PDA

View Full Version : Obama Picks Sotomayor, Citing Intellect


Homyrrh
05-26-2009, 02:49 PM
(from The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/politics/27court.html?ref=us))
May 27, 2009
Obama Picks Sotomayor, Citing Intellect
By PETER BAKER and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON — President Obama announced on Tuesday that he will nominate the federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, choosing a daughter of Puerto Rican parents raised in a Bronx public housing project to become the nation’s first Hispanic justice.

Judge Sotomayor, who stood next to the president during the announcement, was described by Mr. Obama as “an inspiring woman who I am confident will make a great justice.”

The president said he had made his decision after “deep reflection and careful deliberation,” and he made it clear that the judge’s inspiring personal story was crucial in his decision. Mr. Obama praised his choice as someone possessing “a rigorous intellect, a mastery of the law.”

But those essential qualities are not enough, the president said. Quoting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Mr. Obama said, “The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience.” It is vitally important that a justice know “how the world works, and how ordinary people live,” the president said.

Judge Sotomayor’s face tightened with emotion as the president introduced her. In the front row of the East Room, her mother, Celina Sotomayor, wept. Her stepfather, Omar Lopez, also was on hand along with her brother, Juan Sotomayor, sister-in-law, two nephews and a niece.

“My heart today is bursting with gratitude for all that you have done for me," she said to her family, describing her selection as “the most humbling honor of my life.”

“I stand on the shoulders of countless people,” she said. But towering above all, she said, is her mother, who raised her alone after her father died. “I am all I am because of her,” Judge Sotomayor said, “and I am only half the woman she is.”

Judge Sotomayor is Mr. Obama’s first selection to the Supreme Court, and her nomination could trigger a struggle with Senate Republicans who have indicated they may oppose the nomination. But Democrats are within reach of the 60 votes necessary to choke off a filibuster, and Republicans concede that they have little hope of blocking confirmation barring unforeseen revelations.

Initial reaction to the selection reflected party divisions and signaled that Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee would be spirited.

“Her record is exemplary,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee. “Judge Sotomayor’s nomination is an historic one, and when confirmed she will become the first Hispanic justice, and just the third woman to sit on the nation’s highest court. Having a Supreme Court that better reflects the diversity of America helps ensure that we keep faith with the words engraved in Vermont marble over the entrance of the Supreme Court: ‘Equal justice under law.’”

Another Democrat on the panel, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, was also enthusiastic. “Her outstanding legal mind, and her compelling life experience, is just the combination this court needs in its next justice,” Mr. Schumer said.

But early Republican reaction was decidedly lukewarm. “Republicans will reserve judgment on Sonia Sotomayor until there has been a thorough and thoughtful examination of her legal views,” said Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

And Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “Because Judge Sotomayor would serve for life if she is confirmed, it is essential that the Senate conducts this process thoroughly, and the President has assured me that we will have ample time to give Ms. Sotomayor’s record a full and fair review.”

Mr. Cornyn said the nominee “must prove her commitment to impartially deciding cases based on the law, rather than based on her own personal politics, feelings, and preferences.”

A more centrist Republican, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, said she was pleased that President Obama had chosen a well-qualified woman. “I share the view that the proper role of the judiciary is one of interpreting the Constitution and acts of Congress, not legislating from the bench,” said Senator Snowe. “As such, I will carefully evaluate Sonia Sotomayor’s record and temperament in making my determination.”

Judge Sotomayor, 54, who has served for more than a decade on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, based in New York City, would become the nation’s 111th justice, replacing David H. Souter, who is retiring after 19 years on the bench. Although Justice Souter was appointed by the first President George Bush, he became a mainstay of the liberal faction on the court, and so his replacement by Judge Sotomayor likely would not shift the overall balance of power.

But her appointment would add a second woman to the nine-member court and give Hispanics their first seat. Her life story, mirroring in some ways Mr. Obama’s own, would add a different complexion to the panel, fulfilling the president’s stated desire to add diversity of background to the nation’s highest tribunal.

Judge Sotomayor’s father died when she was 9 years old, and her mother worked six-day weeks to earn enough money to send her and a brother to Catholic school. She got into Princeton University, where she once said she felt like “a visitor landing in an alien country,” but graduated summa cum laude.

Although she grew up in modest circumstances, the judge said, “I consider my life to be immeasurably rich.”

After Yale Law School, where she was editor of the Yale Law Journal, she worked for Robert M. Morgenthau in the district attorney’s office in New York and later was in private practice. The first President Bush nominated her in 1991 to the federal district court on the recommendation of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New York, and she was confirmed a year later. President Bill Clinton decided to elevate her to the appeals court in 1997, and she was confirmed a year later.

Judge Sotomayor has said her ethnicity and gender are important factors in serving on the bench, a point that could generate debate. “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,” she said in a 2002 lecture.

She also once said at a conference that a “court of appeals is where policy is made,” a statement that has drawn criticism from conservatives who saw it as a sign of judicial activism. Judge Sotomayor seemed to understand at the time that she was making a controversial statement, adding that, “I know this is on tape, and I should never say that, because we don’t make law.”

Conservatives quickly pointed to such statements after word of her selection on Tuesday.

“Judge Sotomayor is a liberal activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written,” said Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, an activist group. “She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.”

White House officials concluded that such statements, while perhaps providing fodder for opponents, would not be problematic enough to hinder her confirmation. Some officials have said in recent days that they relish the prospect of Republicans standing up against a Hispanic woman with her life story, because it would only damage the G.O.P. with a key voting bloc.

The president sought to defuse some of those charges in advance, declaring his confidence that she has “a recognition of the limits of the judicial role.”

Indeed, in nominating the first Hispanic justice, Mr. Obama may appeal to a large and growing constituency whose party loyalty is still very much in play. Hispanic groups have expressed excitement about the idea of one of their own serving on the high court. (Some scholars argue whether Benjamin Cardozo was really the first Hispanic justice, but with his Portuguese-Jewish background, he never identified himself as a Hispanic.)

On the appeals court, Judge Sotomayor has not been involved in many hotly disputed decisions, but one that she participated in is before the Supreme Court right now. As part of a panel, she voted to uphold New Haven’s decision to throw out a set of fire department promotion tests because no minority candidates made the top of the list. White firefighters who scored high but were denied promotion are appealing that ruling.

As a district judge, she briefly earned fame in 1995 by ending a Major League Baseball strike, ruling in favor of players and against the owners, who she said were trying to subvert the labor system.

At the White House announcement, the East Room filled with members of the legal community and several Hispanic leaders, who received calls and e-mails on Tuesday morning to attend the ceremony and applauded enthusiastically when Mr. Obama entered the room with the nominee. To keep the decision secret, outside groups were not notified until about two hours before the event began.

The president conducted a face-to-face interview of Judge Sotomayor on Thursday at the White House, officials said. She was the second finalist to be interviewed, following Judge Diane P. Wood of Chicago.

Mr. Obama called her at 9 p.m. on Monday, officials said, to inform her that she was his choice. She traveled to Washington late Monday evening.

The president reached his decision over the long Memorial Day weekend, aides said, but it was not disclosed until Tuesday morning when he informed his advisers of his choice less than three hours before the announcement was scheduled to take place.

Mr. Obama telephoned Judge Sotomayor at 9 p.m. on Monday, officials said, advising her that she was his choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Later Monday night, Mr. Obama called the three other finalists — Judge Diane P. Wood of Chicago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Solicitor General Elena Kagan — to inform them that he had selected Judge Sotomayor.

jolanar
05-26-2009, 03:37 PM
Scandal in 5...

4...

3...

2...

1....

Homyrrh
05-26-2009, 03:40 PM
Scandal in 5...

4...

3...

2...

1....
Long as she pays her taxes.

Potter82
05-26-2009, 06:30 PM
Scandal in 5...

4...

3...

2...

1....

I don't know about an actual scandal but I have no doubt, that just as the sun rises, the GOP will be calling her a "radical liberal activist judge!" - though to be fair, they were going to call ANYONE Obama nominated that. I don't think it will matter though, she has a very solid resume. That and the whole "activist judge" label doesn't really mean anything, it essentially = judge who makes decisions I disagree with (I remember seeing a person get seriously bitched out during a moot court exercise for using that term).

I was worried that Obama was going to pick a non-judge like Granholm or what not and I do think that only people with judical experience should sit on the supreme court, not politicans but thankfully that isn't an issue.

In terms of politics though, this appointment is a brilliant trap.

You just know, just know that the GOP will be unable to turn their hyper-parisan attack mode switch off and will start making comments touching upon her ethnicity. As everyone knows, the GOP has a serious latino problem and you just know that some Republican loudmouths are going to say something racist or offensive, which will only further their problems with this demographic group.

Filibustering would be a political diaster but I honestly think the GOP is like a rabid animal at this point, one that is only capable of reacting in the most aggressive manner possible.

Badbird
05-26-2009, 07:03 PM
Well, from what I've seen on TV today, they skipped right past "activist judge" and went straight to "racist."

I felt like a shark attacking prey, I was rolling my eyes so much.

TheMazVolta
05-26-2009, 08:13 PM
Rush calls Sotomayor and Obama 'Reverse Racists'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecKkQvjOPOk

Potter82
05-26-2009, 11:11 PM
Rush calls Sotomayor and Obama 'Reverse Racists'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecKkQvjOPOk

hahaha Rush Limbaugh accuses others of racism? that's hilarious, everyday is like The Onion now!
Rush Limbaugh strikes me as a real life, adult version of Eric Cartman...

Also, as a side note: isn't "reverse" racism still racism? The only thing reverse about it is that it allegedly involves being discrimination by members of a minority against a member of the majority, which I supposed is the opposite from how it usually works. Still, it's a stupid phrase and if this is the line of attack that the GOP is going to use, then, wow, just wow.

Badbird
05-29-2009, 01:59 AM
Well, barring any life-altering skeletons in the closet, this argument is over. The three main complaints that conservative blowhards have against her have all been summarily crushed:

1 - That her "life experience" including her race and/or gender would affect her decision making:

Alito said the exact same thing during his confirmation hearings.

2 - Her often taken out of context quote about Appeals courts making policy:

For one thing, she's basically right. Also, Scalia said essentially the exact same thing in a previous ruling.

3 - The dreaded "Empathy" word:

George HW Bush used the exact same work to describe Thomas when he introduced him.



So put a fork in this "debate" because it's done. She's the next justice and will probably get 75 votes or more.

Meanwhile the conservative base will continue to alienate women and Latinos, but what else is new?

Homyrrh
05-29-2009, 02:42 AM
2 - Her often taken out of context quote about Appeals courts making policy:

For one thing, she's basically right. Also, Scalia said essentially the exact same thing in a previous ruling

Can you elaborate on this? I'm actually not all too familiar with either the quote or the appointment, but this is kind of vague.

Tweek
05-29-2009, 03:09 AM
Also, as a side note: isn't "reverse" racism still racism? The only thing reverse about it is that it allegedly involves being discrimination by members of a minority against a member of the majority, which I supposed is the opposite from how it usually works. Still, it's a stupid phrase and if this is the line of attack that the GOP is going to use, then, wow, just wow.

Basically! It's a ridiculous term. It doesn't surprise me that Limbaugh would use it.

Badbird
05-29-2009, 11:46 AM
Can you elaborate on this? I'm actually not all too familiar with either the quote or the appointment, but this is kind of vague.

Rachel Maddow explains it better than I could in this video. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#30991079)

Potter82
05-29-2009, 12:18 PM
Well, barring any life-altering skeletons in the closet, this argument is over. The three main complaints that conservative blowhards have against her have all been summarily crushed:

1 - That her "life experience" including her race and/or gender would affect her decision making:

Alito said the exact same thing during his confirmation hearings.

2 - Her often taken out of context quote about Appeals courts making policy:

For one thing, she's basically right. Also, Scalia said essentially the exact same thing in a previous ruling.

3 - The dreaded "Empathy" word:

George HW Bush used the exact same work to describe Thomas when he introduced him.



So put a fork in this "debate" because it's done. She's the next justice and will probably get 75 votes or more.

Meanwhile the conservative base will continue to alienate women and Latinos, but what else is new?

It just demonstrates something I've believed for a while, that the GOP isn't angry for the above reasons, they've only using the above as something concrete to latch onto in order to justify their feelings of anger/frustration/fear towards Sotomayor and more importantly, towards Obama.

As you pointed out, when the above arguments apply to people on their team, they could care less. This leads me to believe that the real root of their anger/frustration/fear lies much deeper.

I find the charge of reverse racism to be very, very revealing personally. I think there is a strong element of racial fear on the part of many Repubicans, especially Southern Republicans that exists just below the surface. They seem to be terrified by the inevitable prospect that whites, especially white southern christians, will become a minority in the U.S. and one viewed on incredibly hostile terms. To put it bluntly, they fear that they will become the new niggers in America and that they will be the ones who will be hanging from trees. For further evidence, witness Tom Tancredo's recent charge on CNN that La Raza is the new KKK.

First they saw the election of an African American man as president, now they're about to see a Latino woman become a Supreme Court Justice. Nevermind the fact that their fears are largely baseless and that they will never, ever be subjected to the same kind of treatment to the same degree that they and their ancestors used to subject blacks and latinos to in the past and in some cases, to the present day. It is one of those irrational subconscious fears that exist just below the surface and if it emerges to the surface, it's going to be very, very ugly.

I get the sense from recent statement by GOP senators that they realize that the statements of Tancredo, Gingrich, and Limbaugh are coming very, very close to crossing a line that will make the GOP look overtly racist. Sure many already think that the Republican party is racist (I personally think they aren't all racist, but there is a segment of their party that is) but if the above happens, it will become obvious for the world to see and thus political poision.

Potter82
05-29-2009, 03:55 PM
The Sotomayor nomination is providing an unexpected early test of how willing GOP leaders are to attack fellow partisans on behalf of their Hispanic constituents, and Senator John Cornyn appears pretty willing:

"I think it's terrible. This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent," Cornyn told NPR's "All Things Considered" of the attack on Sotomayor as "racist."

"Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials," he said of Gingrich and Limbaugh. "I just don't think it's appropriate and I certainly don't endorse it. I think it's wrong."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/Cornyn_Leave_Sotomayor_alone.html#comments

Looks like some GOP leaders see the writing on the wall as well. Right now, I like to think of the GOP's right wing base as being a really angry, frustrated rampaging bull.

Normally, the leaders of the party, symbolized by a Matador, know when to fly the red flag in order to properly direct the bull's rage. However, after recently suffering trauma (electoral defeat in 2008) the bull's ability to properly distinguish the colour red was messed up. Now it sees red
everywhere and the Matador is scrambling to regain control before the rampaging bull causes too much damage.

...and people like Limbaugh and the like are also pretending to be Matadors as well and are only adding to the confusion of the rampaging bull.

Cop No. 633
05-29-2009, 05:33 PM
I think this is great actually. Let them get all riled up and angry. It'll just help everybody else see how insane these people are. Limbaugh is an unabashed racist who is a living fossil of the past. It's like looking at a Neanderthal living amongst us Homosapiens.

Speaking of Rush, here's a nice video about him: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/2e853e0f08/rushach-scourge-of-the-liberals