To John Cornyn et al in re: Sonia Sotomayor

Dear Senate Republicans,

I understand that you have your own reasons as to why they wouldn't want your confirmation to go smoothly. However, given recent history, you really have no room to express concern over whether Sonia Sotomayor would "uphold the constitution" or not. Please just stick to your racist talking points instead.

Signed,
Mr. Trend

PS: Thank you, Tom Coburn, for sticking to the crazily-ignorant talking points, and making Cornyn look a little (but just a little) more sane.

Papacy and the Supreme Court

With all the meaningless trivia and objections being thrown around about Sotomayor's nomination, is anybody else as shocked as I am that, if she is appointed, there will be six Catholics on the Supreme Court, along with two Jewish judges and only one protestant (John Paul Stevens).

I don't think there's a lot to take from that fact. I suppose you could perhaps argue that Alito's/Thomas's/Scalia's/Roberts' stance on abortion and Roe v. Wade may have something to do with their religion, but that's not necessarily automatic, and certainly Sotomayor's stance on the issue and her religion are probably not in complete agreement. Still, for a country that's had exactly one Catholic president ever and has a rich anti-Catholic (along w/anti-Irish, anti-Italian, and anti-Spanish/anti-Hispanic) legacy at various periods through its history, that there are six Catholics strikes me as rather remarkable.

(And to be clear about two things: A) I'm not pretending this is any deep analysis or mind-blowing observation; and B) I really don't think this should be used as a platform to say, "oh my God! We need more Protestants/atheists/polytheists/whatever!" That is, not unless we feel the Supreme Court needs more casseroles and jello salads, in which case a Protestant or two are definitely needed).

Sotomayor

Knocked off a piece for Global Comment on Sotomayor yesterday. As usual, here's a piece of it and you can read the whole thing there if you'd like.

Sotomayor is 54, from the Bronx, Puerto Rican, a summa cum laude graduate of Princeton and a Yale Law School grad, where she edited the Law Journal. She has also been an adjunct professor of law at New York University and a lecturer at Columbia University. She was the early target of attacks from the right, who called her a bully and implied that she would be an affirmative action choice—because Ivy League schools give out honors designations by gender and choose law review editors because of their skin tone all the time.

Aside from the fact that there’s nothing wrong with going with the one qualified jurist who has a background not currently represented on the Court, Obama’s choice of the judge who had faced the earliest, most pointed racist and sexist critiques from the right and a horrible article in “even the liberal” New Republic is a welcome sign. It shows critics and supporters alike that he’s not afraid of the fight, not afraid to put some political capital behind a judge with a working-class background and impeccable credentials. After the news of recent weeks, with discussions of indefinite detentions and restarting military tribunals, a signal from Obama that he hasn’t forgotten his roots is a move in the right direction.

Of course we can prepare for more racist, sexist Bingo in the upcoming fight. No doubt there will be more hints that Sotomayor isn’t that smart, that she isn’t qualified, that there’s some white guy out there being oppressed by the fact that Obama’s chosen a Latina. Post-Sarah Palin, it could be harder for the GOP to turn around and make the predictable sexist cracks, though, and post-Michael Steele, when at least part of the party seems to realize it has a diversity problem, can they afford to vote against the first Latina nominee to the court?

Sotomayor--A Yankees Fan?

I might have to reconsider my support of Sotomayor:

Sotomayor, an ardent New York Yankees fan, issued an injunction against baseball team owners in 1995 for alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act. The owners had sought to end the existing free agency and salary arbitration systems and imposed a lock-out against players as negotiations crumbled. The ruling ended the strike, which had begun on Aug. 12, 1994 and ended up cancelling the World Series that season.

Her opposition to baseball owners in the strike is good I guess, but can America afford to have a Yankees fan on the high court?

I say no.

On Obama's possible Supreme picks.

Greenwald has an excellent piece on Sonia Sotomayor (and as usual, rips Establishment media a new one for using anonymous sources in the process).

I know far, far less than he does about Sonia Sotomayor or about the relative fitness of judicial nominees for the job. I was far more qualified to talk about Sarah Palin and the attacks leveled at her for being an affirmative action hire, a pretty dumb chick whose appeal was solely prurient.

Rebecca Traister pointed out the obvious gender bias to the TNR piece in question, a bias that is only multiplied by her being of Puerto Rican descent, as Adam Serwer notes. She's bossy! She doesn't shut up! She's not that smart--Obama is prioritizing diversity! (The Clarence Thomas arguments, of course, are too obvious.)

When Bush nominated Harriet Miers for the Court, we heard similar arguments about her intellectual ability--and we didn't argue. When Sarah Palin got the Republican VP nomination, we giggled and made our own jokes. Now Obama's nominees will face the same kind of criticisms, ones that would never be leveled at a white guy up for the same job, and what do we say?

It's a double bind. We don't want to be unable to criticize female nominees or people of color (*cough cough* Gonzalez--or closer to home, Roland Burris) but we need to be consistent in noting the difference between substantive attacks and gender or racially motivated ones. It's entirely possible that Sonia Sotomayor is not the best choice for the Supreme Court, but I very much doubt that she's any less "smart" than Thomas, Alito, or any number of federal judges that the Right (or the nominal left as represented by TNR) would have no problem with--because they're white and male.

The fact is, when it comes to the Supreme Court, there are probably many lawyers and judges and law professors who would do as good or better jobs than the people already on there. There's no one best person for the job, and it's also fairly difficult to predict how justices will rule once confirmed (note that the retiring Souter was nominated by George H.W. Bush and became one of the reliable liberal members of the Court). So there's absolutely nothing wrong with picking a qualified justice who comes from a different ethnic and class background than the rest of the Court for the sake of diversity.