Chuck Grassley's comments crack me up. Hopefully the past Chuck won't run into the present Chuck or hi-jinks may ensue....

The gentleman below argues that Sotomayor in the Ricci decision was simply applying the law as it stands -- and that what the Republicans are demanding in that instance was a free-wheeling exercise of empathy. Anybody know if Cruz is correct on the state of the law? That a majority of the Appeals Court upheld the lower court decision despite the apparent unfairness of the Ricci outcome suggests that he is.

"Posted by: Robinson Cruz (Taken from comments from Real Clear Politics)

May 27, 10:15 PM
Report Abuse
Reply
Based on her decision in the Ricci case, conservatives accuse Sonia Sotomayor of two things they most deplore in a judge: judicial activism, and identity politics. On both counts, their criticism is indefensible. In fact, a decision in favor of Ricci would have been the epitome of judicial activism and identity politics. The district court decision clearly shows that existing law and legal precedent do not support Ricci's claims of racial discrimination under Title VII or the 14th amendment. In supporting this opinion, the Court of Appeals on which Ms. Sotomayor sits sympathized with Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs , but refused to let sympathy color their view of the law. Perhaps the Supreme Court has the standing to overturn existing law and legal precedent, but conservatives should be pleased that lower court judges did not presume to have that authority. They should actually congratulate the lower court judges, including Ms. Sotomayor, for refusing to legislate from the bench in the Ricci case. By their reaction, however, conservatives reveal the true reason they are attacking Ms. Sotomayor: because she refused to engage in the sort of judicial activism and identity politics they support. It is legitimate to argue that Title VII and other anti-bias laws are flawed in the 21st century, but Congress is empowered to change those laws, not a federal Court of Appeals."

This thug party is showing themselves for the racist bigots they are.

I hope they continue down this past and the dems occupy the white house for the next 52 years at least.

Pathetic and disgusting.

I wonder if she realizes everything she is doing will have no affect on Obama's choice for picks WHATSOEVER. Idiot.

I don't blame Long, she is what she is. I blame the cable networks for continually putting her their shows long after she has already beaten to death her stupid, mendacious talking points on every other cable show.

That's "Wendy Long, wingnut welfare queen", operating out of a PO Box and her basement.

Her front organization doesn't appear to be a 501(c)(3) or (c)(4) or a PAC. It might be a 527, but there's no indication of that. The donation page doesn't say where the money's going, either. All very curious. Any muckrakers want to check up?

Here's another look at the Ricci case:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/05/the-ricci-case.html

I like the phrase "substituting personal preferences for the requirements of the law as written" --- that's the heart of judicial "activism" and it's not the liberal, leftist judges who do it as a matter of course, on even routine cases.

Again, who the hell is this?

Oh, that's right.
Wendy Long, "clerk supreme"

No. Its just not as scary as - I'm the Batman. I think she would be more effective with an inquisition style mask and cape.

Cable news. bullsh@t in, bullsh@t out

Grassley will need to consult himself before he can give the appropriate answer.

Isn't there a more...flattering picture of Ms. Long available? Maybe taken from another angle?

Thera, she looks like a cross between Anita Bryant and Anne Coulter, with a pinch of Phyllis Schlafley.

I know this is superficial, but I'll admit it is a pet peeve of mine: notice the orange face and the milky white neck? I just hate it when women don't match their make-up to their skin tone and end up with the face-neck demarcation line. It looks ridiculous.

In other words, she looks ridiculous.

If the Republicans keep coming up with stuff like this they will truly be the party of no tomorrow. Their doing the old get the white males mad right out of the old Jesse Helms ad from his race against Harvey Gantt. (A minority got my job).

I understand Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the 2nd Circuit was held up more than 16 months. If that were to happen this time, the court would be 4-3-1 and the decisions would likely be 5-3 or 4-4. Wouldn't that be, to the conservatives, "heads I win, tails you lose."?

We don't need a supreme court, so eliminate it. Ditto the senate, house, and public education. Home school!

Our founders, actually wanted a monarchy but given that England was one, they decided to go with oligarchy instead.

Oh, America, when will you be worth your 1 million Trotskyites and your 10 million dead Indians?

The good news is we're now broke. Empires have a shelf life and ours is near its end. (see England, Spain, Holland...)

Actually Wall Street did us in. The financial whiz kids found a way to make an easy buck-selling junk as gold-and now they're hooked on their criminal ways. They don't want to work hard--as in making things. So they continue to flip papers and click on the mouse.

So down the tubes of history we go--of course the Pentagon helped--a trillion for war every year and the constant invasions, occupations, dronings..

Not to mention that we have a rich caste that refuses to pay taxes or even serve in the military, plus we have really awful leadership (see Rome)..

"Oh mama,can this really be the end...?"

I cannot believe how years of Republican rule have brought about the acceptance of automatic smearing, rudeness and bullying above and beyond anything I ever dreamed of as a child. No wonder the Abu Ghraib rapists thought nothing of their actions: no constraint! You'd think some of them might learn to hold their tongues, but no, not a one that doesn't lie like a rug and spout baseless calumny. And the mainstream media treats it like gold.

She looks a little like Linda Tripps sister.

Is anybody concerned that Obama continues to play it safe. He put the one candidate up for the nominee that he knew the repubs couldn't filibuster without looking like the fools they are.

I was hoping he would pick a more strongly liberal anti-corporate judge to be on the court for years. The majority of the country stands behind him yet he still feels the need to appease the minority to avoid their wrath. We want a liberal agenda carried out yet we are getting more of the same or, to put it more directly, just keeping it from getting any worse. I want a frothing at the mouth anti-conservative liberal capable of 'knowing' conservatives have virtually destroyed our democracy from the economy to civil rights.

They say "pick your fights", but what bigger fight should we engage than a Supreme Court Justice?

Same with HC. We know only a single payer not for profit HC INSURANCE plan is reform and yet we can't even get a "public option" on the table which is a plan to prove it won't work so the private ins, comp. can continue their profiteering. Just like Medicare which Obama claims is a huge deficit...but he doesn't say that's because right now only the elderly and the disabled (two biggest drains on the HC system with the greatest need) are covered. That is what they will do to the "Public Option" plan...make sure only those most in need will get it so it will also become a deficit.

Stop appeasing the corporations and BE the people's government. Stop appeasing the minority opposition allowing them to abuse the filibuster as blackmail to prevent the majority from governing. The "change we can believe in" is being filibustered...a senate rule that the "people" never agreed to is leading to the "people" getting rid of the senate altogether.

Wow! you have to give it to whomever is responsible for booking her...she's spewing bad policy everywhere...The era of negative is over...It's time to be smart, and collective in our thinking...

Long suffers from accomplishment envy, Northwestern Univ. Law School, although not shabby, isn't Yale. Cum laude instead of summa cum laude. The abundantly white girl with the Arian blonde hair doesn't like being bested by an "uppity" Latina, what Pat Buchanan would call "scrub stock." She probably feels that she had to work to go harder because she was white (if she were Carrie Prejean, she'd say because she's pretty), and that her place at Yale was taken by an affirmative action pick. Poor, poor white girl! Who could know that fate would deal you such a losing hand, to be born the child of a wealty real estate developer who could afford to pay your tuition at Dartmouth. Was that a legacy set-aside? My bet is it was. And it's not your fault that your family's country club memberships provided you with access that a poor Latina from the Bronx would never have. "But I wanted to go to Yale, Daddy. I wanted to go to Yale! It's not fair!"