Liberals are thrilled that Obama will nominate a woman and a Hispanic, which seem like really trivial reasons to anyone who believes people should be judged "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Opposition will likely center around a recent piece in the New Republic by Jeffrey Rosen questioning Sotomayor's legal temperment:
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."Conservatives will point to a video where Sotomayor says that appeals courts are where policy is made as proof that she's an activist judge:
To be fair, she doesn't seem to say that policy should be made at the appeals court; only that it does.
I'd be more concerned about her tendency towards judicial errors. Three times, she has been reversed by the Supreme Court, not for some disagreement over proper interpretation of the Constitution, but for legal slopiness. She has repeatedly failed to correctly apply the law. That's not a good trait on a Court that deals with complicated technical issues of the law more often than with the controversial big-ticket items like the death penalty, abortion, and gun control.
Barring any unpaid taxes or similar scandals that seem to attract Obama nominees, Sototmayor will be confirmed. I hope for a vigorous and healthy Senate debate. Given the makeup of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I'm not holding my breath.
2 comments:
"Liberels are thrilled that Obama will nominate a woman and a Hispanic, which seem like really trivial reasons to anyone who believes people should be judged "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Huh? This is a ridiculous generalization. On what are you basing it? This liberal is somewhat pleased with the nomination because of Sonia Sotomayor's record on topics like gun control and her years of experience. She would not, however, be my first choice, and I'm actually quite disappointed (not terribly surprised) that Obama went with whom he probably perceived as the most qualified Latina, rather than the most qualified candidate.
Also, liberals has an A in it.
Thanks for the catching my spelling (or more accurately typing) error. But to say that Sotomayor's race and sex weren't determining factors in her selection and the liberal reaction would be naive or dishonest. You state yourself that Obama chose the most qualified Latina, rather than the most qualified candidate.
The modern left has institutionalized racism through identity politics, and it is destructive to true equality.
I expected Obama to nominate a fairly doctronaire liberal, and he did. I also expect her to be confirmed, absent some unforseen scandal. But to let someone slide into a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court without comment or criticism would be irresponsible.
From my brief review of her record, Sotomayor ties herself deeply into identity politics, and brings those beliefs to the bench. She seems like a very intelligent, somewhat overbearing, and occassionally sloppy, judge who has stumbled when dealing with the less-politicized side of the law. Her rulings lack the heft or elagance of Roberts or Breyer caliber.
She seems to have the same snark as Scalia, and I would expect some memorable if misguided dissents. Overall, I would expect her to be as liberal as Souter, perhaps even a step up in the quality of her writing, but even less restrained in substituting her policy preferences for the law.
Also, if you have an opinion, leave your name. Anonymous comments are cowardly.
Post a Comment