netmouse: Firefly, natch. (Big Damn Heroes)
netmouse ([personal profile] netmouse) wrote2009-05-27 12:39 pm

Sotomayor for the Supreme Court

btw, regarding the Supreme Court nomination, RH realitycheck writes:

Sotomayor's trail of opinions paints a picture of a fair-minded, incisive legal scholar who is unafraid to stake out unpopular but legally meritorious positions. Right-wingers are going to oppose her nomination with full force - we would be foolish to do it for them.


I quite agree with that last bit. With regard to her history, I still don't know a lot, but the NYT article has a lot of links, here's a bit on the empathy thing, and here's Obama's own video about it.

ETA: comments lead me to read this Salon.com discussion by Greenwald, which is also good and contains links to more material relevant to the topic.

[identity profile] spacecrab.livejournal.com 2009-05-27 06:15 pm (UTC)(link)
Are you convinced by Obama? I'm not so sure.
See Avedon's comments here. Yes, the Republicans
are blasting Sotomayor, but I'm inclined to agree with
Avedon's analysis that it's, um, a sideshow.
ext_13495: (Photographer Anne)

[identity profile] netmouse.livejournal.com 2009-05-27 06:29 pm (UTC)(link)
well, I don't know how to respond to Avedon's comments other than to suggest you read other peoples comments in response to that post, one of which describes Sotomayor as being pro workingclass, something that contrasts strongly with Avedon's description of her as prefering the powerful to The People. Someone posted that they don't know how she could be seriously considered if she's not a corporate shill, but I similarly don't know how she could be a corporate shill with the personal baackground and connections she has.

Also, as someone pointed out, Greenwald likes her (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/26/sotomayor/index.html).

I don't know if any first candidate for such a contentious position is someone the nominator truly expects to pass muster and get the position - not a lot of history of that with the supreme court - but I think this nomination is on the whole a positive gesture, both doable and liveable if it goes through.
Edited 2009-05-27 18:29 (UTC)

[identity profile] spacecrab.livejournal.com 2009-05-27 10:32 pm (UTC)(link)
The thrust of Avedon's post that I took is that Sotomayor may be competent, professional and sane, but all the Republican attacks on her for being a liberal don't actually make her one -- and she's tired of defending Obama's non-crazy but right-of-center (by progressive standards) policies and appointments in response to Republican fantasies and accusations about how these policies and appointments are actually "dangerous liberal threats." I agree with her that the Republicans must be perfectly happy with their ability to attack Obama as a "dangerous liberal" when what he actually does seems to be mostly to the right of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

I'm sure there are many worse choices for the Court than Sotomayor, and she may be a better nominee than any of the sitting Supremes. As Ted White said on one of the e-lists. "She's just his first candidate." I'd like to take some comfort in that -- but I have a hard time making myself believe he'll actually move left, later on. I want to see Earl Warrens, Warren Bergers, and Learned Hands -- male or female, Black, White, Latino, Native American -- actual progressives who'll fight for social justice on the Court.
ext_13495: (Dark Simpsons Anne)

[identity profile] netmouse.livejournal.com 2009-05-28 04:28 am (UTC)(link)
I agree with her that the Republicans must be perfectly happy with their ability to attack Obama as a "dangerous liberal" when what he actually does seems to be mostly to the right of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Well, yes, the accusations of "liberal" left-edness are ridiculous and sad and the general illogic of the Republican party (plus the fact that so much of the media rolls with it) is also a travesty. My point is that doesn't make this a bad candidate.

No, she's not an ultra-liberal social activist candidate, but I agree with many who suggest we'd still have a hard time passing one of those through right now (though I still have issues with the democratic party, I feel forced to concede that the best way to push liberal candidates is to elect mediocre democratic candidates to congress instead of horrible republican ones - contribute to their campaigns in all states, I say, and sigh.)

What I really hope is that we get a chance to replace one of the right-wing judges and really change the slant of the court.