Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor

[Surlethe]

NPR

President Barack Obama will announce his choice to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter at 10:15 a.m. ET, NPR's Nina Totenberg and MSNBC are reporting.

As we said earlier, today has widely been rumored to be the day for the announcement.

Update at 8:29 a.m. ET: The Associated Press now writes it's been told by "officials" that the president's choice is 54-year-old federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Update at 8:26 a.m. ET: The Associated Press says it's been told by a source that the nominee is appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Update at 8:23 a.m. ET: Earlier today, The New York Times' headline was that "favorites of left don't make Obama's court list." And on Morning Edition yesterday, Nina reported about the upcoming battle over the nomination.

Update at 8:20 a.m. ET: The Associated Press joins the parade, saying it has been told by "several officials" that the president plans a mid-morning announcement. Reuters says it has gotten the news from a single "White House official."

Update at 8:15 a.m. ET: NPR News will be on the air with the announcement and analysis from 10 a.m. ET to 11 a.m. ET. Click here to find a station near you.

I know nothing of her, so I can't comment intelligently except to say that the Republicans are probably going to be as obstructionist as they can.

[J]

Hopefully, she paid her taxes.

[Surlethe]

NYT

Obama Chooses Sotomayor for Supreme Court Nominee
By Jeff Zeleny

President Obama will nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as his first appointment to the court, officials said Tuesday, and has scheduled an announcement for 10:15 a.m. at the White House.

If confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, Judge Sotomayor, 54, would replace Justice David H. Souter to become the second woman on the court and only the third female justice in the history of the Supreme Court. She also would be the first Hispanic justice to serve on the Supreme Court.

The president reached his decision over the long Memorial Day weekend, aides said, but it was not disclosed until Tuesday morning when he informed his advisers of his choice less than three hours before the announcement was scheduled to take place.

The president narrowed his list to four, according to people close to the selection process, including Federal Appeals Judge Diane P. Wood of Chicago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

In what may be her best-known ruling, Judge Sotomayor issued an injunction against major league baseball owners in April 1995, effectively ending a baseball strike of nearly eight months, the longest work stoppage in professional sports history, which had led to the cancellation of the World Series for the first time in 90 years.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Everyone was pretty much expecting this. Sotomayor doesn't really have anything to recommend herself other than minority-status, and I would have picked someone younger, but this is pretty much poli by-the-book.

[Patrick Degan]

Obama wants her on the Court, therefore that is reason enough to oppose her in GOP-think.

[Companion Cube]

I know nothing of her, so I can't comment intelligently except to say that the Republicans are probably going to be as obstructionist as they can.

I'm not familiar with how the US appoints its Supreme Court judges, but what sort of obstructions can the Republicans now raise? I know they've already tried a smear campaign to cast doubt on her, but it presumably didn't affect Obama's judgement, since he apparently picked her over two safer choices, Diane Wood and Elena Kagan, who Glenn Greenwald describes as centrist and right-wing, respectively.

[Darth Wong]

Cue the whiny white people complaining that a Supreme Court justice should not be chosen just because she provides representation to a huge demographic, but should instead be chosen for good reasons, like "firm Christian values".

[SirNitram]

Given the reason the GOP tried to block her in 1998 from an appeals court position was because it would make her a good run for the Supremes, I think we can expect lots of screaming and whining.

This topic's codewords are 'Empathy' and 'Liberal'.

[Count Chocula]

Her personal story is inspiring, and a good example of the quote unquote American Dream. However, she's said a few things in speeches that cast doubt on her ability to impartially judge cases brought before her. In a 2001 speech at Berkeley, Ms. Sotomayor said the following:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

What? The? Fuck? Imagine those words coming out of Clarence Thomas, or David Souter, or hell William Rehnquist. Did she really say that she'd be a better judge than a "white male" because she grew up a poor Latina woman and made good? In my opinion, she should be judged on her accuracy and impartiality in applying the law.

From the same speech, before making the above statement, Sotomayor also said (emphasis added):

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.... I am... not so sure that I agree with the statement. First... there can never be a universal definition of wise.

Interestingly, a case she ruled on, Ricci vs. DeStefano, is going to be appealed to the Supreme Court in June. The short story of the case is that Ct. firefighter Frank Ricci was denied promotion, for which he had passed his testing, because he was not black. The city threw out the test results for Ricci and others because not enough black firefighters did well enough on the exams to get promotions. I'd be interested to know her thought processes behind her ruling, but she issued the ruling (as one of three judges) without filing an opinion.

She has had one of her decisions overturned by the Supremes on appeal:

She wrote a major environmental law ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency could not use a cost-benefit analysis in regulating cooling water intake structures at power plants to protect aquatic life. That ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court earlier this year.

She also said in 2005 that the courts are the place "where policy is made." Oops. She went on to say:

"And I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't make law," Sotomayor added. "I know."

As the audience laughed, Sotomayor, quipped, "I am not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it."

So she said one thing, possibly realized that her "inside voice" got "outside," and retracted her statement. Color me skeptical.

From a brief reading, she does not appear to be a SC nominee who would judge cases impartially on the Supreme Court. We'll see if her confirmation hearings go as smoothly as Clarence Thomas' did.

[SirNitram]

You'll have to forgive me, Chocula, for not taking seriously the words of the New York Post(Murdoch's gossip mag), and the National Journal, which is openly aimed at the heavily conservative D.C. cocktail party circuit. Given those are people who think prosecuting Bush would be vindictive and personal, and that the Iraq War was a good idea, I'm gonna have to ignore anything from that editorial paper.

Now, some observed comments from conservatives on the potential Justice:

"Does the nominee still have Diabetes? Could the Messiah heal her, or does she just not want to ask?"

The rodeo clown coalition is apparently against this one. How about the faux-populist ultra-Christian caucus?

Sotomayor’s appointment “the clearest indication yet that President Obama’s campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric.”

Picking a judge picked by Bush 41 and Clinton is extremist. Okaaaaay there.

I'll wrap this up with some excerpts from the 'accidentally' leaked GOP Talking Points. Link

o Obama has said his criterion for nominating judges would be their "heart" and "empathy."

o Obama said he believes Supreme Court justices should understand the Court's role "to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process."

Told ya, Empathy is the codeword here.

o Justice Souter's retirement could move the Court to the left and provide a critical fifth vote for:

o Further eroding the rights of the unborn and property owners;

o Imposing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage;

o Stripping "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and completely secularizing the public square;

o Abolishing the death penalty;

o Judicial micromanagement of the government's war powers.

Let the paranoia on the Right Wing reign!

[Surlethe]

Justice Souter's retirement could move the Court to the left and provide a critical fifth vote for: ...

That's right, because Souter was one of SCOTUS's die-hard conservatives! Right?

[Edi]

Chocula, you're full of shit. The first quote you posted only highlights the differences in life experience between someone like her and someone like Scalia, Rehnquist and other old white men.

The second quote also has nothing suspicious in it because it happens to be a fact of life and biology that men and women have very different thought process paths regarding several issues, and it would be really fucking stupid to pretend that this is not the case.

The fact that some of her decisions have been overturned is not a black mark in and of itself. Or is it only a requirement for candidates nominated by Democratic presidents to have a perfect track record? The rest was addressed by Nitram.

[Count Chocula]

You'll have to forgive me, Chocula, for not taking seriously the words of the New York Post(Murdoch's gossip mag), and the National Journal, which is openly aimed at the heavily conservative D.C. cocktail party circuit. Given those are people who think prosecuting Bush would be vindictive and personal, and that the Iraq War was a good idea, I'm gonna have to ignore anything from that editorial paper.

Sure I used the Post and National Journal as sources, but their sources were her own words, so I figured that was solid enough.

On the Beck, Huckabee, and RNC quotes: I didn't see those. I presume Beck's "Does the nominee still have Diabetes? Could the Messiah heal her, or does she just not want to ask?" was tongue in cheeck, since his presentation is IMO 70% style and 30% substance.

You know, the first set of talking points from the RNC (from the link, not the ones you quoted) is actually pretty reasonable. Why didn't they stop there? This one from their last set of talking points, in particular, got a major from me:

Stripping "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and completely secularizing the public square;

I guess the RNC leadership forgot (or forgot to Google) that the words "under God" were added on Flag Day, 1954...I doubt this "issue" would be a priority for the Supreme Court.

You know, I keep trying to lay out some key points for the Repubs in the "5 Reasons the GOP Will Rebound" thread, and then I read dumb stuff like this. It's killing my enthusiasm, because the RNC leadership keeps making stupid little mistakes on stupid little issues, further undermining their credibility. They just can't seem to get their footwork right.

[Samuel]

You know, I keep trying to lay out some key points for the Repubs in the "5 Reasons the GOP Will Rebound" thread, and then I read dumb stuff like this. It's killing my enthusiasm, because the RNC leadership keeps making stupid little mistakes on stupid little issues, further undermining their credibility. They just can't seem to get their footwork right.

You keep assuming that they are reality and goal rather than ideologically driven. It all makes sense if you remove the idea that the point of their activities is solely focused on winning.

[Steve]

That's because they're convinced there is a silent majority if innately conservative Americans that will bring them electoral success if they just stay true to the conservative message. McCain's sin in their eyes was not being conservative enough, prompting aforementioned silent majority to not vote since they didn't want to choose between "socialist" and "liberal-in-Republican-clothing" (or at least that's how I figure they'd consider Obama and McCain).

We'll see if they continue to insist on this inanity and what misfortune it brings them in the next two election cycles, that may determine the future of the GOP.

[SirNitram]

You'll have to forgive me, Chocula, for not taking seriously the words of the New York Post(Murdoch's gossip mag), and the National Journal, which is openly aimed at the heavily conservative D.C. cocktail party circuit. Given those are people who think prosecuting Bush would be vindictive and personal, and that the Iraq War was a good idea, I'm gonna have to ignore anything from that editorial paper.

Sure I used the Post and National Journal as sources, but their sources were her own words, so I figured that was solid enough.

Have you ever considered that they might cherry pick, remove context, or just plain lie? That their massive bias might come into play?

On the Beck, Huckabee, and RNC quotes: I didn't see those. I presume Beck's "Does the nominee still have Diabetes? Could the Messiah heal her, or does she just not want to ask?" was tongue in cheeck, since his presentation is IMO 70% style and 30% substance.

This is a man who has seriously entertained people on his show to wargame the armed uprising of America, and promoted such a situation. He's a dangerous fucking looney-tune, but he's also listened to by conservatives.

You know, the first set of talking points from the RNC (from the link, not the ones you quoted) is actually pretty reasonable. Why didn't they stop there? This one from their last set of talking points, in particular, got a major from me:

Stripping "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and completely secularizing the public square;

I guess the RNC leadership forgot (or forgot to Google) that the words "under God" were added on Flag Day, 1954...I doubt this "issue" would be a priority for the Supreme Court.

The first set, frankly, are why I put quotes around 'accidentally'. It is completely and totally out of line with the actions of the GOP since the election, and are there so the media dutifully follows the GOP's new shiny object.

You know, I keep trying to lay out some key points for the Repubs in the "5 Reasons the GOP Will Rebound" thread, and then I read dumb stuff like this. It's killing my enthusiasm, because the RNC leadership keeps making stupid little mistakes on stupid little issues, further undermining their credibility. They just can't seem to get their footwork right.

I have to laugh at the 'little'. Then again, they ruined all the large-scale issues in power. Had to find new fodder to wreck.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Cue the whiny white people complaining that a Supreme Court justice should not be chosen just because she provides representation to a huge demographic, but should instead be chosen for good reasons, like "firm Christian values".

Why of course Dear Leader, Behold!!!

We are ALL Americans! When you come to this country you are supposed to MELT!

I am referring to the melting pot! Yes..,you can keep your traditions. I want them celebrated in the privacy of your homes, or perhaps sharing your experiences of your native country in the classrooms of your children, or with neighbors that have become your friends.March in a parade once a year to celebrate a special holiday of your native country. I'll come. I love parades.

I do not want you to feel that you are entitled to special treatment because of where you are from, what you have endured, or what you think you deserve.

I want you to assimilate! I want you to put THIS country first! and I want you to understand that EVERYONE in this country is the same. We are AMERICANS!

I think it is sad that we have a nominee for SCOTUS who prides herself on being a N.Y.Rican first and an American second.

I want to say to her...,Get over yourself.

Or perhaps you'd like:

I am a white, WOMAN, and would rather drop dead than to be bantered about as the first so-so and third woman.

Actually, she is not even the first hispanic. Benjamin Cardozo was.


She believes in empathy, which is NOT a quality of a judge. If you and I were parties to a litigation, I would not expect my sex or your liberalism to be a factor, at all. Now when can we expect to find her with her Lesbian lover

And my Personal favorite:

Diversity" is not now nor has it even been a standard for a seat on the United States Supreme Court. How dare you. The standard is judicial temperament, scholarship, intellectual achievement, and confirmability based on a candidate's past rulings.

The notion that an American court cannot be fair and impartial unless it includes one of every flavor is repugnant, intellectually dishonest, bigoted and vulgar.

She believes that you can LEGISLATE from the bench, when the JUDICIAL BRANCH is supposed to INTERPRET the law.

She is empathetic to Latina and Black women.


She forgets the blind-fold of justice when she enters the courtroom.

[Straha]

I know nothing of her, so I can't comment intelligently except to say that the Republicans are probably going to be as obstructionist as they can.

I'm not familiar with how the US appoints its Supreme Court judges, but what sort of obstructions can the Republicans now raise? I know they've already tried a smear campaign to cast doubt on her, but it presumably didn't affect Obama's judgement, since he apparently picked her over two safer choices, Diane Wood and Elena Kagan, who Glenn Greenwald describes as centrist and right-wing, respectively.

She goes through confirmation hearings and a public vote. Nobody is going to try to actually stop her from taking a seat on the court, barring some major scandal coming to light about her life. Instead Republicans will make lots of speeches against her, calling her a shill for the left, unqualified and will imply that she was picked solely for her race and that the Democrats want to squash all personal freedom in America using her. The Democrats will insinuate that the Republicans are being racist, sexist, misogynist pigs who wish to squash all personal freedom in America by blocking her. It'll play out nice in the press, bring attention to a number of politicians hungry for a couple column inches, but there'll be no thought of actually trying to block her (unlike how it played out with, say, Thomas, Bork or Miers) with anything.

[CmdrWilkens]

She has had one of her decisions overturned by the Supremes on appeal:

Worth talking about I will quote from elsewhere:

From Kos, well not Kos but one of the contributors

Diamond legend Ted Williams once said that hitting a baseball "carries with it the continuing frustration of knowing that even if you are a .300 hitter... you are going to fail at your job seven out of ten times." The same, apparently, is true for Supreme Court appellees. Over each of the last several terms, the high court has reversed 75% of the cases that have come before it.

That number might seem high, but it makes perfect sense. The Supreme Court, unlike the federal circuit courts of appeal, can choose which cases it wants to hear (a perogative called certiorari). The Supremes select just a handful of matters (maybe 1-2% out of thousands) each year, and they generally pick rulings they'd like to overturn. After all, if they're happy with an appeals court decision, why spend more time on it if they'd only uphold it?

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, though, seems to have something in common with Teddy Ballgame - her average was well above average. Indeed, Sotomayor's decisions were upheld far more frequently than the norm. Apparently, out of the 380-odd opinions she penned while on the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court granted cert on just six. And of those six, Sotomayor was reversed on only three. That's a .500 batting average, a figure even Ted Williams would have to admire.

So when 377 out of 380 opinions are either upheld or left unchallenged (and thus are law as she rests with a court of competent authority for the whole nation even if it doesn't have jurisdiction over the whole) I think we can safely say her work is generally well reasoned and argued.

[Count Chocula]

So when 377 out of 380 opinions are either upheld or left unchallenged (and thus are law as she rests with a court of competent authority for the whole nation even if it doesn't have jurisdiction over the whole) I think we can safely say her work is generally well reasoned and argued.

It seems she's had seven cases out of 380 opinions referred to the Supreme Court. I don't know how that compares to the record of the sitting SC justices, so I'll withold opinion until the confirmation hearings are underway. Here are more tidbits: a Google search turned up seven Sotomayor cases referred to the SC. I paid attention to the rulings, not to the opinions (it's a conservative blog). Here's the list:

• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) - decision pending (it's been granted cert and is up for review in June)
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) - reversed 6-3
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) - upheld but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) - reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) - reversed 5-4
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) - reversed 5-4
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) - reversed 7-2

Granted that the SC reviews cases where they reverse the lower court decision ~60%-75% of the time, her reversal ratio (5 to 1, with 1 probable reversal pending) is trending above the SC norm. Having said that, however, I'll add that I don't know how many of her court's decisions have been referred to the SC and not been granted cert, which would imply that her decisions in those cases were sound.

[Vympel]

Frankly, reading these pathetic mouthbreathers who couldn't comprehend a legal judgement if it slapped them in the face with its cock bitch and moan about a Supreme Court Justice appointment makes me sick.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I especially love the hilarious equation of "policy" with "writing law". Seriously, people, a policy is not a law.

[Ford Prefect]

She believes in empathy, which is NOT a quality of a judge.

I doubt this woman would be so quick to say this if she was at end of the gavel. I'm not really all that familiar with the courts in America, but do they have the doctrine of equity, or something equivalent? The law is harsh, and sometimes stringent application of the law is not appropriate in every case. This is a pretty basic concept which I learnt in the first couple of weeks of my first year introductory course.

[The Spartan]

She believes in empathy, which is NOT a quality of a judge.

I doubt this woman would be so quick to say this if she was at end of the gavel. I'm not really all that familiar with the courts in America, but do they have the doctrine of equity, or something equivalent? The law is harsh, and sometimes stringent application of the law is not appropriate in every case. This is a pretty basic concept which I learnt in the first couple of weeks of my first year introductory course.

Not to mention, as has been pointed out before, lack of empathy is the definition of a sociopath. Would we really want a sociopath sitting on the highest court in the land?

[Cairber]

If you read the speech where she said that quote about a latina woman being able to make a better judgment, the quote makes much more sense:

here are some pieces of it:

That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

I bolded the cherry picked quote from the article.

full speech found here