Under the headline “Future Nominations Are at Stake in Hearing,” New York Times reporters Peter Baker and Charlie Savage suggested that Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination is a given; the real battle among partisans and legal activists is “to define the parameters of an acceptable nomination in case another seat opens up during Mr. Obama’s presidency.” Interesting, then, to see what the parameters of debate are like in this report.
The Times solicits comments from five conservatives or Republicans–Rachel Brand, Fred McClure, James R. Copland, Manuel Miranda and Kenneth M. Duberstein. The Times also quoted one law professor with a liberal reputation who has been a forceful critic of Sotomayor (suggesting she was intellectually unqualified for the court), and Nan Aron “of the liberal Alliance for Justice.”
The piece goes on to say, “Several legal experts said Judge Sotomayor’s testimony might make it harder for Mr. Obama to name a more liberal justice next time.” Well, if you talk to that many right-wingers, you will hear that kind of thing quite a bit.
I’m no right-winger, but I agree 100% (and have written so) with the analysis. The Republican faux “outrage” over Sotomayor is precisely meant as an intimidation tactic against Obama even thinking about naming an actual liberal to the Court. If they put up that much fuss over a moderate centrist, just imagine what would happen in that case. Not to mention watching the Democrats scurry from a defense of issues like affirmative action when “defending” Sotomayor.
No, the NY Times has it exactly right, no matter who they talked to to reach that conclusion.
It’s a moot point, isn’t it? The Hope Doper (I’ll use that ’til a better moniker comes to me) ain’t studying nominating anyone that could even laughingly be called a “liberal” to the court, is he?
Look at Sotomayor’s record, and that becomes obvious, doesn’t it?
What this may do is hurt the chances for another female or minority candidate who has made any mention of discrimination – regardless of what she or he has ever done to oppose it.
Republicans “think”?????????? That title’s got to be an oxymoron!
I believe that Judge Sotomayor has excellent credentials, and it is time to stop being scared of Republicans. I hope this will not hurt the chances of another minority candidate, who does mention discri mination, and what he or she has d0one to oppose it. I agree with president Obama, whe n he said that this country still has to address the problems of racism. President Obama must not be scared of these people, and we must give him the support to stand up to them.
Well, I don’t think it was likely, Doug, but I’m certain the Republicans (the ones who already think Obama is a socialist) do.
Would that he were, Eli … would that he were.
But do you really think these bastards do believe that? I think about growing up in the South, and the difference between George Wallace and Ross Barnett.
Both were racists, but I don’t think Wallace believed the horseshit he spewed about blacks – as witnessed by his later attempts to woo them.
Barnett, I think, was a true believer – so filled with hate that he was incapable of discerning reality.
In the end, of course, it makes no practical difference whether you believe your own propaganda – the effects are the same for “the other”, aren’t they?
But I don’t think most Republican pols believe their “socialist” (having replaced “commie” as the most baleful epithet in American politics) rhetoric, any more that Limbaugh or O’Reilly do. They know full well that Obama and nearly every other Democratic officeholder fully subscribe to the basic tenets of the power structure in this country.
That’s an overbroad statement to some degree, but what it essentially comes down to is, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”
And mostly what we’ve gotten is pretty rotten, isn’t it?
It amazes me how little people understand about the role of federal judges. Particularly right wing conservatives.
The current crop of Supreme Court Justices, dominated by George Bush’s appointees, have ruled that states can deny minorities, elderly, and poor their right to vote with impunity. They have ruled that in spite of the 8th Amendment it is acceptable to execute prisoners in an extremely cruel and painful fashion. They have also ruled that employers can discriminate against women as long as the discrimination is kept secret for the first 6 months. They have ruled that despite the lack of a regulated militias in this 21st century, high crime era where guns kill more people than heart disease, it is permissable for anyone to have any kind of a gun. This is legislating from the bench in a way that is detrimental to the majority of Americans. However, according to many conservative citizens that form of judicial activism is perfectly acceptable.
A great deal has been said for and against Supreme Court Judges. The Constitution of the United States was established in 1787, more than 230 years ago. There have been a great many changes in the last 230 years. Changes in society, changes in culture, changes in business, changes in technology. There have been more changes in the last two centuries than there have been in the last two millenia.
Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Constitution should be regularly revisited, and expressed his concern that if it were not, and society were rigidly maintained as it were in 1787 when the Constitution was written, society would crumble; an oligarchy of, by, and for “the rich” would arise and increase the public debt for their own enrichment; the middle class would be destroyed; and Americans would become mere “automatons of misery.”Sound familiar?
The Framers of our Constitution “…to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”(Preamble to the Constitution) tried their best to anticipate the changes that the future would hold. However, they built in two mechanisms to deal with those changes they could not anticipate. The process for amending the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Judicial System as established by Article III of the Constitution.
The Judges of the Federal Courts, up to and including the the final and ultimate court of appeals the Supreme Court of the United States, are charged with interpreting the law in terms of the Constitution, the law and legal precedent. However, the law and the Constitution does not exist in a vacuum. The law and the Constitution exists within a social, cultural, business and technological framework. Those are the things that bring people to court. To answer how the law applies to the circumstances they face today, in the present, brought on by those changes.
To say that the law is applied in the same way in the 21st century as it was in the 18th century is to say that farmers should be plowing a field behind a team of oxen, all products should be made by hand by a single craftsman, women should be the property of their husbands, people should walk, or ride their horses, to work and women should be washing clothes by the stream with a rock. RIIIGGHHHT!