dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:So she's a moderate now?

Moderate liberal. Not very different from Souter, at least the Souter on the Court.

Honestly, is there anyone who was considered a remotely plausible candidate that the far right wouldn't have characterized as an activist?

No, the people on the right who care about court stuff were going to be pissed no matter who Obama picked, just like the People for the American Way and NOW crowd pitched a fit over anyone Bush would have nominated.

But Warszawa's post about how he didn't nominate a lefty version of Roberts is ridiculous. She'll likely be every bit as reliable a vote for the left wing block on the court as Roberts or Alito are for the right. This isn't some pander to the right or whatever it was he was carrying on about. Of course elections have consequences, but the 40 GOP senators were elected too. Is voting against her any more ridiculous than voting against Roberts and Alito, both highly qualified jurists, as our current President and VP managed?

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:So she's a moderate now?

Moderate liberal. Not very different from Souter, at least the Souter on the Court.

Honestly, is there anyone who was considered a remotely plausible candidate that the far right wouldn't have characterized as an activist?

No, the people on the right who care about court stuff were going to be pissed no matter who Obama picked, just like the People for the American Way and NOW crowd pitched a fit over anyone Bush would have nominated.

No doubt about it. And as with those groups four years ago, the real purpose is to goose some fundraising. FWIW, I didn't think either Roberts or Alito was objectionable... though, as I wrote yesterday, I did have a big problem with Miers. The Alito/Sotomayor comparison seems solid to me.

jerseyhoya wrote:But Warszawa's post about how he didn't nominate a lefty version of Roberts is ridiculous. She'll likely be every bit as reliable a vote for the left wing block on the court as Roberts or Alito are for the right. This isn't some pander to the right or whatever it was he was carrying on about. Of course elections have consequences, but the 40 GOP senators were elected too. Is voting against her any more ridiculous than voting against Roberts and Alito, both highly qualified jurists, as our current President and VP managed?

With a bit of variability, this is probably true... but if you look into the back story of those two Justices (and I thought this was Warszawa's point), they did come from a more stridently ideological place than seems to be the case with Sotomayor. Ed Meese made a conscious effort during the '80s to cultivate a cadre of young jurists with strong conservative views; he recruited from the Federalist Society to staff the Reagan DOJ and positioned them to get on the bench afterward.

The Federalist Society was and is fully a part of the "conservative movement," and Roberts and Alito were among its big guns. There's no established equivalent career path for "liberal advocates and judges," though that might be changing with the American Constitutional Society now. (I realize that this feels like less of a void if one believes that "the system" has an inherent liberal bias, similar to the idea that you only need Fox News because the rest of the networks lean left without necessarily intending to do so. And to be fair, I'm sure that most law schools have a liberal bent.)

This article from last week's New Yorkeroffers a pretty good concise history of the conservative legal movement, and Roberts' career arc in particular. What I found interesting about it was that the author, Jeffrey Toobin, seemed to have a bit of a man-crush on Roberts a few years back; now, not so much, and it shows.

To an extent, Yale Law School in the 70s was something of a lefty breeding ground, so on that level her background is Roberts like.

Anyway, based on the cautious but more or less approving statements from Arkansas two gutless fucker Senators, her confirmation won't be a huge fight barring some bizarre revelation from her past. She'll probably get 70 votes in the Senate. For comparison, Alito got 58 votes, with 1 R against (can you guess?) and 3 D voting Y.

Roberts got 78 votes for his confirmation, with 22 D voting to confirm.

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:Unless he was making a racial pun with backboards (are they usually white?), I don't have a problem with it. The SCOTUS judges have very little time for each case's oral arguments, as I understand it, so they pepper the lawyers with questions and cut them off when they have their answer. Why would I be bothered by it?

because you professed earlier to be all het up about intimations of superiority by some candidate for one of the 9 chairs. I supposed, apparently incorrectly, that your dudgeon was inspired by the presumption of superiority, rather than the particular person presuming it.

I don't have a problem with a person thinking, correctly or incorrectly, that he/she is smarter than someone else. I have a problem with someone thinking that a class of people is smarter than another class (particularly when this perception is not based on scientific or analytical evidence, but observation), and then acting on this stereotype.

please stop the pusillanimous prevaricating. Roberts didn't say HE used contending attorneys as backboards; he said Sup Ct judges - the whole dress-clad mob of them - did so. That is, the "class" of judges - and their beliefs, opinions, backgrounds, etc is smarter, better, more worthy than the class of - well, he probably meant everyone else.

Modeling Roberts future juridical performance from this snippet is every bit as credible as modeling Sotomayor's future rulings from the particular bone you're worrying.

You may have reasonable concerns about Sotomayor, but at least express them in something other than tarted-up Limbaughble.

Seriously? Tarted-up Limbaughble? pusillanimous prevaricating? Do you write words based on how they sound instead of what they mean? I've never listened to Limbaugh speak, except in linked excerpts. And my "pusillanimous prevaricating" is showing restraint before passing judgment. But, I think you picked those words because of how they sounded.


There is a large difference between 1) making judgments about people based on race and 2) saying that oral arguments before the Supreme Court are important to the SCOTUS judges. If you can't see the difference between Roberts' comments (of which you never provided a direct quotation) and Sotomayor's comments, then I don't know what to say.

I'll spell it out for you, for the Nth time. I don't care if someone thinks they're smarter than someone else. I don't care if Roberts thinks he's a genius. I don't care if Einstein thinks he's the smartest man ever to walk this earth. I don't care if Sotomajor thinks she is smarter than every person currently on the bench. Understand so far? The following direct quotation bothers me:

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.... I am... not so sure that I agree with the statement. First... there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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."

She says that her gender and race will make her judgments better than those of a white man. I would not like it if a white man claimed to possess better judgment BECAUSE OF HIS RACE AND GENDER, and I don't like it when someone else does. Similarly, I would not like it if Roberts claimed to be smarter than other people because he was white. It would be ridiculous, and he would deserve the criticism.

Again, if you can't see the difference, then I'm sorry, but you'll have to have someone else explain it.

jerseyhoya wrote:So she's a moderate now?

Yes, she is. Enough so that she was initially appointed by Bush. She is left of center, but not anywhere near as far as Thomas and Scalia are right of center. Obama seems to like the liberal edge of moderate and not be as comfortable with those farther to the left.

allentown wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:So she's a moderate now?

Yes, she is. Enough so that she was initially appointed by Bush. She is left of center, but not anywhere near as far as Thomas and Scalia are right of center. Obama seems to like the liberal edge of moderate and not be as comfortable with those farther to the left.

She was appointed by Bush in a compromise between Moynihan and D'Amato. It's one of the emptiest talking points ever.

Why Sotomayor Was Appointed by a Republican President in '92

Mind, it's not like George Bush ever appointed a liberal to the bench *cough Souter*, but it's a completely irrelevant line being trotted out there by people who know better.

Werthless wrote: The following direct quotation bothers me:

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.... I am... not so sure that I agree with the statement. First... there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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."

She says that her gender and race will make her judgments better than those of a white man. I would not like it if a white man claimed to possess better judgment BECAUSE OF HIS RACE AND GENDER, and I don't like it when someone else does. Similarly, I would not like it if Roberts claimed to be smarter than other people because he was white. It would be ridiculous, and he would deserve the criticism.

Again, if you can't see the difference, then I'm sorry, but you'll have to have someone else explain it.

To paraphrase the misquoted bard, "read on, MacDuff": specifically, the 2 paragraphs of Sotomayor's speech that follow the lines you've quoted*. They may ease your mind somewhat.

*(to be clear, you quoted not from her speech but from an excerpt from it. I've supplied a link to what I understand is a transcript of her lecture):

NY Times 5/14/09
Lecture: A Latina Judge's Voice

....Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage....

jerseyhoya wrote:

allentown wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:So she's a moderate now?

Yes, she is. Enough so that she was initially appointed by Bush. She is left of center, but not anywhere near as far as Thomas and Scalia are right of center. Obama seems to like the liberal edge of moderate and not be as comfortable with those farther to the left.

She was appointed by Bush in a compromise between Moynihan and D'Amato. It's one of the emptiest talking points ever.

Why Sotomayor Was Appointed by a Republican President in '92

Mind, it's not like George Bush ever appointed a liberal to the bench *cough Souter*, but it's a completely irrelevant line being trotted out there by people who know better.

Well, yes and no. I don't think Bush 41 would have taken Moynihan's suggestion (for that matter, Moynihan probably wouldn't have made the suggestion...) were Sotomayor a fire-breathing liberal activist. And early articles like this one--linked to from Inquirer beat guy Andy Martino's blog today--do use terms like "centrist."

But yeah, it's not like Old Bush picked her because he found her ideologically simpatico.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:So she's a moderate now?

Moderate liberal. Not very different from Souter, at least the Souter on the Court.

Honestly, is there anyone who was considered a remotely plausible candidate that the far right wouldn't have characterized as an activist?

No, the people on the right who care about court stuff were going to be pissed no matter who Obama picked, just like the People for the American Way and NOW crowd pitched a fit over anyone Bush would have nominated.

But Warszawa's post about how he didn't nominate a lefty version of Roberts is ridiculous. She'll likely be every bit as reliable a vote for the left wing block on the court as Roberts or Alito are for the right. This isn't some pander to the right or whatever it was he was carrying on about. Of course elections have consequences, but the 40 GOP senators were elected too. Is voting against her any more ridiculous than voting against Roberts and Alito, both highly qualified jurists, as our current President and VP managed?

I don't even understand real opposition to a nominee. I understand that some groups are trying to rally the base knowing full well that they will not prevent the confirmation. Even so, some groups are trying to dig up dirt, say some tax issue or something else in her background. So if they do that and derail the nomination, what do they expect will happen, Obama will suddenly nominate a conservative? Odds are, they'll get someone equally objectionable or worse. If not Sotomayor, then you get Kagan or Wood. Is there really all that much difference there? It might make a swing vote difference in maybe one case a year at most? When Harriet Miers went down, she was replaced by John Roberts (granted, that was caused by the right as much as b the left). Who was really the more objectionable candidate there?

Harriet Miers was defeated by conservatives. That was a whole different thing.

These things are great for raising funds, especially in an off year election. It's why you're going here over and over again that elections have consequences.

I wonder if this doesn't encourage more infighting on the right. "See, look what happens with your 'principled' opposition to McCain". "We can't let Obama have 4 picks, we need to get ready for 2012 now!"

TenuredVulture wrote:Harriet Miers was defeated by conservatives. That was a whole different thing.

These things are great for raising funds, especially in an off year election. It's why you're going here over and over again that elections have consequences.

I wonder if this doesn't encourage more infighting on the right. "See, look what happens with your 'principled' opposition to McCain". "We can't let Obama have 4 picks, we need to get ready for 2012 now!"

I'm not even sure I see Obama changing the composition of the court at all. I see the next openings as Stevens and Ginsberg probably. No changes there, just cementing those seats with younger versions of the philosophies already in those seats. Unless Scalia suddenly passes or something happens to Kennedy, nothing's really going to change. Thomas, Alito and Roberts are fairly young men for that court.

Guys, I heard she's a racist!!!

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) is privately telling supporters that he intends to run for Senate, TPMDC has confirmed.

TPM

jerseyhoya wrote:

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) is privately telling supporters that he intends to run for Senate, TPMDC has confirmed.

TPM

Good. Ed is a lame duck, don't let him bully you.

Hey, that's my boss!

OK, go ahead and make fun of him

kruker wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Gapminder is really, really cool. I could get lost for hours. I don't know about the videos, I'm mainly playing with the "explore the world" maps.

If you've got time check out this talk by Hans Rosling the founder of Gapminder.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch.v=hVimVzgtD6w[/youtube]

I guess we know who the real nerds are here. I'd have thought at least pacino would have dug this stuff, what with it's "Freakonomics" bent.

I love GIS stuff, I find it amazing and extraordinarily useful in communicating ideas.

Boies and Olson are gay for each other.

I think this is good, if somewhat risky, strategy. They're obviously optimistic that they can peel Kennedy off to vote with the liberal wing. Kennedy's enough of a narcissist that I suspect he'd love the attention and being the judge who decides such a groundbreaking case. The only other longshot hope is getting a vote from Alito, which is highly unlikely.

Honestly, I think a 5-4 "Tony Says" narrow holding in favor of civil unions is the likely outcome. And as someone who thinks the government should get out of the "marriage" business on First Amendment grounds, I don't think that's a bad thing.

VoxOrion wrote:I guess we know who the real nerds are here. I'd have thought at least pacino would have dug this stuff, what with it's "Freakonomics" bent.

I love GIS stuff, I find it amazing and extraordinarily useful in communicating ideas.

Not that it's difficult to use, but I've been trying to familiarize myself with it before I head back to school. I figure it'll be good for a presentation or two until someone else inevitably steals my golden goose.

Bakestar wrote:Boies and Olson are gay for each other.

I think this is good, if somewhat risky, strategy. They're obviously optimistic that they can peel Kennedy off to vote with the liberal wing. Kennedy's enough of a narcissist that I suspect he'd love the attention and being the judge who decides such a groundbreaking case. The only other longshot hope is getting a vote from Alito, which is highly unlikely.

Honestly, I think a 5-4 "Tony Says" narrow holding in favor of civil unions is the likely outcome. And as someone who thinks the government should get out of the "marriage" business on First Amendment grounds, I don't think that's a bad thing.

I really think the way forward is to try to overturn prop 8 at the polls. I don't the US Supreme Court is going to overturn prop 8, or any of several dozen anti-gay marriage laws throughout the states. Remember, it wasn't all that long ago that a more liberal court than the current one upheld Georgia's anti-sodomy statutes, and even though that precedent was soon overturned, it was a 5-4 decision with a strong, if not very coherent dissent from Scalia.

Teddy on new healthcare legislation

I don't know if anyone else watched Bill Moyers' this past weekend, but the two guests (both doctors) were guaranteeing that anything less than a single-payer system would fail. Without any real specifics yet, they compared what they know about this proposal to the Massachusetts experiment and argued it will face a similar fate with more dire consequences.