David Brooks proves Sonia Sotomayor just can’t win with Conservatives
To my eye, they are the products of a clear and honest if unimaginative mind. She sticks close to precedent and the details of a case. There’s no personal flavor (in the boring parts one wishes there were). There’s no evidence of a grand ideological style or even much intellectual ambition. If you had to pick a word to describe them, it would be “restraint.”
I found this little strange turd of a paragraph laid in the corner of David Brook’s column in today’s New York Times. What does this even mean? I guess this is Brooks’s attempt at a condescending, backhanded compliment. The old girl is loyal, if not a little dull.
What a dick. And for that matter, what a bunch of dicks operate inside the Republican Party. First, Sotomayor was a “racialist,” and an “activist judge.” When those non-stories didn’t stick because some literate person finally looked at her court records, Republicans had to find something else to attack. Suddenly, the problem isn’t that she’s an activist, it’s that she lacks a “grand ideological style.” If her ideologies dictated her judicial style, wouldn’t that make her an activist, David?
The sick part is I think Brooks thought that he was complimenting Sotomayor. That’s how ass-backwards Republicans are right now. They don’t know which way is up, and they’re desperately trying to attack a woman, who — by Brooks’s own confession — is pretty boring and moderate.
I would say this is another omen for the death of the Republican party except the Democrats are also hapless idiots. The Dems couldn’t even hold onto the New York Senate majority without the Republicans snatching it from their arms when they weren’t paying attention and fleeing from the room before the Democrats executed their grand strategy of turning off the lights and hiding in the dark.
This country is fueled by morons.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
This seems to be apart of the little game that the Republicans and the Democrats like to pay with each other, called “partisan politics” where the two groups just fight with each other just to be loyal to the party that they happen to belong to. As this happens, of course people are distracted from issues that actually matter, such as Health care or the war in Afghanistan. also these games are played with no actual regard for those who voted them in(even though the reasons they are elected happens to be based on empty promises anyways)and as someone who is supportive of neither party, I find it a waste a time to be playing these games while suffering in the world continues and its apparent that most of them don’t care. On a side note, if she does not get accepted will her supporters see her as a lot of Robert Bork’s(Reagan’s 1987 Supreme Court nominee) supporters still see him, as someone who should have been on the Supreme Court(but its good he is not), because of so called “unfair circumstances” or do her supporters not really care that much? Also to be clear (because I don’t want to be misinterpreted) I’m not comparing their ideologies, because obviously they are not similar at all.