NPR is reporting that President Obama's first pick for the Supreme Court will be Second District Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 54. If confirmed, she'd be the first Hispanic and third ever woman to serve on the Supreme Court, which seems to be everyone's headline. Mine would be this:
Experience! And yards and yards of a paper trail. Despite some early doubts about a few of her positions, she seems like a pretty solid liberal pick, smart, quick thinking, and with a practical take on the law (and substantial experience) that might enliven debate at the Court a bit -- and perhaps push Roberts out of his sticky majority conservatism.
The Obama team hasn't yet shown a particular strength for vetting, so I'm sure there are still surprises to come -- fingers crossed that she's paid her taxes correctly. Still, I expect a confirmation debate more like Roberts's own battle, with a minority party making a lot of noise about voting against her while they won't actually be able to stop the nomination. But what will this coming "battle" look like?
Well, start with the beginning. Obama has chosen to announce his pick this week while Congress is in recess, making it a little more difficult for opposition leaders to scramble immediately into meetings about blocking the nominee. Certainly they've met before this, but the line they've chosen so far is anti-empathy -- and I'm going to need someone to explain to me how that's a winning position. In fact, a Memorial Day recess announcement means that anyone who wants to be in D.C. to counter Sotomayor's fitness will need to give up scheduled time back in his or her district, fundraising. (This apparently doesn't apply to Harry Reid, since Obama is headed out to Nevada later today to join his floundering campaign already in progress).
NPR's Nina Tottenberg reported on air this morning that campaign staffers have already been brought back on board to head up the confirmation battle. I'm wary of this -- the way that you make deals in a campaign is much, much different than the way that one makes deals with the power of a sitting president backing you.
Which leads me back to the idea that, while there may be a lot of smoke around the idea of a nomination "battle," I'm not convinced there's going to be much fire, unless someone in the White House makes a mistake.
Which brings us to right now. What the president says today matters. The way the debate is framed matters. So I'm going to tune in, and maybe add a few comments as his presentation goes. If anyone else is watching, I'd love to see what stands out for you.
Watching the speech now: Obama seems to really be emphasizing her experience, and this is a way, way, way better frame than the "personal history" frame that I had most feared. It's a subtle way to fit that all in -- he said life experience can bring "compassion," which is a nice conservative buzzword that means exactly the same thing as the now-maligned "empathy" idea.
I'm very intrigued by Joe Biden standing next to Obama at the announcement. Did Cheney shadow Bush at the Roberts and Alito hearings?
OK, I admit it, her speech briefly made me a little teary. You know, the thing is, this should be a terribly humbling honor for anyone.Sotomayor: "Although I grew up in very modest and challenging circumstances, I consider my life to be immeasurably rich."
The feeling I have from her speech (so far) is that here is a woman who is a great advocate for herself -- a quality that's needed not just for a nomination battle, but to work on a court with eight other supreme egotists. "I strive never to forget the real-world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses, and government."
George Stephanopolous (with assists from Diane Sawyer) keeps saying that it will be a big deal that Sotomayor has had four decisions overturned by the Supreme Court. Uh, why? It's pretty clear that her take on law isn't the same as at least 5 of the current members, right? So why would that be a big deal? The big deal -- and here's my project -- might be if Souter voted against all four.
Normally, I would be watching MSNBC for this, but I have to say I'm finding "Good Morning America" just plain fascinating. If the push here is to engage the goodwill of the public behind Sotomayor -- which I think is at least 75 percent of their current strategy -- then this is probably one of the better playing fields upon which to play that game. So what's the GMA focus? It's been on this rumor of "brusque" manner on the Court. Diane Sawyer keeps mentioning it, and then the guests shoot it down -- a former clerk says she's very kind, and Jake Tapper at the White House said the point that the women's groups on the ground there were making was that this isn't an argument that would be made against a male candidate. And yet Sawyer revived the "charge" of brusqueness again only twenty seconds later.
Is that it? Is that the argument the media is going to carry from the GOP? Really?
GMA has moved on to "emotional journies" of women who lost, I don't know, 8 billion pounds and something called the Sucker-Punch Wall. So I guess news is over for the day, huh?
Final, random note: I feel well-served by Twitter today.
MarkKnoller: "As a child, Sotomayor was a fan of Nancy Drew and wanted to be a detective, but was ultimately inspired to the law by Perry Mason."
JakeTapper: "Huckabee issues statement criticizing 'appointment of Maria Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.' Roo?"
EzraKlein: "BREAKING: Obama administration nominates Judge No One Cares What Jeffrey Rosen Thinks."
MarkKnoller: "And VP Biden whispered to Sotomayor after her remarks: 'Told ya. Piece of cake. Piece of cake. You did wonderful.'"
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Catherine Forsythe
Writer to the Stars
Emily Holleman
Iron Skillet
Leslie Harpole
old new lefty
Salon.com
Comments
Please, please, please...
Quote of the day.
@ Moses, "God, I hope she payed her taxes." Me too, me too.
As an older, white male, there is a part of me which wishes that all prospective jurists would have been considered however that's the old fart in me coming out rather than the "political scientest".
This could be a great pick. The kind of background that can see beyond the narrow confines of the letter of the law. The kind of judge who appreciates the opportunities of America still represented by the uniqueness of our constitution.
Will the dynamic of the Court change appreciably with judge Sotomayor on the bench? Maybe. And maybe that's good.
Can and will she be confirmed? Absolutely. Should she be confirmed. Absolutely.
Choices for the court tend to surprise. But this one sounds firmly on ground I feel is solid.
I don't think the Republicans will play hardball with this pick.
The next one may prove more of an adventure...depending on the person being replaced.
Also troubling is the fact that she will be the sixth Catholic on the court which is not reflective of the US population at all.
Evidently she not terribly liberal either and sides with the government in most criminal cases. More center right like Obama.
With all the horrible things Obama has been doing lately especially on the foreign policy front a la "prolonged" detention, Pakistan and Gitmo, I would have hoped he would have at least found a liberal replacement for Justice Souter.
MSNBC has already mentioned her ruling on freedom of speech which Dr. Levinson discussed here:
Sotomayor's Bad 1st Amendment Decision Should Disqualify Her
She will probably be confirmed, but watch her be another Trojan Horse like Obama.
Frank, I think they may try to play hardball -- Cornyn and Kyl seem ready to go -- but I say bring that on. It seems like a big-time losing prospect for them.
http://womensvoicesforchange.org/supreme-court-buzz-part-three-sonia-sotomayors-ascent-from-a-life-of-struggle.htm
In 200-plus years, never a latino/a? That's a crime. One woman out of nine? That's a crime.
It's about time was start building a court that reflects America.
I feel proud to have women finally getting 2/9 of a voice--even if it's less than half what they deserve--and latins getting a first-ever voice.
The thing I liked best about the run-up this time was that there were a slew of women short-listed, and any one of them seemed highly qualified. We don't have to dumb it down to include women and minorities, we just have to quit picking white guys every time.
I call Bullshit!
They are trying hard to paint her as a "liberal activist judge" - although it will be harder to paint her record as "whimsical" and "lawless" - given that she has been on the Federal Bench for 11 years.
___
also, ditto on the Twitter kudos today. I got the news on Twitter first before the announcement.
One thing that liberals can take comfort from: it's doubtful that any fatal scandals will involve Sotomayor's personal life.
oh, right, people from different backgrounds never see the same situations differently. come on. we often see them radically differently.
experience is a marvelous thing.
justices are interpreting a very general document as it relates to the lives of actual human beings, entering situations never anticipated.
the most amazing thing to me is that you trivialize her unique experiences as "baggage" and cast them as a negative, rather than a positive. if she's dragging in a bunch of anger at misdeeds that have occurred to her and acting in a knee-jerk response to settle her old scores by victimizing some white guys who have nothing to do with it, sure that would be baggage. and where is the evidence that she has thought or acted that way in her long tenure on the bench?
if she brings the insight of someone who has seen law used against people in unexpected ways, and can share that perspective with the court, that's not baggage, that's wisdom.
(which is to say, no matter who Obama might have chosen, somebody wants a fight)
We also need to bring a voice of liberal reason to the Supreme Court to break the stronghold that the forces of evil and wrong have had on our government.
I hope that she paid her taxes, didn't hire illegal aliens to clean her house, and did no corrupt acts as a jurist or lawyer.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but any judge who doesn't realize that gender and race may influence his judgment is fooling himself. (I use "his" advisedly; the odds are 3 to 1 that a randomly chosen federal judge is a man. Oh, and of the 110 Supreme Court justices we've seen in history, 106 have been white men.) Of course these factors influence judgment; human beings aren't robots. Does anyone think Plessy v. Ferguson would have been a 7 to 1 vote in an integrated Supreme Court?
I never implied otherwise.
"experience is a marvelous thing."
I agree.
"justices are interpreting a very general document as it relates to the lives of actual human beings, entering situations never anticipated."
Yeah, and the justices are supposed to interpret said document with as little personal bias as possible.
"the most amazing thing to me is that you trivialize her unique experiences as "baggage" and cast them as a negative, rather than a positive. if she's dragging in a bunch of anger at misdeeds that have occurred to her and acting in a knee-jerk response to settle her old scores by victimizing some white guys who have nothing to do with it, sure that would be baggage. and where is the evidence that she has thought or acted that way in her long tenure on the bench? if she brings the insight of someone who has seen law used against people in unexpected ways, and can share that perspective with the court, that's not baggage, that's wisdom."
With all due respect, Dave. I wasn't trying to put her in a negative light. She's qualified and may very well make a great addition to the SC. Her qualifications ALONE should be what matters.
Glenn Greenwald is being, oh how should we put it?, Glenn Greenwald. I know SS believes that Obama hangs on his every word, but if he does, and I sincerely doubt it, that's just what he'll do: hang.
"any judge who doesn't realize that gender and race may influence his judgment is fooling himself"
of course it impacts the judge's view. i'm with saturn that someone who realizes that starts off much higher in my book for having some wisdom and self-awareness.
for the first time ever, a latino will have a voice. that giant chunk of our nation will no longer be excluded.
and women are twice as represented. the idea of 8/9 of that court still being male is a travesty. over the next hundred years, it damn well better average 4-5. it can go higher, and lower from time to time, that's fine: 5-4, 4-5, 6-3, 3-6, are all reasonable, although 7-2 seems really out of whack and better not stand for any length of time.
there are plenty of highly qualified women, and what a wonderful testament to equality it would be if obama could appoint four people and chose four straight women, so that the majority gender actually held a slight majority on the court.
(but i'm not holding my breath.)
I'm much more worried about someone who will stand up to people like Bush and Cheney, or perhaps even people like Obama if he doesn't straighten out on issues like torture and prolonged detention, and say “Freedom means freedom.” The Supreme Court's job is not to tell people, as Sotomayor has, that the need for respect for authority is somehow a core value on par with free speech rights when exercised out of school by a person who happens to be a student. (See the ruling here, with specific attention to the Conclusion section if you're skimming. I do not agree with those that allege that the ruling is just fine when taken in context. The ruling manufactures a legislative basis to suit an intellectually desired end and I think is not a good sign of something I want more of on the Court. Implicit in the ruling is that the Court must be conservative about overriding the school board unless it is really, really sure, and I do not want my court of last resort timid about overriding civil officials who have overstepped.)
I think at a time when we know specific rights are in jeopardy, we need to make sure the people we are packing the Court with are especially sensitive to the issues that might come up. Free speech in a terrorism-driven world is one. Respect for authority in an era of over-reaching Executives is another. I don't see signs of good judgment in this ruling by Sotomayor so unless I hear her publicly recanting, count me firmly opposed.
I wish people would stop about her ethnicity or gender. I'd like to see more women on the court and I didn't spend years of my life learning Spanish and living in Latin America because I dislike hispanics. It'd be great to see hispanics equally represented. But what we have to focus on is judgment and I'd like signs of better judgment on the extraordinarily key issues touched on by this case.
So do I. Let's start with Sotomayor herself.
I wonder how long a candidate would last after saying something like, "I'd like to think that the life experience of a rich white man more often than not leads to better judgments than those of latino women."
They're out there, but they don't satisfy Obama's prime criteria: female, Hispanic, and not intellectually challenging.