As Christy Hardin Smith so aptly points out, the foaming at the mouthers are already starting with their weak sauce hissy fit about Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
And frankly, there are so many ways to push back against this – refuting their asinine talking points, pointing out their racist behavior, smacking down their "analysis" of her prior opinions....but in reality, there is one way to short circuit all of this in a very simple and easily understandable way:
Why was there such an uproar in 2005 over a potential filibuster of Bush’s JUDICIAL NOMINEES but it is suddenly ok to filibuster a more qualified nominee now?
It isn’t just the Senators who were full of hot air back in 2005. The incredibly ironically named "American Thinker" gave the below "analysis" about how a filibuster of judicial appointments was against the Senate rules:
Whether or not the present nomination filibusters violate the Constitution, they plainly violate the rules of the Senate. In particular, the press and public have paid little attention to Senate Rule 31, which governs nominations. Senate Rule 31 says that, 'when a nomination is confirmed or rejected, any Senator voting in the majority may move for a reconsideration,' which clearly implies that nominees can only be 'confirmed or rejected' on condition that there is a majority vote. If for some reason there is no majority vote, then the lapsed nomination is 'neither confirmed nor rejected,' says Rule 31.
Now, I’m not about to argue whether this article or analysis is ridiculous because I don’t need to. All I need to say is that it was ok back in 2005, so it should be ok in 2009.
This (always) excellent Media Matters post highlights a large number of rightist arguments AGAINST the filibuster of judicial nominees – from such "luminaries" as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, William Kristol and the Washington Times. Every single one argued against the filibuster or blocking of Bush’s judicial nominees. And then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said the following:
All 100 members of the U.S. Senate will soon decide a basic question of fairness. Will we permit a fair, up-or-down vote on every judicial nominee? Or, will we create an unprecedented 60-vote requirement for the confirmation of President Bush's judges? I sincerely hope that it is the former.
And here is a treasure trove of video capturing the republican whining from 2005.
Progressives, Democrats and other supporters can get caught up in arguing whether Sotomayer has impeccable credentials (as SCOTUSblog.com notes). We can argue whether the distortions by the right wing over her other decisions are in any way credible. We can get caught up in the minutiae and fight this battle (which ironically will likely only alienate the right even more in the eyes of Hispanics and women) on the right wing’s terms.
We can serve them a giant heaping of "STFU", and make them eat their words from a few short years ago. It’s much easier, it’s something that even the corporate media and talking meatsticks can grasp and run with and it turns their entire strategy on its head.
Oh yeah, and it’s much more satisfying.