At TPM, Eric Kleefeld notes Gingrich's walk-back-that's-not:
Newt Gingrich has put up a new post on his Web site saying he shouldn't have called her a racist -- and then proceeds to go into detail about how she's a racist!
"The word 'racist' should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person," Gingrich says, "even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted)."
Then he goes into all sorts of details about the "wise Latina" comment, the intricacies of the New Haven firefighters case, and other objections he has to Sotomayor. At each juncture, he borrows a line from Fox News: "You Read, You Decide."
Well, at least Gingrich does us the favor of underscoring the folly of the "pragmatic" but utterly mistaken response to apologize--when I explained there was absolutely no reason to (in my diary, "What Sotomayor ACTUALLY Said, And Why No Apology Is Necessary"). That's far and away the strongest thing he's got going for him. The rest is just warmed over racist BS table scraps.
In fact, Gingrich'S invocation of the "You Read, You Decide" mantra is actually used to distance himself from any engagement with Sotomayor's actual record. It is best comprehended as an of performance, a ritual invocation of the gods of Faux News, rather than any serious sort of argument. The purpose, quite simply, is to stir up outrage, and to throw in the shabbiest imaginable appearance of rationality, due to the lingering prestige rationality still manages to command.
1. Sotomayor Cruising Toward Confirmation Another poll came out today showing Sonia Sotomayoor cruising toward confirmation. The AP / GfK poll shows 50% of the country favoring Sotomayor's nomination, with only 22% opposed. This is the third poll asking a direct question on Sotomayor's nomination, all of which have put her in safe territory.
A comparative look at the first three confirmation polls on the four Supreme Court nominees since 2005 show just how safe Sotomayor really is:
First Three Polls, Last Four Supreme Court Nominees Roberts: +27.3% (Confirm 51.0%--23.7%, AP, ABC and Newsweek)
Sotomayor +23.4% (Confirm 49.7%--26.3% Not Confirm, Rasmussen, AP and Gallup)
Alito: +11.4% (Confirm: 37.7%--26.3% Not Confirm, AP, Newsweek and Fox)
Miers: +8.0% (Confirm 36.7%--28.7% Not Confirm, Pew, Fox, AP)
Public opinion on confirming Sotomayor is far closer to Roberts territory than to Alito or Miers. Roberts sailed through the nomination process, and it is a solid bet that Sotoamyor will sail through as well.
Update: Rasmussen has just released a widely outlying poll on Sotomayor today, showing the public favoring he confirmation by only 41%--36%. Even if that was included in the average, replacing the orginal Rasmussen polls, Sotomayor is still at 47.7% confirm--28.3% Not Confirm, far ahead of Alito, and still closer to Roberts.
However, consider that Rasmussen also has consistently claimed that Republicans are winning the generic congressional ballot, a finding that has consistently been repudiiated by every other pollster on the subject. They also find a lot more Republicans in the country than any other polling firm. In 2009, they are consistently skewing Republican.
2. "Strict Constructionists" Not in the Majority In looking through old supreme court polling to compile this post, I came along this interesting nugget:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. July 21, 2005. N=500 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.5. Fieldwork by TNS.
"Do you think the U.S. Supreme Court should base its rulings on its understanding of what the U.S. Constitution meant as it was originally written, or should the court base its rulings on its understanding of what the U.S. Constitution means in current times?"
Cuurent Meaning: 50%
Originally Written: 46%.
Unsurer: 4%
In the same vein, a Quinnpiac poll from July 2008 showed a 52%-40% majority in favor of "current realities" over "original intentions," while a Fox poll from August 2005 showed a 47%--36% plurality for "framer's intent" over "meaning in today's world." The questions were all phrased differently, but no majority ever appeared for what conservatives call the "strict constructionist" position. In fact, in two out of three polls, the "living document" argument was in the majority.
This is relevant because I can't remember a single politician ever arguing that we need judges who will interpret the Constitution in a way that is relevant to our own times, even though it appears to be the more common viewpoint among the American public. About all we ever hear from Republicans and Democrats alike is how we need strict interpretations of what the founders intended. I guess it isn't surprising that a piece of conservative rhetoric dominates our political discourse even though it is a minority position. This is hardly the only example of that happening.
Behold, The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary Gender Gap!
Politico:
Fewer than 20 percent of federal appellate judges are female, but of the appellate judges called a "bully" or accused of similar words in the AFJ (outburst, intemperate, temperamental, discourteous, or unpleasant), 40 percent (4 of 10) were women. In sum, female judges are twice as likely as male judges to draw criticism for outspokenness and aggression. (It is theoretically possible, of course, that twice as many female judges as male judges actually are outspoken and aggressive, but there is little reason to think that, and my anecdotal experience is to the contrary - that male judges are more likely to be aggressive, whether in proper or improper ways.)
NOTE: I should be fundraising here, folks. I wanted to give you good reasons to support the site before rattling the old tin cup. But as often happens, instead of polishing something off I got carried away in a whole new direction, and so I've got the post below. But please consider as you read it if there is anywhere else on the net where you're likely to read this particular take. I'm sure there are some. But there are few, if any, that are situated the way that Open Left is. Please consider what that means, and act accordingly
As I noted in an earlier diary, Newt Gingrich has gone all-in with a nutjob email attack on Sotomayor. In this diary, I want to deconstruct Gingrich's attack, explicating both the lies and the racism involved. The racism is most accurately understood in terms of preserving white racial power, along the lines indicated by social dominance theory, which is a theory of group dominance. As a consequence, and a result of the civil rights revolution of the 1960s, the old power relations are largely maintained in the deceptive guise of a new dispensation. Three inter-related patterns are particularly salient for the analysis in this diary: (1) A new pseudo-egalitarian narrative, involving language such as "equal opportunity, not equal outcomes" is used to ensure against equal outcomes, while distracting attention from the fact that opportunities remain vastly unequal. (2) The realities of historical and material context are suppressed, so that a realistic critical analysis of existing conditions is rendered impossible. (3) All attention is focused on (or deflected away from) individual actors, about whom narratives can readily be shape-shifted on the spot.
Before turning to examine Gingrich's email directly, I want to turn to an illuminating NY Times op-ed, "Rogues, Robes and Racists" by Charles M. Blow, which begins thus:
Someone pinch me. I must be dreaming. Some of the same Republicans who have wielded the hot blade of racial divisiveness for years, are now calling Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court nominee, a racist. Oh, the hypocrisy!
The same Newt Gingrich who once said that bilingual education was like teaching "the language of living in a ghetto" tweeted that Sotomayor is a "Latina woman racist." The same Rush Limbaugh who once told a black caller to "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" called Sotomayor a "reverse racist." The same Tom Tancredo, a former congressman, who once called Miami, which has a mostly Hispanic population, "a third world country" said that Sotomayor "appears to be a racist."
This is rich.
Even Michael Steele, the bungling chairman of The Willie Horton Party knows that the Republicans have no standing on this issue. In an interview published in GQ magazine in March, he was asked: "Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?" His response: "Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we've created is that we don't give a damn about them or we just outright don't like them." Ding, ding, ding, ding.
As Blow's first few paragraphs make plain, there is little doubt that those leading the attacks on Sotomayor are themselves infected with the very same racism they claim to see in her. And he proceeds to demonstrate the vacuity of their attacks in greater detail. Yet, even his explication suffers from an over-concentration on the individual actors within the field of sustained white privilege, as opposed to a focus on the field itself. Blow is working primarily within the constraints of this new dispensation, and so the most he can possibly achieve is to reveal contradictions within it. He does this quite brilliantly, but such a strategy is necessarily limited in how far it can go.
Legal news-junkies will immediately recognize that the title of this diary is a list of some notable decisions by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, instead of an obscure legal partnership in... Omaha, maybe.
"Discussion" of Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court in the mainstream media will probably buzz around Ricci, with some carry-over into Raniola, but if Sotomayor's opponents had any real regard for the truth of the situation (and they don't), they would forget about trying to convict the nominee of extra-judicial "empathy" in connection with her high-profile rulings in the area of work-place and employment discrimination, and concentrate instead on the only instance where Sotomayor may have actually jumped the tracks of judicial restraint, and written an opinion based on sympathy for a plaintiff and revulsion for one of the most miserable statutes (SLUSA) ever enacted in the ongoing transformation of federal law into a shield for the ultra-rich against the rest of us, and that would be Judge Sotomayor's opinion in Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 395 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2005), and its sequels.
The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) throws class-action suits against deceptive stockbrokers out of state courts, in the same way that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) had previously thrown them out of federal court.
What a beautiful statute!
Now annoying little investors can't clog any kind of courts with class-action suits against our benevolent Wall Street masters, no matter how deceitful they may be!
But SLUSA only specifically denied class-action suits based on purchasing trash stocks, and Sotomayor opined that suits based on retaining trash-stock could proceed in the state courts.
This decision was crushed 8-0 in the Supreme Court, with a majority opinion composed by Justice John Paul Stevens, an icon of the liberal judiciary.
Anyone who bothers to read Judge Sotomayor's meticulous opinion in Raniola, "addressing every one of the trial judge's rulings and rationales methodically, with exhaustive citations to prior judicial decisions from around the country"...
For anyone who reads that paradigm of unreversible case-law it's almost impossible to recognize the same hand in the tenuous reasoning which allowed Dabit's case to proceed against Merrill Lynch, and try as I may I can't imagine how Judge Sotomayor could have written such a thing except out of sympathy for all the little people who have been bankrupted by Wall Street gangsters and their stooges in Congress.
Pam Karlan would have been my first choice to replace David Souter, and I virtually never agree with anything Barack Obama says or does...
But I applaud the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, and on the day when she is finally confirmed, I will literally stand up and cheer!
One key focus of attacks on Sonia Sotomayor is her decision in the Ricci case, rejecting a claim of "reverse racism." The first problem with these attacks is that they don't pass the laugh test: Sotomayor was simply following the law, the exact opposite of the activism she's accused of. But the deeper problem is the utter ignorance on which these attacks depend--a cultivated ignorance that goes to the very heart of the 30+ year war against affirmative action.
More than 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education, blacks and other minorities on the whole still receive inferior education, have fewer resources and social connections to facilitate their advancement, face systemic, though largely unconscious discrimination, and suffer from internalized barriers to achievement. While we'd all like to live in a colorblind world, where race and gender would not matter and would never need to be considered, the reality is that we're still very, very far from that ideal state, and simply wishing we were there only distracts us from confronting the reality of the struggle that still remains to get there.
Because significant barriers to equality remain, we have civil rights laws on the books that protect women and minorities from practices that may seem fair on their face, but that have a disparate impact, such that qualified individuals are screened out in significantly higher numbers. The Ricci case involved such a practice, a test for promotion in the fire department, which was afterwards found to be unintentionally discriminatory, and therefore was thrown out by the city of New Haven. In response, Frank Ricci, a white fire-fighter who scored high on the test, sued New Haven, claiming "reverse discrimination." But New Haven was simply following the law. And when Sotomayor rejected Ricci's lawsuit, she was following the law as well. Far from being an "activist judge", she was following both the written law, and well-established precedent. As Stanford law professor Richard Thompson Ford (who appeared on Rachel Maddow's show yesterday) wrote in Slate:
New Haven's decision may sound like blatant racial favoritism, but in fact the city rejected the firefighter exam because the test violated Title VII, the federal civil rights law that prevents discrimination in employment. Title VII requires employers to consider the racial impact of their hiring and promotion procedures in order to prevent discrimination that's inadvertent as well as intentional. Ricci's claim is that the city's effort to comply with Title VII is itself race discrimination (under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and under Title VII itself).
This argument would undermine an important part of modern civil rights law. Some of Sotomayor's critics argue that, in the era of Obama, we no longer need such proactive policies to promote racial equality. But racism isn't a thing of the past yet. In fact, we haven't corrected the lingering effects of racism that is in the past. It's precisely because overt racism is no longer the main impediment to racial equality that the law against inadvertent discrimination is arguably now the most important part of civil rights law....
NOTE: I wrote this diary Friday evening. After finishing it, I discovered that Newt Gingrich had gone all-in with full-throttle nutjob email attack on Sotomayor, all built upon the egregious mis-representation dealt with below. Rather than re-write this diary, I will follow up with a separate one dealing in detail with Newt's demented attack email.
The Ed Show started off Friday by calling it "a big mistake" that Obama was apologizing for one sentence by Sonia Sotomayor taken out of context from a 2001 speech, A Latina Judge's Voice. And Ed was absolutely right. Taken out of context, it can be used against her, and so some response could certainly be called for. But (1) there's all the difference in the world between an apology and clarification, and (2) as Ed pointed out, it should have been matched with harsh words for those who've been demonizing her--or, better yet, more subtly, praise for John Cornyn for repudiating Gingrich and Limbaugh for their demonizing attacks.
Before saying anything else, we need to be clear that this is the best attack point they have. And what is it? One sentence--discussing race and sex discrimination cases--that's part of a several paragraphs long argument that can't be fully understood in isolation. Which is why we will go through her argument on the flip. And yet, even though it can't be fully understood when quoted in isolation, it clearly is not what Gingrich, for example, is making it out to be.
Here is the sentence:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Remember, she's discussing race & gender cases, and she is expressing the hope that a wise Latina woman would reach a better conclusion in those sorts of cases, by virtue of her experiences. She is not expressing certainty, and she's not talking about all cases, but only about those concerning race and gender discrimination. Now here's the Wall Street Journal reporting on what Gingrich turned that into (immediately following their quote of the actual sentence):
"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw?" asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on his Web site. "New racism is no better than old racism."
"Makes me better than"? Where did Sotomayor say that? It's obvious she did not.
And for anyone who's paid attention to Gingrich over the years, this sort of sloppy, self-serving misreading of others is just par for the course. He's an incredibly bad listener. But to really understand how far off the mark he is (and he's not the only one), we need to read Sotomayor's remarks in the context of at least several paragraphs, where she lays out different aspects of her thinking....
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 37% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Obama is performing his role as President. Twenty-seven percent (27%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +10. That's the first time the President Index rating has reached double digits since March 31 (see trends).
On Tuesday morning, just before announcing Sotomayor's selection, the President's Approval Index rating had fallen to the lowest level yet recorded, +1. Since then, the President's numbers have improved significantly among Hispanic voters and liberal voters. Hispanic voters strongly favor the confirmation of Sotomayor who is in line to become the first Hispanic Justice.
The Daily Kos / Research 2000 poll, some of which was conducted before hte Sotomayor nomination, showed President Obama improving to +36% approval from +31% among Latinos. Next week's results should be more enlightening, as will polls from other news outlets next week.
As I wrote in the post below this, Sotomayor's nomination, combined with the Republican attacks on her nomination, could potentially result in a long-term shift of Latinos toward Democrats. While early polling is never a great indicator of long-term trends, it is not only the early polling numbers that suggest this. The perception within the Lainto community of unfair, racially based attacks on Sotomayor by non-Hispanic Republicans can become a political identity shaping moment in the Latino community:
Identity politics usually gets portrayed as something transactional. Some group wants something, and you give it to them in exchange for their support. It could be appointing one of them to an office, or supporting their position on some issue.
I wonder if something bigger than that is possible in the case of the Hispanic community. As far as I can tell, the Hispanic political identity is still somewhat malleable, and there's much to be gained in shaping it. One way to do this is to raise the profile of Hispanic left-wing figures, and get them into fights with unappealing non-Hispanic Republicans. It's true of everybody -- if you don't have strong feelings on some issue, but someone you regard as one of your people presents articulate and forceful arguments on that issue, you're going to gravitate towards the position she was arguing for. It works especially well if she's arguing against some obnoxious outsider.
While President Obama is receiving his first real post-inauguration bump from Sotomayor, and while a disproportionate percentage of that bump is coming from Latinos, Republicans keep calling her stupid, unqualified, mean, racist and privileged. Not only is this a total political disaster for Republicans, but any Republican who actually tries to stop the trainwreck is excoriated by his own party.
The enormity of this political opportunity can hardly be overstated. Republicans are handing us a second Terri Schaivo on a silver platter. We need to keep fueling this discussion.
Do you think that Republicans would run ads calling Sotomayor "not that bright," a "recipient of preferential treatment most of her life," and "racist" on Spanish language radio?
I seriously doubt it. But we should.
This is a perfect branding moment when the uglier side of the conservative movement and Republican activist base is coming out in the open. As such, we need to take the smears Republicans are currently throwing at Sotomayor and run them as paid advertisements on Spanish language radio and television from now through Sotomayor's confirmation. This is an opportunity to push Republican numbers among Latinos below 30% for a generation, and we need to jump on it.
Here is a rough draft of an ad campaign (it would need to be translated into Spanish, obviously):
Judge Sonia Sotomayor grew up in a housing project. Her mother was a nurse, and her father, a tool and dye worker, died when Sonia was only nine. And yet Republicans think she has been given preferential treatment all her life.
She graduated second in her class at Princeton University, and is a member of the American Philosophical Society. And yet, Republicans have said Sonia Sotomayor isn't very smart.
She has served as a judge longer than anyone currently on the Supreme Court did before they were nominated, and yet Republicans argue Sotomayor was only chosen because her family was Puerto Rican.
Why do Republicans really oppose Sonia Sotomayor? Call Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell and tell him to support her historic nomination.
No one is better at hurting Republican chances among minority groups than Republicans themselves. We need to take their own anti-Sotomayor message directly to the Latino community for them, and let the community decide what it thinks about the Republican Party as a result. I also want Mitch McConnell to have to answer for the attacks on Sotomayor from conservative media. It is a nice opportunity to forge a wedge between the Republican Senate and conservative media.
I'd like to see Republicans complain about these ads, too. If they really thought their attacking Sotomayor in such racially charged ways was a good idea, they should have nothing to complain about.
Republicans really need to pay a heavy, long-term political price for these attacks. Let's make sure that they do.
Polling from Gallup shows that the public reaction to Sonia Sotomayor is more akin to the positive reaction it had to Chief Justice John Roberts, than to the middling reaction it had to Harriet Miers and Justice Samuel Alito:
Despite the conservative rants about Sotomayor being dumb and racist, only 13% of the country thinks she is a poor pick. Assuming for a moment that Americans would consider someone who is dumb and / or a racist a poor pick for Supreme Court, only 13% of Americans share that view.
These polls matter, too. Roberts, who received a favorable reaction from the public, ended up with only 22 votes against his confirmation. By contrast, Alito received 42 no votes (though only 25 on the cloture vote) following his mixed public reception. The polls were the key factor here, given that Samuel Alito and John Roberts faced the exact same Senate, and have voted closer to each other than any other two Justices on the Supreme Court. (Alito and Roberts were the closest pairing in 2006 and 2007, and tied for the closest pairing in 2008, although in conjunction with Scalia they make a set of triplets).
Then again, Democrats were the opposition back then, and the Democratic caucus as a whole will never take an oppositional stance on anything unless dozens of polls show 60% of the country on their side (and even then, their opposition is usually only temporary and skin-deep). Republicans, on the other hand, clearly don't give a rat's ass what polls say. So the question now is not whether or not Sotomayor will be confirmed, but whether or not Senate Republicans fall in line with Gingrich and Limbaugh and make a show of opposing her. Will they choose to dig themselves an even bigger electoral hole with Latinos, only 15% of whom don't want to see Sotomayor confirmed, and reinforce their image as opposing President Obama and congressional Democrats for the sake of opposition? Or, will they, for once, largely take a pass and pick their battles more carefully?
The word is that Senate Republicans do not intend to fight Sotomayor, realizing it gains them nothing but even more animosity from Latinos. However, congressional Republicans have shown a penchant for backtracking on orders from Leader Limbaugh this year, and Limbaugh is ordering them to go to the wall in opposition to Sotomayor. So, the jury might still be out on this one.
Personally, I hope they keep attacking, because it is working out very well for Democrats.
On Tuesday, President Obama announced Sonia Sotomayor as his pick to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Sotomayor could be the first Latina appointed to the Supreme Court. Predictably, attacks and slurs from the Right are already flying. Regardless, Sotomayor would be an excellent choice for the Supreme Court, signaling to Latino/as that the White House is aware of our need for more representation in government.
It looks like the Sotomayor nomination fight is over before it began:
Top Senate Republican strategists tell POLITICO that, barring unknown facts about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the GOP plans no scorched-earth opposition to her confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.
More than 24 hours after the White House unveiling, no senator has come out in opposition to Sotomayor's confirmation.
"The sentiment is overwhelming that the Senate should do due diligence but should not make a mountain out of a molehill," said a top Senate Republican aide. "If there's no 'there' there, we shouldn't try to create one."
Barring something currently unforeseen, this one is over.
Even so, the process of the appearance of a fight still holds a lot of potential benefits for Democrats and progressives. First, a weak opposition to Sotomayor by Senate Republicans could open a real "rootsgap" between Republican Senate leaders and an activist base that has long rabidly focused on the judiciary. Second, Democrats can continue to concern troll the racially charged conservative media attacks on Sotomayor, which threaten both to drive a further wedge between Latinos and Republicans, and also to further the process story of "Republicans in series electoral trouble."
Confirming Sotomayor will be a substantive victory for Democrats (at least compared to the sort of nominee a Republican would have picked, if not over Souter's rulings). Right now, however, with that victory all but guaranteed, we need to keep hammering on the process of the fight, because it can do real long-term damage to the conservative movement and the Republican Party.
BREAKING!!!! OPEN LEFT EXCLUSIVE!!!! MUST CREDIT OPEN LEFT!!!!
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has controversially claimed that non-white dudes might judge differently than white dudes in sexual and racial discrimination cases. Supposedly, this is because people see the world differently based on their different experiences, or something. Now, newly unearthed data shockingly suggests that this offesnive and outlandish claim might actually have some validity.
The first tip came when Chris Bowers, Open Left's Director of Perpetually Gazing at Exit Polls, discovered the following chart buried at the top of the first page of the rarely viewed 2008 national exit poll. It shows that people with different genders and ethnicities had a tendency to vote--brace yourself--differently from each other:
Holy demographic revelation Batman--people with different genders and races saw the world differently enough that they ended up voting differently than each other! Even more shockingly, according to a rarely known polling outfit called Pew, it appears that people with different ethnicities perceive differing levels of racism in the country:
I checked to se if the Pew poll was a fluke, but it turns out that 1,764 other polls confirm that white people believe there is less racism in American than black people.
So, it appears that people with different genders and ethnicities do actually view the world differently, including different views on the prevalence of gender and racial discrimination in America.
There is no word as of this writing on whether or not civilization can survive this earth-shattering revelation. However, Chris Bowers, Senior Apocalypse Preparation Director for Openleft.com, has told me that he is stocking up on canned goods--especially the lentil soups he really enjoys. Mmmmm.... lentils.
While Rush Limbaugh calls Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor a racist and Ann Couler calls for a filibuster, GOP Senators are in a political bind. For a party already shrinking due to demographic changes (and lack of ability to manage any part of the government well) attacking an "up from the Bronx" Latina woman apparently isn't very palatable. Here's the best Republicans can muster:
Charles Grassley: "We need to ask tough questions to learn how this individual views the role of a Supreme Court justice."
Ouch. How about Jeff Sessions? He's attacking with a sports metaphor:
...we must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law, calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one’s own personal preferences or political views.
But John Cornyn means business. He's making demands. Cornyn says the Obama administration won't get any cooperation unless... unless Sotomayor agrees to answer questions:
...the president has assured me that we will have ample time to give Ms. Sotomayor's record a full and fair review.
Conservatives are crying "identity politics" over Sotomayor's nomination, as they would have if Obama had nominated anyone except a white male. The lack of self-awareness in these charges is pretty extreme, but also not surprising. Here are just some examples of conservative identity politics:
"America is a Christian nation." Arguing that American government should be largely based on a particular religious identity is identity politics.
"Democrats are socialists." Calling an opposing political party "socialists," when even the left-wing of that party is proposing directing only 3% more of the economy to public social spending, is pure identity politics rather than a charge with any intellectual merit.
"Marriage is between a man and a woman." Given that marriage has taken on numerous forms throughout history, and still takes on numerous forms throughout the world today, this is not an actual historical argument but instead one based on identity preferences.
Mocking people because of what they eat, including arugula, is pure identity politics.
Calling America "the greatest nation on earth" is also pure identity politics. If such claims were simply quantitative, ie that America has the largest economy, or the largest military, that would be one thing. However, abstract claims about qualitative "greatness" are entirely subjective and identity based.
"Traditional values." Oh yeah, that's identity politics, rather than a historical re-enactment.
And these are just some examples. Much of conservative politics, like all politics, is heavily based in cultural conceptions about identity. This is largely unavoidable, given that how one conceptualizes the world necessarily requires a conceptualization of how oneself fits within that world. To put it a different way, everyone has an ideology, and you can't have an ideology without an identity.
Identity politics are kind of like linguistic accents: everyone has one, but not everyone realizes it. What is frequently distinct about conservative identity politics is its own inability to view itself as identity politics. From such a viewpoint, women, minorities, homosexuals, and non-Christians have identities, but men, whites, straights, and Christians do not. Note how you have never seen a conservative claim a president is engaging in identity politics when he has nominated a white dude for an important government position.
Even beyond this, the least self-aware aspect of the conservative "identity politics" charge is how consistently making that claim has helped push Republicans into minority status. Conservatives have demonized every growing demographic group in the country: non-whites, non-Christians, and the LGBT community. Collectively, these groups vote over 3-1 Democratic, and will compose well over 100% of the population growth in this country over the next few decades (it is over 100% because straight white Christians are actually shrinking in overall number). That a political party could get crushed in two consecutive elections, find itself in a bigger congressional deficit than Democrats have faced in 80 years, and still think that attacking growing demographic groups is a good idea politically is utterly perplexing.
It leads one too think that American conservatism doesn't actually care about winning either elections or policies, and that attacking people with different cultural identities is the entire point of contemporary American conservatism.
The near-simultaneous announcements of Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, and the California Supreme Court's upholding of Proposition 8 serve to starkly underscore the significance of hegemonic warfare in the judicial branch of government. The swift eruption of rightwing talking points attacking Sotomayor was entirely expected, and quite predictable, as seen in the examples cited by Chris. But the hegemonic story behind the Prop 8 decision is a little more obscure.
At Calitics, Brian Leubitz wrote, before the decision bame down:
The Courts Matter
As we've just heard that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been appointed to the Supreme Court, I am reminded of just how important the "counter-majoritarian branch" really is. With the looming Prop 8 decision expected in just a few hours at 10AM, it can never be said that policy does not emerge from the judiciary. Not matter how the court decides on Prop 8, the California Supreme Court is clearly making policy when it determines whether I am married or not. There is no such thing as merely being an arbitrator, there are always shades of gray, and the requirement for a judge to apply their judgment. After all, it is nearly impossible for one to stand in judgment without, um, judgment....
But here in California, policy is made all of the time in the courts, primarily because our elected leaders have been hamstrung by a disastrous structure of government but also by years of failed leadership on issues like the prison system. Years of the failed ToughOnCrimeTM policy and the unwillingness to put policy over politics left us with an absolute mess. Judge Thelton Henderson, a prominent NorCal district court judge, has consistently made more policy for our state prison system than the elected leaders....
The courts are there to protect those who need protection. The courts are there to block the tyranny of the majority. Hopefully we'll see that today.
Of course, we didn't see that. What we saw, instead, was a form of stealth activism--judges actively destroying California's constitutional distinction between a constitutional amendment (which is subject to majority rule) and a constitutional revision (which is not). That activism, in turn, descends directly from 1986 corporate-funded judicial recall election, in which 3 Jerry Brown appointees were voted out of office under the banner of rolling back judicial activism against the death penalty. After they were ousted, California swiftly reinstated executions... six years later, in 1992
In terms of actual rulings, is it possible to put a figure on how much of an improvement Sonia Sotomayor is likely to be over George Bush's two Supreme Court nominees? Even though predicting the voting tendencies of Supreme Court justices is famed for being difficult, the answer appears to be yes. The best guess is that Sotomayor will rule with progressives about 25-30% more often than a Bush nominee would have done.
My reason for this is taken primarily from the recent voting history of David Souter, who Sonia Sotomayor is replacing. The numbers that follow (taken from Scotus Wiki) depict the widest range of disagreement Souter had with other members of the Supreme Court from 2003-2008.
The negative reaction from conservatives on Sotomayor is the best indication that her nomination is a good thing for progressives. Here is a sampling:
Mitt Romney, hairdo and conservative movement suck-up:
The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is troubling.
Ed Whelan, President, Ethics & Public Policy Center
President Obama abided by his dismal and lawless "empathy" standard and, in his selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, picked a nominee whom he can count on to indulge her own liberal biases.
Mike Huckabee, Republican gaffe-master (yes, his PAC really said "Maria" Sotomayor in their first release):
The appointment of Maria Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric. Sotomayor comes from the far left and will likely leave us with something akin to the "Extreme Court" that could mark a major shift.
Wendy Long, Counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network and apparent resident inside Sonia Sotomayor's mind:
Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written.
Barack Obama has nominated the viciously anti-White federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring justice David Souter for the Supreme Court of the United States.
The conservative boilerplate buzzword award goes to Connie Hair at Human Events:
It should come as no surprise to anyone that Obama would continue playing identity politics by nominating an Hispanic woman. Sotomayor, 54, is also of the most radical liberal activist judges he could have nominated.
In a presentation that will likely lean heavily on style over substance, Sotomayor's background will allow the administration to again play class warfare with their presentation of her biography.
Don't hold your breath on conservatives offering up potential nominees who are entirely genderless and lacking in ethnicity. They aren't fans of Marilyn Mason, after all.
Please post more negative conservative reactions in the comments. I promise that doing so will make you feel good about Sotomayor.
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.
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.
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.
