Sotomayor is Obama's SCOTUS pick

[Brainster]

I dont see what's all that troubling about these remarks.

Suppose John Roberts had said something along the lines that because of his life experience, he would be a better judge than a black woman. Do you think you might see the controversy in those remarks?

But of course, I forget the old rule on this: It's not sexist if it's anti-male, it's not racist if it's anti-white, and it's not discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation if it's anti-straight.

 

[pgwenthold]

Conservatives didn't back Miers because of her lack of qualifications, not because she made a few donations to Democratic politicians in the 80s. She may be a capable manager, but she fell far short on concepts of constitutional law when questioned by senators. I saw it as the Senate (then majority Republican) sending a message to Bush that they would not be a rubber stamp for his political appointees.

I thought the problem with Harriet Miers was that she was unwilling to admit to being anti-choice to the right's satisfaction?

 

[Tricky]

Since she pretty much coasted through her previous appointment hearing and since a few Republicans, notably Olympia Snowe of Maine, have praised the pick, I think it is a done deal. The most the GOP can do is spatter some mud on her.

 

[ravdin]

I thought the problem with Harriet Miers was that she was unwilling to admit to being anti-choice to the right's satisfaction?

Nope. The problem was that her answers to a preliminary legal questionnaire put to her by the Senate were incomplete or insultingly brief. The Judiciary Committee requested White House memos (the documents that would shed the most recent light on Miers' legal acumen), which presented three unpalatable options:

1. Hand over the documents as requested.
2. Refuse and cite executive privilege.
3. Withdraw from the nomination process.

1 was too embarrassing and 2 would have been unwise, so Miers voluntarily withdrew from consideration. I don't believe the Senate put her qualifications (or lack thereof) under special scrutiny because of her previous ties to Democrats, or her alleged views on abortion, or even the accusations of cronyism.

 

[ravdin]

Since she pretty much coasted through her previous appointment hearing and since a few Republicans, notably Olympia Snowe of Maine, have praised the pick, I think it is a done deal. The most the GOP can do is spatter some mud on her.

It's probably a done deal as you say. I still support a rigorous (but fair) hearing. She's about to get a lifetime appointment, and no one should coast through a confirmation for the Supreme Court.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

So Clarence Thomas isn't "in recent memory" then?

He wasn't in mine. I was thinking Roberts, Alito, Breyer and Ginsberg, but you are correct -- he was only a few years before Breyer, IIRC (90? 91?) I think they're about comparable in experience. I think she has enough, as I said.

I also don't necessarily agree that Dean Kagan is "better qualified" than Judge Sotomayor - she has a "beefier resume," I think, but she has never been a judge. So really, it depends on what you look at, I think. I wouldn't say either one is definitively "better qualified" than the other.

Fair enough. I think her experience is sufficient; it should not disqualify her. I would not expect a big problem on the nomination, really.

 

[applecorped]

Experience? Obama picked her!

 

[linusrichard]

Experience? Obama picked her!

This would be a pretty funny line if she didn't have a bunch of actual experience.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Experience? Obama picked her!

I know this is another of your ejaculations that passes as a post, but I'll play along anyway. . .

What is this supposed to mean? Does this mean that you don't think she is experienced?

Did you miss her resume in the OP?

 

[Tricky]

It's probably a done deal as you say. I still support a rigorous (but fair) hearing. She's about to get a lifetime appointment, and no one should coast through a confirmation for the Supreme Court.

I agree, although frankly I can't see too much there that could really get her in really hot water. I suppose I'll find out as soon as the skeleton hunters show us the bones.

 

[Tricky]

Actually I'm just shocked that it wasn't Bill Ayers. Where is the old mad bomber in the Obama administration anyway? Weren't they supposed to be best buddies or sumpin'?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm a little curious about her position on reproductive rights. From her resume linked in the OP:

• Abortion (Mexico City policy): Sotomayor ruled against an abortion rights group in its challenge to the so-called "Mexico City Policy," which states that nations that receive U.S. funds may neither perform nor promote abortions. The abortion rights advocates alleged that the policy violated their First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights. Sotomayor upheld a lower court ruling dismissing the case, saying that the group's First Amendment rights had not been violated and that it had not been denied due process. On the equal protection claim, Sotomayor wrote, "The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds." Sotomayor did not address the underlying abortion issue. Center for Reproductive Law and Policy vs. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2002)

I'm just curious because I would strongly suspect she is a Roman Catholic (or a least was raised as one).

 

[boloboffin]

She is a Roman Catholic. She would be the sixth on the bench, I believe I saw.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

She is a Roman Catholic. She would be the sixth on the bench, I believe I saw.

Interesting. Our previous archbishop in St. Louis was among those who said he would refuse to give communion to any Catholic (John Kerry, notably) who is publicly pro-choice. Just curious if she'd be subject to that kind of pressure coercion, and how she might respond to it.

 

[Brainster]

I don't think there's a chance in the world Obama would nominate her if he wasn't convinced she was reliably pro-choice.

BTW, although I dislike that quote from Berkeley, I basically assume that the president should get reasonable deference for his pick. Elections do have consequences, and barring something out of the blue, I would expect her to sail through confirmation.

 

[Random]

BTW, although I dislike that quote from Berkeley, I basically assume that the president should get reasonable deference for his pick. Elections do have consequences, and barring something out of the blue, I would expect her to sail through confirmation.

I predict a no-holds-barred fight to the finish with a GOP filibuster of Sotomayor. Also watch for all the Republican senators who denounced Democratic judicial filibusters in 2005 and pushed for the nuclear option to either ignore their own prior positions completely or say that some random thing or other has changed.

 

[ravdin]

I predict a no-holds-barred fight to the finish with a GOP filibuster of Sotomayor. Also watch for all the Republican senators who denounced Democratic judicial filibusters in 2005 and pushed for the nuclear option to either ignore their own prior positions completely or say that some random thing or other has changed.

I don't think so. Unless the Senate Republicans can find an extremely compelling reason (i.e. one that will appeal to moderate Democrats) that Judge Sotomayor should not be on the Supreme Court, I predict they will not attempt to filibuster. They may make a lot of noise but at the end of the day, they'll want to use what little influence they have more carefully than this.

 

[Brainster]

I predict a no-holds-barred fight to the finish with a GOP filibuster of Sotomayor. Also watch for all the Republican senators who denounced Democratic judicial filibusters in 2005 and pushed for the nuclear option to either ignore their own prior positions completely or say that some random thing or other has changed.

Unless they can get the remaining GOP members of the Gang of 14 to go along with the filibuster, they won't have enough votes to avoid cloture. I would remind you that Bill Clinton's nominees both got overwhelming majority support, with Ginsburg receiving a 96-3 vote, and Breyer passing 89-7.

Essentially, this is not the one that counts; Sotomayor for Souter doesn't really change anything. In addition, the GOP will want to be very cautious about opposing the first Hispanic nominee. They don't need any more problems with Hispanic voters.

If I were to set an over/under on the votes for confirmation today I'd put it at 90.

 

[applecorped]

I know this is another of your ejaculations that passes as a post, but I'll play along anyway. . .

What is this supposed to mean? Does this mean that you don't think she is experienced?

Did you miss her resume in the OP?

I've wiped most of it up but I was referring more to Obama's experience, not Sotomayor's. She's got him beat by a light year.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've wiped most of it up but I was referring more to Obama's experience, not Sotomayor's. She's got him beat by a light year.

Ah, so your posts are merely off-topic. I see.

In case you missed it, the presidential election was held last November. Obama won.