A downside for Obama if he nominates Sotomayor for the Supreme Court

The Right Wing Slimers will use Sotomayor's participation in the Ricci v. DeStefano affirmative action case to damage her chances and the administration and it will be nasty.

This is a very bad case for us and the RW knows it. They also know that they will get a chunk of white voters on their side.

Today's analysis from the New Haven Register: http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/05/10/news/new_haven/a1judge.txt

She will be painted as a racist and Obama will be accused of reverse racism for nominating her. The RW will be in full hue and cry at a time when Obama will need the fullest possible support for his health care and economic programs.

IMO, this is a case that shouldn't have happened. The test used by the City was flawed and should never have been given. But it could also be a train wreck for President Obama, too.

This is a horrible situation. I think Sotomayor is in many ways ideal for the job. But I've been around too long and seen too much not to be worried about what's in store for us.

It was a political point that I was making. The fact of the matter is that this nomination DOES have a down side. The case I mention is very bad for affirmative action in this country. It could be a case that severely wounds affirmative action. I hope it won't but it really could.

We have some very good candidates to consider. Frankly, at this point not one really stands head and shoulders above the rest. If Sotomayor were the only good candidate I would agree with you 100% and full speed ahead.

If it is Sotomayor I will support her whole heartedly. But the case is a loser for us with a lot of public opinion. I am furious with my mayor for screwing this up so badly with that test. All the work done for affirmative action over the years and this mayor's incompetence is staggering.

He's going to nominate a liberal. All would have likely ruled the same way

That's the difference.

And I'm not too sure they all would have. I don't think they would be against affirmative action. They might say the case has flaws that prevents it from being a valid test for/against a.a.

are THE SAME THING to the RW screamers. There isn't a hair's breadth between the two.

Only with this case they will probably get a chunk of moderate folks to agree with them, because it is such a bad case. Look, this was an instance where the firefighters taking the test, black and white, trusted that the results would be fair. But the test was flawed and never should have been used in the first place. It had never been used before and the city refused to have it checked further for flaws, which the testing companythat designed it offered to do. It will seem to people who don't know this that the white guys won fair and square and the city didn't like the results and threw out the test.

The test is under seal so we don't know what the questions were. The Obama administration went in on an amicus in the SC and said it should be sent back to the lower court for more analysis of the circumstances surrounding the test. I really don't know, but my guess is that they think the lower court might then say that this can't be used to test affirmative action because of all of its underlying flaws.

I want that to happen so that this mayor of ours is revealed for the corrupt, incompetent bastard that he is. I only hope it comes in time for his reelection campaign, altho he is running unopposed (except for the Green Party candidate for whom I will vote).

is can a city ignore the results of an exam, which was written to ensure race-neutrality, if
it “yielded too many applicants of one race and not enough of another?” Cabranes asked.

Would have liked to see decision below. On its face, I would have affirmed, too.

However, I'm becoming partial to his nominating Current Georgia Supreme Court Justice Leah Sears.

I think she would be a great stealth nomination for the court.

She's done an admirable balancing act on certain issues that make her just right for the nomination, IMO.

1. She was nominated to the Georgia Supreme Court by Zell Miller (before he went crazy for the GOP...during his Clinton phase), so it can't be said that she was advanced by Crazy Liberals.

2. She appears very consistent as an ally on issues such as pro choice and Gay marriage, but has made moves that has provided her cover in both cases.

3. She's 53 years old and is retiring from the Court in June. She also just turned down a lucrative position that makes one wonder.

Sears announced in October 2008 that she will resign from the state Supreme Court at the end of June 2009 when her term as Chief Justice ends. Sears was named in January 2009 as one of five finalists to become dean of the University of Maryland School of Law. However, in February 2009, Sears withdrew her name from consideration, in order to pursue other opportunities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Ward_Sears

(by October of 2008, Obama the candidate, was already doing Supreme Court vetting....if you recall.)

4. She's a woman and a person of color.

5. She is quite accomplished and not being talked about a lot currently.

6. she's actually won ran and won elections for some of her judgeships, so she has had to be somewhat of a politician in fighting RW smears.



Some History on her....

The daughter of U.S. Army Colonel Thomas E. Sears and Onnye Jean Sears, she was born in Heidelberg, Germany, but the family eventually settled in Savannah, Georgia, where she attended and graduated from high school.

Sears was appointed by then-Mayor Andrew Young to the City of Atlanta Traffic Court in 1985. She then became a Superior Court judge in 1988 (the first African-American woman to hold that position in the state). She became a state Supreme Court justice in 1992.

Although historically a non-partisan election, the Georgia Republican Party and Georgia Christian Coalition targeted Sears for defeat in 2004. Based in large part on her record, she defeated her challenger with 62 percent of the vote.

Career History
Alston & Bird Attorneys at Law, Atlanta, GA, lawyer, 1980-1985
City Court of Atlanta, traffic court judge, 1985-1987
Fulton Superior Court, Atlanta, judge, 1988-1992
State Supreme Court of Georgia, justice, 1992-Present
Founder of Battered Women's Project of Columbus, GA

Organization Membership
National Association of Women's Judges
Georgia Association of Black Women Attorneys(founding president)
Chair, Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism
Chair, Supreme Court Commission on Civil Justice
Chair, Supreme Court's Commission on Marriage, Children and Families
Georgia Tech Advisory Board
Links, Incorporated
Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.


Awards
NAACP award for community service
2006 Trumpet Award-Law
2008 Honoree--Second Annual Wayne A. McCoy Memorial Historymaker's Program
2007-2009 Rosalynn Carter Fellow in Public Policy
Leadership Atlanta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Ward_Sears




2004-
Supreme Court Justice Leah Sears - who next year could become the high court's first female chief justice - was the biggest vote-getter of the night. She easily fended off challenger Grant Brantley, who was backed by Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue and religious conservatives, deflecting criticisms of her "activism" and allegations that she looked favorably on gay marriage.

"I think it's a good night for moderation in politics," said Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin, who countered Perdue's involvement in the Supreme Court race with her support for Sears.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0721-02.htm

Christensen v. State
A constitutional challenge to the Georgia sodomy law, using the Pavesich case, met with defeat in 1996 in the case of Christensen v. State. The vote of the court to uphold the sodomy law was 5-2

Separate dissents were written by Justice Leah Sears, the state’s most consistent and eloquent defender of the dignity of Gay and Lesbian people, and by Justice Carol Huntstein.

Sears criticized Thompson’s opinion for stating that what is beyond the pale of majoritarian morality also is beyond the limits of constitutional protection. If we lived in an autocracy, the majority would be correct. But such is not the case.

Sears believed that, in "the long history of human governance," the advent of democracy marked a major moral advance because of its recognition of the inherent dignity of the individual and the worth of his private life. The underlying idea that the individual has a right to rule himself in both private and public affairs was a monumental challenge to the many authoritarian conceptions of government that preceded democracy. Quite consciously, then, this country’s original social contract with its citizens recognized and gave credence to our immense variety of personal tastes and values, and granted to each citizen the right to pursue his or her own conception of the good. Under the unique American democratic scheme, government was intended to play a relatively insignificant role in the individual’s pursuit of the good.
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/georgia.htm

n/t

Nor do I think she has to be an Hispanic....nor even a woman for that matter.

There will be more than one nomination that this President will make.

but, hey, that's just my take on it.

There are more than enough qualified women and they have been historically underrepresented on the Court.

It's easy, with all the qualified women out there, to appoint three in a row and safely say that each is superbly qualified, if not the most qualified.

although it would be my preference....certainly.

and Sears sounds quite good actually. She'd be way up there on my list.

Your reason #4 was that she is a person of color.
I think you are being inconsistent in telling us that the nominee "doesn't have to be a Lesbian," and on the other hand citing a person's skin color as a strength.

If it was a Lesbian who is not of color, that would be fine with me too.

so my point was that two out of three ain't bad.

to consider.

You are right, the white voters do not get to vote on this. It will be a shitstorm however with Sotomayor (and I'm not saying she was wrong). All I am saying is that there will be political considerations with her that we don't have with the other candidates.

This whole thing is so unfair and maddening to me.

Sustein, is a badass. He would really stand up to guys like Scalia. I heard him speak several times.

One of the NYT articles talks about it. As an Obama advisor already he'd be a shoe in as to how things stand and be fundamental on making changes. Plus they're friends...he's the best fit in my book.

Their party has the wrong ideas. That's why it is crumbling.

or is it? :eyes:

:sarcasm:

in front of us so we can rebut. The test is under seal. We can't argue the merits of this case. IMO there are none, but we can't go through it point by point and tell folks why it is racist. The city and its Dem mayor screwed this up royally and a.a. will suffer as a result.

Next time the media has the white firefighters on saying they took the test in good faith that it was fair, they studied hard (one guy has dyslexia and paid for tutoring), etc, you should watch. They come across as mistreated. And we have no way of saying "Here, look at question 6 and 12 and 15 and here's why it is slanted toward whites" because we won't know the questions.

I will just bet that Obama is furious with Mayor DeStefano for botching this thing...

IMGAINARY Supreme Court Nominee...

they would bitch and whine - they're just fine tuning their vocal chords so they're all set when the NAME is finally announced...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

been revealed during the 04 election.

Your "concern" about the NH Register piece is interesting. It is EXACTLY what you will be hearing if/when Sotomayor is nominated. I am certainly NOT persuaded by this piece that Sotomayor is unfair, but that it is a bad case for other reasons. I'm not against her. Actually, I like her. I'm just saying what to expect. Why ignore it?

Thank you for the washington independent piece. I will read it carefully.

Living in New Haven and an active Dem here as is my husband I have read quite a bit about this case. It is a disaster. You can read my other posts in this thread and on others. I blame the mayor here. I thought he was a good Dem and now I see he was nothing but a sleaze. Other disillusioned Dems tried to tell me before but I voted for this creep for mayor and for governor when he ran. Now I'm pissed.

Sorry you don't see it coming. You will...

It is tasteless and divisive, in my opinion.

This whole issue is upsetting to me and to lots of other strong liberal Dems here in New Haven. We're used to fighting right wingers but when our Dem mayor is so awful and we can't really fight back we feel marginalized.

I was, myself, wondering about where we at DU were going with the "concern" troll business. At a certain point, differing points of view get slammed as trolling. We need to have airing of many points of view within our own big tent.

Thanks again...