Sotomayor Nominated for Supreme Court

Remove all ads!

It could probably technically fit into the Obama Administration Thread, but since that has degenerated into a discussion about what torture is and who is responsible, I felt I could do it better justice by placing it as it's own thread.

It seems that Obama picked someone who comes from similar humble beginnings as he himself did.

Here's Da Story...

 

I'd never heard too much about her before today, but her background and qualifications are great. She seems like a solid, if unconventional, pick. Naturally we're already hearing "radical" and "activist judge" coming from the right, which is expected and, as usual, exaggerated to the point of absurdity. She's known for pragmatism and consensus-building in her rulings, which to me is one of THE qualifications I look for in any justice. She should make it through confirmation, I would think.

 

That's a relief. That means she's a great pick.

 

From the article she seems like a good pick. It never ceases to amaze me the power given to supreme court judges in the US though.

 

also he strikes to flies with her being both latino and a woman.

 

Paging Snook, Paging Snook.

She is the classic mistake by a Republican. Bush I through an olive branch to the Democrats when he nominated her to the federal court. When she came up for the appelate court the Republican's figured "Well Bush nominated her, how bad can she be." Of course Bush I and then II got no political goodwill from the Democrats for the nomination (to no surprise to me).

Now she is being nominated for the Supreme Court and the Republicans are so ineffective they will be unable to block her (like so many conservative appointments have been).

Her achilles heel is the speech that she gave at Duke in 2005. Just what we need, a Supreme Court Justice who either doesn't know how our government is supposed to work under the Constitution, or just doesn't care. If the Dems didn't have a stranglehold in the Senate, I doubt that Obama would have ever nominated her.

From CNN

 

What a load that is. If the Court can decide a presidential election (like in 2000), I gues they can pretty much do anything they want. All this crying must be the sound of "the other shoe" dropping.

 

I thought it was the old Cuban high jumper who got busted for cocaine use.

 

One day someone will have to show me the SC decision that says "Bush is the President". Dems will ignore the facts on this until the day they die.

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bush+vs.+Gore

The Court has pretty much always been filled with political hacks, even in the "glorious days" of the Founders. Anyone who doubts this should go back and read the early history of the SC and how it evolved. Conservatives hold up the Constitution when it suits their agenda, other than that they pretty much don't give a crap about it.

I notice that there is still a recount going on in MN, instigated by the Republicans. As I remarked, the sound of the "other shoe dropping" is either sweet or bitter, depending on whose shoe it is...and who's doing the dropping.

 

The classic Republican mistake is...being too moderate?

 

I like it, probably the fairest assessment I've ever seen of the 2000 election. I am going to have to save that link for I tend to get into 2000 election arguments about every six months.

Although I want to add one more paragraph from your link which really puts the nail in the coffin (at least as far as I'm concerned)

No, the classic mistake was believing that Democrats believe in bi-partisanship.

 

I believe on balance the link is pretty fair. I'm not sure what you mean by "the nail in the coffin," since the link makes it pretty clear that the court appeared pretty political in regards to its decision. So, I guess you concede that it pays to have a majority of conservatives or liberals if you want to win an election by "judgment."

Also, it would seem that had they allowed the recount Gore would have lost votes instead of gaining them. Gore only wanted to recount the counties in which he felt he would have won. Yet, a recount of the entire state may have given him more votes than GWB, according to some accounts I've looked at. The problem is that the results of any reccount were unofficial.

 

Exactly. How the whole thing would have concluded is unknowable. What we do know is that, had Gore gotten exactly what he wanted, he still would have probably lost. In retrospect, Bush would probably have been wiser to support Gore's request. Not only would he still have won, but he would have looked the better man for it.

 

Snook, that's an interesting view, given that the GOP's most important constituency is the religious right, which is not even slightly inclined toward compromise, nevermind bipartisanship.

In other news, best blog post ever by one John Yoo:

There is nothing I could say that would make that any more amusing than it already is.

 

He didn't need to. Within a year after taking office he had one of the highest approval ratings of any president (and then systematically destroyed it). I find it amazing that people still argue about the whole Florida election thing.

I agree with you, I doubt the make up of the Supreme Court (liberal versus conservative) would have made any difference in either the outcome of the case or the election.

The primary issue between conservative and liberals with regard to the SC is Roe v. Wade. I think nearly every other issue I've seen the courts rule on have shown all the justices to be individuals who weigh carefully the potential impact of their decision -- you really can't ask for more.

 

Snook, the vast majority of Supreme Court nominations make it through regardless of whether or not the Senate and President are from the same party or not. I don't know why you think many conservative SC nominations haven't been approved by the Senate. The only one I can think of is Harriet Meiers, and I think the main issue people had with her is she was never a judge before being nominated for the Supreme Court. I know that being a judge is not a prerequisite for being nominated (heck, you don't even need a degree in law), but it seems like a good qualification to have.

Conversely, Bush's nomination of Roberts and Alito made it through the Senate, even though the Republicans did not have enough votes to prevent a fillibuster. It's probably because while you may disagree with some of their decisions while on the bench, you cannot argue with their competence or qualifications. Holding up Harriet Meiers as an example of a "failed Conservative appointement" ignores the fact that she was underqualified, and many of Bush's fellow Republicans didn't like the pick either.

If you look at Sotomayor's actual decisions and opinions, you'll see someone who is much closer to Stevens and Kennedy than Souter. In other words, while she is certainly going to be more liberal than conservative (which is obvious given that she is a Democrat appointee) you could make the argument that she is less liberal than the justice she has been selected to replace.

 

Y'know, it amazes me, too. It isn't really there in the Constitution at all. The courts have assumed a lot of power that isn't theirs.

 

You are right, NOG.

 

and that is what conservatives complain about. For the sake of consistancy conservatives still believe this, even though we hold a majority in the SC and the power would go back to the legislature in which we do not have a majority.