Home › Blogs › Cahnman's blog ›

A Three Pronged Strategy to Oppose Sotomayor

Submitted by Cahnman on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 20:23
in

We can win this one; it won't be easy, but it can be done.  Even if she's ultimately confirmed, we can set ourselves up to benefit politically from this confirmation battle.  Judges were one of our strongest domestic issues in Senate Elections from 2000-2004 (why the GOP abandoned this issue in 2006 and 2008 remains a mystery to me).

This is also a great opportunity to teach the broader American public about judicial issues.  The American people are opposed to judicial activism and side with us any time we make a big deal out of these issues.

That said, based on the information that has already come to light, I'd suggest a three pronged strategy for opposing Sotomayor:

1) "The Court of Appeals is where Policy is made" -- This video is devastating.  If there's one thing the American people can't stand, it's unelected judges usurping the authority of their duely elected legislators.  The video should be the centerpiece of our opposition.

There are currently 12 Democrat senators from states McCain won (and Bush also won all of those states twice).  The RNC or some allied group on the right should take out a major advertising blitz in each of those states.  By the time we vote on this nomination, every single resident of each of these states should have seen the video at least 50 times followed up by a narrator asking "Do you want unelected judges making public policy?  Call Senator XX (example: Baucus and Tester in Montana) and tell him to oppose Sonia Sotomayor."

Then, during the confirmation hearing, one of the Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee should pick EVERY single controversial issue (eg. Flag Burning, Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance, 10 Commandments) and ask the following question OVER AND OVER AGAIN for every issue:

"Judge Sotomayor, do you believe the Court of Appeals should set public policy on XX?"

You either box her in or she answers honestly and the American people learn what they're getting into.

2) "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

There's no excuse for this line; you can read a transcript of the speech here.

With this statement, Sotomayor essentially argues that White Men have no place being judges.  That's funny, I could have sworn to god we live in America where you get as far as your talent and work ethic will take you.

Take this line and start advertising it OVER AND OVER AGAIN on Oprah.  Make sure the women who watch Oprah understand that Judge Sotomayor doesn't believe their sons have any place on the Supreme Court.

3) The New Haven Firefighters case.  This was a transparent case of discrimination and the Firefighters involved had every right to sue the city.  Judge Sotomayor upheld the dismissal of this case at the Second Circuit.  While it's a shame these men had to go through this experience, it makes for GREAT politics.  We have real victims who are average people (so much for empathy) and, on top of that, the fact that they are firefighters is a God Send.

Again, we can win this thing.  It won't be easy, but it can be done.

I hope this helps.

That is all.

Cahnman out.

1
Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Comments

1) To say that the Appeals

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 20:44.

1) To say that the Appeals Courts makes policy is to say the sun rises in the east.  It is where the vast bulk of decision making about unclear laws (and there are many) is done.

2) Have you seen a photo of the current Supreme Court?

3) The decision in the New Haven firefighters case was based on precedent. So whereas in (1) you are damning her for being an activist, here you are damning her for not being an activist. Which is it - you can't have both.

 

Much as Ann Coulter plays geneticist....

Submitted by Ironman on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 21:30.

flailing businessman NRN plays lawyer..... to even worse effect, I may add.

I'll respond in order.

a) Appellate Courts are supposed to ascertain what the intent of the legislature was when it enacted a law. Sometimes this requires wading through floor statements and considering the impact the law in question had on similar laws when it was enacted.  The point is the legislative branch creates the policy. The judicial branch needs to figure out what is was.

In CT the legislature made clear who was boss in case there was any misunderstanding. 

b) There were plenty of highly qualified women and hispanics under consideration for this vacancy.  Is Judge Sotomayor the most qualified candidate? Would Judge Wood or Judge Moreno have been better qualified?  Perhaps we ought to find out, ya think?

c)  this is from NPR.com, that whacko lefty site

The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)

Jose Cabranes is probably the most respected federal jurist CT has had in this generation. I think it will go down as unfortunate that he was not chosen for the SCOTUS during the Clinton administration. If he think Judge Sotomayor botched the Ricci opinion in some fashion, I think its'a legitimate concern.

I happen to be in this business. I would like to know the people chosen for the pinnacle of this profession are properly evaluated. Judge Sotomayor deserves the same scrutiny Justice Roberts and Justice Alito received.

But why ask me? I just do this for a living.

On the "where policy is made" argument

Submitted by BWall on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 21:59.

I agree it would be a problem if she actually believed that courts had legislative power; however, based on the full context of her quote, that's pretty clearly not what she believes.  I just posted an entire post on this topic that has the quote in full for your consideration.

Like you, I'm curious about the New Haven decision.  The case created a lot of problems for the Supreme Court when they granted cert, and I'm still putting the pieces together in my own mind.   

Scrutiny? Fine. But the OP says "lets block her".

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 22:18.

Scrutiny? Fine. And, might I say - obvious. That is what the confirmation process is all about. Lets make a date to come back and discuss whose interpretation of the whole "policy" kefluffle wins the day.

But the OP says "lets block her" - no scrutiny necessary.

How about this as proof of her fitness: seldom overturned by the Supreme Court. SCOTUS grants cert to just to few cases - often, those they want to over turn. For the last several terms, 75% of the cases were reversed. Of 380 decisions written by Sotomayor, SCOTUS granted cert on just six, and of those six, only three were reversed.

 

The President himself voted against Roberts and Alito

Submitted by Ironman on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 05:33.

and by any objective standard both nominees were exceptionally qualfied jurists. It appears that no quantum of evidence they presented would have convinced then Senator Obama to have voted for their confirmation, since in his eyes they were insufficiently liberal.

Cahnman holds Judge Sotomayor as a jurist whom he believes is too excessively liberal to support. Evidently conservatives are now unable to apply the same reasoning to their opinions of judicial nominees the President applied in the Senate.

Is "hypocrisy" a synonym for "hope and change"?