There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor will be easily confirmed by Congress. The question is will the Republicans go all out against her or will they let this one go. Conservatives' worst nightmare would be an unapologetic activist judge who also happens to be a judicial visionary and a leader (think the yang to Scalia or Roberts' ying). This should not be a concern with Judge Sotomayor. Everything from her rulings, opinions and even the controversies surrounding her are fairly mediocre. Her only distinction is that the US Supreme Court has no Hispanic representation.
President Obama has chosen someone whose only real qualification over her peers is her tough Puerto Rican background. It is only natural that he would pick someone whose personal background is far more inspiring than her professional one. In her years of experience on the bench Ms. Sotomayor has issued judgments that have no bearing on the larger picture. None of her rulings have set long lasting precedent on important issues nor has she written opinion that is a must read in law schools. The few high profile cases that she issued rulings on include the MLB strike and the Ricci vs. DeStefano case. The strike was a fairly straightforward labor dispute and the Ricci vs. case will in all probability be overturned by the US Supreme Court next month. Sotomayor the judge seems to be just one of many replaceable civil servants that keep the justice system running.
Although Judge Sotomayor seems to possess a concerning sense of superiority because she happens to be a 'Latina woman', she does not appear to be a blatant liberal. Clearly her statements at Duke and Berkley will get a lot of attention but it is interesting to see how she immediately tried to parse and retract (badly) her statement that 'appellate court is where policy is made'. This is not a sign of an overtly activist judge.
Moreoever Judge Sotomayor has a few rulings that should go over well with conservatives. Her ruling in favor of freezing government aid to foreign groups that use it for abortion related activities suggests she does not always try and interject personal beliefs into her judgments. Similarly her dissent on a 2002 case involving anonymous racist comments over the police radio is encouraging in terms of willingness to uphold the First amendment. An explanation about the ‘abomination’ statement should provide insights into her stance on crime and punishment. Hopefully she did not 'identify' and/or ‘empathize’ with that particular drug offender.
Article comments
1 - roger nowosielski
What had diabetes got to do with it?
2 - Ruvy
It just makes the woman a bit sweeter, Roger - well, it makes her blood sweeter, anyway....
3 - Bliffle
Good article. IMO this is the most thoughtful BC article summarizing the Sotomayor appointment.
4 - roger nowosielski
Just read it and I agree.
5 - Krutic A
The reason for 'diabetic' in the title is that she seems to have been considered for everything but her legal mind. If you read the headlines surrounding her, neither her achievements not her controversies (with the exception of the Ricci case) stem from her judicial experience.
She came up from a tough neighborhood and made something of herself, she's a latina, she lives with diabetes..so lets put her on the Supreme Court.
That seems to be the way the story has unfolded. She is just one of many good (but by no means extraordinary) judges and would have been passed over without a second thought if she weren't hispanic.
6 - Bliffle
"...would have been passed over without a second thought if she weren't hispanic."
Quite possibly true.
But she may have been chosen for relative safety: a rather mild personality unlikely to embarass BHO after appointment (the current scandals are pretty mild, after all, and aren't sufficient to cause any great confirmation trouble).
Maybe this is like so many Judicial decisions themselves: chosen not because they are clearly pointed to, but rather because a bad result later is unlikely to stain the author.