Ricci dents Sotomayor support
posted at 3:30 pm on July 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The high-profile reversal of Sonia Sotomayor’s judgment on Ricci has taken the momentum away from public support. A new Rasmussen poll shows that a previous eight-point plurality favoring her confirmation to the Supreme Court has turned into a two-point plurality of opposition. The real risk is to Barack Obama’s efforts to paint himself as a reasonable moderate on the judiciary:
A heavily publicized U.S. Supreme Court reversal of an appeals court ruling by Judge Sonia Sotomayor has at least temporarily diminished public support for President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the two nights following the Supreme Court decision, finds that 37% now believe Sotomayor should be confirmed while 39% disagree.
Two weeks ago, the numbers were much brighter for the nominee. At that time, 42% favored confirmation, and 34% were opposed.
As usual, the crosstabs tell an interesting story. First, the most damaging numbers may not come from the confirmation question at all, which is a statistical split. Her favorability rankings look simply terrible for someone supposedly outside the political arena. She has a net favorability of -13, with 49% having an unfavorable view of Sotomayor. She has a -8 among women (47%-39% unfavorable) and a -16 among men (53%-37% unfavorable). Majorities find her unfavorable in almost every income bracket, with the exception of <$20K and $60-$75K.
That spells trouble for Obama as Sotomayor heads into high-profile hearings in which issues like Ricci and other reversals will get scrutinized even further. Obama planned on showcasing Sotomayor as his proof that the accusations of extremism against him were false. Republicans have an opportunity to show how partisan and hard-core activist Obama is, and the American public has begun to agree that Sotomayor isn’t a moderate or excellent choice at all.
The GOP will almost certainly not be able to stop her from taking her seat on the Supreme Court, nor will Obama abandon Sotomayor at this point. The damage from Ricci will be significant, though, and it will reinforce the notion that the Obama White House does a lousy job of vetting its nominees. It will erode confidence in Obama at a time when the White House wants to get the American public to trust it to run the energy and health-care industries. It’s bad timing, and the administration may want to put off the hearings until after its legislative battles have finished.
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: « Previous 1 2
Justices constantly rule on non constitutional issues. Whether or not it isn’t in their job description, its true.
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Yes, but that doesn’t mean they’re supposed to. When they do, they act outside of what their job allows.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 5:27 PM
In that one clip Sotomayor was right. Like it or not justices do make policy decisions. Thats just a reality in todays judiciary.
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 5:28 PM
That’s all that’s needed. Another America-hating Latina on the SC.
MaiDee on July 1, 2009 at 5:30 PM
That doesn’t make it legal or appropriate.
Nine unelected black robes don’t get to tell this country what it will and will not allow.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 5:31 PM
You know whats messed up. If the supreme court ruled that the right of the government to register guns was constitutional you would be all over it as an attack against your privacy. (I am against gun registration by the way).
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Another?
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Agreed but its a reality.
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Please don’t tell me what I would and would not do, unless you’re right and can back yourself up. I already said I think it’s unnecessary and am against it for that reason.
Otherwise, I honestly don’t care anymore than I care that I had to register with the state to get married.
We have a Constitutional right to bear arms, but that doesn’t mean it’s unconditional.
Though I did cheer on Keller.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 5:34 PM
The Supreme Court is the least representative branch of government. Each time it seizes the policy making authority of the Administration and the law making authority of Congress, it tears down some of the framework that protects our rights.
Loxodonta on July 1, 2009 at 5:34 PM
That’s like saying, “the President is only supposed to get two terms, but, oh well, he actually gets to run forever…”
We’re not peasants in a kingdom. We’re citizens of a Democratic Republic, rules by the people and the Constitution, not nine individuals who answer to no one.
If they’re going to make law, then they need to be put up for election and be given term limits. The only reason the Founders believed they needed lifetime appointments was precisely to keep them from doing what they so often do.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 5:37 PM
I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m just pointing out the reality. What have you done to change the status quo? Calm down man.
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 5:39 PM
And isn’t what what you’re concerned about, Terry? You seem to agree with me on this issue. So why support Justices who are out of touch with this concept?
In all sincerity, it’s not a partisan issue for me, and I abhor the fact that it’s become one. I’d much rather have a Justice who stuck to the Constitution, even if it meant my personal politics being deemed unconstitutoinal, than to have someone who just went with what he/she wanted or thought was right even if that person agreed with me 100%.
It’s dangerous to give anyone the power that you seem to believe is OK to give to the Justices.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Call me flawed but something tells me she is 50-50% on being next SCOTUS… AA is finished regardless.
mjbrooks3 on July 1, 2009 at 5:41 PM
I’m passionate about this. I don’t want to live in an aristocracy and can’t imagine anyone does.
What have I done? Only thing I’ve the power to do, vote for candidates who agree only to appoint Justices who swear by the Constitution and nothing else.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Well I’m kind of torn on it. I just really have a problem with people taking away my right to privacy whether its constitutional or not.
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 5:45 PM
You know what is interesting is that probably the most hailed decision ever, Brown v. Board of Education, was a case of the court overstepping their power.
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 5:48 PM
The way to change the status quo through government action is within our constitutional framework.
Yet, each of us can also change the status quo of our culture in our words and deeds. I have devoted a lot of my life to working against bigotry, volunteering to help the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. Even here in this blog, I defend people with whom I strongly disagree.
What are you doing in your own words and deeds?
Loxodonta on July 1, 2009 at 5:49 PM
But those issues can still be addressed. The Supreme Court isn’t supposed to be making law, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have branches of the government that are supposed to.
Think about it this way. Who do you trust more to guard your privacy? Nine unelected people who are accountable to no one and will maintain their offices until they die or decide to retire, or your elected representatives and/or your own fellow countrymen?
I believe the Founders had it right.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 5:50 PM
I know you’ve done more than that. You set a good example, which is a very difficult thing to do. And for this, I thank you.
Loxodonta on July 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM
I think you have some good points. I just think their is a fine line between idealism and reality. Either way I gotta go, so good night.
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 5:53 PM
I agree that it was and wish the country had dealt with that differently. It’s likely harmed the Court ever since.
Good night. I appreciate the respectful discourse.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 5:56 PM
I appreciate it too. Have a good one.
Terry Silver on July 1, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Correction-Sotomayor would be the first America hating Latino but the second Latino/Latina on the SC. The first would be Benjamin Cardozo (of Portuguese ancestry) who served in 1932.
MaiDee on July 1, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Thanks. Of course so do you. Especially with your candy and cookie bribery. :)
Sometimes even counterproductively. My husband’s something of a liberal, and I keep telling him he should vote. He doesn’t, which is good for the rest of us, but I still think he should. We live in an incredible country, and that’s one of the things I love most about it.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 6:00 PM
I meant, sometimes I do counterproductively.
Esthier on July 1, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Thanks. I did understand what you meant. But I too can be counterproductive. Trying to be good is haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard! Thank God for chocolate.
Loxodonta on July 1, 2009 at 6:06 PM
I wish I could be good about chocolate…
ProfessorMiao on July 1, 2009 at 6:10 PM
I’ll be happy to help you. Give me all you chocolate.
Loxodonta on July 1, 2009 at 6:20 PM
That’s a fabulously generous offer, Loxodonta. Thank you! I will do that.
ProfessorMiao on July 1, 2009 at 6:41 PM
Maybe the wise Latina will withdraw her name. LOL.
djaymick on July 1, 2009 at 7:34 PM
FNC’s Kelly Reports Public Opinion Trending Against Sotomayor
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/07/02/fncs-kelly-reports-public-opinion-trending-against-sotomayor
StewartIII on July 2, 2009 at 9:34 AM
I wish there was one senator . . . just one, who would stand up and say that he opposed Sotomayor because she is plainly an ugly hose bag! Think of the fun that comment would cause. If the dems can trash Katherine Harris, the former Sec. of State of Florida, that way, then its time we start looking at some of these ugly Dem. nominees and reminding them they are – - in fact – - ugly. In Sotomayor’s case, in more ways than one!
kens on July 2, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2