The Woman Who Saved Baseball!!!
Was anyone else insulted by Obama's speech introducing his Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor? It sounded a lot like some other speeches he's given.
On the campaign trail.
Obama was selling Sotomayor like a politician. He cracked jokes with that trademark Obama stilted humor, offering anodyne anecdotes from her biography as evidence of her readiness for the highest court. She decided the case that saved baseball! As if any single court decision has the power to save or destroy the sport. But Americans love baseball, so let's sell her on that! We were also reminded that she became interested in doling out justice after reading Nancy Drew books as a young girl.
As if. Yeah, Obama selected her because she reads kid's detective books.
Where was the discussion-- or the mention-- or her judicial philosophies, of her legal perspective? Obama-the-law-professor must have more insightful commentary to provide on Sotomayor outside offering kooky details from her biography. His unwillingness to even acknolwedge a deeper intellectual basis for his reasoning seems rather condescending.
What he didn't say was 'I picked Ms. Sotomayor because she believes, as I do, that the consitution is a living document.' Obama has talked before about how he eschews looking at law in the abstract. He prefers to examine the real-life consequences of jurisprudence in every situation. Ms. Sotomayor understands this. It's why she made her comments about the bench being "where policy is made"-- comments now billed as her first YouTube controversy.
This woman seems to understand that court decisions have wide ranging policy implications. Law does not exist within in a vacuum. It does not exist solely within a textbook. It is meant to be updated and revised to reflect society's needs. The decisions taken by judges affect people's lives, and thankfully, Sotomayor has spoken candidly on this subject, acknowledging that her experiences as a minority and as a woman lend crucial perspective when considering the implications for those people affected by legislation.
Yet Obama, who has penned thoughtful exam questions for his law students at the University of Chicago, mentions none of this in presenting his new choice to the American public. Instead, he panders. He offers her biography. He ignores the weightier intellectual issues at stake.
People call Obama professorial, boring, an explainer-in-chief. Where was the explaining here? I got nothing but saccharine campaign trail fluff. That's demeaning to my intelligence. And it's insulting.
On the campaign trail.
Obama was selling Sotomayor like a politician. He cracked jokes with that trademark Obama stilted humor, offering anodyne anecdotes from her biography as evidence of her readiness for the highest court. She decided the case that saved baseball! As if any single court decision has the power to save or destroy the sport. But Americans love baseball, so let's sell her on that! We were also reminded that she became interested in doling out justice after reading Nancy Drew books as a young girl.
As if. Yeah, Obama selected her because she reads kid's detective books.
Where was the discussion-- or the mention-- or her judicial philosophies, of her legal perspective? Obama-the-law-professor must have more insightful commentary to provide on Sotomayor outside offering kooky details from her biography. His unwillingness to even acknolwedge a deeper intellectual basis for his reasoning seems rather condescending.
What he didn't say was 'I picked Ms. Sotomayor because she believes, as I do, that the consitution is a living document.' Obama has talked before about how he eschews looking at law in the abstract. He prefers to examine the real-life consequences of jurisprudence in every situation. Ms. Sotomayor understands this. It's why she made her comments about the bench being "where policy is made"-- comments now billed as her first YouTube controversy.
This woman seems to understand that court decisions have wide ranging policy implications. Law does not exist within in a vacuum. It does not exist solely within a textbook. It is meant to be updated and revised to reflect society's needs. The decisions taken by judges affect people's lives, and thankfully, Sotomayor has spoken candidly on this subject, acknowledging that her experiences as a minority and as a woman lend crucial perspective when considering the implications for those people affected by legislation.
Yet Obama, who has penned thoughtful exam questions for his law students at the University of Chicago, mentions none of this in presenting his new choice to the American public. Instead, he panders. He offers her biography. He ignores the weightier intellectual issues at stake.
People call Obama professorial, boring, an explainer-in-chief. Where was the explaining here? I got nothing but saccharine campaign trail fluff. That's demeaning to my intelligence. And it's insulting.
