Tuesday, May 26, 2009

It's Sotomayor

So the online newspapers all report that in 45 minutes from now [at 10:15 AM Tuesday 26/5/2009], the Prez will announce that he has nominated Judge Sotomayor of the Second Circuit to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Huffington Post report included the following tidbit:

As a girl, inspired by the Perry Mason television show, she knew she wanted to be a judge.
This kinship with mister parker should not be forgotten. Although he can't recall ever being a girl. Not that kinship . . . .

Tom Goldstein at Scotusblog has offered a lot of analysis of Judge Sotomayor's work (I've linked to one, but there are more), and I urge you to use the blog as a resource to learn about someone who will affect our lives for generations to come. But I enjoyed today's post, where Goldstein predicts the contours of the upcoming debate. Notably, he nailed the obvious problem:

Well before the hearings and votes, the immediate struggle will be to define both the nominee and the President (in light of his selection). In several prior posts, we have summarized Sonia Sotomayor’s principal opinions. Here, I discuss the lines of attack that likely will be directed at her if she is nominated by the President this morning.

The attacks are inevitable and tremendously regrettable, just as they were for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. A cottage industry – literally an industry, given the sums of money raised and spent – now exists in which the far left and right either brutalize or lionize the President’s nominees. Because the absence of controversy means bankruptcy, it has to be invented by both sides, whatever the cost to the nominee personally and to the integrity of the judiciary nationally.

That is not to say that there aren’t legitimate – in fact, critical – debates over issues like judicial philosophy and the proper way to interpret the Constitution that can and should be front and center in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. But the most extreme interest groups and ideologues are transparently uninterested in that reasoned debate as they rush to caricature the nominee and the opposing viewpoint.

This should be fun.
She will be confirmed, unless she and Douglas Fairbanks were caught humping monkeys -- illegal alien monkeys who'd watched their children without socking away Social Security money -- on a barge in the Hudson River.

Hmmm; I knew I was inleigible for the Court. . . . .

Me and Scopes.

No comments: