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.
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?
“Shame on you, racist pig.”
Both he and angryclown want to make hay with race baiting, the truth notwithstanding.
Pretty despicable in my opinion.
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
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.
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.
Because we take racism seriously.
And promote it shamelessly.
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.
Racism empowers Leftists. It’s the bastard child of class warfare. They need it it.
“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”.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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”.