So, who'd you put your money on...

[GrayMatterWife]

for the Supreme Court nominee?

I've been back-and-forth-and-again between Sotomayor, Kagan, and Woods, but I've finally decided to bet on Woods. Sotomayor has being Hispanic in her favor, but she's also kind of known for being nasty from the bench and kind of a nut. Kagan is sufficient leftie, certainly, but she has no bench experience. Woods taught at U of Chicago with Obama, and she's super-left on the abortion issue.

Anyone with other thoughts?

[DCJenn]

I'm sort of leaning to a dark horse candidate. (as yet unknown)

Jenn

[GrayMatterWife]

I'm sort of leaning to a dark horse candidate. (as yet unknown)

Jenn

Oooooh...mysterious! Maybe he'll nominate his wife. She's a lawyer, she's well-liked, and it will be the first time in American history where the focus of the Senate confirmation heearing will be the nominee's position on how to get toned biceps and whether a sleeveless A-line dress is appropriate after Labor Day (provided that its not coupled with white shoes).

[DCJenn]

I'm not sure I can see Michelle Obama sitting quietly on the bench.

I also think that it's going to be a candidate that he likes personally, and it may not be a woman.

Jenn

[Momo]

Well at least we can safely assume it won't be a Harriet Meyers type!

[GrayMatterWife]

Well at least we can safely assume it won't be a Harriet Meyers type!

Very well could be, actually. Harriet Miers was picked because of how well the Presidence knew her personally. I totally see that happening with Wood.

For whatever it's worth, Ms. Miers got really unfair treatment by the press. She is actually an extremely bright and accomplished attorney who is held in very high regard in Texas. She is exactly what women's rights advocates should have championed: she made it big in the rough world of the Texas Ol' Boys club of Big Firm life at a time when there were very few female players. And she made tremendous sacrifices to do it. But she's pro-life, so she's not really a woman. Or at least, not an enlightened one worthy of advocacy. The women's libbers of course had no respect for her and the press made her look like a timid mouse--which is not the case at all.

Of course, there's a bit of a haha on them--Sam Alito kicks butt! He'll be way more of a headache for their causes than Miers would've been!

[SuzySunshine]

According to the NYT:

The president has narrowed his list to four, according to people close to the White House — two federal appeals judges, Sonia Sotomayor of New York and Diane P. Wood of Chicago, and two members of his administration, Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

[GrayMatterWife]

It's Sotomayor.

She's very, very left. And very activist. She will definitely embody Obama's desire to have someone focused on "empathy" as versus the language of the law. Which is good, I guess, if her empathies happen to be congruent with your empathies...

[MrsK]

http://http://www.npr.org/blogs/thet...t_nominee.html

You're right.

[Sheherezade]

Don't know much about her. I suppose I'll hear a lot today. So far all I've heard is that she was appointed to judgeship by Bush Sr. moved up the ladder by Clinton and that she won't change the balance of the court significantly. That...and her hard luck background story.

Should be an interesting morning on the Diane Rehm show. I'd imagine that's what she's discussing. I was getting tired of the book reviews.

[Meenah]

No surprise I am happy with his choice. It should be interesting to see how long the process takes and how much of a circus it becomes.

[GrayMatterWife]

Don't know much about her. I suppose I'll hear a lot today. So far all I've heard is that she was appointed to judgeship by Bush Sr. moved up the ladder by Clinton and that she won't change the balance of the court significantly. That...and her hard luck background story.

Should be an interesting morning on the Diane Rehm show. I'd imagine that's what she's discussing. I was getting tired of the book reviews.

She's been on the 2d Cir Ct of App for a long time (appted there by Clinton, elevated from the US Dist Ct). She does not have a reputation for being intellectually strong. She's been overturned by the Supremes almost every time she's been appealed. She speaks frequently on the issue of gender and racial/ethnic identity politics and the judiciary. She argues that because she's a minority (both a woman and a Latina), she is better qualified to be a jurist than a man or a caucasian. Not equally qualified--better qualified; and not because of her academic qualifications or body of professional experience, but because of her race and gender.

Obama's choice shouldn't surprise anyone. He wasn't looking for a concensus builder or someone who has a great respect for the law as our elected officials wrote it. He was looking for someone--under the empty rhetoric of "empathy"--who will promote a nonstatutory social agenda. Despite how the press tried to portray him, he was never about creating a middle ground or coming to a concensus. What he says (because it sounds good) and what he does (because it effects his politically leanings) are very different.

It's just like this nonsense about the goal of his administration being "to reduce the need for abortions." It sounds, very superficially, like he wants to reduce the number of abortions (which seems like a nice "middle" ground position). But that's not what he's really saying--he doesn't care about reducing abortions; his goal could easily be achieved by increasing the number of abortions and widening abortion availability--because it would be defined by the woman's "need" (desire) for one. And his acts confirm that: he places very staunch abortion rights advocates in his administration (no "middle ground" people and certainly no one who wants to reduce the number of abortions). His talk and his acts are different.

Unless there is some skeleton in the closet, she'll get confirmed because he's got the votes.

[Sheherezade]

I only read about the single instance with claim that a Latina woman would have better judgment than a white man (inflammatory statement that!) and that there is no universal definition of wisdom. Both were made in response to a statement from Sandra Day O'Connor that "an old wise man and an old wise woman would reach the same conclusions". In the same speech, there was a reference to appeals court being "where policies get made". (ETA: This was a separate interview actually in 2005) Other than that unfortunate speech, I haven't seen other statements to this effect from her. Is that "frequent"? (2001 speech published in 2002)

I think most of the intellectual heft criticism came from this Jeffry Rosen article

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085

in the New Republic with mostly unnamed sources. It was widely disputed by her coworkers afterwards. Even he said that the title of the article was not his nor was making a case against her from this little bit of gossip his intention (in the follow-up response article here http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...1-2204a0d84478 ).

I have heard that her opinions are unremarkable but solidly written. I have heard that there were more qualified candidates. I have heard that the left is pissed he didn't go more left. I have heard that the most memorable decision she handed down was ending the strike in MLB. (She's locked up the baseball vote....)



I like that she was a NYC criminal lawyer first and then a corporate lawyer. She has worked in both realms. I also like that she dismissed both abortion-y cases that came before her. (Here:

• Center for Reproductive Law & Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002). Plaintiff public interest organization challenged the “Mexico City Policy,” a.k.a. the “global gag rule” and its provisions stripping U.S. aid to foreign NGOs advocating for or performing abortions. In an opinion by Sotomayor, the court dismissed the case for lack of standing, rightly so.
• Port Washington Teachers’ Association v. Board of Education, 478 F.3d 494 (2d Cir. 2007). Plaintiff teachers challenged a school district policy, which suggested teachers should report student pregnancies to the student’s parents. In an opinion which Sotomayor joined, the court dismissed the case for lack of standing, noting that, because the policy was not mandatory, objecting teachers wouldn’t be fired for “violating it.” Again, the court is strictly correct. )

I don't mind that she is a Latino woman. I agree with Ginsberg that if 50% of the population is female it would be nice to have additional representation on the court.

[GrayMatterWife]

I have heard that her opinions are unremarkable but solidly written.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment. The issue certainly couldn't be whether she is qualified. She's been a federal judge for forever and has tons of experience writing opinions. She's definitely qualified. But I fundamentally disagree with the Administration's argument that the job of a federal judge is to show "empathy." No, actually--it's the exact opposite. Pre-existing "empathy" or leanings are dangerous. A judge's job is to be unbiased and without prejudices or preconceived notions, to ensure that all parties receive a fair hearing and consideration. The judge's job is to follow the law without passionate predisposition, because the proper administration of the law ensures justice--not the prosecution of the personal beliefs or predilections of the judge. So I am gunshy about her, because all indications are that she shares the Administration's belief about what a judge should be doing.

But then, "empathy" and judicial activitism is always promoted by people who can't get what they want from the law through the legislative process.

[GrayMatterWife]

Is that "frequent"? (2001 speech published in 2002).

She speaks with regularity at judicial conferences and legal symposia. They just don't get recorded or published. She's a very well-known entity. And it's not uncommon--lots of federal judges speak publicly, especially to other lawyers. In the constitutional legal community, nothing about her is a surprise. The issue is how the public will take her thoughts. But it doesn't matter. The Republicans won't put up a fight because they are afraid of looking "anti-Latina," even though legitimate issues with her would have nothing to do with her ethnicity. And why should they bother, anyway? She'll get confirmed and there will be another battle to fight once Ginburg has to retire here, fairly shortly.