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.
I'll preface this post by saying that I am a conservative. I haven't researched Sotomayer independently enough yet to form any opinions one way or another. From the little I've heard, she isn't as left-leaning as Ginsburg, so for conservatives, the pick could be worse. However, if, as posted here in the comments, she has an 80% overturn rate at SCOTUS, that demonstrates a concerning lack of respect for precedent and does call into question her abilities as a judge. I'll need to here more before making a judgment one way or another, but if that statistic is true, it is troubling.— jfar86- bob is like most lib'dems, they only believe in freedom of speech or thought if you believe in the same things as they do! If not, then you are ostracized (see Ms. California for an example), name called, taxes looked into, etc:)— NEPhilly
Comment removed.- Tom - As per usual regurgitating the GOP talking points. As for Sotomayer getting overturned when did this occur ? When she was a district court judge or an appellate judge ? If it was when she was a district court judge - did the appellate circuit overrule her or did it happen at the Supreme Court level ? What was the error she committed ? Have you read her opinions in their entirity or did you take Half Story Hannity's notoriously inaccurate editings ? You do realize of course that as an appellate judge she was overruled as part of a 3 judge panel so there were many from the circuit agreeing with her. And I go back to Scalia's mere factual innocence ... we need judges concerned with life and liberty more than finality in decisions which I think is where Scalia's twisted thoughts come from. Vet her nomination by all means - but PLEASE come back with more than innuendo and half truths if you intend on fighting her nomination.— ModerateMarge
- NEPhilly 03:51 PM, 05/26/2009 [bob is like most lib'dems, they only believe in freedom of speech or thought if you believe in the same things as they do! If not, then you are ostracized (see Ms. California for an example), name called, taxes looked into, etc:)] - Miss Prejean was not ostracised for anything she said (and NO the foul perez Hilton doesn’t count – she wasn’t “ostrasized because of that) - it was her hypocritical ACTIONS - aligning herself with the 1st anti-gay group that paid her way and then allowing herself to be a tool of that group, giving interviews and spewing THEIR talking points, not her OWN OPINIONS. She even painted herself into a corner and decided that she was a defender of "traditional" marriage but couldn't even credibly defend it with her own words - THAT, my friend, is why she was "ostracised"/appropriately derided. Vilifying and ostracizing someone is MUCH different – just ask Richard Clarke, Shinsenki, Donald Vance, Robert Byrd, Joe Wilson, etc. Anyway, at the end of the day, I think Sotomayor's record will easily refute her critics and make Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings look like a cakewalk, with much further damage to her detractors, in this day and age.— B_Pastor
- NEPhil, please don't characterize all liberals as being like WhiskeyBob. I was deeply offended by his posts. But then, I've been writing until my fingers are numb that we should debate ideas based on facts and sources, not use childish and offensive personal insults. Sigh. It's equally repulsive on both sides.— NigeltheMastiff
- B_Pastor- Why do you bloggers on the "right" think free speech means freedom from criticism??? Quite the opposite. Please, please keep making invalid points. It's not only your freedom, but it continues to expose your ignorance.— pagoda
- Sorry, I should have addressed that to NEPhilly. I just saw the "free speech" thing and lost it. All my sincere apologies to B-Pastor.— pagoda
- nigel, noted! I have always said the same thing about our debates and I have tried to live by them myself, as you know! bpastor, she was stating the same position as Pres. Obama got elected on and the California Supreme Court just upheld and did get blasted by almost everyone on the left/Hollywood! She is beauty queen answering a question during a paegent, not a politician that has to credibly defend her position, please! The President of the US should have to credibly answer the question, IMHO!— NEPhilly
- Jeez Dick- how would you like it if you were called in a disparaging way just a "northern Jewish liberal" twice in one paragraph? Your smug condescension never fails to astound me.— justablogger99
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- I love how Polman is basically playing the race/sex card and starting the whole thing with his very racial motivated "southern white guy" comment and before that makes sure he notes the judge is a Hispanic woman and immediates interjects the hatred pot stirring that he is accusing Republicans of. Her sex and race is a non issue - but in Liberal America you have to stir up minority hatred of Republicans by basically making a very unfair generalization and interjecting the race/sex issue into the discussion. He basically is laying the claim of if you are against this pick you are a racist/sexest person and completely takes issue off the table. This one way street is ridiculous and has no place in this conversation, especially form someone so highy regarded as Dave Polman - never knew awards of praise were reaped on people who openly promote a racist agenda.— reddog44
- I doesn't matter because the Dems tore apart Bush's Latino nominations and nothing was said about it. The BS flows one way. If the Republicans attack Sotomayer, the Dems will cry fowl, but when the Libs did it, zilch!!!— BGarber
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
