Further to my "dueling" op-ed with Ed Fallone on the Sotomayor nomination, I thought an interesting point is raised by Ed's statement that "over the course of an 11-year career on the appellate bench, during which she participated in more than 100 cases involving race-based claims, Sotomayor voted differently from the other judges hearing the case a sum total of four times." In Ed's view, this refutes any claim of racial bias on her part.
It probably does, but racial bias - as opposed to a certain set of assumptions about the significance of race and how to respond to racial issues - is not an accusation that I would ever make in connection with Judge Sotomayor. (And, of course, Ed was not responding to my column because he hadn't seen it as I had not seen his. That's how they roll down at 4th and State.)
Where I want to extend the conversation is to consideration of the Sotomayor record in the Court of Appeals or, more specifically, how useful statistical summaries of that record are in assessing her nomination to the Supreme Court.
Contrary to the uninformed speculation of this blogger, I am familiar with Sotomayor's record and, as I said in the column (reading helps), it is conventional if "liberal." For a summary of that record by someone with a different perspective than mine who now supports the nomination, read Jeff Rosen's piece in the July 1 issue of The New Republic. The fact of the matter is that, on most issues before a circuit court of appeals, most judges and lawyers- Sonia Sotomayor and John Roberts, Rick Esenberg and Ed Fallone - would agree.
But these are not the issues that get to the Supreme Court. Very few cases result in petitions for cert (i.e., requests that the Supreme Court take a case) and only 1% of the requests are granted.
These are the cases which make the precedent that the Court of Appeals must follow and it is a judge's handling of these cases - cases in which interpretation of the law is unsettled and which often present significant questions of policy - that are relevant when she is nominated for the high Court. These are the cases that separate the liberals from the conservatives and in which "craftsmanship" is no longer the question. As to these cases, I am more interested in the Sotomayor decisions that have gone to the Court and her explanations - off the bench - of how she approaches hard cases.
12 comments:
Again, for the second time, who was the wild-eyed liberal President who put Sotomayor on the bench? Was it that idiot liberal Jimmy Carter? Was it the philandering Bill Clinton? Someone picked her out of obscurity and made her a District Court Judge. Which liberal idiot was it? Won't one of you folks come clean so we know who to blame? If have never known you, Ricky, to be so bashful about bashing a Democrat. Come on -- have at it!
My understanding is that Sotomayor was appointed to the district court pursuant to a deal that gave the Democrats a certain number of seats in the interest of moving confirmations. In any event, why do you think what happened twenty years ago is relevant today?
As far as "liberal idiots" are concerned, I can't recall referring to either President in what way.
Shark
Because anony 8:45 appears to be a liberal idiot. I am sure when she/he goes after a Republican, she/he doesn't consider it bashing but the truth. The hypocracy of libs.
So you are saying that someone put a gun to President George H. W. Bush's head and forced him to appoint an unqialified lawyer to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench and that a majority of United States Senators were forced, not once but twice, to confirm her?
As for the other anonymous commentator, when you spell with such inaccuracy you self-apply the "idiot" moniker. My sympathy to you.
I meant "unqualified" of course, lest I be correctly accused of "hypocracy"...
anon 7:34
You put your foot in your mouth - you appear to be "unqialified" to post here. I admit to being a poor speller. I still managed a 3.9 in college (but never won the 3rd grade spelling bee). I would rather need a dictionary than be incapable of engaging in discussion without being supercilious. And your first post -"If have never known you, Ricky..."
Oops.
Anon 7:33
Just to be clear, my criticism of Judge Sotomayor is not that she in "unqualified."
"I still managed a 3.9 in college"
What year did you graduate from MATC? You and the fine young man who mows our lawn may have been in the same class.
anon 7:23
Big Ten grad...sorry to disappoint.
There is nothing wrong with going to MATC or taking care of lawns. Many of those folks are working hard and doing the best that they can. One would think that you understod that being a compassionate liberal.
Perhaps you are just a liberal.
oops...that's understood. My bad.
Well, that narrows it down to either Minnesota or Michigan State, the Big Ten "bottom feeders".
Nope and nope.
Post a Comment