Female justice
President Barack Obama, according to The Washington Post,
made the "riskiest choice on his list who embodies his criteria."
Deciding the night before he announced is pick, he chose Judge Sonia
Sotomayor from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New
York, to be his first nominee to the SCOTUS. In my opinion he made a
magnificent nomination who will be confirmed within the reasonable time
line he has proposed to the Senate. And many Republicans have already
set a predictable howl about the possibility of Judge Sotomayor
replacing Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.GOP knee-jerk reactions -- David Corn wonders if Sonia Sotomayor will split the right by musing, "With his new Supreme Court pick, Obama gives GOPers a choice: Tick off social conservatives or alienate Hispanic voters." Corn's post quotes, among other right wing sources, Wendy Long, of the "Judicial Confirmation Network, a conservative outfit." Long has been all over the tube in recent hours spouting her hateful rhetoric about the President's nominee. At Firedoglake bloggers took a look at Republicans such as Orin Hatch, already spoiling for a fight about this, even though he has already voted to confirm her to two previous judicial appointments. Eli ventured. . .
Empathy misunderstood by some -- Another of our favorite Republican reactionaries, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), worries that Sotomayor may allow'undue influence from her own personal race, gender,' " Think Progress reports. Rush Limbaugh, naturally, wants her to fail. John Yoo snarkily writes that "empathy triumphs over excellence." Other Republicans have mistakenly pointed to how many times Sotomayor has been reversed by the Supreme Court conservative wing. But not all Conservatives/Republicans have lost their heads.a verbatim transcript of the GOP's deliberations on whether or not to aggressively attack Sotomayor and risk (further) alienating Hispanics and women:
letusthinkaboutitforasecondyes.
Maintaining perspective -- But conservative Andrew Sullivan questioned Tom Tancredo's description of Sotomayor as "a racist." And conservative writer Mark Halperin of Time Magazine, states unequivocally that Sotomayor will have "smooth sailing," and is "headed to easy confirmation." Daily Kos' David Waldman posts about what the Senate vote might look like. My perspective at this exciting time is that Sonia Sotomayor is the best qualified person by experience the President could choose, and perhaps even the best pick to rebalance the this group of too many white male Supreme Court justices. And the Republicans will not defeat her, no matter what they say or what they try.
Authors note: South by Southwest, my regular political blog is temporarily down. So I will be doing my political posting at Making Good Mondays until S/SW is back online. Check out my other blog, too; it's called "Behind the Links."
Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for my websites.
Technorati tags: news news and politics politics sotomayor SCOTUS obama
Advertisement
You know CarolG, I was going to just say that the GOP is causing me to lose all empathy I might have had for its members.
But that would be an outright lie. I lost any empathy I had for these members years ago.
I frankly do not give a damn what they think anymore. I just don't.
At this particular point in history, it really does not matter.
Thank you very much for this review however.
I mean I have to be updated on what the ENEMY is up to. ha!!!
May 27, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD, the level of the hatefulness of these unthinking critics is a bit alarming, I must agree. You are right about this point in history; they are on the wrong side of it. It must be a terrible way to maintain one's thoughts and emotions. I do not envy them. The situation makes me sad.
But I am happy at your comment.
May 27, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of the above was expected more or less, I think, Carol. But here's what I didn't even remotely expect:
When Gibbs was asked during the regular press briefing whether the Pres. had questioned Sotomayor on her abortion stance, Gibbs answered, "Not specifically".
Oye.
May 27, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just when I am ready to ...well whatever to the repubs, I start worrying that here we have a chance to put in a good socialist who can reek havoc for forty years....
I dunno. This president is the guy I wanted for the job.
LET US PRAY
May 28, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Empathy, shmempathy!
Has she got the c-----s to sit there in conference and stick it to Scalia and Roberts? That's what I want to know.
May 28, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now you're talking what I want to know, too. Cut the empathy and let's go for the brass balls.
May 28, 2009 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a feeling she does!
May 28, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to rely on "feeling" (Is that the same as empathy?).
I'd be a lot more comfortable with a Granholm or a Napolitano -- someone who's proved she can give as good as she takes, someone who's run for public office and can say "The people elected me. The only people you two ever impressed were an alzheimer's patient and a C+ Born Again doofus."
May 28, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
dd, I tell myself the reason Obama didn't specifically ask is because he already knows, please God. He just wants to tell Sessions and the others that he didn't ask, please God.
May 28, 2009 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is wise to keep it off the table, to feign that it is not a driving force in the decision.
On Randi Rhodes yesterday I heard there are descriptions of her as a b$tch on the bench, but a real loving person to her law clerks. Empathy and brass are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I suspect those who are all brass have no balls and are self-hating empathizers, which really just goes perfectly with the GOP homophobic homosexuals.
May 28, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I would like to know is how Catholic is she. I know, I know. That sounds very politically incorrect but she will be the sixth Catholic justice.
This is not a simple question of theology but of special interests and patronage. How much career support she has received from Catholic organizations with political agendas and what are those agendas. Remember the Catholic Church is just as determined to overturn Roe as the most fundamental of the protestants.
And how did we end up with six Catholic justices anyway. Imagine the howls if any other special interest group had that much representation on the Court.
May 28, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as she's not wearing a cilice.
Hmm. A strip tease at the Senate hearing? Nah; that wouldn't be prudent.
May 28, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, Ellen, I am disappointed. I expected some scorn but not from someone as hostile to religion as you. I thought you were more rational or maybe just less pc than most here.
May 28, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
One reason one might expect Catholics to be so prevalent is that they are better educated and make better employees. I do not have the study to support this. I saw it years ago, but it makes sense. It's likely they went to Catholic schools and they were taught self-discipline and restraint.
Another study, and no I cannot find this either, children were taken at around 6 years old into a room with candy on a plate. Told to take the candy or not. No right or wrong. The host would leave the room and return in 5 minutes. Anyone with candy on their plate would get more. Those who chose to eat theirs would not. It was completely the choice of the kid. Again, no right or wrong.
Many years later the kids who waited for more candy by not eating what they had were successful in many ways, including education, employment and families. The ones who could not wait were drop outs, convicts, and divorced. Of course, not all of each set was thus, but the correlation between those with patience and self-restraint, and those not, was dramatic and overwhelming.
Either that, or it is a plot by the Papists to rule the world having come to the realization that Catholic Latin America was lost to the USA and if they could bring us to bended knee, bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
May 28, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
One reason one might expect Catholics to be so prevalent is that they are better educated and make better employees.
bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha
Better educated? Then why aren't there at least seven Jewish justices?
Better employees? Not a good attribute for a Supreme Court justice.
I have no idea what Sotomayer's personal theology is and do not really care. I do care how she may have been influenced by a special interest group. It is naive to think an organization as rich and powerful as the Catholic Church is not a special interest group and does not try to influence politics:
Promoting Vatican policies sounds like special interest lobbying to me.
May 28, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do we not have seven Jewish justices? Gee, I don't know. Bigotry maybe?
Justices do not make good employees? How do you define a good employee?
Thanks for the trivia. I am not unsettled that the Catholics pray that their leaders receive blessings to do what is right. I may question what they think is right, but I do not disagree with everything merely because a person participated in a religious service.
May 29, 2009 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bigotry? In a couple of months the Supreme Court of the United States will have one Protestant, six Catholic, and two Jewish justices. Last time I checked, that is not how the general population splits.
And, you misunderstood my employee comment. It isn't that justices could not be good employees but rather that being a good employee is not a useful attribute for a justice.
As for the prayer thing, do you feel the same way about the National Prayer Breakfast and Bible studies sponsored by Protestant interest groups?
Look, we could talk at and past each other like this forever while getting further and further from my point which was that the problem isn't that Sotomayor is Catholic, it is that she will be the sixth Catholic. While these six have quite diverse personal backgrounds, the fact is that they also have one significant aspect in common, one worthy of consideration.
May 29, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I feel the same way about Protestants. I do not think we should preclude people who pray from consideration. It's when they demand others pray with them, or suggest those who do not pray are somehow morally deficient, then I have a problem.
Before I get too wrapped up in all those Catholics, I would want to know who they are are. The Kennedy's were Catholic and so is Kerry. The question is whether they allow their church to define their values, or determine what they expect of others. The real question to me is whether Scalia is creepy because he's Catholic, or whether he is creepy and just happens to be Catholic also.
May 29, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question is whether they allow their church to define their values, or determine what they expect of others
Exactly - and my original point:
What I would like to know is how Catholic is she
Thanks for joining me. Now, how do we find out.
May 29, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just came back her to TPM to find this lively thread, to which I must add my two cents.
It is stereotypical thinking that gets us all off track. Who knows how Catholics, Puerto Ricans, South Bronxians, women, empathics, Democrats, lawyers, single women, smart people, etc., etc. always think and make choices. We cannot assume with any certainty which one of her identities Sotomayor would bring to any given legal decision. What I hope is that she knows and loves the law. I trust Obama to have ascertained that before making her his #1 choice. She's tough and straight forward and will do well under questioning, IMHO.
Thanks for all your interesting comments.
May 29, 2009 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink