Remember Joe the plumber? He was the guy the left viciously attacked because he dared question his holiness the Obama. It backfired somewhat because their lackeys in the Ohio State Government who used state resources to dig up their dirt got caught. Still, it illustrated just how low some on the left will go to savage anyone they think might be in their way.
They are at it again. This time the leftwing goon squads are mobilizing against Frank Ricci. You may remember Mr. Ricci as the one who brought the anti-discrimination suit against the New Haven Fire Department. Sotomayor ruled against him, then the Supreme Court later overturned Sotomayor.
With her confirmation hearings approaching, Ricci is in their sights:
People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, and other advocates urged the newspaper to dig into Ricci's background, specifically an earlier 1995 lawsuit the firefighter filed contending the city of New Haven discriminated against him because he's dyslexic. They also cite Hartford Courant stories from the same period detailing how Ricci was fired by a fire department in Middletown, Conn. -- allegedly, Ricci said then, because of safety concerns he raised.
What if Ricci was a criminal and Sotomayor was overturned on a decision she made in his case? Would his criminal history be fair game? What should be fair game is her decision and the process by which she reached it.
Sotomayor should publicly denounce these efforts. She should immediately tell these goons to back off and that the merits of her confirmation have nothing to do with Ricci personally. The litigant's personal past has nothing to do with the decision
If she does not denounce this attack on Ricci, it's further evidence that she does not have the judicial temperament to sit as a judge in ANY court in this country.
VW
So, this is straight out of the "I want it both ways" department. You want your supreme court judges to be non-political, but you want Sotomayor to jump right in the middle of political bickering. And when she does you can say "AHA! Told you she's a political animal and not a non-partisan!"
I agree with you that Ricci shouldn't be demonized, and I'll even forgive you for overlooking the fact that Republicans do this all the time (brilliantly), but it's simply not her place to chime in.
But let's go with your standard then... Clarence Thomas would have to step down for not having the judicial temperament to sit as a judge for never having condemned all the dirt that was dug up about Anita Hill (by people like David Brock, back when he was a conservative hack). I'll expect a post from you demanding his resignation any moment now.
Posted by: Rusty | Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 08:07
Rusty, there's a big difference between Ricci and Hill. Hill was accusing Thomas of a serious offense. Perhaps not a crime, but serious misconduct none the less. She was making accusations. Ricci was just some poor guy who happened to get her as a judge. He is not accusing her of misconduct. I realize the difference may be hard for you to understand. I stand by my statement, so yeah, don't expect the post.
VW
Posted by: Violence Worker | Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 09:42
Ricci might not of been accusing Sotomayor of a serious offence (all the more reason she shouldn't have to chime in) but he is accusing public officials of serious offenses. If what you're saying is the by accusing an public official you make yourself a target, then Ricci is a fair target. And, just to be clear, Hill didn't bring her accusations public. She pressed no charges. She was interviewed by the FBI and her testimony was leaked. She didn't choose to be in the public eye.
But just so I'm clear for the future - you're saying that it's ok to defame someone's character for political reasons if that person says they were wronged by someone. Even if they didn't make that accusation public (on their own accord.)
Posted by: Rusty | Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 10:09
I apologize for the horrible grammar and syntax in my previous post. Usually I proofread before I post.
Posted by: Rusty | Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 11:18
Rusty, spare me your self righteous umbrage. Ricci and Hill are two completely different cases.
Frankly, you act like liberals are pure and holy and Conservatives are evil demons who pick on you pour wittle wiberals all day long, WAAAHHH!!!! Stop it because I'm here to tell you, when it comes to the so-called "politics of persona destruction" no one does it better than the left.
The point is, it's wrong to go after Ricci. It should be against the law for a private group to do that - especially one name "people for the American Way" Sounds more like People for the Soviet Way to me. What happened more than 20 years ago happened. To use whatever wrong you perceive happened over 20 years ago to justify bad behavior today is juvenile.
VW
Posted by: Violence Worker | Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 12:00
These are not tow completely different cases. They were both private citizens, who acted as such, got caught up in a political situation against their will and were personally assaulted for it.
I'm not justifying anyting. You might want to reread my post where I said it was wrong to go after Ricci. And if anyone is whining, it's you. Sotomayor isn't fit to be a judge because she won't comment on political tactics, but Thomas is fit even though he did the same thing? I'm just asking to you have the same standards, that's all. I don't think Thomas should have commented on Hill's treatment and I don't think Sotomayor should comment. I'm being consistent. And yes, my moral values hold for longer than a 20 year period. Obviously yours have a shorter shelf life.
I'm agreeing with you that Ricci shouldn't be a target of political and personal attacks. I disagree with you that Sotomayor should comment. I'm just asking that you hold all of the supreme court judges to the same standard and not just the ones you don't like.
Both liberals and conservatives are experts at the politics of persona destruction. Just look what his own party did to McCain in the primaries against Bush. The Dems are just as bad. I can admit that. Can you?
Can you honestly show anywhere in any of my posts where I've said that liberals or democrats are pure and holy or anything close? Or is this your own personal brand of persona destruction?
Posted by: Rusty | Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 13:07
Yeah, that's what I figured. Nothin'
Posted by: Rusty | Friday, July 17, 2009 at 08:30
Something about arguing with a fool
VW
Posted by: Violence Worker | Friday, July 17, 2009 at 08:32
More name calling. Well, you've got that mastered. Now shoot for intellectual integrity.
Posted by: Rusty | Friday, July 17, 2009 at 11:56
Oh, wait, I know the one you're were talking about:
"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"?
Too late, you started this blog.
Posted by: Rusty | Friday, July 17, 2009 at 11:59