The Secret Sotomayor SCOTUS Slanders Continue
The SCOTUS situation The Washington Post ran an article this weekend called "In Court Pick, Obama Seeks to Be Bold but Not Provocative," and in exchange for passing on this spin, they saw fit to advance anonymous attacks against Sonia Sotomayor--the court of appeals judge thought to be the leading candidate on President Obama's short list to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.
Sotomayor presents the most obvious "first" that Obama could fulfill: She would be the first Hispanic justice. And she offers the most compelling life story: Raised by her mother in a Bronx housing project after her father died, Sotomayor rose to the highest academic achievements at Princeton and then Yale Law School. Some say, though, that she has not distinguished herself on the appeals court.
It's unclear whether "some" consists of people whispering to the Post directly, or whether they're relying on the same "some" who approached The New Republic's legal correspondent Jeffery Rosen over the past couple weeks to anonymously question Sotomayor's fitness.
After publishing that article, Rosen himself ultimately concluded that "Sotomayor is an able candidate--at least as able as some of the current Supreme Court justices--and if Obama is convinced she is the best candidate on his short list, he should pick her."
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Why refer to this as by "the Washington Post" when it's the work of Dan Balz and Robert Barnes? More to the point, why not ask Balz and Barnes whether their 'some say' reference is to TNR's crap or their own undeservedly anonymous sources?
May 11, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want Justices who care about civil liberties, workers' rights, corporate accountability, and access to the courts.
Whether a potential Justice has "distinguished" herself doesn't matter to me.
May 11, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some say that sources in Iraq were convinced Hussein at WMD.
Did MSM learn nothing from the journalistic meltdown pre-invasion?
Some say Rosen is a hack, but if TNR wants to continue to employ him, then TNR should be allowed to do so.
May 11, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some say Dan Balz and Robert Barnes like to have sex with goats.
May 11, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but she will be the second Hispanic justice, Benjamin Cardozo, a Portuguese Jew, was the first.
May 11, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
My first choice would be Pam Karlan.
May 11, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"[A]t least as able as some of the current Supreme Court justices" = damning with faint praise.
May 11, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it possible that the meme on Judge Sotomayor is sticking because there aren't many articles lauding her judicial brilliance?
Pam Karlan sounds as though she'd be more able to swamp Justices Scalia and Roberts in the intellect department.
Choosing a SC nominee is not a situation where good enough is OK.
May 11, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
They don't need a justice to out-argue Scalia, et al. They just need more justices who reliably vote the right way.
May 11, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoyed your piece on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. You should also consider writing a piece on Justice Carlos Moreno, a Latino associate justice on the California Supreme Court who is also being considered as a potential nominee for the US Supreme Court.
Justice Moreno attended Yale and received his law degree from Stanford. He has received numerous accolades throughout his years as a jurist. In addition, Justice Moreno has been very involved in several important cases such as the recent gay marriage case. Justice Moreno's decisions tend to be moderate-left and are considered very fair.
It would be nice if this great judge from California would receive more attention.
May 11, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
First nomination will be a woman though. If Sotomayor isn't tabbed, but say Karlan is, Obama's next selection (barring he isn't replacing Bader Ginsburg at the time) could be open to consider Justice Moreno, among others.
May 11, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
NONE of the current justices "distinguished h[im]self on the appeals court" before being appointed to the Supreme Court.
The only "distinction" that any of the current justices qualified for on the court of appeals was that anyone could see that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito were distinctly supportive of judicial positions birthed by the Federalist Society.
Stevens had only been an appeals court judge for a few years. I remember reviewing Stevens' appellate court opinions when he was nominated by President Ford, and those opinions were pretty much plain vanilla. But he has matured to a justice who was a strong bulwark against the most extreme over-reaching of the tyrannical Bushies.
In short, the rumor-mongering spread by the New Republic and picked up by the WaPost is not only anonymous, it is also completely irrelevant.
May 12, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink