« SEIU Ad Aimed At Obama, Schwarzenegger, To Begin Airing Wednesday | Home | TPMDC Morning Roundup »
Obama To Nominate Second Circuit Judge Sotomayor To SCOTUS
Barack Obama will nominate Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court this morning at 10:15 a.m. according to numerous reports.
Sotomayor is 54 years old, and was appointed to her first federal judgeship by George Herbert Walker Bush in 1991. If confirmed, she will be the Court's first Hispanic Justice, and will bring the number of women serving to two.
Justice David Souter announced last month that he'd step down from the court after almost 19 years. Sotomayor will fill the vacancy created by his retirement.
Advertisement
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Should be morning sted moring in lede. [/copy editor]
May 26, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is she a Catholic? If so, she will be the SIXTH on the court.
And, of course, the bishops will make a royal stink if she has pro-choice views.
Not sure this was the smartest choice. Fasten your seat belts.
May 26, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point about the lopsided nature of the religious demographic. The court has veered hard right as that faction has grown although it seems doubtful Sotomayor will be in harmony with the others who are basically right wing reactionaries.
May 26, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good. It was a given that he would appoint a moderate rather than a strong liberal opposite number to Roberts / Scalito; within that constraint he could hardly have done better. She is not a moderate of the wishy-washy kind, but has the moxie to go up against the wingers and win arguments.
May 26, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know very little about Sotomayor and look forward to learning more about her but, personally, would have liked Obama to nominate a younger, more progressive candidate.
May 26, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
How young? 40? 35? Yeah, it's SOP when a Republican does it (current court = Bush's Revenge), but there is a certain expectation that Democratic appointees are actually qualified. That eliminates the 40-something wonder boys out there. Besides, a 54 year old woman can most likely be expected to serve 25-30 years. What more do you want?
May 26, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
also, it is my contention that turnover makes the court more liberal moreso than does appointing younger justices. appointing younger justices is a recipe for a stale court. and a stale court is a court that grows more conservative relative to the country as a whole over time.
it is understandable for conservatives to want ever younger justices - a conservative today in their forties will only be even more conservative forty years from now when they're still on the bench.
but we might want to think back to what passed for 'liberal' in a supreme court justice forty years ago before wanting a snapshot of what liberal looks like today to be on the bench forty years into the future. maybe we're only talking about a difference of a decade or a dozen years but i'll always lean toward a fresh court over extended tenure for individual 'liberal' justices.
i would prefer to give future dem presidents (and future senate majorities) more opportunities to replace 'liberal' justices in the future rather than locking in turn of the century liberalism ever further into the mid-century court.
(but then maybe that's just my optimism showing... i have confidence that our nation's future holds the promise of presidents and congresses more liberal than those we have today.)
May 26, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Le sigh.
Well, here's hoping my two experiences before her were anecdotal and not representative.
May 26, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do tell...
May 26, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I appeared before her twice and her questions were just awful. I think the term I used was "insipid." However, upon reflection, I could have just been insipid, and she was matching my level. Who knows?
I want to see the comedic backlash that comes if Jeff Sessions tries to torpedo a Hispanic woman with her background and credentials. Good luck with that, pal.
May 26, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny, Ron Kuby was on the radio recently, and he also had appeared before her (several times, as memory serves).
It's a given that we're going to be onslaughted with the "too LIBRUL!" dog-and-pony show (mostly, as intimidation against Obama's even attempting to nominate anything to the left of this woman, in the future... and that will work perfectly, of course).
But, according to Kuby, Sotomayor is a lot of things, including smart... but she is most assuredly NOT a "liberal" ideologue. E.G., he cited cases where he didn't have a prayer with her, of getting her to decide a case in favor of a criminal defendant.
Keep all this in mind, when the shitstorm gets underway, in 3...2...1..!
May 26, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yay!!!
Wonderful choice.
May 26, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like this pick.
For one thing, it's become apparent that the wingers were gonna go apesh*t no matter who the nominee was. It's a completely cynical move on their part, to gin up the base and to raise money by screaming and hopping all over cable TV and acting the fool.
OK. We know that's all they've got.
Secondly, there was the whole smear/whisper campaign against her early in the process, and I like it that Obama's people and he, are shoving this right up the noses of the sleaze merchants who tried to torpedo this nomination that way. Aside from her actual qualifications, the slimers will at least have learned that this WH won't be rolled and blackmailed, and I like the fighting spirit. Too bad the "bed-wetter caucus" in Congress can't catch some of it.
Rahm must be involved in the tone of this, and I think it's smart to, basically, dare your foes to come out of the shadows and do their damndest.
Finally, I like it that it's another woman, and Hispanic at that. It feels like a decision that's not only sound legally, based on her legal chops, but also one that takes the totality of the human side of this into account. It's completely in character for Obama, and as he's said, he's going to have the chance to appoint at least one other justice in his time in office.
Relax, he's got this.
May 26, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moderate, qualified, and guaranteed to have the wingers moaning about "Real Murkans" (even the Nice Polite Republicans reported that her parents *immigrated* from Puerto Rico! WTF?)
And as an added bonus, President Obama shows Reid how someone with an actual backbone is supposed to act.
Nice start to a day, if you ask me.
May 26, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
fantastic choice!!!!
May 26, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Liberal Activist Judge"
Translation: "Not an Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian/a member of the Federalist Society".
In other words... we need other words.
May 26, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP is going to need a hysteriaectomy before the day is through.
May 26, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink