Patterico's Pontifications

5/26/2009

Obama Nominates Sotomayor

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:24 am



Back on May 3, I predicted Obama would choose Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, purely for political/group representation:

I am going to predict that Sonia Sotomayor will be Obama’s nominee to replace Souter. Conventional wisdom is that he “has” to pick a woman. He won the 2008 election on the strength of the Latino vote in the West, and no doubt feels that it will shore up his standing among Latinos to appoint the first Latina to the High Court. Sure, it would be a grander gesture closer to the next election . . . but who knows if he’ll get another chance?

It’s not like it makes me a genius to have been right — but I was right:

President Obama will nominate appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, officials said, making her the first Hispanic in history to be elevated to the high court.

. . . .

Sotomayor’s work as a judge is not without controversy. During a speech at the University of California at Berkeley, Sotomayor said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Hey, not all my predictions pan out, so I have to make the most of them when they do.

Sotomayor will almost certainly be confirmed, but she does appear to be one of the more leftist of the nominees that had been under consideration. Empathy über alles, dontcha know. Republicans should (emphasis on should) be able to have a field day showing how she’ll move the law to the left.

64 Responses to “Obama Nominates Sotomayor”

  1. This Judge shouldn’t be on the bench, let alone a Supreme Court Justice. Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer are 3 sins the GOP have committed against the Country.

    PCD (02f8c1)

  2. Che in a rob.

    Alta Bob (c5319c)

  3. Empathy trumps the law.

    Is this the same lady that thought the Appeals Court was where policy is written?

    JD (815958)

  4. Sotomayor was first appointed to the Federal bench by President George Herbert Walker Bush.

    Official Internet Data Office (f918cf)

  5. Just great – another triumph of “feelings” over the actual rule of the law.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  6. Republicans should (emphasis on should) be able to have a field day showing how she’ll move the law to the left.

    To do so, they need to give up fighting ’empathy’ per se (spare the rants, you can count the people who care about process without having to take your socks off) and instead focus on highlighting and objecting to the end result of her specific empathy… and in particular, “how she’ll move the law to the left” in ways that run counter to the interests of most Americans (for example, by showing how decisions that benefit hispanic women aren’t all that good for white men, white women, blacks, asians and, perhaps, even hispanic men. Yes, it is ‘divisive’, but empathy is a zero sum game, the benefits one group gets comes at the expense of everybody not in that group.. and the GOP can’t be afraid).

    And they GOP has to remember that while they’re not going to win this battle (absent some personal scandal, they’re not going to get the votes to keep her off the Court), they’re looking for ammunition to use in 2010 and 2012 against the Democrats who vote to confirm her.

    steve sturm (369bc6)

  7. Can someone bring some fact to the table with respect to her alleged lunacy?

    I don’t doubt she is a crazy boricua who believes in freebies for all except those who earn it but looking for some help here …..

    HeavenSent (ac3026)

  8. Does anyone have her judicial record handy?

    Michael Ejercito (365b6d)

  9. *shameless plug*

    Some questions for Sotomayor and a link to some of her decisions over at the Jury site.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  10. #9…Read everything you can find on the New Haven firefighters case that is currently before the Supreme Court.

    AD - RtR/OS! (428ddf)

  11. Has the S.C. reversed most of her recent decisions? Isn’t that a clue as to her thinking versus the thinking of the high court? Would we really have a better judiciary with her on it as well?

    Corwin (ea9428)

  12. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

    “Better conclusion” – for a racial spoils system, but not for the country at large. As a participant in constitutional law, this candidate is poison.

    Insufficiently Sensitive (a939d1)

  13. […] Patterico – Empathy über alles, dontcha know. Republicans should (emphasis on should) be able to have a field day showing how she’ll move the law to the left. […]

    Sotomayor around the web « Dull Razor (7be474)

  14. It was quite an experience this morning, listening to Obama recite all his lofty, apolitical reasons for choosing Sotomayo; knowing all the while that Patterico had nailed down the choice weeks in advance as being made for the basest of political reasons.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (e5f110)

  15. It was quite an experience this morning, listening to Obama recite all his lofty, apolitical reasons for choosing Sotomayor; knowing all the while that Patterico had nailed down the choice weeks in advance as being made for the basest of political reasons.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (e5f110)

  16. Thank goodness that now that Obama is president we are finally to the point where race doesn’t matter. Except, you know, anytime he does anything.

    Patrick (d1311f)

  17. Libertarians blast Sotomayor pick
    Obama Court nominee ruled government should discriminate based on race

    WASHINGTON — America’s third largest party Tuesday criticized President Barack Obama’s nomination of federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, citing past rulings that public employers should discriminate in hiring based on race.

    “While Judge Sotomayor deserves a fair and impartial hearing, Supreme Court justices should be nominated for their thorough knowledge of and adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law,” said William Redpath, Libertarian National Committee Chairman.

    “By nominating Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama has made it clear he prefers an activist for his personal causes over a rational interpreter of law,” said Redpath.

    According to Cato Institute Vice President for Legal Affairs Roger Pilon, Sotomayor is “the most radical of all the frequently mentioned candidates before him.”

    Sotomayor is best known for the Ricci v. DeStafano case, in which the New Haven, Conn. fire department decided it didn’t like the results of an officers promotion exam in which whites and Hispanic firefighters outperformed black firefighters. The city threw out the results of the exam, denying several firefighters promotions solely because of their race. The firefighters sued the city, claiming racial discrimination under Title VVI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    The Cato Institute, Reason Foundation and the Individual Rights Foundations filed briefs on behalf of the firefighters, citing the absurdity of allowing public employers to throw out the results of valid, race-neutral exams that produce racial disparity because the racial disparity produced wasn’t politically correct. The firefighters and the libertarian foundations filing briefs argued that public employment practices should be color-blind.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (e5f110)

  18. How is a test that does not ask the participants about their ethnic descent supposed to be racist?

    Michael Ejercito (365b6d)

  19. #9 Corwin….Rush just stated that she has been overturned FOUR times by the SCOTUS, three times on legal reasoning, i.e., on the interpretation of the existing law.

    reff (b996d9)

  20. There was a deal whereby Senator D’Amato (R) and Senator Moynihan (D) would split the nominees to the New York district court made by President Bush I. Sontamyar was one of the Moynihan selections.

    bio mom (a1e126)

  21. One affirmative action politician nominates another. What could be simpler than that ?

    Mike K (2cf494)

  22. Has it been ‘her’ decision, or the decision the panel she was on made? I’m not trying to split hairs, but does anyone have a link to how she ruled (not the panel) and what the Supreme Court reversed? Was it part of her ruling, the entire ruling, etc.?
    From the explanation I found on CNN ([object]), it really looks like she has been reversed most of the time. But the specifics aren’t included.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  23. Sorry I’m late guys. What did I miss? I didn’t get a chance to hear Rush’s show today so I am not up to date on what I am supposed to think about the nomination, other than that I am to hate it of course.

    This girl isn’t qualified to do anything in law. Now all of the sudden these libs think that graduating from Yale law makes you qualified to be a judge? And I know that 41 nominated her for a US district court when he was president, but we all know that he was not a conservative. He must have been trying to fill quotas just like Baracky.

    Johnnee (fccb0b)

  24. So is “Johnee” a sockpuppet of “Jeffrey Diamond” ?

    SPQR (72771e)

  25. […] personal causes over a rational interpreter of law. Michelle Malkin: Identity politics triumphs. Patterico: Sotomayor will almost certainly be confirmed, but she does appear to be one of the more leftist of […]

    Obama’s Supreme Error in Judgement « Caleb Posner’s Blog (fb5591)

  26. If a troll screeches anything regarding Rush Limbaugh in a forest, does anyone hear it?

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  27. Dmac- good one

    Ditto comment #19 (and 9)

    Does it make a difference what the denominator is, i.e., 4 of 4 reversed vs 4/24 reversed?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  28. I don’t think she’ll make it all the way. I think she is a sacrificial pinata tossed at Hispanic and women voters. If my cynicism is correct, this nomination is a form of calculated “hate crime” by this President. The real nominee will be after she withdraws herself from nomination. Who is that? I don’t know! I wish it were Janice Rogers Brown, but I won’t hold my breath.

    C. Norris (7000c5)

  29. She was appointed to the Second Circuit by Clinton. Erections have consequences.

    nk (e71733)

  30. I see comments referring to the political reasons behind this pick (a gift to women and hispanics–wow, a 2-for-1!). Anothre point someone made was that her life story is similar in many respects to Obama’s so their is an affinity there…..
    HOWEVER, show me an example in human history where affinity did not play into a decision like this one. It always has and it always will. The “old boy network” has taken some hits, but it is still alive and its extinction would only usher in a new network of African-Americans, Hispanics, women etc..
    As history has proved repeatedly, we don’t always get the best results when the decision is made this way(see George “W” for details), but it is hard to fight human nature.
    This only first here is that the nominee is an Hispanic, not that there were political or personal motivations behind it.

    Tim McFadden (aad4e0)

  31. I don’t know, I kind of like the pick. She can’t be any more of a reliable lefty vote than Souter. And my concern was that Obama would appoint someone who was a consensus builder able to garner other justices’ support for his views (like Brennan) or has the intellectual firepower to write memorable opinions that assist in the development of his view of the law (like Scalia). From what I have read, she doesn’t sound like she fits into either category.

    BTW, the folks over at Volokh have a ranking system showing she is pretty marginal compared to other appellate judges. http://volokh.com/posts/1242229209.shtml

    Roscoe (bf8a22)

  32. “…over at Volokh…”
    Imagine that, lawyers who actually argue constitutional questions, and take them seriously, have concerns about this selection?
    Don’t these guys read the LAT for their guidance?

    AD - RtR/OS! (428ddf)

  33. This is a case where we need to make our points not on Judge Sotomayor herself, but on President Obama’s judicial philosophy, the blending of the law as passed by the legislature with whatever notions of justice the judge in question has to have. How can the old maxim, “ignorance of the law is no excuse” be held if the law does not mean what it says it means, but is a blending of what the legislature passed and the judge of the moment thinks is right?

    This is a confirmation in which the Republicans ought not to filibuster but should vote against confirmation; it won’t stop her from taking a seat on the Supreme Court, but it expresses the philosophical difference without attacking the individual.

    And there’s really no reason to stop Judge Sotomayor, because even if we did block her confirmation, President Obama would simply appoint someone just as bad — if not worse.

    The real action that has to be taken is to unseat President Obama in the 2012 election. Nothing else will serve.

    The frustrated Dana (3e4784)

  34. So is “Johnee” a sockpuppet of “Jeffrey Diamond” ?

    Comment by SPQR — 5/26/2009 @ 11:05 am

    I think that EdfromPA creates these Mobys using JD’s initials as part of some big inside joke.

    Seriously, SCOTUSblog has a very even-handed review of her jurisprudence.

    carlitos (a0089e)

  35. P: Congrats on the prediction. Even though she was the one most talked about, nothing in politics is in the bag.

    PCD: Ah, you’re one of the few who remember Republican “culpability” in approving Ginsburg and Breyer — two of the most liberal justices. They were approved by big numbers, too (96 to 3 and 87-9, respectively). That seems like a long time ago.

    We saw with Roberts that, no matter how qualified a nominee is, his political leaning will cost him some votes (in his case, Obama’s, among others).

    I’m on the left side of the aisle with O., but I believe a conservative president cannot be expected to appoint other than a conservative pick. Same goes for liberal presidents. If the pick knows the law, is competent and is not a zealot or complete nut, he or she should get on, period.

    Mike K: Obama wasn’t appointed. He was elected. This is in reference to your curious “affirmative action” comment.

    Bio mom is correct, that while Bush 41 did appoint Sotomayor, it was part of a bipartisan deal.

    It’s interesting that she will replace Souter, a Bush 41 appointee. I guess hard-core conservatives looking for another reason to dismiss the Bush Fam as moderate have more fodder.

    Anyway, Obama has the numbers, so he will get his nominee(a la Roberts, Alito). Unless she is way, way out in outerspace in a way that is not yet evident (a la Miers).

    Myron (98529a)

  36. Actually, Myron, what we saw with Roberts was that the Democrats had changed the ground rules on Supreme Court nominees. Democrats in the Senate decided that your belief on appointees did not apply anylonger. We’ll have to see if that bites them back with Sotomayor.

    SPQR (72771e)

  37. C’mon, SPQR (#35): it’s always different when there is an “R” associated with the name. Remember? You and I might call it hypocrisy, and we would be told that we need to have a more “mature” outlook on realpolitik.

    But we are not wrong.

    I’m with you: stick by your rules. No changing them based on partisan identification.

    Eric Blair (0793db)

  38. SPQR: I can’t argue with you. The Roberts vote was Democrats playing politics. Republicans could have done the same with Ginsburg/Breyer, but did not.

    It was inexcusable for Roberts to only get a 68-22 vote when not one solid objection was raised as to his qualifications.

    Myron (98529a)

  39. After emulating Bush on national security, Obama felt he had to throw some red meat to the base. If only Sotomayor were gay, too!

    Patricia (2183bb)

  40. Shocka!

    No not really. Just imagine the least qualified of the serious contenders (nobody thought Nepalitano was a serious runner did they?). Just think of the most egregiously dismissive of our Constitution and the rule of law. Just think of the race and cards and gender cards (you know like the big political score GW Bush got from appointing Condi Rice. OK, OK, bad example).

    All hail Justice Souter-mayor.

    MJBrutus (443572)

  41. I think that her quote about a wise Latina woman being a more capable jurist than a white male should be repeated, ad nauseum. Also, it should be asked of her in the confirmation hearings if she would agree with that were the races and genders switched. She should also be asked about her view that the appellate court forms policy. But, she will not be, as the MSM will be too busy with Teh Narrative and the Republicans have no spine.

    JD (fdabd3)

  42. And she is not the first Hispanic nominated to the SC, unless being Portugese does not count. Cardozo would prolly be pissed.

    JD (fdabd3)

  43. Congrats, and kudos to Myron, for displaying some intellectual honesty. Never thought I would say that.

    JD (fdabd3)

  44. There is no mileage to be gained from an overly agressive opposition to her.

    In many ways she represents a political opportunity for the GOP.

    There is not one fire-breathing liberal on the Court right now. Stevens and Ginsberg are the most liberal, but neither are terribly outspoken either from the bench or in public. Breyer is more of a pragmatic liberal, as was Souter.

    Sotomayor will put an excessively liberal face on the Court, and Obama will own her and all that she says or does. For the next 3 1/2 years the GOP will be able to point to her and her opinions/speeches as the consequences of the Presidential election.

    She is intemperate and outspoken. She has hidden her political views for years while she waited for this moment. Some of the most controversial cases she has participated in — like the New Haven firefighters case — were resolved with short “memorandum” decisions just so she wouldn’t have to sign her name to anything controversial. Those decisions are the judicial equivalent of voting “present” when you know the vote is going to go your way.

    But there will be no hiding on the SCOTUS. Her views will come into full bloom.

    The political opportunity lies not in opposing her now, but in waiting for her to begin to vote and argue in the manner we expect her to.

    Shipwreckedcrew (e73ed2)

  45. If only Sotomayor were gay, too!

    Oh gosh, that would have been the Trifecta: gay, female, minority. Good thing we’re post-identity politics, eh?

    I’m afraid the Republicans will be reluctant to question her on much of anything during the confirmation hearing, no matter how many questionable issues there are. The party is already in the image hole and almost anything but the cursory would be perceived as being too aggressive and would be spun by a compliant (and complicit) media as ugly racial/gender attacks made by evil conservatives.

    Dana (aedf1d)

  46. I agree with Shipwreckedcrew, although I think the GOP Senators in the Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings need to ask clear questions that highlight the issues where conservatives and liberals differ. In other words, in laymen’s terms they should do what Kevin Murphy recommends in his post at The Jury Talks Back.

    DRJ (2901e6)

  47. “I think that her quote about a wise Latina woman being a more capable jurist than a white male should be repeated, ad nauseum.”

    Would a wise latina would give us this profundity:

    http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=1255

    “We doubt, to begin with, that small-town broadcasters run a heightened risk of liability for indecent utterances. In programming that they originate, their down-home local guests probably employ vulgarity less than big-city folks; and small-town stations generally cannot afford or cannot attract foul-mouthed glitteratae from Hollywood.”

    imdw (603c39)

  48. Actually, imdw, that’s a wonderfully sensible statement. When did she say that?

    nk (e71733)

  49. I believe it was in a paper entitled “oh those cute hicks.” Check the cite to make sure.

    imdw (7c85b9)

  50. Here’s a strategy suggestion for Republicans during confirmation hearings…go back in the records and pull out especially pertinent questions that Democrats asked of Bush’s nominees. Verbatim. Gotcha questions can cut both directions. It’s the answers that matter, regardless. The petard aspect, or rather the petard in aspic, could be construed as a complimentary dessert cum just desert. [Is he allowed to say cum like that? I don’t think so. What’s with the desert thing? Maybe something about Nevada or Arizona, you can’t tell with him. Got that right.]

    allan (901d73)

  51. I believe it was in a paper entitled “oh those cute hicks.

    My phishing filter is crashing the site. Was she talking about her appointment by Billy?

    nk (e71733)

  52. Now all of the sudden these libs think that graduating from Yale law makes you qualified to be a judge?

    They didn’t think much of Bush graduating from there, and from Harvard Business School. I think “moron” was the term used. Of course, that was then and this is now.

    So, Myron, you think Obama would have breezed through Columbia, Harvard and the presidency if he was just another smart white guy ?

    Sotomayor is very different from Souter in business law and those rich guys who donated to Obama are about to be punished for their sins. She is a radical redistributionist who thinks race determines who wins.

    I feel fairly content to watch all these young idealists try to make a living under Obama. It’s going to get ugly. Among other things, I wonder if Obama paid any attention to what Netanyahu said yesterday.

    Netanyahu reiterated that he has come to an understanding with U.S. President Barack Obama on preventing Iran from acquiring a military nuclear capability. Unlike the dispute between Netanyahu and the United States on the Palestinian question, the Americans have not denied his statements on understandings reached on Iran.

    Obama may think he can throw words around and they don’t mean anything. That is not true of Bibi. He means what he says.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  53. Here is a fun little exercise that we can do: Monitor all the articles in the mainstream media over the next few weeks (leading up to the confirmation hearings) and note how many of them make a big to-do about “the first latina nominee” and predict how much trouble Republicans will have if they oppose this nomination. Then see if any — any — of those articles contain the words “Miguel Estrada.”

    JVW (fdc303)

  54. There is an essential difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu. For all the comments about the racism that Mr. Obama has faced in private school while making quite a nice salary and receiving all kinds of accolades…

    Mr. Netanyahu has dealt with real evil, with the loss of his brother and other nations threatening to kill millions of his own people.

    But Hope and Change is so much more…serious than that kind of thing. But Bibi means business. Mr. Obama plays at his job. For now.

    Eric Blair (0793db)

  55. But…JVW….that’s different™!

    Eric Blair (0793db)

  56. She seems like quite the lightweight. In the rush to gush the networks will embark on it is possible she will let slip one of her philosophies as blunt as what she said at Berkley.
    Would be interesting to hear Couric ask her what she reads…
    Obama is driving the divisiveness in ways he doesn’t quite understand yet.

    voiceofreason2 (bac20b)

  57. In a way, VOR2, I don’t even blame Mr. Obama. When has he ever been held accountable for anything? I mean, look at at the press right now?

    But the day is coming. I’m with Dennis Miller on this one: I don’t mind the color of Mr. Obama’s skin; the thinness of it concerns me.

    He will start getting hammered (as all Presidents are, and should be). I hope he handles it with grace.

    If we are lucky, this is just Jimmy Carter II.

    Eric Blair (0793db)

  58. If we are lucky, this is just Jimmy Carter II.

    That is a horrifying thought. Does it mean that if we are unlucky this will be Hugo Chavez II?

    JVW (fdc303)

  59. “They didn’t think much of Bush graduating from there, and from Harvard Business School”

    Fact check but dubya didn’t go to law school. He got rejected from UT.

    imdw (58e4e0)

  60. JVW,

    I like that idea. In fact, anytime I see it online I’ll leave this comment:

    Two words: Miguel Estrada.

    DRJ (2901e6)

  61. […] a move that surprised few, President Obama nominated the front-running candidate to replace Supreme Court Justice David […]

    Sotomayor to be Obama’s SCOTUS pick « Wellsy’s World (725c82)

  62. Sonia can see Puerto Rico from her court room.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  63. Does anyone know if she’s ever hired a white male clerk? If she hasn’t, there’s a problem.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0847 secs.