In a 2002 CNBC discussion of Sonia Sotomayor’s ruling on the baseball strike, Bob Costas says Sotomayor made the situation worse. Might the GOP call Costas as a witness in the hearings?
Archive for category Supreme Court
If Republicans thought they may have some chance to knock Sonia Sotomayor off her game in questions over her “wise latina” comment, they were wrong. The claim Sotomayor made in 2001 was that a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.” It wasn’t exactly well-worded, but her response to criticism in today’s hearing should ease concerns.
Sotomayor noted that such remarks were often made in speeches to Latino groups. “I was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system because different life experiences and backgrounds always do,” she said. “I don’t think there is a quarrel with that in our society. I was also trying to inspire them to believe they could become anything they wanted to become just as I had.”
She added: “The context of the words that I spoke have created a misunderstanding.”
Sotomayor aligned herself with former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female justice, who once said: “I can’t see that on the issues that we address at the court that a wise old woman is going to decide a case differently than a wise old man.”
Sotomayor pledged her impartiality. “To give everyone assurances I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences.”
In his opening statement, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said, “Unless you have a complete meltdown, you’re gonna get confirmed.”
As the Sotomayor confirmation hearings begin, it is clear Americans understand she will likely breeze through the Senate. A new Rasmussen poll out this morning shows an overwhelming majority think Sonia Sotomayor will soon be the newest member of the Supreme Court.
Yet even after the Supreme Court’s reversal of her ruling in a reverse discrimination case filed by New Haven firefighters, 84% of U.S. voters said they expected her to win confirmation. Fifty-eight percent (58%) characterized her confirmation as Very Likely. These numbers have remained largely unchanged since polling on her nomination first began.
But Americans still do not fully support her.
In our first survey after the president’s announcement, 45% of voters favored confirmation of Sotomayor, who, if approved by the Senate, will be the first Hispanic member of the high court. Twenty-nine percent (29%) opposed her confirmation, However, a month later, in a survey conducted on the two nights following the Supreme Court’s reversal of her best-known appellate court decision, only 37% said Sotomayor should be confirmed while 39% disagreed.
The hearings could sway public opinion in one way or the other as we learn more about Sotomayor’s views:
…66% of voters nationwide believe that well-qualified male and female judges would reach the same conclusion most of the time, although 17% disagree. By a virtually identical margin, 67% to 16%, voters believe the same is true of well-qualified white and Hispanic judges.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of voters also say the U.S. legal system should apply the law equally to all Americans rather than using the law to help those who have less power and influence.
We’re beginning to learn some very interesting tidbits from Sonia Sotomayor’s background. The Washington Times today has a report on discoveries in the documents of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, where Sotomayor worked for twelve years.
A legal advocacy group advised by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in the 1980s actively opposed conservative Robert H. Bork’s nomination to the high court calling him a “threat” to the “civil rights of the Latino community.”
…
The documents, which the group’s lawyers have said include relevant information about Judge Sotomayor’s time there, also show the fund did legal work for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN.
None of these should disqualify someone from serving on the bench, but talk radio and Fox News will no doubt have a field day.
A Rasmussen poll out today indicates public support for Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination may be faltering. Most of the drop is likely a result of the Ricci v. DeStefano decision.
A heavily publicized U.S. Supreme Court reversal of an appeals court ruling by Judge Sonia Sotomayor has at least temporarily diminished public support for President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the two nights following the Supreme Court decision, finds that 37% now believe Sotomayor should be confirmed while 39% disagree.
Two weeks ago, the numbers were much brighter for the nominee. At that time, 42% favored confirmation, and 34% were opposed.
The most interesting part of the survey is the opposition from independents.
Democrats now favor confirmation by a four-to-one margin while Republicans are opposed by a three-to-one margin. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 23% favor confirmation, and 49% are opposed.
If the support for Sotomayor was strictly on partisan lines, we could feel fairly safe in predicting she will sail through the Senate. But that is clearly not the case anymore. This poll gives a green light to Republicans who were not sure whether they should challenge the nomination.
On this blog in the past, I have recommended Republicans focus on more important issues than Sotomayor because it looked like a losing battle. I’m no longer sure that is the case. A full-throated attack may be in order, and it’s time for the outside interests on both sides to ramp up spending.
Ricci v. Sotomayor
Jun 30
The news today is filled with discussions of how the case of Ricci v. DeStefano will affect Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. I blogged about the subject yesterday, saying, while unlikely, it could impact her confirmation. Both the New York Times and Washington Post today offer analyses that see it similarly. Republicans will trumpet the Ricci case in the coming weeks, but Sotomayor will still sail through her confirmation.
Even though it will be difficult to derail Sotomayor, Republicans jumped on the Ricci ruling quickly:
“Every citizen has a right to have his or her case heard by a judge who will rule on the laws, the facts and the Constitution — and not play favorites,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “This case sharpens our focus on Judge Sotomayor’s troubling speeches and writings, which indicate the opposite belief: that personal experiences and political views should influence a judge’s decision.”
Democrats immediately countered:
In a conference call with reporters, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) — a member of the Judiciary Committee — argued the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano should not be seen as a rebuke of Sotomayor’s judicial temperament, but rather an indication that she is a moderate jurist who was simply following precedent.
Schumer argued that while Republicans have warned “she will be an activist judge, this case clearly shows she won’t. She’ll be a moderate … her whole career on the 2nd Circuit is one of modesty,” Schumer argued.
Conservatives should be frightened of a jurisprudence of doubt. In that sense, Sotomayor’s ruling in Ricci was the correct one. Linda Greenhouse’s op-ed in the New York Times today is a must-read.
Like that decision or hate it, cheer Monday’s ruling or deplore it, one thing that is clear from reading the Supreme Court’s 89 pages of opinions in the case is that Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues played by the old rules, and the court changed them. Although “Sotomayor Reversed” was a frequent headline on the posts that spread quickly across the Web, it was actually the Supreme Court itself that shifted course.
Most people are unlikely to view the case from the perspective of precedence, so it remains to be seen whether this issue will gain traction building opposition to Sotomayor. Conservatives will be making an issue of the case, but this is hardly something we should put energy into when more pressing matters of healthcare and climate change confront us. Few would deny that Ricci and the other firefighters who passed the exam were unfairly discriminated against, but conservatives must pick their battles. Sotomayor did not simply decide her ruling on her personal preferences. Conservatives should not block her confirmation because of personal preferences.
Many conservatives will be glad to hear the decision by the Supreme Court today to overturn a lower court’s ruling in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano. In the case, qualified white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut were denied promotions because there were not enough minorities to be promoted at the same time. The earlier decision against the white firefighters came from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor currently sits.
The ruling is not terribly surprising considering the composition of the court, and it was a close 5-4 decision. But this offers another talking point to conservatives wanting to halt the proceedings to confirm Sotomayor. It was noted in the opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy that the lower courts opinion was surprisingly short.
Oral arguments lasted an hour, with Sotomayor leading the questioning, as is her reputation. But instead of issuing a detailed and signed opinion, the panel said in a brief summary that, although it was “not unsympathetic” to the plight of the white firefighters, it unanimously affirmed the lower court’s decision for “reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion.”
The case is a lightning-rod issue for conservatives, who argue that qualified firefighters should be promoted regardless of race. Republicans will continue to raise this issue in the weeks ahead.
It’s looking more and more as though Senate Republicans will offer some opposition to Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee. The Ricci case is a stronger talking point now that the Supreme Court has overturned Sotomayor’s decision.
Update: Meanwhile, 62% Say They Support Sotomayor.
During his last week on the Tonight Show, Jay Leno said it was never difficult to find people for “Jay Walking.” This is why:
A new poll for Fox News is a good indication of how members of the one of the nation’s most important institutions operate largely out of the public’s consciousness. Asked “Which one of the current U.S. Supreme Court justices do you most admire or agree with?”, half of the respondents had no idea. They either did not have an answer to the question or could not name a justice. On the silver lining front, the figure was 68 percent when the question was asked six years ago.
The “winner” in the poll, conducted last week, was Justice Clarence Thomas, perhaps the court’s best-known and most controversial member. But he shared the top spot (11 percent) with — drumroll — Sandra Day O’Connor, who left the court in 2006.