Why is Mayor Gordon holding a rally in City Council chambers today for Supreme Court Justice nominee Sotomayor?

Why is Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon using the City of Phoenix City Council building to host a rally and press conference in support of Obama’s far left Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor (whose decisions have been reversed 2/3 of the time)? What does her nomination have to do with his job as Mayor of Phoenix? Nothing. Clearly he’s pandering to the Obama administration in hopes of getting a job in D.C. (now that he’s split from his wife, he is probably in a better position to move) This is extremely offensive that he is using city property for his purely political rally.  No doubt City of Phoenix employees were utiized to set up the press conference and rally. Sheriff Arpaio should investigate to see if any more taxpayer property or dollars are being used to put this on.

Here is the news alert about it:

Mayor Phil Gordon to Lead Rally and Hold Press Conference in Support of
the Nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme
Court

WHAT? A brief rally and press conference to show Phoenix’s
support of the President’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve
as a Justice on the United States Supreme Court.

WHO? Mayor Phil Gordon; Vice Mayor Tom Simplot; Councilman
Michael Nowakowski; Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox; Former
Dean, ASU College of Law Paul Bender; Phoenix fire fighters, Business
leaders; Members of the local legal community; Residents.

WHY? Judge Sonia Sotomayor is uniquely qualified to be the next
Supreme Court Justice, and has a three decade distinguished career in
nearly every aspect of the law.

When: Wednesday, July 1, 2009
12:15 PM – Rally
12:30 PM – News Conference

Where: City Council Chambers
200 West Jefferson Street


Comments

  1. “This is extremely offensive that he is using city property for his purely political rally. Sheriff Arpaio should investigate to see if any more taxpayer property or dollars are being used to put this on.”

    You’re right, Chewie. If there’s anyone who has the experience in using taxpayer property and dollars for political theatre purposes, it’s Sheriff Joe. He is EMINENTLY qualified to do such an investigation.

  2. Joe should drive the tank over there for a real presence. Man, do we need that tank.

  3. Ah yes Chewie, so 3 out of her 5 decisions that went to SCOTUS were overturned. I believe all of Alito’s were. And far left? Please. She is a boring moderate.

  4. Conservative does not mean Republican says

    The real question is, why is Phil Gordon holding a support rally for her? I didn’t know that pandering to Washington lawmakers was part of the job description. My bad.

  5. James Davidson says

    Conservatives,

    Don’t waste much energy on this one. We have bigger fish to fry. As I’ve noted before in these pages, liberal president nominates liberal judge to replace liberal justice. That’s a dog bites man story.

    The much bigger story, if you haven’t yet figured it out, is that Chief Justice Roberts is pulling Justice Kennedy firmly back into the conservative orbit. That makes a solid 5-4 majority as long as Obama is president.

    The resignations likely in the near future all will come from the liberal wing — Justice Stevens at 89 won’t sit much longer, and Justice Ginsburg has severe health problems with her pancreatic cancer. That leaves only Justice Breyer of the liberals, and at 71 one would think he has at least ten years left in him if he wants it.

    Justice Scalia is 73, and Kennedy turns 73 this summer, so both may easily outlast an Obama presidency. The other three conservatives are much younger.

    Keep this in mind as well: If past performance is a guide, future Justice Sotomayor may be a solidly liberal vote, but she hasn’t shown in the past the leadership qualities to be a moving force on the Court, as was a Brennan or a Black or a Douglas. I would put Roberts and Alito up against her any day. Roberts may even pull her to the center by force of intellect and personality.

    As the saying goes, count your blessings. It could have been much worse.

  6. CDNMR,

    “Justice Scalia is 73, and Kennedy turns 73 this summer, so both may easily outlast an Obama presidency. The other three conservatives are much younger.”

    Or they could drop dead tomorrow. Scalia doesn’t really seem like the kind of guy to enjoy a light salad nicoise every now again.

    And I assure you, from the bottom of my heart, we on the left will give as much consideration to your desire to replace Scalia with someone ideologically similar as the right did when they replaced Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas.

  7. Conservative does not mean Republican says

    I’m in total agreement Davidson. I’m not bothered by the current alignment of the Court, nor the fact that Sotomayor will soon be its next member. I just don’t like Phil Gordon getting a free pass on this kind of garbage.

  8. James Davidson says

    Klute:

    Still choking on Thomas, eh? You’ve got at least another 25 years of heartburn. The fact is that Marshall was an icon as a lawyer, but middling at best as a justice. Not a force on the Court, Brennan outshone him through out his career as a Justice. This takes nothing away from him as one of the greatest lawyers of the mid-20th Century. But being a great lawyer does not always add up to being a great judge.

    What should give you more heartburn is that dynamism on the Court finds itself on the right. Breyer is a crank, Stevens is spent, Ginsburg is gravely sick, and Souter is leaving. Sotomayor will make no match for Roberts and Alito. In fact they slowly will draw her to their side by intellect and personality, and possibly by being all being Catholic.

  9. kralmajales says

    James…

    First off, Sotomayor is not an extreme liberal. I have seen recent political science measured scores that show her to be liberal and at about the same level as Souter who was on the liberal side of the spectrum but closest to the middle. So not to worry, you aren’t getting anyone that is going to change much.

    Second, you are getting a judge that will just fill in the fourth vs five conservative votes. What you have to worry about is whether she will pull Kennedy over from time to time.

    Last, political scientists have persuasively called the Rhenquist court one of the most activist courts (activist conservative) in this nation’s history. A well done book by Thomas Keck. What Roberts and crew will do for you is the same. They are by no means restraintists…this term proves it…they are activist judges that “make law” but with a conservative bent and edge. Be glad…just dont hand out any BS about them being restraintists or some kind of stare decisis ministers.

  10. James Davidson says

    Kral —

    I don’t say she is an extreme liberal. I actually think she’ll be better from the conservative perspective than Souter. But that is only a quwstion of degree. She is liberal. So be it. We had an election and the liberal side won. They get to put liberals on the Court.

    Agreed, she keeps the make up where it was, if not a shade to the center from Souter.

    Every court makes law. That’s the tradition we inherited from the British. The question again is degree. The genius of the common-law tradition from which our system grew was incremental or gradualist change. In past eras of American history, some Courts have been incrementalist. Others have been given to larger revisions. On rare occasion big changes are in order. The obvious example is Brown, where the Court rejected the separate-but-equal travesty it invented about 60 years before in Plessy. Usually the incrementalist approach is better for society.

    I suppose the only area I would disagree with you is that I see the Roberts Court mainly as an incrementalist court, as evidenced by the voting rights decision it handed down Monday of last week. Roberts went out of his way to avoid the larger 14th Amendment issue and to decide the case on narrow grounds.

  11. James,

    “Still choking on Thomas, eh? You’ve got at least another 25 years of heartburn.”

    Sadly, I’ve already resigned myself to at least another decade of the Uncle Ruckus Reality Show*.

    “Breyer is a crank, Stevens is spent, Ginsburg is gravely sick, and Souter is leaving.”

    Let ’em go. Obama will get to appoint four judges who will last 30-40 years on the bench. Then all we have to do is time take its inexorable toll.

    “In fact they slowly will draw her to their side by intellect and personality, and possibly by being all being Catholic.”

    Catholicism isn’t the unifying force you think, especially for the Boomers and especially Gen X.

    * – If anyone has a problem with that, take it up with Aaron MacGruder, not me.

  12. James Davidson says

    “Uncle Ruckus Reality Show*.”

    That’s a racist comment.

  13. “That’s a racist comment.”

    Unless Aaron MacGruder, creator of “The Boondocks” is some sort of self-hating black man, which I assure you, he’s not.

    But as I said, take it up with MacGruder…

    Or better yet, take it up with Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenting vote against the Voting Rights Act – something not even Scalia or Alito saw as unconstitutional.

  14. Tucson Vice says

    Conservative republicans are bothered by racism now?

    The times they are achangin’.

  15. James Davidson says

    Klute:

    You’re right. I forgot the liberal corollary which holds that if an African-American makes a filthy racist comment against a member of his race it gives a White Liberal a pass to do the same.

  16. James Davidson says

    Tucson Vice:

    We’ve been through all this before in these pages. The Democrat Party institutionalized racism in America. The Democrat Party tried to institutionalize racism in Arizona at the 1910 constitutional convention by requiring segregation of the races in Arizona’s public schools. Republicans beat it back. Democrats later got their way in the 1930s by passing legislation to permit race segregation in the Arizona public schools. If you know anything about Tucson’s history, you will know that Tucson Unified was thoroughly segregated, courtesy of the Democrat Party which ran Tucson. Same for Phoenix.

    It was the liberal Democrats who made a corrupt bargain with Southern Democrats in the 1930s nationally to take control of Congress from Republicans and they never lifted a finger to help African-Americans. Republicans led the way, beginning with Earl Warren on the Supreme Court and Herbert Brownell, Eisenhower’s attorney general, who wrote the original much stronger version of the Civil Rights Law of 1957. Lyndon Johnson watered it down to get something passed Congress, where his fellow Democrats were the obstacle. Even Jack Kennedy, when president, apppointed racist judges in the Southern states. Read Douglas’s autobigraphy, The Court Years, at p. 128 where he condemns Kennedy for solidarity with Southern racists. Of the more than 100 members of Congress who signed the Southern Manifesto, only two were Republicans, the rest Democrats. Al Gore’s father voted against the Civil Rihts Act of 1964, which was Herbert Brownell’s original 1957 Act in substance.

    The Democrat Party has a disgraceful and disgusting history on race, and for two generations White Liberals enabled it. So let’s not get preachy over racism. It was the soul and story of the Democrat Party since Jefferson founded it and Jackson reformed it.

  17. James,

    I choose to let my black friends decide if something’s racist or not, not what a white conservative decides is racist.

  18. James Davidson says

    Klute,

    You’re right. If an African-American liberal says it’s okay for a White liberal to make a filthy racist comment against an African-American conservative, then it’s okay. I understand how the White Liberal corollary works. Never mind what words you actually posted, and never mind what they actually mean. If the racist slur is made against a conservative, then it’s not a slur. If we used the same words against an African-American who is not a prominent conservative, then it is racist.

  19. scott phelps says

    Yikes. The Council Chambers are a public facility. Citizens and citizen groups use it routinely. Senator Kyl uses it. Everyone uses the Chambers. Plus,the Chambers were already open for a posted City Council meeting — so not one extra cent of taxpayer money was used. Folks, this is a building that was BUILT for public opinions to be discussed.

Leave a Reply