Special Report
Sonia Sotomayor Taney
Obama nominee models Dred Scott Chief Justice. FDR Klan nominee struck at religion.
(Page 3 of 3)
With the nomination of Judge Sotomayor, once again, the American house is divided over the Democrats’ insistence that race, that “cultural experience” and identity politics replace the foundation that is the Constitution of the United States.
Those who disagree with this fundamental attempt to change our society from a nation of law to a nation ruled by the racial whims of a Roger Taney or Sonia Sotomayor should take heart and wisdom from Mr. Lincoln:
“We shall not fail,” Lincoln said that day, “if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but sooner or later the victory is sure to come.” Lincoln was right.
How many today will follow Lincoln’s call under similar circumstances to “fight the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy”? How many will have the courage to ignore Sotomayor’s own race just as Lincoln had the courage to ignore the popularity of a whit e male chief justice in a day when only white men could vote?
The question now is how many Republicans will have Abraham Lincoln’s courage to stand on the Republican Party’s very birthright as bequeathed by Lincoln himself? To oppose as Lincoln did — win, lose or draw — injecting the politics of race into the Constitution of the United States? To oppose Sonia Sotomayor’s use of racial politics just as Lincoln opposed Roger Taney’s racial politics and the Dred Scott decision?
We will see.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Peter Buxton | 5.28.09 @ 6:29AM
"Additionally, both Senators Black and Byrnes were active supporters of attempts by Republicans to pass anti-lynching bills in the 1930s."
Did you get this sentence correct...?
Marcell| 5.28.09 @ 7:01AM
Wow!! now this story is a great example of how to spin an issue... Wow!! I am blown away by what I just read (Whistle).
Eric Damon| 5.28.09 @ 7:02AM
I am afraid that the current members of the GOP in the Congress are not going to stand up for what is right, and if they do oppose Sotomayor the opposition will be weak. The drumbeat has already started that opposing this nominee is some sort of attack on Hispanics/Latinos and will drive the "Hispanic vote" away from the GOP...as if there were some powerful Hispanic voting bloc that consistently supports the GOP. But the clueless bubbleheads at GOP headquarters and in the halls of Congress seem hell bent on barely opposing Sotomayor in order to "keep their powder dry" for an even worse nominee down the road. They all seem to be taking the advice of the 'friendly' media and 'moderate' Republicans that believe that the Party should simply roll over for the president and not fulfil their advise and consent role for this nominee. What the GOP does here will send a strong signal as to whether the Party is going to be what Rush Limbaugh termed an "oppressed minority" or a viable opposition party.
Martin| 5.28.09 @ 7:48AM
WONDERFUL piece. The unpleasant reality is that the GOP doesn't have the numbers to stop Sotomayor, and would look bigoted by trying too hard. However she will be a rotten justice, will almost certainly push Kennedy back towards the right by her bullying, and will give us an excellent argument against the Dems the next time we get to nominate a Bork.
Marcell| 5.28.09 @ 7:54AM
Conservatism reminds me of what could happen in a debate class. One person would be assigned to debate a perspective that they might totally disagree with, yet that person makes a great argument on an issue that don't even make sense.
Now, just imagine if all that persons friends disagreed with that perspective, but they convince themselves to agree anyway in order to support their friend. Eventually they would come to believe the nonsense if they had to argue the same position for weeks, thus explains how you conservatives trick yourselves into believing the emotional psychobabble that you support.
I believe that great political strategist who appose your twisted perspectives should take advantage of you & your support for terrible ideas by helping you dig the whole deeper & deeper so you can bury yourselves ( Political Party) in a whole so deep that it would take years to get out of it.
It is one thing for Democrats to set the poison out there for you, & it is another for you to choose to pick the poison up & gulp, gulp, gulp.
Wow!! I am still blown away by what I have just read.
Martin| 5.28.09 @ 8:35AM
If Obama were a moderate on economics as he is on foreign policy I would agree with you -- we'd be stuck until at least 2016 and probably 2020 or 2024. However he is an economic illiterate, who has already made several major blunders, and keeps choosing the most expensive and damging way of achieving his objectives (eg CAFE standards and cap/trade instead of higher gas taxes).
The next 4 years will be highly unpleasant, therefore, but should result in a GOP President and both houses of Congress in 2012 unless we're silly enough to nominate another Bush/McCain.
Indiana Alex| 5.28.09 @ 8:36AM
You know how true this hits home when the liberals whine.
They abhor logic and intellectual rigor.
Old Texican| 5.28.09 @ 9:04AM
Mr. Lord, well written!
When the light of history shines brightly on our country's mistakes during that history, we should learn from those mistakes, and try to make corrections.
Conversely, as you have so carefully pointed out, our country has managed to make some correct decisions, and those too should provide a learning experience.
Sadly, as some of the comments here illustrate, many of our countrymen simply cannot learn.
They absolutely buy into the PRAVDA of their imaginations, rather than accepting the evidence of their lying eyes. They are just terrified of real facts and real truths.
Thank you for the class in historical facts on record.
DM's Lover| 5.28.09 @ 9:10AM
Hello David Mathews,
David honey, why did you leave so early again?
I really think we need to talk. All this anger towards conservatives is really producing zero results-----and I'm talking in the sack too.
I mean, look at Obama's poll numbers---going down, down, down, -----kind of like you are, if you know what I mean.
Maybe saying "your photography sucks" was too strong a statement----a new line of work besides DKos might be just what you need.
Retail is not so bad---may a job at Ritz Camera could help you with your ailing photog skills (along with some other "ailing" droopy things).
Seth
(remember David, it's not the size that counts---well, in your case, maybe it is)
Louis Jenkins| 5.28.09 @ 9:42AM
"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theroretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean." (Justice Benjamin Curtis, dissenting opinion to Taney's Dread Scott decision.) Oh, by and by, please recall that Taney was a Democrat appointee, Dread Scott's master had moved from Missouri to New York where slavery no longer existed when the case was heard by the Supremes, and that under top Missouri Court case law Scott was a "free man". This case spurred the formation of the Republican Party, a party that is accused of hating people of color, xemophobic, and dead.
Jeffrey Lord| 5.28.09 @ 10:15AM
Peter Buxton...
You are right..I meant "opponents" not "supporters"...the two Senators refused to oppose lunching.
Thanks,
Jeffrey Lord| 5.28.09 @ 10:21AM
Peter Buxton...
That would be "lynching"...both men were, I assume, robustly in favor of lunching....
Teleprompter Messiah| 5.28.09 @ 11:05AM
Interesting article. The thing to do with Sotomayer is put her thinking out in the public domain. Senate Republicans probably can't stop her being appointed, but they sure as how can Bork her and show her nomination is nothing more than Hispandering.
Mattled| 5.28.09 @ 11:29AM
When opposing her, at every opportunity, conservatives should point out she is female and Hispanic, ----I mean every single time.
Take away their liberal talking point ad nausea m, and that will enable the conservatives to focus on her (lack of) jurisprudence and intellect.
This is a tactic used by the best sales people----address the issue head on and don't let the mark decide when to bring it up.
She's Hispanic and Female.
She's Hispanic and Female.She's Hispanic and Female.She's Hispanic and Female.She's Hispanic and Female.She's Hispanic and Female.She's Hispanic and Female.She's Hispanic and Female.She's Hispanic and Female.
DORIS HOCHMAN| 5.28.09 @ 6:22PM
THE PUBLIC IS GETTING MEANER, NASTIER, AND CRUELER BY THE DAY OR I AM I JUST NOTICING IT. "IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE WAY I DO, THEN YOU SHOULDN'T BE THINKING AT ALL".
SONIA WAS MY STUDENT IN MIDDLE ELEM. SCHOOL. SHE HAD CARING AND INTERESTED PARENTS. SHE WAS A LOVELY LITTLE GIRL WHO HAS SUCCEEDED BEYOND ANYONE'S EXPECTATIONS BECAUSE SHE USED WHAT G-D GAVE HER.
MAY SHE BLESS THIS COUNTRY WITH HER POINT OF VIEW...WE NEED SOME INTELLIGENCE BACK ON THE SUPREME COURT TO REPLACE THE EGOCENTRIC MEANESS THAT RESIDES THERE NOW!!!
Old Texican| 5.28.09 @ 7:25PM
Hi Doris
Thank you for writing.
(that little button on the left drops all caps.)
I don't recognize G-D. In fact I don't use that curse.
If you are speaking of GOD, the creator of the Universe that sees every single sparrow fall, then use HIS NAME. "God" will suffice, as will "Yahweh" or even "Lord of Lords and of The Universe".
I personally love that little Sonia got to attend PRIVATE SCHOOL instead of the hellholes many American children attend.
If she cannot obey the constitution and breaks her oath before even being sworn in, no matter how sweet she is, I cannot support her.
IF she is sworn in...she is already foresworn. (That means "oathbreaker".)
I have read her words and either she was lying then...or she will be lying when she takes her oath of office.
If she wants to gift our country with "her point of view"...then she should run for Congress.
If you truly were her teacher...why didn't you teach her that?
Nick| 5.28.09 @ 9:17PM
Miss Hochman,
I was a lovely little boy when I was in junior high school. That doesn't mean I should be a Supreme Court Justice.
The first prerequisite to holding elective office or being a judge: Knowing that everyone has the God-given right to life from conception to natural death.
If you don't know that simple fact, you have no business making legal decisions for others.
Marcell| 5.29.09 @ 2:07AM
Old Texican| 5.28.09 @ 9:04AM
Mr. Lord, well written!
When the light of history shines brightly on our country's mistakes during that history, we should learn from those mistakes, and try to make corrections.
Conversely, as you have so carefully pointed out, our country has managed to make some correct decisions, and those too should provide a learning experience.
*************
It is sad to know that their descendants abandoned the Democratic Party for the Republican Party after the Civil Rights Act was signed into law.
The greatest thing about it all is, “I enjoy verbally abusing them online," because, the White Supremacist are still losing. Even if the Repugs help elect a Republican, he or she will be just as liberal as Bu$h.
Yes, God is blessing America!!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CSUPQ7EpU_4/SGOTCMdFSfI/AAAAAAAAYbU/ZI5YCQr8OBg/S1600-R/superman.jpg
Gerard Jackson | 5.29.09 @ 7:08AM
I fear poor little Marcell is a typical hardcore Democrat: dense, ignorant, deeply bigoted and vicious with it. The party of Justice Taney is indeed the right place for him. For those of you who would like to get an insight to into Marcell’s ability to remain impervious to reality may I suggest you read “When Prophecy Fails”. It’s somewhat on the dry side but very instructive with respect to the cultist mindset that afflicts leftists and of which Marcell is a pathetic example.
RAULKA| 5.30.09 @ 6:18AM
Dear Mr. Mathews, as a conservative I appreciate what you are trying to do - namely to portray liberals as idiotic, foulmouthed bigots. But you should tune it down a bit, or people would realize you are actually a staunch conservative trying to besmirch liberals.
Less is more. But keep up good work.
Marcell| 5.30.09 @ 7:12AM
Gerard Jackson
In all my years of studying conservatism, I have realize that the labels you people try to project on others usually true about themselves.
I am honest enough to accept a reality, but can you?
Festinger observes:
"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. "We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. "But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view. "
marcell| 5.30.09 @ 7:29AM
Gerard Jackson
You people are extremely weird.
Pingback| 7.16.09 @ 4:56PM
FACTS: WHY VOTE AGAINST SOTOMAYOR « FactReal links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: