Just to relieve the negativity of my last post, let me say that it IS possible to find commentary on Judge Sotomayor worth reading. I thought that of the David Brooks piece that The State ran today eminently so.
Now, before you avowed liberals say “of course you think that; he’s a conservative” (just as conservatives like to say the opposite about me), allow me to direct you to his conclusion:
I hope she’s confirmed.
OK, have I got your attention now?
Mr. Brooks, unlike Mr. Toobin, has to overcome the problem that the judge is steeped in the Identity Politics that were all the rage when she and I were in college:
There was no way she was going to get out of that unscarred. And, in fact, in the years since she has given a series of speeches that have made her a poster child for identity politics. In these speeches, race and gender take center stage. It’s not only the one comment about a wise Latina making better decisions than a white male; it’s the whole litany. If you just read these speeches you might come away with the impression that she was a racial activist who is just using the judicial system as a vehicle for her social crusade.
What makes the piece worth reading is Brooks’ explanation of how his own examination of the judge (which is much more extensive than my own, but which he handsomely admits is not his area of expertise) leads him to get past those objections.
I recommend it.
Related Posts
During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama said he would nominate justices, “who would not be constrained by the Constitution” or by prior decisions.
This is a recipe for writing law from the bench, based on unAmerican ideologies. Sotomayor seems to fit that bill.
What scares many of us is her ignoring the Constitution, just like Obama.
In her latest decision, she said the Bill of Rights did not apply to state laws.
If Brooks is correct, and her hyperbole does not effect her judging then she may be fine. However, I am concerned that if she continues the race/ gender hyperbole in public utterances while on the Court, it will serve as an unwelcome distraction that I would just as soon not be subjected to.
The column by David Brooks is quite excellent, and I highly recommend that you read Cass Sunstein’s book, Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America. Despite the (properly) inflammatory title, the book makes the case for judicial minimalism and describes the aftershock of Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade. It is this aftershock that keeps reverberating, fostering and propagating much of the kulturkampf you despise.
There are no “right wing courts in America”. The socialistic Progressives took control of the courts in the 1930s. The same FDR who gave us these subversive judges also packed the bureaucracy with socialists, and made a secret pact with Stalin to divide up the world.
Radical in Robes sounds like an ignorant book.
There are no “right wing courts in America”.
-Lee
Yeah right. And there is a Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy. Fact is the right wing court has dominated for 3 decades. Just take a look at Gore v Bush, medical marijuana in California and right to die in Oregon. All were decided by right wing activism. If we’re going to have judicial activism, which apparently we are, why not make it good ole liberal activism.
The sad thing is that no useful information will be gained from the confirmation hearings. Since 1986 no nominee has been willing to answer substantive legal questions on the grounds that the matter may come before the Court. And who can blame them. Agree with him or not Robert Bork was eminently qualified to sit on the Court and what Teddy Kennedy and others did to him will long stand as a low point in American politics. The long term effect has been that now, on matters of the least potential controversy, nominees duck and cover which severely damages the advise and consent mechanism.
After the public flogging of Robert Bork, I heard one Democrat privately sneer that Bork’s beard was “an act of defiance to the Senate”. The fact that he wouldn’t shave off his beard, or grovel and pretend to have no political philosophy was an affront to the arrogant Senators.
bud, you live in the delusional world of left wing conspiracy theories.
How typical for “liberals” to want the FDA to regulate tobacco, but not marijuana.
Al Gore’s attorneys had lawsuits drawn up for more than 20 states, weeks before the election, before there were any facts, before there was any evidence of any election problems.
The liberal press, led by the NY Times, went through every vote in Florida and found Bush beat Gore overwhelmingly. The courts prevented Gore from stealing the election.
Unfortunately, the courts didn’t prevent Obama from stealing the 2008 election.
* The courts refused to force Obama to prove his citizenship.
* The FEC, DOJ, and courts have failed to prosecute ACORN and the Obama campaign for its millions in illegal contributions from Muslim governments.
bud, you live in the delusional world of left wing conspiracy theories.
…
Unfortunately, the courts didn’t prevent Obama from stealing the 2008 election.
* The courts refused to force Obama to prove his citizenship.
* The FEC, DOJ, and courts have failed to prosecute ACORN and the Obama campaign for its millions in illegal contributions from Muslim governments.
LOL, the irony…
Birch,
Your being unaware or unconcerned about the facts doesn’t make the rest of the world delusional.
There is currently a lawsuit by 250 military officers demanding a legal copy of Obama’s birth certificate, because they don’t believe he is legally their Commander in Chief. Obama could resolve this issue easily, by producing his proof of birth. There is a $25,000 reward for any legal document of Obama’s birth, but so far, no one can produce one.
The FEC is currently prosecuting quite a few people for a small part of the $20,000,000 in illegal contributions to Obama from Palestine, but there none of the Obama campaign workers. The fundraising web site was set up and managed by a life-long communist, former fugitive from justice, and friend of Bill Ayers.
In one of my favorite moments from a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, each member of the Judiciary Committee said how proud they were that Antonin Scalia would be the first Italian American on the Court. When it finally got to Howell Heflin he said something to the effect of “My grandmother’s second cousins first husband was an Italian so I am very proud.”
Scalia, without batting an eyelash responded: “Thank you Senetor, and I have flown over Alabama several times”
Senator rather than Senetor
It is a piece worth reading, perhaps because it discusses her record rather than her sound bites. Imagine that.