Surprise! It’s Sotomayor?

Okay, I was wrong.  I thought Pretendident Waffles would choose a moderate, centrist, Christian, (Roe threatening?) black woman to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David Souter.  He didn’t.  He chose a moderate, centrist, Catholic, (Roe threatening?) Puerto Rican woman.

In a way, the announcement is kind of anticlimactic; Sotomayor was, being a moderate, centrist, Catholic (Roe threatening?) Puerto Rican woman, at the top of the short list from Day One.  The knocks against her, both left and right, mainly, that she’s a moderate, centrist, Catholic, (Roe threatening?) ballsy, Constitutionally challenged, less-than-100W bulb, have been on the radar for weeks.

However, politically, she’s a slam dunk.  Having an Hispanic surname insulates her from just about all criticism, even though the majority of Latinos in this country are of Mexican, not Puerto Rican descent.  Estimates place Puerto Ricans at less than 10% of the country’s Hispanic population, a distinction that seems lost on most of the bobbleheads on TV.  However, I would think that to at least some people with Spanish surnames, the “they all look alike” aspect of lumping all “Hispanics” together might be a tad offensive.  Then again, with Puerto Ricans being native American citizens, she’s not subject to undue attack from the “dirty Mexicans taking over everything,” immigration folks.

Yet, American politics being what American politics is, the “historic nature” of the nomination of the country’s first “Hispanic” Supreme Court Justice is like Kryptonite against those who would oppose the selection.  In the words of M.C. Hammer, “Can’t Touch This.”  She’s in.

Interestingly, the fact of Sotomayor’s Catholicism has been something of a closely guarded secret, with published biographies of her either skipping, or fudging the question.  In fact, it wasn’t until I heard one of the bubble-headed bleach blondes, (who may, or may not, have been blond, bleach or otherwise, or female; when the TV’s on the news channels I tend to listen with half an ear, more than watch with an eagle eye; it’s a lunch preservation thing) on MSNBO (yeah, yeah, sue me) confirm it that I heard or read anything that stated it as fact.  Sotomayor’s confirmation would bring the number of Catholics on the bench to 6.

Like the pandering opportunist he is, The Celebritician is touting Sotomayor’s “humble beginnings,” as if being a Latina from the projects, having diabetes, being raised by a single mother, (her father died when she was eight) or any other “common touch” factor of her identity gives her special “empathy,” that will matter a whit when she’s being asked to decide Constitutional issues.  In fact, the fact that Sotomayor has asserted similar nonsense tripe thoughts about herself is likely to get her in the most hot water she’s expected to face.  From the New York Times:

In 2001, she gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”In her speech, at a conference on diversity, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion – often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor – that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

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

Another statement that has already drawn criticism from conservative bloggerscame on a video that surfaced in May of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know – 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.”

Some of her notable cases involve the 1995 baseball strike, (she is credited with ending it) her decision that the Freedom of Information Act mandated the release of Vince Foster’s suicide note, her 2006 upholding of warrantless searches, and her part in the New Haven firefighter’s reverse discrimination suit, now before the Supreme Court.   In an article entitled, “The Case Against Sonia Sotomayor,” The New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen (rebutted here by Salon’s Rebecca Traister) reported that while her former clerks call her “demanding,” though, “thoughtful,” and a “rule-bound pragmatist,” whose “humble beginnings” indeed gave her empathy, and that she “remembered their favorite drinks” at monthly,  mandatory, “extended family” card games (she’s single, you know) at her house when she wasn’t making them work late, she does have her faults:

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, “Will you please stop talking and let them talk?”) Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: “She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media.”

Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It’s customary, for examples, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn’t distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions—fixing typos and the like—rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.

So, while it’s easy to see how insecure opponents might shrink back in terror from the assertive, husky-voiced contralto demanding competence of them,  feminists, Obots, the liberal media, (same as Obots) and the Fauxgressos seem mollified, if not thrilled, with Prince Changeling’s choice.  For the other side, it’s yet another pretty effective brush back pitch to the head.  They can stand in the box and take it, hoping the fastball’s  a late-breaking curve, and misses them by inches, they can duck and get out of the way, like wimpy wimps, or, they can charge the mound, challenge the pitcher, and get tossed.  Either way, they lose. I’ve got a feeling they’ll stand in there, lean their heads back at the last minute, step out of the box, yell at the pitcher, and spit.  It’s the only chance they’ve got to take first base; sure, it’s on balls, but it beats a strikeout or a concussion.