‘Mostly harmless.’


That’s Ben Domenech’s two-word assessment of Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court justice:

This is worth noting: given the chance to select Diane Wood, a brilliant legal voice and a hardened defender of unrestricted abortion rights, Obama went for the personal story that would appeal to the media instead, disappointing once again some of his supporters. It is possible, yes, that Sotomayor is personally an abortion centrist. But the pro- and anti-abortion groups should fall in normal lines on this nominee — her decisions in favor of anti-abortion policies weren’t based on opposition to Roe, and in viewing the entirety of her background, Sotomayor gives no signs of being a stealth nominee for the pro-life cause.

This is what it all comes down to, in fact. As John Yoo notes, Sotomayor gives no signs of being a threat or an asset to any particular cause. It’s unlikely that she’ll be further left than the man she’s replacing, and if she has the gift for motivating or shifting her fellow justices, she hasn’t displayed it on the Second Circuit, where even after 17 years, no one regards her as a leader. She is, in other words, unlikely to shift the Supreme Court in any direction, to any significant degree, from where it was before her arrival.

In other words, if you follow this argument then the President decided to replace Souter with another Souter. And there’s some indication that the President had some prior knowledge that Souter was retiring ahead of the official announcement, which would make this pretty much a deliberate choice.  And then there’s this clip where Sotomayor’s assistant tells her not to answer any questions; which is a somewhat interesting moment in and of itself*.  It certainly does argue for a strategy whose purpose is to give the public as little of a look at the candidate as possible – on both sides.  Including the side that is curious to know just how much Sotomayor lines up with their own pro-choice beliefs.  All of which means that I’m going to have to disagree with Ben on one point at least: if he’s right, Sotomayor is a stealth candidate.  It’s just that what she’s hiding is that there’s nothing there hiding; whenever possible, the administration’s goals apparently default to More of the Same.

This is not really reassuring; both the Presidents supporters and detractors generally operate under the assumption that the President has a plan.  Given the amount of money that we’re throwing around – and more and more, away – he had better.  The idea that he doesn’t, past of course taking the oath of office again on 01/20/2013, is infinitely more worrisome than any other scenario that I can think of…

Moe Lane

*Interestingly: the staffer at the end who made that random comment that loose lips weren’t going to sink this ship?  Senator Mikulski.  Truly, Maryland is the envy of the civilized world when it comes to our representation in Congress.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.


RSS feed

7 Comments Leave a comment

Neither Wood, nor any other liberal, is any more likely to persuade any other justice

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Thursday, June 4th at 9:22PM EST (link)

on any issue. It doesn’t happen, no matter how brilliant they are deemed to be.

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Maybe on some things GC

leftylurker (Diary) Thursday, June 4th at 9:45PM EST (link)

But you should read the history of Sony v. Betamax.

It’s not a liberal v. conservative issue per se, but there was a huge battle for the fifth vote on the case. If not for a seriously committed justice, we could possibly be living in a VCR free world. =)

very rare, and certainly not a major factor - THE factor

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Thursday, June 4th at 10:39PM EST (link)

is that democrats intentionally ONLY choose justices that vote politics from the bench while Republicans choose justices they believe will be faithful to the document.

That a justice is persuasive or somehow “smarter” rarely matters in terms of whether they can “move” the court even within one’s own philosophical school, much less to bring over a swing voter. Justice Kennedy goes back and forth due to his own “reasonings”, not because Breyer is a mental giant.

What matters in Supreme Court cases to We the People’s lives is what the law ends up being, not whether an opinion in lyrical.

btw, LL, I have written a column about nearly all major cases before the SCOTUS since 2001; have tried over 300 cases; argued over 15 cases to appellate courts, incl Sc Sup Ct and 4th Circuit Ct of Appeals over my now 21 year legal career.

I have heard all these arguments about these “smarter” judges and yet have seen near zero evidence it matters. It is an elitist fetish.

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

 

see here for a more in depth analysis - LINK

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Thursday, June 4th at 10:40PM EST (link)

http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/06/04/soto-is-no-harriet-miers-and-neither-was-miers/

and archive on the matter

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law–Politics-Examiner~topic207399-devine-law?selstate=allcat#breadcrumb

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

 
 
 

Boy...

tsquare (Diary) Thursday, June 4th at 9:28PM EST (link)

that’s the best new of the day…

Yes… it’s been that kind of day.

 

Sotomayor may be an extremist in a few areas

Ben Domenech (Diary) Thursday, June 4th at 11:46PM EST (link)

Don’t get me wrong: in some areas, it appears Sotomayor does have the potential to lean toward a leftist extreme (her record in terms of being overruled is a sign of that).

My point is more that whatever Sotomayor is, she is not the left’s answer to Antonin Scalia. No one, even her closest supporters, would claim that. And on paper, I believe her to be a qualified nominee — which means that from my perspective, opposing her essentially means we’ve adopted the same attitude Biden and Obama had toward Estrada and Alito, respectively.

 

Respectfully disagree Ben.

stang (Diary) Friday, June 5th at 2:29AM EST (link)

“And in the unlikely event that Senate Republicans do put up a fight, it is a sign that they have accepted President Obama’s highly politicized view of the judiciary.”

Sotomayor’s record indicates that she is inclined to rewrite the Constitution from the bench rather than follow the Constitution and the founder’s intent in her jurisprudence. This is not a political issue, it is a matter of upending settled law through contorted legal reasoning .

There is a procedure for ammending the Constitution requiring the vote of we the people, not 5 justices. The left will not attempt this because they know it’s a fight they will lose.

Allowing ourselves to be silenced by accepting the left’s premise that opposition to Sotomayor is evidence of politicization by the Republicans rather than a principled attempt to protect and defend the sanctity of our Constitution, you are in fact conceding to the left that the Supreme Court’s function is indeed to be influenced more by politics than by the precepts laid out in the foundational legal document of our republic.

Whether or not any of the Senate Republicans will demonstrate the intellectual heft or conviction to make this argument of constitutional principle in opposition to Sotomayor’s appointment is another matter entirely.

“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.”

John Locke