![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
When I saw the President naming her as his pick to replace Souter, my first thought was to wonder "What are the Right going to distort from her record in order to make her look scary?"
Because that's all they seem capable of anymore - it's not like they can frame an argument that doesn't rely on some Bogeyman or other these days, no matter how ridiculous it makes them - and it didn't take too long before they brought out the devastating skeletons in her closet: She once said something about hispanic women having a different perspective on something or other than white men; she made a remark once about how policy is made at the Appellate courts, and ow one time, out of her entire career, she was one of a majority of judges who made a ruling against some white guys on a racial discrimination case. The last one is getting painted as her being some kind of wild-eyed radical judicial activist, when all she actually did was base her decision to side with the other judges in the majority on existing legal precedent - the very thing that the people on the Right who are getting the vapors about her nomination say has to be done ... when it leads to a decision they want, anyway (strangely, these same people will defend the decision in Bush v. Gore to the death - oh, wait, right, there's that "hypocrisy" thing again.)
If you want to see a more serious treatment of the case in question, Hilzoy has an excellent analysis of it here:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/05/the-ricci-case.html
Because that's all they seem capable of anymore - it's not like they can frame an argument that doesn't rely on some Bogeyman or other these days, no matter how ridiculous it makes them - and it didn't take too long before they brought out the devastating skeletons in her closet: She once said something about hispanic women having a different perspective on something or other than white men; she made a remark once about how policy is made at the Appellate courts, and ow one time, out of her entire career, she was one of a majority of judges who made a ruling against some white guys on a racial discrimination case. The last one is getting painted as her being some kind of wild-eyed radical judicial activist, when all she actually did was base her decision to side with the other judges in the majority on existing legal precedent - the very thing that the people on the Right who are getting the vapors about her nomination say has to be done ... when it leads to a decision they want, anyway (strangely, these same people will defend the decision in Bush v. Gore to the death - oh, wait, right, there's that "hypocrisy" thing again.)
If you want to see a more serious treatment of the case in question, Hilzoy has an excellent analysis of it here:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/05/the-ricci-case.html
