Sotomayor as Supreme Court Pick

Mufasa · May 27, 2009, 12:22am

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I think she deserves a fair audit, and sitting on 2d Circuit affords a great deal of material to evaluate.

That said, first blush is disappointing. She doesn’t seem to generate a great deal of enthusiasm for her intellectual firepower - and that is among those agreeable to her ideology. While she satsfies the identity-politics wing of the Democratic Party, about the most praise anyone seems to give her is “competent”.

Ironically, in a perverted twist, identity-politics will prevent perhaps the best candidate - as measured by “intellectual firepower” - from being nominated: Cass Sunstein. One of the most distinguished jurists of his time (at least academically) and a reliable liberal, he never had a chance, being a white male.[/quote]

Question, Bolt:

Can the issue be boiled down simply to one being a “white male”…or is the issue that someone with “intellectual firepower” tends to leave a huge paper, audio and now video trail of personal opinions, books, papers and speeches? (ala Robert Bork).

Now…one could argue that we are “taking our chances” on someone without as extensive a paper trial. However, Judge Sotomayor has a record of some 700 plus judicial decisions to look at.

The consensus is that it will be VERY difficult to label her simply a “liberal” or “conservative” based on those decisions.

However, I’m sure many will try.

Mufasa

thunderbolt23 · May 27, 2009, 12:38am

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Can the issue be boiled down simply to one being a “white male”…or is the issue that someone with “intellectual firepower” tends to leave a huge paper, audio and now video trail of personal opinions, books, papers and speeches? (ala Robert Bork).[/quote]

In Sunstein’s case, I don’t think his “paper trail” would have hung him - he is well-known, well-regarded, and barring something very odd, I suspect his “paper trail” would have actually helped him. There is simply no way Obama could have nominated a white male - the moment Souter announced his retirement, the identity-politics pack began braying for the representation of a minority on the Court as an article of liberal faith.

And it isn’t just to placate his supporters - Obama values and trafficks in the same identity-politics: he believes appointing in this manner is the right thing to do.

[quote]Now…one could argue that we are “taking our chances” on someone without as extensive a paper trial. However, Judge Sotomayor has a record of some 700 plus judicial decisions to look at.

The consensus is that it will be VERY difficult to label her simply a “liberal” or “conservative” based on those decisions.[/quote]

She may have a mixed bag, but early reviews suggest she is reliably liberal, particularly on business issues (contrast from Souter). As I said earlier, I think she deserves a fair hearing on a review of her cases, but I also believe that if she was truly someone who couldn’t be labeled as solidly liberal, Obama would not have picked her. Obama’s own approach to jurisprudence is very left-wing, and he believes the Court should be an agent of social change. No way he sandbags this monumental opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court nominee with a disinterested moderate, in my view, and I suspect few will find her much of a “conservative”, even on a fair review.

jsbrook · May 27, 2009, 12:41am

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
This is a quote from the AP:

“Sotomayor, with 17 years on the bench, would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice confirmed in the past 70 years”.

I’ll admit that I probably know as much about her as you do HH…the hearings are for that.

What I am trying to grasp is the point you are trying to get across.

Isn’t the Court now, and has always been, mostly white males?

Mufasa

How many Caucasian males did Obama and His team interview? Were white males even remotely considered?

The issue is not the credentials of His choice, but whether He even had any white males in the running.

If the best person is chosen, wonderful. But was His pool of choices fair? LOL!!

you started this thread saying it was unfair because he didn’t take into account accomplishments by unknown white candidates.

and how do you know that obama had no white male candidates for the position?

now you’re saying its not credentials that should dictate who gets the position, instead your issue is that she had no white male opposition , regardless of their qualifications.

you flip and flop, and then argue that the president should have racial quotas in interview policy for the ussc.

and isn’t she against affirmative action? wouldn’t that be ironic.[/quote]

Obama was considering some white male candidates.

skaz05 · May 27, 2009, 12:42am

jsbrook · May 27, 2009, 12:44am

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
This is a quote from the AP:

“Sotomayor, with 17 years on the bench, would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice confirmed in the past 70 years”.

I’ll admit that I probably know as much about her as you do HH…the hearings are for that.

What I am trying to grasp is the point you are trying to get across.

Isn’t the Court now, and has always been, mostly white males?

Mufasa

How many Caucasian males did Obama and His team interview? Were white males even remotely considered?

The issue is not the credentials of His choice, but whether He even had any white males in the running.

If the best person is chosen, wonderful. But was His pool of choices fair? LOL!!

you started this thread saying it was unfair because he didn’t take into account accomplishments by unknown white candidates.

and how do you know that obama had no white male candidates for the position?

now you’re saying its not credentials that should dictate who gets the position, instead your issue is that she had no white male opposition , regardless of their qualifications.

you flip and flop, and then argue that the president should have racial quotas in interview policy for the ussc.

and isn’t she against affirmative action? wouldn’t that be ironic. [/quote]

Obama was considering some white male candidates. Carlos Moreno even made his short list. Oh, wait. He happens to be hispanic as well. So I guess that shouldn’t count (sarcasm)

jsbrook · May 27, 2009, 12:47am

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

She may have a mixed bag, but early reviews suggest she is reliably liberal, particularly on business issues (contrast from Souter). As I said earlier, I think she deserves a fair hearing on a review of her cases, but I also believe that if she was truly someone who couldn’t be labeled as solidly liberal, Obama would not have picked her. Obama’s own approach to jurisprudence is very left-wing, and he believes the Court should be an agent of social change. No way he sandbags this monumental opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court nominee with a disinterested moderate, in my view, and I suspect few will find her much of a “conservative”, even on a fair review.[/quote]

This is very true. But Obama is about as likely to appoint a conservative as George Bush would be to appoint a liberal. Opposition to a confirmation simply cannot rest on these grounds. Quite simply, the party that is not in power is NEVER going to be very happy. The judicial nominee will never represent their views.

thunderbolt23 · May 27, 2009, 1:09am

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

This is very true. But Obama is about as likely to appoint a conservative as George Bush would be to appoint a liberal. Opposition to a confirmation simply cannot rest on these grounds.[/quote]

I agree - but one additional problem: Obama’s own (and very recent) votes refusing to confirm Supreme Court justices. I don’t think it will derail Sotomayor, but the GOP can have a field day with it during the confirmation hearings.

jsbrook · May 27, 2009, 1:15am

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

This is very true. But Obama is about as likely to appoint a conservative as George Bush would be to appoint a liberal. Opposition to a confirmation simply cannot rest on these grounds.

I agree - but one additional problem: Obama’s own (and very recent) votes refusing to confirm Supreme Court justices. I don’t think it will derail Sotomayor, but the GOP can have a field day with it during the confirmation hearings.
[/quote]

Sure. The Democrats were just as guilty when the Republicans were in power.

Mufasa · May 27, 2009, 1:27am

Question for you guys:

Can the GOP really “afford” to beat-up Sotomayor too much?

They are surely going to ask her (and rightfully so) about her New Haven Firefighters decision (it’s a Reverse Discrimination case, that ironically, is going to heard by the Court); and a gaff she made at a seminar about the Courts “making” laws…

And I’m SURE that other decisions will be brought up (again…as they should be…)

But I just don’t think that the GOP can “afford” to be seen as “Ideological Bullies” during her confirmation hearings.

Mufasa

jsbrook · May 27, 2009, 5:38am

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Question for you guys:

Can the GOP really “afford” to beat-up Sotomayor too much?

They are surely going to ask her (and rightfully so) about her New Haven Firefighters decision (it’s a Reverse Discrimination case, that ironically, is going to heard by the Court); and a gaff she made at a seminar about the Courts “making” laws…

And I’m SURE that other decision will be brought up (again…as they should be…)

But I just don’t think that the GOP can “afford” to be seen as “Ideological Bullies” during her confirmation hearings.

Mufasa[/quote]

I wouldn’t call it a good strategy. But I think certain elements will be pretty hard on her. It just seems to be the way things have devolved. That’s how the parties play it these days. If they are smart, they’ll stick to the issues and be pretty fair. I think the mainstream elements of the party, in fact, might. And would be smart too. But the idealogues will harp on other things. These are likely to include:

The classic reort to ideology: “Judge Sotomayor is a liberal ideologue and ‘judicial activist.’”
She is dismissive of opinions with which she does not agree. They will probably primarily point disposition of the Ricci case (in which a panel on which Sotomayor sat affirmed the dismissal of white firefighters’ claims in a very short and initially unpublished opinion). I am already starting to see assertions all but stating that she ‘hates’ (white) fireman. (ala the Headhunter ilk). By the way, for the nonlawyers, a summary order explicitly adopting the reasoning of a lower court is not “burying” anything. That is a ridiculous assertion.
They’ll also probably whine that she is ‘impersonable and gruff,’ probably relying on excerpts from oral arguments and anonymous criticisms in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary. In fact, from what I’ve read of her questioning, her style is similar to Justice Scalia, a brilliant jurist by all accounts (whether you agree with his politics or not).

So, yeah, I’ll think she’ll get hit pretty hard by certain elements. But I think her confirmation is nonetheless almost certainly assured. And the bulk of the party will probably be reasonably fair.

thunderbolt23 · May 27, 2009, 1:59am

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Question for you guys:

Can the GOP really “afford” to beat-up Sotomayor too much?

They are surely going to ask her (and rightfully so) about her New Haven Firefighters decision (it’s a Reverse Discrimination case, that ironically, is going to heard by the Court); and a gaff she made at a seminar about the Courts “making” laws…

And I’m SURE that other decisions will be brought up (again…as they should be…)

But I just don’t think that the GOP can “afford” to be seen as “Ideological Bullies” during her confirmation hearings.[/quote]

It’s tricky - no doubt the GOP wants payback for Democratic shenanigans with Roberts and Alito. And whatever difficulty the provide, they can always claim that are adopting the “Obama standard”, who voted against Roberts - an imminently qualified appeals court judge - on a purely ideological basis.

Turning it into a ideological clown show won’t score points, though - the GOP already has a lack of serious leadership and opposition in Congress. Anything that strays from sober and serious will be amplified with the GOP’s weakness.

Headhunter · May 27, 2009, 2:12am