What about Sotomayor?
1:05 AM
by Nick Stone of the Drawnlines Blog
There is little doubt that Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice of the United States. Few can argue that the Democrats will have the votes to confirm her nomination, as they have a ten seat Senate majority and will likely suffer no defections.
The obvious question is, "Is she the right candidate?" Everyone from Capitol Hill and politics around the nation has been chiming in, and in lieu of answering the question here, we've provided excerpts from two good dissenting opinions. Feel free to chime in below.
Republican Strategist and WSJ Contributor Karl Rove claims that the pick is a clear move to advance liberal agenda from the bench:
E.J. Dionne of the WaPo counters that Sotomayor is no Leftist:
There is little doubt that Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice of the United States. Few can argue that the Democrats will have the votes to confirm her nomination, as they have a ten seat Senate majority and will likely suffer no defections.
The obvious question is, "Is she the right candidate?" Everyone from Capitol Hill and politics around the nation has been chiming in, and in lieu of answering the question here, we've provided excerpts from two good dissenting opinions. Feel free to chime in below.
Republican Strategist and WSJ Contributor Karl Rove claims that the pick is a clear move to advance liberal agenda from the bench:
"Empathy" is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn't pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.
There is a certain irony in a president who routinely praises America's commitment to "the rule of law" but who picks Supreme Court nominees for their readiness to discard the rule of law whenever emotion moves them.
Mr. Obama's pick also allows him to placate Hispanic groups who'd complained of his failure to appoint more high profile Latinos to his administration. After the Democratic share of the Hispanic vote increased to 67% in 2008 from 53% in 2004, Latino groups felt they were due more cabinet and White House posts.
Mr. Obama also hopes to score political points as GOP senators oppose a Latina. Being able to jam opponents is a favorite Chicago political pastime. Besides, the president has been reluctant to make comprehensive immigration reform an issue, so a high-profile Latina appointment buys him time.
The Sotomayor nomination also provides Republicans with some advantages. They can stress their support for judges who strictly interpret the Constitution and apply the law as written. A majority of the public is with the GOP on opposing liberal activist judges. There is something in our political DNA that wants impartial umpires who apply the rules, regardless of who thereby wins or loses.
E.J. Dionne of the WaPo counters that Sotomayor is no Leftist:
Conservatives -- particularly those who run direct mail outfits and want a big court fight -- would love the decision over Sotomayor to hang on Obama's call for judges who show "empathy." They would cast her as a dangerous activist willing to bend the law to produce the results she wants.
They want to turn Obama's argument on its head and claim that Sotomayor would show bias in favor of those who share her background -- and never mind that they dismiss such assertions when they are raised with respect to white, conservative, male nominees.
The problem is that this approach is untrue to who Sotomayor has been and has little relationship to the decisions she has actually rendered as a judge. News accounts from the 1990s consistently described her as a "centrist" in her politics. Her lead sponsor when she was first named as a judge, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was hardly a conventional liberal. Obama may have found himself an empathetic judge, but she practices her empathy from the middle of the road.
A careful analysis of her record by Business Week, for example, concluded that she is a "moderate on business issues" and would fit the court's current alignment of such questions.
She also upheld a ban on federal funds going to family planning groups that provided abortions overseas. Sotomayor wrote that "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."
Posted by Nick Stone
on 1:05 AM.
Filed under
.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0
Posts
If you're going to put up a counter-point to Obama, maybe its best not to put one from one of the most divisive figures in American politics in the last century, Karl Rove. Oddly, he has the cajones to criticize Sotomayor (a woman who would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any nominee in the last one hundred years), when he brought us (and championed) Harriet Miers.
I enjoy your blog, but you really should try to use sources who are not so clearly partisan in their commentary. Last week it was Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann (she's nuts, read up on that) and this week its Karl Rove. Come on. At least pretend that you're going to find people who are going to try and be impartial until a verdict is rendered.
Kudos, though, for the first time in the history of your blog effort you had a counter-point to a conservative, Republican article or editorial (cited as fact).
ha i like that karl rove is critising the woman who graduated top of her class from princeton when he never even bothered to graduate from the university of utah.
Hey hey, I'm not censoring Karl Rove. I didn't censor your comment either, keep in mind.
Fair enough point on Rove's partisanship, but hey - give me credit, I never claimed this isn't a partisan blog.
I also give Lefty partisan nutjobs their time where appropriate (my fav to cite is James Carville).
Bachmann and Rove stay. So does Carville. Call it the "new era of... uhm... inclusiveness?" Ha!
I guess my problem is that you only cite partisan sources. Where are the academics? The journalists with excellent credentials (Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin do not count). Granted, James Carville is a "left winger" but I don't think he's the best person for the job, either. It's like if I wrote a liberal blog and only cited Rush Limbaugh as a source. You only quote people who seem to be reading talking points or who have a personal vested interest in their party winning. Not to mention, it seems you only get your news from right wing sources. FOX news, for example.
Also, Michelle Bachmann? Really? This is the same nutty woman who said Obama will start sending our children to re-education camps. Or that we should start investigating members of the Democratic congressional delegation to see if they are "anti-american" She's not a reliable source. She's an offensive, intellectually stunted woman. I urge you to read about some of the offensive things she has said in her career.
During a televised Hardball appearance, Bachmann told Chris Matthews:
"I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views. That's what the American people are concerned about. That's why they want to know what his answers are... I think the people that Barack Obama has been associating with are anti-American, by and large, the people who are radical leftists. That's the real question about Barack Obama... I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out are they pro-America or anti-America. I think people would love to see an expose like that."
Such statements hold the implication that anyone in ideological disagreement with Bachmann is anti-American. Subsequent to these inflammatory remarks, the Republican National Committee suspended $1M in advertising they had planned for Bachmann, and her Iowa Democratic-Farmer Party challenger, Elwyn Tinklenberg, quickly received $750,000 in donations.
As a gay man, you should be even more sensative to how offensive she is. Look at some of her remarks. Not only does she does not support civil unions or any type of sanction relationship between gay couples, she has said some terrible things to the gay community.
http://wonkette.com/408926/common-sense-conservative-plotting-run-against-michele-bachmann
Thanks for the follow up.
Let me be clear about something - this blog post was NOT about Michele Bachmann. If you have a bad taste in your mouth about her, fine - but save your venom for when I'm talking about her. Believe me, I'm highly likely to cite her again and give you your chance. You're especially likely to see her name pop up again when I follow up on ACORN. Crazy or not, she's hit the nail right on the head about several things.
Economists, experts, philosophers, pundits and elected officials all have the same problem: they don't all agree. And thank God for that. Plato and Aristotle held completely different points of view, but would we say that one was stupid or evil? Not to mention, their style of harangue isn't exactly succinct or fresh for a blog. They make poor content.
Let me also be clear on one more thing. I do NOT only - or even primarily - get my news from so-called right wing sources. But since the media is so overwhelmingly liberal, I have to slip in my Newsmax, Weekly Standard, and Fox News now and then.
Not that I owe anybody an explanation, but just for the record, my starting point for news roundup is usually news.google.com and realclearpolitics.com Those are not partisan, I think we can agree.
Huffington, NBC, CNN... they're great but c'mon, they're HIGHLY partisan. But when they have a guest on that says something I deem interesting, you'll see it here.
This post explains EXACTLY why i think Fox News is hardly credible. Look at how Sean Hannity blatantly made the President out to say one thing by editing the clip, when he VERY CLEARLY meant to smack down such detractors. You have to admit this is both wrong and hurts the credibility of the entire network.