Obama Chooses Sotomayor for Supreme Court

by: Chris Bowers

Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:03


President Obama will nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court.

Some quick info on Sotomayor:
  • Official announcement live blog. Also, President Obama's full remarks.

  • First Latina (or Latino, for that matter) and first minority woman, to be nominated for the highest court.

  • She is widely considered to be a centrist. What that means in actual rulings remains to be seen. An analysis of her appeals court rulings can be found here. My guess is that she won't be much of a change from Souter, but will be a bit to his left.

  • When she was nominated for the federal appeals court in 1997, a secret hold was placed on her nomination for over a year. Eventually, she was confirmed 67-29, seven above cloture, in a Republican Senate. Further, seven Republican Senators currently in office voted for her: Robert Bennett, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Orin Hatch, Judd Gregg, Richard Lugar and Olympia Snowe. Given that there are only 40 Republicans left in the Senate, this should mean an easy confirmation. Among Republicans, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Mel Martinez, and Lisa Murkowski should be easy gets. Richard Lugar might jump on board, too. Only Ben Nelson is a question mark for Democrats.

  • Republicans will complain about Sotomayor's rulings in favor of affirmative action. Simultanesouly, conservatives will demand that more conservatives appear in all national and local news outlets to discuss Sotomayor.

  • Republicans are also likely to argue that she is mean and stupid, via TNR. Feel free. We have the votes, and demonizing the first Supreme Court nominee of Latin descent in such a fashion is politically stupid.

  • Republicans may also attack her "empathy." Where do they come up with these genius attacks?

  • More on the likely dynamic of the nomination process here.

  • Overall, I think it is good that Obama went with the nominee who conservatives said they would complain loudest about. Not only will they be unable to stop Sotomayor, but they will look terrible trying to stop her. (Let's attack empathy some more! Let's demonize minorities some more!) Also, generally speaking, whatever option conservatives consider to be the most troubling is probably the best move.

  • White House talking points on Sotomayor here.

  • She turns 55 on June 25th, so if confirmed she is likely to serve on the Supreme Sourt for a while.

  • She currently serves on a federal appeals court. If confirmed, that means all nine Supreme Court Justices will have come from the federal Appeals court. That has never happened before. I hope that President Obama will change that in future Supreme Court nominations.

  • Great working class background story:

    She grew up in a housing project in the South Bronx, just a short walk from the old Yankee Stadium. She was diagnosed with diabetes at age 8. Her father, a tool-and-die worker with a third-grade education, died the following year. Her mother, a nurse, raised Sotomayor and her younger brother, who is now a doctor, on a modest salary.

    Hard to argue with that. President Obama probably identified.

It is going to be a busy and dramatic summer in Washington, D.C.  Confirming Sotomayor will add to the busy part, but probably not to the dramatic part.
Chris Bowers :: Obama Chooses Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama Chooses Sotomayor for Supreme Court | 87 comments
Latina (4.00 / 3)
not Latino
Her working-class backround is a plus (4.00 / 8)

I'm glad he choose her. (4.00 / 7)
(1) The Republicans are going to hammer her for the New Haven case and affirmative action; but I'm glad the Obama team recognized anyone they put up was going to be dragged through the mud so they might as well have a fight.

(2) The fact that she's Hispanic puts a lot of Republicans actually in play IMO: McCain has re-election to worry about an a lot of Republicans in the West/Southwest and the party as a whole have to question how hard they want to fight against the first Hispanic justice.

Overall, the fact that she's got a great story, impeccable credentials, and was nominated by both George H.W. Bush and Clinton in '92 and '97 mean it's a tough fight for the Republicans to make to the center. So this fight is another chance for them to marginalize themselves IMO.

And I like the idea of having an affirmative action discussion again; it's been put off to long.

Yeah, they'll probably go there. (4.00 / 4)
Because they care nothing about her expertise in securities law or her view of the Constitution, they'll try to make it all about "REVERSE RACISM!!!!111111!!!11" and "ABORTION!!!!!1111!!!!111" and "TEH GAYZ!!!!11111!!!!!111" That's really all they have left. Pathetic.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.
[ Parent ]
Which is incorrect... (4.00 / 3)
I always love the stupidity of the "reverse racism" argument.  Reverse racism doesn't exist... its a grammatically incorrect phrase.  Any prejudice by one race toward another is RACISM. Period. Doesn't matter if its Black to white, white to latino, or Latino to Middle eastern... its all racism.   Reverse racism would mean that there is no racism at all.

Man, conservatives are idiots.

[ Parent ]
"Reverse Racism" Is An Alliteration (4.00 / 3)
what more do you want?

Goo goo g'joob!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Of course! (4.00 / 2)
It doesn't need to be logical or sensical for the radical right to use it... Just catchy!

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.
[ Parent ]
raises an intersting question (0.00 / 0)
because a black person acting in a prejudiced way against a white person on the basis of race and a white person acting in a prejudiced way on the basis of race against a black person have had different experiences with race and racism in their life experience.  in the extreme - even though i don't agree with it - Black nationalism is a LOT more understandable and defensible than White nationalism.  You wouldn't compare the black panthers or leonard peltier to the klan in terms of their race politics, right?  so what distinguishes the two?  or in a different context, is it okay to create a black students group in campus that's generally restricted to black students? how about a white students group that's generally restricted to white students?

so there's a question of how race is lived as well - and how individuals and groups of people experience life differently..  racist actions to me are those that promote the things that produces those differences in life experience and a common understanding of what everyone's 'place' is, which is basically saying the same thing you were, but in a slightly different kind of language.

the reason i raise this in a more complicated way is because i think it's important to undersatnd the underlying idea - that racism has a history and exists in different ways for different people - is an important one.  The 'reverse racism' argument was maybe a way to try to exploit the resentment of white people, conservative ideologues, model minorities, etc., and you can't understand that if you only look at the surface level stuff, though maybe it's more irrelevant now than it once was, now that race politics have changed some.

[ Parent ]
Impressions (0.00 / 0)
She's older than I'd like, slightly older than Roberts.  She's also yet another Appeals Court Justice.  Can't we get a trial lawyer or government official instead.  Drawing from the same well (tainted by mostly Republican appointees) limits our choices.

The New Republic article about her was highly uncomplimentary describing her as a rules bound bully who obsesses on minor details and can't tell the forest for the trees.  It described her as a bit of an egomaniac.  I don't know if this is good or bad.  If she is a centrist rather than a liberal, that magazine should be in her corner.

The Republicans went hard right on every appointment under Bush.  Clinton and now Obama went to the middle.  I'd rather try for a real liberal voice on the Court than start in the middle and work right.

Btw, the New Yorker had a profile on Roberts in its May 25 issue.  When Obama voted against him he said that he agrees with Roberts 95% of the time but because Roberts lacks heart the 5% of cases without clear legal precedence would be incredibly bad mistakes.  I think Sotomayor will give us a centrist with a heart.  Not bad but we could do better from this Senate.

In the immediate sense, this won't matter.  We are replacing a moderately liberal vote for another moderately liberal vote.  The five hard right votes remain and will determine the decisions.  Justice Kennedy is no moderate.  In the immediate future the battle will continue to be between old school right (like Roberts) and new school right/federalist (like Thomas).

Ignore that hit piece. (4.00 / 5)
The New Republic article about her was highly uncomplimentary describing her as a rules bound bully who obsesses on minor details and can't tell the forest for the trees.  It described her as a bit of an egomaniac.  I don't know if this is good or bad.  If she is a centrist rather than a liberal, that magazine should be in her corner.

They didn't even interview her, and they hardly did any real "reporting". That's why I stopped reading TNR a LONG time ago! They've simply become the "liberal magazine" that the radical right loves to quote.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
Yup, It Was Basically Just Gossip (4.00 / 6)
Which is all TNR is good for 90% of the time.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
It also questioned the intellectual capacities of a woman who (4.00 / 6)
graduated at the top of her class at Princeton. I mean, c'mon...what a crock of shi*.
[ Parent ]
She has worked as a trial lawyer. (4.00 / 2)
She was a prosecutor, private litigator, trial judge, and appellate judge.
[ Parent ]
Kennedy is not hard right... (4.00 / 1)
I agree he is center right... but not hard right.  His rulings don't track hard right....  The other 4 idiots... THEY are hard right.  

I keep hoping that one of the 4 quits or is sidelined by years of cholestoral buildup or a pretzel.

[ Parent ]
Kennedy's certainly not radical right... (4.00 / 4)
But I would say he's pretty conservative, perhaps "traditional conservative". But as Chris Bowers said on this very thread, it's easy to look at SCOTUS these days and see moderate as "mainstream progressive" and conservative as "center-right" considering how far to the right the Reagan-Bush cabal dragged it.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.
[ Parent ]
nervous (4.00 / 3)
I am nervous about this pick. Not nervous about her confirmation. When you control 59/60 Senate seats confirmation should not be a big worry.

But her record to date is so centrist she could well be to the right of Souter or the same as Souter. Both once appointed by GHWB. Maybe she'll turn out to be a strong reliable vote for the liberal wing. I hope so.

But if you can't get a strong liberal confirmed at the height of Democratic control of DC when can you? Even Clinton, with a much less friendly Senate, got Ginsburg confirmed.

I think the Hispanic/female attributes do matter so that's good but I care more about her votes on cases and ability (or lack thereof) to persuade fellow justices.

I think she is a mainstream progressive. (4.00 / 1)
From everything I've read about her; she's a definite liberal and I think she has the intellectual firepower to move the court to the left.
[ Parent ]
Moderate is the new mainstream progressive (4.00 / 6)
She is considered a moderate by everyone. But I learned long ago that mainstream progressive and moderate are actually the same thing.
[ Parent ]
There ARE No Liberals On The Court As Of Now (4.00 / 3)
We need to recognize how dicey all these labels are in multiple ways.  But within the framework of judicial philosophy, it's relatively clear that a liberal is one who takes a rights-based framework as pre-eminent, and that none of the current court members qualify.  This is why Russ Feingold, for example, would clearly qualify as a liberal--as his objections to preventive detention once again serve to remind us.  Erwin Chemerinsky, too.

There's a very lucid and informative discussion of various different judicial philosophies in Stephen Gottlieb's excellent 2000 book, Morality Imposed: The Rehnquist Court and the State of Liberty in America.  I recommend it highly. Of course, the Court is not the same as it was, but there are certainly no new liberals added since then.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
This New York Times article (0.00 / 0)
puts her in the category of "Democratic Constitutionalist", so basically a moderate liberal.
[ Parent ]
here's a self-described conservative (0.00 / 0)
making the same points and proclaiming his satisfaction with Sotomayor:

http://volokh.com/posts/124334...

[ Parent ]
I'm hopeful... (0.00 / 0)
I guess I'm in a hopeful mood this morning. President Obama chose wisely, and I hope to see plenty of good decisions from Justice Sotomayor soon.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.
yeah (0.00 / 0)
I don't see the majority of the GOP except for the far far right putting up much of a fight.  This will be a Roberts style confirmation... some tough questions, but ultimately voting to confirm.  They get put into a tough place as they don't want to further alienate Latino voters...

Ideal pick to avoid a confirmation battle.  Also historical pick, and ultimately, it adds a desperately needed woman to the SCOTUS.

While that is the proper course of action ... (0.00 / 0)
They get put into a tough place as they don't want to further alienate Latino voters...

We'll see what happens ... The GOP'ers seem to like shooting themselves in the foot ... so who knows what will happen

[ Parent ]
true (4.00 / 1)
But that also means a win/win scenario.  Best case would be she gets confirmed AND they further alienate Latinos.
[ Parent ]
"Ideal pick to avoid a confirmation battle" (4.00 / 7)
Agreed, which it what makes it so "Obama."

I hope, at what Obama judges to be a prudent time, he decides to engage in some battles.

[ Parent ]
Oh I think he will... (4.00 / 1)
He's picking his battles carefully... Healthcare and Enviromental Cap and Trade appear to be the battles he is fighting... if he wins both of those, it would be AWESOME!
[ Parent ]
That's Obama for you (4.00 / 6)
Always seeking the path of least resistance.

I am skeptical that he actually has a plan to fight for and win her confirmation. He really doesn't believe in media strategies or dedicated efforts to win policy battles. He instead seems to genuinely believe that if he proposes the right things and takes the right attitude, everyone will unite around his ideas - or in this case, his nominees.

Just wait - by the middle of next week the right-wing will have successfully framed the nomination in a way that is unflattering to both Obama and Sotomayor, and we will be debating where there are enough votes for cloture.

[ Parent ]
She's in, count on it (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
She saved baseball (4.00 / 2)
She gave the opinion that replacement players were an act of bad faith by the MLB owners in Spring 1995.
Not sure id she really saved baseball... (0.00 / 0)
I would say she destroyed it...  Although I am a big labor guy, I have strong issues with the MLBPA and other pro athlete unions with millionaires getting the same protections as coal miners....

One could easily argue that the $1,500 dollar seats at New Yankee Stadium could be attributed to her ruling 15 years ago....

I guess the positive is that she is obviously pro labor, which will drive Repbulicans nuts!


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
They're union members (4.00 / 3)
and she protected them from scabs, million dollar salaries or no.  
[ Parent ]
I think they make a mockery of real unions... (4.00 / 1)
My one union friend isn't too fond of them either...  Then the players strike occurred, UPS stopped delivering to ballparks 'cos they wouldn't cross picket lines.  When UPS had their big strike later, not a finger was raised by the MLBPA... My friend has never forgiven them for that, and neither have I...  The MLBPA could have been a powerful force for good.  A sympathy strike by them could have ended the UPS strike in a day, but baseball players have no clue what real working people go through and could care less....

I just found out she's a Yankees fan... Go figure...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
I wasn't aware of the UPS issue (4.00 / 1)
They seem like a bunch of dumb, selfish millionaire jocks, and I agree about the difference between them and the "real" labor mov't.  

But as a "clinical" legal issue, their rights should be protected.  

[ Parent ]
MLB players do indeed make a lot of money compared to most, (0.00 / 0)
but I don't begrudge them the money because I immediately think about CEOs. Unlike CEOs, pro athletes are special, and if we are talking about the best players, they are part of an elite group and can't be replaced. Moreover, their major league careers are the culmination of a lifetime of dedication, starting as small children. The number of players who fail dwarf the number who succeed.  
[ Parent ]
"culmination of a lifetime of dedication" (0.00 / 0)
This idea would seem to apply to anyone who earns their living through excelling at completing complicated tasks.  Should elite physicists and historians be paid like pro-athletes?

The point we were discussing was the relation of pro athletes to the labor mov't overall, and their mind-numbing tendency towards thoughtless neocon politics regarding everything except the MLBPA.  

[ Parent ]
Elite physicists are paid very high amounts. The Nobel prize is worth a million, (0.00 / 0)
and universities pay Nobel laureates very high sums. I'm not quite sure what the players' politics have to do with it. Are you suggesting ideological litmus tests for all professions?
[ Parent ]
No it's not (0.00 / 0)
how many Nobel laureates are there?

I'll rehearse this again: I'm merely pointing out that the players who support unions when it's to their economic benefit often join political organizations that eviscerate the political power of trade unionism as a whole.  I would call this hypocrisy.

Really, I couldn't care less what anyone makes, even CEOs, given an appropriately progressive federal income tax.  

[ Parent ]
Yes, and certain segments of the white working class are reactionary and racist. (0.00 / 0)
So what?
[ Parent ]
Comparisons (4.00 / 2)
Who compares CEOs to CEOs from 40 or 50 years ago.  Lots of baseball players get (or could get) that treatment.  Just as an example, Junior Griffey is often compared to Willie Mays but the proper comparison is Mickey Mantle:  the classic upper cut swing, injury prone, walks a lot, once physically gifted but no more.  

More on target, TV ratings and attendance went up when Michael Jordan came to town.  Do you really think similar value is created with the CEOs.  Ball players performance or lack therof are usually public and obvious. Reggie Jackson talked about the Mendoza line.  Anyone whose batting average was below Mario Mendoza was in severe danger of being sent to the minors.  Plenty of the CEos hit below the corporate Mendoza line and still got the money.

[ Parent ]
Eh... (4.00 / 1)
With guaranteed contracts, you see plenty of players playing through albatross contracts long past their usefulness as a player- cf. that Mo Vaughn $17M/yr monstrosity.
[ Parent ]
Your second paragraph proves my point. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
do you understand how much money the owners are making? (0.00 / 0)
i'm not going to sit here and defend a-rod's massive salary, but it's really not much more objectionable to me than the head of a non-profit organization getting a salary at 100k.  there are bigger fish to fry.

i agree with the point below about how much they fail to meet social responsibilities AFTER they get the kind of support they did though.  I don't give a f"£k about HGH, but I want more of the progressive/radicals among them to act that way, as sports players occasionally do.

[ Parent ]
Look There Are Plenty Of Dissapointing Unions (4.00 / 7)
the MLBPA is just one high-profile example.  But the solution is not to side against unionism.  Like it or not, unions, like the Democratic Party, are sites of struggle.  That means we have to fight within them to make them be what they should be.  The will never pass a purity test.  But losing them would be a devastating loss.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
All I would say to this is that the players deserve the pay (4.00 / 4)
over the owners.  Steinbrenner would be charging the same amount for seats regardless of what else would happen, he would merely be pocketing the money, rather than using it to play players.  

The players are essential to the process.  The owners are incidental.  

[ Parent ]
One only has to look at how players were treated before unions. (4.00 / 3)
And on a conceptual level, athletes are selling labor. They are not making money through capital or through membership in a property-owning class.
[ Parent ]
sports (0.00 / 0)
I don't follow sports at all, but my limited understanding is that owners historically set the rules so that players couldn't act as free agents, so they couldn't sell their labor/talent to the highest bidder, so owners kept almost all the profits for themselves. The players unions were able to overturn these rules so that the current situation is much more of a "free market." The market values the players more highly relative to owners than was reflected in the salaries of the old system. Good for them. I don't really give a shit. I don't have time to watch sports because I'm too busy reading political blogs.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
She's a diabetic... (0.00 / 0)
That is a major concern....

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
Type 1, not type 2 (4.00 / 6)
To be diagnosed as diabetic as 8, it has to be type 1. Type 2 has only recently started to be found amongst children of around 11, and that's only in cases of chronic obesity.

Type 1 is more purely genetic and doesn't have the environmental factors of type 2. It may have an environmental factor (possibly a virus) but the jury's still out on that one. So far as I know, it's not tied to a particular increased risk of heart trouble and if well controlled it shouldn't affect the kidneys either.

She's presumably driven and organised, else she wouldn't be where she is today. That would tend to suggest to me that she's capable of managing her control well. If it turns out that she has diabetic retinopathy or foot problems, that could be a concern, but it doesn't seem likely she's about to drop dead.

My only other concern would be that treatment for diabetes before the early 1980s was pretty basic. Mild malnutrition was apparently sometimes an issue because they preferred not to vary the insulin dosage according to food intake. But I don't know if there have been any studies of this and if the administration's happy to pick her, it suggests they're happy that she's healthy enough.

As you may have guessed by now, I'm type 1 diabetic. It's not the world's best medical condition but unlike type 2 it's not symptomatic of likely wider health problems. She ought to have a couple of decades on the court if she wants them.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
So... (4.00 / 4)
So is Jay Cutler!  

And even if she was Type II, diet control can all but eliminate it.   Yes, its always with you... kind of like being an alcoholic... even if you don't drink for 20 years, your still an alcoholic... Even if your blood sugar is fine, etc, you are still a diabetic.

[ Parent ]
It's her other genetic condition that's more alarming (4.00 / 2)
She's got 2 X chromosomes! Huge HUGE HUGE concern. For instance, she's at increased risk for breast cancer!

Of course, it does reduce the likelihood that she's color blind....

To fairly judge this nomination, I think it's critical that we get a full DNA workup of the nominee - we need to know ALL the potential medical issues.

/snark

Isn't it long past time that not-even-obscure medical conditions could be used as a basis for discrimination?

[ Parent ]
It's not about her. (4.00 / 2)
A Supreme Court nomination is about what is best for all citizens, not about what is "fair" for a prospective nominee. It is no more "fair" to consider medical conditions than it is to consider age, but we want a liberal seat to be held as long as possible. It's just pragmatic politics.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
You make a good point... (0.00 / 0)
And Obama highlighted that in his speech today introducing her... that doctors told her she would have to curtail her dreams because of her illness...

Fair point made...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Jesse Helms voted for her (4.00 / 10)
In that 67-29 confirmation vote, Helms was one of the Republicans voting in favour.

So on the one hand, it ought to be hard to oppose her. On the other hand, this was someone Jesse Helms felt he could tolerate. I would have liked someone he at least called a communist.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

Well when Bush 41 appointed her... (4.00 / 5)
A deal was cut... She got in and a hardline conservative got in...

Not sure with Clinton.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (4.00 / 2)
It was a Democratic congress for Bush 41, which meant a lot of horse trading for the non-SCOTUS judge spots.  Clinton made similar deals to get some of his judges confirmed.

I don't think one can read too much from Bush 41 appointing her.

[ Parent ]
Well, One CAN Read In (4.00 / 4)
That it's going to make the total fear campaign just that much harder for the GOP to sell.

Not that that will stop them for a millisecond.  But even C-student Matthews just might find that a compelling little factoid.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Here is a good review (4.00 / 1)
re: what to expect.

I agree that this will likely be an easy confirmation.

Our surveys of her opinions put her in essentially the same ideological position as Justice Souter.

The one area of disappointment.

I would be stunned (4.00 / 10)
If this were an easy confirmation.

What has the right-wing shown to suggest such a thing?

They are in "fight everything" mode.

[ Parent ]
she's bright and accomplished, (4.00 / 1)
and I suspect she'll impress the public during hearings as well. Claiming otherwise will leave the GOP in a corner with Jeffrey Rosen.

They'll huff and puff a bit for the base but save their ire for the next one. Politically speaking, there's no upside in opposing an obviously qualified Latina.

The article outlines the four lines of attack they might take -- pretty weak tea, barring a scandal.

 

[ Parent ]
What upside is there .. in being the party of "No!!"? (0.00 / 0)
They'll huff and puff a bit for the base but save their ire for the next one. Politically speaking, there's no upside in opposing an obviously qualified Latina.

yet .. they do it anyway

[ Parent ]
Upside (4.00 / 1)
It has worked for them in the past, most notably 1994 but also in the 1938-46 climb up from oblivion.  They take responsibility for nothing, so if anything goes wrong or there are few accomplishments Republicans are able to swoop in.  Pretty sick and I wish it did not work but it seems to fool some of the gullibles.
[ Parent ]
They need to show their financial base (4.00 / 2)
of corporate CEOs and wild eyed anti-choice, anti-gay bigots that they can mount an effective opposition in order to keep the gravy flowing.

That she's Latina, originally appointed by Bush I, approved previously by 8 sitting GOP senators, been approved by the senate twice, and the GOP is in the midst of a civil war all suggest she'll be confirmed relatively easily.

This larger GOP v. DEM dynamic carries with it the unpleasant effect of tilting the Democratic party right - we get Specter and Gillibrand, the GOP has their radical, albeit isolated, base, and the nations politics move to the right in general.  

[ Parent ]
described as a "liberal" (4.00 / 4)
here in the WaPo:


In 1984, George Pavia, a New York lawyer representing Fiat and other Italian business clients, said he was looking for a young lawyer with courtroom experience to help with products liability cases. He said he found Sotomayor "just ideal for us in terms of her background and training."

"She is liberal, as am I," Pavia said. "Liberal without being a flaming type of do-gooder or anything of the sort. To call her a centrist would not be accurate. To call her wild-eyed would also not be accurate. She is far too rational, far too interested in the underlying facts."

Not that this is definitive or anything, and I have no idea how "liberal" this Pavia guy is, but still, it is nice that some people who know her would use that word.  It means at least that she doesn't go around telling everyone she's a "centrist"

Actually (4.00 / 6)
A wild-eyed liberal is someone who's "far too rational, far too interested in the underlying facts." That's the whole point of the "reality-based community" thingie.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
oh I agree (4.00 / 3)
And Pavia's dollop of scorn for "do-gooders" did make me clench my teeth.  He's a law firm millionaire liberal, so I guess that's not surprising, but it is somewhat encouraging that someone to the left of Joe Lieberman would call her a liberal at all.

[ Parent ]
This pick is impossible to oppose (4.00 / 2)
effectively.  How much vitriol - cause that's what it's gonna take - can the GOP bring to bear on the first Latina nominee?

The reports questioning her intellectual depth and power puzzle me, but given the sources - Rosen, especially - I tend to take them with a mountain of salt.

Obama has been building political capital, and when Stevens retires, the president should be able to tap someone more to the left from outside the purview of the federal justice system and Ivy League: Russ Feingold, anyone?.

That Obama quoted Holmes is personally gratifying given what I think are the obvious family resemplances between empathy and experience (I'm tooting my own horn here - more of a kazoo really - so feel free to skip).  

her imputed "stupidity" (4.00 / 3)
I wonder how much the "intellectual lightweight" charge has to do with the same charge being leveled at Clarence Thomas. Right wingers may be taking the lesson that the right way to attack a minority candidate is to question her/his intellect - that's how Thomas has been attacked, after all.
Not successful (4.00 / 7)
Thomas's misogyny held up his nomination, not long-since validated suspicions about his lack of intellectual heft.
[ Parent ]
As I mentioned above, she graduated at the top of her class at (4.00 / 2)
Princeton. It's almost certainly racist and sexist to insult her intelligence.
[ Parent ]
But, Thomas was confirmed (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Barely... n/t (0.00 / 0)


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
back when there was a democratically controlled senate, though (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Thomas IS An Intellectual Lightweight (4.00 / 5)
but that played little, if any, role in opposing his nomination.  It became much more undeniably evident once he was confirmed.

But there have been plenty of intellectual lightweights on the court before.  And while not a good thing by any means, it need not automatically make for a bad justice as part of a larger mix.  An intellectual lightweight with broad political and public policy experience could serve to diversify the range of arguments and perspectives considered in deliberations.  Of course they could do that more effectively if they were intellectually more formidable.  But one could easily make a case for experiential diversity trumping sheer intellect in a court that's currently so lacking in it.

Thomas, of course, didn't have any such off-setting virtues.  Sotomayer is not only his intellectual superior, she has much more and much broader experience than he did.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
empathetic... (0.00 / 0)
...within the legal framework is what Obama had in mind.
Ages (4.00 / 4)
The three Justices under age 65 are all extreme conservatives.  Roberts, who probably lied in his confirmation hearings to sound more moderate, is 54.  Alito is 59.  Thomas, who has already been on the Court since 1991, is a mere 60.

The oldest Justice is easily theCourt's most liberal member, 88 year old John Paul Stevens.  Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975 (what a break).

Next oldest is Clinton nominee Ruth Bader Ginsberg at 76 followed by intellectual winger Antonin Scalia (73 and a Reagan appointee), conservative Anthony Kennedy (72 and another Reagan appointee), and Clinton nominee Stephen Breyer (70).  I would doubt that either Scalia or Kennedy will leave voluntarily with a Democrat in the White House.  

I would not be surprised to see Obama also replacing Stevens and at least one of the Clinton nominees. The Court is likely to keep the status quo (not a good thing) until one of the five leaves, probably either Scalia or Kennedy. That might well come during Obama's second term should he be re-elected.

Of course Kennedy won't leave (4.00 / 1)
he essentially is the Supreme Court right now.  He decides every close decision based on whether or not he decides to agree with the Scalia voting block.
[ Parent ]
Obama Court if he wins reelection (4.00 / 2)
I think Obama will appoint 4 justices if he serve two terms. Replacements for:

Souter
Stevens
Ginsberg
1 more (either Kennedy or Scalia)

Unfortunately the first 3 are on the liberal wing already and it's possible Kennedy and Scalia could make it past a 2-term Obama. They'd be "only" about 81.

If Obama wants to make a mark on the ideology of the court he'll need to appoint some real liberals. Maybe Sotomayor will fill that bill but I'm not sure.

[ Parent ]
On "empathy" (4.00 / 1)
Media Matters has this: "Media figures and outlets have focused on President Obama's statement that empathy is one of the qualifications he would seek in a Supreme Court nominee, but they have not noted that then-President George H.W. Bush cited "great empathy" in his remarks announcing his selection of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court."http://mediamatters.org/research/200905260034
i think he does have empathy (0.00 / 0)
for the other 17 black Republicans.
[ Parent ]
To the left of Souter?? (4.00 / 1)
Based on what?? ... She was originally appointed by Bush 41, so how does that figure into your statement about being left of Souter??  Why don't you try basing your articles on FACTS and NOT your opinion which seems to be based on NOTHING....Or better yet, read Greenwalds post maybe that will give you some clue:

UPDATE III:  What is the basis for the seemingly now-widespread assumption that Sotomayor is some sort of left-wing pick?  She was originally appointed to the bench by Bush 41 and her confirmation to the Second Circuit was confirmed by some of the most right-wing Senators (including Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum, Bill Frist and similar types).  She began her law practice working as a District Attorney, prosecuting criminals.  Anyone who wants to characterize her as "left-wing" -- especially radical left-wing or even to the left of Souter -- should be compelled to point to specific judicial rulings or other evidence for that characterization.  The fact that she's Latina and from the Bronx isn't actually evidence of her ideology or judicial philosophy.

yup -- it's the same bs we got with Obama -- "of course he's liberal-- just look at him & his life story" (0.00 / 0)
and the same fools keep falling for it over and over.
[ Parent ]
You may be forgetting something important here (4.00 / 1)
David Souter was appointed to the Supreme Court by Bush 41.

I'm not overjoyed by Sotomayor either, but you aren't making a strong case here.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
"First minority woman"? Excuse me pls, but... (4.00 / 1)
..isn't that Ruth Bader Ginsburg? She's jewish.
However, both were born in the US, so it has to be asked: When do you stop being a minority? Never? Is the family name the important point?.  
hey wait (4.00 / 3)
has anybody checked to see her birth certificate?
[ Parent ]
just like w/ Obama -- selling bio & persona instead of issue stances & rulings (4.00 / 2)
when will people learn?

it's her rulings that matter -- her actions.

i guess people haven't yet learned a thing from Obama -- tragically.

And the administration using those things to sell her instead of highlighting truly important issue-based rulings (wtf! -- a baseball strikebreaking thing is what Obama highlights in his announcement!?!) should be another red flag.

"President Obama probably identified." (0.00 / 0)
Why do you think that?
Obama Chooses Sotomayor for Supreme Court | 87 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox