PDA

View Full Version : Obama picks Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court



RobJohnson
05-26-2009, 10:35 AM
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090526/capt.3a6116a90e0a49d8be5d717f3f8467cd.obama_suprem e_court_ny113.jpg?x=213&y=326&xc=1&yc=1&wc=268&hc=410&q=85&sig=EaG1kyXMeM1hCdmh2CA6.w--



WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama has chosen appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat being vacated by liberal Justice David Souter, a White House official said on Tuesday.

More (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090526/ts_nm/us_usa_court_nominee_5)

Odysseus
05-26-2009, 11:36 AM
Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Area, or How the Fight Will Be Staged:

The left will attempt to portray Sotomayor as a centrist, with extensive repetition of her tenure as a prosecutor under Robert Morganthau in the Manhattan DA's office. They will also play up that she was first appointed to the federal bench by Bush 41, without noting that she was the one Democratic appointment made at the behest of Senator Moynihan (D NY), which allowed for the opposition party to have a hand in the selection of District Court judges in their districts. It is not a comment on Sotomayor's "centrist" credentials so much as a comment on Bush 41's civility and commitment to procedural rules over partisanship.

Conservatives have the opportunity to point out that Sotomayor has spoken dismissively of white male judges in terms that would be considered blatantly racist if said about any other minority, and that she has been part of an extremely controversial decision in the case of Ricci vs. New Haven, CT. The case itself is remarkable for a number of reasons. Frank Ricci is a firefighter in New Haven, CT. who, along with 16 other whites and one Hispanic, was denied a promotion solely because he is not black. Ricci's case is unique because he is dyslexic. In order to prep for the exam, he studied for up to 13 hours per day, spent over $1,000 on the study guides that the city recommended and paid to have them read onto audiotapes in order to permit him to study them without being handicapped by his dyslexia. Ricci scored extremely well on the exam, but was denied promotion because not enough black firefighters made the cut and the city, rather than promote from the exam list, chose to discard it and forego any promotions. The U.S. District Judge dismissed the case and a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit upheld it, but did so in an unpublished order that avoided almost any mention of the issues of the racially charged case. Sotomayor was one of the three judges that heard the appeal and attempted to sink it quietly. When the less liberal judges on the circuit were informed, they tried to have it heard by the full circuit, but lost on 7-6 vote, with Sotomayor again voting to prevent the appeal. The case is now headed for the Supreme Court.

Huffington Post is trying to make her out to be a moderate, in an article entitled "Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court Nominee: All You Need To Know," (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/sonia-sotomayor-supreme-c_n_194470.html) stating: "Sotomayor has been considered as a potential Supreme Court Justice by both Republican and Democratic presidents." with a link to an ABA journal article that contains the same quote but does not cite which Republican president considered her for SCOTUS, and a USA today article, which states: "Democratic lawyers who follow nomination politics say that U.S. appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 50, of New York, would be a top contender for a Kerry appointment. Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent, is known as a moderate jurist and could represent a bipartisan choice: She was tapped for a U.S. trial court seat by the first President Bush, then elevated to the appeals court by Clinton." Nothing implies that any Republican president would have considered her for the Supreme Court. The article also cites her tenure as an ADA, but does not mention any controversies surrounding her views or opinions. Tactically, this could backfire big time, as she has laid out a number of positions which would put her outside of the mainstream, especially in the areay of identity politics.

National Journal has a very good article (http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20090523_2724.php) on Sotomayor's positions which should be of concern to anyone who thinks that laws should apply equally to everyone. Some highlights:


"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." -- Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001
--snip--
Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere "aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others." And she suggested that "inherent physiological or cultural differences" may help explain why "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

So accustomed have we become to identity politics that it barely causes a ripple when a highly touted Supreme Court candidate, who sits on the federal Appeals Court in New York, has seriously suggested that Latina women like her make better judges than white males.
--snip--
Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: "I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life" -- and had proceeded to speak of "inherent physiological or cultural differences."
--snip--
As for Sotomayor's speech, fragmentary quotations admittedly cannot capture every qualification and nuance. She also stressed that although "men lawyers... need to work on" their "attitudes," many have already reached "great moments of enlightenment." She noted that she tries to be impartial. And she did not overtly suggest that judges should play identity politics.

I place the earlier quotations in more-detailed context here so that readers can assess Sotomayor's meaning for themselves.

"Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum [of the federal District Court in New York]... believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons... we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning....

"Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.... I am... not so sure that I agree with the statement. First... there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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."
--snip--
It follows that the Supreme Court might well be a wiser body -- other things being equal -- if the next justice is a Hispanic woman of outstanding judgment and capability. But do we want a new justice who comes close to stereotyping white males as (on average) inferior beings? And who seems to speak with more passion about her ethnicity and gender than about the ideal of impartiality?

Compare Sotomayor's celebration of "how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul" and reflections "on being a Latina voice on the bench" with Judge Learned Hand's eulogy for Justice Benjamin Cardozo in 1938.

"The wise man is the detached man," Hand wrote. "Our convictions, our outlook, the whole makeup of our thinking, which we cannot help bringing to the decision of every question, is the creature of our past; and into our past have been woven all sorts of frustrated ambitions with their envies, and of hopes of preferment with their corruptions, which, long since forgotten, determine our conclusions. A wise man is one exempt from the handicap of such a past; he is a runner stripped for the race; he can weigh the conflicting factors of his problem without always finding himself in one scale or the other."

Some see such talk as tiresome dead-white-male stuff, from a time when almost all judges were white males -- although, in Cardozo's case, descended from Portuguese Jews. I see it as the essence of what judges should strive to be.

I do not claim that the very different worldview displayed in Sotomayor's speech infuses her hundreds of judicial opinions and votes rendered over more than a decade on the Appeals Court. But only a few of her cases have involved the kind of politically incendiary issues that make the Supreme Court a storm center.

In one of her few explosive cases, Sotomayor voted (without writing an opinion) to join two colleagues in upholding what I see as raw racial discrimination by New Haven, Conn. The city denied promotions to the firefighters who did best on a test of job-related skills because none was black. (See my column, "New Haven's Injustice Shouldn't Disappear.")

The Supreme Court is widely expected to reverse that decision in June. And even if a devotee of identity politics fills retiring Justice David Souter's seat, she will not have enough votes to encourage greater use of such racial preferences. Not yet.

BadCat
05-26-2009, 11:44 AM
Uh huh.

She's a moderate like I'm a moderate.

CueSi
05-26-2009, 12:12 PM
I didn't expect anything less from the POTUS. But considering who he COULD be nominating. . .

~QC

FlaGator
05-26-2009, 12:54 PM
I didn't expect anything less from the POTUS. But considering who he COULD be nominating. . .

~QC

I was going to say that it could be a lot worse but you beat me to it.

noonwitch
05-26-2009, 01:04 PM
I'm sure we'll hear more about her as the day progresses.


It's not like he was going to pick the "Ten Commandments" judge.

Odysseus
05-26-2009, 01:15 PM
I was going to say that it could be a lot worse but you beat me to it.

In some ways, worse would be better. Whoever Obama nominates will have the votes to be confirmed, so an obvious radical would have been as likely to be confirmed as a soft-spoken radical, but would have drawn more fire and eroded Obama's claims to being a centrist. As it is, Sotomayor will most likely be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, unless the Republicans can not only start a filibuster, but find enough Democrats to sustain it. That will be tough, since the Republicans objected to Democrats using that tactic and the hypocrisy card is always close at hand. Barring some major scandal, and it would have to be major, not simply tax evasion or a nanny issue, but something that even the MSM couldn't cover up because it was too juicy, because this administration has seriously raised the bar for the level of criminality it takes to derail a Democratic nomination.

The most dangerous Course of Action to the Obama administration is a grass-roots campaign against her, similar to the opposition to the amnesty bill, based on her radicalism and racist attitudes towards white males, but that's a highly unlikely COA, and the media will present it as a racist attack by those white males, no matter who else is part of it. Most likely COA is that she is questioned hard by some Republicans before being confirmed by a vote that will include all Senate Democrats and a few Republicans, which will be played up as "bipartisanship" by the media. A third COA, combining a hard stand in the Senate and a massive campaign from the grassroots is the most likely to succeed in derailing the nomination, but it would have to be accompanied by the kind of detailed research and a willingness to use what is found without compunction, something that Democrats love to do, but Republicans avoid like the plague, so again, unlikely.

Lars1701a
05-26-2009, 01:33 PM
In some ways, worse would be better. Whoever Obama nominates will have the votes to be confirmed, so an obvious radical would have been as likely to be confirmed as a soft-spoken radical, but would have drawn more fire and eroded Obama's claims to being a centrist. As it is, Sotomayor will most likely be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, unless the Republicans can not only start a filibuster, but find enough Democrats to sustain it. That will be tough, since the Republicans objected to Democrats using that tactic and the hypocrisy card is always close at hand. Barring some major scandal, and it would have to be major, not simply tax evasion or a nanny issue, but something that even the MSM couldn't cover up because it was too juicy, because this administration has seriously raised the bar for the level of criminality it takes to derail a Democratic nomination.

The most dangerous Course of Action to the Obama administration is a grass-roots campaign against her, similar to the opposition to the amnesty bill, based on her radicalism and racist attitudes towards white males, but that's a highly unlikely COA, and the media will present it as a racist attack by those white males, no matter who else is part of it. Most likely COA is that she is questioned hard by some Republicans before being confirmed by a vote that will include all Senate Democrats and a few Republicans, which will be played up as "bipartisanship" by the media. A third COA, combining a hard stand in the Senate and a massive campaign from the grassroots is the most likely to succeed in derailing the nomination, but it would have to be accompanied by the kind of detailed research and a willingness to use what is found without compunction, something that Democrats love to do, but Republicans avoid like the plague, so again, unlikely.



You dont think some of her Blatantly Racist/sexist statements would stop her from being approved?

Odysseus
05-26-2009, 01:51 PM
You dont think some of her Blatantly Racist/sexist statements would stop her from being approved?

If she were a Republican, certainly, but a Democrat can say pretty much anything and get away with it, at least among Democrats and the media (or is that redundant?). The question is whether the Senate Republicans, have the guts to take offense at her comments on behalf of their constituents, who will be caricatured as a bunch of old white males (female Republicans apparently don't count, or they lack uteruses or something, and non-white Republicans are apparently Oreos, bananas and any other edible object that contains a white center). I'm not saying that she can't be defeated, only that that senate Republicans are not likely to try too hard if it means taking the kind of flak that usually gets them to turn tail and run.

Lars1701a
05-26-2009, 01:53 PM
If she were a Republican, certainly, but a Democrat can say pretty much anything and get away with it, at least among Democrats and the media (or is that redundant?). The question is whether the Senate Republicans, have the guts to take offense at her comments on behalf of their constituents, who will be caricatured as a bunch of old white males (female Republicans apparently don't count, or they lack uteruses or something, and non-white Republicans are apparently Oreos, bananas and any other edible object that contains a white center). I'm not saying that she can't be defeated, only that that senate Republicans are not likely to try too hard if it means taking the kind of flak that usually gets them to turn tail and run.

The Fracking Republicans would vote for a doorknob look at Ginsburg? Where fracked. I hope all the Conservative Justices stay healthy.

Odysseus
05-26-2009, 02:18 PM
The Fracking Republicans would vote for a doorknob look at Ginsburg? Where fracked. I hope all the Conservative Justices stay healthy.
Agreed. Of course, on the bright side, we'll get a justice with empathy...
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon051809.gif

AlmostThere
05-26-2009, 09:47 PM
The danger of allowing this confirmation to proceed without a fight is that without a contentious confirmation process to point at, the Democrats can use Sotomayor as a benchmark of a mainstream jurist. Therefore the next nomination while perhaps even more liberal, will be evaluated in the light of mainstream Sotomayor.

IMHO, even though it will be a losing fight, I'd suggest they battle as if this nomination means something, because win, lose or draw, how this woman is confirmed does have serious consequences.

samurai
05-26-2009, 09:51 PM
If she were a Republican, certainly, but a Democrat can say pretty much anything and get away with it, at least among Democrats and the media (or is that redundant?). The question is whether the Senate Republicans, have the guts to take offense at her comments on behalf of their constituents, who will be caricatured as a bunch of old white males (female Republicans apparently don't count, or they lack uteruses or something, and non-white Republicans are apparently Oreos, bananas and any other edible object that contains a white center). I'm not saying that she can't be defeated, only that that senate Republicans are not likely to try too hard if it means taking the kind of flak that usually gets them to turn tail and run.

I agree... her racist and sexist remarks would sink any Republican that even came close to uttering them, but to the left, they show she's properly indoctrinated in left-wing identity politics, and that's probably the main reason Obama picked her, and why the left will love her.

megimoo
05-26-2009, 09:54 PM
I didn't expect anything less from the POTUS. But considering who he COULD be nominating. . .

~QCShe's not Souters replacement, she's Ginsbergs !

Rockntractor
05-26-2009, 10:02 PM
The longer we drag out the conformation hearings the less time they have to work on climate change and other socialist projects. It makes no difference what qualifications Soda has. Give her hell!

megimoo
05-26-2009, 10:05 PM
NOW Prez Admits: Sotomayor ‘Very Progressive’ .....video

Don’t take a conservative’s word for it. No less a left-wing authority than Kim Gandy of NOW has let Sonia Sotomayor’s liberal cat out of the bag . . .

Gandy today described PBO’s pick for the Supreme Court as “very progressive.” The NOW honcho was a guest on this evening’s Ed Show. She was preceded by senior PBO adviser Valerie Jarrett, who danced furiously away from the liberal label. But then came Gandy, who gave the game away.

ED SCHULTZ: Would the White House label her a liberal, a progressive? And would she satisfy the base of the Democratic party.

VALERIE JARRETT: You know, we’re not much on labels as you know from the campaign.

Liberals on the national level never are.

In contrast with Olbermann, who doesn’t allow any dissenting voices on his show, Schultz gets credit for regularly having conservatives guests. Scott Wheeler of the National Republican Trust PAC, who described Sotomayor as being “on the fringe.” When Gandy later came on, Schultz invited her to rebut Wheeler’s remark.

SCHULTZ: Obviously you don’t think she’s a radical. Is she liberal enough for you?

KIM GANDY: I think she’s a very progressive judge.

In the lexicon of the left, “progressive” is somewhere to the port side of “liberal.” So here we have NOW’s Gandy certifying that not merely is Sotomayor progressive, but “very progressive.” Thanks for confirming what we already knew but what Sotomayor’s defenders will deny. Expect to be quoted, Kim.


http://finkelblog.com/index.php/2009/05/26/now-prez-sotomayor-very-progressive/

samurai
05-26-2009, 10:16 PM
Was it wrong for me to think "Now there's another face to add to the "ugly female Democrats" poster..."? :D

Odysseus
05-27-2009, 04:15 PM
Was it wrong for me to think "Now there's another face to add to the "ugly female Democrats" poster..."? :D

Wrong from a moral or spiritual standpoint? Who can say? Wrong in the sense of accuracy? No.