David Souter Retiring, Obama gets to make first SCOTUS pick

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Look, here's the real issue, plain as day:

Would her background be as widely-played if she were white and from Harlem, then went to Princeton and Yale?

White and from harlem maybe....but otherwise...NOPE.

Did Roberts get this much scrutiny?

I honestly dont remember

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

White and from harlem maybe....but otherwise...NOPE.

Did Roberts get this much scrutiny?

I honestly dont remember

He was scrutinized. Maybe not as much, BUT...

If Roberts had said anything along the lines of "I'm a white man and make decisions based on that," it would have been that last you would have heard of him.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Did Roberts get this much scrutiny?

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

He was scrutinized. Maybe not as much, BUT...

Wait, wait, wait.

In the context of confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee, media focus on her background =/= "scrutinized."

Every SCOTUS nominee is heavily scrutinized, both before the nomination is announced and after.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Wait, wait, wait.

In the context of confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee, media focus on her background =/= "scrutinized."

Every SCOTUS nominee is heavily scrutinized, both before the nomination is announced and after.

Exactly - I think we have to be careful about how we define scrutiny. Every Supreme Court nominee, going back for many years (probably at least since the issue with Fortas) has been subject to extreme scrutiny throughout the nomination process. There are a ton of background checks, and they look into every iota of the nominee's personal and professional life.

Here was my whole issue with the thing - I just think that President Obama is underselling Sotomayor's considerable talents and professional experience by using this whole backstory of "empathy" and understanding, and by over-selling her personal background. You get people wondering whether she was nominated because of her feelings and personal background growing up, instead of focusing on the fact that she's a brilliant lawyer who has earned the right to be a SCOTUS nominee. At the end of the day, I don't think it's especially fair to her.

It probably won't affect the nomination process to any large degree, and I understand it makes for good copy and for a compelling story, but I just don't agree with the way it was framed.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Wait, wait, wait.

In the context of confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee, media focus on her background =/= "scrutinized."

Every SCOTUS nominee is heavily scrutinized, both before the nomination is announced and after.

Plus, Roberts was POUNDED for a "lack of experience" during the initial part of the process.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Plus, Roberts was POUNDED for a "lack of experience" during the initial part of the process.

NPR was all over that isht. Now they treat Sotomayor's nomination like the Second Coming--if they hadn't already blown their load like that over President Obama.

Even batisht Michael Steele's telling the GOP to bacdafucup:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/re...-on-sotomayor/

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Even batisht Michael Steele's telling the GOP to bacdafucup:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/re...-on-sotomayor/

Interestingly, Michael Steele actually presented this using the music from Onyx's 1990s classic album, "Bacdafuccup"

[a.e.B.O.T.]

My opinion of Sotomayor will lie within in her response in defending her comment that a latino woman is more fit to make judgement than a white male. This comment baffles me, and if a white male had made the comment their nod for the Supreme Court would seem like a long shot. I think race will be the big issue here, as it already is coming to the foreground of discussion. I am not in the mind that Sotomayor is a racist, and I applaud use of empathy to a certain degree as the Supreme Court is to be the protector of the underdogs, but I am weary to the degree in which Sotomayor practices it. The Republicans who approach this angle as part of the defense against the nomination should tread likely. It is difficult for rich white republicans to discuss race in this country, and it could easily come off as smear and spectacle that will wash back in their face... If they approach the issue fairly with cool headed debate, it could be their only way of overturning the nomination. With that said, I am an avid supporter of Obama and her record itself looks great, so unless Sotomayor produces a satisfying reason for her comment, I am in favor of her nomination.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

NPR was all over that isht. Now they treat Sotomayor's nomination like the Second Coming--if they hadn't already blown their load like that over President Obama.

Sometimes I wonder if we hear what we want to hear. As I've listend to NPR, I wouldn't say that they're all over it like it was the Second Coming. On more than one show, I've heard some real discussion about her, and it hasn't all been rosy by any means.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Sometimes I wonder if we hear what we want to hear. As I've listend to NPR, I wouldn't say that they're all over it like it was the Second Coming. On more than one show, I've heard some real discussion about her, and it hasn't all been rosy by any means.

Don't forget--I'm listening to NPR's NYC affiliate, who really is extremely excited about this, being that she's a) the liberal dream--high achieving minority female from a humble background and b) a native New Yorker. Both of those are understandable, I've noticed that the national shows tend to be a little more tempered in their praise.

So, I do know exactly what I'm hearing. But thanks!

[Eclipse]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

He was scrutinized. Maybe not as much, BUT...

If Roberts had said anything along the lines of "I'm a white man and make decisions based on that," it would have been that last you would have heard of him.

What about the justice (Scalia?) who talked about his Italian American heritage and how he thinks about his ancestors who came to this country when making decisions. I do not recall anyone worrying about his identity politics.

[TonyB06]

The president is "selling" different things to different audiences with regard to this nominee. (just like every late 20th century, 21st century president before him has done.)

To the general electorate (political, gender, racial) audiences who, beyond an expected passing interest in her legal qualifications, want to connect on some deeper socio-political level, the persavearance angle plays and plays well. It's really politics 101.

The legal community will (regardless of whatever else the president says to other audiences) focus on her legal credentials. Again, standard operating procedure.

I really don't see what the big deal is. This is America. We see what we want to see.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Eclipse

What about the justice (Scalia?) who talked about his Italian American heritage and how he thinks about his ancestors who came to this country when making decisions. I do not recall anyone worrying about his identity politics.

During Scalia's confirmation process, Rehnquist was going through the Chief Justice confirmation process. Most of the concern was directed at Rehnquist, and honestly, there wasn't a whole lot of attention paid to Scalia.

Originally Posted by TonyB06

The president is "selling" different things to different audiences with regard to this nominee. (just like every late 20th century, 21st century president before him has done.)

To the general electorate (political, gender, racial) audiences who, beyond an expected passing interest in her legal qualifications, want to connect on some deeper socio-political level, the persavearance angle plays and plays well. It's really politics 101.

The legal community will (regardless of whatever else the president says to other audiences) focus on her legal credentials. Again, standard operating procedure.

I really don't see what the big deal is. This is America. We see what we want to see.

Oh, I understand that it's politics 101, and I think pretty much everyone understands that there are political ramifications with the way these types of nominations (whether SCOTUS, Cabinet, or whatever) are presented to the public. Also, as I said, at the end of the day I agree that it's not a big deal. It's just something that bothered me stylistically about the way Sotomayor was presented. It's something that bothers me about the SCOTUS nomination process overall (i.e. the public posturing), and it just happens to be the current President who's at the center of it at the moment.

[MysticCat]

A sidebar (sort of):

Peggy Noonan's column in today's Wall Street Journal:

Republican's, Let's Play Grown-Up: Sotomayor's hearings are an opportunity for serious debate.

ETA:

Originally Posted by Eclipse

What about the justice (Scalia?) who talked about his Italian American heritage and how he thinks about his ancestors who came to this country when making decisions. I do not recall anyone worrying about his identity politics.

I think that was Alito, not Scalia.