BREAKING: MSNBC reports Sotomayor next SCOTUS justice

[Lunar]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/If_only_they_had_the_franchise.html

A reader points out the most formal bit of SCOTUS lobbying to date: The Senate of Puerto Rico last week passed a resolution in support of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

[Lunar]

That's similar to FirstRead's list and I don't buy that those are all names on his final shortlist

[Lunar]

Obama himself is a Constitutional scholar, I can't believe that he'd choose someone with no experience in Constitutional philosophy that would make his pick look less credible.

[Lunar]

the pick will occur "next week"

[Lunar]

I'm surprised that "Obama should pick Hillary" discussion has been dying down when it's been there since he won the nomination.  That's normally the type of stuff the media jumps for -- no one in the public has heard of anyone else.

What's Dick Morris's prediction?  Condi?

[Lunar]

ANOTHER HISPANIC FEMALE CONSIDERED

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0509/scotus_contender_40cf85da-70c7-4ce1-91fd-1b94de5a29b3.html

A Colorado-based district judge, Christine Arguello, has been approached about a possible appointment ...

to the Supreme Court, The Pueblo Chieftain reports. 

The Chieftain: “Arguello said she was asked a week ago by people in Washington and in Colorado ‘who are in direct contact with the White House’ if she ‘would be willing to go through the intense scrutiny’ that would occur if Obama nominates her.”

Her answer: “Yes.”

[Lunar]

Outside of the whole "raising money off of a partisan fight" aspect of the SCOTUS issue, I suspect that Republicans somewhat prefer Wood because she's on the older side of things.

In my opinion, they should root for someone like Sotomayor that has plenty of bad press to feed into the noise machine, regardless of anything else that emerges, and can scream of tokenism.

[Lunar]

here's an article whoring out a particular candidate.  My biggest prob with her is that she's an expert in Georgian, not national, law.  Also, with 60 seats the Democrats hardly need to find someone who's electable in Georgia haha.

http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2009/05/rauch-move-up-leah-ward-sears.php

I see that Stuart Taylor ranks Leah Ward Sears fourth on his handicap list for the Souter seat. She's stepping down as chief justice of the Georgia state Supreme Court. (She'll practice law and be a fellow of the Institute for American Values, a pro-family think-tank.) The three women above her on Stuart's list are all pretty spectacular people. But I had occasion to meet Sears last November and came away thinking, "That woman is going to be on the Supreme Court." At any rate, when President Obama looks her over, he is going to see a very appealing combination of qualities.

• Pro-family progressivism. Sears describes herself, according to sources in Georgia, as a moderate progressive. In criminal cases, she leans pro-defendant but is no ACLUer. She joined the court's majority in voting to overturn Georgia's sodomy law, earning hostility from the social right. But she also joined a unanimous opinion upholding an initiative banning gay marriage.

And she has a pet cause dear to the heart of social conservatives: shoring up the family. I met Sears in November at a conference ("For Children's Sake: A Summit on Marriage and Family") she was hosting with the Institute for American Values. There's an egalitarian family-law movement on the left that wants to equalize all family structures. No way, she says -- as in this 2006 op-ed in the Washington Post. She combines support for marriage with an egalitarian message: "Marriage is in deep danger of becoming about class structure and privilege." She takes her pro-family message to the black community, too. Obama's gotta like that.

• Political chops. Besides drawing generally high marks for her performance on the state Supreme Court, which she joined in 1992, Sears is an elected judge. A lot of judicial elections are cakewalks for incumbents, but she faced a serious challenge in 2004 from Republicans determined to defeat her and thereby tip the court. She handily beat back charges of being an activist liberal. For a left-of-center African-American in a red state, that is nothing to sneeze at.

Since Sandra Day O'Connor's departure, there has not been anybody on the U.S. Supreme Court with a political background. In fact, all of the current justices are former U.S. appellate judges, and eight went to Yale or Harvard. B-o-o-o-o-ring. Obama presumably wants to deliver on his promise of change, and he also wants to build the Democrats' brand and broaden the party's appeal. Appointing yet another bureaucrat in a black robe would hardly serve either purpose. But Sears, like O'Connor before her, has the potential to cut a national figure and even, perhaps, become a beloved public icon. That would be great for the Democratic brand.

• She's a pistol. At the conference in November, she moderated my session -- a discussion/debate on gay marriage -- with intelligence and no-nonsense aplomb. She can command a room. She is not someone you forget meeting. And she has that Clintonesque ability to make you feel you've bonded with her. On meeting me, she gushed about an article I wrote. ("Caring for Your Introvert." She said she was something of a closet introvert herself.) After three minutes, she had me eating out of her hand.

Obama, I hope, is less of a pushover than I am. But I can pretty much guarantee that Sears will interview well. (Here's a sample.)

Add that she is young (53) and a fresh face despite more than 20 years of experience on the bench. And -- did I almost leave this out? -- she is an African-American female. Her appointment would make history.

The far left of the Democratic Party might squawk about her friendship with Clarence Thomas and her affiliation with the Institute for American Values (which some have characterized as anti-gay, though it's not). That, however, would only help Obama tout her nomination as post-partisan and trans-ideological. Put it all together, and you have a package that takes some beating.

[Lunar]

This is all a bit complex for me.  The one thing on this forum that I obsess about above all else are appointment decisions.  Yet this is not made completely out of political reasons but also legal influence.


Some of these things are difficult waters to read.

For example:  http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor’s-opinions-with-dissents-–-part-i/#more-9591

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These are both part of the same paragraph.  But you see how something this basic could be spun into a conservative blogosphere firestorm?  If we make a firestorm, I want it to be over something worthwhile, like whether someone who's gay can still be considered acceptable to serve.  I don't know.  I shall ponder and make my prediction this weekend.

Wood is by far the most likely candidate as of now.

[Lunar]

You know, it's not totally unbelievable that Obama could end up on the Supreme Court if the next president is a Democrat.

[Lunar]

My prediction remains Wood.  She's relatively older so less threatening.  Kagan is also less threatening since she's already been approved.  Both would pass supposed they pass vetting.

Wildcard/hopeful pick remains Karlan. *crosses fingers*

[Lunar]

great bold decision Barack...PSYCHE

[Lunar]

I find it funny that Politico still can't find a color photo to headline

[Lunar]

Republicans plan to pound a videotape in which Sotomayor said on a Duke University Law School panel in 2005 that the “court of appeals is where policy is made”

“And I know,” she added, “I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

Of the four widely reported finalists, Sotomayor was the one Republicans said they would complain most loudly about, and conservative legal groups attacked within minutes after Obama’s selection was reported.

Read more: "Breaking: Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor - Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com" - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22962_Page2.html#ixzz0Gcgpl6SN&A


Hopefully this won't end up being like Caroline Kennedy.  I hope she'll have a better explanation than that...

[Lunar]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Five_GOP_Sens_voted_for_Sotomayor_in_98.html

Senate Republicans, led by then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), blocked her nomination by Bill Clinton to the Second Circuit for an entire year, arguing -- presciently -- that she was being tapped in preparation for a SCOTUS appointment.

Sens. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) joined a unanimous slate of Dems in pushing Sotomayor through by a vote of 68-28.

Among the 29 Republican nays were current Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kent.), Minority Whip John Kyl (R-Ariz.), ranking Judiciary Committee member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Past performance is no guarantee of future votes — and Sotomayor is already being targeted by conservative groups over comments she's made suggesting an activist streak.

On the other hand, she's the first Hispanic to be nominated for the high court — and every GOP leader with a pulse knows that opposing her could accelerate the stampede of Latinos out of the GOP in the southwest, west and Texas.

McCain, who has been extraordinarily sensitive to those trends (if unable to fight them) might be the real bellwether here: He's been a pretty reliable GOP soldier on SCOTUS, so if he breaks from his party early — or had really nice things to say about Sotomayor — it could be a sign that Sotomayor will have an easy time.

Also look out for what associates of Daddy Bush (Jim Baker, etc.), who first appointed her to the federal bench, have to say.

[Lunar]

I'm sure Obama's team has already found an explanation for that. It's a pretty easy find.

FoxNews doesn't seem to be hitting back to hard just yet. I imagine by the time we see BillO or Hanitty tonight we can expect YouTube videos, angry rants and the shaping of the conservative message.

Of course, I spoke too soon. Already pulled a quote where Sotomayor says a Hispanic woman would make better decisions than a white male.

Actually there is no need for elaborate explanation.
Just read Anonymous Liberal's post where he explains what Sotomayor meant:

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/05/more-republican-judicial-clowning.html

yeah the actual video shows her basically immediately correcting herself, more harmless than I had thought, but still damaging when taken out of context

[Lunar]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Rahm_gave_Snowe_a_headsup.html

Snowe's statement:

“Indisputably, this is an historic selection, as Sonia Sotomayor is just the third woman to be nominated to The Court and the first Hispanic American. I commend President Obama for nominating a well-qualified woman, as I urged him to do during a one-on-one meeting on a variety of issues in the Oval Office earlier this month.

“I also appreciate that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called me personally this morning to inform me of the President's selection."

[Lunar]

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

-another Sonia quote we'll see showing up on FOX & Talk Radio.

[Lunar]

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/26/rnc-fumbles-sotomayor-talking-points/

Whoops. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has apparently inadvertently released its list of talking points on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Included on the released list were a few hundred influential Republicans who were the intended recipients of the talking points. Unfortunately for the RNC, so were members of the media.

[Lunar]

Also, she ruled against the Hispanic side of the fighter-fighters' lawsuit, funny enough, although for the African-Americans.

Not that I agree with her.

[Lunar]

Actually, weren't the Democrats put in a political bind over the Thomas confirmation, even if they didn't all run over and support him?  I thought they felt pressure to confirm the first African-American justice.

[Lunar]

Actually, weren't the Democrats put in a political bind over the Thomas confirmation, even if they didn't all run over and support him?  I thought they felt pressure to confirm the first African-American justice.

Thurgood Marshall would like a word with you.

I'm going to quit using the word "first" since I always get in trouble.

And he's dead so I don't care.

[Lunar]

The firefighters case is probably going to be overturned because of Kennedy, I suspect.  So her inclusion on the court would be irrelevant in that matter.

Still trying to figure out what race has to do with any of this.  She's qualified to be an SC justice.  I've already given my opinion as to what her impact will be.  That I feel fairly confident about.

I suspect this is your opinion summarized?

[Lunar]

Can we get Liddy booked on a few more shows please?