President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor is representative of why I so vehemently opposed his election. Putting emphasis on empathy (read favoritism) with certain segments of society over others and over constitutional/legal expertise is outrageous. That she lacks the constitutional wherewithal to be a Supreme Court justice is easily proven – she has a 60% reversal rate! Here’s the article.She has been on record as saying the court is “where policy is made.” Hmmm I thought the constitution gave Congress the responsibility of making laws and the courts the responsibility of interpreting the law. Wasn’t Obama a constitutional scholar? Maybe not. Here’s the link of Ms. Sotomayor’s speech.
Ms. Sotomayor is an activist liberal. The Washington Times’ editor agrees she’s too far to the left. Here’s the story.
Call your congressmen about this one!
9 comments:
Interestingly, left-wing abortion activists are a bit worried about this candidate as well. Steven Waldman of BeliefNet.com says "Everyone is just assuming that because Obama appointed her, she must be a die-hard pro-choice activist, but it’s really quite amazing how little we know about her views on abortion." I suspect that as a liberal woman, she's probably pro-choice, but as Waldman said, she's about as unknown on that issue as the Bush appointee Justice Souter. Speaking of which, it was Bush who first appointed her. In any case, I won't go so far as to support her, and I'm a bit skeptical of some of the remarks she's made regarding court activism (though in context it doesn't seem quite as bad) and other things. She seems like a well-qualified and very intelligent candidate, and with regards to her political views, she's about what I expected, and isn't any worse (or better--depending on your point of view) than Justice Souter is. So it shouldn't change the overall balance of the court (which I think is in the long run a good thing. It's a check on conservatives--part of the system of checks and balances that has evolved in our system. You may disagree, but I don't want the Court rubber-stamping the conservative agenda every time, because I don't think there's a guarantee that conservative ideology will always be right). In any case, I think the Court is generally considered to be slightly right of center, and Sotomayor isn't replacing any of the four or five "conservatives." Interestingly enough, while there have been several reports (such as the one you cited) of her being very liberal, I ran across this one describing her as a centrist! I'm not sure I'd go that far, but the author describers her as "the most conservative choice that President Obama could have made." All in all, she's not perfect, there are people who are going to be unhappy about her, but I think in all President Obama has proven that he's not the uber-radical liberal that was feared during the campaign. Liberal? Yes--absolutely. But a sensitive liberal, I think. He has the power to put anyone he wants in the nation's highest court. For that matter, he has virtually limitless control over our political system, thanks to a filibuster-proof Senate. But in my opinion, he hasn't abused it any more than his predecessor. I'm so sorry--I didn't intend for this to be that long!
Dang it...I meant to mention one other article. Here's a (albeit slightly biased) conservative who didn't vote for Obama who wholeheartedly supports Sotomayor's nomination. I sort of laughed when I read it--the editors of the NYT must have been salivating when they received that editorial.
Jon,
I would be THRILLED if she turns out to be Obama's "Souter" when it comes to abortion! However, I still have a real problem with a SCJ being nominated based on "empathy" rather than her constitutional law knowledge AND it is the "empathy" aspect that Obama has emphasized. Also, her personal story is being touted as making her "untouchable" from criticism - it's too "compelling". Justice Thomas' personal story was equally compelling and his constitutional standing far stronger, yet the left villified him vigorously! She's qualified when 60% of her decisions have been reversed and her decision supporting discrimination against white firefighters is being debated soon and will, I believe, also be reversed?! That track record makes her a good SCJ nominee? Puh-leese.
Also, regarding "rubber stamping" an agenda - I agree that the "so-called" conservative agenda (read Necon) is not always right, however I believe a TRUE conservative agenda will be correct in that it will uphold the original intent of the constitution. Again - this is where you and I disagree: I do not believe the constitution should be a "living document" subject to the whims of political hobby horses. The court should uphold a law or strike down a law based solely on whether it is constitutional. As the left wants an "evolving" constitution, I am extremely skeptical of any of its SCJ nominees.
I think your criticisms of Justice-nominee Sotomayor are fair and valid. I think empathy is not unimportant (depending on how you define "empathy"), but it shouldn't rule the conversation. I would add that her knowledge of constitutional law has to be excellent--just look at her experience. Regarding the "firefighter decision," even the New York Times found that decision "baffling" by the way it was given. Once again, I'll reserve judgment on her for the time being until I sift through the dissenting opinions regarding her. It seems as though her decisions reflect an attentiveness to the case at hand, using all available resources to make the correct decision. On the other hand, her comments regarding race rub the wrong way (and a few other quotes), and I think she ought to be questioned thoroughly about that in the Senate confirmation hearings.
Here's the problem I see. The debate over constitutional interpretation is not, in my opinion, an easy one to prove. By that, I mean that there are very smart people who are totally convinced on either side. Even if you're right, is it fair to them to completely stack the Supreme Court against them? In essence, even if you're right, is it really fair to have nine "conservatives" (for lack of a better word) on the Supreme Court? I think sometimes that's the side-effect of democracy. One group might be right more than another group, but in our system, we still give roughly equal ear to the other side. I'm not sure I articulated that very well, but I think there's something to be said for having activist and liberal judges on the Supreme Court (regardless of how much I agree with them), given that they are qualified for the job. Should they have all nine positions? Of course not, and probably not a majority, either. But some spots? I think so.
Here's the problem with "fairness" as a constitutional goal - who determines what is "fair"? Fairness is incredibly subjective. That's why we need objective laws. The firefighter decision was based on "fairness" - in that it was deemed unfair that only white males could pass the test. The test was objective and the fact that only white males passed doesn't invalidate it, to me. However to Judge Sotomayor it did. The fact that I can't ride a bike the way you can doesn't make your ability "unfair", does it? The left's goal is to "level the playing field" which is an impossibility! There are those who are gifted in areas where others are not. A Dan Ackroyd/Eddie Murphy movie in the '80s demonstrated that: Trading Places. Gifted people will succeed regardless of circumstances. Judge Sotomayor is exemplary of that fact. Less gifted (or less industrious, perhaps) people will not achieve the same success.
Jon,
As a blogger yourself, you might be interested in this ruling by Judge Sotomayor that many believe ruled against free speech:
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Critics-unhappy-with-Sotomayors-role-in-CT-free-speech-case.html
I understand your view of "fairness", and you're absolutely right about that. In addition, you're also quite right about the subjectivity of "fairness." However, I'll make two comments. First of all, "fairness" has nothing to do with ensuring a diversity of opinions on the Supreme Court. Justice-nominee Sotomayor fills the role of being part of the liberal wing of the court. I think having a liberal wing is indicative of a balanced court, and indeed is necessary in our democracy. They shouldn't have absolute control, for sure, but then again, neither should conservatives. The makeup of the court allows for different views on the Constitution to be available, regardless of which one is ultimately "right" or not. That does raise the interesting question of how to determine a "right" interpretation of the Constitution (a whole other topic, for sure!).
Second, while I wouldn't favor "trading spaces" (a more sobering example is the Chinese cultural revolution--one I've actually blogged about briefly), I do think there is a place for giving someone a leg up in certain cases. You have to be very, very careful, but I think there are cases were race and/or upbringing should be a determining factor between several otherwise roughly equal candidates. Do I want to totally level the playing field? Only if I plan on making the United States a utopia, which we both know is folly. A more realistic idea would be simply to make sure each person has the ability and resources to live up to their potential. You and I both know that's fraught with problems--there's only so much room at the top for the overqualified and ambitious.
On a related note, I think it's possible that America likes those feel-good stories. Obama is a man who managed to come from nothing all the way to the top. Sotomayor's story is similar, and Americans like that kind of story. Those compelling stories are what make the news. Sportscasters love to talk about those sort of stories in athletes. It's part of why I (and many other Americans) love the Olympics. It must be an American syndrome of loving to see those who were born at a perceived disadvantage succeed.
Your final point--regarding her ruling on the "D-bag Case"--I'm not sure what's wrong with her decision. It seems as though she left the door open for discretion by school administrators. Indeed, that makes sense, since school administrators know the student and her activities much better than a court ever could. Perhaps the girl was punished beyond her due (a point which the court acknowledged), but I'm not sure that's the court's call. Had she ruled the other way, I'm sure she would have been criticized for subverting the authority of school officials. As a side note, it's a lesson to me in being careful what I put in writing, because you never know when it'll come back to haunt me.
Post a Comment