The LA Times reports:
The early returns are in, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor is proving herself to be a reliable liberal vote on the Supreme Court.
Cases this year on campaign speech, religion, juvenile crime, federal power and Miranda warnings resulted in an ideological split among the justices, and on every occasion, Sotomayor joined the liberal bloc.
“There was some anxiety among liberals last year that she would be to the right of Justice [David] Souter, especially on criminal law, but so far that has not been borne out,” Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf said of Sotomayor and her predecessor. “She is clearly part of the liberal wing.”
I don’t think this is all that surprising. I don’t believe there was ever much reason to think that Justice Sotomayor would be to the “right” of Justice Souter. Her experience as a prosecutor and trial judge is likely to inform her view of what occurs at the trial court level, but I don’t think such experience will necessarily make a nominee more “conservative” on criminal justice issues. As I wrote before (see here and here), those areas in which they are most likely to differ do not divide the Court along traditional right-left lines. In addition, there are other areas (such as punitive damages) where Justice Sotomayor could easily be to Justice Souter’s left. But these are only “early returns” and it is too soon to tell. We won’t have a clear picture of Justice Sotomayor’s jurisproduce for quite some time, and (like her predecessor) her approach to certain issues may evolve over time.
Pragmaticist says:
“…in other news, dog bites man…”
June 12, 2010, 6:07 pmruuffles says:
This basis for the meme is particularly misguided, since both Warren and Souter were prosecutors.
Also campaign finance, one of the few (or only) areas she clearly stated her position.
June 12, 2010, 6:09 pmruuffles says:
Oh and while I look for the pdf on campaign finance, here is a lovely quote quoted from WSJ quoted from OP’s earlier post
Here we go
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=898A7692-18FE-70B2-A8E76D7CB8F120AE
June 12, 2010, 6:15 pmGuy says:
Are people who get the opposite impression working under the assumption that liberals just don’t understand how criminal justice works?
Incidentally, I haven’t been paying much attention to this question, but do we know where she stands on Apprendi issues yet?
June 12, 2010, 6:26 pmdearieme says:
Look, this legal tish-tosh is all very well, but we come to Volokh for commentary on the one-all draw.
June 12, 2010, 6:56 pmspo says:
“We won’t have a clear picture of Justice Sotomayor’s jurisproduce for quite some time, and (like her predecessor) her approach to certain issues may evolve over time.”
We know she isn’t that bright. Did anyone see her response to Kohl’s questioning about term limits–it was incoherent. And her idea that Ginsburg’s dissent would have affirmed the Second Circuit in the Ricci case is just wrong. One would think that a federal judge with 17 years on the bench would be able to read a SCOTUS dissent better than she did, but alas, one would be wrong.
Sotomayor is a middling talent.
June 12, 2010, 8:46 pmMark Field says:
Damn right. Where’s David Post?
June 12, 2010, 9:27 pmBarb says:
Yes, and all of Obama’s appointees will be liberal –and to me, that means, “middling talent.” If she were brilliant and liberal, it would mean she was evil. As it is, liberals either lack common sense or they are committed to licentiousness by the following definitions:
unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral.
going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits; disregarding rules.
or just legislating from the bench over the will of the people.
June 12, 2010, 11:59 pmgrog says:
Damn right. Where’s David Post?
I think he’s huddling with Kopel, looking for a way to quantify how lack of concealed carry led poor people to crash the economy.
June 13, 2010, 12:17 amReaderY says:
I’m shocked, shocked.
June 13, 2010, 2:23 amleo marvin says:
Barb, would I be wrong in assuming you consider the half of the country that supports Obama to be “liberal,” making everyone in that half, according to your formulation above, either evil, witless or licentious? And that’s before you look for mental or character deficiencies in the other half, and surely you don’t think Republicans and conservatives are homogeneously sainted and brilliant? Don’t you find it at all incongruous to believe, as I assume you do, that America is good, yet have such a low opinion of so many Americans?
June 13, 2010, 3:37 amNocomment says:
She loves the popo and no 2 ways about it.
June 13, 2010, 4:26 amspo says:
Barb, you didn’t dispute my assessment nor the evidence I put in my post. So I will put it to you point blank, what did you think of Sotomayor’s answer to Kohl? What did you think of Sotomayor’s assessment that Ginsburg’s dissent would have affirmed the Second Circuit in Ricci?
June 13, 2010, 12:10 pmrpt says:
Jumping the snark.
June 13, 2010, 12:46 pmspo says:
I took Barb’s post as sarcasm–perhaps i was mistaken.
June 13, 2010, 3:02 pmNelson Lee Walker says:
Here’s a practical Tea Party type strategy to create a “Citizen Congress”
A Congress of career politicians will never represent “We the People”, because their highest priority is getting reelected with the help of Big Money.
But “We the People” have more votes than “Big Money” has, and thus can end Congress as a career for professional politicians by never reelecting incumbents.
We can impose single terms every two years, by never reelecting Congress.
Always vote, but only for challengers. Never reelect incumbents.
Keep this up until Congress is mostly “one-termers”, a citizen Congress.
Then keep it up every election, to make a citizen Congress a permanent reality.
Every American’s only intelligent choice is to never reelect anyone in Congress!
The only infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to get a truly new Congress,
and a cleaned up new politics is
NEVER REELECT ANY INCUMBENT! DO IT EVERY ELECTION
tenurecorrupts.com
June 13, 2010, 3:19 pmLeonardo Da Coolest says:
Mmmm. Jurisproduce.
June 13, 2010, 3:37 pmBarb says:
Aw shoot, Rpt, if you meant to insult me, I have no idea what “jumping the snark” means. Is that lawyer talk? I’m pretty well read –compared to the average. So I googled it and I still don’t get it.
Spo, I wasn’t sarcastic. I do think the Far Left champions immorality –death of fetuses and so on.
June 13, 2010, 6:01 pmBarb says:
I don’t know if I would call America good today. I think we made a big error to legalize all abortion from the bench. I think we are wrong to shack-up as we are now doing in droves. Our entertainment media promotes sex outside of marriage routinely –and has finally succeeded in getting a whole generation to emulate that practice –as trial marriage. Our reality shows demonstrate to youth unparalleled shallow character and petty meanness (except Extreme Makeover and the Duggers, Little People, etc.) Media, education, “diversity training” in business,” the “PC” philosophy, courts and legislative bodies are promoting homosexuality and gay marriage. We are sending mothers of babies into war because they joined the military. Corporate America has behaved shamefully –and Congress has, too. Family breakdown and divorce are widespread. We have the most pro-abortion president ever (by his voting record as a legislator) and he will see that we get gay marriage and no limitations on homosexuality in the military– by federal or judicial edict, I’m afaid.
So is America good? I shall sing “God bless America!” this 4th of July. I love America and the good aspects of her freedom. She is still the best country in which to live –but I wonder if we are fast going 180 degrees downward. I wonder if God will let us experience poverty and tragedy, want and hardship, like we’ve never seen in my lifetime on american soil –from natural disaster, enemies within and without, and economic collapse.
As long as the Christian churches keep sending out the missionaries and the disaster aid around the world, God may sustain us for His purposes. But if the church loses its salt and fidelity to the Bible –like the Liberal half of the Episcopalians, look out.
I know that the Republican Party has some phonies who only care about Christian and family values concerns in order to get the Christian vote. Just the way that some Democrats make promises to the minorities, the unions and the poor –for votes.
June 13, 2010, 6:25 pmleo marvin says:
Barb, so you agree with Pat Robertson and Jeremiah Wright that when America suffers it’s because we deserve it? Of course Robertson and Wright would disagree about which sins are being punished, but on the general principle they seem to agree. And you join them?
June 13, 2010, 7:41 pmChrisTS says:
Leo: Why are you FTT?
June 13, 2010, 7:57 pmChrisTS says:
A reasonable error.
June 13, 2010, 7:58 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Recent contributions to this site should remind conservatives (any libertarians having already swallowed their tongues) that any political group that relies on religious zealots in attempting to lash together an effective electoral coalition gets stuck with the entire dogma-over-reason, superstition-over-science enchilada . . . arranged backward, of course, with a large side of bigotry.
June 13, 2010, 8:33 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Arthur, please define “bigotry” in such a way that it encompasses Barb’s use of the word “liberals” and not your use of the term “religious zealots”. Thank you.
June 13, 2010, 9:30 pmleo marvin says:
I can’t stop myself. It’s how I killed my goldfish.
June 13, 2010, 10:47 pmArthur Kirkland says:
A bigot engages in irrational discrimination.
I would not describe someone as a bigot for calling anyone a “liberal” or a “religious zealot.” When one advocates public discrimination against homosexuals (or blacks, or women), however, that is bigotry (regardless of whether the animus derives from supernatural beliefs).
The tie between bigotry and supernatural beliefs is that (1) the irrationality is already in place and (2) some interpretations of some religious dogma involve bigotry; this causes some forms of bigotry (gays, women) to be associated with some current religious positions.
June 13, 2010, 10:58 pmVinny B. says:
Sotomayor a “Reliable Liberal Vote” on the Court
I haven’t been that shocked since the last time my wife said “not tonight honey.”
June 13, 2010, 10:59 pmChris Travers says:
I agree. After all, we should be going back to 10th Century family values…. from Scandinavia! Oh wait… We’re already mostly there……
Funny how a thousand years after the Conversion the social debate is largely unchanged…..
June 14, 2010, 5:34 amCarl The EconGuy says:
Oh!Bummer got what he wanted — another Souter. Yaay!
June 14, 2010, 10:25 amOnline Tea party Newspaper: Less Tax - Less Government says:
[...] “There was some anxiety among liberals last year that she would be to the right of Justice [David] Souter, especially on criminal law, but so far that has not been borne out,” Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf said of Sotomayor and her predecessor. “She is clearly part of the liberal wing.” http://volokh.com/2010/06/12/sotomayor-a-reliable-liberal-vote-on-the-court/ [...]
June 14, 2010, 2:44 pmClarence Thomas for President? | theConstitutional.org says:
[...] many on the left.” I remain unpersuaded. Obama’s first nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, has turned out to be a reliable liberal vote. Given her previous record, this should not have been a surprise; on several key issues, such as [...]
June 16, 2010, 11:15 amDamaging Supreme Court Decision « The Buckeye Voice says:
[...] newest Supreme Court Justice, left-wing liberal, Sonia Sotomayor, nominated by President Barack Obama, cast a concurring opinion. Sonia Sotomayor [...]
June 29, 2010, 1:00 pm