Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 | 2:08 a.m.
As a candidate, President Barack Obama said his ideal Supreme Court nominee, in addition to having a legal record of excellence and integrity, would be someone who is “attuned to the daily realities of people’s lives.”
On Tuesday Obama honored those words when he nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City to replace retiring Justice David Souter.
Sotomayor’s personal story is as admirable as her legal record is sterling. Of Puerto Rican heritage, she was born in the Bronx and her knowledge of the “daily realities of people’s lives” came early, as she was raised in a public-housing project.
Hardship came early, too, as she was diagnosed with diabetes at age 8 and suffered the loss of her factory-worker father a year later. Her mother, a nurse, worked long hours to put her through Catholic schools.
Sotomayor showed her appreciation, graduating as valedictorian and earning a scholarship to Princeton University, where she graduated with honors.
She went on to Yale Law School, achieving an academic record that led to these top jobs:
• Prosecutor with the Manhattan district attorney’s office;
• Partner at a prestigious law firm, where she specialized in corporate law;
• Federal trial judge (nominated by President George H.W. Bush);
• Federal appellate judge (nominated by President Bill Clinton), where she has contributed to more than 3,000 panel decisions and has written about 400 opinions.
As a federal judge in 1995, she became known for “saving baseball” when she ruled against team owners to end a long players strike.
President Obama, speaking Tuesday, said “a rigorous intellect, a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions” were some of the qualities that impressed him about Sotomayor.
He also said a judge should “approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice” — qualities that define Sotomayor.
The New York Times reported that Senate Republicans might challenge Sotomayor’s nomination. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., however, told Las Vegas Sun columnist Jon Ralston, “I don’t know how they could oppose her. I don’t know on what basis.”
We share that view. Sotomayor’s life experiences, academic and professional achievements, reasoned decisions and work ethic have brought her numerous accolades from her peers. She is an exceptionally well-qualified nominee.
I've got to disagree with you on this, Sun.
Some quotes from this Supreme Court hopeful causes concerns on both her abilities and impartiality (all from the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15j... ):
"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..."
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences," she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
Hispanic females have been on the judicial nominee radar for some years, according to Robert Bork's "Slouching Toward Gomorrah" to the point where white men with impeccable credentials have been passed over as law school teachers for others "qualified" mainly by their race and gender.
The formula for being a good jurist has been established by centuries of jurisprudence, both good and bad. It has been largely forgotten and disregarded, as can be seen from the low quality of the average sitting judge, who have mostly discarded their oaths and the Rule of Law to keep the money flowing from citizens to government.
And we the people are largely sitting still for this fleecing.
I wish I could print this piece out on tissue paper, at least then it might be good for something.
The nomination of Sotomayor, more than any other act by Obama, demonstrates how he will say anything to anyone and then do the exact opposite. Sotomayor's own words are cause for grave concern about her ability to be impartial.
Attacking off-the-cuff statements, rather than criticism of her judicial opinions, indicates a personal problem with Sotomayor, not a problem with her jurisprudence.
KillerB:
Was she unqualified to be a District Court judge when George H.W. Bush nominated her in 1992 (confirmed by bipartisan vote)? Was she unqualified to be a Circuit Court judge when Bill Clinton re-nominated her in 1997 (confirmed by bipartisan vote)?
When Clarence Thomas was nominated by George H.W. Bush for the high court, Bush praised Thomas' "empathy" and cited his coming from a segregated town in the South as a good judge of his character.
Judges can check their life experience at the door - despite Thomas' background, he's been one of the most reliably conservative members of the court.
It doesn't change the balance on the court - swapping out a center-left for another center-left (if you're arguing Sotomayor is a raging leftist, you'd be nuts).
This is a razor-edged sword for the GOP - they can't filibuster because of what they said back in 2005 about such a filibuster being tantamount to high treason. And they're trying to court the Hispanic vote in the West, and being obstructionist just because of her race is not a good strategy to follow.
What is so frightening about someone of her minority background saying (paraphrasing) that they can better understand the issues and concerns of fellow minorities perhaps a little better than the average white male?
I fail to see what is so concerning about this. The SC requires a majority decision. Diverse opinions should be welcomed rather than be viewed as a threat.
Good luck with the reverse racism angle.
ksand99 -- do your homework before you post. Check that NY Times article I linked to. Some of her comments I posted came from a law journal.
DouglasD -- no problem with any of your points. Considering the low quality of some of that high court's decisions in recent years (like Kelo, from which both O'Connor and Thomas dissented, calling it "perverse"), the need for someone qualified in something besides a political agenda is urgent.
JahReb -- she has clearly shown she has an agenda based on race and gender. Judges like that are called biased. Read some of their decisions that directly affect your issues then come back here and comment.
There is no "reverse racism angle." The famous depictions of Lady Justice are blindfolded and holding scales for a good reason.
For the record I have no problems with either the nominee's race nor her gender, just the way she's already disqualifying herself. O'Connor was one of the best that court has ever had. Thomas wrote good dissents, too. If I was to nominate someone it would be Peggy Cooper Davis, NYU law professor and author of "Neglected Stories," probably the best book ever written on the 14th Amendment. She just happens to be a black woman.
You will hear a lot of republicans saying in the coming days that "race & gender" have nothing to do with their concerns about Sotomayor. I will find that very interesting.
KillerB if what she said were really the way she tries cases, we would see it in the over 400 opinions she has written in the last 17 years.
But so far, the legal experts have stated that "there's no there there". She's not reliably on the left, and her position on abortion is almost a total unknown (she's only had one case that tangentially related to abortion, and ruled for the Bush Administration in that case).
DougD -- I'm not going to read her 400 opinions, I just go by that NY Times article. Got some links to share?
That will all be coming up if her nomination goes to the Senate.
Sure - here's a nice overview from a neutral party that has said that Sotomayor is similar to Souter.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotom...
DouglasD -- Only because he wrote dissents on all her decisions that court struck.
Here's a link I think is well-balanced. Since I do favor what comes from the Cato Institute, I believe their cautions are worth noting. Rosen's interviews with former clerks, etc., should be taken at face value.
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Sonia_So...
Also on that site is a very disturbing article about Nevada's own sitting federal judge, Jay Bybee.
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Jay_Bybe...
A bit from it:
On April 21, 2009, Senator Feingold issued a statement on the Bybee torture memo stating:
"The just released OLC memos, including the 2002 memo authored by Jay Bybee, are a disgrace. The idea that one of the architects of this perversion of the law is now sitting on the federal bench is very troubling. The memos offer some of the most explicit evidence yet that Mr. Bybee and others authorized torture and they suggest that grounds for impeachment can be made. Clearly, the Justice Department has the responsibility to investigate this matter further. As a Senator, I would be a juror in any impeachment trial so I don't want to reach a conclusion until all the evidence is before me."
KillerB:
I tend not to take a lot of stock in quotes from people who won't even be willing to put their names on the record. If you're going to run someone down in the press, you should be willing to sign your name to it.
DouglasD -- my choice vs. your ideology. I'm sticking with the former.
One very good point against a Sotomayor appointment to the highest court can be found at http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/05/2...
Cato's Epstein revealed her role in a major property rights case in that 2006 Didden case. It should be carefully examined before she is even close to being appointed to the high bench.
Sometimes what high courts don't say weighs on the public far more heavy than what they do say.
Cato's point of her appointment being more about gender politics than merit is a valid one. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/05/2...
DouglasD -- if I wanted to "run someone down in the press" I'd be all over the Rosen article(s) against her. Don't be so hypocritical about free speech.
I have to agree this is more about a woman with a compelling story than having a legal scholar on the bench. Then again research shows that those who make it to the Supreme Court are not often great legal scholars (the legal scholars tend to offend the people who appoint them).
Pretty powerful stuff,
(From Epstien)
"I have written about Didden in Forbes. The case involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined. Bart Didden came up with an idea to build a pharmacy on land he owned in a redevelopment district in Port Chester over which the town of Port Chester had given Greg Wasser control. Wasser told Didden that he would approve the project only if Didden paid him $800,000 or gave him a partnership interest. The "or else" was that the land would be promptly condemned by the village, and Wasser would put up a pharmacy himself. Just that came to pass. But the Second Circuit panel on which Sotomayor sat did not raise an eyebrow. Its entire analysis reads as follows: "We agree with the district court that [Wasser's] voluntary attempt to resolve appellants' demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation."
Maybe I am missing something, but American business should shudder in its boots if Judge Sotomayor takes this attitude to the Supreme Court."
"Don't be so hypocritical about free speech."
I'm not. But as someone who was viciously attacked by "anonymous people" in the newspaper many years ago, I am wary of ANYTHING coming from a person unwilling to stand behind criticism by attaching their name to it in print or on video absent a compelling reason (such as fear of being jailed or killed).
I did, however find the context for that quote published in the NY Times. "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..." This quote refers specifcally to sex and racial discrimination cases - cases, I might add, that Sotomayor has ruled both for and against on the bench.
And Patrick - do you remember the Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings? They were ALL about their compelling stories and "empathy", or at least that was how it was portrayed by the GOP.
Why is it when someone makes a statement about making the playing field more balanced and fair when it comes to race and gender, the white, conservative, republican, right wing, holy rollers get their panties in a bunch? Can't wait to see who answers this question!
I am concerned about Sotomayor's stance on 2nd Ammendment issues. Her nomination gives a clear picture of Obama's position. Her past rulings on the issue clearly show her to be a strong gun-control advocate, while at the same time she appears to be pro-life (given her rulings and church affiliation). Obama has repeatedly said he will not weaken the 2nd Ammendment, but I find it hard to reconcile those statements with this action.
Given that Sotomayor's rulings on abortion can be reconciled with Obams's view that abortions should be legal but rare, then I believe her views on gun-control (read that as NO GUNS) are also in line with Obama's preferences.
boftx:
Aside from the practical impossibility of seizing every gun in the United States, how do you figure? As has been said many, many times gun control is way, way down on the list of priorities for this administration. Other than John Ensign's bill, there are NO gun control measures even being considered by the Congress (and if there were, we'd certainly be hearing about it).
Not to mention that even if such a law were to come up for court review, there would be NO CHANGE to the current balance with respect to the issue. Souter is also pro-gun control.
And Patrick, in response to your e-mail, no I think her 17 years on the bench, her being nominated and confirmed twice by different administrations (and different Congresses), and her academic credentials are the determining factors first and foremost. I want her to have a fair hearing, something that quite a few on the far right seem incapable of granting.
DouglasD -- other than the anonymity issue you seem stuck on, I sincerely hope your "vicious attacker" doesn't apply to me. I enjoy your posts and find them mostly worth reading. And I think the exchange has been reasonable.
That said, back on point, Sotomayor's actions speak louder than words, and that Didden case has me very concerned about someone who will be making policy on this country's highest court. Maybe just one case, but it appears Didden was wiped out because of it. Although she's professed faithfulness to the Constitution as her oath demands, this undercuts any credibility she might have on that point.
But a new thread is opening elsewhere with http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-l...
What say we all move this over there and finish it up?
A much different - and contextual - look at Didden:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/27/sotomay...
"According to court documents, Wasser estimated that the winner of the dispute would make a $2 million profit but that "whoever would be responsible for completing the project should be given some credit and was entitled to more than a 50-50 split." He said that whichever party proceeded with its drug store plans should pay the other $800,000, and he added that he was willing to take either end of the deal."
"In retrospect, Wasser's offer appears to have been quite generous because he had strong reason to believe that he would win in court (as he ultimately did)."
"First, Wasser's Walgreens would have encompassed a centrally located lot that was left out of Didden's CVS plan. According to court documents, Didden's CVS proposal meant that the centrally located lot "would remain undeveloped and isolated from any future development possibility." Second, the statute of limitations for Didden and Bologna to challenge the Port Chester redevelopment project had passed. Didden and Bologna knew as far back as 1999 that the city could condemn their property for the "public purpose" of redevelopment. Under New York state law, they had three years within which to challenge the city's decision. Yet they did not file suit until January 2004."
"While Didden's backers say that Wasser's offer was extortion, it looks like it might have been an innocuous settlement proposal--standard fare for legal disputes. Unless Didden and Bologna could prove their side of this "he said, he said" spat (and they could not), Judge Sotomayor was correct to conclude that Wasser's "voluntary" attempt to settle the dispute "was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation."
"Sotomayor's record on business-related cases shows that she is no ideologue. And her ruling in Didden does not suggest an antipathy toward property rights. Rather, it reflects a dispassionate analysis of the facts at hand."
"That's why the Didden decision may be less of a "red flag" and more of a red herring. Court records from the case do not show that Didden was a victim of a state-sanctioned hold-up. And there is no reason why Sotomayor's sensible stance in Didden v. Village of Port Chester ought to hold up her confirmation."
Naw, KillerB - like I said, it was a long time ago, and it was actually in the newspaper rather than on a website's comments page.
Though you and I disagree on a few things, we seem to at least try to discuss them instead of retreating into the tired and cliche.
She has ruled big time against gun rights.
I guess Obama and the Democrats are OK with that.
If you are a gun owner then vote Republican.
"She has ruled big time against gun rights."
Actually, she upheld that the federal government cannot restrict gun ownership. She, along with two other justices, affirmed a lower court ruling that the second amendment is not incorporated via the fourteenth amendment.
Number of guns restricted under Sotomayor's ruling: 0.
Debunked again, jfNance32.
Standard ksand99 logic example:
1,000 birds fly south during the winter.
One bird flys north during the winter.
Therefore birds fly north and do not fly south.
She has ruled in favor of government powers to restrict gun rights and even said that governments have ability to totally ban gun ownership.
Gun owners should vote Republican.
"She has ruled in favor of government powers to restrict gun rights and even said that governments have ability to totally ban gun ownership."
No, she explicitly said that the FEDERAL government does not have the right to ban arms.
Wrong again, jfNance32.
I believe the words used in one of her rulings was that gun ownership is "not a fundamental right" and the 2nd Ammendment applied only to the federal government. Individual states (and by extension local governments) *could* restrict/ban guns. This was written after the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that nixed the D.C. ban on guns.
That is what makes Sotomayor such a concern on gun rights. There doesn't need to be any new laws from Congress, she just has to uphold some state laws and everything is screwed.
And though she might not change the existing balance of the court on this issue, I can not help but wonder where the shift is going with six Catholics on the bench if she is confirmed. Granted, I would greatly prefer to see 9 agnostics or deists.
"This was written after the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that nixed the D.C. ban on guns."
Yes, and in the opinion they said they could not be sure as to HOW that decision would change the playing field (after all D.C. is a federal district, not a state). Therefore, absent clear instruction from the Supreme Court they had to rely on the controlling precedents.
Be that as it may, it does give a clear indication of where Sotomayor stands on the issue.
On a different issue, I was not impressed, and not a little dismayed, by her decision (overturned by SCOTUS) regarding the intellectual property rights of freelance writers. I'm still looking at the details on that, though.
And I really don't know what she was thinking with regards to the J.B. Hunt trucking case. Was she really saying that J.B. Hunt was required to put people who take meds with known hazardous side-effect behind the wheel of an over-the-road truck? I have no problem with EEOC, but get real!
Good points botfx..
Ksand99's response: "The blue is never blue because sometimes it is gray."
Yes, Obama is appointing somebody that has ruled against gun rights.
Gun owners should always vote Republican if you want your gun rights fully secured.