if Puerto Rico became independent from the U.S.? Make it conditional upon the U.S. not sending them one more thin dime and I think it would be fine, but then they would decide to stay a commonwealth.
I am white and my wife is
June 4, 2009 - 11:18 ET by sanergononlibI am white and my wife is Cuban, born in Havana. Her family is of spanish decent and she has green eyses and is fairer than I. I too am sick to death of all this priase for her *compelling life story* and that she would be the first Latina on the court. So i guess the next push will be to put a native American, Chinese-american, Japanese-american, *-American, ad nauseum on the court until we run out of -Americans.
Will the R's stumble on Sotomayor?
June 4, 2009 - 11:32 ET by Gary HallWill the R's stumble on Sotomayor's - her "views"?
I use the word, "view," rather than the word, "statement," for a very obvious reason. Leading R's in the Senate, and a few pundits as well, have stated that they want to listen to Sotomayor explain what she meant by those various statements (certain judicial decisions should come into play here, as well), or perhaps seek to uncover if she might have worded her statements differently - that would be the Obama MO; "..hang on to your "view," but use different words. In other words, mask your meaning -- your real intention - for now, as the job at hand is to get you in on the game plan as a part of the new team; the team known as "Change."
On the issues of advocacy from the bench and that a woman Latino can make better decisions than white men, it's clear what Sonia Sotomayor's views are?
The question the Republican senators need to ask Sotomayor, is not what she meant by the words; but rather, "Have you yet decided in your life experience to temper your narrow self serving views and have to come to the decision to conduct your professional judicial decision making process with colorblinded lenses on?"
(;~/ gary
Does that picture of
June 4, 2009 - 12:39 ET by bigtimerDoes that picture of Sotomayor on the cover of Time remind you of anyone?
First thing I thougt of when I saw this picture was Roseanne Barr.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Yes, but can she sing?
June 4, 2009 - 21:52 ET by Meredith1966Yes, but can she sing? And, given all the BS about 'North American Congress', does she know the words to the North American National Anthem? :-)
"The words of a President have an enormous weight and ought not to be used indiscriminately." - Calvin Coolidge
Notice the cover of Time is not Obama.
June 4, 2009 - 16:18 ET by needleNotice the cover of Time is not Obam, or at least not exactly
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
likely can't stop her, but...
June 4, 2009 - 19:19 ET by carolina09This is a great opportunity for the GOP to showcase itself, iterate some principal values and strike a blow against political correctness, and the double standards of political correctness.
She's a Fraud
June 4, 2009 - 21:48 ET by Meredith1966I heard Mark Levin today say that Sotomayor was born in Brooklyn, New York, and that it is her parents who are from Puerto Rico. Given that, she needs to do several things:
1. Clarify what the 'North American Congress' is. Are we talking about the Canadian Parliament, since they're north of where she's from?
2. How does being born in Brooklyn make her Puerto Rican? Because my great-grandfather came here from England, does that make me English even though I was born in Texas? Me thinks she is American of Puerto Rican heritage, as I am American of English heritage.
3. Why is Puerto Rican separatism a good thing? Last month it was suggested by some that our good governor, Rick Perry, was making the case for Texas separatism and he was roundly criticized by those on the Obama Christmas Card List. If Puerto Rico becoming independent is good, why is Texas becoming independent grounds for treason? (Yes, kids, I know they're a Territory and we're a State; to me, it makes no difference to my arguement).
4. Finally, most importantly, I need to understand why, as an Anglo male, the richness of my experiences does not provide me the same sort of wisdom that the richness of her Latina female experiences gives her. How does my Anglo maleness make me inferior? Please enlighten me.
I would like to encourage our little Republican Senators to make Sotomayor's identity politics the focus of her confirmation hearings. In doing so, they should remind the Democrats on the panel that it was them, through our current Vice President, who made identity politics and political ideaology qualifications for the Supreme Court when they unfairly attacked Robert Bork in 1987 and Clarence Thomas in 1991. 'Tis only fair to bring such things up for Sonia Sotomayor in 2009, and the Dems in no way have grounds to cry 'foul'.
"The words of a President have an enormous weight and ought not to be used indiscriminately." - Calvin Coolidge