The Politics of Sotomayor

This morning President Obama announced Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee to replace Justice David Souter on the United States Supreme Court. In his press conference unveiling the choice, Obama described Sotomayor as an inspiring woman with a distinguished career, holding a "depth of experience and a breadth of perspective."

Though their numbers have dwindled in the Senate, the Republican party is not entirely devoid of options to block the nomination. Sotomayor will first need approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee before she can be voted on by the entire Senate. Though a majority vote is usually all that's required for a committee to advance a bill to the floor of the Senate, an obscure rule requires that judicial appointments be approved by a majority that includes at least one member of the minority party. In the case of Sotomayor, that means she'll need one Republican member of Judiciary to vote her to the floor.

That might draw excitement from conservative activists, but it's not likely that Sotomayor will lose a party-line vote of the judiciary committee. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a key Republican vote on the committee, has already suggested an unwillingness to block the nomination. And Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), another Republican member of the committee, has already voted to confirm Sotomayor once before (for the Second Circuit eleven years ago) making it unlikely he'll oppose her this time. By the time she makes it to the floor of the Senate, Al Franken will likely have been seated in Minnesota, providing the Democrats with a 60 vote, filibuster-proof majority. At that point, and without the filibuster option, Republicans will be powerless to prevent Sotomayor's confirmation.

Still, the GOP is angling for a fight. Among the few who graced Obama's short list, Sotomayor was largely considered the most progressive of the bunch. But as the Republican leadership gears up, they may be walking squarely into another political trap, carefully designed by the president. Should she be confirmed, Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic on the bench, chosen at a time when the Hispanic vote has emerged as a critical component to sustaining a Democratic majority over the long-term.

Already in 2008, Hispanic voters, who represent the fastest growing minority population in the country, were responsible for a dramatic political realignment. In the wake of an anti-immigrant nativism that came to define the Republican presidential nominating contests, Obama won two-thirds of the Hispanic vote, fourteen points higher than John Kerry's share four years earlier. That meant wins in states like New Mexico and Colorado, Nevada and Florida, and it meant an insurmountable electoral margin for Obama. The president recognizes that if the Democratic party can turn Hispanic voters into a loyal bloc of supporters, they can continue to expand their margins around the country, even in places as conservative as Texas, driven almost entirely by Hispanic population growth.

Will nominating the first Hispanic justice to the high court further Obama's courtship of the Hispanic community? It certainly can't hurt, though it's hard to imagine that it alone will do the job. But Obama may stand to gain more, not from corralling a majority of Democrats to vote in favor of Sotomayor, but from inspiring the most virulent elements of the Republican party to oppose her.

The Republican leadership has already indicated that they view the fight over Obama's Supreme Court nominee as a good opportunity to unify their base and that, among those on the short list, they were most eager to go after Sotomayor. But if they follow through, if they do decide to spend the next two and half months waging an impossible fight against a nominee whose confirmation is all but guaranteed, they may cause permanent damage. If the Hispanic community abandons the Republican party altogether, the Republican party can abandon any hope of regaining power in American politics.

Besides, Sotomayor is not that easily assailable. While her credentials are undeniably liberal, she was originally nominated to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush. She has top notch academic credentials, having attending Princeton and Yale Law School, and has more experience on the federal bench than any nominee to the bench in the last half century.

Still Republicans have made a sport out of fighting unwinnable political fights to their detriment. It's the bread and butter of their new brand of politics.

Over the coming months, it would be unwise to expect anything less.

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/

[Quitcherbichin]

I was under the impression that the role of a Supreme Court justice was to interpret the constitution, not legislate from the bench. Sotomayor is on record stating that the appeals court job is to "make policy". If a white person had made her moronic comments about " a latino woman being more qualified to make decisions than a white man" they would be tarred and feathered by the press, and the far left bloggers.

Yes she will be confirmed. This country seems determined to self destruct. Nikita Kruschev stated that eventually we would be defeated from within. Looks to me like he may have been right.

[NHBill]

quitcherbitchin indeed!

[smartcookienyc]

"I was under the impression that the role of a Supreme Court justice was to interpret the constitution, not legislate from the bench. "

What does that mean, precisely?

[Quitcherbichin]

It means exactly what it said. Laws are made by the legislative branch, not the judicial branch of government. Activist judges such as Sotomayor believe they should substitute their personal views and values, and make them law. Now that was easy wasn't it.

[progressiveblkgrl]

Isn't it great when comments are completely taken out of context. On HuffPo today there's a great article that details her "moronic" comments about the Latina experience making her more able to relate. And White people make comments like that all the time they're just shrouded in politically correct mumbo jumbo. She's been called an itch with a b, stupid, and racist all within the last 24 hours all by white people. Except the words were "don't feel she has the intellectual capacity", "agressive", and " reverse discrimination". Racism and discrimination is so dangerous because White people don't have to say exactly what they mean to get the same result.

[marilyn1227]

Actually, for many, many years I have resented the fact that we do not have more women on the supreme court and in the senate. I also resent old white men interpreting anything regarding women and what is best for them, whether they are hispanic, black, or white.

[hernan1333]

The Republicans are already walking into the trap with the moderates (the few that remain) being dragged along. Many Hispanics (some Dems, independents and even moderate Repubs) who I have talked to are already outraged by the vicious attacks from the right. Among Hispanics, this nomination is huge as it holds much historical and symbolic significance.

They argue that this is the wrong fight to pick as this opportunity transcends petty and vicious attacks from the right for a seat which is liberal to begin with. Many can't understand why the Repubs are contesting it when she was initially selected by George Bush, Sr. and was confirmed by both Dems and Repubs. This fact leaves open the question as to the underlying reasons or motivations for contesting her nomination, and many Hispanics have already drawn their own conclusion.

The reality is that the more the vicious the attack the more to the left the Hispanic population will go...and although some may argue that if the Repubs are successful in blocking her nomination, eventually the Hispanics will forget, they are dead wrong in this instance given the significance of this event.

[Quitcherbichin]

The Repubs would like to block Sotomayor's nomination, but they know that the do not have the votes to do it. Instead they will use the confirmation process to expose Obama's attempt to enact his far left agenda vicariously through Sotomayor. They will highlight her attempts to legislate from the bench, substitute "empathy" for solid constitutional reasoning, and her reverse-racist agenda as exemplified by her ruling in the Ricci firefighter case from Connecticut. If they accomplish those goals they will consider it a victory.

[NHBill]

Congrats on getting the talking points down word for word!

[numi]

Well, the checker-players at the GOP are finally figuring out that they're up against a real chess player and they're still wrong. Obama is a Go master. Bigger problems ahead for the GOP, methinks. Fun to watch, too. Keep searching for those magical beans, y'all.

[NHBill]

The media is making a huge deal out of this.

Reality check:
1) She will be seated on the Court by October.
2) The average American will have no idea who the members of The Supreme Court are.

Obama is perhaps the most qualified president in history to make court appointments.
I am moving on.

[Ipanemagirl]

I heard she upheld Bush's position on pro life and abstinence for projects in africa....are we sure she is pro choice, because remembeer the GOP already have their ultra consevative judges on board and we cannot be out numbered on these important issues! Investigate this issue please, somebody!

[jcheadsup]

I think the last thing we need is another “centrist” on the Supreme Court, (because nothing will change). I don’t know about you, but when I negotiate for something, I start by asking for more then I need, in order to get what I need.
Like I said be for, just being the first black president, isn’t change enough.
JC

[Disdain]

“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,” To quote Sotomayer.

“I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black male who hasn’t lived that life,” Had a white a white judge made that comment.

Would we be as supportive of both?

[Hemihead]

Well, she needs as least 1 vote from the minority party on the Judiciary for her confirmation to go to the Senate.

Since Arlen Specter has switched to Democrat, that leaves him out. I wonder if the all the Republicans on the judiciary will have the guts to block her going to the full Senate? They certainly could if they chose to.

[blueken]

I've been waiting for a brilliant move by Obama, besides getting elected. This could be it. Next up, universal health care.

[comebackid]

President Obama has more to offer yet. I think we are in for a great time for poli-watchers.

I was exited to see this woman, so full of experiences from life's challenges, tempered by struggle and buoyed by success.

Thank you Mr. President for injecting some humanity into an otherwise inhuman, powerful law machine!

Sonia, good luck on your confirmation!

[Quitcherbichin]

"this woman, so full of experiences from life's challenges, tempered by struggle and buoyed by success."

So just what does the above have to do with qualifying Ms. Sotomayor for the SCOTUS? There are millions of people in this country who can lay claim to facing life's challenges and struggles that have become successful.

[Runruff]

Now that's a strange question considering her education and professional resume'!

There may well be a million qualified Americans for this Job but President Obama chose this one!

[Carl Caroli]

My prediction is the Republicans will make a small fuss to appease the wing nuts, but let it go through. They may be out of touch, but they're not stupid.

[philko]

"but they're not stupid"

Well... with the exception of Steele. And Buchanan. And Cheney. And Barton (need I continue?)

[Ipanemagirl]

yes the list is never ending, adding Limbaugh, O reilly, Hannity, all in Fox news, Ann Coulter, and most of the GOP......

[Ipanemagirl]

really? Not stupid? What does one classify people who believe in creationism when science has clearly proven otherwise, that gays are sinful creatures that should be destroyed, that we dont need new energy, just drill baby drill, destroy the earth for profit and greed, who needs regulations for that, global warming is a hoax, abortion is murder, abstinence works, torture is acceptable, constitution is full of loop holes to be exploited..... shall I go on????????

[Wake-up]

Well, we don't really know yet all there is to know about this one other than it's "politics as usual" in DC as the Dem's are clearly kissing the butt of the Hispanic community... that's a slam on 'Politics'...

[Weirdwriter]

Some of us have been readin' up on the woman's record more than you have, apparently. Something you might give a try before assuming it's about butt-kissin'.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Your "we don't really know yet all there is to know about this one" sure sounds a whole lot like that "We don't know who Obama is."

Take a moment to find out. She is an amazing and impressive nominee. Hispanic or no; female or no she is more than qualified. We would be honored as a country to have such a person on the Court.

[Gingersp]

She's an extremely qualified appointee. How does that equate to "butt-kissing".

[NCIndependant]

"her credentials are undeniably liberal"?

[Weirdwriter]

Yes, really, I must have missed those.

[Badger84]

Actually, I've read several of her opinions and she is rather centrist and restrained. It's a commentary on how extreme the right in this country has become that she could be considered a liberal.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

This is interesting. The right says she is liberal. But liberal Rachel Maddow on MSNBC says Sotomayor is too conserative. I guess that means she is just right. Qualified, experienced, smart, intelligent and rational law-based decisions.

[Quitcherbichin]

I wouldn't believe Maddow or Oldberman if they told me today was Wednesday. I wonder if Maddow's sexual orientation has something to do with here opinion.

[superstition]

It will be interesting to see how she rules on issues involving the recognition of the citizenship of gay Americans given that Obama decided to announce her the same day as Prop 8 was upheld.

Also interesting was the way that decision was delayed from Thursday so it wouldn't coincide with the anniversary of the Harvey Milk ruling.

So much cleverness... so little time.

[Weirdwriter]

So much focus.. on so skimpy a bunch of tea leaves...

[superstition]

Tea leaves aren't the issue for me. The issue is the smothering of outrage that fuels positive change.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Unless there is a case before the Supreme Court on gay Americans marriage, she will not go willy and nilly making law. That is up to Congress.

As to the decision being delayed, I believe the Mayor of San Francisco requested it. And given California S. Ct. rules they have 90 days to decide and they have to announce when they will announce (I think it is 5 days).