Is Sotomayor the left's Harriet Miers?

Talk on the gun boards seem to suggest that she is the least bad on 2nd Amendment issues of the three that seemed to be under consideration.

Rosen's mention of Sotomayor's possible lack of intellectual firepower has gotten a ton of flack... other reports have said that Obama was "blown away" (in a good way) by her when he interviewed her, and that he expects the Senate to be "blown away" by her during confirmation hearings.

No where close to Miers. She has at least functioned as a judge for years. Miers, if memory serves, was basically just Bush's personal lawyer after being a prominent Texas attorney. A true stealth candidate. Greenwald has a piece up questioning Rosen's accuracy. We will see. But, clearly not even close to Miers.

Steve

What a ridiculous post. Rosen's vague, anonymously sourced hit piece has been ridiculed enough online. Setting that aside, let's consider Sotomayor's resume:

Education: she graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University, meaning she was near the very top of her class at one of the most selective universities in the country. At Yale Law, she was a member of the Yale Law Journal. For those who don't know, making "law review" or "law journal" generally means that the person is in the top 10 percent of the class. In other words, after excelling academically at Princeton, Sotomayor was in the "talented tenth" of her class at what is generally considered the best or second-best law school in the country.

Professional: She was nominated for her first federal judgeship by George HW Bush and was nominated to the Court of Appeals by Bill Clinton. She has been on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for 12 years. Of the Court's current members, only Alito, Breyer, and Ginsburg had more pre-USSC experience as a federal appellate judge.

Let's compare that to Harriet Miers.

Education: Miers earned her bachelors and law degrees from Southern Methodist, a good school but certainly nothing approaching Princeton or Yale. There is no indication that she graduated with honors at either level.

Professional: Miers had a successful career as a commercial litigator in a major Dallas firm, but there's no indication of any significant history as an appellate attorney or dealing with the sort of constitutional issues that are central to the USSC. She did serve as White House counsel, but has no judicial experience.

I don't follow these issues as closely as some, so I don't know where Sotomayor ranks in the rarified circles from which USSC justices are typically drawn. But there is no doubt that Sotomayor moves in those circles, and that Harriet Miers doesn't.

Again, Rod, this woman was summa cum laude at Princeton and near the top of her law school class at Yale. Whatever she has done since then, "mediocrities" don't do that. Your post makes clear that you know very little about either woman's resume.

Rosen's piece has been held up, convincingly, as one of the shoddiest hit-jobs attempted in recent memory. Nothing was sourced in a way that could be proven and his only factual claims were false.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/07/rosen/

Miers was neither a jurist nor a scholar, she was a consigliere. There's no comparison.

Somewhere along the way we have forgotten that this the SUPREME Court, not a Liberal or Conservative playground. The Supremes' are supposed to apply the Law and Law only set down by the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court Justice should be the best and brightest available whatever race or gender. Somewhere along the way we have strayed from that concept.

Obama's pick of this Female Latino to facilitate the left is unconscionable. I heard her say that Federal Judges should "make policy".

Folks, we are in deep do do.

Another Ivy Leaguer with appellate experience.

Did she ever try a case?

How about some affirmative action for the non-Ivy League and Flyover Country. How about a bitter cracker who clings to God and his guns?

I'll expand on my previous (sarcastic) point- I do believe it's problematic if a politician makes an appointment purely to "fill a quota". However, many opposed to this idea easily go too far, and give extra scrutiny to ANY non-white-male appointee for a high political position, as though there are NONE WHATSOEVER qualified black, female, hispanic, gay, or whatever category candidates for high positions.

I think the proper response is to CAREFULLY analyze any appointee's resume without regard to ethnicity, gender, or any other demographic category, and be VERY careful about claiming an appointment is made for purely political-demographic reasons.

How about some affirmative action for the non-Ivy League and Flyover Country. How about a bitter cracker who clings to God and his guns?

Your attitude would be music to Roman Hruska's ears.

Here's the problem: the (Eastern) establishment schools have been grabbing the best from the rest of the nation for ages. Rather than let other schools catch up, they have made ever greater efforts to be the ones that the best students, regardless of circumstances, would go to. If your 'bitter cracker' had been a top prospect, he would have ended up in the Ivy League. Of course, the Ivies and other top establishment schools still allow some kids of alumni to enroll, but they aren't always that qualified.

C'mon, Rod. You can do better than this. Disagree with Sotomayer's positions. That's not a problem. But to accuse her of being a "quota pick" based on one much maligned article is beneath you. Really. I know you're better than that.

If Republicans can stop their knees from jerking they could use this as an opportunity to look stately, serious and fair. We are getting a Liberal justice, no matter what. If you are conservative, why would you want that justice to be a heavyweight who might change the direction of the court? There is no reason to alienate Hispanic Americans and women over this appointment. Show some class, plant some seeds of doubt and save the big fight for the next time.

Grumpy Old Man
May 26, 2009 10:31 AM
Another Ivy Leaguer with appellate experience.

Isn't the Supreme Court an Appellate Court?

As far as I know, most (all?) cases that make their way to the Supreme Court have gone through lower courts already.

The first President Bush appointed her to a federal district court, it will be interesting to see how that fact will be ignored by the right.
I read that Rosen piece and it has a whiff of sexism attached to it.
"The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it."
As to being a bully on the bench, I find it unlikely people would phrase that negatively if it were in reference to a man, at the least it would be considered a mark of confidence. As to not smart, well there is smart and there is brilliant. She is most assuredly very smart, probably not brilliant, but this is no disqualification, we could do with smart, since brilliant people often lack common sense. Might I finally add to compare her to Harriet Miers is trite, the only similarity the two have is that they are women.

Here is President Obama's great hero, noted moral relativist Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), where he found no constitutional bar to state-ordered compulsory sterilization of an institutionalized, allegedly "feeble-minded" woman. "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Sympathy means to "feel sorry for." Empathy means to have the imaginative ability to put yourself in another person's position and have an understanding of what he has experienced and how he has been affected by events. It does not necessarily mean that you rule in that person's favor or that you feel sorry for him, just that you understand him. Empathy makes us human. Those who lack empathy are often called sociopaths by psychologists. A good Supreme Court should certainly have empathy as well as intellectual rigor and impartiality and, as a woman, I would prefer to have a few more justices who are capable of being empathic with a 13-year-old girl strip-searched at her school as well as with her school principal who was dealing with a drug problem. I think the strip search case was an outrageous violation of the girl's rights by any interpretation of our Constitution.

Steve, fair enough.

I haven't read her opinions, so at this point I have only my presumption against an Obama pick and Harvard/Yale to go on. Ricci doesn't encourage me, though.

I said that the Supreme Court should be reserved for the "Best and Brightest". To reconfigure my point is useless.

I said that the Supreme Court should be reserved for the "Best and Brightest". To reconfigure my point is useless.

Was that in Halbertam's mocking tone?

Still, why do you think that she doesn't fit into that? Do you immediately assume that she is not qualified because she is not a white male?

For all the talk about how justices are supposed to make their decisions, the Constitution actually says very little about the judiciary. The Justices have the right to decide cases, period. Judicial philosophy is purely a matter of preference, it is not a constitutional imperative.

Andrea,

so justices Alito and Roberts are socio-paths? Even though justice roberts has a young daughter of his own, he is still a heartless bastard. and his daughter would definitely have a greater advocate with justice ginsburg. ridiculous.

And of course how does anyone know that you really have "empathy" with a litigant unless you actually rule in their favor? everything else is words. they don't make movies and write ny time articles about the judge who wrote an emphatic opinion and then ruled against the litigant.

And if it is the judiciaries job to "make policy" then maybe we can save money by firing the legislatures.

freelunch,

so i assume in your obsession for the best and the brightest you are petitioning obama to go back and renominate bork.

11:59 - I don't think that Bork had a particularly judicial temperment, but he would still have been better than some who are sitting on the Court today and have sat on it in the past. I wasn't the one obsessed with the best and brightest, that was iw. I have merely been defending top notch folks against Grumpy's Hruskan distaste for those who are highly competent.

This is one of the nastiest posts I've ever seen from Dreher, who often looks at the evidence himself instead of just echoing conservative talking points. If you take an objective look at Sotomayor's record, I don't know how anyone can reach the conclusion that she's too dumb for the Supreme Court except on the basis of an assumption that no Puerto Rican woman could have reached her position except as a "Quota Queen," to use Dreher's charming term. It's a fact that Sotomayor, like Alito, graduated summa cum laude from Princeton. No one does that without a very sharp mind. I'll bet Alito and Roberts would agree. Dreher relies solely on the weakest of sources. Long's NRO post simply lies about Sotomayor's record of reversal. SCOTUSblog has been admirably objective in reviewing the records of all the widely discussed candidates. A judicious article there notes:

"Since joining the Second Circuit in 1998, Sotomayor has authored over 150 opinions, addressing a wide range of issues, in civil cases. To date, two of these decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court; a third is under review and likely to be reversed. In those two cases (and likely the third), Sotomayor’s opinion was rejected by the Supreme Court’s more conservative majority and adopted by its more liberal dissenters (including Justice Souter). Those outcomes suggest that Sotomayor’s views would in many respects be similar to those of Justice Souter."

These include cases in which the circuits were already divided, evidence that Sotomayor's opinions weren't from out in left field. Long describes the Ricci decision in the most tendentious way possible. When someone waives the bloody shirt of 9/11 like she does, where it has nothing to do with the question at hand, you know it's a hatchet job. I'm surprised Dreher, who's been savaged from time to time in the Corner, doesn't recognize that. It is also helpful to remember that Sotomayor did not author an opinion in the case, and that the court affirmed the decision en banc. As for Rosen's column, enough has been said elsewhere.

Your name at 11:59, that was quite a stretch from what Andrea actually said. She said nothing about Alito and Roberts. I assume she was referring to Ginsburg’s comment during the oral arguments of Safford v. Redding. But it was Breyer who made the comment about a strip search not being that big of a deal because kids that age undress locker rooms all the time. Ginsburg pointed out that 13 year-old girls do not generally take that view. For all we know, Alito and Roberts agreed with her.

Simply looking at the number of times she has already been overriden in her decisions by the Supremes should be sufficient warning that she is not up to the job.

Two, probably three times in 150 opinions (per YN 12:25)? What would you expect?

arrgh, sorry about the double post, I refreshed and didn't see my comment so I thought it was lost.

Doctor Science
May 26, 2009 1:00 PM
arrgh, sorry about the double post, I refreshed and didn't see my comment so I thought it was lost.

No worries, it was well worth repeating.

Like Goodman, I was struck by the descripton of the male judges on the bench seeming completely unable to relate to what it would be like to be a 13-year-old girl ordered to strip down by her school nurse. Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she was the only one on the bench who knows what it's like to be a 13-year-old girl.

Good point. The male justices were frighteningly clueless on that case.

I’ve got to pile on with most of the others here. There is little or no basis for comparison. There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about Sotomayor, but she is far and away more qualified than Miers. Miers really was something of a joke. Sotomayor may be a lot of things: an ideologue, a bully, etc., but she is also smart.

One thing must be understood: while the professors at Princeton may have fallen all over her because she was nonwhite, in law school there is blind grading. Professors grade tests and papers that do not have names, but rather numbers on them. The professors do not know what those numbers mean; it is a secret closely graded by the secretarial staff and they take this VERY seriously. Therefore, while Sotomayor’s ethnicity almost certainly played some small consideration in getting her into law school, it played NO part in keeping her in, and in vaulting her to Law Review. I’m feeling a bit peeved having to write all this because I am not as huge fan of hers, but to cast her as Harriet Miers? Sorry, no.

AC said “I think the proper response is to CAREFULLY analyze any appointee's resume without regard to ethnicity, gender, or any other demographic category, and be VERY careful about claiming an appointment is made for purely political-demographic reasons.”
Well said, but easier said than done, when there is so much partisanship on *both* the left and the right.
Andrea has an excellent point about the difference between sympathy and empathy.

Opinion Pole offers up some good strategy for the Republicans if they can listen. I largely agree. My thought is: don’t get ugly (and don’t even think about getting racist), but probe carefully, spread seeds of doubt and plan for the future. Ginsburg won’t last long and Republicans will be faced with this again within another 18 months.

Within a week Rosen was in full retreat from that TNR piece....you need to keep up with news Rod. And top of her class at Princeton....where did you graduate Rod?......She's clearly well qualified and there are all sorts of side political benefits too.

I, for one, and looking forward to the sight of the Senate Judiciary questioning Judge Sotomayor.

Just for a moment, think of the picture of Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham, Charles Grassley, John Cornyn, Jon Kyl, Tom Coburn and Orrin Hatch questioning Judge Sotomayor.

A bunch of told white guys, mostly southerners, verbally beating up on a well-regarded Latina Judge.

Yeah, that will play out well for the GOP.

Wow - take it easy on the "mediocrity" stuff. We all know that graduating summa cum laude Cornell doesn't qualify you to even wash an LSU grads car.

Rod, someday you're going to have to get over the fact that you once lost a job you wanted to a black woman (in your eyes, a "quota").

For the record, I'm against quotas too. But it seems to me this post is nothing but knee-jerk racism. Its a stain on your otherwise admireable conservative thought.

so andrea, if we agree that it is only the rare sociopath that lacks empathy then this shouldn't be a significant factor when choosing judges.

Andrea says;

"It will be nice to see two, though one hopes that eventually the court will be 50 percent female. "

I think when a president picks a hermaphrodite for the Supreme Court, then we can truly call that a quota pick. This one, not so much. BTW, I agree that there are very valid criticisms to be made of Sotomayer, and she was certainly not the pick I was hoping for. But Harriet Miers? Please. It's the difference between picking that guy above Michael Jordan in the NBA draft (picking Sotomayer over some others) and picking me over...well, anybody. Harriet Miers was picking me for the NBA.

Of course this is a "quota pick" in that the president clearly wasn't going to pick a white man for the job, for political reasons.

But doesn't that always demean the accomplishments of those who are not white men? Doesn't it always assume that there is a hidden agenda? When can a woman or a minority succeed on their own merits if you automatically assume that the reason for the pick was something else?

Your comment that this is a quota pick implicitly dismisses her qualifications as unsatisfactory. So, please, tell us who you think is better qualified and why you think they are better qualified than Judge Sotomayor. What has happened that allows you to dismiss her qualifications?

After all, if the President were really looking at quotas, don't you think that he would consider it unseemly to let the Roman Catholic Church have so many adherents? Wouldn't he have picked a nice Episcopalian or American Baptist?

As far as I can tell, other than a little evidence-free sniping from the reactionaries who don't appear to want women or minorities on the court, I see nothing to support the claim that she is not highly qualified. There is never one best choice, but of the couple of dozen people today who are eminently qualified to be on the US Supreme Court, she appears to be one of them.

There will always be judges who have left a legacy that will show up in the law books for ages to come who will never have had the opportunity to become members of the Supreme Court, Learned Hand and Richard Posner among them. Great circuit court judges and state supreme court justices can have a huge impact, but it can never be greater than it would be in the Supreme Court. No sensible President would choose a less qualified person over a more qualified person for the Supreme Court. Why do you imply that President Obama did so on his first appointment?

"but let's not pretend that her gender and her ethnicity had nothing to do with why she was chosen by this president. That's just dishonest."

The problem with statements like this, Rod, is it means ANY TIME that Obama (or anyone else, for that matter) picks a non-white-male person for a position, you and others will claim that the ethnicity/gender had something to do with the pick. It presupposes that an ethnically/gender unbiased pick HAS to be a white male- that the "most qualified" person is ALWAYS a white male, and I'm sure you'll admit that that's not true. So if the best person (or among the best person) is not always a white male, then why does this accusation (that gender/ethnicity played a role) ALWAYS come up whenever a black/hispanic/female/whatever person is nominated for high office?

Your name, I’m sure we both agree that good judges make decisions based on the merits of the cases as actually presented to them, which may turn on obscure legal points. I’m not a legal analyst and I know too little about the Ricci case to speculate about it. But the mere fact that the court declined to give the case a full review tells us very little. Judges (conservative and liberal) do that all the time, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for bad ones. Context is everything here.

AC,

Miguel Estrada. whoops the democrats opposed him because he was latino. you see democrats get to determine who are the real latinos and who are the latinos that are fake and might get appointed to the supreme court.

"She also would be the first Hispanic justice to serve on the Supreme Court."

So Benjamin Cardozo was just using an alias?

Or is it presumed, even in conservative forums, that to be "Hispanic" is a racial identity thing, implying unanimity of life experience and outlook? It needs to be said again, despite the demographic taxonomy concocted by identity politicians, "Hispanic" rightly means one thing, and one thing only: a claim of cultural or linguistic heritage stemming from the Spanish language as a mother tongue, or birth and ancestry in Spain or one of the countries of its former empire as a mother country.

As a universal and heterogeneous culture, the terms "Hispanic" and "Hispanicity" embrace many races, nationalities and even ethnicities, as the Jewish, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, French, English and Slavic surnames of Hispanic America exemplify.

As for Judge Sotomayor, while her personal life story is "compelling" (to use the media term), based on her record and public statements I expect I'll be on the opposite side of most of her decisions--and my surname will have nothing to do with it (Fernández). Especially those dealing with quota/identity politics and--assuming she sees life issues through the lens of the president who chose her--those relating to abortion, embryo-destructive stem cell research and end-of-life care.

Cardozo was a Portuguese Jew. That's why Yeshiva U's law school is named after him.

In response to the (rhetorical?) question posed in the headline:

No, that's just the right's feeble attempt at a smear. And if the Hispanic vote is at all important to Republicans I'm guessing the staying power of that particular trope is pretty limited.

"Conservatives are already citing my initial piece on Sotomayor as a basis for opposing her. This willfully misreads both my piece and the follow-up response. My concern was that she might not make the most effective liberal voice on the Court--not that she didn't have the potential to be a fine justice."

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/05/26/the-sotomayor-nomination.aspx