pageok
pageok
pageok
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.
Oren:
6 Catholics, 2 Jews and lonely JPS, the only protestant. Bizarre.
5.26.2009 11:34am
Terrivus:
I guess we can expect the same subtle digs at Catholicism we saw during the Alito confirmation process. Right?

(crickets chirping)
5.26.2009 11:34am
Anon21:
If that feisty old Stevens will just hurry up and retire, we can finally realize (re-realize?) the dream of a Court composed entirely of Harvard and Yale Law attendees.
5.26.2009 11:35am
rosetta's stones:
Can she handle the rock, though? The Supremes need a PG for the rec league, with Souter retiring.
5.26.2009 11:36am
Anon21:
Terrivus:
I guess we can expect the same subtle digs at Catholicism we saw during the Alito confirmation process. Right?

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?
5.26.2009 11:36am
TalkingHead:
I believe she would be the first Catholic appointed to the Court by a Democratic President since Griswold.
5.26.2009 11:37am
JonC:
First former district court judge since Justice Charles Evan Whittaker left the Court in 1962.
5.26.2009 11:40am
Anon21:
TalkingHead:
I believe she would be the first Catholic appointed to the Court by a Democratic President since Griswold.

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.
5.26.2009 11:42am
Oren:
I'm sure Scalia will be happy to have someone else from NYC on the court.
5.26.2009 11:42am
OrinKerr:
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?

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.
5.26.2009 11:43am
Anon21:
Prof. Kerr:
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.
5.26.2009 11:47am
Terrivus:
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.

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.
5.26.2009 11:49am
Terrivus:
If so, then his reference to "the Alito confirmation process" was misleading.

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.
5.26.2009 11:51am
metro1 (mail) (www):
There seems to be a dearth of commentary on this point - and lack of short-term historical memory. If Hispanics (and/or others) were so concerned about having a Hispanic on the Supreme Court, why didn't they object more when Senate Democrats blocked even having a vote on Miguel Estrada for the D.C. Court of Appeals - and likely nomination thereafter to the U.S. Supreme Court (by George W. Bush)?

See here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77667,00.html
5.26.2009 12:06pm
Aultimer:

why didn't [Hispanics] object more when Senate Democrats blocked even having a vote on Miguel Estrada for the D.C. Court of Appeals?

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.
5.26.2009 12:12pm
Redman:
And the most racist nominee since Hugo Black.
5.26.2009 12:16pm
metro1 (mail) (www):
Aultimer:

That was a non-sequitor. Any response to my original question?
5.26.2009 12:22pm
Hauk (mail):
If that feisty old Stevens will just hurry up and retire, we can finally realize (re-realize?) the dream of a Court composed entirely of Harvard and Yale Law attendees.

Obama gets no points for educational diversity of his pick.

Princeton Law grads never seem to get a fair shake in the confirmation sweepstakes.
5.26.2009 12:26pm
Cityduck (mail):
I give Obama huge kudos for nominating someone who actually tried cases and served as a district court judge. The last thing the S.Ct. needed is yet another person whose legal experience is limited to political or academic experience followed by time on an appellate court.
5.26.2009 12:42pm
LLVH:

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.
5.26.2009 12:43pm
Eric Muller (www):
She's Princeton/Yale, just like Alito!
5.26.2009 12:50pm
Alyse615 (mail):

Princeton Law grads never seem to get a fair shake in the confirmation sweepstakes.


Princeton does not have a law school.
5.26.2009 12:51pm
studentactivism.net (www):
As long as we're tossing stats around, how about this, from Hala Gorani of CNN (I haven't done the math myself)?

Sotomayor's confirmation would reduce the total historical representation of white men on SCOTUS from 96.3% to 95.5%.
5.26.2009 12:54pm
Terrivus:
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.
5.26.2009 1:13pm
Desiderius:
Oren,

"6 Catholics, 2 Jews and lonely JPS, the only protestant. Bizarre."

The abdication nears completion.
5.26.2009 1:15pm
Patrick from OZ (mail):
Cityduck, didn't Roberts have about 12 years private practice in just the kind of cases that the SC hears?

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).
5.26.2009 1:27pm
studentactivism.net (www):
Which theory of proportional representation were you referring to, Terrivus? Because I didn't advance or embrace any such thing.

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?
5.26.2009 1:33pm
Terrivus:
Which theory of proportional representation were you referring to, Terrivus? Because I didn't advance or embrace any such thing.

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!
5.26.2009 2:09pm
DangerMouse:
There were plenty of attacks on Catholics by the libs in the MSM. Here's a good example.

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.
5.26.2009 2:10pm
studentactivism.net (www):
By my count, Terrivus, mine was the ninth piece of demographic trivia about the Sotomayor nomination posted in the thread. Did all the others represent an embrace of proportional representation too? Or are race and gender the only topics we're not allowed to broach?

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.
5.26.2009 2:18pm
Cityduck (mail):
Roberts has no trial experience. His experience arguing appeals is no more beneficial than deciding them. The problem with the S.Ct. is the dearth of trial court experience.
5.26.2009 2:36pm
Patrick from OZ (mail):
Well, I massively disagree with your second sentence, in fact I would almost say that experience arguing appeals is an essential pre-requisite to deciding them (and in this the Presidents of the last 30 years agree with me), and I wonder how much your first is contradicted by his time at DoJ, but there is a point that a SC should have some trial experience.

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.
5.26.2009 2:49pm
Joseph Slater (mail):
why didn't [Hispanics] object more when Senate Democrats blocked even having a vote on Miguel Estrada for the D.C. Court of Appeals?

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.
5.26.2009 3:35pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
First Justice with a (now-longest) four syllable last name.
5.26.2009 4:43pm
metro1 (mail) (www):
Joseph Slater:

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)?
5.26.2009 7:35pm
Michael J.Z. Mannheimer (mail):
Leo Marvin,

You forgot about Justice Willis Van Devanter.
5.26.2009 10:00pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
MJZM,

I didn't think that qualified as a single last name.
5.27.2009 1:58am
Joseph Slater (mail):
Metro1:

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.
5.27.2009 9:57am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

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.