Politico, meanwhile, already has an “ideas” piece that hurries to take up the question underlying the MSNBC segment, which is perhaps shaping up to be the political stumper du jour. In Gebe Martinez’s words, Republicans “must figure out how to legitimately question Sotomayor’s judicial temperament without looking like they are attacking her on the basis of her gender and ethnic background,” a quandary “the White House, Democrats and Latino leaders are relishing as they all but dare Republicans to oppose the first ever Hispanic appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.” Here’s hoping that coverage of political maneuvering around the diversity angle doesn’t trip over itself in an attempt to jump on the sensationalist bandwagon.
Finally, if anyone worried that hyperbole wouldn’t be a part of day one’s reactions, The Nation comes to the rescue with the headline: “Obama Pick Sonia Sotomayor Reflects America.”
there will be rather less attention — and so less certainty — on her approach towards regulation, federal authority, and corporate power.
are you daft?
do you think if there were the slightest, least scintilla of a doubt on how she'd vote on these absolutely critical matters--i.e., regulation, federal authority, corporate power--she would have even been considered?
Her positions on wedge issues are possibly interesting, but it is her performance on the key hegemonic issues that actually MATTERS.
And she will be as reliable as any white man on those...
#1 Posted by woody, CJR on Tue 26 May 2009 at 08:42 PM
The historic aspect of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court should not be a factor in her confirmation for the job. Nor should racisim, diversity, life experiences, etc., etc.. The only thing that should be considered for any job is the ability and determination to perform to the requirements of the job description. For the restof us, that is what it takes for us to obtain and retain a specific job. It should be no different for those employed to work for the citizens.
We did not get that kind of integrity from the service of Justice Earl Warren when he was on the Supreme Court. In the 28 August 1964 issue of "LIFE" magazine, he stated, in an interview, that he did not care if the matters before him met constitutional parameters - only whether he felt that they were "fair." That meets the definition of a "system of men", not a "system of laws", as we are repeatedly told that we have. We do not need that kind of service. If a law needs changing, that is the job that the people elect legislators and representatives to do. There is no provision for judges to legally usurp that responsibility under the "Law of the Land" (the constitution and all treaties). We should not install a judge a judge to the highest court of the land who believes they can
#2 Posted by Ted Loughlin, CJR on Tue 9 Jun 2009 at 03:32 PM