About us Get email updates

County Fair

Print Email

Did Buchanan do as well as Sotomayor in college?

July 17, 2009 12:28 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

Watching Pat Buchanan's not-so-slow descent into Sotomayor madness has been a depressing spectacle to watch, and an embarrassing one for MSNBC to sponsor.

Witness his attack last night on The Rachel Maddow Show, in which he claimed he graduated from Georgetown University "as high as [Sotomayor] did" at Princeton, and added, "I'm not qualified for the United States Supreme Court. And neither is she."

But in his 1990 book, Right from the Beginning, Buchanan wrote that after being arrested and expelled for assaulting police officers and subsequently allowed to return after his father, "by personal pleading, had the expulsion reduced," "I was graduated cum laude" [original emphasis] from Georgetown in 1961.

Sotomayor graduated in 1976 summa cum laude from Princeton.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All

- by nerzog (July 17, 2009 12:38 pm ET)
  1
  
  "I'm not qualified for the United States Supreme Court. And neither is she."
  
  This coming from a guy who, no doubt, thinks Antonin Scalia is brilliant.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by epkklk851 (July 17, 2009 12:51 pm ET)
    1
    
    Antonin Scalia is brilliant, I just happen to disagree with most of his stances, no matter how well they are reasoned out...and I wish he was a Liberal.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
    - by magnolialover (July 17, 2009 12:53 pm ET)
      1
      
      I agree. I disagree with Scalia on a lot of things, but he is a brilliant legal mind.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
    - by nerzog (July 17, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
      3
      
      “Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached” - Antonin Scalia
      
      Madness is often mistaken for brilliance.
      
      Reply Report Abuse
      - by epkklk851 (July 17, 2009 1:06 pm ET)
        1
        
        That is an interesting quote. Hmm...not sure what to make of it. Well, maybe he had some mental gas that day. God forgive him if he didn't.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by JoeSixpack (July 17, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
        3
        
        It's such a fine line betweeb stupid and clever.
        
        -David St. Hubbins,
        Spinal Tap
        
        Reply Report Abuse
        
        by nerzog (July 17, 2009 1:22 pm ET)
        1
        
        It's from Herrera v. Collins, which was an odd case.
        
        On further examination, Scalia was with the majority in that case, so maybe it doesn't demonstrate his brilliance or lack thereof.
        
        The majority opinion found that executing an innocent person was not necessarily unconstitutional. I'm sure they arrived at that odd conclusion through the fog of their precious "strict constructionist" interpretation.
        
        Sandra Day O'Connor voted with the majority, but disagreed with their conclusion that you could Constitutionally execute an innocent person. She just wasn't convinced that the plaintiff had cast enough doubt on his conviction.
        
        One thing this case demonstrates is that the Constitution is open to interpretation on many issues, and the Republican notion of a "strict constructionist" approach is pure fantasy.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
      - by The_Cat (July 17, 2009 1:12 pm ET)
        1
        
        Couldn't agree more. You know, the nice thing about that quote is that there is really no way to take it out of context.
        
        Reply Report Abuse
      - by mfinn7314 (July 17, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
        
        Note, in this quote he doesn't say executing an innocent person was not necessarily unconstitutional. He says factual innocense is no reason not to carry out a death sentence as long as the sentence was reached properly according to the laws. I guess the Constitution and morality are not always in line. So a jury of peers and presiding judge could follow the rules but ignore evidence of innocence, find someone guilty and kill them and that's ok.
        
        Tell me again how this is a Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs but our founding document on which our system of laws is based could allow this?
        
        Reply Report Abuse
- by seeryer (July 17, 2009 12:46 pm ET)
  1
  
  If you would have been appointed to the bench by a Democrat and worked as a federal judge you may be. Though assaulting police officers probably wouldn't have looked to good to sitting Senators. So Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton without being arrested for assaulting police officers and was a federal judge for 17 years. Pat wan right about one thing, he is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. How about his "wise Latina" dig in his WND column today. Always classy Pat, always!
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 17, 2009 1:34 pm ET)
    1 1
    
    Who's more qualified for the Court? A wise Latina, or an unwise Irishman?
    
    Reply Report Abuse
  - by tangaroa (July 17, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
    
    "Though assaulting police officers probably wouldn't have looked to good to sitting Senators."
    
    Imaqine Pat's shrieking if Sotomayor had been the one to assault the police officers?
    
    Reply Report Abuse
- by shaggles (July 17, 2009 3:04 pm ET)
  
  Apparently Pat didn't take a logic course when he was at Georgetown. He seems to be saying 'I graduated cum laude. I'm not qualified for the SCOTUS. Sotomayor graduated cum laude. Therefore she is not qualified for the SCOTUS.' Which is a logical fallacy.
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by magnolialover (July 17, 2009 4:57 pm ET)
    
    Also, just compare their 2 career paths. Sotomayor was a lawyer, and then a judge for a number of years. Pat, eh, not so much.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
  - by tangaroa (July 17, 2009 5:24 pm ET)
    
    Plus there's a difference between cum laude and summa cum laude.
    
    Reply Report Abuse

County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.

Eric Boehlert's New Book

The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
by Jamison Foser - November 25, 2009
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
by Eric Boehlert - November 23, 2009
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
by Simon Maloy - November 20, 2009

Barnes: "Obama ought to recognize that the science" of climate change "is in dispute"
November 25, 2009 6:47 pm ET
Beck: "Progressives have built up this wall of separation between church and state, and it's nonsense"
November 25, 2009 5:49 pm ET
After stating that "we left the Pharaoh," Beck says of Washington Monument: "Just like in Egypt. Isn't that strange?"
November 25, 2009 5:46 pm ET
Beck: Americans "are not fearful people"
November 25, 2009 5:33 pm ET
Beck: "We are stomping all over the Pilgrims this holiday"
November 25, 2009 5:17 pm ET
Beck: "The real goal of the progressive movement" is "control of your life"
November 25, 2009 5:13 pm ET


	Username or Email Password Forgot your password? or Create An Account Email Username (required, for posting on forums) Zip Code Click here to subscribe to Media Matters action alerts and newsletters. or Log in to an existing account

Most Popular Tags

RSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

© 2009 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.