by Mark Silva
The selling continues.
It took an interest group, the Coalition for Constitutional Values -- a coalition of People for the American Way, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Alliance for Justice -- little time to rally for President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
They say they are putting "six figures'' behind a TV ad campaign, starting today on national netowrks, both cable and broadcast, "introducing'' the appellate judge from New York to the nation as the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings.
"This spot introduces the American people to Judge Sonia Sotomayor,'' says Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and co-chair of the Coaliton for Constitutional Values. "Every aspect of American life is affected by our justice system. It's important that they understand her fair-minded approach to the law which is grounded both in her eminent legal qualifications and her life experiences."
"In selecting Judge Sotomayor, the president has nominated a candidate of sterling credentials who will uphold the Constitution and the law,'' says Nan Aron, co-chair of the Coalition for Constitutional Values and president of Alliance for Justice.
"President Obama used this opportunity to do exactly what he promised in last year's election--to select a person who has demonstrated an abiding commitment to core constitutional values of justice, opportunity, and equality under the law,'' says Michael B. Keegan, co-chair of the Coalition for Constitutional Values and president of People for the American Way "He has named someone who understands the impact that the law has on the everyday lives of ordinary Americans."
The ad, entitled "Justice,'' features the voice of the president explaining his search for "somebody with a sharp and independent mind.''
It spells out Sotomayor's academic CV -- Princeton and Yale law -- the fact that President George H.W. Bush first appointed her to a federal court in 1991, and the fact that she lost her father when she was nine and was raised in public housing -- "someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory - it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of peoples' lives,'' the president says..'' The ad calls her "principled, fair-minded and independent.''
The White House has rolled out its own email ad-campaign for Sotomayor, featuring the president. It will be telling, and a measure of what sort of opposition the president's nominee really faces, to see if any counter ad-campaign materializes.
Comments
They love to play up that poor story. They left out the part where after being a prosecutor she join a law firm where she defended international corporations - they only exploit the fact that she grew up poor. If they're going to tell the story they should tell the whole story.
Posted by: vla | May 27, 2009 8:48 AM
Shouldn't The Swamp be included in this list of Left-wing interest groups pushing Obama's nominees?
Truly, "The selling continues". With the help of the free publicity in The Swamp.
Posted by: Bruce | May 27, 2009 8:53 AM
This is such a hypocritical fight. All of these groups were saying the exact opposite back when Bush was picking justices.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Posted by: matt | May 27, 2009 9:21 AM
I'm curious why the conservatives feel a sense of entitlement with the Supreme Court, and the judiciary overall.
Out of the last 28 years, we've gotten 20 years of Republicans appointing conservative judges.
At what point, is it time for the pendulum to swing back to the center, or God forbid, to the left.
I'm getting less and less supportive of President Obama and the Democrats kowtowing to the Republicans.
Could you imagine George W. Bush, Tom DeLay and Bill "nuclear option" Frist backing off of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, etc.?
Posted by: W OBrien | May 27, 2009 9:36 AM
matt,
Want to talk about hypocritical?
Bill "nuclear option" Frist. Remember him and advise and consent of the Senate.
Remember the Republicans forcing the Democrats into only filibustering a judicial candidate under "extraordinary circumstances"?
Remember the Republicans saying that they thought it was unconstitutional to filibuster judicial nominees?
Hypocrites?
Posted by: W OBrien | May 27, 2009 10:01 AM
They left out the part where after being a prosecutor she join a law firm where she defended international corporations - they only exploit the fact that she grew up poor. If they're going to tell the story they should tell the whole story.
Posted by: vla | May 27, 2009 8:48 AM
What part of a "rags to riches" story don't you get?
Posted by: bill r. | May 27, 2009 11:09 AM
Why does this woman need an ad campaign? She already has the fawning adoration of the MSM.
Posted by: K | May 27, 2009 11:22 AM
Would think one of the first things Obama discussed with her is the concealment of his birth certificate.
Posted by: Inky | May 27, 2009 11:39 AM
"I have followed this man's career for some time. He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great EMPATHY and a wonderful sense of humor," - President George H.W. Bush on Clarence Thomas, July 1991.
Posted by: rightwinghypocrites | May 27, 2009 12:11 PM
Would think one of the first things Obama discussed with her is the concealment of his birth certificate.
Posted by: Inky | May 27, 2009 11:39 AM
Polly wanna cracker?
Posted by: bill r. | May 27, 2009 12:19 PM
vla, what's your point? Justice Alito emphasized that he grew up poor and the grandson of immigrants; he said:
"When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."
Posted by: Flo | May 27, 2009 12:31 PM
"I have followed this man's career for some time. He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great EMPATHY and a wonderful sense of humor," - President George H.W. Bush on Clarence Thomas, July 1991.
Posted by: rightwinghypocrites | May 27, 2009 12:11 PM
Right Wing-
What a dishonest spin-
---
You left off Bushs next sentence - where Bush clearly defines his and Thomas's understanding of the SCOTUS judges role-in fact, you are highlighting Obama's complete MISUNDERSTANDING of the role in his search for a SCOTUS judge that will be empathetic first- fair second.
***
The sentence you provided includes Bush's description of the man-he describes Thomas's empathetic quality personally but clearly ( in the following sentence you chose to not include) does not include this as a description of his qualifications for SCOTUS...
***
" ...I have followed this man's career for some time, and he has excelled in everything that he has attempted. He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor. He's also a fiercely independent thinker with an excellent legal mind, who believes passionately in equal opportunity for all Americans. He will approach the cases that come before the Court with a commitment to deciding them fairly, as the facts and the law require..."
***
Posted by: heartburn | May 27, 2009 1:14 PM
Heartburn, I did the exact same thing the right does to Sotomayor, taking a sound bite out of it's context. But my point was the hypocritical right turning 'empathy' into a bad word.... this time. Glad we agree.
Posted by: rightwinghypocrites | May 27, 2009 2:16 PM
Heartburn, I did the exact same thing the right does to Sotomayor, taking a sound bite out of it's context. But my point was the hypocritical right turning 'empathy' into a bad word.... this time. Glad we agree.
Posted by: rightwinghypocrites | May 27, 2009 2:16 PM
**
We couldn't agree less- the only misuse of the word empathy has been on the part of Obama using it as the primary qualifier for a justice...giving away his complete misunderstanding of the role of the supreme court.
--The right is using the word in its correct context as a personal quality- and meaningless in determining ability to be a SCOTUS justice...
--We can agree that you had used the Bush quote out of context though...
Posted by: heartburn | May 27, 2009 2:34 PM
Polly wanna cracker?
Posted by: bill r. | May 27, 2009 12:19 PM
No polly doesn't believe in concealment at the Presidential Level
.
You keep the cracker about your speed.
Posted by: Inky | May 27, 2009 3:54 PM
heartburn, you're resorting to just making stuff up; I think Obama knows more about the court than you, who apparenlty listens to too much radio.
Posted by: rightwinghypocrites | May 27, 2009 4:32 PM
heartburn, you're resorting to just making stuff up; I think Obama knows more about the court than you, who apparenlty listens to too much radio.
Posted by: rightwinghypocrites | May 27, 2009 4:32 PM
Good argument- "your making stuff up" ...
Obama may know more about what he WANTS the court to be- but his own views of the role of the court are not the same as the founders view...and give away his misunderstanding of the courts role.
Some examples;
//When he referred to the Warren courts not being radical enough for him.. he said;
"...It failed to break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” Instead of clinging to the traditional interpretation of our founding law as a charter of negative liberties” that says only what government “can’t do to you,” the judges should have remade the Constitution to reflect what government “must do on your behalf.” .."
//When he described his view of what qualifies a candidate for the court he said ;
"...“[ the candidate needs a ]quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles”..."
//Both of these views of Obamas and now Sotomayor, are in contrast to the constitutionally defined role of the court... read the oath- and tell me that Obama understands the SCOTUS...;
---
“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
---
Where is empathy, or for that matter, any consideration of the individual being judged or seeking justice a factor in the SCOTUS role? In fact the oath states specifically "without respect to persons" ( no interpretation necessary).
--
As to your post... tell me what am I making up and how... or come up with a legit response, otherwise save your comments.
Posted by: heartburn | May 27, 2009 6:13 PM
Heartburn, please provide the cases that show that Sotomayor ruled with empathy over the law. We heard all about empathy in regard to Thomas; we heard all about Alito's empathy, and even Roberts' summer working in a steel mill. Did you make a big deal out of it then? Or maybe you could just put the whole thing in perspective and chill out.
Posted by: Flo | May 27, 2009 7:21 PM
The word is "justice," not robot, heartburn. And you can't even quote me accurately. You're going to fall off that high horse.
Posted by: rightwinghypocrites | May 27, 2009 7:28 PM
The word is "justice," not robot, heartburn. And you can't even quote me accurately. You're going to fall off that high horse.
Posted by: rightwinghypocrites | May 27, 2009 7:28 PM
Where did I quote you?
Posted by: heartburn | May 27, 2009 9:48 PM
Where did I quote you?
Posted by: heartburn
Above, idiot. I give up. Dittos to ya.
Posted by: rightwinghypocrites | May 27, 2009 11:10 PM
Nice chatting-- maybe next time you can bring a parent with to help you with the big words?
Posted by: heartburn | May 28, 2009 9:17 AM
Great. Another "stand up" group "standing behind" non-profit status for what they "stand to gain." Yawn, business as usual.
Posted by: Losungen | May 29, 2009 10:35 PM