Sonia Sotomayor

Some forums in Skypeland discuss political issues and current events. Today President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill an upcoming vacancy on the US Supreme Court. We discussed Sotomayor's nomination. I listened all day to various news coverage of the nomination. I have to admit, I was stunned at how florid the praise was in many instances from various media figures and commentators.

I heard several claim that Sonia Sotomayor is a first rank intellect of incomparable brilliance. I investigated a bit, but I was unable to find out what her major was at Princeton or really how incredible a scholar she was. I heard similar things about Barack Obama that were impossible to confirm.

She was married in college, but divorced in a few years and is reputed to be a lesbian [1] (not that there is anything wrong with that...).

Some claimed Sotomayor is the first Hispanic nominee, [2] but in fact Benjamin Nathan Cardozo who came from a family of Portuguese Jews served on the Supreme Court from 1932-1938.

I also heard that no other member of the court has any "trial experience" but Sotomayor does. This is just the most blatant nonsense I have ever come across. A quick survey of the current sitting Supreme Court Justices shows they all have similar or even superior backgrounds in the courtroom and as lawyers. Do these reporters and analysts even do a modicum of checking before they spew this stuff? I heard many claim that Sotomayor had an incomparable amount of experience, but in the important executive powers arena, Sotomayor has less background than the other front-runners for the nomination. [3] Perhaps Obama did not want anyone on the bench who might set limits on his own power.

One commentator was excited that a Hispanic would sit on the bench, so they could "fix" the situation where several white teenagers in the Shenandoah Valley were acquitted of the murder of an illegal immigrant from Mexico who was supporting his illegal immigrant fiance and 3 children. The fiance, and the commentator, demanded that since the teenagers were white, that it was unfair that they were acquitted, and they were positive that a Hispanic judge would nail all white males since that is what Hispanics demand. No word about the law or the evidence or anything. That is all irrelevant I guess.

Here is an analysis from Robert Schlesinger of US News and World Report that speculates that Sotomayor might be so liberal and so obnoxious that it might push some left-leaning judges to the right. [4]

One claimed that her nomination has nothing to do with her being Hispanic and female, but then stated that no Republicans would be able to oppose her nomination because it was against the rules for them to oppose anyone female and anyone Hispanic (I notice that the Democrats had no problem opposing Hispanics for various comparable positions, just a short while ago). Another said that Republicans would not dare oppose this Hispanic since they had already lost 70% of all Hispanic votes by supporting the enforcement of immigration laws. Still another commentator suggested that it was against the rules and tradition for anyone to oppose any Supreme Court nomination made by the president. A conservative commentator reminded the panel about the Bork nomination that set a precedent for opposing Supreme Court nominations based on political agendas, and the liberal analysts were crestfallen. There was some whining from liberals that Sotomayor was not as much of a judicial activist as they would like. One noted that if Sotomayor was confirmed, it would mean that six of the nine Supreme Court justices were Catholic, and there was some nervousness about what might happen to abortion laws in this situation.