On the other hand, here’s the possible good news in the Sotomayor nomination. A conservative legalist friend notes that the all-important 5th vote on the Supreme Court is Justice Anthony Kennedy’s. The Reagan-appointed Kennedy has drifted to the left in recent years – in part (it’s gossiped) because of his negative reactions to the brilliant but sometimes acerbic Antonin Scalia.
Having lost in 2008, Republicans had no hope of a conservative or even a moderate judicial nominee. What we should therefore be hoping for, my friend continues, is the most personally obnoxious liberal, someone certain to offend and irritate Kennedy – and push him careening back rightward. For this reason, the politic Elena Kagan would be the very worst pick from a conservative point of view. As dean of Harvard Law School, she proved herself adept at wooing conservative support. By contrast, if Jeffrey Rosen’s reporting is correct, Sotomayor was almost unanimously disliked by her colleagues on the Second Circuit and even more by their clerks. And she’s unlikely to gain humility from this latest promotion… so who could be better?
23 responses so far
1 balconesfault // May 26, 2009 at 8:13 am
Boy – there’s a page from “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. Go around suggesting that a Supreme Court Justice votes a certain way to spite another Justice. Either Kennedy is really above all this, in which case the whole argument is bullcrap … or Kennedy really is that venal, in which case pointing it out will just drive him further from your position.
2 barker13 // May 26, 2009 at 8:57 am
Speaking of obnoxious…
Here’s one proposed “reform” I’d sure as hell like to see but never will:
Senators of the Judiciary Committee… JUST ASK THE FRIGG’N QUESTIONS – INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS – AND ALLOW THE WITNESSES TO ANSWER!
That’s it. I’d apply it all all Congressional Committees – House as well as Senate.
Senators… Members of Congress… you’re supposed to be tending to the nation’s business, your official duties, not auditioning for “America’s Most Obnoxious While Still Managing To Be Boring” politicians.
Could you folks (my fellow posters) IMAGINE proceedings where each Senator (and for House hearings each Member) simply asked pertinent questions and allowed (and paid attention to!) answers?
If Committee Chairs aren’t up to the job of maintaining order, decorum, and managing to meet the purpose of actually getting answers upon which to judge a witness, then create a non-partisan civil service “board of moderators” to play lead roles at hearings in terms of debate and presentation.
Stop with the frigg’n SPEECHES…!!! Members of the Committee… you’re there to ASK QUESTIONS – pertinent, thoughtful questions – use your time well to ask as many questions as possible getting as many answers as possible and save the “auditions” for your amateur theatre troop try-outs.
Another suggestion… (heck, in for a penny, in for a pound)… wouldn’t you folks LOVE to see Supreme Court nominees who have “passed” the Senate confirmation hearings go before the Supreme Court with every Member being allowed to “drill” the presumptive nominee for fifteen minutes? Heck… it could be televised in prime time over three nights so as to give the American People a true opportunity to see what nominees are made of prior to the full Senate confirmation vote.
(Heck… it would provide some lesson to the American People – that’s for sure!)
Anyway… just some “fantasy” proposals.
BILL
3 Bulldoglover100 // May 26, 2009 at 8:58 am
David….IF she’s all bad…..WHY did George H.W Bush appoint her in the first place? Why would a Republican President appoint her if she is such a bad justice where conservative values are concerned? and should conservative values enter into it IF it does not adhere to the constitution?
From all apparences she is a constitutional justice first and foremost…and that is what should be of concern to the American public.
I agree with your post balconesfault…sometimes I feel like I am trying to talk to savant idiots or children at this site because they lose sight of what should be important.
4 A.B. // May 26, 2009 at 11:09 am
I think DF has an excellent point, apart from the obvious intent at humor. The SC is a delicate balance of personalities. Having lived through the Douglas-Burger transition, I can say this is undeniable.
According to the press, I am (we are) supposed to be “infuriated.” Really? I think not.
5 jjv // May 26, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Bulldoglover100-Bush appointed Souter. Further, her appointment was a deal with Moynihan and D’Amato the two Senators at the time. Finally, both Bushs were always looking for ways to reach the Latino vote.
6 cporet // May 26, 2009 at 12:26 pm
So the upside of Judge Sotomajor confirmation will be to slew Justice Kennedy back to the right because he’ll vote against an “obnoxious” Latina (Bitchy Puerto Rican)? I thought the conservative mantra is to uphold the law and constitution. But now we see personality does come into the equation. I knew those on the right held Justice Kennedy in low esteem, but this is pretty low.
7 bertrand // May 26, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Scalia on 60 minutes:
“Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? When [a policeman is] hurting you to get information from you, you dont say hes punishing you. Anyway, thats my view, and it happens to be correct.”
It would be hard for Sotomayor–indeed anybody–to reach that level of obnoxiousness.
8 PincheMK // May 26, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Well, I have heard countless times democrats accusing W. of going into Iraq to “finish what his father started” and going after saddam because of a personal vendetta. So hey, if a republican president can act like a child then so can a liberal supreme court justice, I’d think?
Oh but i forgot, the demand for logical consistency would have the undesireable consequence of making the entire philosophy of leftists totally untenable. We therefore must rigorously apply whatever double standards and/or fallacious methods of argumentation are necessary to avert this horrible result.
Why do we do it?
FOR THE CHILDREN OBV
the cheeeeeeeeeelllldren…
9 ottovbvs // May 26, 2009 at 1:26 pm
You’re behind the times David, Rosen has been in full backpedal mode on his critique for a couple of weeks. If this is your source on Sotomayors temperament you may be disappointed since it was clearly a bit of a hit piece on behalf of someone(?) aimed at damaging her chances. It seems to have been singularly ineffective. I’d also say you are wrong on the chemistry issue. Generally speaking I’ve found that when there a few really bright women around men tend to be on their best behavior. It’s as if making yourself look stupid in front of a woman is a double whammy. Of course Scalia being a something of an oaf and misogynist would probably be impervious to these vibes but I don’t think Kennedy would and more oafish behavior in these circumstance would be likely to increase rather than decrease his disdain.
10 jjv // May 26, 2009 at 2:58 pm
First, we conservatives do think Kennedy is petty and reacts to things that, in law, he shouldn’t care about. Second, Justice Brennan, by all accounts was a sweetheart. No one was more destructive of constitutional governance than he. There are only nine of them. Over time not being off putting can be a big deal. Also, she has not persuaded with her pen the way some great judges can. I also don’t like her speech disagreeing with Miriam Cederbaum. She is a liberal federal district court judge in NY. I’ve tried matters before her, and even one trial and to the extent you disagree with he on how to judge I think you’re probably in error. Great trial judge and fair as the day is long to litigants. Sottomayer does not have that rep. However, I have not been before her and await the hearings.
11 mlindroo // May 26, 2009 at 2:59 pm
> Then since there are more self-described conservatives
> among the American people then self-described liberals,
> that means that Obama should nominate more
> conservatives than liberals.
Um, there already *are* four conservative male judges on the Supreme Court, remember?
MARCU$
12 ottovbvs // May 26, 2009 at 3:15 pm
jjv
wrote 9 minutes agoFirst, we conservatives do think Kennedy is petty and reacts to things that, in law, he shouldn’t care about.
…..What world do you live in……Of course personal chemistry is important and to think personal relationships don’t matter in arguing matters out is naive in the extreme……Kennedy actually leans right most of the time so I’m not sure what your problem is with him……I hold to my view that Sotomayor didn’t get where she is by being combative all the time…..I’ve no doubt whatever that legally and personally she’s very formidable……It’s always amusing to me that Conservatives are always going on about the american dream and other bs but when you have classic examplars of it like Obama and Sotomayor they become spawn of the devil.
13 balconesfault // May 26, 2009 at 3:22 pm
PincheMK: You mean the GW Bush who declared while lobbying for the authority to invade Iraq:
“After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.”
14 balconesfault // May 26, 2009 at 3:25 pm
PincheMK: You mean the GW Bush who declared while lobbying for the authority to invade Iraq:
“After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.”
15 ottovbvs // May 26, 2009 at 3:27 pm
David can’t free himself of it. He’s trying to point out a few realities as they affect the Republicans but he always keeps coming back to base. Sotomayor is a exemplar of the American dream and totally qualified to sit on the supreme court but he can’t resist coming back to all this character assassination stuff. I can understand he doesn’t agree with her politics but that’s a different matter. In every respect she’s an admirable person and a formidable lawyer, she’s going to get confirmed, so why not accept the inevitable outcome with some grace. I guess old habits die hard.
16 barker13 // May 26, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Re: Mlindroo; wrote 37 minutes ago –
Here’s the deal, Marcus:
I don’t care if a judge is personally in favor or or opposed to [Fill In The Blank] policy or whether he or she believes said law or said wording and intent of the Constitution is “good” or “bad.”
All I want from a Judge is to rule according to his or her best understanding of what the Constitutional provision or simple law MEANT in the common vernacular when it was passed.
“Conservative” vs. “Liberal” shouldn’t even apply to Judges acting in their official capacity, but as Judge Sotomayor herself points out, most Judges have neither the integrity, self-control, or respect for the Constitution and the Rule of Law that they should.
Still… sticking to political shorthand… when I think “conservative” Judge I think someone who at least recognizes that it’s not his or her job to legislate from the bench, let alone override the clear text/meaning/intent of Constitutional provisions.
I’m not saying it never happens… I’m just tell you that when I use the term “conservative” Judge I’m using it in the sense of “conservative” in recognizing the proper role of the Judge in the American system of justice and within the context of our Constitutional Separation of Powers doctrine.
A “liberal” Judge? Political shorthand… someone who misunderstands their role – or perhaps doesn’t “misunderstand,” but rather, simply refuses to play his or her proper role – as a Judge in a representative democracy and is willing to rule not based upon an only an honest reading of the law and its intent, but rather, he or she is willing to substitute his or her “judgment” regarding POLICY for that of the duly elected representatives of the People… the Founders, legislators, and executive (who have either signed these laws into “the books” or else had a veto overridden so as to allow a law to legally go into effect absent executive signature).
I have no problem whatsoever with a Latina Judge who personally supports or opposes policies and laws where I would take the opposite tack; what I have a problem with is any Judge… Latina, WASP, man, woman, Jew, Gentile, straight, gay… who doesn’t hold him or her self up to the judicial standard I believe in – i.e. who doesn’t subvert his or her own judgment to that of the Constitution and the Law.
The sad thing is… I know full I’m the odd man out with such “old fashioned” beliefs.
BILL
17 ottovbvs // May 26, 2009 at 4:24 pm
barker13
wrote 17 minutes ago
“him or her self up to the judicial standard I believe in – i.e. who doesn’t subvert his or her own judgment to that of the Constitution and the Law.”
…….Er……I think you mean doesn’t subvert the law and constitution to his or her own judgement…..but assuming you’d got it right which is what I assume you were trying to do…….how do you square this with your support of Bush who has spent most of the past eight years trying to subvert the constitution?
18 InTheMiddle12 // May 26, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Someone needs to help me understand all this ’strick constructionist’ speak. The role of a judge, as I think of the word judge and the role of the third wing of the US Government, the role of the supreme court, is to judge the law as it relates to conflicts that the court agrees to entertain.
The very nature of being a judge is to apply the law to a conflict. That means one must understand the conflict and the law and then apply the law. All of this black and white thinking seem antithetical to the nature of a judge’s role. The judges are deciding on very narrow intepretation of laws by the time it reaches the Supreme Court, which is the whole point of the Supreme Court.
I want the smartest most judicious person possible to join the other 8 justices in hearing both arguments and adjudicating the law. That requires listening and understanding the context to the arguments and being able to then interpret the law and apply it to the situation.
I don’t understand the right’s argument here about not legislating from the bench. No judge is legislating from the bench, they are interpreting the law and applying it to cases. There will naturally be implications to their rulings, one way or the other. I just don’t get the right’s argument here.
19 Baghdad_Bob // May 26, 2009 at 4:59 pm
This gal is GREAT ! ! ! She’s right and I believe in everything she’s ever said or thought in her entire LIFE ! ! ! Everybody knows we can’t trust Congress to get it right – this is why policy should be and is made in the courtrooms. Why go through the trouble of voting for something the wrong way when one right-thinking individual like this Soto chick can set us straight the first time around?
20 sinz54 // May 26, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I have real problems with the judicial philosophy of liberals.
But Ms. Sotomayor’s personality is totally irrelevant.
I don’t care if she’s “obnoxious” or bubbly or the life of the party.
A few days ago, in another discussion thread, I wrote that I hoped that we could confine our examination of Ms. Sotomayor to her judicial philosophy, and avoid attacks upon her character. Not only is that the ethical way to go about this, politically it’s the ONLY way that won’t damage the GOP’s brand with Hispanic voters even more.
I’m simply not going to involve myself in any discussions of Ms. Sotomayor’s personality or personal background.
21 barker13 // May 26, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Re: Ottovbvs; 4:24 PM –
“Er……I think you mean doesn’t subvert the law and constitution to his or her own judgement…”
Quite right; thanks for the correction.
“…how do you square this with your support of Bush…”
Damn. You were so rational for a moment!
(*SMILE*)
Otto. You don’t have to read and remember every word I’ve ever typed here, but for God’s sake, if I’m your idea of a “pro-Bush fanatic” either your reading comprehension is way off or else… you’re on something.
(*CHUCKLE*) (*RUEFUL SHRUG*)
“Someone needs to help me understand all this ’strick constructionist’ speak.”
OK. I’m here for you. What’s so confusing…???
“No judge is legislating from the bench…”
If you truly believe this then what must you think of Judge Sotomayor’s comments to the contrary? Do you believe she was kidding…??? Do you believe she’s simply misinformed…? Do you believe that though she believes Judges legislate from the bench she’s simply wrong…?
“I just don’t get the right’s argument here.”
Taking you at your word, I’m at a loss as to how to explain my position in any clearer fashion than I’ve done both here on this thread and on previous threads where the matter has come up.
I mean… granted… Otto just caught an instance where I was obviously typing so fast that I mangled what I was attempting to write.. but Otto “got” the point regardless… it was obviously clear to him what I had “meant” to write.
(*SHRUG*)
I suppose my response to you is that I don’t “get” what it is you’re not getting about my position.
Feel free to rephrase and I’ll do my best to answer any further questions.
BILL
22 ottovbvs // May 27, 2009 at 6:15 am
barker13
7:18 PM
“but for God’s sake, if I’m your idea of a “pro-Bush fanatic” either your reading comprehension is way off”
……Judging by the mangled English you’re the one the comprehension problems…..and I didn’t say you were a “Bush fanatic” but that you generally supported him which your postings have made clear you do.
23 sinz54 // May 27, 2009 at 8:43 am
InTheMiddle12: What we mean by “legislating from the bench” is twisting the words of the Constitution and the law to achieve some blatantly political goal.
You want an example? Go read the ruling in the Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Justice Douglas virtually admitted that he had always wanted to give Americans a right to privacy. Even though no such thing is said in the Constitution. So his job was to come up with some poppycock that would justify it. Go read his ruling and judge for yourself.
You must log in to post a comment.