Sotomayor's Public Image At Risk, Early

The Atlantic ^ | May 5 2009 | Marc Ambinder

[nickcarraway]

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.

[nickcarraway]

Should conservatives oppose Sotomayor?

Obama will get a nominee on the Supreme Court, and it won't be a conservative. Does anyone disagree with that? Sotomayor (or Napolitano, or Clinton) is probably as little to the left as he would nominate. This may not make much difference on their ultimate decisions as a justice, but shouldn't conservatives want a justice as little to the left as possible?

[FreepShop1]

I think Rahm Emanuel has leaked embarrassing quotes of Sotomayor because they want Elena Kagan instead. but they can’t pass over Sotomayor because the Hispanics will go nuts. So they are trying to discredit her so they can “move on” to the “next best” nominee.

[kjo]

You know....I’m at the point where I’d rather have this communist on the court than Empty Souter. Souter pretended some deep, well-hidden conservativism...but in fact, mostly voted with the communist majority.

At least...with this babe there’s no pretense. Remember, the Constitution is a living, breathing, document.

I’m still shaking my head after reading Empty Souter’s opinion in Kelo v New London.

What a joke George H. W. appointed.

[the_Watchman]

Possible SCOTUS Nominee Sotamayar Ignores Constitution: Court Makes Policy (Video)
Posted on Tuesday, May 05, 2009 5:27:54 AM by DrGop0821
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2244413/posts

Unfortunately, this video post doesn’t spell her name the same[NOT the fault of DrGop0821]. So, it may be hard to find. I found this video link by searching on “SCOTUS” as a keyword.

[goldfinch]

IMO, conservatives should waste little energy and less money on attempting to block Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee. Conservatives should make sure the nominee's bad judicial decisions are made public, and should call make their objections public, but there is nothing to be gained by getting emotionally vested in the fight. Take the easy shots, for sure, but save most of the ammo for fights where we have a bigger chance at influencing the outcome...like the upcoming battles over health care, global warming legislation, and immigration reform.

[Dragonspirit]

I disagree.

It is time for Republicans to fight, and to fight in proportion to the level that Democrats fought against Republican nominees.

Taking the high road is exactly why we’ve gotten walked over so often. It is time that Democrats see what it is like to be obstructed.

[Buckeye McFrog]

paint a nightmare of fascist oppression and attribute it to her (they should get as good st they give...)

[Elle Bee]

She was just thrown out there as a red herring IMHO

.

[goldfinch]

Taking the high road is exactly why we’ve gotten walked over so often. It is time that Democrats see what it is like to be obstructed.

I am not talking about 'taking the high road'. I simply see no reason to waste energy on a fight that we cannot win. If the GOP blocks one flaming liberal judicial nominee, they will simply nominate another, then another, then another. There are an endless supply of loony liberal judges and, from a Conservatives point of view, they are basically interchangeable and, eventually, one will be seated. So there is no reason to pour emotional energy into the battle. It will merely be a distraction from the battles that conservatives have a chance of influencing...like health care, global warming/cap-and-trade, and immigration.

I think the Democrats would be happy as larks if Conservatives allow themselves to be distracted from the big battles. Democrats would far prefer hearing Conservatives spend the summer screaming about Obama's pro-abortion SC nominee, than to have that same level of energy poured into defeating their climate change legislation or their plan to socialize our health care.

The Supreme Court judges nominated by Obama will ALL be pro-abortion and anti-business. Conservatives cannot change that.

[slowhandluke]

Conservatives cannot change that.

With the current Congress, one could argue that there is nothing conservatives can change. Would you suggest we just sit down and shut up until we have the majority in Congress again? Being quiet won't get us there. Until then we have to fight on the important things, or folks won't know what we think is important.

If we fight only on the small things that we think the Democrats will let us have, the image will be presented that we have only small differences with the Democrats.

We have to be seen to be fighting on all the big items, or we'll be seen as not fighting at all.

[goldfinch]

Where did you get the Idea that I thought Conservatives should ‘sit down and shut up”? Or that Conservatives should ‘only fight on the small things the Democrats will let us have’? Are Health Care, Global Warming/Cap and Trade, and Immigration small things, in your opinion? I think all three of those are far bigger issues that one Supreme Court judge. Those issues will have a bigger and more immediate impact on America than replacing a liberal Supreme Court judge with a another liberal Supreme Court judge. And they are issues that the American public holds an opinion that isn't in line with the Democrat's far left position.

I am not even saying that Conservatives should lay down and play dead on the Supreme Court nomination. GOP Senators should ask all the tough questions they can. We should make sure all the bad decisions the judicial candidate has made get brought to the attention of the public. However, I think the SC nomination is less important than the issues I have listed above and I think it would be a major mistake let it take the focus off those issues.

The GOP is not exactly running like a finely oiled machine at the moment. I do not think it is in any kind of shape to fight on multiple fronts. Pick the important ones and build on that.

[writer33]

Obama Begins Search For Authentic Mexican Woman For Supreme Court

[Pharmboy]

The Bushes have damaged our Republic more than the Clintons.

[Dragonspirit]

It isn’t an either/or situation. We can dedicate just as much fight to those issues if and when they are fought regardless of whether we commit to fighting this nomination. We can’t win this one, but we should confront them and obstruct them nonetheless. At the least, we will require them to spend more time battling it and the less time will be available for them to touch those other issues. If we can grind the clock, we should.

[Pharmboy]

You are no deep thinker, that's for sure. Bush I gave us Clinton after saying no to Reaganism by raising taxes and looking confused when running against Bubba; Bush II gave us Obama after running a dreadful administration for the last 4 years of his office. His stand on immigration and his spending were no different than any dummocrat...his tax policies and his WOT were good, but that's it.

Now what we have is an unmitigated disaster...go buy a clue.

[slowhandluke]

Where did I get that idea? From your comment about not fighting where we can’t win. Since they have filibuster proof majorities, there’s no place we can win, except those small bones the Dems might throw our way from time to time.