Some Sotomayor Stats:
If I'm not mistaken, she would be the third Yale Law grad of the nine Justices on the Court; the sixth Catholic; the ninth former court of appeals Judge; and the first Second Circuit judge to get the nod since Thurgood Marshall in 1967.
(crickets chirping)
I guess we can expect some support for the proposition that there were such digs, apart from the fevered ramblings of the intellectual heavyweights at NRO and RedState. Right?
By my count, Sotomayor makes the fifth Democratic post-Griswold pick. Given the small sample size, I'm not sure the correlation you note is in any way significant.
I'm not sure, but I think he may be referring to the controversial comments of University of Chicago Law Professor (and former Dean) Geoffrey Stone made after Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007.
If so, then his reference to "the Alito confirmation process" was misleading.
Precisely, although I was mistaken in believing this came out during Alito's process. Thanks for correcting that. (Maybe Dean Stone is not Anon21's idea of an "intellectual heavyweight.")
Also, there was no shortage of articles during Alito's process commenting on the new "Catholic majority," with subtle undertones of the effect of this on the Court's jurisprudence. Despite the addition of a sixth Justice to this number, somehow I have a feeling the reaction will be less muted this time around.
You got me, Anon21. Cold busted. I tried to pull the wool over your eyes, but you totally called me out on it with your demonstrably refutable post.
See here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77667,00.html
Same reason Republicans whining about Obama's lack of military experience didn't vote for Wes Clark for president. Either that or they wanted Miguel to be available to argue their cert petition.
That was a non-sequitor. Any response to my original question?
Obama gets no points for educational diversity of his pick.
Princeton Law grads never seem to get a fair shake in the confirmation sweepstakes.
Princeton Law grads never seem to get a fair shake in the confirmation sweepstakes.
I am still pissed that they killed Philip Banks' nomination to the high court. Just because there were two Vivian Banks, it does not mean my man committed adultery.
Princeton does not have a law school.
Sotomayor's confirmation would reduce the total historical representation of white men on SCOTUS from 96.3% to 95.5%.
But as one of nine Justices, she will only "represent" 11% of the country on the Supreme Court. And the latest census figures show Hispanics being around 15% of the country. So Obama's next nomination will need to be half Hispanic--but not more so. The nominee will also need to be female, and Protestant, and maybe Asian, and also gay.
At least, that's where this theory of proportional representation leads you.
"6 Catholics, 2 Jews and lonely JPS, the only protestant. Bizarre."
The abdication nears completion.
Stevens had about twenty years, and Kennedy as well had a good stint. So not such bad representation.
But Roberts and Sotomayor had better hope they hit it off - both 54, they could be seeing a lot of each other for the next 30+ years!! (Alito and Thomas are not so old, also).
Let's hope the trend to younger nominations helps encourage others to make sure Souter is not the first to retire before hitting the eighties. I can easily see someone who has 25 years on the court thinking that 80 is a good time to go. Justice Ginsburg, there will never be a better time! (I suspect there is little merit in appealing to Stevens until he gets to 36 and a bit more years sometime in 2011).
Isn't it possible to be happy that the bigoted exclusion of women and people of color from our nation's highest court has come to an end? Isn't the passing of that long-standing pernicious prejudice something to celebrate on the day that the Supreme Court has seen its first-ever nomination of a woman of color?
Except that it's pretty clearly implied in the statistic you chose to quote. Indeed, it's the theoretical basis of the statistic's significance; otherwise, there's no reason to point it out.
Isn't it possible to be happy that the bigoted exclusion of women and people of color from our nation's highest court has come to an end? Isn't the passing of that long-standing pernicious prejudice something to celebrate on the day that the Supreme Court has seen its first-ever nomination of a woman of color?
Jeepers: "bigoted exclusion"? "long-standing pernicious prejudice"? By whom? Your revealing use of the passive voice doesn't give an answer. By the Court itself? Past presidents? The American people? The latter still hasn't elected a Hispanic female president, or any female, for that matter. Are we all carrying out this same bigoted, pernicious prejudice?
I guess the struggle never ends, studentactivism.net. Carry forth!
Of course, that's because they had a different view about the Constitutionality of abortion. Since Sotomayor was nominated by the Infanticide President, it's safe to say that she's pro-abortion. Given her racist views, it's no surprise that she'd have appropriate empathy for a practice that in effect has culled the minority population for some time.
And my mention of bigoted exclusion gets a "jeepers" from you? Really? You seriously think it was a coincidence that no person of color was nominated to the Court before Marshall, and no woman before O'Connor? I would have thought that it was uncontroversial to note that bigotry kept the Court white and male for generations, and uncontroversial to cheer the demise of that prejudice.
Guess I was wrong. Huh.
But maybe not that much - in your country more than most, they are first and foremost a Constitutional court, hearing cases of federal (mainly administrative) and Constitutional law. Exactly the kind of cases Roberts argued.
Since you're posting this exact comment in every single thread, metro1, I'll repeat my response in one other thread.
Yeah, it's awfully weird. See also the fact that the black community as a whole was never terribly enthusiastic about C. Thomas, M. Steele, or A. Keyes. It's almost as if these communities care more about substantive positions of people involved instead of their race.
So Hispanics are in greater agreement with the substantive positions of Judge Satomayor than those of Miguel Estrada?
Fascinating.
On what do you base this opinion?
And I didn't know Michael Steele or Alan Keyes were being considered for appointment to the bench. I suppose they would be just as good judges as, say, Terry McAuliffe or Gary Condit. Are they being considered for the bench too?
Seriously, isn't it fair - in response to a discussion of ramifications for objecting to the (arguably) first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee - to ask where were similar objections to Miguel Estrada (who was likely headed for the Supreme Court) - and was blocked by Senate Democrats)?
You forgot about Justice Willis Van Devanter.
I didn't think that qualified as a single last name.
Well, let's see. Hispanics voted, majority, for Obama, for one.
Steele and Keyes were further examples of a minority group, as a whole, going for policy as opposed to pigmentation. You seemed surprised that a minority group did that with Estrada, so I was giving other examples in the political universe.
And seriously, although the Republicans want to pretend that any opposition to Sotomayor is being drowned out by a chorus of "you're a racist!" it simply isn't remotely true.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.