The Sotomayor Nomination: A Bit of Backstory
This morning we covered the announcement by President Barack Obama of his intention to nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor, of the New York-based Second Circuit, to serve as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. This afternoon, we participated in a conference call between a senior Administration official and several reporters, to discuss the Sotomayor nomination. Here’s a quick write-up of the call.
“Obviously it’s an historic day here at the White House,” the official noted, referencing the fact that Judge Sotomayor, if confirmed, will be the first Hispanic (and only the third woman) to serve on the SCOTUS. He stressed that the president took the choice “very seriously,” and read “literally thousands of pages” of judicial opinions and academic writings by the potential nominees. (Of course, as a former law professor, Obama is used to such intellectual heavy lifting.)
Obama interviewed four candidates personally (and Vice President Joe Biden also talked to the final four): Judge Sotomayor; Judge Diane Wood, of the Seventh Circuit; Solicitor General Elena Kagan; and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. He picked Judge Sotomayor based on three factors: (1) her overall level of intellectual capacity and legal acumen, reflected in her academic record, her work as a lawyer, and her judicial service; (2) her approach to judging, including her legal craftsmanship and her ability to win over colleagues on the Second Circuit; and (3) her compelling personal story, which was placed front and center at this morning’s press conference.
Then the floor was opened up to questions. Read more, after the jump.
The questions were generally supportive rather than confrontational. Here’s a rough summary — paraphrased, unless otherwise indicated — of the Q-and-A:
Q: Could we see a Republican filibuster?
A: So far today we haven’t heard Republican senators talking about a filibuster under any standard, “extraordinary circumstances” or otherwise. Our hope is that that can be avoided. We believe Judge Sotomayor is a very strong nominee and one that will do quite well in the hearings. Our focus is on getting her in front of the American people.
Q: What are the White House talking points on Ricci v. DiStefano (the Title VII case brought by the white firefighters in New Haven)?
A: Judge Sotomayor, as part of a unanimous panel, applied the law of the Second Circuit to the case before her. The opinion expressed a great deal of sympathy for the firefighters and their predicament, but she and the other judges on the panel believed they were bound by the law of the circuit to uphold the district court opinion.
Her critics can’t have it both ways. They can’t criticize her as a judicial activist on the one hand and then attack her for applying Second Circuit law on the other.
Q: What is the best response to attacks on her credentials?
A: Such attacks would be inaccurate. Judge Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, was an editor of the Yale Law Journal, worked in the Manhattan DA’s office, and was a partner at a law firm. Then she served as a federal trial and appeals court judge.
“I don’t know many of her attackers who have that kind of record…. People will take potshots, but we will defend her strongly on the merits. Judge Sotomayor’s credentials are not just good or even excellent; they are outstanding. She will come to the Court with more prior judicial experience than anyone currently on the court, and with more prior federal judicial experience than anyone in the past 100 years.”
Q (follow-up): Is that — an emphasis on judicial experience — a good line to push? What if the next nominee doesn’t come from a judicial background?
A: We take each nomination as it comes. Each nominee needs to stand on their own merits.
Q: When Obama met with the four finalists, what types of issues did he discuss with them?
A: He did not ask about specific cases or how they would rule in specific cases. Each conversation was different because each nominee had a different background.
With Judge Sotomayor and Judge Wood, he talked a lot about their approach to judging, how they made their decisions, and how they worked on courts to persuade their colleagues, especially those appointed by Republican presidents. The conversations with Solicitor General Kagan and Secretary Napolitano were different. But President Obama dug deeply into the legal writings of all the people he interviewed.
Q: How does the White House plan to address challenges based on Judge Sotomayor’s talk at Berkeley, concerning being a Latina judge?
A: Some of her critics have seized upon a single sentence, taken out of context from a rather thoughtful presentation by Judge Sotomayor. When you read the whole talk, you see the bigger picture. She observed that judges inevitably are the product of their experience. She also noted that it was nine white men on the Court who decided Brown v. Board of Education. She was not articulating some theory that only Latina women can be good judges.
Q: Over the weekend, the president made references to a nominee with “a common touch,” as well as a practical knowledge of business issues. These references seem to foreshadow his pick of Judge Sotomayor. Was that intentional?
A: The president did have Judge Sotomayor in mind over the weekend, having interviewed her on Thursday of last week. That said, he ran a very thorough process, and he didn’t reach a final judgment until Monday evening. His decision to select Judge Sotomayor didn’t surprise any of us who had talked with him about the decision. At the same time, it wasn’t a decision he reached without putting in a lot of time and thought.
Q: What did Judge Sotomayor’s time as a prosecutor, an assistant district attorney in New York, contribute to her background?
A: It left her with a sense of some of the problems our country faces, the need to have rigorous justice, and the importance of defending the rights of crime victims.
Q: Did the president open the door to the criticisms of Sotomayor as an overly emotional judicial activist with his initial talk about seeking a justice with “empathy”?
A: The president has made very clear that a nominee’s real world, hands-on experience will affect their judgment. He has also made clear, however, that he is looking for a judge who understands the importance of the rule of law and the importance of precedent. He believes that, in Sonia Sotomayor, he has found both. As she makes the case for herself at the hearings, people will find her to be a very compelling nominee.
Earlier: Breaking: Obama To Nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor (2d Cir.) to Supreme Court
(131) Comments
Comments
first
Very interesting. Thanks Lat.
Very cool. Even cooler -- the fact that Lat was invited to a conference call between a "senior Administration official" and "several reporters."
Was Obama a professor? Or a lecturer at law? Big distinction.
I hate the fact that they always elevate his past achievements beyond what they really are.
Over whom does this article slobber more - Obama or Sotomayor?
3 - Maybe they saw Lat on CNN this morning?
dam Obama promised me diss seat. I was gonna
wreck shop up in der. I already had my rope picked out, it had lots of bling like Rehnquist's. Obama forgot who got him thur, bros befo hoes brotha, bros befo hoes.
Obama is The One. Everything he did, does or will ever do, was, is and will be perfection. He is The One. Well, at least until the New York Times goes bankrupt.
Nice to see you again Lat, it is rare to see anything written well on this site since you left.
Thanks, Lat.
Can't wait for the conservative freakshow to energize and start spouting the most ridiculous and moronic nonsense I have heard in many a year. There's honestly nothing more amusing/pathetic than conservatives mounting campaigns against "liberal" judicial nominees, not to mention conservatives opening their mouths to talk about law and judging.
The idea that Obama sat around reading thousands of pages on the racist Sonia Sotomayor is absurd on its face.
Rush Limbaugh talking about law and equal protection (not that he knows what the 14th Amendment is) is beyond absurd.
Lat also wrote this morning's post:
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/05/sonia_sotomayor_to_scotus.php
And a post about the nominees (although he got it wrong, predicting Diane Wood):
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/05/scotus_shortlist_of_six.php
10, dailykos is two site down. Thx
Whatever one has to say about her judging abilities, it cannot be denied that she is brilliant - look at her academic credentials, especially at a time when the world of law was not very accepting of minorities. Add to that her diabetes and growing up in the Bronx to a single mother, and you cannot deny that this is truly an uplifting story. Nothing is more American than someone who overcomes multifaceted adversity and succeeds. I am proud to be an American today.
meh.
Seriosly, if I wanted to read this kind of kiss-obama's-ass crap, I'd pick up the NY Times. And does anyone really think President "I've got a lot on my plate and thus need a teleprompter to remind me to whom I am speaking" Obama read thousands of pages of information as background? Does he have the time for that? Shouldn't he be reading other "important" things, like intelligence reports? Or does he really believe, among other things, that his shit don't smell and his election as president has pacified the masses of terrorists who want do do us lethal harm?
don't be fooled by the robes that she got
she still she still sonia from the block
"There's honestly nothing more amusing/pathetic than conservatives mounting campaigns against "liberal" judicial nominees * * *"
10, wtf? Conservatives always mount the most chicken-shit "campaigns" against judicial nominees, as opposed to liberals, who'll put someone as batshit crazy as Anita Hill in front of America to talk about pubic hair on a coke bottle, not to mention the tens of millions they spent trying to defeat Roberts and Alito (Planned Parenthood made no fewer than a dozen telephone calls to me on Roberts alone.) No one cries louder than liberals when it comes to judges.
They're going to need a better explanation of Ricci than that... the panel didn't even bother to address the difficult issues. They were just like, "Well, it's a hard question. Too bad for you, though." Glad Cabranes called them in the dissen from en banc.
"it cannot be denied that she is brilliant "
Sorry, but there are very few "brilliant" lawyers. It's just not a profession that attracts truly brilliant people. Unless you're referring to "lawyer brilliant" (kind of like "lawyer hot," which she certainly is as well).
@17:
Yes, Obama is the only modern public speaker to use a teleprompter. I thought you guys gave up on that line of attack. Are you going to tell us he's not a U.S. citizen next?
Also, you seem to assume that the daily intelligence briefings are hundred page treatises requiring all of the President's time.
That all you got?
Enjoy political irrelevance.
Actually, if Sotomayor joins SCOTUS she would be the second Hispanic Supreme Court Justice - the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice was Benjamin Cardozo.
If Sotomayor came to my neighborhood, she'd be gangraped by blacks.
SoTTTomayor. Frontloading the personal history is the sort of cult of personality move you'd expect.
But it's so unnecessary given that almost anyone chosen with this first pick has such a favorable path to confirmation anyway.
21 - you must not have gone to a very "smart" school or work at a very "smart" place or keep "smart" friends. we all come across "brilliant" people in this profession. i can assure you she is one of them.
I can't wait for Cartman to do a talking hand impression of soon to be Justice Sotomajor.
Any former federal prosecutor on the Supreme Court is bad news.
26 -- you probably just have low standards for brilliance.
She is hot. I'll give her that.
30 = tool
A man putting his cock in another man's ass, and then putting it in the man's mouth, is not a sound basis for a marriage.
The People of California won. Get over it. After all, you don't actually feel all that strongly about gay marriage. If you did, you'd have excoriated Obama, Clinton, and other Dumbocrats for articulating the EXACT same position as Miss California. But you didn't. So you don't. Who do you think you're fooling?
32 - In your highly nuanced opinion, do lesbians have a "sound basis" for marriage?
I like that she is a former district court judge and trial attorney. It is an important perspective--the "trenches"-- to have.
Conservative partisans are stupid
Liberal partisans are stupid
Sotomayor is extremely ugly
And she was certainly not the most qualified person.
So that's that.
The idea that Sotomayor (or Obama) is "brilliant" is a liberal media fantasy.
Why is "an historic day" grammatically appropriate? I've never understood that. Serious question.
Snortomayor grew up in the projects. How ironic, since President Dipshit is hellbent on driving our economy into a generation-long ditch -- thus creating a need for even more projects to house the coming waves of the unemployed. But I guess building all those slums will create a few temporary jobs.
Dimocrats look at the New Deal as a Liberal Golden Age. The GREAT DEPRESSION!! Halcyon days, comrades. Halcyon days.
Didn't Justice Alito attend these same two schools (Princeton and Yale Law) around the same time as Sotomayor? It would be interesting to find people who knew them both and get some comments about their comparative "brilliance."
Conservatives are a fucking joke when it comes to constitutional law and theory. Listening to Wendy Long, Ed Whelan and Rush Limbaugh all day makes me oh-so-happy that I actually have a soul and a brain.
Sodomayor is going down in flames. She has sexually harrassed several female court personnel over the years. It's hard to believe the Obama bozos missed this in their vetting (not the first time with these idiots), but this is gonna get ugly.
Dear liberals,
Sotomayor is not good for you. Intellectual lightweights get pushed around on the court by the big boys, which is what is going to happen to Sotomayor. She was never that liberal to begin with; she's actually only liberal on this affirmative action shit.
Oh, and there is no such thing as a "latina." It's a made up ethnic designation with no content whatsoever.
Dear liberals,
Sotomayor is not good for you. Intellectual lightweights get pushed around on the court by the big boys, which is what is going to happen to Sotomayor. She was never that liberal to begin with; she's actually only liberal on this affirmative action shit.
Oh, and there is no such thing as a "latina." It's a made up ethnic designation with no content whatsoever.
Source/cite, 41?
Is Sotomayor really "brilliant"? Well, I think we should appoint some non-brilliant judges to more accurately represent a cross-section of Americans. I mean, think about what percentage of Americans aren't brilliant. It's probably huge. We should have somebody representing them. I'm sick of this pro-smart bias on the Supreme Court.
44: My sister-in-law, and two of her co-workers.
Don't worry, 45, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy have been hard at work making that dream a reality.
When did I ever said that I supported either Kennedy or Thomas's nomination, 47? Thomas is an obvious case of AA and Reagan picked Kennedy because he was afraid of liberals "Borking" him just as they had done with Bork, so he picked the blandest person he knew.
Remember, when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me. (but not really me, just yourself)
A truly historic day for fat women.
How hot is your sister and her coworkers? Are all three carpet munchers?
48 = fail.
47 was pointing out that Alito, Kennedy and Thomas are already ably representing that cross-section of Americans who are dumb.
I asked an illegal alien latina who works in the parking garage at my law firm what she thinks of Sotomayor. She wheeled on me and slapped me -- hard -- in the face. She then stomped away shouting expletives in Spanish. I was dumbfounded. What does Sotomayor mean in Spanish? Crikey!
"Sotomayor" is Spanish for "I have an ass like a 40 pound plastic garbage bag packed with mashed potatoes with lumps like golfballs."
52 and 53 both illustrate why it's better to have women and other minorities on the Court than stupid white men.
O'Connor: 115 pounds.
Ginsburg: 87 pounds.
Sotomayor: 250 pounds.
Sotomayor clearly will be TWICE as good a justice as O'Connor and nearly THRICE as good as Ginsburg.
Sotomay = BLW.
senior administration official? source/cite
All of you laid off losers who read this site, you deserve what you got, you whiney little pukes.
She's a MAN, baby!
24 - idiot who probably thinks his shit is salisbury steak and grabs a knife and fork
32 - what??????
38 - see 24
42 - race is a social construct, with no biological basis. the official label for ethnic groups changes more often as #24 changes his underwear, so don't worry about it.
The search was for a (1) woman, preferably a (2) minority, and surely a (3) liberal, who, finally, is (4) a fan of executive power - Big old Sotto hits on all 4 points...just because she meets these qualifications does not mean she is the best person for the job - there are TONS of "brilliant" people who I wouldn't want to be on the Supreme Court...THIS is the example of being at the right place, at the right time - but I don't think there is any way she was the most qualified person, at least based on merit alone (but then neither was Obama so...)
when they say she "is good at persuading her peers"...i hear that is a nice way of saying she is a "bully"
Obama = The WORST President EVER.
And the last.
What a great story...a left wing administration nominates a left winger for the Supreme Court and has a call with a bunch of left wing sycophants who toss softballs at the administration. The heart of journalism, ATL, well done. Next to censoring posts that mention Kash's Ass Lobster's position on abortion this is an award winning post.
60: GWB was definitely the most qualified person based on merit to be POTUS.
Conservative: "Sotomayor isn't the best choice for the Supreme Court."
Liberal: "Oh yeah, well Bush sucks."
Conservative: Obama's deficit is too large.
Liberal: "Bush sucks."
Conservative: "Increasing taxes is bad economics."
Liberal: "Your mother's a whore, Bush"
Conservative: "A government monopoly on health care will result in reduced access and less choices and innovations all in the name of affordability."
Liberal: "Bush is a torturer!"
Conservative: "None of Obama's policies have yet produced one positive benefit."
Liberal: "B-U-S-H Bush, Bush, Bush!!!!"
Sense a pattern yet?
I almost puked when I read that Napolitano was one of the final four. She would be Obama's Harriet Miers.
Republicans: Try to find someone on which to blame their problems.
Democrats: Take action to solve problems.
There's a reason that Republitards are called the "Party of No"
Kneejerk Negativity/ Schoolyard Names aimed at the proactive, informed moves by Obama (supported by the majority of americans) further erode their dwindling numbers. Keep whining, we love it!
Colin Powell - eminently respected within his own ranks and internationally, Republitards are foolishly pushing him out as "not extreme enough." His national approval ratings among the public? 70%.
Cheney - burnt out, scorched earth fear monger who looks like the devil's minion. Plunged this country into needless war and debt based on his lies to the american people after 9/11 which he failed to prevent even with advanced knowledge. Republitards are now trying to make his wretched face the face of the party (if you can still call it that. Fear + Hate + Namecalling + No ideas does not a party make). His nationwide approval rating? 30%.
Gen. Petraeus, top US leader in iraq, chief of US central command picked by Bush no less, now rejects Cheney's beloved waterboarding and says we should come in line with the Geneva Convention for our own safety.
Cheney - you are irrelevant and pathetic, no one, not even the majority (the sane folks) of your own party, wants you to desperately cling to whatever opportunities your name recognition may get you to sound off on your outdated ideas. Your ideology lost by mandate of the american people. Deal with it and go give yourself a swirlie.
Clearly the Republitards continue to make smart and savvy moves. Boy, I wish we would have listened to them in 2005 when they told us to put our Social Security money in the stock market!! Their great ideas and foresight never cease to amaze me.
Any bets on when Sotomayor first makes Jibaritos?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jibarito
Bush killed more innocent Americans by sending our WONDERFUL, HONORABLE, PATRIOTIC American Soldiers into war than were killed by the 9/11 hijackers.
He sent them into the wrong country for the wrong reasons (al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq, yet that's where our soldiers went and died en masse).
The NeoCons had been planning an Iraq invasion for more than a decade, and 9/11 provided the perfect (too perfect?) excuse for those gremlin-y little neo cons to play out their biggest retribution fantasies for being picked on in high school for being anti-social, dungeons and dragon playing, douchey little know it alls who everyone hated.
67,
You're neither witty nor relevant. Seriously, find Huffpo or Dailykos to peddle this crap.
There is a very interesting historical connection to a big Washington firm that you people seem to have missed today,
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/26/obama-pick-faced-discrimination-law-student/
There is a very interesting historical connection to a big Washington firm that you people seem to have missed today,
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/26/obama-pick-faced-discrimination-law-student/
There is a very interesting historical connection to a big Washington firm that you people seem to have missed today,
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/26/obama-pick-faced-discrimination-law-student/
There is a very interesting historical connection to a big Washington firm that you people seem to have missed today,
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/26/obama-pick-faced-discrimination-law-student/
69, please see 65.
Oh shoot, my attempt to be relevant by posting anonymously on a blog comment section failed? woe is me. Off to kill self now.
75, please see history.
Sotomayor's nomination certainly sheds some light on to why she is such a huge supporter/ judicial activist for affirmative action. You liberals defending her nomination are pathetic. This is a woman who believed her role as a justice on the second circuit court of appeals was to set policy - clearly she hasn't quite got a firm understanding of the separation of powers. Moreover, 4 out of her 5 decisions appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court have been reversed. Obama is proving to be as qualified at nominating SCOTUS nominees as he is at filling cabinent posts.
You're right 75. I have no right to speak out about the most atrocious crime committed against the American people (sending innocent Americans to die in a fabricated war) after my brother was killed in Iraq. Thank you for putting me in my place.
I hope you rot in hell you soulless piece of shit.
- ex-republican
"The questions were generally supportive rather than confrontational. "
Wow, it's surprising that the press corp was so easy on the great Messiah.
This nomination is a joke. She was selected for two reasons: (1) she is a woman, and (2) she is hispanic. She was not selected because she is the most qualified person for the job. Terrible decision by a terrible president.
81,
I totally agree! Finally, someone with some sense. For example, compare these REAL CREDENTIALS:
Samuel Alito: Princeton Degree, Yale Law, US Ct. of Appeals Judge, etc.
Sonia Sotomayor: Princeton Degree (summa), Yale Law (YLJ editor), US Ct of Appeals Judge, etc.
Yes, it is very clear that she was picked because of her race and gender. I can see why Karl Rove called questioned her "intellectual strength" and called Alito "brilliant."
82 - I agree with 81 - there is much, much more to a judge's resume than where he/she went to school
82 -- the etc.'s matter.
Let's be real 81, she is a bulletproof pick. Repubs will whine about some quotes but ultimately she's just plain strong. I mean, Repubs tried to get Harriet Miers. Did you call it that a "terrible decision" then? or just drink up the kool aid and toe the party line like a good little drone?
Anyone setting odds on how many years Turbotax has screwed up her taxes?
85 = Nancy "pinhead" Pelosi
84 = idiot.
The etc's matter? What the hell? What the hell would matter about Alito that compared to Sotomayer? Alito was good, okay. Sotomayer has been overruled a few times. Okay. That is probably because of the way the politics line up, yeah?
I'm not saying that Sotomayer is the world's ideal pick, but geez, you make yourself sound like a high-school dropout. Think...line up the dots...then speak.
Mmmm...kay?
84 - you're absolutely right. Absolutely stellar academic credentials on par with the rest of the court, AND she has more experience as a judge than any of the other justices did when they were nominated. Thanks for pointing that out.
69/79:
Very sorry to hear about your brother.
~An ATL reader (not the one defending Bush)
65 wins. So true.
Sotomayor = liberal version of Clarence Thomas
92,
Any coherent argument as to why Clarence Thomas should not be on the bench?
92 = someone who doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
Well, any future immigration cases that hit the Court are a wash. Can you imagine trying to argue the conservative position on immigration with those big, brown baleful eyes staring at you?
92 nailed it.
94= freshman at Florida A & M
I can't imagine arguing any position with those big, brown cans staring at me - it would be too distracting
97 = someone who doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
Can someone tell me why conservatives--not the hard right, not the ann coulters, and not the evangelicals--are crushing the left in the culture wars at nearly every turn--guns, abortion, gay marriage, immigration, progressive social-economic programs--and still completely unable to articulate a vision for the future?
Their arguments are individually appealing to a lot of America, but their synthesis ability sucks hard.
latham sucks ass
99 = Jennifer Lopez
quinn sucks more
100 - Because the media and there willing accomplices (Collin Powell, Arlin Specter, Tom Ridge, Olympia Snowe, etc.) make it very difficult for them to do so.
102 = someone who doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
Yes I know its "their." Shut up.
- 104
You know it's "their," but you don't know "its" is "it's." Noodle on that one for a while, you dolt.
I like how every time somebody criticizes Sotomayor the liberals point at something stupid conservatives did. Why? Because liberals know she was just picked because she was hispanic. Beyond that, nobody knows anything about Sotomayor at all. All I know about her is that she is ugly.
Im not sure what "noodle on that" means, but Ill see what I can do.
108 is credited. Honestly, if you can focus and crank out edits to your clerks' bench memos, anyone with the training and a room temperature IQ can pass as a SCOTUS justice--both liberals and conservatives have gotten away with that since the founding.
The most noteworthy thing about Sotomayor is her repulsive visage. She is a shockingly ugly woman.
Sotomayor critics who bitch and moan that she was picked b/c she's a female of a minority race are the same who think judges don't "legislate from the bench" as a matter of form and practice.
All of the SCOTUS picks have been strategic based on race, alienage, national origin and their ability to create policy that supports a sitting President's mission- from the bench.
Since when has being attractive been a common thread of SCOTUS? 1-10, Sotomayor is a solid 2 like the rest of the bench.
82: Don't you know that academic credentials that are suspect on a brown female merely reinforce a white dude's inherent briliance?
69 - I will be very interested to see how many Americans end up being killed in Afghanistan under the Chosen One... Why isn't the NY Times yelling and screaming about the rising body count now??? Also why did we never hear about the most murderous American President in History LBJ, anyone ever check how many he killed in Vietnam??? Maybe it just dumbass Texas presidents that are the problem and not a Republican / Democrat thing...
Can someone investigate test scores on people like Sotomayor and Obama before extolling their brilliance??? While test scores are not the be all and end all, I still don't understand these mere claims of brilliance by the left. I would like some proof. Also, if all men and women are created equal why do some get advantaged with lower standards??? Perhaps I can accept affirmative action in cases of people with less advantaged backgrounds, but when it is nowadays and for the past decade or so advantaging sons and daughters of the wealthy with diverse backgrounds, where is the equality in that???
Baltasar Garzón Real is a far superior Hispanic judge.
She was given the job because she is Hispanic. Its as simple as that, and as sad as that.
117 -
Amen.
Obummer will go down in history as the worst president that ultimately changed the USA from capitalism to socialism. His goal of redistribution of wealth has been attempted by failed regimes throughout history. Liberals claim Bush disregarded the constitution. Obummer has torched contract law (and its constitutional basis) regarding housing cramdowns, the recent bankruptcy of Chrysler and the imminent bankruptcy of GM. I hope at least one of the secured creditors with priority in the Chrysler bankruptcy will take it up to SCOTUS so they can slap down the administration.
She was given the job because she looks like a giant burrito, and Elie likes that.
It is simply NOT possible that Blahmah read thousands of pages of legal decisions. He knew the direction in which he sought to move the SCOTUS, as well as the aesthetic diversity he sought to achieve thereon. So this nonsense about Blahmah reading anything is baloney, much like the rest of his administration.
conservative: so, all you're doing is bashing bush, and not articulating any positions....
69: IRAQ!!!!
conservative: .....
69: ANECDOTES!!! WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO WHINE?!~
conservative: i didn't say... oh, nevermind.
Too bad she's a racist and anti-Constitutionalist.
People who lead off with idiocy such as "Obama will go down as the worst president in history" show themselves to be over-emotional 'tards incapable of forming an independent opinion.
Imagine if the City of New Haven had a tenth-grade-level written test for promotion to firefighter management, and they discovered that too many blacks passed and would be promoted. So they scrap the test and promote no one.
According to Sotomayor, such a decision would be a "race-neutral" decision, since no race got promoted in the end, and thus completely acceptable under Title VII and the 14th Amendment.
Change we can believe in. Yes We Can!
124 = liberal whore.
The way they are hyping this woman’s life story can only portend the book deal they are all banking on. Instead of reading her biography, I suggest the complete three season library of “Hardcastle and McCormick” on DVD.
97 = Ass Whooping En Route if he talks about my alma mater again!
FAMU, FAMU, FAM Go[t] Damn U alright, alright, alright ...
The sexism and racism that pervades these posts is really ridiculous. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
Whether you think she is "the smartest" or "the best" choice is irrelevant. She was nominated by the President based on her overall package and will be the next Associate Justice on the Court. Did her ethnicity play a part? Probably, but who cares? She got the job based on her whole package. She also graduated summa from Princeton, from Yale Law School and at her appointment will have more judicial experience than any other Justice appointed in the last 100 years. Her detractors seems to forget all of those things.
Finally, it's pretty silly to assume that the "most academic" or "smartest" individual should clearly be appointed to the seat. Appointing various people with different life experiences only allows for a broader perspective of views--something that cannot hurt this court--especially after Bush's two recent appointments.
Dear 65,
Please see all of the comments by "conservatives" above yours and their intelligent analyses of Judge Sotomayor's qualifications.
Please also note all of those liberals who, prior to your comment, raised the ghost of Bushes past.
Do you always argue against a non-existent "liberal" like that? You might want to make some liberal friends so you can have a more intelligent (and two-sided) dialogue.
Re the frequent fawning statements in the media to the effect that the president is really, really smart:
We have all known people with extremely high grades and test scores and impeccable academic credentials who were barely functional in real jobs. (Every Biglaw firm that recruits at prestigious law schools has several junior associates in this category at any given time.) In addition, we have all known super-intelligent people who just could not get with the academic program and therefore never thrived in formal education.
So no one says that academic achievement automatically equals intellectual brilliance. At the same time, it is puzzling that as far as I know Barack Obama is the only president and/or presidential candidate in recent decades whose academic records have not been released.
In general, someone who served as president of the Harvard Law Review (as President Obama did) could be expected to have a dazzling undergraduate and law school record, which you would think any campaign would be pleased to release. So something tells me that his academic record was not as strong as his handlers and his media fans would like us to believe.
Imagine the media reaction if George W. Bush (with degrees from Yale and Harvard) had steadfastly refused to release his academic records.