Judge Sotomayor appears to be a viable nominee to the Supreme Court.
The White House announced today (26 May 2009) that President Obama's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who has been a judge on the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since 1998 (nominated by President Clinton). Before that, she had been a judge on the also prestigious U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York since 1992 (nominated by President Bush the elder). Judge Sotomayor is an Hispanic, from the Bronx, and appears to be a "moderate" — whatever that word means. She is, in any event, Constitutionally qualified (there being no Constitutional qualifications whatever), has ample judicial experience, and whether I or anyone else may agree or disagree with some of the opinions she wrote while on the Court of Appeals, her nomination to the Court should be accepted by the Senate, unless something unforeseen comes to light. The question for the Senate to answer is not whether someone else would have been a superior nominee. There are quite likely many others with whom I personally would feel a greater affinity (or, perhaps, "empathy"). Senate Republicans have said that they intend to deal with her nomination fairly, and I anticipate that they will do so. I trust that the Democratic Senators will do so as well.…
Article comments
26 - El Bicho
Thanks for the clarification, Dan. Living in Orange County, CA, and surround by so many that claim the cardinal and gold of the Trojans (during football season)likely has me a little sensitive. That, and a lack of sleep.
Although considering all the dirt coming out from the investigation into numerous NCAA violations, there are quite a few similarities between the members of University of Southern Cal and the Congresscritters, which may have added to the confusion as well.
The duel at dawn will have to wait, so feel free to sleep in.
27 - Bliffle
The hearings have begun, so the Sotomayor discussion should resume.
I don't know whether she's going to be good or not (she will surely be confirmed), but it looks like she's no worse than any of the others.
As for the two common criticisms of her, here are my takes:
1-the concern over her "...a latina could give a better judgement...", I think she was just bragging about herself, not expressing a race prejudice.
2-the statement "...the appelate court is where policy is made..." is simply true. "Policy" IS made in courts. She said, at the time, that she realized this statement was contrary to the usual judicial bragging about "stare decisis", but when you think about it, all references to precedent are just like references to legislation. And if you've ever been in court you realize that judges DO make policy decisions. What they try to do is keep it consistent with other elements of precedent and statute.
I'm guessing that she'll be a liberal activist supreme (that's why Obama picked her), just as Roberts is a conservative activist supreme (that's why Bush picked him).