The flip side to this critique - which I sort of agree with - is to ask "what, then constitutes a fair criticism of Sonia Sotomayor?" I agree "not smart" is a lousy complaint... but unlike many (even Thomas) who got "affirmative action quota" hurled at them is Sotomoayor's background - Princeton valedictorian, Yale Law, editor of Law Review... even Republicans who set absurd standards will have a hard time geting around that. But when does "not smart" become a fair complaint? Who gets to call who dumb? And what will seem fair a s a criticism of Sotomayor? Because the way you're suggesting here, almost no critique comes off as fair or legitimate. And that's not likely to be a useful approach in the long run, either.

But weboy, the assumption is that someone always has standing to criticize the President's pick as "not good enough" on some axis. That is simply not the case. I mean, its the case as custom, but not at law. The submission of the justice as nominee to a grilling by the senate judiciary is really supposed to be somewhat pro forma--the power of nomination is in the President's hands not that of congress.

Historically, of course, both the president and the oppositional party have used the supreme court nomination process and the hearings as a place to push back against either the president and his party through the nominee, or against the policies the nominee is considered to favor.

Under those rules of engagement the democrats, as usual, lose because they aren't willing to put up a scorched earth offense against ideologically rigid right wing judges, but they tend to fold early and often when their own party's judicial nominees are up for consideration.

Obama made a good pick in Sotomayor from every angle--intellectual history, academic pedigree, etc...etc...etc... and taht means there *is* no fair criticism of Sotomayor. That's not a bug, that's a feature. All the criticisms the right wing want to make are definitionally unfair--because they are either made up, faked up, or based on the notion that being a woman or a person of color is or should be automatically a bar against excellence, probity, dispassionate judgement, and etc...etc...etc... They've got nothing else. So that's the hand they are going to play.

aimai

Weboy,

I think it's really bizarre to suggest that this leaves few avenues for criticism. How about her judicial record? You know, her actual work?

aimai - I think, in order to have a useful debate on these nominees, the thing we have to start with is a) they're not perfect, none of them, and b) there's a fair way to raise objections. I'm not suggesting that what the right will be offering meets that criteria... but what does? I'm okay with Sotomayor... but I'm waiting to see what we wind up with before I say she's a slam dunk pick. I expect, like most SC Justices, I'll agree some, and disagree some, with her thinking. In advance, I'd feel better if we knew more about what that was. But I think when we cut off many, or nearly all, lines of objection as "unfair" or "unreasonable" we're just setting up a bad debate. There are aspects of Sotomayor's nomination worth debating. I think we'd be better off having that debate. I don't like the idea hat ether of those ideas is controversial, or unreasonable.

PS I also disagree with"the democrats, as usual, lose because they aren't willing to put up a scorched earth offense against ideologically rigid right wing judges, but they tend to fold early and often when their own party's judicial nominees are up for consideration." The history of rejection, at this point, most prominently features Robert Bork, proof that Democrtas have greater success mounting challenges than anything Repubs have come up with lately.

But September 11th! Why does Judge Sotomayor hate America?

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTU0NGI5MTFjYWI0MWQ2ZGFlMWY5NjBjMzY2YWQyZTI=

Look, Serwer has a lot correct here, but the part about Thomas is wrong. Thomas is actually dumb. Not dumb as in the "compared to an average person" sort of dumb (he's certainly not by that standard) but dumb compared to the pool of applicants who could possibly sit on the court.

Yes, I'm talking about his work. His written opinions as well as his habits during oral argument, in addition to this paid speeches, interviews, etc.

Let's not reach in to the barrel of false equivalence here with the "liberals do it too!" schtick. That shit is old, lazy, and disingenuous.

"This is someone who clearly was picked because she’s a woman and Hispanic, not because she was the best qualified," said Levey. She's a "quota pick" says Rod Dreher.

Be realistic. She WAS picked because she was a woman and probably because she was Hispanic too.

But that doesn't mean she is a bad pick or isn't the right pick.

The bar is fairly high to be considered for the Supreme Court and, probably, none of the people reading this post can clear that bar.

Sonia Sotomayor easily clears the bar. She is smart. She is experienced.

Will she be a good Justice? I don't have a clue. My guess is that she will be better than average. But there doesn't appear to be a single reason to vote against her. She is far closer to the middle than Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, or Alito.

If you think about it, the biggest reason to be against her is that she is too old. She might not serve on the Court until another Democrat can replace her in 30 years.

If you are truly a feminist then it shouldn't matter why she was picked. It should only matter that she is well qualified.

Going to Harvard or Princeton or any of the ivy leagues has very little to do with how intelligent someone is. It has everything to do with how connected people are.

What these rich white bastards really hate is that poor people of color sometimes get around the carefully constructed class barrier to the ivy league, and to higher education in general.

I am no fan of Harriet Miers or of her friend GWB, but I do think she got a raw deal in connection with her nomination. Miers had served on the city council of a major city, had run a major state agency, had served as managing partner of a top-tier law firm, and had worked in the White House. Those are amply sufficient credentials to serve on the Supreme Court. Indeed, it would be nice if some of the justices on the Supreme Court had some actual first-hand experience with American democracy and capitalism. As with so many other things the right wing decides to do, the fact that the right wing decided to blow up her nomination does not mean that they were correct in doing so.

"Sotomayor has more than 10 years on the appeals court--by contrast, the current chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, had two years as a judge on the D.C. Circuit before being nominated. As a white man, however, his credentials and intelligence are beyond reproach."

Thanks for this; I very rarely see anyone actually say what you've said out loud. Whether or not Sotomayor is qualified for the bench is one thing; that she has to prove that PLUS her ability to have actually accomplished everything she already has is a conversation that needs to be happening.

Not that I'm in any way surprised, but Obama certainly seems to be swinging for the fences. While I am generally happy with Roberts and Alito (for now...), those two are in no way as "conservative" or "originalist" as Sotomayor appears to be "liberal" or "consequentialist". It will be a sad commentary that the media will most likely praise Obama for his noble choice and villify Republicans for even considering questioning the credentials of a LATINA WOMAN, as compared to when Bush nominated two relatively moderate jurists (relative to Scalia & Thomas) the media would have had everyone believe human "progress" was being set back 200 years. The applied double standard shouldn't even be worth noting were it not unapologetically applied to basically everything Obama does.
 
INCOHERENT:
 
Here's a quote from Sotomayor -
 
"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....

"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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 hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

I THOUGHT JUSTICE WAS SUPPPOSED TO BE BLIND??? What is the "law" worth if it is to be applied differently to different types of people? Isn't the whole point of the law - and also one of the primary components of any successful and just nation - that every citizen is to be considered EQUAL under the RULE OF LAW??? Wasn't this part of the whole point of breaking away from monarchical Britain - that some people carried privileges of exemption from the law while others experienced heavier legal burdens? The correct thing to say would be: It is the case that by qualifying our differences... we do a disservice both to the law and society..."

I am proud of Sonia Sotomayor and the generation she represents: the first "critical mass" of students of color and women who entered the Ivy League, Seven Sisters and other prestigious colleges and universities in the late '60s and '70s. After Dr. King was murdered, these institutions made special efforts to recruit us "nontraditional" students from the inner cities. Like others, she took her opportunity and excelled. These are the "affirmative action babies" of a generation ago who have now emerged as some of the nation's most distinguished leaders.

Knowing that a woman of color had to have unassailable credentials, President Obama chose someone who was summa at Princeton and on the Yale Law Review. To select anyone else, although qualified, would have yielded the typical condescending attacks of being less intelligent and less than qualified. (Note that if Obama or Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts had had less than Harvard Law degrees and Ivy League undergraduate credentials, they would not have been given the time of day.) Even with Sotomayor's academic record, the attacks emerge. This is simply an inability to accept that there are those of different ethnicities, races and the other gender who are equally and intellectually prepared to ascend to the heights of leadership and thought. Rosen should analyze himself and his own insecurities. Excellence comes in all colors and both genders. With Sotomayor, when the doors of opportunity opened, excellence walked through!
SJW-Mount Holyoke '73

Mr. Roberts is not the "chief justice of the Supreme Court". He is chief justice of the United States.