Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Anatomy Of A Sotomayor SCOTUS Whisper Campaign

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:55 AM
Original message
Anatomy Of A Sotomayor SCOTUS Whisper Campaign
Anatomy Of A Sotomayor SCOTUS Whisper Campaign
By Brian Beutler - May 6, 2009, 3:56PM


The campaign against Second-Circuit Court of Appeals Judge (and potential SCOTUS nominee) Sonia Sotomayor began in earnest when nameless former clerks on that court told The New Republic's legal correspondent Jeffrey Rosen that the Hispanic judge (and one-time George H.W Bush appointee) is too temperamental--and not intelligent enough--to serve on the Court.

I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.


The charges have been challenged loudly--almost immediately after the article came out, other people familiar with her work came forward to call the piece baseless. But once the cat was out of the bag, there was no stuffing it back in. Almost immediately, conservatives picked up and...advanced...the meme. National Review's Mark Hemingway called her "dumb and obnoxious," inviting a classy riposte from his colleague John Derbyshire, who cautioned that "Judge Sotomayor may indeed be dumb and obnoxious; but she's also female and Hispanic, and those are the things that count nowadays."

To The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, this represented evidence that "Sotomayor's public image {is} at risk" and today the Washington Post quoted an anonymous lawyer, supposedly involved somewhat tangentially in the Justice Souter replacement process, saying Sotomayor will be battling the perception that she "doesn't play well with others."

more...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/anatomy-of-a-sotomayor-scotus-whisper-campaign.php?ref=fpa
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Burt Neuborne, legal director, New York University Brennan Center for Justice has this to say -
I have known Sonia Sotomayor for more than 20 years. She cares intensely about the law, and takes her responsibilities as a judge very seriously. Even when we’ve disagreed, I have found her collegial, respectful of opposing views, and very easy to get along with.

Judge Sotomayor told students at Duke University School of Law that law students like to clerk on the circuit courts because “policy” is made there. Sen. Hatch equated “policy” with “politics,” and accused Judge Sotomayor of the sin of “judicial activism.” But she used “policy” in a completely different way. When a case is not governed by precedent, and when genuine doubt exists about the meaning of the governing text, policy arguments are routinely used to decide what the ambiguous text means. …

I have reviewed Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record, and it is undoubtedly well within the judicial mainstream. Mainstream judging consists of four elements:

First, a judge must determine whether binding precedent controls the outcome of a case. Judge Sotomayor is meticulous is seeking to follow precedent.

Second, if the case is not controlled by precedent, a judge must determine whether the governing text provides an unambiguous, plain-meaning command. Judge Sotomayor is respectful of text, and keenly aware of her duty to follow unambiguous textual commands.

Third, if neither precedent nor unambiguous text dictates an outcome, a judge should seek to select the textual meaning intended by the drafters. Judge Sotomayor consistently seeks to read ambiguous text to advance legislative and constitutional purpose.

Finally, when neither precedent, nor text, nor legislative purpose yields a clear answer, Judge Sotomayor weighs the pragmatic impact of adopting one reading as opposed to another, and selects the “best” reading of the text.

Sonia Sotomayor is entitled to be judged on the merits against a very strong pool of prospective nominees free from the conservative baggage that is designed to sink her candidacy before it gets a fair consideration.


http://thehill.com/letters/judge-sotomayors-record-well-within-the-mainstream-2009-05-13.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
2. "doesn't play well with others"
I'm trying to see what's wrong with that when I look at the staid conservatives on the court. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
3. Kevin Drum (in Mother Jones) counters Rosen and comes to her defense -
Edited on Tue May-26-09 08:14 AM by pinto
Sonia Sotomayor
— By Kevin Drum | Wed May 6, 2009 9:19 AM PST

Now, unlike most of Rosen's critics, I didn't have a big problem with the fact that most of his sources were anonymous. This is actually one of those cases where it's probably the only way to write the story, since former law clerks aren't likely to risk their careers by dishing publicly about their former colleagues, especially ones who might be sitting on the Supreme Court a couple of months from now.

No, the problem with Rosen's piece is that it was so relentlessly unfair: a long string of complaints despite the fact that Sotomayor's own clerks, who presumably know her best, had nothing but praise for her. And they were speaking anonymously too. Mark Kleiman, after noting that Sotomayor won the Pyne Prize as the top undergraduate in her senior year at Princeton and then reading a persuasive bit of praise for Sotomayor by one of her former clerks, Robin Kar, tries to push back:

I find Kar's piece utterly convincing. Not every judge attracts this sort of passion from her clerks. And Kar does more than gush: he makes a strongly-argued case that Sotomayor has exactly the sort of intelligence you'd like to see on the Supreme Bench. Better yet, in response to a question, he identifies two pieces of Sotomayor's legal writing as exemplifying her talents of analysis and legal writing her dissents (thus reflecting her views alone, not aided or burdened by those of her colleagues) in Croll v. Croll and Hankins v. Lyght.

I read the Croll case first....I'd give it very high marks; having read first the controlling opinion and then the dissent, I found the dissent compelling.

....Hankyns v. Light involves a bit of law I know something about: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act....My first-blush analysis was to liken a forced retirement to a job-site injury, something that involved secular questions only. But Sotomayor's argument made it clear to me that clergy hiring (as distinguished from the hiring of a math teacher in a religious school involved in one of the precedent cases) was inextricably a religious matter.

....So, insofar as a non-expert can judge, Kar's two examples are both on point: Sotomayor writes much more clearly and persuasively than the average appellate judge.


http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/05/sonia-sotomayor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Thanks for the links. Rosen got 'a lot' of criticism for his
badly flawed, research-less piece iirc. Very irresponsible of him, and didn't do much for his reputation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. That title - "Whisper Campaign" - nails the right's approach, imo.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
islandmkl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
5. hey rightwing: payback's a bitch, ain't it?:
too tempermental: Scalia...

not intelligent enough: Thomas...

oh, the karma of a lost election...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC