Obama: Efforts To Undermine Sotomayor's Nomination Will Fail

AP: WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama expressed confidence Saturday that efforts to scuttle Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court will fail despite intensified scrutiny of her judicial career. He said senators should work quickly to elevate the federal appeals judge.

"I am certain that she is the right choice," the president said in his weekly radio and Internet address in which he scolded critics who he said were trying to distort her record and past statements. Those include her 2001 comment that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge.

With the Senate returning this coming week from its holiday break, Obama said he hopes it begins the confirmation process without delay. He said he expects his nominee to be on the bench when the Supreme Court begins its new term in October.

In the interim, Obama said he expects "rigorous evaluation" of his nominee but added: "What I hope is that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this process, and Congress, in the past."

He derided "some in Washington who are attempting to draw old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor's record."

"But I am confident that these efforts will fail," Obama added, "because Judge Sotomayor's 17-year record on the bench _ hundreds of judicial decisions that every American can read for him or herself _ speak far louder than any attack; her record makes clear that she is fair, unbiased and dedicated to the rule of law."

On Friday, Obama personally sought to deflect criticism about Sotomayor's comment in a 2001 lecture that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The quote in question from Sotomayor has emerged as a rallying call for conservative critics who fear she will offer opinions from the bench based less on the rule of law and more on her life experience, ethnicity and gender. That issue is likely to play a central role in her Senate confirmation process.

Story continues below

advertisement

"I'm sure she would have restated it," Obama told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that.

Obama also defended his nominee, saying her message was on target even if her exact wording was not.

"I think that when she's appearing before the Senate committee, in her confirmation process, I think all this nonsense that is being spewed out will be revealed for what it is," Obama said in the broadcast interview, clearly aware of how ethnicity and gender issues are taking hold in the debate.

A veteran federal judge, Sotomayor is poised to be the first Hispanic, and the third woman, to serve on the Supreme Court She appears headed for confirmation, needing a majority vote in a Senate, where Democrats have 59 votes. But White House officials also want a smooth confirmation, not one that bogs down them or their nominee.

As a senator, Obama supported a failed attempt by Democrats to stall President George W. Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the high court.

___

Associated Press writer Ben Feller contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov

Comments

[Jazzman323]

o course Sotomayor will be confirmed, because the Democrats have the votes. Bot they must give her the same hearing and was given Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Bork, and others, to air her racist an inappropriate remarks about the job of being a judge. The opposition should politely ask her all questions pertaining to her record and judicial views.

[DSOTM]

Jazzman, stop listening to Rush and Sean, her comments were not racist when you read her entire speech.

The point she was making in her speech was identical to what Alito had said in a speech a few years ago too.

anything can be made to sound like something else when its taken out of context.

Grow up Jazzman.

[sweepstop]

I read the entire speech. And the statement in question was at best, a very poor articulation of her views that diversity on the court is good, and at worst, racially prejudiced. If she had said that her different life experience had given her a unique perspective that was valuable to the court, noone would have a problem with it. That is not in fact what she ended up saying.

[podios]

The failed attempt to stall Alito's nomination to the Supreme court was just another cave-in by the Dems as was the same with Roberts and even Mukasey as Attorney General. At least I have to give the conservatives credit for having the kahunas to strongly mount a sustained attack, however wrong they may be. When it was the Dems turn to oppose and overturn Bush's nominations, they were just too scared of being labeled "obstructionists".

[britethere]

Worked like mad to get Obama elected. This choice is a disappointment. Between the racist comment and the racist vote in the CT Fire Dept. case we can see into her heart, feel her anger, and know her resentments. Not the unbiased attitude we want on the Court

[MaryanneAZ]

You might want to review that Ricci case again. A three judge panel affirmed the lower court ruling. They went with the legal precedent for such exams and did not go in their own direction. Exams have to ensure that they are germane to the job and do not serve to undermine the chances of minorities (including women) from passing them by their content. This is not new law.

[LWilkinson315]

LOL Its times like this I thank God that McCain-Palin did not win the election! Just think in a matter of weeks Miss California would have been sitting on the Supreme Court

[01202009]

Let us not get carried away again and let some old white men hog the spotlight with their puny attempts to maintain the status quo. Obstructionism now has a name: The Republican Party.
Let the GOP implode into the smoking yellow crater it is fast becoming. Let the GOP lose the minorities and women (and the bulk of the rest of us).
While that’s going on we can prepare to clean house (and senate) come the midterms. And by the way, there are a few grouchy old Dems who need to be shown the door. The 20th Century is history.

[sweepstop]

I would remind you that Obstructionism had a name from 2000-2008. It was the Democratic Party. And when Clinton was in office, the Republicans "obstructed". That is the job of the minority party, to check the power of the majority. Without it, we'd get even more bills like the stimulus, crammed through without anyone ever reading them.

[podios]

The Dems were certainly not Obstructionists from 2000-2008. As I mentioned in my post, they were too damn scared of that label and failed miserably in bringing about the checks and balances that were their constitutional duty.

[sweepstop]

The only comment I've heard that she's really been attacked on was the hispanic women make better decisions one. And that was not taken out of context. After reading the whole lecture, that was her intent. That said, she should not be disqualified due to that. It would be refreshing, however, to hear her come out and say that it was wrong for her to say, and perhaps even to apologize.

In case anyone hasn't read the speech in question, it can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1

[aztecdiva]

It was taken out of context as the audience and the speech was regarding sexism and discrimination. Under those circumstances, her statement is accurate. The issue regarding her statement is due to th media and right only taking that line and splattering it around as though it represents her thinking on all judicial issues. The statement is always preceded with ... and concluded with ...

[sweepstop]

I read the whole speech. You can include as much before and after that quote as you would like, and the meaning of it will not change. All I'm asking is that she come out and retract that statement, instead of the administration trying to diffuse the situation with dishonesty.

[YewNeekId]

It was not taken out of context and it was a s/exist r/acist remark. Spin all you like, but it doesn't change the facts.

[Pleneras]

She's been attack by liddy, newt, o'reilly, hannity, rush, robertson, beck, etc... none have said the same thing you mentioned. All have said things that were completely disgraceful towards a woman and hispanics.

[sweepstop]

None of the people you mentioned (thankfully) have a vote in her confirmation hearings. What they have said is just as wrong, if not more so, as what Sotomayor said in her speech. But just because Limbaugh is being inflammatory to increase his ratings doesn't mean that Sotomayor should get a free pass for this. I ultimately believe she should be confirmed, but I'd first like her to address her previous comments to make sure she doesn't actually feel that way.

[BluesDogLefty]

Man, the racists on the far right have been flushed out of the shadows and into daylight by Obama's presidency (ever since he began pres campaign) and by this nomination of Sotomayor.

It is crazy----