Obama’s choice of Sotomayor deserves praise

Though there is much to learn about her, Sonia Sotomayor is an excellent pick for Obama.

Topics: Washington, D.C.,

Obama's choice of Sotomayor deserves praise

(Updated belowUpdate IIUpdate IIIUpdate IVUpdate VUpdate VI)

Reports indicate that President Obama has selected Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court.  The announcement will be made formally this morning at 10:15 a.m. EST.  This nomination should be judged principally on two grounds:  (1) her judicial opinions (which Scotusblog’s Tom Goldstein comprehensively reviews here) and (2) her answers at her confirmation hearing.  But based on everything that is known now, this seems to be a superb pick for Obama.

It is very encouraging that Obama ignored the ugly, vindictive, and anonymous smear campaign led by The New Republic‘s Jeffrey Rosen and his secret cast of cowardly Eminent Liberal Legal Scholars of the Respectable Intellectual Center.  People like that, engaging in tactics of that sort, have exerted far too much influence on our political culture for far too long, and Obama’s selection of one of their most recent targets both reflects and advances the erosion of their odious influence.  And Obama’s choice is also a repudiation of the Jeffrey-Rosen/Ben-Wittes/Stuart-Taylor grievance on behalf of white males that, as Dahlia Lithwick put it, “a diverse bench must inevitably be a second-rate bench.”

Obama has also ignored the deeply dishonest right-wing attacks on Sotomayor, beginning with the inane objection to her perfectly benign and accurate comments on videotape that appellate judges, as distinct from district court judges, “make policy.”   Lawyer Anonymous Liberal thoroughly eviscerated that line of attack as the shallow and deceitful argument it is.  A similar avenue of certain attack — that Sotomayor said in a 2001 speech that a female Latina judge has experiences that can inform her view of cases — is equally frivolous.  There are a whole range of discretionary judgments which judges are required to make; does anyone actually doubt that familiarity with a wide range of cultural experiences is an asset?  

It’s possible to take that view too far to the point where it becomes troubling, and Sotomayor should (and certainly will) be asked about it, but the comments themselves are entirely mainstream and uncontroversial.  As reflected by my own somewhat limited experience with Judge Sotomayor — in which, in one case, she upheld the dismissal at trial of a race discrimination claim in a case with a highly sympathetic African-American plaintiff (even after a different District Judge denied summary judgment dismissal of that claim) while reinstating the plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim — she’s hardly some rabid ideologue who dispenses with legal considerations in favor of social sympathies.  Sotomayor’s opinions as compiled by Goldstein, as well as those who know her best, demonstrate the same thing.  One progressive legal group, Constitutional Accountability Center, already issued a statement praising her nomination:

Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) applauds President Obama’s historic nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. While CAC’s review of Judge Sotomayor’s record is continuing, we already know that she is a brilliant lawyer who is committed to ruling based on the Constitution and the law, not on her own personal political views. As Judge Sotomayor herself stated in a recent dissenting opinion: “The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms.”

The next Supreme Court Justice will have a critical voice in important decisions involving the Constitution’s text, history and core principles. She will help decide cases regarding constitutional rights and liberties and constitutional challenges to laws that matter to the lives of everyday Americans — including cases involving voting rights, pay equity, and health, safety, and the environment. In Judge Sotomayor, we believe President Obama has found a nominee who will help ensure that the Constitution and laws are faithfully applied and remain true to their intended purpose as guardians of our rights, liberties, and equality.

There are many vital issues that Sotomayor should be asked about, obviously including her views on executive power limits, which — as Charlie Savage noted this weekend — are largely unknown.  One’s view of her selection should be shaped by things that are as yet unknown.  But judging strictly from what is known, Obama deserves substantial credit for this choice.  There were choices available to him that would have been safer among the Respectable Intellectual Center (Diane Wood) and among the Right (Elena Kagan).  At his best, Obama ignores and is even willing to act contrary to the standard establishment Washington voices and mentality that have corrupted our political culture for so long.  His choice of Sotomayor is a prime example of his doing exactly that, and for that reason alone, ought to be commended.

* * * * *

See also:  this post, from earlier today, on the Brookings Institution and the false claims about the presidential oath.


UPDATE: Charles Krauthammer is already snarling on Fox News, warning viewers of the possible danger that — as he put it — Sotomayor’s “concern for certain ethnicities override justice.”  He said that although her confirmation is certain, conservatives should oppose her nomination on principle and highlight that the type of justice Sotomayor allegedly represents — justice that is unfair to white people in favor of “certain ethnicities” — is deeply pernicious.  That is such a baseless and ugly attack on her, but almost certainly what will be a focus of the right-wing strategy.

Sotomayor’s ascent from Bronx housing project to Princeton and Yale Law School to  Supreme Court nominee — driven by merit, intellect, talent and diligence — is nothing short of inspiring.  Ugly, baseless attacks of the kind Krauthammer recommends will resonate with nobody outside of the small rump that is now the Republican Party.


UPDATE II: Here’s the primary function of the life of The New RepublicFrom Red State today:

Conservatives rejoice. Of all the picks Obama could have picked, he picked the most intellectually shallow.

Even the New Republic has been rather scathing about her.

And from National Review: 

If they had even a small amount of intellectual integrity, TNR Editors would be deeply ashamed of the central role they played in enabling this baseless, plainly false attack on Sotomayor as an intellectually deficient mediocrity.  But for The New Republic, there is no greater source of pride than being approvingly cited by the Right with the “Even The New Republic . . . . ” head-pat.  That’s their role in life, even if accomplished with patently reckless gossip masquerading as “journalism.”  That’s one aspect of Obama’s decision that is so commendable — discarding the sleazy tactics from our corrupted establishment Beltway sources.


UPDATE III: What is the basis for the seemingly now-widespread assumption that Sotomayor is some sort of left-wing pick?  She was originally appointed to the bench by Bush 41 and her confirmation to the Second Circuit was supported by some of the most right-wing Senators (including Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum, Bill Frist and similar types).  She began her law practice working as a District Attorney, prosecuting criminals.  Anyone who wants to characterize her as “left-wing” — especially radical left-wing or even to the left of Souter — should be compelled to point to specific judicial rulings or other evidence for that characterization.  The fact that she’s Latina and from the Bronx isn’t actually evidence of her ideology or judicial philosophy.


UPDATE IV: Along with several others, I contributed a short piece to the New York Times online discussion today on Obama’s selection of Sotomayor.  My contribution can be read here.


UPDATE V: Powerline — Time‘s 2004 Blog of the Year — asks:  is Sotomayor “Che Guevara in robes?”  To raise the comparison, the author of that rancid observation uses the Jeffrey Rosen method of “reporting”:  ”That’s how a friend of mine refers to Sonia Sotomayor,” he claims.  Why is the Right so hated?  It’s such a huge mystery (h/t Opinionator). 

Speaking of TNR:  now that Obama has selected Sotomayor, a much different tone has emerged over there.  They have a post today from Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky that praises Obama’s selection as “brilliant” and adds:  ”Everything that is known about her indicates that she will be an easy confirmation and an outstanding justice.”  And even Rosen is now backtracking further from his smear piece, lamely objecting today that conservatives who are “citing [his] initial piece on Sotomayor as a basis for opposing her . . . . willfully misread[] both [his] piece and the follow-up response,” Rosen now insists he believes that “Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed to the Supreme Court.”  John Cole says all that needs to be said about Rosen’s sudden turn-around.

Relatedly, Brian Williams, on his blog, has a somewhat cryptic post that cites Rosen’s original hit piece on Sotomayor along with my response to Rosen, and implies that he’s revealing some new information about that episode based on his “reporting,” though it’s unclear what exactly is being revealed.  Williams says that Rosen’s piece “got the attention of White House staffers” but “now the original piece is under great scrutiny, as is the author’s possible motives.”  If anyone knows what any of that means, please let me know.  What I think Williams’ note does reflect, as I speculated at the time, is that Rosen’s gossipy smear attack will likely do far more damage to his own reputation than to Sotomayor’s — and justifiably so.


UPDATE VI: At his Washington Post blog, Greg Sargent documents the misleading claims being made about the “wise Latina woman” passage from Sotomayor’s 2001 speech.  The always-insightful Dahlia Lithwick examines the dismal and unpromising arguments raised thus far by the Right in opposing the nomination.  Politico‘s Michael Calderone further documents just how widespread was the Right’s use today of Jeffrey Rosen’s article to attack Sotomayor’s intellect, and provides some helpful background on the Rosen smear here.

Glenn Greenwald

Follow Glenn Greenwald on Twitter: @ggreenwald.

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 14
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Pilot"

    One of our first exposures to uncomfortable “Girls” sex comes early, in the pilot episode, when Hannah and Adam “get feisty” (a phrase Hannah hates) on the couch. The pair is about to go at it doggy-style when Adam nearly inserts his penis in “the wrong hole,” and after Hannah corrects him, she awkwardly explains her lack of desire to have anal sex in too many words. “Hey, let’s play the quiet game,” Adam says, thrusting. And so the romance begins.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Elijah, "It's About Time"

    In an act of “betrayal” that messes up each of their relationships with Hannah, Marnie and Elijah open Season 2 with some more couch sex, which is almost unbearable to watch. Elijah, who is trying to explore the “hetero side” of his bisexuality, can’t maintain his erection, and the entire affair ends in very uncomfortable silence.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Charlie, "Vagina Panic"

    Poor Charlie. While he and Marnie have their fair share of uncomfortable sex over the course of their relationship, one of the saddest moments (aside from Marnie breaking up with him during intercourse) is when Marnie encourages him to penetrate her from behind so she doesn’t have to look at him. “This feels so good,” Charlie says. “We have to go slow.” Poor sucker.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and camp friend Matt, "Hannah's Diary"

    We’d be remiss not to mention Shoshanna’s effort to lose her virginity to an old camp friend, who tells her how “weird” it is that he “loves to eat pussy” moments before she admits she’s never “done it” before. At least it paves the way for the uncomfortable sex we later get to watch her have with Ray?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Hard Being Easy"

    On the heels of trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the status of her early relationship with Adam, Hannah walks by her future boyfriend’s bedroom to find him masturbating alone, in one of the strangest scenes of the first season. As Adam jerks off and refuses to let Hannah participate beyond telling him how much she likes watching, we see some serious (and odd) character development ... which ends with Hannah taking a hundred-dollar bill from Adam’s wallet, for cab fare and pizza (as well as her services).

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Booth Jonathan, "Bad Friend"

    Oh, Booth Jonathan -- the little man who “knows how to do things.” After he turns Marnie on enough to make her masturbate in the bathroom at the gallery where she works, Booth finally seals the deal in a mortifying and nearly painful to watch sex scene that tells us pretty much everything we need to know about how much Marnie is willing to fake it.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Tad and Loreen, "The Return"

    The only sex scene in the series not to feature one of the main characters, Hannah’s parents’ showertime anniversary celebration is easily one of the most cringe-worthy moments of the show’s first season. Even Hannah’s mother, Loreen, observes how embarrassing the situation is, which ends with her husband, Tad, slipping out of the shower and falling naked and unconscious on the bathroom floor.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and the pharmacist, "The Return"

    Tad and Loreen aren’t the only ones to get some during Hannah’s first season trip home to Michigan. The show’s protagonist finds herself in bed with a former high school classmate, who doesn’t exactly enjoy it when Hannah puts one of her fingers near his anus. “I’m tight like a baby, right?” Hannah asks at one point. Time to press pause.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Role-Play"

    While it’s not quite a full-on, all-out sex scene, Hannah and Adam’s attempt at role play in Season 3 is certainly an intimate encounter to behold (or not). Hannah dons a blond wig and gets a little too into her role, giving a melodramatic performance that ends with a passerby punching Adam in the face. So there’s that.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and Ray, "Together"

    As Shoshanna and Ray near the end of their relationship, we can see their sexual chemistry getting worse and worse. It’s no more evident than when Ray is penetrating a clothed and visibly horrified Shoshanna from behind, who ends the encounter by asking if her partner will just “get out of me.”

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Frank, "Video Games"

    Hannah, Jessa’s 19-year-old stepbrother, a graveyard and too much chatting. Need we say more about how uncomfortable this sex is to watch?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Desi, "Iowa"

    Who gets her butt motorboated? Is this a real thing? Aside from the questionable logistics and reality of Marnie and Desi’s analingus scene, there’s also the awkward moment when Marnie confuses her partner’s declaration of love for licking her butthole with love for her. Oh, Marnie.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Vagina Panic"

    There is too much in this scene to dissect: fantasies of an 11-year-old girl with a Cabbage Patch lunchbox, excessive references to that little girl as a “slut” and Adam ripping off a condom to ejaculate on Hannah’s chest. No wonder it ends with Hannah saying she almost came.

  • Recent Slide Shows



Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>