LikeTheDew.com

Brenden says:

Obama voted against Roberts and Alito, two immanent legal scholars of the highest caliber. When he did this, did you label him “self-serving, anti-justice, anti-competent, anti-any-success-for-President-[Bush], anti-[men], anti-[White], and anti-anything Senators from the [Midwest]“?

Are senators in opposition not permitted in your world to have principled objections based upon Sotomayor’s statements, affiliations and opinions? She was overturned by the very Supreme Court she aspired to work for during her hearing. She is a member of La Raza, a group that supports succession for southwestern states that used be in Mexico. She is a “wise Latina.”

I got no problem with Sotomayor making it to the Supremes. But you are trying to turn this into a now familiar “Republicans are Klansmen,” “Southerners who support them are dumb hicks” (eloquently stated by your colleague Moreland) pretense to attack Republicans and your fellow Southerners. Shameful.

Where is all the elevating rhetoric about “hope and change” that carries us into a post-racial utopia? Republicans are Klansmen, hmm, not very post-racial. Southerners are stupid. I may be from Pennsylvania and I’m well familiar with that stereotype. Not very elavating.

Again, another example of your simple-minded, scare-mongering, label-baiting method of argumentation that supports the angry left’s position. Please continue to articulate it publicly. I love reading it! Again, risible.

Lee Leslie says:

Brenden:
Nice to have you back and you raise a good point. No, at the time of the confirmation vote on Alito and Roberts, regrettably, LikeTheDew was not around, nor did I label Obama’s vote as such in other forums.

In retrospect and using the standards I applied to the Sotomayor vote, I should have labeled Obama and his vote as self-serving, anti-competent and anti-any-success-for-Bush. I don’t feel Obama’s vote was not anti-men in either case, however, pro-female (both Alito and Roberts were originally nominated to fill Sandra Day O’Connors seat), might have been an appropriate label. Further, I don’t consider his vote anti-Italian, anti-European or anti-white as their is was no controversy at the time about there being under-representation on the court or an unfair bias based on ethnic heritage in the consideration of the vote. His vote in both cases were based on their records and the philosophies that were being advanced.

Of the label litany that I applied in this short piece, your comment gives me more than a tinge of regret that I applied the anti-competent label across the board – in one way or another, most of the nay-sayers did acknowledge the nominee was qualified (Obama did during the Alito and Roberts vote). It now seems unfair.

On the principled objections. Yes, I encourage it. I do believe that Senate consent should include an examination of a candidate’s “philosophy, ideology, and record” (Obama’s list). In the case you cite that was overturned, Sontomayor’s decision was based on the law at the time – it was the activist Robert’s court that changed the law. Seems to me, this case was publicly washed (primarily in the press) for political reasons and little else. Providing a greater reason for conservatives to embrace her than otherwise. I heard nothing from her testimony or record that suggested there was reason for any of the the Senators to vote against her on grounds of philosophy, ideology or record.

That said, both Alito and Roberts’ records on the bench at the time of their confirmations included decisions that caused concerns by many on philosophical grounds. Add Roberts former role as White House Council, views on the commerce clause, and it seems easy to cover a nay vote based on philosophy, ideology and/or record.

Now onto your characterization that “Republicans are Klansmen.” I strongly disagree – not the elected Republicans nor the rank and file. Republicans voters are just like you and me – okay, perhaps, more like you than me, but we all want what is best for America, our families and our neighbors. Republican leaders are just like those on the other side of the aisle – largely principled men and women – most of whom (I’d have a difficult time naming names) have a progressive disease (or character defect) that causes their common sense and principles to be overcome by an appetite for power and vanity. Those who have been there longer, suffer worse (and we suffer worse).

The pro-slavery/Klan/Southern Democrats who became Dixicrats in the 50′s, found Wallace then Nixon in the 60′s and early 70′s, have largely died out. For their heirs, it is not about race. It is about money and fear of losing it, or having it taken.

Cut me some slack today. I’m off to see my 104 year old grandmother, but will be back tomorrow.