Sotomayor Nomination: Obama's Wedge Politics

President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is stunning on many levels: She's the third woman to serve on the high court, the first of Latino descent and the first to grow up in public housing.

On her own merits, Sotomayor is a deserving nominee. Yet in his choice of Sotomayor, Obama has also made a brilliant tactical move -- one that not only shores up his standing with the Latino community and the women's rights community, but also serves to further divide the beleaguered Republican Party.

In discussions of this nomination, much will be said about the debt Obama owes to the Latino community for his 2008 electoral victory. As Politico's Ben Smith recently wrote:

[McCain] got 31 percent of the Latino vote to the 44 percent that George W. Bush took in 2004, according to exit polls. And it was enough to put much of the West and Southwest out of reach for the Republican Party, to give Florida to the Democrats and to hand Barack Obama the presidency.

The flip side of of that fact is the migration of Latino voters away from the Republican Party, largely due to the party's capitulation to the darkest inclinations of its base with regard to immigration policy.

Republican Senate leaders already have even conservative Latino figures feeling disrespected by throwing their early support to Florida governor Charlie Crist even before the primary, where his opposition is expected to be a popular and youthful Cuban-American, Marco Rubio, who was Florida's youngest House Speaker.

Can Republican senators really afford to oppose Sonia Sotomayor's nomination without further bleeding the votes of Latinos? Probably not. Yet, the hard right wing, which is likely to vilify Sotomayor based on a controversial decision she made in a difficult affirmative action case, will likely demand that GOP leaders oppose Sotomayor outright.

For years, the Democratic Party lay victim to the wedge politics practiced by the Republican Party, and seemed constitutionally incapable of fighting back on those terms. President Obama has no such reticence. Let the battle begin.

Comments

[Artemis34]

Stand with Sotomayor
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/sotomayorstand
Sotomayer in Context
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/sotomayor-in-context.html
Judge Sotomayor’s Appellate Opinions in Civil Cases
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/

[eleutheros]

A point being sorely missed is that President Obama is going to eventually get a second and maybe even a third appointment to the court within the next year and a half. Stevens is up there in age -- Ginsburg has health issues. That said, Republicans may want to keep their powder dry on the Sotomayar pick. First, she is not the screaming liberal that they will no doubt make her out to be, and they can only lose in any fight anyway. But being Republicans, they will still get all wing nut crazy about her -- and this is where the President's strategy is deft. The next time the President makes an appointment, he can then "go left," If not hard left. And when the wing-nuts go crazy again, the moderates in the party will look at those sinking poll numbers and their drift into obscurity that will start a Republican intra-party fight Royale. And with the 2010 elections around the corner ... Dems and Liberals need to follow the President's lead.

[boycottrightwingthings]

I also thought of how smart President Obama is when I heard the selection. Every way the GOP tries to attack her, they LOSE.

[toochie]

What is there for them to worry about? Dropping from 21% to 20%?

[DAE]

Ha, ha, ha! A lose, lose proposition for the Grand Oops Party.

[AgnesBankhead]

president obama is a very clever politician --
he knows that the rethuglicans are incapable of comprehending the Hispanic pride and sense of being "included and represented" that ms. Sotomayor will bring to the nation's highest court

[gfs5541]

Not only Ms. Stan's observations are correct here's another issue that Republicans are going to have problems: Sotomayor isn't a liberal judge. She has sided against the " little guy" at times too ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/rachel-maddow-interviews_n_207971.html )

[Citizenofreality]

They can oppose her at their own peril, she is qualified, she is a Latina, and she is a member of the group which comprises 60% of the electorate--- women. Good luck at undoing her nomination, I am confident in her ability to defend herself against the Good Ole Boys Club.

[SethBLiNK]

I think far too much is being made of her Latino heritage by partisans on both sides of the divide.

Every time a Liberal Democrat mentions the historical nature of her nomination, it offers ammo to those on the other side who will ignore her academic and judicial acheivements to insist that she was nominated for race alone.

Every time a Conservative Republican offers that objection they reveal themselves to be a kneejerk naysayer. It really does the argument of neither side any good to bring it up.

[mergina]

So she is to be used for purely poticial reasons only. Her views on the issues don't matter?

[3dtrix]

Modern politics is three-dimensional chess, dear...

[editorjuno]

Correct, and the GOP can barely manage a competent game of checkers these days. Say what you will about President's policies (a fairly mixed bag imo), but the guy is a masterful 21st century politician -- a Spock-class 3D chess player.

[ElBruce]

Being more inclusive than the other side is the opposite of "wedge politics."

[NoToGOP08]

This is Senator Moynihan's checkmate move handed to Obama on a plate.

Sotomayor is the right woman in the right place for the job. She just happens to be a Hispanic woman. Any other reading of it is doing her accomplishments a grave injustice.

[Adele Stan - Huffpost Blogger]

Good political strategy and the merits of a nominee are not mutually exclusive qualities. One can choose a nominee who is solid on the merits while executing a tactical strategy. And I, for one, am grateful that the president has done just that.

[Dale07]

Race, race, race, race, race..... the left is consumed with it... .conservatives don't pander to Latinos as well as Liberals perhaps, but I don't think Latinos need our help to "make it". Like all Americans, I suggest Latinos want less government and more individual rights. White Liberals need minorities, conservatives believe they are quite capable on their own.

[Benton]

Yea, why don't they just do like Republicans not mention race and just run on willie horton, southern strategy anti immigrant platforms full of code words, nods and winks.

[3dtrix]

Who signed off on you being the spokesmodel for "all Americans"? You sure don't speak for me, and being a white male in the construction industry for thirty years, I have no illusions about what white conservatives think of any given minority - just name one (Jews, asians, blacks, hispanics, middle-easterners, etc.) and I'll give you the crudity assigned to it by your buddies...

[editorjuno]

No you don't -- you believe they're quite *usable* if they know their "proper" place and don't aspire to more. Moreover, nobody nominated either one of us to speak for "all Americans," so I suggest we both refrain from such presumptions. As for "less government," that's empty rhetoric -- GOP presidents consistently expand the federal government as much or more than their Dem counterparts, and we'd all do better to stop pretending otherwise and start insisting that our government be more efficient and effective regardless of size.

[theclosetconservative2]

Adele, the short answer to your question is yes, the Republicans can afford to "risk" alienating Hispanic voters because the Hispanic vote is not monolithic on illegal immigration. But they won't do so because the current leadership in the party has no spine. I think your second point is more accurate about the GOP giving the short end of the stick to Marco Rubio. Charlie Christ may have been a good Governor but he's no Conservative, and Reublicans reaching out and elevating Hispanic Conservatives could ease some of their disparity with the Democrats with the Hispanic vote. After all, the Cuban American vote was a GOP stronghold for many years after the Bay of Pigs. It could be again but the party needs to stick to its principles instead of reaching for expediency. http://theclosetconservative.com

[3dtrix]

The Cuban American vote became irrelevant as the foaming anti-commies aged and grew fewer in relative number as the following generation matured - they still feel the same, and always will. The same is happening across the spectrum of conservative hot-button issues. What gets the you-kids-g­et-off-my-­lawn bunch to the polls simply doesn't sell among the youth of today, who outnumber you - which is why you are in a dwindling minority, numerically and politically. It's about flaming time - you nearly wrecked the country - it'll take decades to sweep up...

[SarahSarah]

I think that Hispanics are monolithic on the question of not liking to see Hispanics bashed and they are not going to get that from the Republicans.

[StevieRae]

I suggest the problem of becoming a less relevant political force in the US with any special interest group are the GOP's principles.

[HollyP]

This woman's resume reads as one of those classic "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" stories that the GOP loves to tout. Apparently they only like them when the story features a young white Christian man from a small town, not a brilliant woman of color from the inner city.

As the white mother of two Latinas, I am thrilled my daughters have another great role model. (And for the record, Huckabee, only one my muchachitas is named Maria!)

[BrighterStar]

The story is great. Her story shows that a person can succeed in this nation despite ethnic origin or poverty. Government dependence is not a necessary ingredient for success. As for her nomination to the Supreme Court, republicans oppose her because she does not share their judicial philosophy. Republicans believe a judge should interpret the constitution by what what it actually says not what you want it to mean.

[libslayerguy]

That last sentence is just too funny! Write your own stuff?

[IWantTofu]

Go to the article on Gov. Deal, Repub from GA who wants to pass a law to get rid of birthright citizenship, in spite of how clear the constitution states it. Republicans believe a judge should interpret the constitution by what it actually says, only when it suits their needs. Otherwise, they have no problems in ignoring it. See cruel and unusual punishment, see fair and speedy trial, and how President Bush has circumvented it, no matter how clear what the constitution actually says.