Saying no to Sonia?
How the GOP will go after Obama's court nominee
Saying no to Sonia?
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Back on May 5, in this space, I wrote: "It's hard to imagine that the Senate Republicans would try to filibuster any female nominee who has the requisite legal qualifications - particularly if that female also happened to be Hispanic (federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor, who grew up in a New York housing project and would naturally bring a new experiential perspective to the court)."
Now that President Obama has indeed chosen Sotomayor, let's see how the Republicans play it.
Will the party of southern white guys - which is led, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, by Jeff Sessions, a southern white guy - mount a parliamentary effort to block the ascent of an Hispanic woman...and thus risk alienating itself even further from women voters (who backed Obama last fall by 13 percentage points) and Hispanic voters (the fastest-growing demographic group, which backed Obama by 36 points)?
Will the GOP, prodded by its conservative base, dare to assail a woman of color who rose from humble beginnings on sheer merit; who was formally tapped for the federal district bench by a Republican president (George H. W. Bush); and who was confirmed in 1998 for a federals appeals court seat by a Republican Senate, voting 67-29? (By the way, those 67 Yes votes included 25 Republican senators...seven of whom are still serving.)
The answer is, yes, the party certainly will assail her. Actually, the GOP has a duty to challenge the nominee; that's what advise and consent is all about. And lest we forget, Obama as a senator supported the idea of filibustering the Samuel Alito nomination.
But, politically, the Republicans have to tread with care. Considering GOP strategists' concerns that the party risks being relegated to long-term minority status if it continues to tick off Hispanic voters, the party would be well advised to challenge Sotomayor in a substantive manner, forego the usual rhetorical cartooning, and recognize that any filibuster bid would be politically counterproductive.
That said, here's some of what you might expect to hear from the not-Sonia movement in the days ahead. The strategy will be to downplay Sotomayor's race and gender (as much as possible, anyway), and focus on some of her rulings and statements:
1. The New Haven affirmative action ruling. Along with six other federal appeals court judges, she sided with the city's decision to throw out some tests that had been used to evaluate firefighters for promotion. The city tossed the tests because no minority candidates had made it to the top of the promotion list. Some white firefighters challenged the city's action, alleging that they'd been effectively denied promotions for which they were qualified. Basically, Sotomayor and the other appeals judges ruled against the white firefighters. It was a complex case (now on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court), but the GOP can potentially reduce it to emotional shorthand - by invoking "9/11."
You ask how that's possible? Here's conservative activist Wendy Long, this morning: "On September 11, America saw firsthand the vital role of America's firefighters in protecting our citizens. They put their lives on the line for her and the other citizens of New York and the nation. But Judge Sotomayor would sacrifice their claims to fair treatment in employment promotions to racial preferences and quotas."
2. The "liberal activist" soundbite. The loyal opposition has latched onto a passing remark, uttered by Sotomayor during a law student forum in 2005, about how a "court of appeals is where policy is made." Conservatives will therefore say, in essence, that Sotomayor wants to make policy on the bench; ergo, that makes her a "liberal activist judge" and thus unqualified for the high court. But the context of her remark was far less exciting.
While enlightening the law students about the differences between clerking in federal district court and clerking in a federal appeals court, she sought to explain that the former venue rules on individual cases, whereas the latter venue rules on broader issues that serve as controlling legal precedent - i.e., "policy" - for all the district courts in the region. That's a dry explanation you'd find in any law textbook; presumably, however, the GOP will cite her remark as proof that she would ignore the Constitution and take stances that hew to her purported ideological preconceptions. Sure enough, perpetual presidential candidate Mitt Romney brandished the "policy" quote (and distorted its meaning) earlier today.
3. The dim lightbulb theme. We're hearing this one already on the radio and in conservative blogs - that Sotomayor supposedly is not very bright, that she's roughly comparable to Harriet Miers, the Bush crony who was briefly tapped for the high court back in 2005. It might seem odd to equate Sotomayor (top honors grad of Princeton and Yale, and an ex-federal district judge who ruled on more than 450 cases) with Miers (who never served as a judge, and never even wrote any legal treatises), but hey, this is the kind of rhetorical cartooning I mentioned earlier. The dim bulb theme is actually inspired by a recent New Republic article, which quoted some lawyers as saying that the judge is no intellectual heavyweight, but that article was counterbalanced weeks ago by the quotes of other lawyers whose assessments of Sotomayor appear in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary ("She is very smart" "She is frighteningly smart" "She is very intelligent"). Anyway, does the GOP want to put itself in the position of arguing that an Hispanic woman of obvious high achievement is too dumb for the high court - an argument akin to the old saw that black football players were too dumb to be quarterbacks?
4. The identity-politics soundbite. During a 2001 lecture on cultural diversity and the law, Sotomayor suggested that, with respect to many cases that reach the bench, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." She was making a broad point about the benefits of bringing a range of experiences to the federal bench; indeed, she also argued that "personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see." There's potential grist for the Republicans in those remarks, although they'd need to be careful on this one. Certainly they wouldn't want to be caught implying that only the white male life experience is acceptable for the high court.
All told, the GOP is officially wary of firing on all cylinders, at least for the moment. The Republican National Committee released a very cautious statement this morning, one that has already drawn scorn from conservative activists:
"Republicans look forward to learning more about federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor’s thoughts...Supreme Court vacancies are rare, which makes Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination a perfect opportunity for America to have a thoughtful discussion about the role of the Supreme Court in our daily lives. Republicans will reserve judgment on Sonia Sotomayor until there has been a thorough and thoughtful examination of her legal views."
They pledge to be thoughtful?
Spoken like a party that has only 40 senators.
Yes, but the GOP hasn't met a pledge they couldn't break. Any attempted vilification of this well-qualified nominee will just further marginalize the GOP, if that's possible.— GetEmGood- Lets just say that GWB nominated a person for the Supreme Court that; 1) Sided with a city that thew out promotion test scores of black/hispanic firefighters because there was no white firefighters that made the list! 2) Nominated a conservative judge who said that he/she thinks public policy is made from the court bench not the legislature and 3) was quoted as saying, that he would hope white males, with all their education, would more often than not come to a better conclusion than less educated hispanics/blacks! I wonder what the reaction to that judge would be by liberals? That being said, she should be confirmed at first glance as this nomination was meant to spark a fight with the GOP and they should not take the bait:) I doubt she is the most qualified person for the job, but she is the correct gender and race for the President (the ultimate affirmative action)! One last thing, you never know how someone is going to vote once they get on the bench, see Souter/Ginsberg for examples:)— NEPhilly
- NE, did you even read the whole posting? Polman went out of his way to explain that "policy" did NOT mean public policy - go re-read it. In any case, it doesn't matter what the Reps do since they can't filibuster once Franken is seated, which should happen before they vote on this. All they can do is hurt themselves, which they have lately shown an astonishing talent for doing. They should save the hysterics for a real liberal, like Pam Karlan - that should be fun!— Yersinia Pestis
- NEPhilly has his right wing hate radio talking points down pat already – good boy! You'd think people would be ashamed of being so ignorant, misogynistic and racist, especially after the brouhaha that they claimed happened to a truly un-qualified jurist: Clarence “Whatever Scalia says” Thomas. But like all good dogs, they’ve learned their trick for the day.— TwoLanes
- It did mean public policy you can slant it any way it still means the same. She has been overturned by the Supreme court more than most of her peers. Also Ben "that racist redneck disgusting man" Nelson (D) has already said he wont vote for anyone who has an agenda. It may still happen. I would also think that Clarence Thomas had a better story but then again the man is a ragging racist because he doesnt believe in free thing for everyone.— rgreen72
- yersinia, I read the whole post & I guess I will take Mr. Polman's word for it:) Also, I agree the GOP should keep its powder dry for the next one and said she should be confirmed! I see you didn't have a thought on #1 and #3 of my post as there really is no defense for it! two, I haven't had the chance to listen to Rush as it is a little busy at work today, I was just answering Mr. Polman's 3 points, and the other radio guy isn't evne on yet. I guess if they say it on radio it is immediately wrong, ignorant, misogynistic & racist! I get it now, thanks:)— NEPhilly
- rgreen, it doesn't mean what you say it means, it means what Sotomayor meant - controlling precedent. But, I give up, there's no point in arguing with people who failed their IQ tests in first grade and have remained stuck there ever since...— Yersinia Pestis
- Before NEPhily, Tom, Mike and others start spewing the talking points of Half Story Hannity and Druggie Limbaugh in trying to get people against Judge Sotomayer just remember the catchy phrase from Judge Scalia - "Mere factual innocence is not reason not to proceed with a death sentence after a FAIR trial" and know WE DO NEED JUDGES WITH VARIED experiences who will look at legal issues from different angles. The right wing is against legislating from the bench ONLY when the decisions will be against them. The companies are well protected on the high court. How about the regular folks ??? Bravo President Obama for your inspired choice !!!— ModerateMarge
- NE, thank you for your consideration; you are normally at least rational, even when I don't agree with you - the IQ test remark was directed only at the other poster, and of course the lurking CD and Xi who will turn up to drag matters into the gutter any minute now, no doubt. It takes too much time to debate every single point all the time; however, for now I would say that I'm not crazy about the New Haven ruling, but on the other hand, if the test is blatantly rigged, somebody has to make the city change it, while the remarks about the Latina perspective have more to do with life experience than education - her point was that judges from a privileged background have so little empathy with the less privileged that they truly don't understand the issues - as Roberts and Alito amply demonstrated in the Ledbetter case, which was the first thing Obama rectified when he took office.— Yersinia Pestis
- She is an ABSOLUTE disaster and represents ultra left wing politics. The Democrats always SAY they want "middle of the road, highly qualified judges." Except when they are a twofer-female and hispanic. That the writer in this article even frames it in that context is a disgrace. I guess it was okay thought for Democrats to be against women on the Supreme Court when they are Republicans (Harriet Meiers) or to be against Hispanics on the Supreme Court when they are Republicans (Alberto Gonzalez)But if Republicans oppose her it's because they are anti women or anti hispanic. Like I said, a disgrace.— WriteWinger
- Dick, it is interesting that you continue to only write about Republicans. Have you not realized yet that Democrats control ALL THE POWER IN WASHINGTON? Or does this fact just mean that you suddenly are no longer interested in speaking truth to power?— Frito1
- Sonya is not the sharpest tool in the judge's shed. Hey, we are a country of mediocrity now so it does not matter, right?— CD75
- It will be interesting to see the GOP show their true colors on this nomination. Hopefully they will HONESTLY and HONERABLY use snippets from Judge Sotomayer's decisions not try and alter the meaning by selective editing. Half Story Hannity is the worst - whenever he cites a decision it pays to read the whole decision and not let him dishonestly edit !— ModerateMarge
- Hopefully the Republicans will not try to destroy her with vile and venomous attacks like the Democrats did to Bork, Thomas and Alito!— Frito1
Comment removed.
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
