Sonia Sotomayor for USSC?

[The Minsky Moment]

I think gender's a perfectly reasonable thing to include in your selection. 

That's not the only dimension involved here though.  There is a reason she was chosen over others with more academic firepower, like Wood or Kagan or Sullivan.  There is a political move here where Obama is solidifying Hispanic support and effectively daring the GOP to go negative on her.

[citizen k]

Do you agree with the firefighter v. New Haven decision?

As a policy outcome or as a legal decision under the existing precedential framework?

I'm sure Sotomayor would agree that the policy outcome is what counts.

[Sheilbh]

That's an nteresting observation, but begs the question of "at what point do you eliminate all men from consideration?" Were all possible male candidates, or "white" candidates, eliminated before, or after, you got to "qualified and competant?"

I think you should do it after you've a list of qualified and good candidates. 

I think it should be that you get your list of people you thing could do the job well (and, it should be said that ideology always precedes that stage of things, we just accept that) and then you have other things you're looking for in a candidate.  So if there's not many women who are qualified enough then I'd suggest waiting a while, let a few more mature on the lower benches and thern next time possibly add that to your list, similar with minority candidates.

If there's something the Court is clearly missing then you should put that quite high on the list.  So if you've an area of law that doesn't have a real expert on the bench then it might be worth choosing someone who is renowned in that area of law.  Similarly, I think, if you lack a woman or a minority on the bench then I think it should and can be part of your selection criteria.

Incidentally I think that the importance of ideoogy isn't actually on the major cases that everyone thinks about (abortion and so on) but is often felt in particular areas.  The judges have different histories and expertises.  If you have a liberal judge who is particularly strong in a particular area then very often, I believe, the court will listen to and often support them because he knows most, even if his interpretation's liberal/conservative.  If they're the expert and the other judges, to some extent, defer to them then that's the area were a judge's ideology and judicial philosophy is really important.  I think that's the important way that a judge's ideology can shape the court's interpretation of the law, not the headline 4-5 rulings.

I am not saying anything about the candidates in question, just curious as to how much weight you would put in "female" or "non-white" (whatever the last may actually mean in real terms).  This is all relative, of course.

Yeah.  I suppose I'd say I'm for a sort of soft affirmative action.  I don't think it should be institutionalised and I don't think there should be a number of anything that must be women or minority.  But, I do think that it's fair to include that in your selection procedures if you think that, actually, women or ethnic minorities are under-represented.  As long as they're all qualified and competent then I don't have a problem with it.

[The Minsky Moment]

On my drive home, I was listening to NPR's "All Things Considered" and they had interviews with a lot of people from many political stripes who had had dealings with Sotomayer, and the one thing they all agreed upon was that she was not ideological. 

Come to think of it, although before she was mentioned in this context, I had in my mind the idea that she was left of center, the sole aspect of her judicial "rep" that I can recall ever hearing about is that she was not a great draw if you were representing a criminal defendant on appeal.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm sure Sotomayor would agree that the policy outcome is what counts.

If your suspicion is correct, then it would appear you have something in common. 

[Sheilbh]

That's not the only dimension involved here though.  There is a reason she was chosen over others with more academic firepower, like Wood or Kagan or Sullivan.  There is a political move here where Obama is solidifying Hispanic support and effectively daring the GOP to go negative on her.

Wasn't one of Wood or Kagan also a lesbian, which is another political consideration, which concluded that it's just not worth it.  I agree about the political move over ethnicity but I think gender had primacy. 

I think that getting a list of good women candidates and then saying, of Sottomayor, that she's good and difficult for the Republicans to oppose.  Because I think you always want to get the candidate that your opponents can't really oppose.  But I agree it's the more troubling aspect.

Edit:  According to Marc Ambinder Sotomayor was at the top of Obama's list of potential nominees when he held a meeting about the Supreme Court in November, so he could actually really like her the most.

[Admiral Yi]

What I find funny is that I think this critique of a nominee is raised every time they're not white or male.  When I think the actual condition should be every time they're not white, male and appropriately qualified.  And, though this goes far more the UK than US I imagine, I do wonder about the number of senior white men who got into their position due to the old boys network without raising questions about it because they're white men.

It's raised every time because it's always a plausible hypothesis.  Appointing women and minorities is a vote getter.

And it's particularly plausible in the field of law.  What's the typical time to build a SC candidate resume, 30 years?  I'm pretty sure that 30 years ago the great bulk of law school graduates were white males.

[CountDeMoney]

Meh, I can't really get too interested about Supreme Court nominees, what with Clarence Thomas raising the bar so high.

[Hansmeister]

One lefty for another one.  Most Republicans are actually quite happy with the choice.  They expected Obama to appoint a left-wing candidate, but by playing identity politics instead of appointing an intellectual heavyweight he will not shift the court to the left.

[Faeelin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

The full "Latino women are better than white men" speech.

[Berkut]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

The full "Latino women are better than white men" speech.

You know, that is a pretty decent speech, and other than the one line that for some bizarro reason she has in there, I have no great objection to any of it.

The speech works just fine without it, and with it, one can dismiss the entire thing and focus on that line, and call her a fruitcake.

[Razgovory]

One lefty for another one.  Most Republicans are actually quite happy with the choice.  They expected Obama to appoint a left-wing candidate, but by playing identity politics instead of appointing an intellectual heavyweight he will not shift the court to the left.

Damn.  The GOP really is losing it.  It took this long for your talking points to arrive?

[AnchorClanker]

Overall, the White House's biggest task is simply demonstrating that Judge Sotomayor is the most qualified candidate, not a choice based on her gender and ethnicity.

That is going to be tough, seeing as she was the choice based on her gender and ethnicity.

...and, presumably, her generally non-ideological approach.  Her gender and ethnicity might be secondary, but helpful.

[Siege]

I have no problem with latino people raised or born in the States.
The problem is with the immigrants.
They come from intolerant cultures and don't understand that pork is not food for some people.

[Razgovory]

I have no problem with latino people raised or born in the States.
The problem is with the immigrants.
They come from intolerant cultures and don't understand that pork is not food for some people.