Supreme Court Nomination

[Lance]

Looks like Obama has nominated a Hispanic woman to the supreme court. Any chance we can get a fence put in front of the building to keep her out?

[Michael]

Looks like Obama has nominated a Hispanic woman to the supreme court. Any chance we can get a fence put in front of the building to keep her out?
I dunno - probably about the same chance of getting a substantive or non-racially inspired post from you maybe?

Please feel free to prove me wrong though...

[Michael]

For anyone curious, President Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the Supreme Court.

I think it is a decent choice. I personally preferred Diane Wood based on the reviews I've read, but overall, I think Sotomayor is a pretty good choice.

[Americano]

I felt she would be his choice. A brilliant political move considering she was appointed by George H. Bush and received confirmation votes for U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from:

Bennett (R-UT)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Snowe (R-ME)

Gonna be tough for the GOP to fight that. But I'm sure we'll hear loud screams of 'she'll legislate from the bench'.

Here's the announcement:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/supreme.court/index.html

[Americano]

The GOP had summaries on the leading contenders with campaigns planned against them consisting of the following strategies:


Conservatives Map Strategies on Court Fight (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/us/politics/17conserve.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss)
Published: May 16, 2009

WASHINGTON — If President Obama nominates Judge Diane P. Wood to the Supreme Court, conservatives plan to attack her as an “outspoken” supporter of “abortion, including partial-birth abortion.”

If he nominates Judge Sonia Sotomayor, they plan to accuse her of being “willing to expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution.”

And if he nominates Kathleen M. Sullivan, a law professor at Stanford, they plan to denounce her as a “prominent supporter of homosexual marriage.”

Preparing to oppose the confirmation of Mr. Obama’s eventual choice to succeed Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring, conservative groups are working together to stockpile ammunition. Ten memorandums summarizing their research, obtained by The New York Times, provide a window onto how they hope to frame the coming debate.

*snip*

While conservatives say they know they have little chance of defeating Mr. Obama’s choice because Democrats control the Senate, they say they hope to mount a fight that could help refill depleted coffers and galvanize a movement demoralized by Republican electoral defeats.

“It’s an immense opportunity to build the conservative movement and identify the troops out there,” said Richard A. Viguerie, a conservative fund-raiser. “It’s a massive teaching moment for America. We’ve got the packages written. We’re waiting right now to put a name in.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/us/politics/17conserve.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss

Desperation.

[Michael]

This is make or break time for the GOP. Are they going to try to be a viable political party or are they most happy being a regional 'rump' party (that they are fast becoming).

Sonia Sotomayor was originally nominated by GW Bush and the Republicans approved her with a rubber stamp, without so much as a peep.

And the fact that she's latino means that the optics for a major Republican 'hissy-fit' will amount to shooting themselves in the foot by alienating the MAJOR voting constituency that holds the Republican party future.

If Republicans want to further alienate the fast growing Latino voting block (again), that's their perogative. But it means they will be decades away from ever returning to the majority in Congress. For the Republicans to make an 'electoral' recovery, that is critically dependent upon outreach to the Latino community. Attacking Sonia Sotomayor will do the exact opposite. The Latino community is already gearing up to celebrate this one. Pissing on their parade will have electoral consequences.

And the bottom line is that the Republicans don't have the strength in Congress to actually oppose this nomination so a high-profile fight will only piss off the latinos (amongst others) without giving the Republicans a 'victory'.

[dilettante]

This is interesting:

If confirmed Sotomayer will be the twelfth Roman Catholic on the Supreme Court. Additionally, five Catholics are presently on the bench, so Sotomayer would make the court 2/3rds Roman Catholic. And who are the other five? Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts and Alito: the court's conservatives (or conservatives and centrist, depending on how one calls Kennedy).

I'm curious to know how that factored in to Obama's decision making and how it might play out over Sotomayer's career. Especially since Catholics tend to take conservative stands on at least a couple hot-button social issues (abortion springs to mind...)

[Americano]

This is interesting:

If confirmed Sotomayer will be the twelfth Roman Catholic on the Supreme Court. Additionally, five Catholics are presently on the bench, so Sotomayer would make the court 2/3rds Roman Catholic. And who are the other five? Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts and Alito: the court's conservatives (or conservatives and centrist, depending on how one calls Kennedy).

I'm curious to know how that factored in to Obama's decision making and how it might play out over Sotomayer's career. Especially since Catholics tend to take conservative stands on at least a couple hot-button social issues (abortion springs to mind...)

I don't know about the career, assuming she gets the nod we'll have to see how she votes on SCOTUS issues, but I do see a definite political gesture with the female/Hispanic/Catholic combination. That's based on the census bureau forecasting Hispanics at 24.5% of the US population by 2050, a significant voting block traditionally trashed by the GOP. There are already more female US voters than males.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/usinterimproj/natprojtab01a.pdf

[Birdzeye]

Gonna be tough for the GOP to fight that. But I'm sure we'll hear loud screams of 'she'll legislate from the bench'.


From what I'm seeing on the web, the caterwauling has already begun.

Funny how it's only non-conservative judges who are accused of that.

I hope she becomes one of the swing votes, one whose vote can never be taken for granted, unlike Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito, who use their intellectual prowess to consistently fashion legal rationales to justify a ruling pleasing to conservatives. It always seemed to me that "judicial activist" and "legislating from the bench" were code for "liberal" or "not conservative enough."

[Michael]

From what I'm seeing on the web, the caterwauling has already begun.

Funny how it's only non-conservative judges who are accused of that.

I hope she becomes one of the swing votes, one whose vote can never be taken for granted, unlike Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito, who use their intellectual prowess to consistently fashion legal rationales to justify a ruling pleasing to conservatives. It always seemed to me that "judicial activist" and "legislating from the bench" were code for "liberal" or "not conservative enough."
It is pretty obvious from reviewing past SCOTUS decisions that conseravatives LOVE judicial activism and legislating from the bench when it suits their political agenda (Bush vs Gore, 2000 being a classic example).

As for the Court's alleged 'conservative' faction, the only one I respect is Thomas because he's quite consistent in supporting a particular interpretation of the constitution. Scalia, Roberts and Alito aren't all that consistent on constitutional principles - they are only consistent in supporting the Republican party line.

[Donkey]

In other news, I rarely bother to get offended on my own behalf, but Mike Huckabee calling her "Maria Sotomayor" just might do it.

[Birdzeye]

It is pretty obvious from reviewing past SCOTUS decisions that conseravatives LOVE judicial activism and legislating from the bench when it suits their political agenda (Bush vs Gore, 2000 being a classic example).

As for the Court's alleged 'conservative' faction, the only one I respect is Thomas because he's quite consistent in supporting a particular interpretation of the constitution. Scalia, Roberts and Alito aren't all that consistent on constitutional principles - they are only consistent in supporting the Republican party line.

I agree. All the talk about "judicial activism" appears to be simply a cover for saying that they don't like certain rulings; the "judicial activist" label makes their objections appear to have an objective basis. What a joke.

[Donkey]

I agree. All the talk about "judicial activism" appears to be simply a cover for saying that they don't like certain rulings; the "judicial activist" label makes their objections appear to have an objective basis. What a joke.
The definition of a "Judicial Activist" is "A judge with whom I disagree."

[Birdzeye]

The definition of a "Judicial Activist" is "A judge with whom I disagree."

LOL! Excellent definition! Hits the nail right on the head! :D

[Evangeline]

Apparently the attacks are - she's not very smart, she's a racist, her decisions have been reversed, she's ugly.

Typical lame, not well thought out attacks from the right.

[Birdzeye]

When Bush nominated conservative Hispanics to judicial positions (Alberto Gonzales for AG, Miguel Estrada for court judge), conservatives tried to discredit the criticisms by branding them as "racist."

Now they are using the same tactic to discredit, ironically, a Hispanic nominee who happens not to share their farrightwing views.

What deepens the irony further is that they once denounced the hostile scrutiny given to Clarence Thomas when he was a nominee, but are using those very same tactics against Sotomayor. Either they are totally clueless about their double standard or are willfully hypocritical.

[Evangeline]

When Bush nominated conservative Hispanics to judicial positions (Alberto Gonzales for AG, Miguel Estrada for court judge), conservatives tried to discredit the criticisms by branding them as "racist."

Now they are using the same tactic to discredit, ironically, a Hispanic nominee who happens not to share their farrightwing views.

What deepens the irony further is that they once denounced the hostile scrutiny given to Clarence Thomas when he was a nominee, but are using those very same tactics against Sotomayor. Either they are totally clueless about their double standard or are willfully hypocritical.

Willfully, I think. It seems they use whatever they can, sans truth, to further their agenda. IMHO.

[Michael]

Either they are totally clueless about their double standard or are willfully hypocritical.
Willfully hypocritical.

One only has to look at the way the Republicans flip-flopped their collective view on "filibusters" and/or judicial appointments the instant the Republicans lost control of the White House.

Republicans in Congress play to win. They don't play for honesty, truth or integrity. This works because the public has a short memory and rarely holds the Republicans responsible for their irresponsibility.

[aaronssongs]

Willfully hypocritical.

One only has to look at the way the Republicans flip-flopped their collective view on "filibusters" and/or judicial appointments the instant the Republicans lost control of the White House.

Republicans in Congress play to win. They don't play for honesty, truth or integrity. This works because the public has a short memory and rarely holds the Republicans responsible for their irresponsibility.

Hush, truth!