2009.05.31
Discuss Radmacher's column on Sonia Sotomayor
Sotomayor critics' knees are jerking
By Dan Radmacher
I don't know yet what I think of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, not having had the time to digest the 380 opinions she authored as a judge on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or assess much beyond the bullet points of what certainly appears to be an impressive résumé: summa cum laude graduate from Princeton University, editor of the Yale Law Review and graduate of that prestigious law school, a prosecutor in Manhattan, a Columbia Law School lecturer. It certainly doesn't appear to be the résumé of an intellectual lightweight.
RSS feed 
just didnt like her comment that she, being latino and female, would be better suited...
well I thought we were all supposed to be gender/race/all that /free and that it shouldnt matter from where we came, who we are or what our race is, so why does she think that? isnt that racist?
and why isnt it if you think it isnt..just curious
Comment by pammala — May 31, 2009 @ 10:46 am
"In the meantime, some of her detractors (rather, Obama's detractors -- can there be any doubt that these people would be hyperventilating about anyone Obama nominated?), should attempt to calm their jerking knees and examine Sotomayor's actual record before deciding whether to support or oppose her. That's my plan, anyway."
No, it's not. What further examination do you plan to do of Sotomayor's record? You've already decided, even though you say you haven't. Your plan is to oppose those who find fault with her nomination.
Comment by DT — May 31, 2009 @ 10:50 am
We're all gender-free? Race-free? Huh?
Anyway, as I said in the column, her comment was part of a 4,000-word speech. Read the whole thing, or at least more than the one paragraph, to get a sense for the larger point she was attempting to make.
So, were you disturbed by Samuel Alito's comment during his confirmation hearing:
"Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position… When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."
Comment by Dan Radmacher — May 31, 2009 @ 10:50 am
"No, it's not. What further examination do you plan to do of Sotomayor's record? You've already decided, even though you say you haven't. Your plan is to oppose those who find fault with her nomination."
DT, do me a favor and do not insinuate that I'm a liar. I plan on reading analyses of her appellate decisions and a few of the decisions themselves to try to get a feel for what kind of justice she'll make.
From what I've seen so far, there's a possibility I'll conclude that she's more conservative than I would like to see. I don't know that I'll conclude her nomination should be opposed, but I'm not sure it should be celebrated. She will not be a counterbalance to ideologues like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, that's for certain.
I will, however, find fault with those who call her un-American as Newt Gingrich has done and otherwise reflexively oppose her nomination based on the sole fact that Obama selected her - which is mostly what I've seen from the opposition so far.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — May 31, 2009 @ 11:30 am
I think if there was any knee jerking it was the left's response to the vacancy caused by Souter's retirement. The nominee should be female and a minority, preferably Hispanic was the buzz in the press from day one. All others, maybe next time. Obama put himself in the position to be criticized when he started down the road with his EMPATHY criteria. Judge Sotomayor has some splaining to do..I hope the hearings give her an opportunity to show the nation she is worthy of the position.
Comment by BUD — May 31, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Dan, when did Newt call her un-American? If he did use those words, I'd like to know about it.
Comment by Patrick — May 31, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
"I will, however, find fault with those who call her un-American as Newt Gingrich has done and otherwise reflexively oppose her nomination based on the sole fact that Obama selected her - which is mostly what I've seen from the opposition so far."
Why would you assume Newt and other oppose her reflexively without studying her record? You don't like it assumed about you.
Comment by DT — May 31, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Patrick,
Gingrich sent out a fundraising e-mail that said, among other things: "If Civil War, suffrage, and Civil Rights are to mean anything, we cannot accept that conclusion. It is simply un-American. There is no room on the bench of the United States Supreme Court for this worldview."
DT, I know they oppose her reflexively without studying her record because they are saying things about her that her record does not support.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — May 31, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
Dan, I think her detractors would her record does support their opposition.
But I love the way you criticize "ideologues", but then follow with this gem:
"From what I've seen so far, there's a possibility I'll conclude that she's more conservative than I would like to see."
Doesn't this make you an ideologue? And would it make her a moderate? Didn't you always say Bush should be making moderate appointments? Why, then wouldn't you "like to see" a moderate appointment from Obama?
Comment by DT — May 31, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
Dan,it sounds a little like you are engaging in the same tactics you decry. Of Gingrich's e-mail, you are taking one sentence out of context and offering no background, but instead distorting it to suit your own ends. I very distinctly recall a debate we had in these pages a couple of years ago when you defended Christian's right to say another poster's ideas were delusional. In that instance you argued that there was a huge difference in saying someone's ideas or statements were delusional and saying that person was delusional. How is this any different? Doesn't the same logic apply to Gingrich. He very clearly did not say Sotomayor was un-American, he said the worldview she espoused in the disputed statement was un-American. According to your own logic, there is a huge difference.
Comment by C Ramsey — May 31, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
Dan, I gotta agree with C Ramsey. Your quote of Newt was not the complete text of his message.
Newt said, "You read that right -- Judge Sotomayor said that her experience as a person of a particular sex and ethnic background will make her a better judge than a person of another sex and a different ethnic background!
When did that view become acceptable?
If Civil War, suffrage, and Civil Rights are to mean anything, we cannot accept that conclusion. It is simply un-American. There is no room on the bench of the United States Supreme Court for this worldview."
Newt did not specifically call her "Un-American"...my read of it is that we've fought hard to do away with racism and to put someone on the bench who thinks she can make a better decision than someone of a different sex or gender is un-American.
Comment by Patrick — May 31, 2009 @ 5:15 pm