Sotomayor's decisions are "based more on the merits and facts of the cases"

Legal experts cited by Reuters in a piece by Steve Holland say Judge Sonia Sotomayor doesn't appear to be either particularly liberal or conservative on business issues, with decisions based more on the merits and facts of the cases than an ideological approach to the law.

Replacing a liberal justice with one who decides cases on their merits rather than politics doesn't mean the GOP will just give her a pass, they have to at least appear adversarial for the sake of their base - but despite predictable wailing and knee-jerk gnashing of rhetorical teeth from the usual extreme right info-tainers pandering for ratings, the folks in DC expect Ms. Sotomayor to be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.

A comment from 2005 may prove sticky if quoted out of context, but this is no activist ideologue. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit, said:

"Sonia is an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind. She brings a wealth of knowledge and hard work to all her endeavors on our court. It is both a pleasure and an honor to serve with her."

While GOP posturing is to be expected, Sotomayor herself was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to the District Court for the Southern District of New York, and with 11 years on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit she would replace Justice Souter as the only Justice on the court with experience as a trial judge.

There is one point of confusion, evidently, in certain quarters, so let me clarify that unless and until New York secedes from the union, U.S. citizens moving there from Puerto Rico - as Sotomayor's parents did - are not immigrants. I know New York can feel like a foreign country to some, but high school civics classes should be enough to get this right.

digg this article! | read more...

History favors McCain: Saddleback retrospective

McCain did talking points at the Saddleback forum, and he's been a known name since before becoming a household word during the Keating 5 scandal. Talking points worked for the Bush-Cheney campaign, so perhaps McCain did "win" the contest at Saddleback, as some pundits are espousing. And McCain has decades of name recognition going for him, clearly.

Obama relied on candid answers during his Saddleback appearance, which may impress people more now that we've seen the result of 8 years with a talking point president that put the economy in a tailspin (not just for today but for whoever ends up paying for Bush's war,) but obviously many find it easier to be comfortable with the talking points style of politics.

When Bush ran against Kerry, the talking point approach was reinforced by unabashed attack politics, albeit largely handled by surrogates. It worked. The term "swiftboated" as a way to describe the effect of the lies on Kerry's outcome on election day is as recognizable in the lexicon as the overuse of a "-gate" suffix for something that brings down a major figure.

So the question becomes:

Will those who prefer talking point prepared and vetted by a politician's handlers turn out to vote in larger numbers in November, or will those who prefer a President they can believe, and trust?

People knew, back when Bill Clinton ran, that they couldn't actually trust what he said, based on "didn't inhale." They understood it to be a socially acceptable answer, but not the unvarnished truth. In fact, we expect our leaders to conceal certain things from us in the name of national security, so it was curiously reassuring. That "didn't inhale" response may have been the pivotal point in electing a man with only state-level experience to the Oval Office. Then, late in his term, President Clinton began quibbling over what terms such as "sexual relations" and "is" meant... and we got George W. Bush as the country reacted to Clinton's disingenuous, political responses when the subject was personal.

So, will celebrity, attack politics and talking points win? Despite my own preferences, and hopes, it will take a lot of people showing up on election day and expressing their true desire for a candid, honest form of politics to make that happen - and like it or not, history favors McCain. Still, I'll advocate on behalf of the outsider, Obama, and vote for him in November.

I don't blame all Republicans for the state of the economy and the debt we're facing. I might've been suckered by the doctored intelligence reports, myself, when it came time to vote on various Iraq issues, and I surely believed Colin Powell, who soldiered on dutifully for his Commander In Chief in front of the United Nations and the world. We goofed, frankly -- yet this remains the one place I want to live and raise my family.

I just think under the leadership we've had since 2000 that we've gone down bad paths, and I'm ready for a pragmatic, candid, visionary leader to take the U.S.A. in a new direction.

That, my friends, is the audacity of hope.

digg this post!

Germany Says Bush Did Not Pressure Them To Cancel Obama Speech

As we move closer to Senator Barack Obama's much anticipated speech in Germany, we have this report from Poltical Gateway that says Germany claims the Bush Administration did not pressure them to try and stop the Obama speech from happening,

Yeah. Right. Like I believe the Bush White House had nothing to do with the "outing" of CIA operative Val Plame.

President Bush Says Philippine-Americans Can Cook!

From the White House press website:

President Bush Meets with President Arroyo of the Philippines
Oval Office

Video (Windows)
White House News
10:25 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT BUSH: Madam President, it is a pleasure to welcome you back to the Oval Office. We have just had a very constructive dialogue. First, I want to tell you how proud I am to be the President of a nation that -- in which there's a lot of Philippine-Americans. They love America and they love their heritage. And I reminded the President that I am reminded of the great talent of the -- of our Philippine-Americans when I eat dinner at the White House. (Laughter.)

Wow. And I guess he's reminded of the talents of African Americans whenever he goes dancing at a White House function, too! Oh, and don't forget those industrious Chinese Americans, which he's reminded of when he wants Chinese food. Oh, brother!

Factor military duty into criticism, Mr. Limbaugh. Did you volunteer, Mr. O'Reilly?

Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as Jeremiah Wright, received five (5) military service deferments, four for being a student and one for being a prospective father. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968.

In 1961, amid an increasingly turbulent time in this country, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," Wright gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the recently integrated U.S. Marine Corps. Remember, it was not until the spring of 1968 that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. All men may have been created equal, but in the U.S. in the 60s there was little assuring they would be afforded equal rights in most places.

Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country?

How many of Wright's detractors, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to name but a few, volunteered for service, and did so under the often tumultuous circumstances of a newly integrated armed forces and a society in the midst of a civil rights struggle? Not many.

While words do count, as Lawrence Korb and Ian Moss point out in the April 3rd piece in the Chicago Trib after looking into Jeremiah Wright's history, so do actions.

read more | digg story