President Obama today announced his choice for the high court seat soon to be vacated by David Souter. Sonia Sotomayor is Obama’s choice, and if you are a Democrat or an open-minded citizen, you’ll quickly discover that she is enormously gifted; that she is clearly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court bench (as opposed to Clarence Thomas, whose opinion output as a Supreme Jurist has been tepid, to say the least).
From what I’ve read, most insiders consider Sotomayor’s nomination will be an easy one and that no insurmountable obstacles will be erected. How could they? Obama is the President and it’s his choice. So first off, he’s not going to nominate an individual who is not similarly like-minded (I didn’t say, “who agrees with him on every issue”) and it is every President’s prerogative since Justices have been nominated to choose someone of like “characteristics.” Note to Republicans: it’s also called losing an election.
Of course the opposition party will bemoan the fact that she’s too liberal or too left of center — and who really knows whatever the hell they mean by these statements? They say these things because they have to; at this point they know as much about her as I do, and that’s what I’ve read on CNN online. My statement would apply to both Democrats and Republicans. It’s a game — the concerned opposition — and you simply have to play it. But in truth it’s also bullshit.
And that’s too bad. If the nominee were clearly able or not, the opposing party should at least say something like this: “While it appears on the surface that President Obama has made a very considerable selection, we will still need to go through the vetting process that the Republic requires.” No problem with that.
But what about loser legislators who announce beforehand, before they know who the choice will be, that they are going to filibuster the choice — no matter who it is? Are these people not simply stooges? I wonder if these people know jurisprudence from simple prudence? Actually I don’t wonder; I know that they do not.
What I do know is that there are so many imbecilic legislators, Democrat and Republican, that to submit this highly qualified individual for the Court amounts at least to a momentary public demeaning. It amounts to lesser talented, lesser intellectually equipped men and women (mostly men), to ask litmus test (read: inane) questions of someone who is infinitely brighter and better informed. Whoever said Democracy is messy is guilty of understatement.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Indeed, why would any fool dare to question an appointee handed down from the godlike authority of Obama. So what if she wants to take away our rights, shred the Constitution and enshrine political correctness on the bench. It would be wrong to ask her any tough questions.
Dave
2 - Jordan Richardson
It would also be wrong to read and consider the article, apparently, lest it get in the way of our continued one-note ramblings.
Honestly, Dave. Do you play any other songs?
3 - El Bicho
Hmm, I thought conservatives didn't want tough questions asked considering how hard they cried after Alito's wife cried.
4 - Clavos
This article could have been a lot shorter:
"Sonia Sotomayor is Obama’s choice, and if you are a Democrat or an open-minded citizen, you’ll quickly discover that she is enormously gifted; that she is clearly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court bench {and best of all, she's an activist liberal].
It would have said all you said without wasting bandwidth.
5 - Dr Dreadful
"there are so many imbecilic legislators ... that to submit this highly qualified individual for the Court amounts at least to a momentary public demeaning. It amounts to lesser talented, lesser intellectually equipped men and women ... to ask litmus test (read: inane) questions of someone who is infinitely brighter and better informed."
I disagree. Since most senators are or were at one time lawyers, I cannot think of a body better qualified to scrutinize an appointee to the highest legal job in the land.
6 - roger nowosielski
Clavos,
You should have edited this piece.
It's too late saying this after the fact.
7 - roger nowosielski
I don't happen to share your high opinion of lawyers, Doc.
8 - Dave Nalle
But Ckavos' version left out the key sentence:
"And if you don't like Sotomayor or moving the court to the left, just shut up."
Dave
9 - Bliffle
It looks like Obama picked someone who would move the supremes a millimeter to the left. And he'll undoubtedly get his way. Sort of a turnabout after Bush got two chances and moved the supremes two millimeters to the right. And that with a court that was right-leaning enough to rationalize the Bush v. Gore decision.
I don't know if Sotomayer is any good or not, or if she's a flaming bigot or whatever.
She must be a little dumb to step so incautiously into the race/sex issues, even tho those were not court statements but personal statements.
I heard the clip that they've been playing about the 'policy' business, and I thought she was not promoting policy-making but just reporting it.
The fact is that "The Law" is extremely flexible and one can prove anything and disprove everything. There is no doubt in my mind that a judge can reach a decision consistent with his prejudices quite easily. I've been to court a half dozen times and seen it.