May 27 2009
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor?
I don’t have a lot to say about the nomination of judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court except to voice a warning to the GOP. As Fred Grandy said this morning on his radio show, unless the GOP has some hard and clear evidence she did not interpret the law but used personal bias to make decisions, there is no point going after Sotomayer. After the GOP’s self destructive nativist bigotry over comprehensive immigration reform and their continued ability to insult woman, the Sotomayor nomination is a done deal and can only be used to further destroy the GOPs already tattered reputation with women and hispanics. She is clearly experienced enough and capable, which means she should be seated if the GOP standards from the Bush era are to be the standard.
And while Rush Limbaugh’s lame attempts to turn her joking about a woman hispanic being better than a white male proved her point, it really is just another example of heated and insulting talk radio blather tarnishing this nation. I can appreciate the social barriers a hispanic woman must have met coming up through any ranks. Her joking about it doesn’t make her a ‘racist’, it makes her one who survived and succeeded despite stereotyping so common in any society – including our own. She should be applauded for her accomplishments, challenged on her shortcomings or errors – but not insulted.
With all the challenges facing this nation, right now Sotomayor is not a threat worthy of a battle royale.
Update: Mark McKinnon has the same view as I do:
Memo to my party: Blasting targets like Sonia Sotomayor and Colin Powell is a surefire strategy to guarantee our extinction.
…
If the GOP is ever to be resurgent, it has to pick its fights carefully. The tendency is, unfortunately, to shoot at everything that moves.
Here are a couple of fights we don’t need: Colin Powell and Sonia Sotomayor.
Let’s face it, Sotomayor is a political trifecta. Woman. Hispanic. Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval from George H. W. Bush.
Sadly Mark, recent history indicates the ‘true conservatives’ are not done destroying the conservative movement.
I wouldn’t want to plead my case to a judge that feels it is her duty to make policy. Making policy is the duty of elected officials. I would want a judge that would rule according to what the law is, not what she would wish the law to be.
I agree with AJ – first, it’s highly unlikely that anyone better would ever be picked by Obama. Better an intellectual lightweight picked solely for her race than some true left wing idealogue. Defeating her would only be toss those who support judicial restraint and support of the Constitution out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Second, she can’t be any worse than Souter, who in my opinion is by far the worst – from a standpoint of being intellectually dishonest and self-contradictory – justice of the last 30 years.
Souter was responsible for the Kelo decision – that was bad enough. Souter is the kind of liberal who never met a government or police action he didn’t like – as Jonah Goldberg’s recent book put it, a true fascist with a smily face. Good riddance to bad rubbish, it’s possible for a new justice to be as bad as Souter, but not possible for anyone to be worse.
And that is not simply hyperbole – take Souter’s opinions through the years as a whole and his guiding philosophy is indistinguishable from the governing philosphies of Mussolini, Franco, and Peron. He has always believed that it is the Government which has rights, not the people, and to him the Bill of Rights has always been mostly an annoyance, except when it can be used by the Federal level of government to slap down cities and states who can’t be counted on to know what’s good for them.
Do I despise Souter and all of his works? Why yes I do.
And yes, I know who nominated him, and I mark it as the greatest mistake not only of his Presidency, but of his life.
All of the Republican leaders I have heard speak out on this have been respectful, commend her life story, express concerns over her stated activism as a judge, but say she will be treated fairly.
That being said….
I am prepared for her to be the next SCOTUS judge due to the make up of Congress. And, I have heard mixed stories on her record. Some have said she is tough on crime and has made decisions that show she did not have bias. Others show concern of just the opposite.
What she says (very, very troubling statements) can be over-ridden by an evaluation of her actual court case decisions if those decisions followed the letter of the law.
However, Republicans should NOT support her nomination, AJ, if she shows by court decisions that she actively “makes policy from the bench”. Americans overwhelmingly don’t want that, as shown in a recent Rasmussen poll. It may slide by in lower courts because the higher courts can review/correct it. But, SCOTUS is a place for judges who understand the Constitution and apply the letter of the law.
Obama, himself, voted against and supported a filibuster towards highly qualified Bush nominees for ideology purposes. I don’t support that, and wouldn’t want Repubs to follow suit. I don’t think a judge’s beliefs or political stands make a difference……it is whether or not a judge can put those personal feelings aside and follow the law in their decision making.
Is Sotomayor Obama’s harriet Myers?
http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2009/05/27/is-sotomayor-obamas-harriet-myers-2/
Imho, she needs to be treated EXACTLY as any other pick would be treated, with dignity, respect and tough questions-that is TRUE equality.
A supreme court justice is a VERY important position and it behooves ALL to ask every question possible to determine the nominees UNDERSTANDING and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. And more importantly, their understanding of their oath they must take and their understanding of CONGRESS as the law-MAKING body.
Justice Alito and Judge Sotomayor — the lawyers’ take
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023655.php
The track record is not good…not if you believe in the rule of law, and not the rule of lawyers.
I think that the Republicans should conduct the hearings to expose her left liberal stances. Also delay the confirmation to educate the public that she is anti 2nd amendment and make it reflect on the President. But no personal attacks, no I’m going to put a gun to your head nonsense.
In the end, she may well be a blessing is disguise. Because she seems to be overturned quite a few times by the Supreme Court, especially Anthony Kennedy. Her very left wing views may turn him to the right to give the court a five member conservative advantage.
If Chief Justice Roberts will allow Justice Kennedy to write some narrow and less ideologically conservative than the court could move to the right because of this appointment. The Chief Justice seems to be a person with the temperament to move to the center to achieve results. Anthony Kennedy could end up voting with the four conservative justices over 75% of the time.
Have to disagree, AJ. Her actions in the Ricci case out of New Haven are a deal-breaker for me.
I’d put both Jude Cabranes and Ricci in front of the committee to testify. Then I would hope that the Senate GOP on that committee would stick together and vote “no” or “present” on the nomination.
I’m sure Reid and Obama would manage to muscle it – but it is better to make that Ricci case as the example of the way an Obama judicial nominee handles cases. And it will not hurt the GOP to do so.
“Imho, she needs to be treated EXACTLY as any other pick would be treated, with dignity, respect and tough questions-that is TRUE equality.”
Good idea – you can start by comdeming someone who writes that she is “an intellectual lightweight picked solely for her race”, which WWS did in the second comment above.
“Because she seems to be overturned quite a few times by the Supreme Court”
Yes, if you count “three” as “quite a few times”.
“Her actions in the Ricci case out of New Haven are a deal-breaker for me.”
Why? Because you are against using precedent in deciding legal matters before the bench? No offense, but you’d make a pretty terrible judge.
1st-The precedent has been set unfortunately by the D’s. She should be clearly vetted with no stone unturned. Maybe not to the point of making a loved one cry like the D’s did to the Alito’s wife but clearly no more softballs and being “above it all”.
2nd-I am worried about her intellectual ability. In the Ricci case a fellow judge (Clinton appointee) was disturbed that she couldn’t see the forest for the trees and completely missed the Constitutional aspects of the case. There are many that mentioned her bullying and abrasive style. Not preferred judicial temperament IMHO. So let’s see what kind of judge she will be. It would not serve the American people for the R’s to just roll over and let this go. The R’s have a duty to expose any issues even if they don’t have the votes. Let the American people make that choice in 2010 as the Constitution requires.
“I am worried about her intellectual ability.”
Yes, because it is well-known that intellectual lightweights often graduate second in their class from Princeton.
Seriously – has the entire Right Wing of this country turned into racists? If this was a conversative white male nominee, none of you would even consider questioning his/her intellect. Your behavior is disgusting.
“In the Ricci case a fellow judge (Clinton appointee) was disturbed that she couldn’t see the forest for the trees and completely missed the Constitutional aspects of the case.”
That is a complete and utter lie. You obviously never read the case file or the rulings themselves, because you have no idea what you are talking about. Go ahead – find the actual quote, and post a reference to it here. (Hint: you can’t, because it doesn’t exist.)
BTW- I don’t think the name Jose Cabrane represents someone from Anglo ancestry so stop your stupid little racist chant.
Guy….Here is Jose Cabrane’s (Clinton appointee) statement.
“Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It’s customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn’t distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions–fixing typos and the like–rather than focusing on the core analytical issues..”
Link here:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085
I actually read this, obviously you didn’t.
Sotomayor’s Radical Legal Group Helped Kill the Estrada Nomination
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/05/26/sotomayors-radical-legal-group
….and, there is a George Soros connection.
GuyF:
That is a complete and utter lie. You obviously never read the case file or the rulings themselves, because you have no idea what you are talking about. Go ahead – find the actual quote, and post a reference to it here. (Hint: you can’t, because it doesn’t exist.)
kinda got caught with your pants down by ph211, didn’t you?
A good analysis of the Ricci case here:
http://ovsc.blogspot.com/2009/05/supreme-court-ricci-v-destefano.html
“Here is Jose Cabrane’s (Clinton appointee) statement”
No, it’s not. You lack the reading comprehension of a five year old. Those statements were written by Jeffrey Rosen, a TNR columnist. They are *NOT* a quote from anyone.
Here’s the actual quote from Cabrenes (seriously – you couldn’t even get his name right?):
“She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media.”
Here’s a hint, genius – when someone is “quoted”, there are *quotation mark*” around the statement. You failed to notice that there were no quotation marks around the paragraph you cited? Nice powers of observation, slick.
Oh, and RedTeam – thanks for not even bothering to read the article itself. Do you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself around here?
And so now it emerges that she is a member of La Raza,
It is all over the Net, well not google of course, but everywhere else.
La Raza –
That means, in Spanish, The Race
Surely she can now no be the big judge,
any more than could a member of one of the other
supremacy groups. I will not name them but of course they
are well heard of.
I think if this does not immediately make her quit, then all your
analysts are affected by terminal stupidity.
Daniel,
It won’t mean a thing about La Raza. They don’t have anything on her that would derail her. Her legal record is all that counts.
“It is all over the Net”
But yet you can’t supply a single URL. Well, gosh – that’s certainly persuasive.
Lazy, racist, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.