Obama picks Sotomayor for SCOTUS slot

posted at 9:24 am on May 26, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Sometimes, the heavy favorites win the horse race.  According to the AP, Barack Obama will announce that he has chosen Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court.  That allows Obama to appoint another woman and the first Hispanic to the nation’s highest court, giving him another little slice of history:

Officials tell The Associated Press that President Barack Obama intends to nominate federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor as the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court.

Karl Rove says that Sotomayor could be even more liberal than Souter, and that conservatives might feel compelled to push to block her based on her rulings from the appellate court (via Mitch Berg, from earlier this month):

Wendy Long at Bench Memos sums up in brief the case against Sotomayor as a liberal activist, the kind which Sen. Ben Nelson said he’d oppose, including this tidbit:

She has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed, indicating that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court.

I’d like to see some data on this. If true, it could hand the Republicans a pretty damning bit of evidence, assuming that they’ll even go on the warpath over Sotomayor. I rather doubt they will, for a couple of reasons. First, they’ll likely get intimidated by the Hispanic pressure groups anxious to get a seat on the Supreme Court for the first time ever (unless one counts Benjamin Cardozo, of Portuguese ancestry, as a Hispanic).

Second, and more to the point, Sotomayor has been on the public short list the entire time, and the GOP has trained its guns elsewhere. They’ve been warning more about Elaine Kagan and Diane Wood, barely giving Sotomayor any notice at all. Republicans have also focused on the executive-branch appointments of Dawn Johnsen and Harold Koh, two radical activists, during this period. That public campaign may have made Sotomayor look less radical and activist in comparison, which makes a big public push less likely to succeed.

We shall soon see. Keep an eye on reactions from red-state Democrats, especially Ben Nelson, to see if the GOP can hope to cobble a coalition large enough to keep Sotomayor off the court — and whether Obama might pick someone worse if they do.

And, again … elections have consequences. This is one of them.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

MB4 on May 26, 2009 at 12:01 PM

The crux to both quotes is the word ‘better”.

To who’s satisfaction?

OldEnglish on May 26, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Remember Palin. It’s time for some serious payback.

THE CHOSEN ONE on May 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Eight current Republican senators voted to confirm her to the lower court. Oops, one of them is no longer a Republican as of 2009; make that seven.

okonkolo on May 26, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Allahpundit has already rolled over. Shocking, I know.

Does anyone remember him ever playing hard ball on anything? I mean besides against fellow republicans?

Blake on May 26, 2009 at 12:42 PM

THE CHOSEN ONE on May 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM

I don’t see the relationship. I also don’t think the trashing of conservative judicial nominees by the left means we should likewise trash liberal nominees. Judge Sotomayor seems eminently qualified. Anyone else chosen by this president will be equally liberal. It’s not a smart fight.

Ted Torgerson on May 26, 2009 at 12:55 PM

The Republican party has the potential to DESTROY themselves based on how they handle this nomination.

Remember, ever since the election, the Democrat talking heads and some Republicans has been warning that the GOP is loosing Hispanic voters. If you noticed, this criticism has ticked up the last few weeks. So, what does Obama/Emanuel/Axlerod do? They appoint a Hispanic as a way to finish off the GOP. This is very, very clever on their part and may work; but if the Republicans are smart, they can raise their objections without destroying the party.

tdavisjr on May 26, 2009 at 1:03 PM

if the Republicans are smart, they can raise their objections without destroying the party.

tdavisjr on May 26, 2009 at 1:03 PM

If they’re smart, they’ll nominate her without a big fuss while making their criticisms known, and then when Obama wants to hit a home run and get a liberal to replace one of the five conservatives on the bench (if he’s lucky), *then* Republicans can raise hell, and they’ll have credibility because they can say, “Hey, we nominated Sotomayor without a fuss…we’re not just playing politics here.”

That’s ultimately what they’ll do, I think.

Proud Rino on May 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM

The Dems/MSM (but I repeat myself) will call Republicans mean spirited racists no matter what. Might as well put up a fight against her. While MSNBC sees Sotomayer as a centrist, lots of swing voting types in Ohio won’t, as long as the GOP makes a convincing case.

I’m dreaming though. The GOP will roll over as they have on everything else.

This country is finito.

angryed on May 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Yes, we’re always told it’s “not a smart fight.” In fact we are always told it’s “not a smart fight.”

Nevertheless, it would at least be practice for the party p*ssies just in case they decide there is a “smart fight” in this century.

Blake on May 26, 2009 at 1:09 PM

She is replacing Souter. Meaning the balance of power is not shifting. They should not block her since she will be the perfect example of liberal excess. She represents one of the best rallying cries against Obama in the future if she lives up to her reputation. This is a political pick with the hopes that the GOP will demonize a minority woman.

Appoint her, and save the real fight for and if he replaces a conservative. Select your battles that you can win.

koolbrease on May 26, 2009 at 1:13 PM

By all means lets fear blocking her in case the hispanics turn on us. Oh yeah I forgot look what catering to them did for Bush..Nevermind.

faol on May 26, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Ted Torgerson on May 26, 2009 at 12:55 PM

This is exactly why we keep losing elections. While the left attacks us with everything in the cupboard, we conservatives are supposed to take the high road. Bull. We need to get the Tom Delays back into Congress and start shaking people down. This nice guy crap is going to give liberals this country on a silver platter and they’ll make it toxic. Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

THE CHOSEN ONE on May 26, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Filibustering this woman would be ridiculous. Don’t any of you remember the way we championed an up or down vote on judicial nominees the last 8 years? As long as they are qualified and aren’t suspected criminals, a filibuster is inappropriate. We can’t win it anyway so we might as well hold to our priniciples. Let the Dims be hypocrites yet again.

Speedwagon82 on May 26, 2009 at 1:49 PM

The Republican party has the potential to DESTROY themselves based on how they handle this nomination.

tdavisjr on May 26, 2009 at 1:03 PM

One day Chicken Little was walking in the woods when — KERPLUNK — an acorn fell on her head.

“Oh my goodness!” said Chicken Little. “The sky is falling! I must go and tell the king.”

MB4 on May 26, 2009 at 1:53 PM

As long as they are qualified and aren’t suspected criminals, a filibuster is inappropriate. We can’t win it anyway so we might as well hold to our priniciples. Let the Dims be hypocrites yet again.

Speedwagon82 on May 26, 2009 at 1:49 PM

If the Republicans don’t filibuster a person who thinks that she is above the U.S. Constitution, then what principles would that be? None that I can discern.

MB4 on May 26, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Judge Sotomayor seems eminently qualified.

Ted Torgerson on May 26, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Playing eminently deaf, mute and dumb to her record.

maverick muse on May 26, 2009 at 2:01 PM

If they’re smart, they’ll nominate her without a big fuss while making their criticisms known,… “Hey, we nominated Sotomayor without a fuss…we’re not just playing politics here.”

Proud Rino on May 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM

without a big fuss while making their criticisms known???

“We’re not just playing politics here.”

For ANYONE to claim that the Constitution is partisan proves that person’s perversion.

This is a matter of preserving the Constitution that protects EVERYTHING in balance.

Ginsberg ring a bell? Been there, done that. Sotomayor is not another ACLU Ginsberg, but an absolute complete idiot whom Ginsberg votes against.

maverick muse on May 26, 2009 at 2:08 PM

If the Republicans don’t filibuster a person who thinks that she is above the U.S. Constitution, then what ..

MB4 on May 26, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Exactly.

maverick muse on May 26, 2009 at 2:09 PM

THE CHOSEN ONE on May 26, 2009 at 1:47 PM

He’s advocating the thumbs up approach.
Been sitting on his own too long.

maverick muse on May 26, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Sotomayor decapitates Justitia, Lady Justice is blindfolded and concentrating on balancing matters while Sotomayor pirates the sword.

maverick muse on May 26, 2009 at 2:12 PM

Of course the GoP won’t fight, their weak. I hate the GoP. They just roll over. What good are they at anything?

Tim Burton on May 26, 2009 at 2:20 PM

She sounds like a moron. A partisan, ideological moron, to be exact. I hope they grill the sh*t out of her in the hearings. Get her on record saying it is ok to legislate from the bench. Then every GOP member vote against her. No filibuster, but be on record against her. Obama voted against Roberts and Alito, not b/c they weren’t qualified, but b/c he was “ideologically” opposed to them. This chick doesn’t seem qualified from what little I know, and she is certainly an ideologue. Maybe they can peel off some bluedogs if they expose her biases in the hearings and squelch the nomination.

JAM on May 26, 2009 at 2:39 PM

If I’m not mistaken, this can be blocked in committee and never brought to the floor. Especially since a RINO left the committee to become a democrat.

Another option would be to just drag on the interview process like the dems did. The thought process could go something like this
“Gee, I just can’t make up my mind. Maybe a few years of thinking it over will help me. Guess we’ll have 8 on the court for the near future.”

TechieNotTrekkie on May 26, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Since she has admitted publicly that she thinks that “courts should make policy” she should be disqualified from all consideration. However, she is obviously a person Obama would think highly of. He doesn’t respect the constitution or the law either (except as a hindrance).

duff65 on May 26, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Awesome pick. She seems like a cool lady and she is definitely liberal in every sense of the word. One step back fro Prop 8, but one major jump forward for a woman who will be on the Court for decades.

dcwvu on May 26, 2009 at 4:41 PM

have a “compelling life story,” like Judge Sotomayor. I have “empathy.” And I’m a woman, albeit of Irish/French/Polish/Lithuanian heritage.

Given all of the above, according to Obambi, I should be in the running to be the next nomination to the Supreme Court.

Hey, you don’t have to be a lawyer or a judge.

Marybeth on May 26, 2009 at 4:49 PM

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor…. (NYT)

…welllllllll…here’s someone who’s out-of-step with the spirit of the Sixties….

…I remember the Civil Rights era quite well, although I was just a sprout during most of it…and I seem to remember that the whole point was that the whole “all pigs are equal but some are more equal than others” schtick was unfair…remember “if you’re white, you’re right/if you’re brown, stick around”?….as a political society, we even advanced the word “discriminatory” to the head of the vocabulary to address the unfairness of someone being judged on the basis not of who they are, but of what they are….

…I seem to remember someone saying “not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character”, or some such nonsense….

…well…fairness was getting fatiguing…it’s nice to see that we’ve found a supreme judical nominee who agrees with me….

…I guess we’ve put all that “colorblind” claptrap all back into the cupboard where it belongs…if Ms. Sotomayor is found to be a suitable justice (justica?), and we can go back to judging people by their skin color, their apparent ancestry, their accent, and the part of the town they live in….

…think of how it simplifies things…now, someone showing the Puertorican flag on every article of clothing, on ones car, tattooed on ones forehead and the like is no longer that pesky “expression of pride” thaaaang…it’s a sign, like wearing a Masonic ring, of being a part of an in-crowd…in Ms. Sotomayor’s case, one which can out-judge pitiful old white guys….

So…let’s get back to judging by the group, why don’t we…we’ve never really given it up.

…after all, we still judge that people from “historically disadvantaged” ethnic groups are themselves disadvantaged, regardless of their personal circumstances when it comes to college admission, the letting of contracts and the doling out of patronage.

…we can stop celebrating every “first black” and “first hispanic” this or that, as if getting to table is any more a victory for all black or hispanic layabouts than having white doctors or lawyers or legislators is a victory for the white layabouts out there.

Let us celebrate that a “latina” has been chosen…as if to say that this somehow validates all the “latinas” out there…as if to say that all of the “latinos” and “latinas” out there are the same…after all, demographically, don’t Puertoricans equal Mexicans equal Costaricans equal Dominicans equal Brazilians? As old guys in the barbershops of my youth used to say, they (and Italians, for some reason) all speak some form of “Mexican” to the ears of old, stick-in-the-mud white guys who used to natter to eachother in the days before Selma and King and the Voting Rights Act….

…it’s nice to see that we’ve evolved enough as a society to pick a judical Puertorican version of an old stick-in-the-mud for a plum job….

…but, maybe I’m being cynical…maybe, like Earl Warren, she’ll leave her resume behind her and bravely strike out in new, more fair directions….

…but I doubt it….

Puritan1648 on May 26, 2009 at 4:51 PM

That allows Obama to appoint another woman and the first Hispanic to the nation’s highest court,

What was Benjamin Cardoza but of Hispanic heritage? Okay he was Portugese, but isn’t that Hispanic?

skatz51 on May 26, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Where is she on the 2nd Amendment?

darwin on May 26, 2009 at 5:50 PM

It’s a good thing the GOP is loaded with and well represented on the committee with conservative strict constructionists who will stand up for…oh good grief…what a joke!!!

sabbott on May 26, 2009 at 5:55 PM

As I understand senate rules if no republican supports this awful nomination they can kill it.

duff65 on May 26, 2009 at 6:11 PM

I’d like to know her stance on guns because that fight is coming.

Bishop on May 26, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Agreed. Here’s what I found on another blog…

http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayor-gun-ownership.html

“Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American “Exceptionalism” and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

dugan on May 26, 2009 at 6:13 PM

Step 1 Sotomayor replaces Souter (who waited until a Democrat was elected before retiring.) No change.

Step 2 A second Obama liberal replaces Ginsberg. No change.

Step 3 The end of the world as we know it.

MaiDee on May 26, 2009 at 6:24 PM

Elections have consequences, and piss-poor GOP leadership from Bush and Company continues to be the best gift the democratic party has ever gotten … enjoy her confirmation, the GOP has NOTHING to fight with … except maybe Rush’s big mouth!

Monkei on May 26, 2009 at 6:37 PM

dugan on May 26, 2009 at 6:13 PM

That is popping up to be a myth.
I don’t know, but the use of the term “legal thesis” caught my eye…usually it would be “memo”.
Also her law degree was not from Princeton…and someone tried to research and found no thesis.
Another said one thesis is standard, two is exceptional, but three would be unheard of.
I hate to see mis reporting because it dilutes the accurate stuff.

right2bright on May 26, 2009 at 6:47 PM

What was Benjamin Cardoza but of Hispanic heritage? Okay he was Portugese, but isn’t that Hispanic?

skatz51 on May 26, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Yes, Portugese is Hispanic, even my Hispanic friends say so.

Geochelone on May 26, 2009 at 7:13 PM

Republicans have been told not to fight Sotomayor’s confirmation because they would only piss off the public. This is advice given by the enemy.

It is true that Obama, because of his charismatic popularity,could beat any Republican-even a reincarnation of Abe Lincoln-right now.But like the “unsinkable” Titanic the “invulnerable” Obama has a date to meet one or two (thousand) icebergs. The North Korean a-bomb (curiously deleted from the news by Obama SC selection) is a starter. A non-ending recession is another. It won’t be all that long before Obama’s themes and dreams come unraveling like a cheap suit and he will be exposed for the small-time hustler he really is.

If, by some miracle, Obama were to succeed, NO ONE could beat him whether they kissed his ass or kicked it. But if, as expected, he fails, only kick -ass people, not obseqious losers, will replace him.

MaiDee on May 26, 2009 at 7:16 PM

She is pro-amnesty…that is all I need to know to fight her confirmation.

right2bright on May 26, 2009 at 7:37 PM

If the Republicans don’t put on their big boy pants and go ba%%s to the wall to block this travesty,they can kiss their a$$e$ goodbye along eith every right they think we have under the Constitution.Majority or not,now is the time to throw hands ,and show some balls.Hit hard and hit low.The Liberal Dems have been hitting below the belt since I was a Liberal,its time for pay-back.

DDT on May 26, 2009 at 7:52 PM

MO’s “glam squad” got hold of Sonia… unfortunately with the same results.

txag92 on May 26, 2009 at 8:48 PM

The Republicans have to embarass her so much that the Dems won’t even vote for her.

ctmom on May 26, 2009 at 9:37 PM

She wrote articles for LA RAZA and she is a BIGTIME racialist.

She can’t be objective and she has shown that she has a bias based on her ethnicity and gender. She admitted it and she thinks Judges make law.

Geochelone on May 26, 2009 at 9:48 PM

After going all Bushitler, Obama threw the base a bone.

PattyJ on May 26, 2009 at 10:02 PM

Judge Sotomayor does not have the judicial temperament or restraint to be a Justice of the Supreme Court. Her high rate of having decisions overturned by the Court demonstrates this. That, and the fact that she is leftist, racist and sexist.

Loxodonta on May 26, 2009 at 10:13 PM

Looks like Al Franken in drag here.

Except she’s probably got better jokes.

NoDonkey on May 26, 2009 at 10:17 PM

And the hits keep coming;

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html

Judge Sotomayor is the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage,and the NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA.

christene on May 26, 2009 at 10:25 PM

“I’d like to see some data on this. If true, it could hand the Republicans a pretty damning bit of evidence, assuming that they’ll even go on the warpath over Sotomayor. I rather doubt they will, for a couple of reasons. First, they’ll likely get intimidated by the Hispanic pressure groups anxious to get a seat on the Supreme Court for the first time ever (unless one counts Benjamin Cardozo, of Portuguese ancestry, as a Hispanic).”

Yea, the GOP may be more concerned with hispanic pressure groups than its conservative base as they have been in the past couple of elections. How’s that worked out for them?

If Republicans lay down on this radical left-wing zealot, they will surely be doomed to the minority for a decade. I don’t know what it’s going to take for those idiots to get the message.

Is it just me or would this woman be the Nancy Pelosi of the Supreme Court?

orlandocajun on May 27, 2009 at 7:29 AM

If they’re smart, they’ll nominate her without a big fuss while making their criticisms known, and then when Obama wants to hit a home run and get a liberal to replace one of the five conservatives on the bench (if he’s lucky), *then* Republicans can raise hell, and they’ll have credibility because they can say, “Hey, we nominated Sotomayor without a fuss…we’re not just playing politics here.”

That’s ultimately what they’ll do, I think.

Proud Rino on May 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Yup…just bend over and take it up the Keister! That works every time! It also keeps one on the invite list to all the Washington cocktail parties and special sessions with Barney Frank!

It does not, however endear the GOP to it’s base (actual Conservatives like me!) But, hey we are no longer welcome or needed in the party so to the GOP and RNC I say have a grand old time and enjoy! We shall sit on the sidelines and watch…and wait. Let us know how this “moderation” thing is working out for you. If you ever decide you need us, let us know and we will think about re-joining your efforts. As it stands now, you are not worthy of our time, talents or dollars…

sabbott on May 27, 2009 at 7:49 AM

1) Is Sotomayor unqualified for the Job — CHECK

2) Is Sotomayor being appointed based on her Race or Gender — DOUBLE CHECK

The first Affirmative Action Justice.

CrazyFool on May 27, 2009 at 8:59 AM

I wish they would stop calling her poor. Just because you’re not rich, doesn’t mean you’re poor.

Blake on May 27, 2009 at 9:29 AM

Yup…just bend over and take it up the Keister!

Hey listen pal, you’re going to bend over and take it up the keister, as you so eloquently put it, whether you like it or not. She, or someone very similar to her in terms of politics, is going to get confirmed. The Democrats keep winning elections, in large part because Republicans have to keep reassuring the base they are sufficiently conservative in addition to pushing for swing voters.

And, frankly, the GOP ought to ignore you. You’re not helping. You either vote GOP or you don’t vote/waste your vote. They’d prefer your vote, but if you stayed home, it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.

But If the GOP doesn’t present a candidate I like, I’ll vote Democrat. I did in 2008. And the more the GOP tries to please people like you, the less interested I am in voting for them.

But go ahead, keep blaming moderates for your problems. Why take responsibility for your problems?

Proud Rino on May 27, 2009 at 10:05 AM

1) Is Sotomayor unqualified for the Job — CHECK

What qualification is she lacking?

Proud Rino on May 27, 2009 at 10:07 AM

hey we are no longer welcome or needed in the party so to the GOP and RNC I say have a grand old time and enjoy!

BTW this is patently false. It’s moderates like Specter that are leaving the party. Jim DeMint is on record saying that he’d rather have 30 principled Republicans in the Senate than 60 moderates. That’s not some idiot, that’s an elected Senator essentially telling moderates to get out, you’re not wanted here. Guys like Rick Perry are seriously talking about secession. That’s not some nut on his porch, that’s a Governor of a large state. The RNC wanted to rename the Democratic Party the “Democratic Socialist Party.”

All this stuff and its tacit support by Republicans who don’t speak out against it turns me off more than you can imagine.

All that, and you *still* feel like the party is too moderate. That’s sad.

Proud Rino on May 27, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Sotomayer lacks impartiality

In 2002, in a speech in California, Judge Sotomayor said race or sex does affect a judge’s rulings, and said because of that, a minority woman is a better decider than a white man: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life.”

Three years later, at a panel discussion at Duke Law School, she seemed to endorse judicial activism on the appeals courts, telling students considering clerkships: “Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know – I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know.”

Excerpted from a prescient June 13, 1998 NYT article on the confirmation vote of Judge Sotomayor to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York):

It also remains unclear how some Senate Republicans came to believe that Judge Sotomayor was being considered as a candidate for the Supreme Court. NYT 1998

On Sept. 30, the day of her confirmation hearing, Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk show host, warned the Senate that Judge Sotomayor was an ultraliberal who was on a ”rocket ship” to the Supreme Court. That day, Judge Sotomayor was questioned closely by Republicans.

In the end, the only Republicans to vote against her were Senator John Kyl of Arizona and Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri NYT 1998

entagor on May 27, 2009 at 11:13 AM

It will be good comedy reading her opinions.

She will end up being just one of the many stains on Obama’s record, and for many years.

Moesart on May 27, 2009 at 11:29 AM

1) Is Sotomayor unqualified for the Job — CHECK

What qualification is she lacking?

Proud Rino on May 27, 2009 at 10:07 AM

How about a basic understanding of the Rule of Law. Which is that we are a Nation of Laws. Not a Nation of Feelings or an Nation of Experiences.

How about a basic understanding of the role of a Judge – to Interpret the Law (and on the SC the Constitution ) – not to set policy or issue Judicial Edicts.

How about a basic understanding of why the statue holding the Scales and the Sword is blindfolded?

CrazyFool on May 27, 2009 at 12:24 PM

THERE IS A WHITE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM!

She has most likely never seen the “short shrift” opinions for which she is being criticized. (Maybe for more lengthy opinions also but that is less clear)

What the two paragraph summary opinions are exposing is one of the filthiest of the dirty little judicial secrets – the delegating of the judicial authority of her office to law clerks WITH no oversight of the law clerks’ actions.

It is one thing to ghost write briefs and opinions (I do it daily) but it’s quite another thing to submit those work products for filing without review by the boss.

Too often, lazy judges give authority to perform ALL the attributes of their office to law clerks. They justify this in their own minds as necessary due to the sheer volume of cases.

It works like this:

The law clerk screens the cases as they come in. Cases are put onto “tracks” which are basically which ones are “junk” and which ones aren’t (the merit track).

Once a case is placed on the junk track, THE OUTCOME IS SET AND EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT POINT IS MERELY TO ‘APPEAR’ TO PROVIDE DUE PROCESS. The likelihood of a case jumping from the junk track to the merit track is similar to the survival of a snowball in Death Valley.

Because the law clerks are of a similar lazy mindset as the judge who chose them, there is little effort given to writing opinions. This is especially true for law clerks who have no ambition to become skillful attorneys. After all, it’s a jungle out there for new attorneys and many do not find private sector employment except at rates not much higher than drywall hangers.

If anybody on the Senate Judiciary Committee really wants to vet this candidate, they won’t waste their time questioning the nominee. Instead, they’ll subpoena all of her law clerks and give them immunity in exchange for their testimony.

Now THAT would be worth popping the popcorn to watch.

platypus on May 27, 2009 at 12:27 PM

If the GOP doesn’t present a candidate I like, I’ll vote Democrat. I did in 2008.
Proud Rino on May 27, 2009 at 10:05 AM

This is typical of RINOs. They pick at republican candidates until they find something they don’t like about them and then blindly give their vote to a socialist liberal democrat in some kind of big effort to punish conservatives. I never hear them defending their vote for Obama except to say republicans didn’t pass their test but somehow a big leftist democrat did. They should subject all candiates to the same test. I think the republicans should ignore RINOs like “Proud RINO” and keep it’s base. If they can’t be pleased with a moderate like McCain than they can’t be won over by us conservatives and we are wasting our time trying. We should just try to win over other people who wake up to Obama’s blind hope and change for the worse. Also, I think that RINOs should stop crying about the style of Rush or Laura or Ann and make their case on substance. Make their case for forcing more government into people’s lives, I want to hear it, but as long as their objections to Rush consist of calling him “shrill” or a “loud-mouth” they don’t win much creditability with me.

Dollayo on May 28, 2009 at 4:13 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3