Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2019, 06:20:51 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: NYGurl, Torie, Associate Justice PiT)
  BREAKING: MSNBC reports Sotomayor next SCOTUS justice (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: BREAKING: MSNBC reports Sotomayor next SCOTUS justice  (Read 19997 times)
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« on: April 30, 2009, 09:44:58 pm »
« edited: May 26, 2009, 08:24:49 am by Senator Purple State »

Post your picks. Here's my list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adalberto_Jordan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_V%C3%A1zquez

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_R._Moreno

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

Obama likely will go Hispanic considering his lack-luster record with the community so far. I would be shocked if he doesn't put a woman on the bench, as Ginsburg will likely retire soon and you need at least one if not two women on the bench. But he may put a Cuban (Jordan) on there because of the recent openings with Cuba and Latin America.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2009, 10:05:18 pm »

I would also imagine that Ginsburg's seat would be given to a hardcore liberal, making up for the loss of Souter, but not right away.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2009, 11:57:32 pm »

I think it's weird that everyone's talking about only judges, when historically presidents have nominated Senators and Governors plenty. Earl Warren, our greatest Chief Justice, had no judicial experience, remember. I would argue that it's a good idea to give the court some balance with respect to historical background, so that the justices aren't completely removed from the actual effects of their decisions.

As a question of reference, who is the last non-jurist appointed to and confirmed to the SC?
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2009, 12:46:35 am »

Well, Rehnquist was the last to have no judicial experience (though he was a SCOTUS clerk), but he was appointed from the justice department, so he had some Washington legal experience. Powell was the last to not have any sort of public legal experience, having worked in the private sector.

I feel like, especially as these things have become increasingly contentious and more about appeasing the right groups and avoiding mistakes, it is unlikely it would go to someone without judicial experience. Also significant is that this is Obama's first SC nominee, meaning he needs to really get this one through and impress. Powell and Rehnquist were both later nominees by Nixon, following Berger and Blackmun, so that was less important.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2009, 11:30:31 pm »

Early Intrade numbers (volume very low):

Sonia Sotomayor 35.0


First to call this one. Not bad I think.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2009, 12:17:59 am »

Like I said though, while Sonia Sotomayor checks all the boxes, Obama is a Constitutional student himself and may prefer to hire a persuasive advocate of judicial philosophy he believes in, rather than simply voting as he'd prefer.  Sotomayor may be the next one nominated, but if Obama can profoundly impact the aggregate judicial philosophy of the court, isn't that more important than temporarily placating Hispanic groups three years before he runs for reelection?


Obama is searching for the next this guy, if possible.  Ironic because Souter replaced him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan,_Jr.


That will come later. I think Obama will pick what needs to be done for Souter and then what should be done for Ginsburg. I doubt he will only have those two to replace anyway, so he will have plenty of opportunities to shape the future of the court. For now he needs to play politics.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2009, 12:34:02 am »

Why is it better to appease racial minority groups now, rather than closer to the election when he needs their vote?  Their legislative influence isn't needed to pass the Obama agenda, why not closer when the voters will actually matter?  Besides, even the interest groups are probably going to be offended by something he does between now and the election and forget about the appointment anyway.

Yes he will screw up with these groups at some point along the way, but when it comes to election time he can say "Well look what I gave you on the SC as one of my earliest agendas." That way it isn't an after-the-fact apology for screwing up, but a preemptive show of solidarity.

Sure, it is usually better to follow the "What have you done for me lately?" doctrine, but in this situation this is the gift that can keep on giving and shows a proactive agenda. It also is usually harder for a president to get their first SC nominee through, while the ones that follow usually face less (although still considerable) resistance. I would imagine we see Ginsburg (and hopefully one of the conservative justices) retire in 2011 when Obama is (likely) to have a more solid Senate and that is when he will see some of the more mover-and-shaker type of justices on Obama's wish list.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2009, 01:17:32 am »

The first two of those are debatable, and are something to be worked out behind the scenes with the CHC. It is tough to say whether a later pick will seem like anything more than shameless pandering, while an early pick may not be remembered. But bear in mind Obama may not get another one of these before the 2012 elections. It may be likely, but Ginsburg has shown herself to be resilient and committed to remaining on the bench for as long and as often as possible.

On the final point, I would be interested to see the decisions passed down by these justices before I start throwing around the "L" word. It is possible that Sotomayor has a pretty liberal record. I am not knowledgeable enough (yet, but I will start looking through decisions when finals are over) on their records. However, for Obama to spend such a tremendous amount of political capital on this is silly. It has the potential to blow up in his face on too many fronts, from losing the nominee to losing major planks in his agenda. He is better off placating everyone, having an easy nominating round early, get in a pretty good justice, and move on with his platform. Once that is in place he can go full steam ahead with the more ideologically compatible justices, but sacrificing everything for a slightly more liberal justice is not in the best interest of his administration or the country at the moment.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #8 on: May 03, 2009, 11:01:10 am »

Again, I stress that overall influence on the court is more important than simply deciding on the liberal side of issues.  If you select someone like Brennan, your influence is infinite.  I severely contest you contention that Obama is better off "placating everyone," only the women's interest groups hold considerable sway with Obama's legislative goals in his first term.  Getting in a 15% more liberal justice is not his priority, I agree, but Obama is someone with particular interest in Constitutional law and he may not settle that easily.

I would agree. I am all for an influential liberal voice on the court, and I'm sure Obama will hate backing down on his gut choices, but there is no conceivable reason why he would give up the political capital necessary to do that so early into his first term. The honeymoon is going to end soon enough and the Republicans already don't seem all that inclined to drink the Kool-Aid. This is going to be a protracted fight and I would rather avoid a shutdown of Congress over this.

Just this could turn popular opinion against Obama. The country really doesn't hold much interest in SC nominees and would rather a quick, easy process. If we have to start hearing about how a justice was okay with partial-birth abortions or some stupid crap like that Obama will lose a lot of face and a lot of time. Best he play it safe for this first one and shape the court later down the road.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #9 on: May 03, 2009, 05:29:10 pm »

It's a partisan issue, not really a moderate hero one.  As long as Franken gets seated and normal Congressional committee policies are followed, very little political capital will need to be spent.  Everyone who's following this and knows Congressional politics knows Obama can choose anyone he wants and that this is something Obama almost certainly feels worth spending political capital on while Congress privately hashes out a health care plan.  Obama has a personal fascination with the Supreme Court, it's not a side show to him!!!

I have a hard time seeing Democrats moving lock-step on this one, but it would be nice. I understand that Obama does not view this as a side show, but he has people like Rahm who are purely political and aware of political consequences. I would love to see how those internal negotiations are shaping the decision. I do think Rahm and the political guys will mostly win out on this one. Sotomayor seems to fit the blend of judicial enough for Obama and political enough for the pollsters. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge constitution enthusiast and would love to see a real mover and shaker on the court, but I don't think this is the time.

That said, things will rely heavily on the climate of the next few months and how quickly Obama plans on announcing his pick. There is no rush (needs to be done by October), so Obama could float some names, get the winds of rage done with, and then make his pick once they pass. He may also have the major parts of his agenda passed by October. If he spends all of his political capital by October he can pick whomever he wants for the Court. Plus all the digging by the vetters will turn up some information that would be hard enough for any of us to find.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #10 on: May 03, 2009, 06:16:52 pm »

I'll not, but why shouldn't Obama try to select someone intellectually and legally persuasive?  The reason Brennan was influential was because he could convince people such as Kennedy [and more conservative justices].  Obama won't probably get up to that level, but I don't see any reason not to shoot for the moon and select the most brilliant, persuasive, [female], justice possible.  Going for the token Hispanic is best done closer to election day, no?


Closer to election still looks like pandering. He can point to this around election time and say, "Look at all the wonderful things my Hispanic pick has done." Obviously all of this depends on how conditions are in October. If Obama has incredible Senate dominance and has passed much of his agenda by then, he could potentially have his way. However, if he is mired in conflict and a number of battles with the Senate, he is better off rallying groups around him and gaining more political capital than he spends with his pick.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2009, 12:13:42 am »

Kagan passes Sotomayor on Intrade:

Kagan 30.0
Sotomayor 25.0
Wardlaw 20.0
Wood 11.0
Granholm 9.9



Unless Obama and Rahm have all the buys in Intrade, how much of a predictor is this really?
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2009, 09:13:29 pm »

Sotomayor retakes the lead on Intrade:

Sotomayor 35.0
Kagan 25.0
Wardlaw 24.0
Wood 15.0
Sears 11.2
Granholm 8.0



Apparently the trashing of Rosen and his hit-piece worked well.

Interesting, especially because she happens to have the most incriminating of clips readily available for branding as an "activist" judge.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2009, 11:51:41 am »

Why would Napolitano be on the list. The Senate would have a fiesta with ripping her apart, most notably for that report the Republicans managed to misconstrue as calling veterans possible terrorists.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2009, 03:17:46 pm »

That's similar to FirstRead's list and I don't buy that those are all names on his final shortlist

I agree. I imagine the list is longer than five names (every source always centers on five) and it likely has one or two surprises no one is thinking of.

I certainly doubt Napolitano is on the shortlist at all.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2009, 08:13:24 am »

MSNBC says Sotomayor:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30938978/


And NYT just txted me saying the announcement will be at 10:15am today.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #16 on: May 26, 2009, 08:36:06 am »

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/05/26/behind_obamas_announcement.html

Why was Napolitano seriously considered?

Kagan would've been a much better pick.  Still, at least he's likely to get more appointments than just this one.

At 55, she's the same age Sam Alito was when he was appointed.

Sotomayor doesn't seem to be all that bad. Granted it would be nice to have a non-appeals court justice on the Court, but she could add some spice (pun not intended) to the bench.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #17 on: May 26, 2009, 09:07:40 am »

Watching CNN. Reporter saying a WH official says of the shortlist candidates, Obama knew the least about Sotomayor and she won it in the interview. Mostly through her passion for the law and her life story.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2009, 09:21:06 am »

Does it help or hurt that she saved baseball? Tongue
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,714
United States


« Reply #19 on: May 26, 2009, 09:39:51 am »

I'm sure Obama's team has already found an explanation for that. It's a pretty easy find.

FoxNews doesn't seem to be hitting back to hard just yet. I imagine by the time we see BillO or Hanitty tonight we can expect YouTube videos, angry rants and the shaping of the conservative message.

Of course, I spoke too soon. Already pulled a quote where Sotomayor says a Hispanic woman would make better decisions than a white male.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC