Sotomayor is Obama's SCOTUS pick

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also the referee analogy fails because referees are not allowed to decide that some rules are not valid. The Judicial Branch is meant in part to be a check of Legislative Branch power. While lower courts can only decide a given case based on existing law, the SCOTUS can decide which law is good and which law is bad and has always had pretty great power to make dramatic interpretations of the law. They are not bound by the letter of the law.

One glaring example is that the First Amendment clearly is worded as a limitation of the power of the Congress. The courts have long interpreted the same to be binding to all levels of government. A state, county, or even a municipal government cannot establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion, for example.

Is this interpretation (which goes far beyond the letter of the law) the result of "activist judges"?

According the the "strict referee" analogy, the matter of freedom of religion at those levels of government should be a matter of states' rights.

 

[shecky]

Say, isn't it awfully arrogant of Sotomayor to pronounce her name the way it's really pronounced?

I saw Krikorian's boneheaded post a couple days ago. I wonder how he pronounces "John Boehner"?

 

[linusrichard]

One glaring example is that the First Amendment clearly is worded as a limitation of the power of the Congress. The courts have long interpreted the same to be binding to all levels of government. A state, county, or even a municipal government cannot establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion, for example.

Is this interpretation (which goes far beyond the letter of the law) the result of "activist judges"?

That's not a great example. The First Amendment per se does only apply to the United States. When States violate freedom of speech, the complaint will necessarily allege violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the rights protected by the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth (and some of the Fifth) Amendments, and applies those protections against State governments as well.

At the same time, it's not a terrible example either, since it's not immediately clear from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment what's incorporated and what isn't, and so it does require interpretation. But it doesn't go "far beyond the letter of the law." It goes far beyond the letter of the First Amendment, but not far beyond the letter of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I saw Krikorian's boneheaded post a couple days ago. I wonder how he pronounces "John Boehner"?

I'd like to know where he'd like us to put the stress in "Krikorian".

Then I'll put it somewhere else.

 

[Skeptic]

Man, I wish I weren't a white male. One day I will be a Hispanic female!!!!!

Well, Michael Jackson proved a black man can become a white woman, so perhaps you'll get there yet.

What I don't get is the "she's mediocre" comments as an argument against her nomination. Perhaps she is, for all I know, but somehow I doubt that if she were a mediocre conservative judge her mediocricity would matter to those who now attack her on that score.

"She's mediocre" in this context translates to "she disagrees with me". If she were obviously incompetent, that would have been one thing, but it doesn't seem she is. The conservatives shouldn't be taking the "she disagrees with me politically so she must be stupid" page out of the liberals' playbook.

 

[marksman]

What I don't get is the "she's mediocre" comments as an argument against her nomination. Perhaps she is, for all I know, but somehow I doubt that if she were a mediocre conservative judge her mediocricity would matter to those who now attack her on that score.

Dahlia Lithwick had a good piece on this from her admittedly liberal perspective:

Sonia Sotomayor is plenty smart enough to serve on the high court.... And nobody should say that Clarence Thomas is less so. Conservatives who believe that Thomas has done credit to the bench shouldn't argue that Sotomayor cannot do the same. And by the same token, liberals who believe Sotomayor is amply qualified to be there should concede that Thomas earned it, too.​

-Hands Off Thomas: Neither Clarence Thomas nor Sonia Sotomayor lacks the brains to sit on America's highest court.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Ahem...

AP poll finds support for Sotomayor confirmation

Americans have a more favorable first impression of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor than they did for any of President George W. Bush's choices for the high court, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

The public also backs her confirmation in higher numbers.

The poll, released Tuesday, said that roughly a third of the country has a favorable view of Sotomayor, while 18 percent view her unfavorably. Half of those polled say she should be confirmed; 22 percent oppose her confirmation. ...

And this poll came out after the poll-respondents knew about the supposedly "controversial" comments by Sotomayor.

So if those of you making the stupid "racist" charges want to keep ranting on and on, be my guest. Chances are, more than anything, that you'll just end up pissing off the very people you need on your side to win more elections - the moderates & independents like me. Which will eventually lead to even more judicial appointments that you can rant about.

Can't help fools

 

[MattusMaximus]

Hmmm... looks like ol' Newt is starting to feel the heat...

Gingrich backs off 'racist' label for Sotomayor

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday he shouldn't have called Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a racist, but said he was still concerned that she would bring bias to her decisions.

In a letter to supporters, the Georgia Republican said that his words had been "perhaps too strong and direct" last week when he called Sotomayor a reverse "racist," based on a 2001 speech in which she said she hoped the rulings of a "wise Latina" would be better than those of a white male without similar experiences. Gingrich's remarks created a furor among Sotomayor's backers and caused problems for GOP figures who have been pushing to bring more diversity to the party. ...

Oops.

Well, I guess we can expect to hear Rush Limbaugh start railing about how Newt Gingrich isn't a "real Republican" any longer, right?

The GOP is turning into a really bad joke.

 

[Cleon]

The GOP is turning into a really bad joke.

I'm still wondering when and why people decided to start paying attention to Newt Gingrich again.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I'm still wondering when and why people decided to start paying attention to Newt Gingrich again.

Comic relief?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I have to wonder. WTF does Clarence Thomas have to do with Sotomayor? Why should I have to consider Thomas smart if I consider Sotomayo smart?


PS, I do consider Thomas smart, btw.

 

[marksman]

Read the article to find out wtf Thomas has to do with Sotomayor and why both Thomas and Sotomayor are sufficiently smart enough for the Supreme Court.

My problem with Sotomayor is not that she's insufficiently smart. It's that her opinions are insufficiently eloquent (and thus less likely to convince Kennedy to vote with the liberal wing than the conservative wing) and she doesn't seem to have an internally- consistent legal philosophy.

Love or hate Thomas (and I generally disagree with him), he has a consistent legal philosophy that provides a framework for analyzing the law. I can say the same for Scalia and Breyer, but not, as of yet, for Stevens, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, or Ginsberg. I couldn't say it for Souter either. Breyer's the only one on the left pulling any sort of intellectual heft. I'd like him not to be all alone out there.

 

[GreyICE]

Read the article to find out wtf Thomas has to do with Sotomayor and why both Thomas and Sotomayor are sufficiently smart enough for the Supreme Court.

My problem with Sotomayor is not that she's insufficiently smart. It's that her opinions are insufficiently eloquent (and thus less likely to convince Kennedy to vote with the liberal wing than the conservative wing) and she doesn't seem to have an internally- consistent legal philosophy.

Love or hate Thomas (and I generally disagree with him), he has a consistent legal philosophy that provides a framework for analyzing the law. I can say the same for Scalia and Breyer, but not, as of yet, for Stevens, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, or Ginsberg. I couldn't say it for Souter either. Breyer's the only one on the left pulling any sort of intellectual heft. I'd like him not to be all alone out there.

Please elucidate on this judicial philosophy of Clarance Thomas. When it's an 8-1 split with 8 judges finding the Bush administration acted unconstitutionally, and one saying that all is well in the world, I have to assume that the philosophy is 'Republican Party rules, amright?'

Never seen any philosophy from him other than that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I read the article and I don't agree with the statement that if one thinks Sotomayor is smart, they have to think Clarence is smart as well. Just because both are minorities doesn't mean both have to be smart. I'd rather judge each person as an individual.

 

[linusrichard]

Read the article to find out wtf Thomas has to do with Sotomayor and why both Thomas and Sotomayor are sufficiently smart enough for the Supreme Court.

That's not the question. The question is why is it somehow inconsistent, as Lithwick implies, to credit Sotomayor's intelligence or qualifications without crediting Thomas's. I don't see that question answered in the article.

 

[linusrichard]

Please elucidate on this judicial philosophy of Clarance Thomas. When it's an 8-1 split with 8 judges finding the Bush administration acted unconstitutionally, and one saying that all is well in the world, I have to assume that the philosophy is 'Republican Party rules, amright?'

Never seen any philosophy from him other than that.

You have to assume? You can't read judicial opinions?

 

[Brainster]

I read the article and I don't agree with the statement that if one thinks Sotomayor is smart, they have to think Clarence is smart as well. Just because both are minorities doesn't mean both have to be smart. I'd rather judge each person as an individual.

I think Lithwick realizes that many of the same arguments used against Thomas could be used against Sotomayor; that neither of them deserved to be at Yale Law School but got in on Affirmative Action plans, and therefore that Yale degree may not mean as much if the person is a minority. One of the cruel ironies of Affirmative Action (as practiced) is that it actually gives a logical rationale to prejudice.

 

[aerosolben]

Read the article to find out wtf Thomas has to do with Sotomayor and why both Thomas and Sotomayor are sufficiently smart enough for the Supreme Court.

My problem with Sotomayor is not that she's insufficiently smart. It's that her opinions are insufficiently eloquent (and thus less likely to convince Kennedy to vote with the liberal wing than the conservative wing) and she doesn't seem to have an internally- consistent legal philosophy.

Love or hate Thomas (and I generally disagree with him), he has a consistent legal philosophy that provides a framework for analyzing the law. I can say the same for Scalia and Breyer, but not, as of yet, for Stevens, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, or Ginsberg. I couldn't say it for Souter either. Breyer's the only one on the left pulling any sort of intellectual heft. I'd like him not to be all alone out there.

A similar opinion on the subject from a science blogger.

I think this helps me to finally put my finger on why I am disappointed in the Sotomayor nomination. To some extent, one's approach to the law is independent of one's ideology. Sotomayor's minimalist, very technical approach to the law is mirrored most closely on the current court by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Alito. All three tend to eschew the kind of broad and bold statements, what is often called bright line jurisprudence, favored by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.

But what I wanted to see on the court was someone who does have an overarching vision of what the constitution is supposed to mean. I prefer the judicial approach of Scalia and Thomas even while rejecting the particular interpretations they would apply in almost all cases. And I was really hoping for a liberal equivalent of that, someone who could offer a bold and distinct paradigm to counter that of Scalia and Thomas.

While I have great admiration for Justice O'Connor as a person and find her story absolutely incredible, I never cared for her split-the-baby approach to the law. I think it leads to wildly inconsistent results...

...I am not at all a judicial minimalist. I want declarations from the Supreme Court to be clear, to draw as bright a line as possible between what is constitutional and what is not. That requires justices who do more than apply precedent carefully; it requires justices with a clear idea of what the constitution requires and are bold enough to flesh it out in their rulings and give legislators a clear target to hit.

Judge Sotomayor does not appear to be that kind of justice...

 

[NotJesus]

I'm still wondering when and why people decided to start paying attention to Newt Gingrich again.

Because it's actually less painful than paying attention to Sarah Palin.

 

[aerosolben]

Please elucidate on this judicial philosophy of Clarance Thomas. When it's an 8-1 split with 8 judges finding the Bush administration acted unconstitutionally, and one saying that all is well in the world, I have to assume that the philosophy is 'Republican Party rules, amright?'

Never seen any philosophy from him other than that.

You have to assume? You can't read judicial opinions?

Too true. Here you go GreyICE, I'll even link it for you.

Did a quick search for "republican party rules" in there, no luck.