Blogs and Stories
Is Sotomayor Getting Palin-ed?
Chris Hondros / Getty Images; Stacey Ilyse Photography / The White House
Conservatives are about to make the same stupid mistake on Sonia Sotomayor that the left took on Sarah Palin: questioning her intelligence, writes former Ms. magazine chief Elaine Lafferty.
Plus, more Daily Beast contributors react to Sotomayor's nomination.
As snazzy and inspiring political nominees go—judicial or vice presidential as it were—Sonia Sotomayor is The UnPalin. Sure, Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court and McCains’s choice for the vice presidency share some key characteristics—chiefly the moving personal narrative known in politics as The Story. Neither woman came from an ordinary middle-class background, and both worked hard to achieve their current positions—Sotomayor a federal appeals judge, Sarah Palin the popular governor of Alaska. Both endured more than their share of life’s challenges, from Sotomayor’s childhood diabetes to Palin’s midlife pregnancy with a special-needs child. No silver spoons anywhere near them, no rich Daddies or easy roads. Scrappy Sonia and scrappy Sarah made it on their own.
Supporters of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin didn't agree on much, but neither group liked watching male politicians diss women.
But from the graffitied projects of the East Bronx, Sotomayor also made her way to the Ivy League, scooping up the academic credentials and degrees that are supposed to insulate you forever from haughty insinuations of inferior intelligence. Sarah Palin did no such thing, barely graduating college, and heading into the intellectually feeble field of television sportcasting before entering politics. When Palin hit the national stage last year, she paid the price demanded by the intelligentsia; regardless of her politics and with no evidence that she’d ever set foot in any Cambridge anywhere, both the left and the elitists of the right concluded she was simply a ditz. The more Palin spoke of her life experience as the mother of a Down syndrome baby or as a small-town mayor, the dumber she was. The political culture that had previously demanded candidates know the price of a quart of milk ridiculed one who really knew the price of Pampers. Oh, her inexperience in the things that mattered! If she’d had chunky ankles and an even more unfortunate fashion sense, she might have been Maggie Thatcher. A man, she might have been Ronald Reagan.
Back in the Bronx years before, perhaps instinctively, Sonia began the process, familiar to women, of working twice as hard as everyone else. By the time she got to Princeton, she knew she lacked the prep-school education of her peers, and she dove into grammar books. Aside from her degrees from Princeton and Yale, Sotomayor become known for her exceedingly detailed and dreary judicial briefs. Too thorough! Way too detailed. Now we know she won Princeton’s highest undergraduate award; we know she wrote her way onto the Yale Law Review; we know she wrote 380 majority opinions in 3,000 appeals cases. Are we simply cranky feminists to expect that the woman should, if nothing else, be above reproach on the intelligence front?
What is absolutely extraordinary at this moment is that anyone, anyone, is opposing Sotomayor on the matter of intellect, or, God help us, so-called temperament. Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada) wonders if she has “the right intellect.” (The mere phrase “right intellect” boggles our wee mind. Is that too big or too small? Or perhaps the good senator invokes a Buddhist interpretation of intelligence? OK, never mind.) Unnamed sources in Jeffery Rosen’s New Republic piece sniff “she’s not that smart.” Come on.
It would be a stupid mistake for conservatives to take the road most traveled by the left in its decimation of Sarah Palin. Republicans or Democrats who resort to suggesting that smart women aren't should be sent to the political dunce’s auditorium, the wilderness dutifully staked out by the Republican Party. Why? I’d like to say because respecting women’s intelligence is the right thing to do. But I’ll be more practical. Question the intelligence of a woman who has worked hard and achieved much against odds, and you will really irritate women. Really. Ask those Hillary Clinton supporters and those Sarah Palin supporters. They didn’t agree on much, but neither group liked watching male politicians diss women.
Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh already know this. That’s why they’re hanging their Sotomayor attack hats on her “identity politics,” which apparently means the politics a woman espouses when she notes that her life experiences are, well, a little different than Newt’s and Rush’s.
Oppose Sotomayor, if you will, on her legal opinions, not on her credentials or cheerfulness. If conservatives want a fight, I suspect they’ll get a good one here. Me? I’m betting on the Puerto Rican gal from the Bronx.
Xtra Insight: More Daily Beast contributors react to Sotomayor's nomination.
Elaine Lafferty is a former staff correspondent at Time magazine and the Irish Times, features editor at More magazine, and editor in chief of Ms. magazine. She is co-author of My Turn at the Bully Pulpit with Greta Van Susteren.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
The Woman Who Should Have Won Obama's Nobel
Elaine Lafferty is a former staff correspondent at Time magazine and the Irish Times, features editor at More magazine, and editor in chief of Ms. magazine. She is co-author of My Turn at the Bully Pulpit with Greta Van Susteren.
Why White Guys Are Doomed
Elaine Lafferty is a former staff correspondent at Time magazine and the Irish Times, features editor at More magazine, and editor in chief of Ms. magazine. She is co-author of My Turn at the Bully Pulpit with Greta Van Susteren.
Palin's Smart Move
Elaine Lafferty is a former staff correspondent at Time magazine and the Irish Times, features editor at More magazine, and editor in chief of Ms. magazine. She is co-author of My Turn at the Bully Pulpit with Greta Van Susteren.
MariosRight
Ms Lafferty:
You should be ashamed to mention both women in the same article. Palin's intelligence does not come close to the intelligence and accomplishment of Sotomayor. No comparison at all between the two women.
drstedman
" Question the intelligence of a woman who has worked hard and achieved much against odds, and you will really irritate women."
I think that's more to the point than whatever metric you choose to define intelligence.
I did not like Palin. I did not think she was intelligent.
She was still a victim of sexism during that campaign, in that her intelligence was questioned in ways that would never be leveled against a man.
djanimaequeen
To suggest that Palin was victimized my dems is ludicrous. The cons did more damage to her image with their handling of her and the constant bickering and infighting amongst themselves. The dems did not need to point out her stupidity. She managed that task just fine on her own.
"I'll have to get back to ya"
Intelligent and Palin do not belong in the same sentence unless the word not is also included. Sotomayor is way out of Palin's league when it comes to intelligence and it's an insult to even attempt to compare the two. Shame on you.
trisha08
Are you serious? Can you imagine if a male candidate decided to "wink" at American's during the debate rather than answer any questions? Think about it, if it were a man...who couldn't answer basic questions, didn't understand domestic or foreign policy, didn't know the names of leaders of other nations, didn't understand what the VP does, didn't understand the First Amendment or couldn't name one Supreme Court ruling-----are you saying that if the American public wouldn't questions the "intelligence" of such a candidate if it were a man? Absurd.
macklin
Point taken, but the sexism that transpired was within her own party, less from outside sources. Most just saw her for what she was, an attractive and quasi interesting personality with an umbilical connection to the trailer park.
plentiflow
Palin was not a victimized woman. She was a DUMB WOMAN. I disagree that sexism played a role in her campaign. She thought she was a bombshell of a beauty, once she started putting on new clothes. She wasn't focused. She had a racist mentality and she thought
she could cover up her ignorance with her good looks. She didn't have a clue of what the hell time it was day or night. All she knew, she was in the spotlight and all eyes were on her. Her pit bull with lipstick attitude didn't help either. The only thing she had going was keeping john McCain.and other numbskulls hot and bothered. If she had any real smarts, somebody from the lipstick or eyeglass industry would have took her on board.
avocado
do you not remember Dan Quayle?
StupidFlower
Mr. MariosRight:
The point of Lafferty's article, obviously, is to display the incongruent comparison of the two women. Or are you being ironic?
heaterbox
I am sick of people calling Palin "Stupid" she is the govenor of Alaska voted by the people to lead that state. for a bunch of cabernet sipping elitists to make judgements as to a person intelligence based on a CBS interview and biased reporting from leftist journalists is the height arrogance. Your intelligence is measured by where you are standing on planet Earth. I dare say that the usual upper west side New Yorker would some off as a complete idiot when placed in the wilds of Alaska. So by comparison and native Alaskan would seem to be " unintelligent" in the concrete jungle of New York. Thank God, that the major metropolitan areas of this country don't have the right to dictate to the rest of us, what is measured as intelligence.
stevensnell
It may come as a shock to you, but this is an extraordinarily elitist comment.
dphendri
What? That doesn't make any sense.
And I don't remember the debate focusing on whether or not Palin was a dolt so much as whether or not she was prepared to be a heartbeat away from the president.
drgarrett
speaking as a life-long alaskan, sarah is a self-centered idiot. she does an impressive job of taking credit for good ideas and refuting her own poor choices. she is clever, like a trained chimp, but she is far from intelligent. and the idea of palin being genuinely responsible for anything is terrifying.
ktappe
"cabernet sipping elitists"?!? You're doing precisely what you are berating others for--putting someone down who is different from yourself. An "intelligent" poster would realize that.
JLF1200
The majority of Americans made the judgment that Sarah Palin was stupid-- I don't think elitism had much to do with it. And I'm personally making a judgment that people who think Palin is intelligent, such as yourself, are also stupid. And I'm more of a Zin drinker, strangely enough.
newswoman
When you can't spell, HEATERBOX, you come off as ignorant, so I'd be careful writing comments. You write like you didn't graduate from grade school.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--CharlestonDoverJLF1200
"Anyone with half a brain can go get degrees, accolades, etc. It has nothing to do with intelligence."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I can see Russia from my house.
newswoman
Getting a degree from Harvard has nothing to do with intelligence??? What planet are you from? I personally like Palin but she rambles whrn she talks and I don't know what she means when she finally stops. Her resignation from the governership of Alaska was the most rambling speech of all. Sorry, she can't hold a candle to Sotomayor when it comes to intelligence.
newswoman
I did not agree with Palin's religion or her politics, but I still liked her spunk.
I was appalled that people 'hated' her. For what reason? She didn't have what it takes to be President for the U. S. but she would be a wonderful spokesman for the special needs children. I think she is a loving mother and wife. Some people think you have to 'hate' those who have a different political slant than yours and that is sad.
DeaconDrJones
OK, but I didn't graduate college either, and I could see Palin was a ditz. She gave really bad interviews and cheap shot speeches loaded with Republican codewords instead of substance. Are you tying them together simply because they are women? Can't there be dumb and smart women? Poor article.
Jen821
I second this.
easton
I think she is referring to the potential backlash. Republicans will not only alienate Latinos but women as well, all to what end, since Sotomayor will be confirmed? Is it just to raise money from their shrinking base?
dm10003
even if i was a conservative, i'd say the two women's resumes don't remotely compare.
Ottoheinz
Mario' right: there's no comparison between these women. The judge is clearly an intellectual heavyweight in comparison, especially, to the politicians criticizing her.
As for Palin being dumb, I'd be careful with that. She seems to me to be the kind of person that picks things up quickly but has little more than a shallow intellectual curiosity. She can learn what she takes an interest in, but she only takes an interest in things when those things are necessary for her to advance. Personally I want to see elected leaders that come to the table with knowledge and convictionsthey've thought through and not elected leaders that are learning on the fly. We had 8 years of that with W. who was clearly dominated and manipulated by the originators of the neo-con movement he hired as his staff, cabinet and VP.
scott1607
I believe the word you are looking for would be cunning.
AiriqS
Good insight - men seldom seem to be questioned on their intellect or lack thereof - unless of course they are conservative.
I couldn't help but think of Keith Olberman at MSNBC when she cited " the intellectually feeble field of television sports casting"
BasPos
You are too defensive about Reagan and "W." None of the Kennedys was ever thought a "brain." And Olberman was the only person pointing out the absurdities of the Bush regime with humor and seriousness.
roger37
Basically agree, but I take issue with the Kennedys. JFK was brilliant, and his staff had to really work to keep up with him. He read at a very fast rate.
daskap
Palin said a few stupid things and she is marked as being unintelligent. Joe Biden says stupid things every day but is considered and "intellectual" in the Democratic party.
Palin has been successful as a mayor and a governor. Joe Biden has been a success as a liar, plagiarist, and a general horse's rear end. Joe Biden lied on camera about his college record, his grades, and what he majored in. Joe Biden repeatedly gave a false and plagiarized biography in prepared speeches.
But you people all love Joe Biden and despise Sarah Palin? Go figure. Is it sexism or just severe political bias?
JLF1200
Most of what you just spouted about Palin and Biden is just flat out wrong. But that's ok, it's your reality. Have fun with it. Keep voting Republican. Can't wait for Sarah to run in '12.
caune0405
men seldom seem to be questioned on their intellect or lack thereof - unless of course they are conservative
Hmm, so John Kerry was conservative? Did you miss the republican meme used against him...the fact that he was too intellectual?
How quickly we forget
Progressive2
To even say Sarah Palin and Sonia Sotomayor's in the same sentance is an insult to Sonia whom btw finished at the top in her class while Sarah palin took 4 dfifferent schools.
munsey
Is this somehow different from Al Gore, who dropped out of Vanderbilt Divinity School and Vanderbilt Law School?
rlord49
Elaine, you are absolutely right to identify the silliness of the critics who are focusing on the wrong things regarding Sonia Sotomayor, but comparing her to Sarah Palin?!?!?
Give me a big break, and get off your ideologue soapbox, where all women have to be viewed equally just because they are women.
Sarah Palin never achieved any comparable level of success, nor has she demonstrated a comparable level of intelligence as Sonia Sotomayor. Getting elected to public office is not a good example to hold up, just take a look at Michele Bachmann.
charmingOpal
could not agree more. If you want to play in this arena, you have to be up to the challenge. using--in part--one's life narrative seems fair if the experience, intellect and drive is apparent. It was painfully obvious how lacking Palin was not only in intellectual rigor, but curiosity as well. Moreover, she did even come off as a quick study. no comparison beyond sex.
daskap
Ya, you have to be a real intellectual to be VP - like Joe Biden.
Liberals are hilarious.
daskap
Sotomeyer may have achieved more than Palin academically but not in over all life accomplishments. It is far more difficult to become elected governor and have an 80% approval rating than it is to get appointed a circuit court of appeals.
Not everybody is as focused on academics or clearly knows what they want to accomplish in life when they are in college. This does not mean that they are less intelligent or cannot accomplish much once they find their calling.
roger37
I agree completely. Palin showed how stupid she is when she couldn't think on her feet in her interview w/ Couric. Even my out-to-lunch brother in law could have dreamed up something that he reads on a regualar basis, even if it was BS.
Sotomayor was Law Review at Yale, fahchrissakes.
exploora
Well lots of people didn't finish, cause they didn't have money.
The problem with so called minorities, they are defined by those characteristics, and sometime not always define others by the same. Often women and minorities are worse to women and minorities when in positions of power, because they haven't had much practice in using discretion when handling power.
BasPos
Sotomayor was too poor to take any course more than once.
RomeoHotel
You bring up an important point, though probably by accident:
Who paid for this poor Puerto Rican girl to go to Princeton and Yale? And why? The American people have a right to know to whom their judges may owe their positions.
Which reminds me: Did Obama ever answer who paid for him to go to Columbia and Harvard?
Sarah Palin was given a the equivalent of rectal exam by the media. They even investigated whether her office had received flowers when she was a small-town mayor: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-took-freebies-help_n_130020. html
We must demand no less of the investigation of Sonia Sotomayor.
BasPos
RomeoHotel, do you merely pander or dip into the merchandise?
RomeoHotel
BasPos,
You're so ... deep.
Bunx05
Romeo: It's called college loans. They paid for themselves to go to school. If not student loans, then more than likely they got scholarships. That's what happens when smart people go to college in a lot of cases.
RomeoHotel
Hmmm, we already know that Obama didn't pay any student loans. Or if he did, he wasn't smart enough to deduct the payments on his federal income tax returns. So, who paid for his college? And Harvard Law School doesn't give out any scholarships -- at least that's what my nephew, who attends there, told us.
As for Sotomayor, a google search of her name plus "student loans" didn't provide any evidence that I can see of any student loans she paid. News reports say she did receive a scholarship to attend Princeton as an undergrad, but don't say what kind of scholarship. How she paid for Yale is apparently unknown.
The American people have a right to know at least as much about Sotomayor's life as we learned about Palin's. After all, Palin was just going to be Vice-President for four years, not a Supreme Court Justice for life.
I say let's do a Palin on Sotomayor. Nothing should be off-limits for Sotomayor that wasn't off-limits for Palin. We know how Palin financed her education (including beauty contest prizes); it's imperative that we know the same about Sotomayor. Also, does Sotomayor have children? Their lives need to be investigated. We need to get the appellate court clerks who have anonymously criticized Sotomayor to testify under oath, just like Anita Hill did.
To have a confirmation process worthy of the name will take a long time.
CartoonCoyote
"Sarah Palin was given a the equivalent of rectal exam by the media."
Bullshit. If they had, they would have found her head.
ittybittykitty
Hey Romeo Hotel,
I remember reading that as little as around 6 years before Obama started running for office that he and his wife were still paying off their student loans. Not that long ago. I remember thinking at the time I read that (which was when Obama was a new candidate) that it was probably the first time we had a candidate who actually had to pay his own way through school. And the fact that he was STILL paying for his schooling into his 30s made him seem even more real to me. I know from personal experience Romeo, that is the way that most people make it through graduate school if they are not from a wealthy family.
RomeoHotel
ittybittykiddy said,
"Hey RomeoHotel,
"I remember reading that as little as around 6 years before Obama started running for office that he and his wife were still paying off their student loans."
Thanks for this, ittybittykitty. After reading your comment I did an internet search for more information.
There are some sites, like snopes.com and wiki.answers.com that say that the Obamas (plural) took out student loans and repaid them. However, these conclusions are based solely on the assertions of the Obamas -- or perhaps just Michelle -- alone.
"As both Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, have noted many times, they paid for their educations via scholarships and student loans ... which were not paid off until many years later." -- http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/money.asp
"Obama has been very open about how he financed his education. He had some scholarships along the way and ... also used student loans. His Harvard education was nearly 100% financed by student loans. He has publicly stated this many times." -- http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_paid_for_Obama's_Harvard_education
I note that both these sites seem very willing to "take his word" for it. They provide no other evidence to support their conclusions.
I'm thinking that if in 2000 the documentation for Bush's 24-year-old DUI conviction was important enough to be produced and published, why not these loan records? Or at least some evidence that has more substance than merely "Trust him!" Until such evidence is produced and published, it is not unfair to consider the matter unresolved.
The same applies to Sotomayor's loan records.
ktappe
@RomeoHotel: One wonders why you are so stuck on who paid for college. I ask because we know who paid for W's college: his daddy. We know who pays for school in civilized societies: the society. What do you expect (hope) to find about Obama's and Sotomayor's college debts? Seriously--do you think Castro paid for them or something similarly sinister (read: whacked)? I'm honesty curious.
dcbooknurse
RomeoHotel
She had a full scholorship at Princeton based on her scholastic excellence at Cardinal Spellmen High School.
xlntcat
You don't need the money if you are validictorian, ace the SATs, and are awarded the highest honor given a undergraduate because you have the highest GPA.
caune0405
quote
Hmmm, we already know that Obama didn't pay any student loans. Or if he did, he wasn't smart enough to deduct the payments on his federal income tax returns
end quote
Romeohotel we know nothing of the sort. he was paying for students loans while still a state senator, his book earning allowed him to pay them off, so where did you get this strange claim?
Now about Judge Sotomayor, doesn't matter how she got in or paid for school, fact is she finished as the top student at Princeton, you don't get the best grades on your class based on affirmative action at a school like Princeton
RomeoHotel
Hello caune0405,
I would direct you to my response to ittybittykitty, above, in particular the section that stresses the importance of preferring documentary evidence over the unsubstantiated assertions of parties, whether they be Obama or Sotomayor, with a stake in the matter.
If the documentary records support what Sotomayor and Obama say, wouldn't that just strengthen their case?
And it's not as though they can't simply snap their fingers and make the evidence available if they choose. They can. Will they?
We certainly can't count on the Washington Poodle Court to dig out this information. A vigorous and thorough Senate hearing -- on the level of what the Democrats did for Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada -- may be the only way to get to the bottom of the matter.
connie47
OMG, they're going to ask Sotomayor if she knows what newspapers she reads?
They're both women. That's where the intelligent comparison stops.
exploora
You would think Sarah Palin would have had one favourite magazine she reads regularly and would miss. I get that way with the economist. She really was not ready for that nomination.
nikkya
you can not compare the two
dcbooknurse
The opinion on Palin was based on her initial television interviews: She sounded like she was repeating GOP talking points and appeared to be thrown by follow-up questions. She often gave rambling answers that didn't' make sense, like the assertion that she had foreign policy experience because Alaska has trade agreements with Canada (in fairness, it was Tina Fey who made the "I can see Russia from my house." joke). She insisted that the teleprompter went dead during her speech at the convention when reporters could clearly see that it was working fine throughout, kept repeating the statement that she turned down the funding for the 'bridge to nowhere' when she is on tape supporting the plan. No one thought Palin was a ditz because she was talking about her baby: We thought she was a ditz because she was talking like a ditz.
dm10003
wait, palin could rally a far-right crowd who like her manner and legs -- sotomayor probably can't beat her there! (luckily that's not important.)
whipmawhopma
Sotomayor is attractive to me. She seems kind of cute.
RomeoHotel
Congratulations, dcbooknurse: You appear to be among the one-tenth or so of Democrats who knows that it was Tina Fey, not Palin, who said, "I can see Russia from my house". And I agree with you that Sarah sounded like she was "repeating talking points" -- if we can agree to substitute "McCain" for "GOP" in that assertion. As the election showed, the GOP would have been far better off if McCain had been "repeating Palin talking points". She had (and has) the love of the masses, not McCain.
I do have to correct you on the point about the teleprompter at her convention speech. You said, "[Palin] insisted that her teleprompter went dead". Untrue. She never insisted anything of the sort. It was noticed by members of the press gallery (who were seated behind her) that her teleprompter malfunctioned; after that, the only dispute was over the seriousness of the malfunction. See this reporter's blog, contending only that "it was not a serious malfunction" and that it did not have "a major problem". http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2008/09/04/the-sarah-palin-b roken-teleprompter-myth.html
The reporter acknowledges that the teleprompter "would jog a line or two ahead" of the point where she was speaking -- apparently the pauses left for applause weren't long enough -- but that she would "glance down at the papers in front of her and [having found her place] she would resume".
The problem with this story is that it fails to mention that Palin had been given the wrong papers. If you watch the speech again, you'll see when it happens. She looks down and then says, softly to herself, "Okay...". I don't dispute she was still able to read part of her speech from the teleprompter, despite its "minor" or "non-serious" failures, but with the wrong paper speech in front of her, she clearly has to wings it -- at least partially ad libbing of the rest of her speech.
Anyway, if I were an Obama supporter, I wouldn't say the word "teleprompter" for the next four years. I mean, if you have the stomach to watch a real ditzy performance after a teleprompter malfunction, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsayanythingblo g%2Ecom%2Freaders%2Fentry%2Freport%5Fteleprompter%5Fbroker%5Fduring%5Fpalin %5Fspeech%2F&feature=player_embedded
shortcourse
I heard Palin speak at a rally...no telepromter...straight from the hip...and she is absolutely no dummy...Sarah Palin is street smart...Desoto for Mayor is booksmart.
roger37
God, what bullshit. Does anybody really believe that because Obama is organized enough to prepare ahead of time w/ a teleprompter that he's stupid? Only Rush Limbaugh, and he's so hung up on his anus that he's lost all semblance of reason. (What's that say about the dittoes?)
Obama didn't have a teleprompter when he took McCain apart in the debates, and he speaks like a reasonable, thoughtful decision-maker.
Palin was accused by McCain campaign people of being impossible to prepare for an appearance. Not only does she try to get by by spouting cliches, she doesn't have the intellectual curiosity to look things up.
I'll bet that if somebody asked for her reading list, she still wouldn't be able to answer the question convincingly.
dm10003
hannity was interviewing ventura and insisted obama USED A TELEPROMPTER!!! i doubt any on-air show host reads from paper alone.
ittybittykitty
I have no problem with Obama using a teleprompter. At least he thinks and works out what he wants to say before he makes a presentation. He also doesn't pre-screen questions in question-answer sessions, which apparently Bush is STILL doing!
altlic
ROMEO. One word, my friend: Google. Please, please, don't just write stuff because you would like to believe it's true.
1. Obama and his wife had student loans to pay off.
2. Palin said you can see Russia from Alaska. Read the quote from the original interview and you'll see how embarrassing it was.
If you make stuff up, people will start to think you're just another dim bulb from the right.
newswoman
Why do the REPS have a problem with Obama using a teleprompter?? It seems that EVERYONE uses them now. It must be the style in today's world. Get used to it.
exploora
There are some similarities between all women, and sometimes even between women and men. For example we all could be in the market for shoes :).
The real Sarah Palin appears to prefer the same brands I do. That doesn't mean I agree with her policies related to other things. Brand names succeed because of their ability to improve someone's life. Can you say the same for politicians?
I also think opportunities in rural areas are different than in urban areas.
Of course Sonia Sotomayor is a real brain or she wouldn't be where she is today, but could she shoot a bear the way Sarah Palin can? Does she have a bear skin on her sofa like Sarah Palin does?
I think as society crumbles, maybe being able to eat a seal heart, like our Governor General is able to do, when supporting minorities, may also be a survival skill in the long run. I can't see myself hunting, I could see if I had money passing law courses, oh I did pass a law course when I had money, right I got 89.
If a bear was about to attack, and If I had a gun, I would probably be able to shoot at it, but I would have to train myself to keep my eyes open.
Sarah Palin I think was not ready to be paraded around as a VP candidate. I think Sonia Sotomayor is ready for the bench, she has lots of experience and lots of qualifications.
But if a bear happened to walk into the court room, I would advise Sonia Sotomayor to call Sarah Palin to shoot it.
drmarkklein
My take on Sotomajor is she lacks the intellectual firepower required for the Supreme Court. The dearth of any important rulings from her work as a district and appellate judge supports my position.
The other issue is whether her health is strong enough. An overweight insulin dependent diabetic she's at high risk for serious complications like visual loss, kidney and nerve damage all of which cause chronic fatigue and pain. We need to see her medical records.
calluna
You want to check her teeth, too?
She's been a diagnosed diabetic for 44 years, and she's clearly still alive and kicking. And if she's appointed and her health deteriorates somewhere down the line, she'll either resign or died in office, and be replaced.
Remember, too, that Sotomayor is going to be the baby of the group. Of the current justices, Stephens is 89, Scalia is 73, Kennedy is 72, Thomas is 60, Ginsberg is 76, Breyer is 70, Alito is 59 and Roberts is 54. Souter was 70.
Ginsberg we know has cancer. A couple of the gentlemen have moved into extra-roomy robes. I assume that they all ride in cars and planes and trains. None of them live in germ-free plastic bubbles. Everyone dies eventually. Until we create a race of genetically-modified super-justices or the Justice-bot 8000, we're just going to have to accept the risks inherent with human life.
reckless
Give me a break. Your "take" on her is that she lacks "firepower?" You base your conclusions on the so-called lack of "important rulings?" Do you understand how the Federal judiciary works at all? First, judges at the Circuit level do not choose the cases that come to them, so she has had no control over whether any of the rulings she's made have been "important." Leaving alone, for the moment, the question of whether this is even true, do you think she gets to choose whether she gets to see that juicy abortion case? Nonsense.
Second, you conveniently leave out any definition of "important," expecting us to just accept your premise. That does not an argument make. She's ruled in hundreds of cases involving individual liberties, employment issues and all manner of things that are objectively "important." But she's not on the Supreme Court (yet), so her rulings are famous or, as you would say, important. I urge you to name ONE Circuit court case that is held in the public consciousness as "important." Moreover, name one case that any of the other Justices ruled on that has gripped the country as "important." Don't google around and figure out one to name drop - just name them. If you're so well-informed that you can decide who has done important things on the Circuit Court bench, just name them. You can't. Most people can't. And those who can name "important" circuit court decisions will freely admit that very few of them were written by any of the current Justices. The fact is that there are many important decisions that come out of the circuits, but almost no one but those of us in law follow the Court of Appeals dockets.
The FACTS are that she graduated top of her class at Princeton, made editor of the Yale Law Review (the most prestigeous law journal in the country), and has more Federal bench experience than anyone on the Court. Your attempt to cast doubt around her "intellectual firepower" by just asserting that she's not done anything important is transparent and ridiculous. This criticism from a party that twice nominated George W Bush. Unbelievable.
djanimaequeen
Bravo reckless!!! Bravo!!!
thinkingcapson
Saying the GOP lacks completely the "intellectual firepower" is just as bad. The issue isn't even intellect, it's "can she blindly apply and interpret the law?"
This reasoning just emphasizes why a tough, but fair, confirmation process is needed. Ask tough questions about the law, after all, that's the job of the Supreme Court.
Ritarita
Sotomayor
Underwent a thorough
Physical examination to
Determine the state of
Her health in order to qualify
As a candidate for
SCOTUS consideration.
Intellectual firepower
of the kind needed to be
A force on the Supreme Court
Can not be determined
In advance as has been proven
By many of the seated jurists
And throughout history.
They're full of surprises.
BasPos
This is where the loony right wants their cake and eat it. She is a APPELLATE judge. Her job is to make relatively narrow rulings based on the law. Sounds like a "constructionist?" Also, her ruling on the new Haven matter is based on current civil rights law. Gee whiz, and you guys supported a sexual predator and a civil rights abuser.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--mblipsCartoonCoyote
Only if we can check Palin for working brain cells.
And concern-trollers suck ass.
newswoman
I love it when an 'ordinary' person like drmarkklein presumes to know whether Sotomayor has the intellectual firepower required for the Supreme Court!! You don't know anything about her rulings from 17 YEARS as a judge. You sound like a REP who doesn't want to accept a DEM appointee so you pretend to know what she knows. It's assinine.
SharksBreath
There is one difference. Palin really is stupid.
To say a person who finished at the top of there class at Princeton and Yale is stupid is stupid.
It's like telling the world that torture works.
Here is a comparison of Harriet Miers and Sotomayor.
I would hate to see Palin compared to her.
How many colleges did she go to before she graduated?
Some on the right are claiming that because both Harriet Miers and Sonia (not Maria) Sotomayor have the "lady parts" they are almost the same.
They can try
You know, just like Clarance Thomas and William J. Brennan both bore junk and are therefore, virtually twins.
Embellishing upon the findings of Economaniac, a Great Orange Satan diarist, let's look at those CVs:
Sotomayor Princeton summa cum laude : Miers Southern Methodist University (no honors), well, did "place" in beer-bong olympics.
Sotomayor Yale law review : Miers SMU law school(no honors), graduating from the home of the NCAA "death penalty" is honor enough.
Sotomayor Prosecutor for Morgenthau : Miers no criminal law experience, but much experience with fellow unindicted co-conspirators.
Sotomayor 6 years as Federal District Court Judge : Miers No judicial Experience, although competent at writing "hand-crafted bedazzled gift cards" and scrolling for, finding, and printing appropriate picture captions at "Daily Kitten.com". "HANG IN THERE, MR. EX-PRESIDENT!"
Sotomayor 10 years on 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals : Meirs No judicial Experience, but has memberships at "CostCo", "Sams Club" and "BJ's" (Bush got her that last one and was disappointed when he found out what it was)
Sotomayor adjunct professor NYU School of Law : Miers advisory board SMU law school, but hey, she helped get that "George W. Bush Lie-Berry" embedded on campus, so there's that -- SO SUCK IT BAYLOR!
shortcourse
To call someone who actually ran for governor and won, stupid...is so damn stupid I don't know how you actually turn your freakin computer on.
CartoonCoyote
Well, shortbus, that somebody as stupid as W can run for president and win proves that he/she's smarter than the people that voted for him/her. If you don't see that, I don't know how you remember to remove your fingers from your nose before you type.
munsey
How many colleges did Al Gore go to before he didn't graduate? And he almost became president!
griffngylli
One. Harvard. Cum laude BA in government and in 4 years.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--tavallaiHawnzz
Is she kidding? Sotomayor is in a totally different league. Palin is an insult to women everywhere. Sotomayor is so far out of Palin's realm that Sarah couldn't see her with the Hubble.
Tango121
Ms. Lafferty as someone who was impressed with Mrs. Palin, you are dead on about attacking her intelligence. It is clear she is a very intelligent person. But her legal reasoning must be attack by the Repubs during her hearing.
The following are the decisions by the Supremes after looking at her legal reasoning
Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
Knight vs. Commissioner, (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted (Right call Wrong reason)
Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, (2005) -- reversed 8-0 and legal reasoning was unanimously faulted by the Supreme's (Wrong call wrong reason)
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, (2005) -- Upheld 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
Tasini vs. New York Times, (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer
Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending
After Ms. Sotomayor and two other judges issued a brief unsigned unpublished opinion repeating the district court's decision, the appeals court declined to rehear the case en banc, an outcome which infuriated the chief judge Jose Cabranes. In a dissent joined by five of his colleagues, Judge Cabranes criticized the slipshod handling of the case. The "perfunctory disposition" of the opinion, he noted, "lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal."
The cases that were attacked by the Supreme's for legal reasoning is the most troubling. When Judges issued an unsigned, unpublished opinion they are trying to bury it and not have their names attached to the opinion. This might mean they know they are on shaky ground.
mikefromArlington
The only one I would think that should come under scrutiny is the unanimous overturn. The rest had people on both sides. You can try and argue her judgment but you would have to raise the same judgment of the Supreme Court justices that ruled in her favor. One of those times conservative judges ruled in her favor also it appears.
reckless
Your argument is completely flaw. First, as mikefromArlington pointed out, you cite cases where some of the Justices (but not the majority) agreed with Judge Sotomayor's reasoning and conclusion. (Note, as well, that justices from all parts of the political spectrum have, at one point or another, agreed with her).
Second, let's look at the only decision subject to unanimous overturning - the Dabit case. This opinion came to the Supreme Court as an en banc opinion from the 2nd Circuit. That means that a panel of 2nd Circuit judges came to the conclusion, and Sotomayor wrote the opinion. She wasn't some lone wingnut handing down a completely arbitrary opinion - other rational legal minds agreed. Moreover, and more importantly, the Dabit case involved Federal pre-emption of state-law securities class actions. This is an issue that was (1) filled with ambiguity and (2) ruled on differently when presented in different Circuits. Often when the Supreme Court wants to clarify the status of a law, it will opt to issue a unanimous opinion, even when some of the Justices don't completely buy on. Presenting a clear standard is the goal. Not the "smack down" of the Circuit that you imply.
The point to take away from this is that it's not like Sotomayor had some flaw in her legal reasoning. This was one of those cases where reasonable minds disagreed on the power of Federal preemption. That the Supreme Court chose to issue a definitive ruling allowing for such preemption does not indicate a flaw in Sotomayor's reasoning.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.