If the White House and Democrats have gained political insight from the experience of the first 100 days, Barack Obama's first nomination to the Supreme Court will put these skills to the test.
The White House might want to brief those liberal activists pushing Obama to nominate 2nd Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor on one lesson in particular: the predecisional period -- the period before the White House engages on a particular issue -- is much more important than it seems. (Just ask anyone at the Department of the Treasury about this.)
Few outside the White House know whether the Sotomayor chatter is based on anything other than her popularity among center-left jurists, although her name has been the subject of conversation among some top officials recently. Sotomayor is seen as a compassionate voice for the underprivileged, and she has a solid, if unspectacular, record of jurisprudence. (For that reason alone, I don't know if she'll make the short list; Obama seems to go for the superlatives.)
Conservative talk radio hosts have begun impugning
Sotomayor's credibility. And the respectable intellectual center -- see
Jeffrey Rosen's case against her temperament and inherent intellectual abilities -- is beginning to have doubts.
There's a defense of Sotomayor somewhere out there -- her family history, stories of personal compassion, her best rulings -- but no one is making it. And for those who want Obama to nominate Sotomayor, that's a mistake.
The
White House remains in lockdown over the nomination. They're not
floating trial balloons. The pat responses from the White House about
the qualities Obama wants in a nominee are not about selling any
particular nominee. So the White House is not defending any prospective
choice.
If Sotomayor
loses control of her public image before her nomination, then liberal
groups will have trouble in the months ahead. Obama's nominee will
probably pass through the Senate fairly easily, but a discredited
nominee -- even though she might make it to the Court -- will not. A
Supreme Court fight is bound to energize liberals.
Based
on prior practices, if there is any political calculation involved at
all, Obama wants to avoid energizing conservatives. He'd prefer to
enervate them. Of course, finding an unimpeachable nominee who is
acceptable to the left and doesn't light a fire under the right is
difficult.
I suspect that most Hispanic
pressure groups who want Sotomayor (she'd be the first Latina on the
court) don't realize that if they don't fight back, then Sotomayor will
be perfunctorily vetted and then jettisoned. This is one time when the
White House wants the interest groups to help them frame the politics.
(If a consensus choice emerges among liberals and is acceptable to
Obama -- watch out!)
Sotomayor is credentialed and perceived as qualified -- even as this
next appointment is openly discussed within a gender and ethnicity
context. How large is the pool of similarly perceived Latinas?
So far, Hispanic groups don't appear to have a process or strategy of securing liberal and Democratic support for
the idea of Latina as the next nominee -- a process that precedes, in
time, a White House decision.
And the respectable intellectual center -- see Jeffrey Rosen's case against her temperament and inherent intellectual abilities -- is beginning to have doubts.
First off, Rosen's article is about as far from the "respectable intellectual center" as you can get. It's a bunch of anonymously sourced courtroom gossip, and Rosen even admits that he hasn't read enough of Sotomayor's decisions to form an actual informed opinion of her. Glenn Greenwald has a more thorough takedown here.
Second, it seems more than a little presumptuous to be offering advice to liberal groups and the Obama administration based on what is, at this point, mostly wild speculation.
Good.
Jump in that pool with Rosen so that wingnuttia can point to 2 of you "liberals" that are against a nominee that hasn't even been nominated yet.
Marc, this is really weak stuff.
"Conservative talk radio hosts have begun impugning Sotomayor's credibility."
Well, duh. They're going to impunge the credibility of whoever is rumored to be picked, no matter how good that person is.
"And the respectable intellectual center -- see Jeffrey Rosen's case against her temperament and inherent intellectual abilities -- is beginning to have doubts."
This is the main claim of the article. Do you...actually have any evidence for it? One incredible hack of an article that Rosen wrote that's getting absolutely slammed everywhere for his lack of research. Is that all your proof of doubts among the intellectual center? You just kind of threw this line in and moved on even though it really serves as the whole basis for your "Sotomayor at risk" claim. Unless you have more you didn't mention, it looks from here to be really bad journalism to base an article and draw such broad conclusions on something that flimsy. Don't turn into one of those ridiculous pundits, Marc.
Both of you ignore the main and solid point: Sotomayor isn't going to make it if someone doesn't crank up a noise machine in her favor. That's just life. It's what happened to Harriet Miers and while it was probably deserved there; it's not here. Plus; the hispanic and women's groups would do well to fight for not only Sotomayor but the idea of the court NEEDING a minority voice right now.
With a black president; this isn't a self-evident sell right now.
See I just don't get this. "Sotomayor isn't going to make it". This is just taken as fact. There are going to be 60 Democrats by then, 10 more than necessary. Do you really think 11 Democrats are going to vote against any decently qualified candidate (which she self-evidently is)? Everyone seems to have this great fear that Republicans will...whine really loudly. Which they're absolutely certain to do anyway.
And I have to say, perhaps the worst thing ever for Republicans' future electoral prospects would be for the first Hispanic nominee to be (somehow) torpedoed because Republicans spent months talking about race and minorities and how she wasn't qualified and just an affirmative action hire. So I really don't see that as a bad thing, though I do see it as virtually impossible.
I agree with Rhoda to a point, namely that someone needs to crank up a noise machine in her favor. However, while it's obviously necessary that the women's and Hispanic groups need to be involved, they can't be the only ones. Every post I've read about Sotomayor has either been about her gender and ethnicity, or been a comment on how every article about Sotomayer has been about her race and ethnicity. This type of exposure almost precludes Obama from being able to nominate her, because that kind of publicity coming from groups with an obvious bias in favor of a candidate riles up the far right conservatives who are probably still a little irritated that Obama was one of many Democrats to do everything in their power to fight Bush on just about every one of his nominations (I'm not saying either side was or is right or wrong, just how I see it playing out). As someone who spends a lot of time looking at blogs/news articles as mini breaks from studying, I can honestly say I have yet to read a single objective article about anything Sotomayor has accomplished, and that is the kind of publicity Sotomayor or any SCOTUS candidate needs. By beginning with a candidate's race and/or gender first, instead of beginning with qualifications, the argument is automatically polarized. Were I part of Obama's team, I would try to frame any candidate support in terms of record and experience, and let someone else bring up the race or gender, regardless of whether or not it's a factor in the decision of whom to nominate.
"This type of exposure almost precludes Obama from being able to nominate her, because that kind of publicity coming from groups with an obvious bias in favor of a candidate riles up the far right conservatives"
We're dealing with far right conservatives. They're going to be riled up over a Supreme Court pick *no matter who it is*. Why people think Obama should base his actions on trying to avoid the inevitable rage of a powerless minority is beyond me.
True, the far right, ultraconservatives, etc. will be riled up regardless. But the point I was trying to make was that their whining and influence on more moderate conservatives can be reduced, or "enervated", so to speak, if Obama frames the debate of his selection for SCOTUS on resume and experience, rather than gender and ethnicity. Without conceding anything, Obama can at least appear to be more bipartisan (not to mention, isn't this how SCOTUS nominations should be done anyway?). And while it's true that that minority is powerless now, the Republicans had the exact same thoughts 5 years ago (see Rove, Karl), and that attitude has obviously not helped them at all.
Ambinder loves gossip.
Yes, Sotomayer's public image is at risk from the horrendously Photoshopped image of her on this site.
Also, Ambinder may want to look around a bit before claiming that "no one" is making the case for Sotomayer. Maybe "no one" that Marc listens to is doing so, but then again, maybe Marc listens only to Mr. Anonymous.
You'd have to be an idiot to think that, no matter what happens, people aren't going to try to smear potential Supreme Court nominees. You'd also have to be an idiot to think that having well-known liberal/ethnic/feminist organizations coming out in her favor wouldn't prompt a different type of smear (OMG an ACTIVIST JUDGE!). If the goal is to minimize the amount of time allocated for politically-motivated backlash against whoever the nominee might be, then it probably makes sense for the Obama Admin to stay silent as long as possible.
So, the question remains: Is there somebody who will both stand up for Sotomayer AND be taken seriously by Marc Ambinder &co? Jury's out.
"...Jeffrey Rosen's case"-- see: smear
Rosen's brother-in-law was a clerk for another 2nd circuit judge and stands to gain from Jeff's torpedo, was he one the anonymous sources?
Check out the beat-down Greenwald gives Rosen's "case" against.
Marc, You're better than this. It's the worst kind of beltway circle-jerk, house-of-cards nonsense. It's the media creating the story.
1. Media speculates on candidates. Fine.
2. Rosen (carrying water for his bro-in-law?) prints catty gossip. Weak.
3. Right-wing bloggers repeat it with glee. Expected.
4. Ambinder repeats #2 and #3 as "conventional wisdom." Poor.
5. Ambinder justifies newsworthiness of #4 by saying, "it's the system. I'm just reporting the political reality."
And the wheel goes round and round.
"There's a defense of Sotomayor somewhere out there -- her family history, stories of personal compassion, her best rulings -- but no one is making it"
Here's one:
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2009/05/on-the-brilliance-of-people-like-judge-sonia-sotomayor-and-barack-obama.html
Marc,
You left out attribution for the following statement:
"Sotomayor is seen as a compassionate voice for the underprivileged, and she has a solid, if unspectacular, record of jurisprudence."
Where does that come from? If it comes from your reporting, on what do you base your conclusions?
On her record:
Are you a lawyer? Did you read many, most, all of her rulings? What, exactly, would make her record spectacular? What makes her record solid? Who are you comparing her with? What judge do you consider spectacular?
On her compassion:
Who sees her as a "compassionate for the underprivileged?" Are you inferring that because she's a Latina woman? Because she comes from a humble background? Because she's a Democrat? Does that come from other reporters? From the blogosphere? Where's your attribution?
And please don't tell me that this is not the main thrust of your article, and thus unimportant. It's vitally important. Your assertions are dismissive and pejorative, and without attribution. If they're simply your opinion, please indicate what you base them on. You must have reasons for writing these things.
Without solid evidence that what you say is true, or at least has merit, you're working an insidious deception: throw someone under the bus with a backhanded "compliment," blame the other guys for starting the trouble, then distance yourself from the issue and pretend you had nothing to do with the mess, and claim you're just a disinterested third-party observer who's above the fray.
Exactly what has caused you to conclude these things about Sotomayor?
Who among the writers and commentators here have ever appeared before Sotomayor or met her in any way. I can't see how those who have not can opine on her suitability. And the stuff about Rosen's brother-in-law?
One U.S. Supreme Justice Can
Truly Reflect The New America
Admittedly, there are a rare few choices that may fit the bill for President Obama's U.S. Supreme Court choice. Nevertheless, the field can be narrowed to seven key candidate factors: 1) an exceptional standard of qualifications, integrity and recognition by their peers, 2) a record of public involvement beyond their practice and politics, 3) must complement the general face of a changing America, 4) have a record of understanding the international ramifications and relevance of law to American life, 5) bring a judicial independence that is not dependent on principled partisan ethics, 6) a record of genuinely knowing, understanding and enforcing the U.S. Constitution without fear or favor, and 7) bring an added perspective to the High Court that is usually and historically excluded, but undeniably necessary in the true balance of justice.
If I thought like Obama in these challenging and hope filled times, and the seven factors above truly mattered, the choice would logically and confidently come down to only one person. The Honorable Judge Vanessa Ruiz of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Dennis Moore, Publisher & CEO
http://www.POTUSWorld.com
ppceo@POTUSWorld.com