Sotomayor: Political Confidence or Political Savvy?

Over on his Fix blog at the Washington Post, uber-political journalist Chris Cillizza has written that Obama's pick of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court reflects Obama's "supreme confidence that even a united GOP can't beat the White House." Cillizza is, all too often, right about just about everything, and his opinion here also reflects the larger consensus of political thought. But in this case, Cillizza and conventional wisdom are dead wrong. If anything, from a political standpoint, the Sotomayor pick seems engineered specifically to avoid such a confrontation with a united GOP.

The choice of a Hispanic woman places Republican senators from Western states in a particular bind. Of course, such senators are few and far between these days, the GOP being essentially a Southern regional party. Indeed, the membership of the nigh-extinct species Republicanus Westernus stands at seven to nine members, depending on whether one counts Idaho's two GOP senators as being "Western" in the same sense that the pair of Republicans from Utah, Wyoming or Arizona are. Add to them the single Republican from Nevada, John Ensign, and you've accounted for them all. Particularly in the Southwest, the Hispanic voting base has, as political junkies (and if you're reading this on HuffPo, congratulations, you're probably one) are all well aware, become all important. Given the Hispanic demographic's tendency to go Democrat in huge numbers in every recent major election with the exception of 2004, it's not hard to see that the three Johns -- McCain, Kyl (in his case, Jon) and Ensign -- can ill-afford to block the Sotomayor nomination.

Significantly, Kyl also happens to be the Senate Minority Whip. Imagine a scenario in which an organized GOP opposition to Sotomayor does not include the very man whose job it is to organize said opposition. Combine this with John McCain's previous membership in the 109th Congress' "Gang of 14," which sought to derail judicial filibusters by the minority party. Now, add to that the obvious Democratic defense of Sotomayor that, Hey, George H.W. Bush placed her on the bench in the first place, and a united GOP front in the Senate becomes a dim likelihood.

So, far from expressing confidence in the White House's ability to derail a united GOP opposition to Obama's Supreme Court nominee, the nomination of Sotomayor seems specifically designed to prevent such a united front from ever occurring.

Of course, in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee, such political considerations should really take a backseat to more pertinent ones like, oh, maybe "Will this person be a good Supreme Court justice?" Check out ScotusBlog's review of Sotomayor's career here. Putting all the political maneuvering aside, she sounds like a damned good judge. Her decisions against Freedom of Information Act requests in Tigue vs. DOJ and Wood vs. FBI give me some pause, but other than that, she seems as though she'll be a great addition to the Court.

Comments

[Tena]

Confidence OR savvy?

How about both - and the GOP, the gift that keeps on giving (be sure to pick one up for all your liberal friends and relatives today; it's never too early to shop for the holidays!) is reacting exactly as expected.

Wave bye bye to the Hispanic vote forever, Republicans. And thank you - I live in 2 Hispanic majority states.

[Dan Sweeney - Huffpost Blogger]

Tena --

I totally get what you're saying, but as I see it, far from it being confident of its ability to win out over a unified GOP, the Obama administration has picked a candidate whose background seems almost tailor-made to prevent such obstruction.

Now, several caveats:
1. Avoiding such obstruction is a good thing anyway, so it's not as though this should play as a lack of confidence -- more a desire to avoid congressional drama.
2. As I noted in the post, the primary issues should be about Sotomayor as a juror, not political considerations. And in my opinion, she seems pretty passable in that regard.
3. Finally, and to brazenly toss aside number two, you've hit the nail on the head with regard to Hispanic voters. (Cue evil laugh here.)

[We-Are-The-Ones]

I disagree with you. Whoever Obama selected was going to be controversial for the pubes. The Republicans were geared for a fight. All they were going to do was fill in the name. But, I don't think they thought Obama was ready to fight as well.

if Sotomayor was less qualified I'd be inclined to agree with you. But summa cum laude at Princeton. No. 2 in her class. Yale Law. Yale Law Review. District court Judge. Appellate court Judge. More experience as a jurist than any judge currently sitting on the Supreme Court.

I think Sotomayor was simply the best qualified candidate. Her credentials and experiences are impressive. Everything else was just lagniappe (a little something extra) and will show how crazy and outdated the GOP is. Watching the news today, they try to call a summa cum laude, Yale Law Review, sitting judge dumb.

Whether they attack Sotomayor or not (and they will and have so far), they are going to be shown to be who they are . . . irrelevant.

[VeggieVeal]

Actually, the fact that this appointment for a Hispanic woman seems to be not producing the Donnybrook expected, is a good thing. We are past the racial, sexist thing in this country finally, it appears. However, the blogosphere is focussing on Judge Sotomayor as perhaps being not the brightest bulb in the box. Well, that's a non-issue too; just look at Juustice Thomas. He's doing just fine, thank you.
What Sonia needs to do is clarify her position on the Traditional Family and the 2nd Ammendment. The right responses will give her a speedy confirmation.

[Tena]

"we are past the racial, sexist thing in this country..."

O dude.

O we're so not. We have so much work still to do. You're deluded if you can't see that.

[Dan Sweeney - Huffpost Blogger]

VeggieVeal --

I completely agree that it's a good thing that we're not arguing whether a Hispanic belongs on the court. My take, though, is that racial makeup is very much a part of what makes Sotomayor such a potent choice by Obama. And in that sense, racial politics is very much alive. That said, I think the Supreme Court could do well with another female voice, and it's way overdue for a Hispanic member.

As for this bit about her not being a very bright bulb, I don't think that's really possible, given the full-ride scholarship to Princeton. She's obviously not an idiot. Vis-a-vis the "traditional family" and the second amendment, I'm not quite sure how her views are relevant on the former -- the "traditional family" not being a constitutional matter -- and as for the latter, I think the court ruled pretty definitively on that subject in last year's D.C. vs. Heller.

[Petey131]

""we are past the racial, sexist thing in this country..."

Really? What country are you referring to?

[BMS]

Just read his bio. He is an ex-pat living in Africa; he doesn't live here and he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

What world is he referring to? Racism and sexism exists all over the world. The US is no different.

[ProudLiberalDemocrat]

Summa Cum Laude, Princeton.­....Editor in Chief, Yale Law Review......these are not just given away to dim lightbulbs....smart is smart - Justice Sotomayor fits the bill.....

[BMS]

"We are past the racial, sexist thing in this country..."

Not even close to being true. Live your life as a woman or a person of color and then we'll see if you write those same words.