That is so funny! You are not dealing with rational humans!

Obama has chosen a mainstream progressive, rather than a wild-eyed liberal.

In Republican-speak, isn't "mainstream progressive" an oxymoron, and progressives of any type far to the left of "wild-eyed liberal"? Or has a new edition of their dictionary been recently released?

has mark halperin ever in his life accused anyone of being a "wild-eyed conservative?" one tends to doubt it....

Aren't conservatives by definition "wild-eyed"?

And having Mike Huckabee call her "Maria" and Politico falsely claiming she's a "Latina single mother" are just the sorts of things to make it clear that there's some racial stereotyping going on.

Everyone's focused on Sotomayor as the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court, which may or may not be the case, but I have a suspicion that she might also be the first (part) Asian on the Court. There's something distinctly Asian-looking about her. Could great-grandad have been a Chinese shopkeeper in San Juan?

And the so-called "conventional wisdom" embraced by the likes of Mark Halperin is most often wrong.

There are aspects of Obama's leadership that have been disappointing, but the one thing you can't fault him for is misunderstanding the political winds. He is very cautious, and doesn't take on fights he isn't going to win. If he nominated Sotomayor despite the whisper campaign against her, it's because he knows it will be an easy confirmation.

as they say in chicago,"irregardless," halperin is just a large jack palance stool.

watch the various repugnants spew their idiocy (like the arkansas huckleberry already has)... and we have not yet heard from the future of the republican party -- what say ye, newtster?

Whoa, let's not take too much wind out of the Repub sails. Let's allow them to alienate the hispanic voters even more before confirmation.

Cue the "birthers." Questions will be raised about her legal citizenship in 5 -- 4 -- 3 -- 2 --

"...smart conservatives..."

I find it difficult to agree with anyone who speaks oxymoron.

If they seriously fight Sotomayor's nomination we will know that everything we've heard about the GOP's being dragged ever farther to the right is true. How many of the remaining loyal Republican voters care about alienating the Hispanic vote?

Electorally, a Sotomayor nomination hamstrings any Republican claims to the Hispanic vote.

This explains the strong-to-vehement anti-Sotomayor whisper campaign. Too few Repubs can afford to vote against Sotomayor if/when she's actually nominated, so they had to make a pre-nomination bluff.

Now, there's nothing to gain by filibustering, because the radical right has nowhere else to go. OTOH, there's also too much to lose by alienating moderate-to-openminded Hispanic voters. And Repubs really need to peel away any new generation voters they can.

They're stuck.

"They don't."

They will, and will drive off another 5% of the Latino vote in the process. If they are clumsy enough, they'll lose some of the white female vote, too.

To which I can only say: morans.

I love love love the freudian "latina single mother" but I think its about more than ethnic sterotyping--I think its because they simply can't bear the notion of a divorced woman continuing to exist and work and function without reference to her sexuality or her dating history or her husband. Such women just don't exist, in the republican imaginary, unless they are raving feminists and/or lesbian hags. I guess what I'm saying is that the racism of the assumption that, although she is single, she must have children in there somewhere (because latins are so reproductive and fertile dontcha know) is cross cut with the assumption that no woman gets to be Sotomayor's age without being tied to and defined by either a man or the rejection of a particular man.

aimai

wtf, Peter? Please take your racial features analysis elsewhere.

The Obama admin's talking points on Sotomayor emphasize how conservative she is, bragging about how many times she has voted with Republican appointees on her appellate panel. I suppose this is good strategy but I fail to see why it's necessary when Democrats have such strong majorities. Essentially, they seem to be conceding that liberals should not serve on the Supreme Court.

I do have hopes that Sotomayor is more liberal in her legal philosophy than the Obama administration cares to admit right now. In which case I'm disappointed that they did not go with a younger nominee. Why not ram through a 40-year-old liberal firebrand (though with little in the way of a paper trail that shows him or her to be that)? Someone like that would help push the court to the left for the next 40 to 50 years. I suppose I'm assuming that this is actually what Obama wants, all evidence to the contrary.

Halperin has been such a vicious tool when discussing anything Obama does that it's really difficult for me to accept his verdict that this confirmation is a "near lock."

I for one am disappointed in Obama. If Halperin is pleased with the pick then Sotomayor's not nearly liberal enough. The court has been pushed so far right that any sensible liberal would be considered "wild-eyed" by Halperin and his ilk. I'd love to see a fully liberal judge appointed to counterbalance the rightwing loons already on the court.

I do have hopes that Sotomayor is more liberal in her legal philosophy than the Obama administration cares to admit right now.

A very good bet. She came up through Princeton right after they started admitting women and when they still HAD A FEMALE QUOTA SYSTEM.

Think about that. And what kind of discriminatory crap she had to go through.

Empathy, indeed....

Is this really how a SC Justice is chosen? Where it is all about what will appease republican opposition rather than who the President thinks will make the best SC Justice.

Please Mr Halperin, please name one "wild eyed liberal" judge who would qualify for SC. One can find plenty of wild-eyed conservative judges...like the ten commandments fiasco etc..

Seems anyone slightly less than conservative is classed a "wild-eyed liberal". I'm surprised he didn't throw in "activist" and "socialist" with the "wild eyed liberal" phrase.

How can one be defined as a "mainstream progressive" and not be a liberal. This just carries on the good ole republican tradition of demonizing the word "liberal".

A court of "wild eyed liberals" would be a court of normal rational people. Yep, sounds good to me. Such a court certainly would never have allowed Bush v Gore which to this day cannot be justified. A decision forged in hell.

Media Matters has compiled a few videos of the Republicans whining about the need for an up or down vote back in 2005. It's priceless.

http://mediamattersaction.org/democracyorhypocrisy/

In 2005, many Republican Senators went so far as to claim the filibuster of judicial nominees was unconstitutional. Now four years later, President Obama's has appointed Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Will Senate Republicans remain consistent in their position or commit one of the most blatant acts of hypocrisy in the 220-year history of the United States Senate?

What if she puts mustard on her hamburger (or worse, Dijon)? Or eats that funny lettuce? Let's not forget who we're dealing with here.

I'll save my wild-eyed liberal rant for another day.

People complaining about her age need to get some perspective. She's about the same age as Roberts and Alito, and there really aren't that many candidates in their 40s with the kind of experience, judicial or otherwise, that is required these days for confirmation. Clarence Thomas was in his 40s when nominated, and we sure don't need another justice like him.

I hope Halperin isn't trying to appease the left by suggesting she is a mainstream progressive and masking that she is actually conservative. I wouldn't take Halperin's word on anything and have no idea how liberal she really is.

But it seems Obama tries to avoid conflict with all decisions needing republican support...trying to pick his fights I guess.

I'm fascinated by the "story"--the one that Thomas has told so many times: coming up from the depths, making it on your own, getting there....here we have it again. Can the 'Phants' reject it now?

Halperin simply doesn't know what he's talking about on any issue, and always spins for Republicans to the point of absurdity.
Regardless, I still don't think the confirmation will be much trouble. She's probably to the left of Souter, who, in the grand scheme of things, was never very "liberal" to begin with. Only in wingnut world are Souter and Stevens "liberal".

wtf, Peter? Please take your racial features analysis elsewhere.

Why? Considering that much of the discussion of Sotomayor involves her being the first Hispanic (or not) who may end up on the Supreme Court, the fact that she might also be the first Asian, albeit part-Asian, is just as relevant.

> I for one am disappointed in Obama. If Halperin
> is pleased with the pick then Sotomayor's not
> nearly liberal enough.

> Posted by: ckelly on May 26, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Liberals can find the stupidest reasons to be disappointed in Obama.

It is unfortunate that The Chosen One has selected such a controversial nominee to the Supreme Court! This highly controversial nominee should be rejected by all.

Among the obvious disqualifications that cause her to be so controversial:
1) She is a woman.
2) She is hispanic.
3) She was first nominated to the federal court by that dispised liberal ex-president George H.W. Bush.

It is obvious that Obama is practicing political correctness by not nominating a white male. We know that there are many more highly qualified white males that this woman.

It is obvious that Obama is practicing racial politics in selecting this hispanic woman. In this era, we can no longer call a spade a spade, but brown is the new black and we can attack them. Sotomayor is undoubtably the illegitimate offspring of 2 illegals.

This nomination is likely the result of Obama returning to the discredited method of seeking American Bar Association approval, rather than seeking input from the true defenders of our Constitution, The Federalist Society.

It is truly unfortunate that Obama chose to pick a fight with all right thinking Americans in his attempt to install this empathetic judicial activist to the Supreme Court.

Considering that much of the discussion of Sotomayor involves her being the first Hispanic (or not) who may end up on the Supreme Court, the fact that she might also be the first Asian, albeit part-Asian, is just as relevant.

I think he was referring more to your ridiculous claim that someone with squinty eyes must be part Asian, based on nothing but outdated racial stereotypes.

How do you act concerned for the Constitution after supporting rendition, torture and domestic spying?

How do you threaten to filibuster judicial nominees, after demanding all nominees deserve up/down votes?

How do you object because Sotomeyer isn't smart enough, after RE-electing Dubya?

how soon today will someone accuse sotomayor of being illegal and wanting to see her birth certificate?

and how soon after that will they say she's one of the liberal elite, given her education?

then: she's been a traitor to bush and conservative values just like the person she's up for replacing?

oh, and from the start, the right will say she must be a lesbian.

I don't know what Halperin or Sargent or these other pundits who think the GOP senators are going to roll over for Sotomayor have been smoking. They don't give a shit if they lose the female or Hispanic vote for the next hundred years if it means getting a shout out from their leader Rushbo. As far as they're concerned they've got nothing to lose by going to the mat to block Sotomayor.

Let's not give Mike Allen too much credit for underhanded racial or gender stereotyping. It's not that plenty of Republicans and Republican-leaning MSMers don't do that stuff, but this guy has given zero indication of being swift enough to pull that off. He really is jaw-droppingly stupid; he probably actually read the phrase "My law clerks are like my children" and took away that she has kids.

Now. le'see here. Bush nominates John Roberts, portraying him as a center-right candidate. His hearings convince many of us (myself included, mea maxima culpa) that he's 'the best we're gonna get, and really isn't that bad.'

Some liberal Democrats, to their credit, see him for what he really is and oppose him, but -- as is too common -- not particularly effectively. (And idiots like myself -- in this case -- are telling them 'shut up already or next week we'll get Gonzalez on the Court and Thomas as Chief Justice.')

At the hearings, Roberts is incredibly charming, has an explanation for all his 'red flags' and convinces us he's the best we'll get and 'who knows, after all, Eisenhower appointed Brennan, Nixon picked Blackmun, and Bush Sr. chose Souter, maybe Roberts will turn out like them.'

After Roberts is confirmed, but before we see how truly 'hard-right' he is, Bush sends up Alito, a mcuh scarier pick. Unfortunately -- maybe we weren't idiots after all -- the same Democrats who opposed Roberts lead the charge against Alito, and a lot of centrists think "There they go again" and grit their teeth and accept him.

It was lousy for the country, but, as politics it was both brilliant and totally 'legitimate.' Roberts really didn't lie about himself, but he did engage in 'puffery' in the legal sense, mking himself look much better than he was.

---

But now we have a President who plays politics the way Greg Madduz and Jamie Moyer pitch. 'Getting batters out' with brains, study, and perfect control and never trying to throw 100-mph fastballs that might get a strike out, but if they miss, go over the fence.

And our President wasn't watching this from afar, he was in the Senate during the hearings.

And now he's nominated a 'center-left' judge and he is stressing the 'center' part.

There are still things I disagree with him on, and things I am waiting for him to do -- but I'm willing to wait a little for him to do them right -- but there isn't a week that goes by that I'm not glad that I voted FOR him and not just AGAINST McCain.

It's not just going to be the best eight years America's had for a long time, but from a purely spectator viewpoint, it's gonna be fun!

Halperin says "Republicans are trying to demonstrate that their party can reach beyond rich white men..."

Considering that the rich, white vote has been up for grabs in the past few election cycles, what he should have said is the "POOR white men" vote, which trends GOP.

Obama will probably win this one, and let's hope he does, but the wingnut machine is going to huff and puff and try to blow the house down. We will have a media circus all summer long, and everything else will slip off the table until it is resolved hopefully by the end of July.

The ever-shrinking ring of 'true' conservatives will likely deal themselves a fatal blow with a smear campaign the likes of which only Rove can think up, and he's probably already on retainer to do just that. Hopefully Obama's crowd will be fast enough on their feet to trace it all back to him.

It ain't gonna be pretty.

I hate to ask this, but...

She's paid her taxes, right?