eponymous wrote:Judge Sotomayor while clearly a bright person is for all intents and purposes an affirmative action hire.
IMHO affirmative action should mean that a person's race is the tie-breaker when all else is equal - it should not be a trump card and sadly race has become a trump card in this country.
If I were a senator I would vote against her and would not feel bad about it. Consider that BO voted against Chief Justice Roberts who is clearly a brilliant legal mind - whether you agree with his legal stances or not.
Recent examples – Thomas (also kind of dopey) 52-48, Alito – (mwehh) 58-42 and even Roberts was only confirmed 78-22. Remarkable when you consider the older (ford, reagan, ghwb) “conservative” justices on the court were confirmed unanimously. Both Clinton nominations Ginsburg – 96-3 and Breyer 87-9. Looks as though Sotomayor may be unanimous.
I don't get that. I'm not making any judgments positive or negative, I just don't understand why that is what has happened as of late.
Epo, good post. Sometimes very reasonable, but sometimes rather unreasonable. Sotomayor is a 2nd circuit judge, 2nd in importance only to the DC circuit, has a lot of experience at the appellate level, really has no history of judicial activism, and any instance you could cite was a unanimous decision by the 2nd. This places here in a very shallow pool of applicants, where, most everything else being equal, PERHAPS you could assert she was chosen to provide a divergent viewpoint, culturally speaking, to contribute to the SCt's understanding and application of constitutional law as a whole. There is nothing wrong with that and it does not mean, in any way, that she will flout the constitution looking out for her homeys. To say that, IMO, disgraces our entire institution of laws, an inevitably human institution, which, flawed as it may be, is undeserving of snipes like that. Be it old white men or latina women writing or interpreting our laws, we should show them the deference they deserve for the hard work and dedication they have put into their service to the country.
To answer your related question about the recent votes on SCt nominees, I can only speculate. It is my opinion that it became well known by the time of the Bourke appt that the anti-abortion, religious right had set their sights on the SCt as the way to achieve their policy objectives rather than in the legislature. This has caused stern reaction from the left and even center right to the more radically conservative appt's by repub presidents. Noting that the Roberts vote really wasnt close, I would say that vote was indicative of the split within the left btw the reasonable and unreasonable. While Robert's jurisprudence was undeniably conservative, one was very hard pressed to point to any decision he wrote where the law was not scrupulously followed. Alito and Thomas had issues to overcome. Thomas had the obvious problems. Alito had to explain away, and didnt do a great job of doing so, a memo he wrote while working for Reagan's white house counsel specifically enunciating this agenda of undoing Roe v Wade by systematically stacking the Court and recommending reagan pursue it in his nominations, the next one being Bourke. This really struck a cord and made his confirmation a very difficult partisan battle. On the left, between ginsburg, breyer and sotomayor, you will again, like Roberts, be very hard pressed to find any issues with their jurisprudence. Unfortunately, Sotomayor has joked around when not in Court and has some gaffes to explain, but for most of those who count in the Senate, she has successfully explained them away.
LTD, tone down the hyperbole bro, youre gonna give yourself an aneurism.