What a great American story (so they say). Is that a qualification for the Supreme Court.
Its really just spin from the Democrats ... in the minority, they filibuster and slander qualified nominees. In the majority, they serve up affirmative action quotas, and underqualified liberal identity politics nominees and spin like crazy ....
Those ‘Wonderful American Stories’ [Jay Nordlinger]
In recent days, we’ve been hearing a lot about a “wonderful American story” — Sonia Sotomayor’s. Can’t oppose that, can you — that wonderful American story? Oh yes you can, if you’re the Democratic party. They certainly did it in the case of Miguel Estrada.
He came from Honduras, and was no Spanish aristocrat, to put it mildly. Arrived in America at 17 speaking barely any English. Graduated with honors from Columbia and Harvard: Law Review, Supreme Court clerkship, blah, blah, blah. Distinguished record in government service — an American success story, a Movie of the Week, a slam dunk.
Bear in mind that he started here — started here — at 17. What he accomplished, in the next years, is amazing.
George W. Bush nominated him for the Court of Appeals — and bam: The Democrats stopped him. They had to, some people think. Because, if he had been permitted to serve on that court, he may well have been nominated for the Supreme Court. And how could you stop that wonderful American story? How could you stop the first Hispanic justice?
Estrada came up in a talk that some of us NR-niks had with Bush in the Oval Office last December. I wrote about that meeting here. Bush said,
“I just talked about Harriet [Miers], but there’s a lot of other good judicial nominees who get nominated, scrutinized, and they just dangle out there. And all this is going to do is cause good people to say, ‘Why do I want to go through this, why do I want to have my family hang out there, why do I want to jeopardize my career, why do I want to put opportunities on hold, if I cannot get a fair hearing and a vote?’ I mean, I think of Miguel Estrada, unbelievably brilliant, and it’s a fabulous American story . . .”
I interjected, “That’s why he had to be stopped.”
Bush said, “Yes. Oh, absolutely. But I look at it from his perspective, not theirs. And his perspective is, I want to serve, I want to be in a position to exercise my intellect, I want to help my adopted country . . . And yet he just got hung out there. It was very discouraging, I’m sure, to him and to others who watched the process.”
The Democrats would not even grant Estrada a vote — up or down. They filibustered. And this was just an appeals court, mind you, not the Supreme Court. Somehow, I have the feeling that Sonia Sotomayor will get a vote. And there will be plenty of talk about a wonderful, or — to use President Bush’s word — fabulous, American story. When that talk comes from Democrats, you may want to remember Miguel Estrada.
I guess what I’m saying is, Look: Vote for Sotomayor if you want to, because you like her views. But cut the crap about American stories. Such stories didn’t matter much when Miguel desired to serve.
P.S. on ‘American Stories’ [Jay Nordlinger]
Readers are reminding me that this is to say nothing of Clarence Thomas — he of Pin Point, Ga., raised by his grandfather, no indoor plumbing or electricity, Gullah instead of English, etc., etc., etc. Is there a more amazing up-from-nothing story in America today? But Thomas cannot be a “wonderful American story,” of course, because he is conservative. I mean, really.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sotomayor, part II
National Review weighs in ... (ouch !)
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJiNzBjYzdhODE4M2ZmNmZiZWNhYzA3Yzc5NDFlOTE=
Advice on Consent
By the Editors
Judge Sonia Sotomayor is female, Hispanic, liberal, and mediocre. Conservatives should draw attention to the third adjective while understanding that the first two are likely to be politically decisive during her confirmation hearings.
Sotomayor’s liberalism would not constitute a reason for denying her a seat on the Supreme Court if it merely consisted of a set of policy positions identical to those of the Senate’s 15 most liberal members. Unfortunately, liberalism has for some time now incorporated a tacit judicial philosophy in which the goal is to impose policies as left-wing as a judge can get away with. Sotomayor seems to march to that beat. More to the point, perhaps, she has shown no signs of marching to any other one.
Judges who decide cases in this manner abuse their office and undermine the rule of law. They also generate policies that are harmful to our economy, dangerous to our national security, and destructive to our social fabric. Liberal activism on the bench has these effects even when the offending judges are geniuses. The nominee’s approach to judging is more important than her IQ, and it is on that subject that senators ought to be trying to shed light. And they should take their time doing it. Thanks to years of activism, Supreme Court justices have more power than most senators. We should spend at least as much time learning how they would exercise it as we do for Senate candidates.
Barring some shocking revelation, we know the outcome of these hearings. Some Republicans say that we could have done worse: Given what we know of her judicial craftsmanship and temperament, she is unlikely to have influence on the Court beyond her vote. But such musings are neither here nor there. The choice for Republican senators is not between Sotomayor and some hypothetical more dangerous Obama nominee; it is between her being confirmed with their consent and her being confirmed without it.
That consent should probably not be given, and should certainly be withheld for now.
Sotomayor: Bad for Business [Iain Murray]
Sotomayor is just as liberal as Souter on social issues like affirmative action and abortion, but far more liberal even than Souter on economic issues, such as punitive damages, preemption, and employment law. The Supreme Court, including Justice Souter, unanimously reversed her decision in the Dabit case, where she allowed lawsuits that were preempted by a federal law (SLUSA).
Business will likely lose billions of dollars over time as a result of her replacing Souter. That probably won’t bother Obama, given that “Obama has regretted that the Supreme Court ‘didn’t break free’ from legal constraints to bring about ‘redistribution of wealth.’”
Judge Sotomayor has managed to take already liberal, redistributionist areas of the law and push them even further down the road in the direction of redistributing wealth to constituencies favored by government offficials. The Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case that governments can take private property and give it to developers as part of a general redevelopment plan that they rationally believe will benefit the public good (My colleague Hans Bader argued at the time that that violated basic axioms of constitutional construction, and rendered the Constitution’s “public use” clause redundant).
But Judge Sotomayor went well beyond that, to hold that property owners have no legal redress even in the face of what legal commentators have called extortion, in Didden v. City of Port Chester. In that case, a developer told a property owner to either give him $800,000 or half his property, or he would seize it by having the Village of Port Chester condemn it. When the property owner refused, the developer promptly had the town condemn it and transfer it to him. Judge Sotomayor and two of her colleagues upheld this seizure against a constitutional challenge in an unpublished opinion. George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin called this case an example of judicially sanctioned extortion.
Judge Sotomayor has also sided with environmental extremists against businesses, trying to stop the EPA from considering cost-benefit analysis in permitting decisions, another decision that the Supreme Court overturned. See Steve Milloy's Green Hell blog for the full story.
In short, Judge Sotomayor will be much more liberal than Justice Souter when it comes to cases involving business.
Good Justices Are Made in the Image of Obama [Jonah Goldberg]
I just wrote a column about Obama and Sotomayor (it'll be up tomorrow). In the process of reading all this stuff about Obama's criteria for a Supreme Court Justice (blah, blah, empathy, blah blah blah), it occurred to me that maybe what he really wants to do is appoint himself,* or at least the best approximation of himself he can find that politics will allow.
Think about it. He places this huge emphasis on a personal narrative that produces empathy for select disadvantaged groups — minorities, single moms etc. He wants someone who is smart enough, but whose real priorities can be boiled down to trite lefty tropes about "social justice." He allegedly wants someone charming and bipartisan solely so they will seduce conservative members of the court to more liberal positions (I say "allegedly" because you often hear this ascribed to the White House, but never actually stated outright). All of these traits are hallmarks of what might be called "Obamaism."
Now I know that Obama has some very well-thought-out, or at least elaborate, arguments for his idea of a good justice. But isn't it possible that some of this is really just a rationalization for a more fundamental narcissistic projection? After all, it is hardly news that Obama thinks very highly of himself, and sees all sorts of major issues through the prism of Obama. Everything he says about what would make a great, ideal, Supreme Court justice is stuff he clearly sees in himself. I think that is at least interesting.
*Why not cut out the middlewomen and just name himself? Okay, maybe that would be unconstitutional, but he could resign with expectation that President Biden would appoint him. Of course, this would also mean that Obama would have to step down as CEO of GM and Chrysler, as well as the majority shareholder in our biggest banks. And he couldn't give primetime press conferences every couple weeks either. That is a lot to ask.
Judging by Identity [Peter Kirsanow]
During the presidential campaign, there was considerable commentary about the prospect of a President Obama ushering in a post-racial era in America. The candidate himself fueled the commentary, frequently making sounds about the advent of a society that transcends race.The nomination of Judge Sotomayor demonstrates that identity politics not only remains alive and well, but may be accompanied by an unabashedly racialist interpretive doctrine. If there remains a sentient being in the White House press corps, he should ask Mr. Gibbs how a post-racial president could nominate to the Supreme Court a judge who said the following:
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.
So, inherent physiological differences may make a difference in one’s judging. Combined with Sotomayor’s vote in Ricci v. DeStefano, the statement suggests a judge quite comfortable with racial, ethnic, and gender preferences. In the Obama era, identity politics hasn’t gone away; it’s been joined by identity judging.
Judging by Identity II [Peter Kirsanow]
When George W. Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee spent considerable time analyzing the nominees’ respective interpretive doctrines. The Committee will do the same with Sotomayor.Obviously, the best evidence for a nominee’s judicial approach comes from the opinions the judge has authored. Further guidance can be gleaned from the nominee’s articles and speeches. In this regard, Sotomayor’s Berkeley lecture merits scrutiny because it describes the nominee’s view of the decisionmaking process.Senators should ask Sotomayor to expand upon her statement that “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.”Does Sotomayor contend that a judge’s interpretive approach is hard-wired to her gender and ethnicity? Does that mean that litigants should necessarily expect different decisions from a Justice Roberts than a Justice Sotomayor?What would Sotomayor think if John Roberts had made the identical statement? Is there any doubt that several members of the Judiciary Committee would’ve declared the statement sexist and racist?Does the Constitution have different meanings depending on one’s gender and ethnicity?
Sotomayor's Credentials [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Earlier today I described Sotomayor as Obama's Harriet Miers without explaining myself. What I'm suggesting is that both nominees were picked because they were women, because they were members of politically valued groups (evangelicals in Miers's case, Hispanics in Sotomayor's), and because they were considered politically reliable by the people who picked them. Neither was picked based on her impressive legal mind, although the pickers in each case doubtless believed that the nominee exceeded some threshold level of competence. These parallels seem like more than enough to justify the title of a Corner post.
But as the various outraged lefties who have commented on it correctly note, the analogy isn't perfect. For example, Sotomayor is likely to get confirmed. There's a big difference! It's also true, as Sotomayor's defenders keep saying, that Miers never served on the bench and didn't go to Ivy League schools. I am, incidentally, enjoying the spectacle of leftists who spent years saying President Bush was a moron carry on about how insane and probably racist it is for anyone to doubt the intellect of someone who went to those schools. The people who brought up this issue were Jeffrey Rosen's Democratic sources; save the racism charges for them.
For whatever it's worth, I am perfectly willing to assume that Sotomayor's IQ is north of 100. I also don't think that the issue ought to be decisive. A nominee who had a modest conception of the judicial role, constrained most importantly by the public's understanding of the meaning of the constitutional provisions to which it consented, would have my support even if he were less intelligent than the other justices; a genius nominee who held a more plastic conception of the law wouldn't. And I think that Senate Republicans would be well advised to look at the job qualifications the same way.
The Latina Lecture [Rich Lowry]
It's pretty amazing. Have we ever had a Supreme Court justice before who stated quite frankly that he or she is incapable of being objective?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJiNzBjYzdhODE4M2ZmNmZiZWNhYzA3Yzc5NDFlOTE=
Advice on Consent
By the Editors
Judge Sonia Sotomayor is female, Hispanic, liberal, and mediocre. Conservatives should draw attention to the third adjective while understanding that the first two are likely to be politically decisive during her confirmation hearings.
Sotomayor’s liberalism would not constitute a reason for denying her a seat on the Supreme Court if it merely consisted of a set of policy positions identical to those of the Senate’s 15 most liberal members. Unfortunately, liberalism has for some time now incorporated a tacit judicial philosophy in which the goal is to impose policies as left-wing as a judge can get away with. Sotomayor seems to march to that beat. More to the point, perhaps, she has shown no signs of marching to any other one.
Judges who decide cases in this manner abuse their office and undermine the rule of law. They also generate policies that are harmful to our economy, dangerous to our national security, and destructive to our social fabric. Liberal activism on the bench has these effects even when the offending judges are geniuses. The nominee’s approach to judging is more important than her IQ, and it is on that subject that senators ought to be trying to shed light. And they should take their time doing it. Thanks to years of activism, Supreme Court justices have more power than most senators. We should spend at least as much time learning how they would exercise it as we do for Senate candidates.
Barring some shocking revelation, we know the outcome of these hearings. Some Republicans say that we could have done worse: Given what we know of her judicial craftsmanship and temperament, she is unlikely to have influence on the Court beyond her vote. But such musings are neither here nor there. The choice for Republican senators is not between Sotomayor and some hypothetical more dangerous Obama nominee; it is between her being confirmed with their consent and her being confirmed without it.
That consent should probably not be given, and should certainly be withheld for now.
Sotomayor: Bad for Business [Iain Murray]
Sotomayor is just as liberal as Souter on social issues like affirmative action and abortion, but far more liberal even than Souter on economic issues, such as punitive damages, preemption, and employment law. The Supreme Court, including Justice Souter, unanimously reversed her decision in the Dabit case, where she allowed lawsuits that were preempted by a federal law (SLUSA).
Business will likely lose billions of dollars over time as a result of her replacing Souter. That probably won’t bother Obama, given that “Obama has regretted that the Supreme Court ‘didn’t break free’ from legal constraints to bring about ‘redistribution of wealth.’”
Judge Sotomayor has managed to take already liberal, redistributionist areas of the law and push them even further down the road in the direction of redistributing wealth to constituencies favored by government offficials. The Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case that governments can take private property and give it to developers as part of a general redevelopment plan that they rationally believe will benefit the public good (My colleague Hans Bader argued at the time that that violated basic axioms of constitutional construction, and rendered the Constitution’s “public use” clause redundant).
But Judge Sotomayor went well beyond that, to hold that property owners have no legal redress even in the face of what legal commentators have called extortion, in Didden v. City of Port Chester. In that case, a developer told a property owner to either give him $800,000 or half his property, or he would seize it by having the Village of Port Chester condemn it. When the property owner refused, the developer promptly had the town condemn it and transfer it to him. Judge Sotomayor and two of her colleagues upheld this seizure against a constitutional challenge in an unpublished opinion. George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin called this case an example of judicially sanctioned extortion.
Judge Sotomayor has also sided with environmental extremists against businesses, trying to stop the EPA from considering cost-benefit analysis in permitting decisions, another decision that the Supreme Court overturned. See Steve Milloy's Green Hell blog for the full story.
In short, Judge Sotomayor will be much more liberal than Justice Souter when it comes to cases involving business.
Good Justices Are Made in the Image of Obama [Jonah Goldberg]
I just wrote a column about Obama and Sotomayor (it'll be up tomorrow). In the process of reading all this stuff about Obama's criteria for a Supreme Court Justice (blah, blah, empathy, blah blah blah), it occurred to me that maybe what he really wants to do is appoint himself,* or at least the best approximation of himself he can find that politics will allow.
Think about it. He places this huge emphasis on a personal narrative that produces empathy for select disadvantaged groups — minorities, single moms etc. He wants someone who is smart enough, but whose real priorities can be boiled down to trite lefty tropes about "social justice." He allegedly wants someone charming and bipartisan solely so they will seduce conservative members of the court to more liberal positions (I say "allegedly" because you often hear this ascribed to the White House, but never actually stated outright). All of these traits are hallmarks of what might be called "Obamaism."
Now I know that Obama has some very well-thought-out, or at least elaborate, arguments for his idea of a good justice. But isn't it possible that some of this is really just a rationalization for a more fundamental narcissistic projection? After all, it is hardly news that Obama thinks very highly of himself, and sees all sorts of major issues through the prism of Obama. Everything he says about what would make a great, ideal, Supreme Court justice is stuff he clearly sees in himself. I think that is at least interesting.
*Why not cut out the middlewomen and just name himself? Okay, maybe that would be unconstitutional, but he could resign with expectation that President Biden
Judging by Identity [Peter Kirsanow]
During the presidential campaign, there was considerable commentary about the prospect of a President Obama ushering in a post-racial era in America. The candidate himself fueled the commentary, frequently making sounds about the advent of a society that transcends race.The nomination of Judge Sotomayor demonstrates that identity politics not only remains alive and well, but may be accompanied by an unabashedly racialist interpretive doctrine. If there remains a sentient being in the White House press corps, he should ask Mr. Gibbs how a post-racial president could nominate to the Supreme Court a judge who said the following:
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.
So, inherent physiological differences may make a difference in one’s judging. Combined with Sotomayor’s vote in Ricci v. DeStefano, the statement suggests a judge quite comfortable with racial, ethnic, and gender preferences. In the Obama era, identity politics hasn’t gone away; it’s been joined by identity judging.
Judging by Identity II [Peter Kirsanow]
When George W. Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee spent considerable time analyzing the nominees’ respective interpretive doctrines. The Committee will do the same with Sotomayor.Obviously, the best evidence for a nominee’s judicial approach comes from the opinions the judge has authored. Further guidance can be gleaned from the nominee’s articles and speeches. In this regard, Sotomayor’s Berkeley lecture merits scrutiny because it describes the nominee’s view of the decisionmaking process.Senators should ask Sotomayor to expand upon her statement that “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.”Does Sotomayor contend that a judge’s interpretive approach is hard-wired to her gender and ethnicity? Does that mean that litigants should necessarily expect different decisions from a Justice Roberts than a Justice Sotomayor?What would Sotomayor think if John Roberts had made the identical statement? Is there any doubt that several members of the Judiciary Committee would’ve declared the statement sexist and racist?Does the Constitution have different meanings depending on one’s gender and ethnicity?
Sotomayor's Credentials [Ramesh Ponnuru]
Earlier today I described Sotomayor as Obama's Harriet Miers without explaining myself. What I'm suggesting is that both nominees were picked because they were women, because they were members of politically valued groups (evangelicals in Miers's case, Hispanics in Sotomayor's), and because they were considered politically reliable by the people who picked them. Neither was picked based on her impressive legal mind, although the pickers in each case doubtless believed that the nominee exceeded some threshold level of competence. These parallels seem like more than enough to justify the title of a Corner post.
But as the various outraged lefties who have commented on it correctly note, the analogy isn't perfect. For example, Sotomayor is likely to get confirmed. There's a big difference! It's also true, as Sotomayor's defenders keep saying, that Miers never served on the bench and didn't go to Ivy League schools. I am, incidentally, enjoying the spectacle of leftists who spent years saying President Bush was a moron carry on about how insane and probably racist it is for anyone to doubt the intellect of someone who went to those schools. The people who brought up this issue were Jeffrey Rosen's Democratic sources; save the racism charges for them.
For whatever it's worth, I am perfectly willing to assume that Sotomayor's IQ is north of 100. I also don't think that the issue ought to be decisive. A nominee who had a modest conception of the judicial role, constrained most importantly by the public's understanding of the meaning of the constitutional provisions to which it consented, would have my support even if he were less intelligent than the other justices; a genius nominee who held a more plastic conception of the law wouldn't. And I think that Senate Republicans would be well advised to look at the job qualifications the same way.
The Latina Lecture [Rich Lowry]
It's pretty amazing. Have we ever had a Supreme Court justice before who stated quite frankly that he or she is incapable of being objective?
Sonia Sotomayor for SCOTUS ?
Score one for liberal identity politics.
Here are a few links:
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/26/cupp_sotomayor_obama/
http://volokh.com/posts/1242229209.shtml
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/politics/27websotomayor.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Here are a few links:
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/26/cupp_sotomayor_obama/
http://volokh.com/posts/1242229209.shtml
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/politics/27websotomayor.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
