June 2nd, 2009
04:00 PM ET
14 years ago

Sotomayor ‘could Bork herself,' conservative Hispanic says

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/02/art.miranda0602.cnn.jpg caption="Making a reference to the failed Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert Bork, Manuel Miranda said Tuesday that Judge Sonia Sotomayor could Bork herself during her upcoming confirmation hearings."]
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor could be her own worst enemy in her Senate confirmation hearings if her reputation for being tough on lawyers from the bench is to be believed, a conservative Hispanic said Tuesday.

"She could Bork herself," said Manuel Miranda, the chairman of the conservative group the Third Branch Conference. "It's very possible."

"Think about it: Sam Alito, soft spoken; John Roberts, affable and soft spoken; Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg . . . all of them soft spoken. This nominee's more like Judge Bork. She has a temper. She has an attitude. She could come across as hubristic in the hearings – as arrogant."

Miranda's comments came on the same day that his organization requested that the Republican leadership in the Senate mount a filibuster of Sotomayor's confirmation vote in order to allow sufficient time for conservative judicial philosophies to get a public airing during confirmation process.

Read: The Third Branch Conference's letter to Senate Republicans

"We call on you instead to display leadership, if the nominee merits it, in preparing for the use of the traditional filibuster, not intended to obstruct, together with moderate
Democrats, so that the debate on the Senate floor is appropriately long and, therefore, suitably catalyzed to the American people," says Third Branch's letter to Senate Republicans.

The letter is "an attempt to speak for the conservative movement – as best one can," Miranda said Tuesday.

Miranda, who like Sotomayor is Hispanic and grew up in New York City, also said he thought the judge's oft-emphasized status as a Latina is being used to try to intimidate conservatives into not opposing her nomination.

"We're not putting a lot of focus on the fact that she is a Latina woman. It would be better if she were a Latina woman that didn't say the kind of things she's said and didn't write the kind of things she writes. That's not the issue."

"We make a mistake if we do not come to grips, acknowledge, recognize, and then move on the issue of the great life story, the inspiring life story," Miranda added about Sotomayor's rise from working class roots. "It is an inspiring life story, it is a great aspect of national pride."

In order to avoid possibly alienating Hispanics while opposing Sotomayor, Miranda suggested that Republicans should focus their criticism on the substantive aspects of Sotomayor's nomination.

Republicans need to put "substance into the void," Miranda said. "A vote against this nominee without substance is going to be problematic. We have to explain our vote."

Filed under: Sonia Sotomayor • Supreme Court
soundoff (101 Responses)
  1. Tim, Seattle

    @ Jobs for Judges
    "You mean just like democrats did to Roberts, Thomas, etc., etc. etc.

    Stop lying in your posts.....

    Do your homework, 22 Dems voted for Roberts...no fillibusters.... was allowed an up or down vote. Easy confirmation.

    Dont you get sick of your own lies?

    June 2, 2009 04:41 pm at 4:41 pm |
  2. Edd8e deRoulet

    Give me a break, what she has said is what most people probably think of themselves. We want our judges to think about what they are doing and if any member of the GOP says that they want their judges to be robots, they are dumb and not being truthful.

    June 2, 2009 04:42 pm at 4:42 pm |
  3. seriously!

    Are none of you worried about our system of checks & balences? This is a woman (which I also happen to be – so I'm not hating on her about that) who is obviously smart, but straight up says that policy is/should be made from the bench! This is not the way our system was set up to work. One of this country's problems right now is that we aren't listening to what the people we are putting in office are actually saying. It seems that the "sheeple" are good with whatever is said if someone (a party spokesperson) comes on TV to tell them that their nominee just miss-spoke. What? LISTEN people. The people we are letting be put/putting into power are saying what they mean, then letting others tell us they didn't really mean it, mean it. Wow. How stupid are most of us anyway?

    June 2, 2009 04:42 pm at 4:42 pm |
  4. Randolph Carter

    Where did they get this Miranda guy from? Anybody notice that he looks really similar to Cheney, Limbaugh and Gingrich? They're all cloned from some Nixon toenail clippings in the secret RNC lab. Have a nice day!

    June 2, 2009 04:44 pm at 4:44 pm |
  5. shucks

    The republicans are issuing so many warnings, maybe we should be at an elevated alert level.

    June 2, 2009 04:45 pm at 4:45 pm |
  6. Mark

    She won't "Bork" herself and the Republicans won't go to the trash can and treat her with the same disrespect the Democrats treated not only Bork but Justice Alito.

    Hopefully some here remember that Ted Kennedy went into vile tirades on both occasions in a speech to the Senate. Oh, let us not forget the quotes about Clarence Thomas from the "tolerant" left. It seems the spin has worked well to label the GOP as the party of hatred, underhandedness, bigots, etc. One only needs to look backwards 30 years to see the low gutter hatred that spews from the left.

    It seems some people need a history lesson on what it means to be "Borked".

    June 2, 2009 04:45 pm at 4:45 pm |
  7. Jim in Idaho

    Apparently this bozo has never been to the Supreme Court and seen how justices chew lawyers up on a regular basis.....

    June 2, 2009 04:46 pm at 4:46 pm |
  8. Moderate Democrat

    Jobs for Unqualified judges June 2nd, 2009 4:36 pm ET
    It would only be hypocritical if Bush wasn't such a wuss and hadn't allowed 3000 people to die, or if he hadn't invaded our privacy, or if he hadn't had started illegal wars, or if he had atleast won ONE of them regardless of illegal or not, or if he had caught Osama Bin Laden in eight years, or if while failing at all of those he had actually accomplished something domestically rather then fail at all of those things as well.

    But he was, he did, and did that too, and did again, and didn't, then didn't do that and still didn't on that either.

    So it's not hypocritical, it's simply FACT that we had alot to complain about for eight years worth of horrible moronic incompetency.

    June 2, 2009 04:47 pm at 4:47 pm |
  9. Bob in Connecticut

    Far too many lefty's are so full of themselves they fail to recognize their own hatred and negativity. It's sad that they do not have the intellect to realize they do exactly what they accuse the Republicans of doing. Wake up and read the article in the Pravda newspaper that points how far we have been taken down the road to being a Socialist country. You are the sheeple it refers to.

    June 2, 2009 04:47 pm at 4:47 pm |
  10. Diane Panama City Fl

    Now that we know Miranda is the same as G Gordon Liddy , the Watergate felon, who likes breaking into people's emails and personal correspondence, I can assume he will bo "Bork" himself along with the rest of the fecal matter known as Rushpublicans. Just another vicious rightwing nut slobbering and spewing his stupidity for all to see. "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." – John Stuart Mill.

    June 2, 2009 04:47 pm at 4:47 pm |
  11. CAW in MD

    @Jobs for Unqualified Judges,

    Pray tell, how exactly is she unqualified? Is it all the federal experience on the bench she's had? Is it that she graduated summa cum laude from a very prestigious school?

    And while you're at it, care to put up some actual facts that shows she's a racist? Not the sound-bite politics as practiced by certain individuals in the media, but a thoughtful, reasoned explanation?

    If so, please post your reasoning. If you can't find that reasoned explanation, well, that says a lot too...

    June 2, 2009 04:48 pm at 4:48 pm |
  12. Randolph Carter

    Seriously!, policy is made from the bench all the time. You should dust off your old history book from high school and look up all of those "landmark"decisions on abortion, civil rights, etc. If that ain't making policy, I don't know what is. Have a nice day!

    June 2, 2009 04:49 pm at 4:49 pm |
  13. No More CNN...waste of time

    CNN...who does the editing of your comments. Why do numb nuts like "Jobs for Unqualified judges" get to post over and over when the rest of us get's kicked out...

    June 2, 2009 04:50 pm at 4:50 pm |
  14. V. Clausewitz

    The House has Pelosi.
    The Court will have Sotomayor.
    The Country will have Bimbonic Plague.

    June 2, 2009 04:51 pm at 4:51 pm |
  15. JA/TN

    let the process play itself out, those justices aren't all that, i say that when thinking about the life time appointment they accept, that is wrong within itself, how can you made sound decision at eighty, and ninety years of age, i appauld Justice Scouter, this same group of soft spoken people went against the people in 2000, and seated Bush, ok soft-spoken

    June 2, 2009 04:53 pm at 4:53 pm |
  16. seriously!

    Randolph – I understand that policy has been made from the bench. I happen to teach history. My point is, do we need to continue the practice? People will complain, but no one wants to stop it or point out that it's not supposed to be that way! I guess it'll be ok since this one is going to make liberal policy?

    June 2, 2009 04:55 pm at 4:55 pm |
  17. Kimberly

    Hasn't the Supreme Court overturned more of Bush White House politcies than the same it has overturned Sotomayor rulings?

    June 2, 2009 04:58 pm at 4:58 pm |
  18. chris

    No! Instead of offer another candidate... typical GOP

    June 2, 2009 05:00 pm at 5:00 pm |
  19. Billy Ray Valentine, Philadelphia, PA

    Hey, she's only 1 vote in 9...what difference will it make? She certainly can't be more far left than Souter.

    June 2, 2009 05:00 pm at 5:00 pm |
  20. Randolph Carter

    Seriously!, We can agree on something. The supreme court should stick to throwing out laws that are unconstitutional until congress passes a better law. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Oh well. Have a nice day!

    June 2, 2009 05:00 pm at 5:00 pm |
  21. Moderate Democrat

    Bob in Connecticut June 2nd, 2009 4:47 pm ET

    Far too many lefty's are so full of themselves they fail to recognize their own hatred and negativity.
    So Bobby, do you love them lefty's? or are you just another hypocritical mouth piece that spews your form of hate and then condemns others for doing the same?

    yea, thought so!

    ps: are you the Bobby from the Brady Bunch? Because I liked him! Hope it's not you!

    June 2, 2009 05:02 pm at 5:02 pm |
  22. Eugene

    The Borks are mostly in your court , fella. Sorry for your team.

    June 2, 2009 05:03 pm at 5:03 pm |
  23. Amazed in AL

    I find this remark kind of sexist. MAny times when a woman is able to hold her own, or refused to be kicked around, some men label them as pompous, presumptuous or bossy. Is it because they are not able to handle women with opinions? By the way, I am a man.

    June 2, 2009 05:03 pm at 5:03 pm |
  24. Teleprompter of the U.S.A.

    Sotomayor is a racist and had better hope she doesn't make any inadvertent racist comments while these hearings are going on.

    June 2, 2009 05:04 pm at 5:04 pm |
  25. please

    eriously! June 2nd, 2009 4:55 pm ET

    Randolph – I understand that policy has been made from the bench. I happen to teach history. My point is, do we need to continue the practice? People will complain, but no one wants to stop it or point out that it's not supposed to be that way! I guess it'll be ok since this one is going to make liberal policy?
    How about the SC electing the President? That doesn't seem to be some "liberal" policy.

    For those of you that actually understand the law, of course Judges throughout this country make policy from the bench. It is a simple fact. They don't draft legislation, but a Judge's interpretation of the law is creating a policy. That is simply how the system works. Conservative judges and liberal judges create policies. It is a stupid argument to try and keep people from looking at relevant factors.

    June 2, 2009 05:04 pm at 5:04 pm |
1 2 3 4 5