I'm slightly surprised that the White House press office gave out this image, from her 1976 Princeton yearbook, in which she quotes Norman Thomas.
Norman Thomas was, of course, the leading American Socialist politician of the 20th century.
Perhaps they figured it would come out eventually so they wanted to be able to say, "That's old news. We thought it was so inconsequential, we mentioned it ourselves." Or perhaps they felt that substantively didn't matter; Norman Thomas was a pretty mainstream and respected figure, as socialists went. And his quote is universal. Or perhaps they didn't notice.
UPDATE: Gawker offers this theory: "or perhaps the White House planted it there knowing that it'd send the wingnuts into a hysterical frenzy, thereby distracting the sane wing of the party, what little there is left of it anyway, from forming any sort of cogent opposition to Sotomayor, making them all look like rabid fools in the process, just as they have each and every time they've tried to throw the socialist card on Obama in the past? Then again, maybe Obama's just so confident in his nominee that he doesn't care about trivial horseshit like her quoting a socialist over 30 years ago in her college yearbook?"
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
John Q is has hit the nail on its head. Bravo.
Should this be raised at this time?
The First cannon of judicial ethics says:
A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INDEPENDENCE AND INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY, SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL OF THE JUDGE’S ACTIVITIES .
RULE 1.01: PROMOTING CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIARY
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary.
I do not find any fault in the current nominee to the United States Supreme Court for being a woman, a Latino, for having made remarks on her qualifications as superior to the qualifications of any Caucasian. But I do find fault with her appointment violating the spirit of the first cannon of Judicial Ethics, that a judge should appear impartial. Litigants will be hesitant to turn to courts where the Justices appear stacked against them and this undermines the rule of law. Judge Sonia Sotomayor would become the sixth Roman Catholic justice on the Supreme Court. There are only nine of them, so that would mean that two thirds of the Justices, 66+%, would be Roman Catholic in a country where less that 25% of the population practices that religion. That religion predisposes its members, by life long training, faith, and in some cases, rule, to take certain positions that are likely to come up for hearing before the court. Any Appointee will not commit before they go onto the bench what position they may take in a case, but the appearance is there, however they may deny this will influence their rulings. The very appearance of six Roman Catholic Justices on the court gives the appearance to all litigants that if they appear on one side of those issues, be if choice, school prayer, school vouchers or other issues, they will not get a fair hearing. Of course, with the church’s and Popes stand on capital punishment, some might be inclined to support such a person in hopes of abolishing the death penalty. Only one Roman Catholic Justice on some of these issues has taken a position not supported by the church. I believe this is a far more important consideration than any other and should bar Judge Sotomayor from being confirmed by the Senate, no matter how good of a Judge she has been and how worthy of the position she may otherwise be. In fact, I believe it should have prompted her to decline the nomination at this time and should prompt her to withdraw. It is just not the appropriate time to appoint one more Roman Catholic to the court and preserve the diversity of the court in representing the religious views of this country. It appears to threaten the first amendment’s freedom of religion that is so much a bedrock of our society. I know these remarks are politically incorrect but feel they must be made. If you share these sentiments, please pass them on as I believe the general medial is wired not to touch this with a ten foot poll until finally forced to do so by the people.
Ed Campbell
.
Ed:
As a practicing Roman Catholic, I can assure you that the appointment of Sotomayor to the S.C. will bring "nothing Catholic" to it. This is woman whose real belief system is based on anything that will get her ahead, just like the Kennedy's, Biden, Pelosi, etc. "John Q's" post is closer to the real concerns anyone should have. By the way, Scalia is really the only "practicing Catholic" on the current court while Thomas and occasionally Roberts are the only others with a consistent moral compass. It also amuses me how the seperation of church and state argument is always *** backwards. The Founding Founders concept was to keep government from interfering in the establishment of religion, not the other way around as most like to argue. But in Obama's world it matters not. She will be confirmed and this country will continue on its downward slide.
Accidentally come here , I am incomparable to enjoy myself when i appreciate your beautiful article from my deep heart!
I think I will try to recommend this post to my friends and family, cuz it’s really helpful.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.