Puff
By Mitch Berg
Jay Reding notes that Sotomayor’s main qualifications seem to be political:
It would be hard to find a less qualified nominee than Harriet Miers, but Sotomayor does not strike me as a strong candidate. She is, to be sure, qualified for the position, but a seat on the Supreme Court is the pinnacle of the American legal profession. The Supreme Court has housed some of the greatest minds in the practice: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, Robert Jackson, and even the current Court has incredibly talented judges such as Stephen Breyer (on the “left”) and Antonin Scalia (on the “right”). Does Sotomayor match up with those legal minds? Her record, at least on a cursory glance seems to suggest not.Judge Sotomayor is not widely considered to be an expert or leading light on a particular field of law, as Stephen Breyer was in administrative law.
(Digression from a non-lawyer: Isn’t “expert in administrative law” the very definition of “damnation by faint praise?” I know – law is complicated stuff, and Admin law is all the moreso, since it lives at the intersection of Too Many Laws Street and Too Many People Who Get Their Jollies Making Rules For Other People Boulevard, and so I’m probably shorting Admin Law’s importance to our society. But admit it; you do, too, don’t you? Especailly since if you’re a non-lawyer, Admin Law has most likely caused you vastly more harm or at least irritation than good. Am I right?)
She has not shown the intellectual caliber of someone like Antonin Scalia or Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Instead, she seems to have been picked because she is a female Hispanic with an interesting life story that meets the basic qualifications.
Sotomayor’s main benefit seems to be as an intellectual and social cudgel; “Not supporting Sotomayor? Why? Whaddya have against Latinas,huh?”
But as others are saying – she might not be the one to burn off all our ammo against. As Reding and many others have noted, she’s a liberal replacing a liberal, Souter. It’s not like the court’s decisions are going to get any more off-the-charts-left with Sotomayor on the bench.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:22 am
The front page of both local papers call her a groundbreaking Pioneer. I wonder if they would say the same if Michelle Malkin was picked. I really find racialists annoying.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Actually they will move to the left. Souter is known as a social liberal, but fair when it comes to issues like business. Sotomayor (did I mention she’s Hispanica?) is anti-business.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Yep, you’re going to have to suck it up on this one. She’s well qualified and she’s well positioned politically. Check and mate.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Qualified, Clown??? Are you delusional?
She’s been reversed by the Supreme Court *three whole times*!
And just look what Volokh contributor, Eric Posner, says about her productivity/citation/record — only *slightly* better than Alitos!
http://volokh.com/posts/1242229209.shtml
And she came in *second* behind some other joker at Princeton and was only one of the lower-ranking editors on the Yale Law Journal. Apparently she just wasn’t editor-IN-CHIEF material.
Total lightweight.
/jc
May 27th, 2009 at 9:07 am
I don’t think anyone really disputes that she’ll be on the Court. The only question for Republicans is how much effort they should make to call attention to her record. And I’m with Jay and Mitch on this one — this is not the battle to fight. Run the hearing, ask her some tough questions, then let the nomination proceed for a vote.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:33 am
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
Better for who?
May 27th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Noted lefty constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley thinks she’s a light weight
“She is not the intellectual powerhouse that many academics had hoped for.”
and
“advocates have struggled to cite a single opinion that could be viewed as a brilliant or extraordinary treatment of the law. ”
and
“Looking objectively at the body of opinions by Judge Sotomayor, one is not overwhelmed by their depth. There is nothing in this body of work that would scream out for the elevation of the author to the Court.”
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/05/26/white-house-to-announce-court-pick-at-10-am/#more-11301
May 27th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Exactly, Master.
What has she ever done besides the mundane application of her circuit’s precedents. BOR-ING!
Activist extremism at its sleepy worst.
/jc
May 27th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Jeff Rosen is not too impressed
“The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.”
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085
May 27th, 2009 at 10:08 am
As Master referes to above…….Concensus of those who worked with her is that she’s very intelligent, but an intellectual lightweight. Very rude, pushy, and wants to dominate the discussions on the bench. I’ve worked with people like that and they make me try to find ways to get them fired.
But but but she’s a “Pioneer”.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Actually, she’s a perfect representative of the Hopey Changey Presidency. Competent, yet mediocre. Remember Great Leader picked Joe Biden to be #2. That pretty much sums things up.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Kinda beats the last administration. Incompetent, yet loyal.
Heckuva job, Kermie!
May 27th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
It’s instructive to note that she was first appointed to the federal bench by Bush I. While her embrace of identity politics gives one pause (a very very long pause), given some of the rulings by her I’ve seen, she’s probably not too much to the left of Souter. In fact, I’m guessing on certain things (Kelo comes to mind), she’ll probably be an improvement.
Just don’t expect too much good from her if the Court ever revisits Bakke.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Mitch:
“Sotomayor’s main qualifications seem to be political”
Yes, just like every other Supreme Court nominee. That is how the system works. Roberts and Alito were picked because they reflected Bush’s political views. But the universe of lawyers and judges who share Obama’s political views is very large. From them, Sotomayor was picked because of her long judicial experience and solid record.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I can’t support such an outright racist. DickyDFL and AssClown don’t seem to have a problem with such racism.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Yes, just like every other Supreme Court nominee. That is how the system works.
Right, except with most of the politically congruent picks the President shoots for someone of some prominence as a judge, lawyer or scholar. Roberts, Breyer, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, even Ginsberg all qualify. Sotomayor? Not really.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
“Sotomayor was picked because of her long judicial experience and solid record. ”
Being brown skinned with ovaries had nothing to do with it?
May 27th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Kinda beats the last administration. Incompetent, yet loyal
So, have you filled in the hole from that post 9/11 attack on NYC yet? Oh wait. There wasn’t one.
Good thing you all are out of range from North Korea. For now.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Roberts and Alito were picked because they reflected Bush’s political views.
Horrors! They were picked because they actually hold conservative opinions! What is this world coming to?
But the universe of lawyers and judges who share Obama’s political views is very large.
Yup. Milk the system for every dime you can squeeze out of it. The Plaintiff’s Bar got a whole lot fatter aftr January 20th.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Realistically what are the chances of blocking her nomination? Slim to none. For Democrats to vote against her she will have to have been a secret member of a far right organization like the Knights of Columbus or the American Legion.
Republican Senators have to put some tough questions to her in the hearings but in the end AC is right she will be confirmed.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Kermit croaked: “So, have you filled in the hole from that post 9/11 attack on NYC yet? Oh wait. There wasn’t one.”
Good point, Kerm. Only one catastrophic terrorist attack on Bush’s watch. And New Orleans didn’t flood either, except for that one time.
Highly comical that the party that put Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas on the court are concerned that Sotomayor is “merely” qualified.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
What was that, angryclown? Did you say “Democrat racists and misogynists are cool” or something similar?
May 27th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
“It’s instructive to note that she was first appointed to the federal bench by Bush I.”
Yes, as part of a deal the party of Scrubs forced Bush to sign on to while holding the confirmation of more than three dozen other judicial appointments up by their scalps.
Patrick Moynahan put Sotomeyer on the table.
The party of Scrubs will put up a big fight to get this ‘bat seated. A virulent racist, apostate Catholic *and* judicial policy maker with a Yale degree doesn’t bubble up from the feverswamp every day.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
And New Orleans didn’t flood either, except for that one time.
And now that Louisiana has a compentent, Republican governor they stand a better chance than they had under the corrupt, incompetant Kathy Blanco (D LA). Has Ray Nagin (D LA) moved those school buses yet?
May 27th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
First get that freezer to higher ground before you worry about the buses.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Kermit raved: “And now that Louisiana has a compentent, Republican governor they stand a better chance than they had under the corrupt, incompetant Kathy Blanco (D LA). Has Ray Nagin (D LA) moved those school buses yet?”
Yeah, and he gives an awesome speech too! Down with volcano monitoring!
May 27th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
AssClown is always so worried for Terry living so close to those scary volcanos.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Clownie sniffed “Democrat good, Republican bad. Facts be damned.”
May 27th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Mitch:
“some prominence as a judge, lawyer or scholar. Roberts, Breyer, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, even Ginsberg all qualify. Sotomayor? Not really”
Based on what? Soto has the most Federal experience of any SC appointee in 100 years. She has the Academic credentials to match anyone you cited. The only knock I can find on her written opinions is that she is a dry boring judicial craftsman. But that is probably why Obama picked her. It matches his ‘no drama’ style, it is a good replacement for the similar style of Souter, and it is more likely to influence the Court in the direction he wants.
K-Rod: I don’t have a problem with a Hispanic on the court, do you?
May 27th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I judge based on the content of ones charecter. Hispanic is not a factor that has any extra merit unless, maybe, if you are auditioning for a telenovela, then maybe.
I abhor racists.
DickyDFL, your support of racists is appalling.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Soto has the most Federal experience of any SC appointee in 100 years.
There’s that talking point again. All it means is that she’s been a federal judge for a long time. It doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not she’s been a good or poor performer on the bench. Chances are she’ll be as good as Souter, for what that’s worth.
I don’t have a problem with a Hispanic on the court, do you?
So we can count on your support if a future Republican president nominates Miguel Estrada? Good to know!
May 27th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Yeah, that “100 years” talking point implies much, means relatively little. It is sufficient to say that Sotomayor is perfectly well qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. Shiftee’s frothing at the mouth is kinda funny, of course. But the more, um, reasonable (?) of you wingnuts recognize you’re not likely to get any traction trying to slime Sotomayor. Some of you, at least, know when you’ve lost. That will prove to be a valuable quality in the next several years.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Soto has the most Federal experience of any SC appointee in 100 years.
Yes. She has many years of interventionist, activist experience. Which I oppose.
The only knock I can find on her written opinions is that she is a dry boring judicial craftsman.
Other than that she’s a judicial activist with noxious opinions on many issues vital to me? Yeah. That’s the only knock.
It matches his ‘no drama’ style,
No drama? His entire career and campaign are built on nothing but theatrics!
K-Rod: I don’t have a problem with a Hispanic on the court, do you?
And there’s yer playbook, right there; you’ve proven my point. Her race is a cudgel for the left’s legions of gabbling ninnies to wave indiscriminately about.
Rick, on cue as usual.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Actually her ethnicity helps protect her from any slimy Swift-boating you kooks might otherwise engage in if not for fear of completely alienating the fastest-growing voting bloc in the country. Again.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
AssClown right on cue as well.
Your support of racists is also quite appalling. Send that payment to LaRaza, AssClown?
May 27th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Swift-boating: verb, “To tell the truth about Democrats”.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Mitch:
“she’s a judicial activist with noxious opinions on many issues vital to me” But that just means you oppose her politically, which you are supposed to, because your guy lost the election.
“Her race is a cudgel for the left’s legions of gabbling ninnies to wave indiscriminately about. ” I didn’t and don’t wave it at you. Only at K-Rod who called her a racist without a hint of evidence. I will be happy to highlight this behavior to any Hispanic who considers voting for the GOP.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
alienating the fastest-growing voting bloc in the country.
Actually, among Hispanics who’ve been here two or more generations, the “high fence/wide gate” approach – the approach every other credible nation on earth uses – works just fine. It is also overwhelmingly preferred by all other immigrant groups.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I didn’t and don’t wave it at you. Only at K-Rod who called her a racist without a hint of evidence.
Fair enough, more or less.
I will be happy to highlight this behavior to any Hispanic who considers voting for the GOP.
No problem! I’m likewise busy showing Dems’ hatred of any woman, ethnic or racial minority that doesn’t vote Democrat!
May 27th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
And she came in *second* behind some other joker at Princeton
Princeton? Never heard of it. Business school of some kind?
and was only one of the lower-ranking editors on the Yale Law Journal. Apparently she just wasn’t editor-IN-CHIEF material.
Whee. She was a motivated and intelligent law student. People involved with the law (I presume you are a defendant of some kind) think that sounds a lot more impressive to us mere peasants than it actually does. If someone is just plain wrong, I don’t care if she was best in her class in law school (which, let us not forget, is nothing but a three year course in how to read and research and, in the end, lie through one’s teeth and still be able to say “I told the truth” with a straight face).
If her actual work product, beliefs and record have been crap, really, I don’t care if she came in first in her class, was EIC, and levitated the dead back in grad school.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Mitch:
“I’m likewise busy showing Dems’ hatred of any woman, ethnic or racial minority that doesn’t vote Democrat! ”
In order to make up for the votes you lose by courting the racist vote, you plan to go after people who are offended that Democrats don’t support non-Democrats. Genius.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
slimy Swift-boating you kooks might otherwise engage in
Yes. I certainly hope no one comes forward to complain about her putting a pubic hair on a Coke can. We wouldn’t want to infringe on the “slimy swift-boating” tactics of the Left.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
In order to make up for the votes you lose by courting the racist vote
Strawman. I, like all credible conservatives, actively reject it.
you plan to go after people who are offended that Democrats don’t support non-Democrats. Genius.
No, Rick, you (I’ll be charitable) misunderstood. When Dems are confronted with women and ethnic/racial/social minorities who don’t vote Democrat, they (or at least significant parts of their mainstream) often resort to sexism, racism, homophobia…the whole works.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Mitch:
“When Dems are confronted with women and ethnic/racial/social minorities who don’t vote Democrat, they (or at least significant parts of their mainstream) often resort to sexism, racism, homophobia…the whole works.”
If this were a real phenomenon, instead of your own little fantasy, one would expect such minorities to stop voting for the party. Instead the reverse seems to be happening in part because the GOP continues to court the racist vote. If you think it is a straw man than why did you not rebuke K-Rod?
May 27th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
RickDFL said:
“by courting the racist vote”
“because the GOP continues to court the racist vote”
Stated without support.
Repeating things does not make them true. Unfortunately, that might not stop fools from believing you.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
DFLDick spewed” Only at K-Rod who called her a racist without a hint of evidence.”
One batch of evidence, coming up!
“I would hope that a wise white, Protestant man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a minority woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
~ Judge Sonya Sotomayor
I’m guessing that AssClown and DFLDick are too busy wanking each other right now to respond to that bit of racist commentary from their new SCOTUS queen…but we can wait.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Where Bozo has to reach deep back in history to try to “slime” Republicans- I guess that passes for defending The Communist-in-Chief`s Supreme Court pick. Seeing as you strayed far of topic, i do as well. Please name one thing that the Swift- boaters said that was proven to be not true. At the most you have only one. And the Katrina reference gets so old, Bozo. So here`s what happened in three sentences. Again. “You live in a city, that sits basically in a bowl, about six feet below sea level, right next to the ocean. A cat. 5 hurricane is coming, and you know about it. What do you do?” The answer to that question is why your Katrina posts are so tiresome and stupid.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
RickDFL said:
“why did you not rebuke K-Rod”
Can K-Rod be responsible for what he writes?
Does Mitch have to critique everyone who expresses an opinion here that you don’t agree with?
Please, grow up a little, RickDFL.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
If this were a real phenomenon, instead of your own little fantasy
Untrue, and worth a post on its own (again). Many Dems are incorrigible bigots against minorities and women who don’t toe the party line.
If you think it is a straw man than why did you not rebuke K-Rod?
For starters, because K-Rod, whatever his merits or faults, represents neither me, the party nor conservatism.
Also, he didn’t say anything “racist”. I paged through the thread; at first and second glance, the only racist reference was your inferring that he opposed Sotomayor because she was Latina, which is in fact a bit of racism on your part.
Shame on you, racist pig.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
“racist without a hint of evidence.” – DickyDFL
“Fair enough, more or less.” – MitchDFL
“…a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male…” – Sotomayor
What more evidence do you two need?
She said she is superior because she is a “Latina woman”.
Just imagine if Scalia said he is a “white male” and thus superior to Thomas or Sotomayor because he is a white man!!!
I expected such blind support of Democrat racism from DickyDFL, but Mitch, was that a shark you rode your bicycle over?
May 27th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
the GOP continues to court the racist vote
Interesting. Is this indeed the case, or is it the Democrats who incessantly promote this mirage in lieu of actually addressing issues?
May 27th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
“Shame on you, racist pig.”
Both he and angryclown want to make hay with race baiting, the truth notwithstanding.
Pretty despicable in my opinion.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
K-Rod:
“What more evidence do you two need?”
A whole lot. Because we take racism seriously. The fact that you think you can call a distinguished jurist a racist on the basis of that truncated out-of-context quote proves you are an idiot. Go read her original speech. National Review writer Rod Dreher did and was man enough to admit his mistake in spewing the same garbage you do.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/05/i-was-wrong-about-sotomayor-sp.html
May 27th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I didn’t and don’t wave it at you. Only at K-Rod who called her a racist without a hint of evidence.
“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. ”
The only difference between that and “black people are better athletes” is a latina woman said the first line using more flowery language behind a podium and a white male said the second line on Monday Night Football.
She feels latina women are better able to adjudicate than white males. It doesn’t get much more racist than that. To deny it is being supremely intellectually dishonest in pursuit of an agenda.
And what is a “better” conclusion in regards to legality? There is only right or wrong. So much for equal protection under the law. But we all know that is an antiquated, anachronistic concept to today’s modern leftist.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
From one of the comments on Dreher’s blog post:
Her disgraceful dismissal of the Ricci case shows that Sotomayor has “empathy” for process, i.e. empathy for the process of race-based outcomes, not empathy for human beings.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Because we take racism seriously.
And promote it shamelessly.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
And Dreher’s “paragraph that relieved him”:
“Yet — and this is a key point — she admits that as a jurist, one is obligated to strive for neutrality. It seems to me that Judge Sotomayor in this speech dwelled on the inescapability of social context in shaping the character of a jurist. That doesn’t seem to me to be a controversial point, and I am relieved by this passage:
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless 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.”
If a jurist is not able to set aside their life experience and work towards Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, then that jurist should recuse themselves and hang up their robes, for they are incapable of judging with equal protection under the law.
Purely and simply, if she is more empathetic to latinos/latinas than caucasians, she is not offering equal protection under the law.
My God, it would be so much easier for all involved if the left would just give up their false canard of “ending racism” since it is so plainly obvious that is exactly what they DON’T want to happen.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Racism empowers Leftists. It’s the bastard child of class warfare. They need it it.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
“Because we take racism seriously.”
If you are speaking as a leftist, the correct way to phrase this is “we appoint ourselves arbiters of what is and what is not racist and so what is not and what is subject to political discussion. Needless to say, we will never find our assigning of racial characteristics to individuals to be racist”.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
The fact that you think you can call a distinguished jurist a racist on the basis of that truncated out-of-context quote proves you are an idiot.
Actually, again, Rick, it was your accusation of racism (”what do you have against Hispanics”) that invoked race in the debate.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Rick, after reviewing the thread I have to to draw two conclusions.
One. You are race baiting.
Two. Your insisting that Mr. Berg defend K-Rod (who is not Mr. Berg) is not only unwarranted, but the type of sleazy politics all too common on the Democrat side of the aisle.
To quote Keith Olberdouche, Have you no shame, sir?
May 27th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
What RickDFL means by “we take racism seriously.” -RickDFL
November 7, 2001/To: Senator Durbin
“The groups singled out three–Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)–as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004305
May 28th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Good God you people were busy last night.
“The party of Scrubs will put up a big fight to get this ‘bat seated. A virulent racist, apostate Catholic *and* judicial policy maker with a Yale degree doesn’t bubble up from the feverswamp every day.”
You seriously weren’t expecting The One to nominate the second coming of Learned Hand were you? Seriously? Any of you?
Learned Hand. Great name.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Bill C:
“The only difference between that and “black people are better athletes” is a latina woman said the first line using more flowery language”
No. What you gloss over as ‘flowery language’ changes the meaning entirely.
“If a jurist is not able to set aside their life experience and work towards Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, then that jurist should recuse”
Agreed and she explicitly “agree[s] with and attempt[s] to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration”. Her point is that since no judge can ever really know if they have achieved that goal, we need a judiciary with a balance of backgrounds.
“And what is a “better” conclusion in regards to legality? There is only right or wrong.” Actually no. Legal questions are often very complicated and equally smart, equally fair judges sometimes disagree about the best answer. That is why we argue a lot about who gets on the court.
Mitch: It was K-Rod who first charged racism. I simply returned the favor. I suppose his knee jerk accusation could be motivated, not by anti-Hispanic racism, but by gross stupidity or brainless repetition of Glenn Beck. If you want to debate the question feel free.
May 28th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I haven’t read very much about the nominee’s track record so far; I suspect that more about what she has done will become apparent as the current ‘digging’ proceeds.
Yes, she had a very impressive academic career, and that she is intelligent is a plus for consideration to become a supreme court justice. It is equally fair and important to look closely at what she has done post-academia.
I have long been a fan of the career of Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman on the supreme court, appointed by Reagan (to his credit). Her academic credentials were very similar to those of Sotomayer, Stanford rather than Princeton.
Despite graduating 3rd in her class, and impressive law school bona fides, O’Connor couldn’t get a job as a lawyer after she passed the bar, because of her gender. I became a fan of Ms. O’Connor’s career in large part because she provided me, personally, such an excellent example of how to proceed as a woman in male dominated activity. It IS very different to be the only woman or one of a few women in a group otherwise consisting entirely of men from the experience where men and women are more evenly represented, and it is uncomfortable. Commenting on this blog sometimes has that overwhelmingly male dominated/dominating feel to it, and I have often wondered privately if that might be a partial explanation for why relatively few women participate here.
Justice O’Connor’s example is one of the reasons I don’t let that discomfort discourage me. The area of greatest conflict that I had with my parents growing up was an almost daily disagreement over gender appropriate activities. I didn’t give a rip (insert rude word of choice) if something was traditionally done by women, or if it was too dangerous; I see no reason why any activity is inately more dangerous simply because you have two x chromosomes – instead of one – to do things like acquire proficiency with firearms. I mention that here, because that experience has strongly influenced MY opinions.
She has stated on a variety of occasions that she felt that having women on the bench of the supreme court was a positive contribution, that it gave a greater depth and range to perceptions. Justice O’Connor has been concerned for many years with what she perceived as the lack of legal representation for those in poverty, as well as having sided on the bench in favor of affirmative action.
I am not going to make the assumption that Sotomayer is a racist based on one single comment which may or may not have been correctly presented in context. Rather, I’d like to review her actions on the bench in that regard. IF – and this is a big IF – her statement is represented in those actions as meaning that her background gives her a different perspective on some matters than the perspective of people from a different background, fine, that seems to me to be no different than O’Connor’s perspective having been formed in part by her experiences pursuing her law career when there was strong bias against women. It would be ludicrously illogical to assert that being white or brown, male or female, provides the only, the best, the most correct perspective.
I vehemently disagree with the definition of affirmative action that replaces one set of people receiving preference with a different set of people receiving preference. It should, ideally, be a concept where the pool of merit is expanded to include a larger potential group of people, inclusively, not be something that is exclusionary to any group, regardless of perceived advantage or disadvantage.
My sense of this nomination is that Sotomayer’s academic credentials were had the strongest appeal to Obama in making his selection, right or wrong. I would bet that the Latino ethnicity appeal was behind many other factors. That said – while selecting a Latina MIGHT appeal to that constituency, it could just as easily backfire if that group feels it is being manipulated or played to, to get support, rather than being genuinely included as a valued segment. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Words have meaning.
“…Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male…” – Judge Sotomayor
“I simply returned the favor.” – dickyDFL
That reminds me of the TV commercial with the obese woman that tries to kill her passenger by running into a tree after he lights up a smoke.
“ur endangerin mah life, just returning the favor.”
Only in liberal la la land.
RickDFL = Liberal Fascist Tool.
May 28th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Hey, Rick: As a Hispanic, I don’t need you or the DFL to tell me who to vote for or what’s racist. Sod off, and take your sad Nuyorican excuse for a Supreme Court nominee with you.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:56 am
K-Rod:
“Words have meaning” Yes. Sotomeyer’s words do not have the meaning you claim.
wombat-socho:
“I don’t need you or the DFL to tell me who to vote for” That is sort of what political parties do.
“or what’s racist”. Enjoy the company.
“take your sad Nuyorican excuse for a Supreme Court nominee with you.” OK, plan to take her all the way to the Supreme Court.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I don’t think such outright racism is funny. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, dickyDFL.
“…Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male…” – Judge Sotomayor
Spin away, dickyDFL, spin away. *What next, depends on what the definition of the word “is” is?*
Liberal Fascist tool, indeed.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
“I don’t need you or the DFL to tell me who to vote for” – wombat-socho
“That is sort of what political parties do.” – dickyDFL
Spoken like a true tool of the party. Thanks for letting us know that you don’t make the decision for “who to vote for” and leave it up to the DFL party to tell you “who to vote for”.