In an unsurprising move, the White House announced this morning that President Obama has picked Second Circuit Court Of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter.
Sotomayor, a New York native born in a housing project in the shadow of Yankee Stadium, is the child of Puerto Rican parents. As such, if confirmed by the Senate, she will be the first Hispanic to sit on the nation's highest court.
A graduate of Princeton and Yale Law School, Sotomayor has experience as a prosecutor and as a private attorney. She was appointed to the federal bench in the Southern District of New York in 1992.
Though ironically first appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Sotomayor was named to the Appellate court by President Clinton. One of her first significant decisions, which is widely credited with saving Major League Baseball in 1995, was to rule in favor of the players against the owners in their strike which resulted in the cancellation of the World Series.
In another decision, she sided with the principles of affirmative action and identity politics by deciding against white firefighters suing the city of New Haven, CT, in a discrimination case brought by them after the city scotched the results of a promotion exam in which only one minority individual (ironically a Latino) had a high enough qualifying score. In yet another irony, this case is now before the Supreme Court.
Her nomination is the first by a Democratic President in 15 years. With four months to go before the October opening of the Court's fall session, the Senate will have more than sufficient time to discuss and confirm her.
Republicans are sending mixed signals as to their reactions to the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. Some have indicated they will filibuster if they consider Obama's appointee too liberal, while others, perhaps mindful of the large Latino voting population, are taking a more moderate stance.
If confirmed, she will become the second female Justice on this Court, joining sitting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
This should be fun. She has a history of statements which suggest she believes in large scale judicial activism.
Dave
2 - Doug Hunter
[Edited] It is en vogue among the leftists who run this country to bash white males so this statement is not currently considered racist in the same way it would be if the roles were reversed.
The decision in regards to the racism via whites is easily explainable through the core of leftist race philosophy. Whites are stereotyped as semi-evil oppressors whereas everyone else is a victim based on simply being born a different color. (and all this time you thought stereotyping was bad and being colorblind a virtue.. how the trap has been sprung for you!) The case, with white plaintiffs, didn't fit the stereotype, didn't set off her empathy alarm, and therefore must be dismissed.
Had the races of the plaintiffs been reversed I can guarantee you with 98% accuracy the decision of the court would have been reversed. This is a new day though, things are a changin whether it be the interpretation of the constitution, the definition of marriage, or even what constitutes racism.
3 - Christine Lakatos
Sotomayor seems qualified, however, I think she is biased, something she needs to tame down in my opinion....and that is coming from a women (who happens to be part Spanish)!
4 - HH
You've all completely missed the context of the above quote. She is saying that an Latina woman is better suited to make decisions for Latina women. Just like an old white man is better better qualified to empathise with the "plight" of old white men.
5 - Baronius
HH, don't you believe in equal treatment under the law? Shouldn't a good judge make desisions based on the law, rather than empathy? Sotomayor is going to rule on cases involving people of all races and both sexes. She shouldn't aspire to be a good justice for Latinas any more than a white male justice should focus on his race and sex.
6 - Jeannie Danna
Dave, BULL.....She does not have a "history" of statements which suggest she believes in large scale judicial activism...
Cite one case that Federal Judge Soytamayor ruled on that had this outcome you "suggest."
You can't start innuendo and wink wink nod nod here dear...
She was a good choice for Bush 41, Clinton 42, and Obama 44..what makes you an expert?
It's whack a mole time I see...damn now I'll never get my articles published!
7 - Jeannie Danna
What is wrong with fostering a rich and diverse culture in this country through education and good solid decent role models?
I am going to rename the GOP the "petty party." It is made up of hard dried up men and women who never amounted to much that are seething with jealousy ...Obama hit the Senate and became President of the United States of America in 2 count em 2 years! Now we have the first Latina woman headed to the supreme court bench. Get out of her way so she can sit down!
8 - Bliffle
Clavos' article states:
"Republicans are sending mixed signals as to their reactions to the nomination of Judge Sotomayor."
Mixed? I don't think so. They published antagonistic articles before anyone was nominated.
It seems clear to me that the republicans have decided to say "no" to anyone Obama nominates.
So they really ARE becoming the Party Of NO.
9 - Dave Nalle
Better the party of no than the party which puts the final nails in the coffin of the constitution.
This clip alone ought to give anyone pause to think twice about Sotomayor.
Dave
10 - Clavos
I am going to rename the GOP the "petty party." It is made up of hard dried up men and women who never amounted to much...
That's an interesting comment, and would probably be news to people like Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, not to mention thousands and thousands of successful businessmen, physicians, teachers, attorneys, judges, military personnel, etc.
11 - Cindy
#9
In Dave's world pretending is a big part of reality. Must be hard to take when someone says something honest. She didn't make it that way Dave. She's calling it like she sees it.
12 - RJ
Even the leftist magazine "The New Republic" expressed concerns about Sotomayor's qualifications, intelligence, and temperament.
But identity politics is all that matters to the Dems and the MSM, so she'll likely be confirmed with about 75 yea votes (with many "moderate" Republicans cowering in fear over the thought of voting against her and being denounced as "sexist" and "racist" by the "objective" media).
She's not the most qualified potential nominee. Not by a long shot. But, hey, she has a uterus and she's not White, so she's good enough for 0bama!
13 - RJ
JD,
It was actually four years. Count 'em. F-o-u-r.
14 - El Bicho
Bingo, Cindy.
15 - Jordan Richardson
What exactly is the problem with that clip they keep showing? I've seen it a few times rolling around on the various news shows and I can't quite fathom why it would send so many people into paranoid uproar.
16 - El Bicho
Jordan, you need a schoolboy naivety about how the judicial system actually works.
17 - Baronius
Bliffle, the Party of No? Look at the current justices and their Senate confirmation votes -
Nominated by Republicans:
Roberts 78-22
Stevens 98-0
Scalia 98-0
Kennedy 97-0
Alito 58-42
Thomas 52-48
Nominated by Democrats:
Ginsburg 97-3
Breyer 87-9
Note that the four most recent confirmation votes average out to 68-32 during the Bush administration and 92-6 during the Clinton administration. Which party politicizes the process?
18 - RJ
From the NYT:
In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge "may and will make a difference in our judging."
In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion -- often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O'Connor -- that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
"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," said Judge Sotomayor.
So, she's basically a sexist and a racist. But, in the Orwellian Bizarro World in which we presently reside, it will be those who point out her divisive remarks who are denounced as "sexist" and "racist" by the "objective" media.
Sigh...
19 - Baronius
Jordan, if the clip is the one Dave linked to, the problem is that in our system, courts aren't supposed to set policy. That being said, I think that her comments were fine in context.
20 - Clavos
...the problem is that in our system, courts aren't supposed to set policy.
Bar, you are but a naive schoolboy...
21 - El Bicho
Actually, the "New Republic" actually expressed the concerns of others, many of whom were unnamed sources.
In an article posted today at TNR, the same author of the piece RJ alluded to states, "Of course, Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed to the Supreme Court."
And in response to many, like RJ, who have trouble with reading comprehension when they have already formed an opinion, he goes on to write, "Conservatives are already citing my initial piece on Sotomayor as a basis for opposing her. This willfully misreads both my piece and the follow-up response. "
22 - RJ
From The New Republic:
[T]here are ... many reservations about Sotomayor. Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.
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." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?") Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: "She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media."
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.
Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)
...
It's possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities. But they're not motivated by sour grapes or by ideological disagreement--they'd like the most intellectually powerful and politically effective liberal justice possible. And they think that Sotomayor ... may not meet that demanding standard. Given the stakes, the president should obviously satisfy himself that he has a complete picture before taking a gamble.
The New Republic is clearly a racist and sexist right-wing rag.
23 - Jordan Richardson
But doesn't she say "cuz we don't make law, I know" or something along those lines? And then she goes on to say "I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it."
So how does that amount to anything worth noting?
In fairness, I guess my question ought to be more directed at Mr. Nalle.
24 - Jeannie Danna
I didn't think it was a good idea to have Dave editing my article he is too busy making comments here. I want another editor so I am submitting in Culture. I also forwarded a copy of that little note you wrote Dave.
25 - Cindy
Jordan,
I guess people don't have Baronius' sense of context. They'd apparently prefer a judge who would not tell them the truth about how things really work. I guess it allows them to pretend things work the way they are supposed to, if no one actually...you know...talks about it.
El B- I hope my bingo prize is not one of those afghans crocheted in multicolored polyester yarn. I don't like those.