2009.06.30
Act quickly to fill the high court vacancy
Monday's Supreme Court reversal of an appeals court decision joined by Judge Sonia Sotomayor will make thin gruel if conservative Republicans hope to dish it up to argue against Senate approval of President Obama's high court nominee. In fact, in an editorial to run later in the week, we'll argue that another of Monday's court actions makes it imperative that the Senate act quickly on her confirmation. Along with carving out new law in ruling for white firefighters ina job discrimination lawsuit against New Haven, Conn., the high court signaled that it is set to reverse longstanding precedents limiting corporate campaign spending in the weeks leading up to an election. The court is to hear a second round of arguments on Sept. 9. It should be at full strength by then.
RSS feed 
She has stated that her race is superior to other races in making court decisions (this last one not withstanding) so maybe we should hurry so we can get her racial superiority on the bench.
Comment by Henry — June 30, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
I sure hope the upcoming editorial will make clear this assertion that the SC "carved out new law in ruling for white firefighters." From what I've seen of this case, the SC forced an end to reverse discrimination. Even if one doesn't agree that the firefighters were discriminated against, I can't imagine how that equates to the SC having "carved out new law."
I can hardly wait!
Comment by Rob Miles — June 30, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
I keep hearing the R's insist that they have to review all of her cases and rulings, do we know if there is precedent for this much scrutiny? I seem to recall quick confirmations for many of the appointments of the current SCOTUS. Is there info on the protocol or is it whatever they want? I am certain a juicy controversy that everyone missed is lurking somewhere, after all with her last appointment the confirmation process revealed much of the opposition was because she was a Dem SCOTUS prospect. So obviously no one has been paying any attention to her rulings and they now must ALL be reviewed. I get that, but is there precedent?
Henry, with your gift for paraphrasing, I am sure Fixed News is looking for you to host a new show.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 30, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
Are you kidding? Sandi, your post is a perfect example of how blind partisanship warps one's perception of facts, reality and history. Please don't try to sit on a high horse and deride the scrutiny Sotomayor is receiving. It pales in comparison to what the Dems have done. In fact, since 1900, only one Democratic nomination to the Supreme Court has failed. That was Lyndon Johnson's attempt to elevate Abe Fortas from Associate Justice to Chief Justice when Earl Warren retired.
However, over the same time period, the Democrats have defeated six Republican nominations. Remember Robert Bork? He was Reagan's nominee who was faced with Senate Democrats who had vowed to oppose anyone Reagan nominated no matter who it was. Remember Douglas Ginsberg? He was the other Reagan nominee who withdrew after Democrats raised such a holy stink after he admitted that he smoked marijuana while he was a professor at Harvard. This from Democrats who a short time later elected Bill Clinton, who also admitted smoking dope but with a wink and a nod told the bold faced "I didn't inhale" fairytale. The same democrats who elected Obama, an admitted cocaine user. The same Obama who voted against both Alito and Roberts despite his own admission that both were qualified.
Talk about hypocrites. The Republicans could read every decision Sotomayor has ever written word by word and still wouldn't come close to what Democrats have done to Republican nominees.
Comment by C Ramsey — June 30, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
Oh, and just a quick disclaimer. When I said "talk about hypocrites" I was speaking of Senate Democrats and not anyone here.
Comment by C Ramsey — June 30, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
Robert Bork must have been the worst candidate ever seriously considered for the supreme court. I had to replay the tape of his hearing six times before I could believe what he was saying. If he hadn't been stopped, we would have had the present fiasco twenty years early.
No doubt, any candidate Reagan nominated would have been as bad as the ones he did. Nixon was the same way, and made no bones about it: He stated plainly and publicly that he would not nominate anybody but "conservatives".
Comment by Ed H — June 30, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
But Ed, his qualifications were not the reason they balked. If you recall, Senate Democrats had called for liberals to for a "solid phalanx" to oppose anyone Reagan nominated, no matter who it was, BEFORE the nomination was ever made. After their history of attacking any nominee based solely on partisan motives, for Democrats to now claim the Republicans are not being fair by questioning some of Sotomayor's decisions is the height of hypocrisy.
At least they are questioning her record and didn't just declare that they would oppose anyone Obama nominated regardless of who it might be. Did she ever smoke marijuana? According to Senate Democrats that would be a good reason to fight her nomination.
Comment by C Ramsey — June 30, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
So, all Democrats today are hypocrites because of the sins of Democrats back in, what, 1987?
Way to let go of a grudge, C.
In any case, whatever they said prior to his nomination, Democrats were right to oppose that nomination. Robert Bork would have been horrific on the bench. Unless, of course, you actually believe the state should have the right to prevent even married couples from purchasing contraceptives.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 30, 2009 @ 10:49 pm
If you recall, the Democrats did pass the nominations of Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas.
It's the Republicans I recall always attacking everybody on partisan motives. Just as they are still doing.
Obama's nomination of Sotomayor has the potential to bring another woman and the first Hispanic to the court, as well as someone without an aristocratic background. Very welcome balance, in all those areas. Unfortunately, she's also a Catholic and we need another one of those like a hole in the head. And whether she will vote "liberal" or "conservative" on the court is still up in the air.
I can't think of any reason Obama would have chosen her but on the merits of her judicial record.
Comment by Ed H — June 30, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
Whew! Do those blinders come in bulk or what? No Dan, the Democrats are hypocrites now for whining about how unfairly Sotomayor is being treated because her record is being reviewed when they have a 100+ year history of fighting nominees for any and every reason under the sun, all motivated purley by partisan politics. They are also hypocrites for demonizing nominees for engaging in behavior they declare irrelevant when a member of their own party does the same thing. How about Ginsberg? Does marijuana use mean he would have been an horrific Justice? If so, what does cocaine use predict about a President?
The Senate confirmation process is intended to be just that, a confirmation of a nominee's qualifications and record in order to ensure that a jurist can interpret the law in a learned, competent and fair manner and not be overwhelmed by his or her personal biases or political agendas. It shouldn't be the rapid-fire rubber stamp that the liberals are now clamoring for. Funny they haven't been in favor of rapid confirmations when the nominee is not a member of their own party.
Sotomayor's experience and education are certainly in order, but given some of her decisions and her public statements, whether or not she can leave personal bias out of legal interpretation seems like a legitimate question. She seems prone to engage in judicially authorized reverse discrimination.
Comment by C Ramsey — June 30, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
I don't know about the blinders, C. You tell me. You seem to have plenty to go around.
Rapid-fire rubber stamp? Are Democrats really asking for less time than the Senate took to examine Roberts or Scalia or Thomas? Again, Ginsberg is a 20-year-old nominee. What's the statute of limitations?
Aside from the one case recently overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, in which she left no real paper trail about the thoughts she brought to the decision (a decision, by the way, supported by a majority of her appeals court justices and four of the nine current Supreme Court justices), what decisions can you name that support the charge of engaging in "judicially authorized reverse discrimination"? All the analyses of her decisions I've seen fail to point to any pattern at all in the side she takes on discrimination cases. In criminal cases, she tends to take the side of the prosecution. In discrimination cases, she's as likely to side with the plaintiff as the defendant.
Yeah, she sounds like a flaming liberal, all right.
Bork was an extreme conservative. Sotomayor is, at best, a moderate justice. Her judicial record is extremely restrained. Aside from a couple of lines taken completely out of context from thousand-word speeches, you have nothing whatsoever to back up your criticisms about personal bias. Nothing at all.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — June 30, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
I don't give a rat's patootie whether anybody ever smoked pot, did cocaine or a staff intern under the Admiral's desk. I care about how well they do the job they are charged with doing, and I think most liberals will agree.
You can lay this stuff on the Democrats when they impeach a president for one of those non-issues.
Comment by Ed H — June 30, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
Henry, I didn't catch her original statement. Was it her race she was referring to or her experience? Of course, I can understand how race could have a slight impact on ones life experience. Well, some things are really hard to figure. I do not know if experience makes one superior or just better grounded.
Comment by allen bunch — July 1, 2009 @ 1:23 am
Sandi,
Democratic nominees have sailed through without a hitch. Even the controversial far-left Ruth Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3. Republican nominees have had a much tougher ride. I'm sure you remember Robert Bork and Harriet Miers, who were denied, as well as the Clarence Thomas hearings.
I guess I'm big on qualifications, so I think Sotomayor should be looked at for as long as it takes. I don't buy that she should be rushed in there just because of a recent rulings of the Supreme Court we don't like. Right now, I think some of statements are a little dubious and her qualifictions thin. Offhand, I would say there are many stronger people Obama could have picked.
Comment by The Professor — July 1, 2009 @ 5:14 am
Well, step away from my computer for an evening and look what happens. C. Ramsey, speaking of partisan blinders, are yours pinching you? I asked if the scrutiny of case after case after case of her decisions was done before. I did not say I thought it was a tactic. I did not say that I thought it was wrong. I did not say that they had no right. I am no where near as clueless as you like your opps to be, I am well aware of the peccadilloes that got some nominees hung up, tossed and confirmed under a cloud. What I do NOT recall is such scrutiny actually being paid to all of their decisions. That was my only question and of course you heard hoof beats and decided zebras. I think we have enough unqualified people on the SCOTUS and in MANY MANY courtrooms because of the politics of the process. Excuse me for trying to understand it.
There are some warped and twisted partisan views expressed here and convenient lapses about the log in our own eyes as well, on that I will heartily agree.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 1, 2009 @ 8:04 am
Ed H @#9 wrote:
"Obama's nomination of Sotomayor has the potential to bring another woman and the first Hispanic to the court, as well as someone without an aristocratic background. Very welcome balance, in all those areas. Unfortunately, she's also a Catholic and we need another one of those like a hole in the head."
Gender, race, "aristocratic"/non-"aristocratic" background, and religion are all irrelevant for a judge, justice, or Supreme Court justice. The job requires that all personal opinions and experience formed by those factors be put aside, and that decisions be made according to the Constitution, the law, and judicial principles. Her public statements have raised the question of whether or not she is willing or able to do that, which is what has triggered the deeper than usual scrutiny of her past rulings.
Dan (in #11):
"In criminal cases, she tends to take the side of the prosecution."
I wouldn't read too much into that. One principle of judicial appeals is that "the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below." In most criminal cases that go to appeal, that party is the prosecution, so the prosecution tends to win those appeals.
Comment by Jake — July 1, 2009 @ 10:56 am
Allen, Media Matters has the best info I have seen on this non-issue. If taken in the context of her remarks and the point she was making, she is indeed a very wise Latina and not what they are portraying her to be. It is long but it explains the issue not muddies it.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905260050
FTA:
"Contrary to Kelly and Greenburg's claims, Sotomayor did not say or suggest that Latina or Latino judges are "better" than white male judges, but was instead talking specifically about "race and sex discrimination cases." From Sotomayor's speech delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and published in 2002 in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal:
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see."
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 1, 2009 @ 11:12 am
Here's what Sotomayer 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"
Let's turn it around:
"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life,"
Comment by Henry — July 1, 2009 @ 11:31 am
Henry...
How about "I would hope that a wise person with the richness of his/her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion that a person who hasn't lived that life."
To say that anyone on the SCOTUS doesn't pull from their own life experiences is patently ridiculous. John Roberts made it clear that his decisions and actions are influenced by the unique life experience...so why is it any different for Sotomayer, Thomas, Alito or any of the rest?
Comment by Will — July 1, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Henry, you take it out of context and deliberately attempt to malign her with it. Just remember your willingness to do and accept such tactics when the tables are turned.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 1, 2009 @ 11:51 am
FTA that Sandi posted:
"Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see."
That should be enough to understand wanting to review her rulings...or anyone's for that matter who is up for nomination...
Comment by Danny — July 1, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Stating a simple and undeniable truth is reason for extra scrutiny?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — July 1, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
I love a brick wall as much as the next headbanger, but I give up.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 1, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
Not that SHE stated it. But, if it is fact (and I think we can all agree it is), then they ALL need to be scrutinized to see how those "personal experiences" have affected thier rulings.
Comment by Danny — July 1, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
It's not possible to learn about and know about the millions of daily experiences someone has, that add up over a lifetime and make someone the person they are. People aren't even aware of them themselves, most of the time.
Everyone sitting on that court and every who ever HAS sat on that court is a product of their experiences. Was Thurgood Marshall not qualified to rule on civil rights because he was black? Did his experience as a black growing up under segregation make him somehow LESS qualified?
Sotomayor is no different from every other candidate for that job.
Comment by Kristen — July 1, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
Henry, why would you think that a white male would have more more appreciation than a Latina woman for the need for the unwavering principals of our laws? I would think a person who is a member of two groups that have been routinely victimized and discriminated against would be a superior guardian of the sancitity of our laws. I know from my own experiences that the members of privileged groups have to continually remind our selves of the institutions and principles that allowed us to enjoy those principles. After taking a close look at her statement about how her background would probably affect her service, I think she is 100% right. To sum up, she is saying that people with more need for the law probably appreciate it more than people with less need for it. Therefore, they are likely to protect it and keep it intact.
By the way Henry, this one is for a lifetime. Maybe you should be working out to build endurance.
Comment by allen bunch — July 1, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
WOW, I messed up on principals. It is too early in the day to be wrong already. I doubt I would have made it in administration. Okay, here it goes, principles, principles, principles.
Comment by allen bunch — July 1, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
Well Sandi, since you don't recall such scrutiny on other nominees I would suggest you go back and review the confirmation processes of the other nominees in the 20th and 21st century. Remember the hatchet job they tried to do on Clarence Thomas? Unfortunately I guess any review will have to be conducted in secret as Dan seems to have declared some sort of statute of limitations on history when it doesn't support his political agenda. (Notice how he didn't want to address the drug issue)
The simple fact remains, Sotomayor has received no more scrutiny than did any of the other Supreme Court nominees in the past 50 years. For liberals to now imply that something untoward or abnormal is going on, after some of the kangaroo court confirmation hearings they have presided over is disingenuous and hypocritical. It must also be quite convenient to never have to worry about having done these things in the past. The liberal supporters just declare it ancient history and dismiss anyone who recognizes their hypocrisy as living in the past.
Comment by C Ramsey — July 1, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
I read a few weeks ago that the senate set hearings for Sotomayor and that they were actually a few days quicker than Alito and Roberts..all were in the neighborhood of 2 months... I mean given her statements dealing with race, given the groups she was a member of, and the recent case overturned involving white firefighters and what went on in New Haven, she does have something to answer for and she'll be given ample opportunities to do it.
Another dynamic interesting to watch as somewhat of a side issue will be the press coverage. Will this be white men beating up on a Latina woman?
Will Obama's sliding poll numbers enbolden what to this point has been docile opposition and will the press join in? Listening to the daily press conferences, the "honeymoon" may be ending.
Comment by BUD — July 1, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
Perhaps someone will come forward and accuse Sotomayor of sexual harassment. Then the hypocritical conservatives can feel better about their past indiscretions.
Comment by Blue John — July 1, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
C. Ramsey, are you deliberately misunderstanding me or just wanting to argue another issue? I know very well the tawdry items that people were and still are willing to ignore about Clarence Thomas, my question was about this much scrutiny to the actual cases decided. THAT is what I do not remember as being the issue for any of them. Even Bork was more about his stated positions and writings than his decisions (if I recall that correctly). If you have knowledge that this much attention was needed for virtually all of the cases a nominee has decided previously, please share that with me and stop pretending I am too stupid to know what has been on the news and in the punditry about the previous nominees, please.
I do not say that scrutiny is, in proportion, in any way a bad thing, I just wonder how we are to judge what is too much or takes too long. The idea that she cannot be confirmed before the next court session seems to indicate an extreme stance, but if I have no real evidence to base the case scrutiny on, I might well be wrong and will admit that. Since she has already had her remarks taken out of context and used to insult her and call her judgment into question unfairly, I do not think I am wrong to be skeptical. If two (or twenty) wrongs make a right and that is your proviso, I understand that. It is not productive for moving forward, but I understand it. Your own house may well have some of those previous errors you disparage us for as well.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 1, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
C Ramsey: "Unfortunately I guess any review will have to be conducted in secret as Dan seems to have declared some sort of statute of limitations on history when it doesn't support his political agenda. (Notice how he didn't want to address the drug issue)"
Funny, C, that you accuse me of dodging an issue when you didn't even address a single point out of the many I raised concerning your post. (And, for the record, as I recall it, Bush dropped Ginsberg like a hot potato when it was revealed he had smoked dope; no Democratic uproar was needed. My memory could be faulty, though. We are talking ancient history here.)
Comment by Dan Radmacher — July 1, 2009 @ 7:35 pm