The soon to be anointed Justice Sotomeyor performed pretty much as I expected her to during the Senate conformation hearings. She doesn’t really frighten me so much as the next appointee sticks into a job for life. After all, replacing a sexist constitution hating member of the Supreme Court with another will not make all that much difference. The next one though? The impostor in chief just might get a Second Amendment ruling of the people kind… In any case Mike Rosen summed up the hearings pretty well. Read on;
Predictably, the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor were mostly for show.
The senators played their roles, just as Sotomayor played hers. Democrats sang her praises and lobbed her softballs. Republicans homed in on her controversial decisions, which she deftly parried with contradictory assertions, evasions, rationalizations, circumlocutions and lateral arabesques.
When pressed to explain how she might rule on future cases, she liberally invoked the “Ginsburg rule,” institutionalized in 1993 when Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to answer hypothetical questions during her confirmation hearing. (How do they get away with that? If you were interviewing someone for a job, wouldn’t you want to know how they’d deal with future contingencies?)
Alas, in politics, this is the way the game is played. Nominees hold their cards close to the vest. Candor takes a back seat to tap dancing, carefully crafted ambiguity, and declarations of motherhood and apple pie. Even Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts pulled their punches as nominees. The last Supreme Court candidate to say what he really believed — and eloquently, at that — was Robert Bork. He wasn’t confirmed.
As was expected, conservatives were unsatisfied with many of Sotomayor’s answers. But the mixed reviews on the left were more interesting. Pragmatists within the liberal establishment, rooting for Sotomayor, took her coy answers at face value and declared her to be respectably moderate. E.J. Dionne asserted that “she is the most conservative choice that President Obama could have made.” NPR’s oh-so-liberal judicial “reporter” Nina Totenberg hilariously opined on the “Charlie Rose” show that Sotomayor may be even more conservative on some issues than Justice Anthony Scalia!
Maureen Dowd lamented Sotomayor’s retreat from her earlier preening about the superiority of “a wise Latina woman” but explained why it was necessary. “As any clever job applicant knows,” admitted Dowd, “you must obscure as well as reveal, so she sidestepped the dreaded empathy questions — even though that’s why the president wants her.”
On the far left, political pragmatism gave way to doctrinaire ideological grandstanding. This was their moment to proudly proclaim their judicio-political creed. Dahlia Lithwick told MSNBC she was upset that Sotomayor and the Democrats “bought into [Chief Justice Roberts‘] notion that judges call balls and strikes” rather than ruling on their personal opinions.
Rabbi Michael Lerner, chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives — and a socialist, one-world, Kumbaya utopian of the first order — urged Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to “make statements that explain why a liberal or progressive worldview is precisely what is needed on the Supreme Court.” If they had any backbone, Lerner said, they should declare: “We intend to vote for you, Judge Sotomayor. But we hope that you overcome this notion that you’ve been putting forward that your task on the Supreme Court is simply to enforce the law . . . we hopePresident Obama picked someone who was not just a passive ratifier of precedent, but a creative thinker who could look at the needs of American society today and help shape laws that fit these new realities.”
Lerner then rejected the “false notion that law is somehow impartial” and condemned the “rich white men” who made those laws and the “corporate power” they serve. Whew, what a mouthful!
Liberals needn’t worry. Sotomayor will be reliably “progressive,” if not the left-wing revolutionary Lerner hoped for. To believe otherwise, you’d have to imagine that theObama team got suckered by a closet conservative. No way. Only Republican presidents make mistakes like that. We’ll see soon enough when she takes her seat and starts casting votes and writing opinions. I’m betting Sotomayor will beRuth Bader Ginsburg with a Latino flavor.
Mike Rosen’s radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850-KOA.
Tags: Mike Rosen, mysandry, News, Politics, SCOTUS, Sotomayor
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 
July 23, 2009 at 18:47
Set aside the Congressional hearings — which are 99% political theater, and 1% nominee vetting. Is there a single objective analysis of Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record which has concluded anything other than that she is a rather strict letter-of-the-law judge? I have not seen it. I read things like, she rejected the claims of 80% of all discrimination claimants, etc.
Not rhetoric (like Mike Rosen, whether or not his rhetoric is insightful). An analysis of her actual rulings in total. I don’t think it exists.
http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 19:23
I certainly was not able to locate anything along those lines. Not that it doesn’t exist.
What I have been able to find indicates that her Constitutional interpretations vary greatly from many others. Including the current Supreme Court.
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 20:19
I would welcome seeing that, if you have any links or documentation. Thanks.
http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
July 24, 2009 at 12:50
Sotomayor is a train wreck looking for a place to happen… Nothing more, nothing less…
LikeLike
July 24, 2009 at 14:55
@ Fred: Why do you say that? Based on what?
http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
July 25, 2009 at 11:43
Her ruling on the Second Amendment in NY was in direct conflict with what SCOTUS had determined in the Heller case for one.
http://gunowners.org/a052909.htm
LikeLike
July 25, 2009 at 12:04
Related:
Click to access What-good-is-individual-right.pdf
LikeLike
July 25, 2009 at 14:59
Wow, you set a high bar indeed. If presiding over even one lower court ruling that ultimately was overturned by the Supreme Court is a “train wreck,” then Obama has two more appointments to worry about, so he can replace Alito and Thomas.
Then again, rulings that subsequently are overturned are usually evaluated through the “I liked it” or “I didn’t like it” filter, more than the law.
LikeLike
July 26, 2009 at 08:28
I didn’t post that statement, and I don’t edit or alter other peoples posts. You asked for a link, any link, so I provided that.
As far as my personal feelings toward the lady? I think she’s a racist, a sexist, and yes I don’t believe that anyone like that should be sitting on the Supreme Court. Do I set a high standard? Yes, I do and I think that the American people should have a high standard when it comes to any lifetime appointment to a position of such importance.
If you believe otherwise, then we will just have to disagree.
LikeLike
July 27, 2009 at 06:28
Well, maybe I misunderstood. I assumed you posted the article to your blog because you agreed with it. Sorry if I created any confusion there.
Although, your last comment indicates you do stand by the original article. It’s a strong allegation to label Judge Sotomayor racist and sexist, and if made, ideally should be supported by facts. I guess I just haven’t seen any reports of such facts. I am still curious what she has said or done to lead you to your opinion of her.
http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
July 27, 2009 at 18:23
Center Square; if you haven’t then you have not been paying attention.
I’m very busy now with my latest attempt at figuring out what I want to be when I grow up. 😀 But, I will attempt to locate the numerous citings and such over the next few days.
BTW, your comments here are welcome.
LikeLike
July 27, 2009 at 20:55
I have been paying close attention, but here’s the thing. Don’t you think that a judge with as much experience as Sotomayor will have displeased everyone with certain of her rulings, at one time or another? I do.
Do you think any political ideology is always ascendent? I do not.
I get the feeling that all, or almost all, of the criticism of Sotomayor is filtered through a conservative political ideology. The cycle seems to be: I’m conservative -> I dislike Obama -> I dislike his Supreme Court nominee -> I find the very few rulings which support my dislike. Here’s a good test: what sort of nominee from our elected president would you have found acceptable? Is there any?
Don’t get me wrong, liberals do the same thing. But let me ask you: honestly: do you think the Supreme Court confirmation has become overly politicized? And is that good for the US?
http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
July 29, 2009 at 04:39
No, I don’t know of any judge that hasn’t ticked off one group or another. And yes, the politicization of the Supreme Court is a reality, and has been for some time. No, that is not a good thing, period.
I would accept any nominee that follows the Constitution. The current SCOTUS, without Sotomayor, has proved to be cowards that bow to political correctness. Ex Post Facto Law, clearly un-constitutional, was asserted by the sitting court. Anyone that would have the courage to buck political winds, such as striking down things like ex post facto law, would be acceptable to me.
LikeLike
August 1, 2009 at 12:49
http://gunowners.org/a072809.htm
LikeLike