Patterico's Pontifications

5/27/2009

Sotomayor: Originally Picked, Not by GHWB, But by a Democrat Senator

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:25 am



Obama made a big deal yesterday out of the fact that Sonia Sotomayor was first appointed to the federal bench by George H.W. Bush, so it’s good to remember exactly how that happened. Byron York explains that Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan essentially got to hand-pick her as part of a longstanding arrangement he had with the other New York Senator.

Of course, even if GHWB had hand-picked her, that would hardly be a point in her favor . . . as evidenced by the man whom she is replacing.

Meanwhile, Beldar offers his take, which is very similar to my own. Elections have consequences. True, she’s not the absolute brightest bulb in the chandelier, and she has the liberal penchant for using race to determine what should be legal decisions. These facts should be revealed to the public, so that the public is reminded of the consequences of their election. But absent some new revelation, this nominee will be confirmed. This nominee is no Harriet Miers, and we could do worse. Nor will her confirmation change much about the court.

No need to keep your powder dry; if there are legitimate shots to take, we should take them. But I don’t see anything so far that justifies killing her nomination — other than the fact that we don’t like whom the President picked. Well, the answer to that is simple: next time, pick a better President.

25 Responses to “Sotomayor: Originally Picked, Not by GHWB, But by a Democrat Senator”

  1. Sorry to disagree, Patterico. Is Borking only legitimate for the left? And, ok, maybe Bork had it coming. But what about Thomas and Scalito, oops, excuse me, Alito?

    This is probably unfair and should not be used to attack Judge Sotomayor: Judge Sotomayor has been criticized for writing one-paragraph, curt and unhelpful opinions, in major cases. She should not be blamed for that. Although a Latina certainly has greater insight than anyone else in how to make a proper “cuba chine”, there’s only so much she can write with spraypaint.

    nk (e71733)

  2. She should be read her quotes about a wise Latina woman making a better jurist than a white male, repeatedly. Maybe even switch the identifiers around a bit, and see what kind of reaction they provoke.

    JD (fdabd3)

  3. The whole “she was originally nominated by Bush” meme is remarkable, since as Patterico points out, it was a deal with the Dem NY Senator(s), and also, that the Left has spent years making the Bush family out to be evil. Also, Bush nominated Souter, and we have all witnessed Leftists make the claim that since Bush nominated him, he is a conservative. I would rather enjoy one of them trying to make that case about this fine lady.

    JD (fdabd3)

  4. One more thing. About her being “tough of crime”. From Patterico’s previous post.

    We had a judge in Cook County who was really tough on criminals. He gave them the maximum. It turned out that it was a cover for the ones he let off altogether because they had the money to pay him off. He blew out his brains in Arizona when the Feds caught on to him. Judge Rovner, of the Seventh Circuit, wanted to reverse all his convictions because she considered him not a judge but a criminal enterprise.

    I am not saying this lady is like that. But “tough on crime” is a real easy cover for other liberal/fascist leanings. Who cares if a few lowlifes who cannot afford a decent lawyer get railroaded, if the result is that a wise Latina will make it to the U.S. Supreme Court?

    nk (e71733)

  5. I love the way Obama’s vetting team thinks that her having been nominated by Bush Sr. is going to somehow provide her with conservative bona fides among the American people.

    danebramage (700c93)

  6. Agreed. The last time the Republicans seriously opposed a Supreme Court nominee, it was Abe Fortas in 1968. And he turned out to be getting payoffs from the mob.

    The press is pre-spinning this so that Republican acquiescence looks like fear, rather than normal acquiescence to a qualified appointment. The Republicans need to make a nuisance of themselves in pointing out how infrequently they mount opposition to SC appointments.

    Unlike Democrats (who filibuster everything), Republicans voted overwhelmingly for Breyer and Ginsberg. And, barring the unforseen, will do so again this time. The only one in recent memory Republicans deep-sixed was Miers.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  7. Kevin – None of that has anything to do with Teh Narrative TM, and it will not be heard outside of political blogs. The MSM will never ever ever ever ever actually make those points. It will be Republicans cower in fear, Republicans trying to woo Hispanic voters, and racist Republicans.

    JD (fdabd3)

  8. It’s possible that aphrael might be interested that Professor Epstein at the U of Chicago law school where Obama was an adjunct instructor seems share my opinion of the nomination. No, I didn’t call him and force him to agree with me.

    Evidently, the characteristics that matter most for a potential nominee to the Supreme Court have little to do with judicial ability or temperament, or even so ephemeral a consideration as a knowledge of the law. Instead, the tag line for this appointment says it all. The president wants to choose “a daughter of Puerto Rican parents raised in Bronx public housing projects to become the nation’s first Hispanic justice.”

    Obviously, none of these factors disqualifies anyone for the Supreme Court. But affirmative action standards are a bad way to pick one of the nine most influential jurists in the U.S., whose vast powers can shape virtually every aspect of our current lives.

    She will be very bad for business, even small business, as Mark Steyn points out.

    The authors of various freelance contributions to the Times sued over the paper’s subsequent licensing of their writing to electronic databases that then re-sold the pieces to customers for $3.95 per. It was a fairly obvious breach of the 1976 Copyright Act, as well as of the more basic principle that rights not specifically assigned remain with the owner.

    Judge Sotomayor cheerfully sided with the Times, a ruling that (as appears to be not uncommon with this jurist) was subsequently overturned at the Supreme Court — 7-2 (with David Souter being among the seven).

    It appears that she does little deep thinking and instinctively sides with the statists.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  9. This is the sort of “bi-partisanship” practiced by Bush #41 that caused me to change my voter registration from R to I in the early 1990’s. Bush #43’s nomination of Harriet Miers only reinforced my opinion that any Bush is feckless. Too bad that the “Bush Dynasty” squandered away “Reagan Country” with their appeasement of the left that Reagan so distrusted.

    I realize that this thread is about Obama and Sotomayor, however, sometimes a look at where we have been tells us why we are here NOW!

    C. Norris (7000c5)

  10. “It will be Republicans cower in fear, Republicans trying to woo Hispanic voters, and racist Republicans.”

    Oh for God’s sake! Must Republicans constantly cower in fear over the MSM? RR uttered in jest that “We begin bombing in five minutes” and, within a decade, the Soviet Union was no more. Without firing a shot. The only thing Republicans have to fear is other Republicans (McCain, Graham to name a few). The MSM and the Dems are a given. As a former soldier knowing who my enemy really is, is preferable to wondering if my “ally” is truly committed. The Repub’s in the Senate confirmation hearings should spare Sotomayer no quarter, for any reason, in their questions and examination. “Don’t go wobbly, George”!

    C. Norris (7000c5)

  11. What a bunch of crybabies. Get the hell over it.

    JEA (0ccd61)

  12. “Well, the answer to that is simple: next time, pick a better President.”

    The media picked our president. We need a better electorate.

    Enron Diego (1f35d9)

  13. I’m relieved that, inasmuch as we (conservatives) must suffer a loss ANYway on this one,

    the pick obviously is NOT of top intellectual and writing ability. She’s probably a notch or two less smart than Souter and roughly as liberal (which is pretty liberal).

    What I mean is, It could be worse. There are some extremely good thinkers and writers of the legal left out there. Sure, some aren’t confirmable, but many are — Kagan, Sullivan, et al. — and Sotomayor sure ain’t in their class. Perhaps that is the silver lining here.

    Mitch (890cbf)

  14. Moinihan recommended her and Bush liked what he heard. Patterico makes it seem as if Bush had a gun pointed to his head.

    Andrew (2038de)

  15. JEA – Thank you for such an eloquent and insightful comment. This “shut the hell up” idea seems to be quite a popular phrase for the Leftists.

    JD (241e9b)

  16. Is it not amazing the way the MSM is celebrating this lesbian? I mean…Estrada was satan. He was a “Conservative”…..and you can’t have one of those.

    But this broad is all…hispanic niceness, with a “compelling” life story.

    Are you as sick of the MSM as I am?

    Increase Mather (4deffc)

  17. Good post, P.

    I hate to see reason employed on the conservative side. I’d rather see the GOP and its surrogates punch itself out on issues like this, where they will have zero impact on the outcome, while real work gets done by the Dems in the mean time re: economy, energy, health care.

    This “media picked our president” meme is hilarious. Did the media pick Bush, too (twice)? If that’s the case, I agree with people who say the media definitely shouldn’t be picking presidents.

    Myron (98529a)

  18. I hate to see reason employed on the conservative side. I’d rather see the GOP and its surrogates punch itself out on issues like this, where they will have zero impact on the outcome, while real work gets done by the Dems in the mean time re: economy going into the automobile, banking and insurance business, energy performing fellatio on King Abdullah, [destroying] health care.

    nk (e71733)

  19. The media picked Bush? In what universe? You could drop a bomb on NY Times HQ and no McCain voters would be harmed.

    Well over half of Obama voters didn’t even know the Dems had been running Congress the prior two years. The press had to keep that nugget away from the people so they could keep up the ‘Bush is a disaster’ meme. The people would have been confused if they learned there was a Dem Congress while the economy went to hell.

    The fact that someone can call the press infatuation with Obama a false meme when less than a year ago Hillary Clinton and Howard Wolfson both made the same charge – even saying the only outlet that had been fair to them was Fox News. Hell, even Chris Mathews acknowledges his bias, but notes it’s okay cause Obama is cool and stuff.

    EBJ (2fd7f7)

  20. Real work on the economy, energy, and healthcare. No thanks.

    JD (a047b4)

  21. nk: I didn’t say you had to like the work being done. The point is — only one party’s doing it.

    Myron (a5d1ef)

  22. If by “real work” on the economy you mean quadrupling the federal deficit, then, yes, I guess the Dems are doing real work on the economy.

    “Nothing” is often a wise thing to do. Especially if the alternative is doing something bone-jarringly stupid.

    Steverino (69d941)

  23. “as part of a longstanding arrangement he had with the other New York Senator.”

    There’s another longstanding arrangement called the constitution, and it says presidents appoint judges.

    “The last time the Republicans seriously opposed a Supreme Court nominee, it was Abe Fortas in 1968. And he turned out to be getting payoffs from the mob.”

    The last time republicans opposed a nominee was Harriet Miers.

    imdw (d40e75)

  24. The point is — only one party’s doing it.

    And we would appreciate it if they would just quit.

    JD (acaf96)

  25. Patterico, I basically agree with your take.

    I would add one more point. This is an affirmative action nomination. Her gender and ethnicity were the deciding factors. She is qualified for the position, but far from brilliant or a great liberal intellect.

    Now from a liberal POV this should be a great disappointment. The liberals should want a great liberal legal mind — the equivalent of a Scalia. Instead they get an adequate mediocrity whose main qualification is that she is a Latina.

    Savor the irony. As Shakespeare said it:

    For ’tis the sport to have the enginer
    Hoist with his own petar.

    The libs’ own identity politics has resulted in their getting a second-rate choice. Let’s be happy about that.

    Bored Lawyer (bc8f63)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0784 secs.