Will Sotomayor Split the Right?

With his new Supreme Court pick, Obama gives GOPers a choice: Tick off social conservatives or alienate Hispanic voters.

Tue May 26, 2009 8:33 AM PST

With President Barack Obama's nomination of federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, conservatives could have a blistering fight on their hands--among themselves.

As news leaked of the Sotomayor appointment, the Judicial Confirmation Network, a conservative outfit, released a statement from its counsel, Wendy E. Long, blasting Sotomayor:

Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one's sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.

She reads racial preferences and quotas into the Constitution, even to the point of dishonoring those who preserve our public safety....

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.

Long is a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and her group is run by a fellow named Gary Marx, who worked for the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign in 2004 and who was also a fundraiser for a social conservative group affiliated with religious right leader James Dobson. The Judicial Confirmation Network's quick opposition to Sotomayor--it aired ads against her before she was even picked by Obama--is an indication that the the Christian right is preparing for battle. As soon as Obama publicly named Sotomayor, two fundamentalist leaders and militant antiabortion crusaders--Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition and Rev. Rob Schenck of Faith and Action--held a prayer service in front of the Supreme Court to oppose the appointment. Concerned Women for America, a mainstay of the fundamentalist right, derided Sotomayor's "immodest bias," criticizing her for having remarked that a "'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."

But will the social conservatives eager for a fight over Sotomayor be supported by others on the right, as they try to block the appointment of the first Latina Supreme Court justice, whose life story (from housing project to Supreme Court!) is full of triumph-over-adversity inspiration?

Not everyone on the right appears eager for a war over Sotomayor. On May 1, conservative pundit and strategist Bill Kristol gave a talk to the DC lawyers' chapter of the Federalist Society, the preeminent conservative legal group. (Members include Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito Jr.) He said that Sotomayor would be hard to oppose, noting her Hispanic background and pointing out that she was first appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush. Kristol called her an attractive candidate and predicted she would sail through the confirmation process, with minimal Republican resistance. He did not believe Sotomayor would galvanize a meaningful opposition and did not encourage a full-scale campaign against her.

His remarks seemed in sync with the sentiment of the crowd in the room. The conservative lawyers at the event appeared more concerned about the ideological balance of the court and realized that any Obama pick would likely be a liberal-minded jurist replacing liberal-minded Justice David Souter. One prominent Federalist Society official said that he doubted that any fight over Sotomayor (or any other candidate then on Obama's short list) would galvanize conservatives.

It's possible that the right is heading toward a split between those who want to Bork President Obama's first Supreme Court pick--blasting her for a decision siding with the city of New Haven in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters who objected to the deep-sixing of a promotion exam that yielded low scores for minorities--and those conservatives who don't see the political gain in trying to destroy the first female Hispanic appointee when the Democrats have a large majority in the Senate. Some leading conservative voices have dumped on her. Karl Rove assailed her as a liberal, activist judge who does not have the "intellectual powers" to make a difference on the court. National Review writer Ramesh Ponnuru tagged her "Obama's Harriet Miers." Former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee criticized the Sotomayor choice as "the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric. Sotomayor comes from the far left and will likely leave us with something akin to the 'Extreme Court' that could mark a major shift." But this hardly signals that mainstream conservatives--and, most important, Senate Republicans--are gearing up to go after Sotomayor and annihilate her. And GOP chair Michael Steele cautioned a slow and deliberate response, saying "Republicans will reserve judgment on Sonia Sotomayor until there has been a thorough and thoughtful examination of her legal views."

No doubt, cable TV conservatives will decry Sotomayor's decisions and chide Obama for citing her real-world experience as "a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court." And there will be rightwing advocacy groups exploiting the moment by sending out dire-sounding direct mail and blast emails to raise money off this pick. But all this does not make for a concerted and coordinated opposition the White House has to fret about. If Republicans do end up deciding that a major fight against Sotomayor is not in their best political interests, that surely will disappoint some of their comrades on the right--and that could spark a nasty intra-movement squabble. (Huckabee may have his first issue for the 2012 GOP presidential primaries.) By selecting Sotomayor, Obama is forcing Senate GOPers to choose between attacking a Hispanic appointee (and possibly alienating Hispanic voters) and ticking off social conservatives. At the moment, the GOPers' calculation seems obvious. But it could come at a cost of a cat-fight on the right.

UPDATE: Shortly after Huckabee slammed Sotomayor, Mitt Romney, another 2012 GOP wannabe, said he found her nomination "troubling," claiming she has an "expansive view" of the Constitution. (No way Romney was going to let Huckabee get out in front of him on this.) Meanwhile, Richard Viguerie, one of the founders of the modern conservative movement, issued a call for an anti-Sotomayor campaign: "This is an enormous opportunity for conservatives to define President Obama as a radical liberal in a way that Republicans have so far failed to do."

Additional reporting by Stephanie Mencimer.

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

Page 1 of 1

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter.

31 Comments | Post Comment

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Just one

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on May 26, 2009 - 4:19pm.

Okay, I'll bite. Can you leftists list just one benefit (beyond kumbaya platitudes) that this country has derived from "diversity".

Conservatives believe in equal opportunity - leftists believe in equal outcome (hence- affirmative action).

Will Sotomayor split the right?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on May 27, 2009 - 5:19am.

Name one benefit that this country has derived from "diversity".....President Obama.

Seriously

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on May 27, 2009 - 7:03am.

If you are arguing that affirmative action is an equal outcome system, you must have a very shallow understanding of history and present systems of power. (How many students presently attending Harvard are children of alumni?)

Furthermore, the conservatives you are talking about believe in nothing more than a myth. And while there are examples to justify their belief (let's see...Oprah, Obama, Sotomayor) it is inherently racist and ridiculous for you or "them" to say that there is equal opportunity in this country. By saying that, the only logical conclusion, then, is that people of color who don't attend college, who live in "ghettos," who are impovershed and undereducated, choose to be that way or are doomed to be that way because of some inherent racial flaw. Why would any human choose those choices?

Benefits from diversity? I hope you are kidding. This country was founded on the backs of those that we now honor with "diversity days". Try reading something from history that uses primary sources rather than whitewashed textbooks. It is unpatriotic and undemocratic for you to be as uninformed as you are about our nation's history. I know it's hard to accept what I'm saying is true because that means you were most likely given some advantage in life and you don't want to admit that. But, if you are white, as I am (and I'm guessing you are) you will have to concede that no matter how hard your life has been, it would have been harder had you been a person of color. And, conversely, you benefit from it just the same as all other white people.

So, please, stop lumping conservatives together under your misinformed and malformed ideology. There are many who harbor great intellect and would be embarrased at you identifying with them. As well, the term "leftist" as you use it here is laughable. Oh, and have a nice day.

what has America gained from diversity?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on May 29, 2009 - 9:16pm.

Its culture!!!!

Activism on the bench?

Submitted by GarySeven on May 26, 2009 - 5:09pm.

Whether you're liberal, independent, conservative, whatever your influences are, taking any kind of public office requires you to do your mortal best to distance yourself from bias, of ethnic, religious, gender, or other social origin. One would hope that such a general standard would also extend itself to the Supreme Court.

The law is the law is the law, and it is held in this country that all are created equal, at least in the eyes of the law, meaning that no favor or quarter be given based on social status, income level, ethnicity, gender, because when you start talking about the highest court in the country, now you're talking about stuff like the O.J. circus, people trying to claim insanity and thereby escape consequences of their actions, or ride some other sob-story out of the courtroom. My question is, is this new appointee of the mental and emotional caliber that she can see through a sunshine story, has she 'got it' when it comes to sniffing out the truth, is she professional enough to not be swayed when someone breaks out the violin? I'd say there's a lot involved in being a lawyer, and more involved in being a judge, and more than that involved in being a Supreme Court judge, and if her peers and other evaluators are satisfied with her credentials, and she's willing to take the job, then good luck, godspeed, and all that jazz, because we'll always need legal eagles, people that watch what's going on in the world, and are wise enough to make good decisions when it counts. If only we were ALL that good when it comes to making decisions...ah, but back in the real world, the reason to have courts and stuff is because people don't make such great decisions, and you need arbiters and decisionmakers who can make good judgement calls and help keep things generally on the straight and narrow, which is one place the GOP has repeatedly demonstrated that it can use the professional assistance from on-high, there.

Klaatu marachas necktie

OK Trollsters, please listen

Submitted by Trollstein on May 26, 2009 - 9:33pm.

OK Trollsters, please listen up. The Supreme Court has become a refuge for mobsters who lack the minimum courage required to become real wise-guys. I say NOT a ONE of them has gotten where he / she is, without doing improper favors for their political benefactors. This nominee is no exception.
As to her intellectual skills:
“Karl Rove assailed her as a liberal, activist judge who does not have the "intellectual powers" to make a difference on the court. “
What a hoot . . . .
He should talk? Rove should talk? The man who championed a mentally-borderline-retarded trust-fund brat into the White House?
We (the people and trolls) have become the hapless and unwitting studio audience for a professional wrestling match known as ‘rule by judicial caveat’. This farce which passes as rule-of-law has us all mesmerized over concepts such as “Judicial Activism” (on the left) versus “Original Intent” on the right, when in fact both (in practice) are identically the same.
We have now been reduced to arguing as to whether Hulk Hogan could beat Jerry Lawler—along with the “intellectual positions” for both conclusions. Well, the joke’s on ourselves.
In the clear light of day, dishonesty cost IQ points, regardless of which ‘school-of-thought’ one comes from.
In Federalist Paper 78, Alexander Hamilton asserted:
“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. . . . The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments . . . This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.'' And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, . . ”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp
Thus I submit that the Judicial branch of government has long ago become a “run away train” that squarely endangers our society from its smallest to largest aspects. It’s a wrecking ball that sits in wait for us to try and rebuild our democracy--just enough to form a viable target.
The Troll’s advise: Assemble your savings (if you have any) and try to make it stretch into as long of a vacation as you can. We have become the Roman Empire crossed with the ‘Star Wars’ Empire.

The "powers that be" will soon become the powers that were.

not worth reading

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on May 27, 2009 - 12:05pm.

not worth reading

To anonymous at 6:19. You

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on May 27, 2009 - 5:59am.

To anonymous at 6:19. You misunderstood my question. I asked for one BENEFIT and you named Obama. Do you have any idea what benefit means???

The BENEFIT

Submitted by Anonymous2009 (not verified) on May 28, 2009 - 6:22am.

I think they may mean ... not Bush.

When Far Left is Yesterday's Moderate

Submitted by Clemsy (not verified) on May 27, 2009 - 7:15am.

Just like Souter! Right wingers keep yelling Far Left! Far Left! when, from their perspective, an accurate examination of Ronald Reagan's administration (you know, negotiating with the enemy, largest tax hike in U.S. History) would make him look like Chairman mao. Of course he wasn't and neither Obama nor Sotomayor have anything to do with lefty extremism.

There isn't a lefty-extremist anywhere near Washinngton D.C., dammit.

Right-wingers give hyperbole a bad name.

curve ball

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on May 27, 2009 - 7:48am.

has it occured to no one that perhaps Sotomayor may cast a conservative vote for any Roe v. Wade related cases? Wouldn't that just throw the fulcrum in a tizzy? Who does she 'belong" to then? And would pro-life Dems come out of the woodwork, or Rep. cross OVER to Democrat if they've got an addendum on their definition?

Curve Ball: The abortion

Submitted by Trollstein on May 27, 2009 - 8:47am.

Curve Ball:
The abortion rights issue is likely the only one that she had been specifically vetted on in advance. Here's why: The Republican politicians, in spite of all their decades-old rethoric, would not actually want Roe -v- Wade to fall. It makes a great fundraising tool for them. But more important, such a reversal would doom the Republican party to the scrap-heap of history. It might even start civil unrest. The LAST think Obama wants is for his nominee to cast a vote to strike R v W.

The "powers that be" will soon become the powers that were.

From the article:

Submitted by gslusher on May 27, 2009 - 11:17am.

From the article:

National Review writer Ramesh Ponnuru tagged her "Obama's Harriet Miers."

What a hoot! Sotomayor has years of experience as a trial and appellate judge. Miers had no credentials, at all, except for being one of Bush's "work wives." Not to mention that Meirs' nomination was killed by conservatives.

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

Can you leftists list just

Submitted by steve w on May 27, 2009 - 12:18pm.

Can you leftists list just one benefit (beyond kumbaya platitudes) that this country has derived from "diversity".

How about the Unted States of America? Immigrants arrived from all over the world since before it was antion and have been coming ever since. If that's not a benefit of diversity. I don't know what is.

Also, if anyone actually believes that the life experiences of supreme court justices have not influenced their decisions since the first court, I have abridge to sell them.

Yes. And its a very big

Submitted by Trollstein on May 27, 2009 - 2:18pm.

Yes. And its a very big benefit.
Most contries have no minorities. Most contries that DO have minority groups have one or two only. In that example, it is always a conflict between the ethnic groups for power and wealth. In the USA we have like 35 major ethnic groups and about 75 more minor sized ones. Where I live, people may not love the other groups (most have no problems) but even without love, people respect each other.
Any other questions?
The "powers that be" will soon become the powers that were.

Will Sotomayor Split the Right? NOT a Chance

Submitted by MarthaA on May 27, 2009 - 12:20pm.

In 1992 Sotomayor was appointed to the bench by CONSERVATIVE RIGHT-WING REPUBLICAN EXTREMIST George H. W. Bush [The Conservative Inner-Party of THE PARTY. ]

In 1998 Sotomayor was appointed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, District Court, Southern District of New York by CONSERVATIVE LEFT-WING Corporate DLC DEMOCRAT EXTREMIST William J. (Bill) Clinton [The Conservative Outer-Party of THE PARTY.]

This woman, though purported to be a liberal, will follow conservative extremism to the letter and never have a liberal thought, which will NOT be a problem for conservatism, as conservatism is the far right EXTREME.

George H.W. Bush (A.K.A.

Submitted by Trollstein on May 27, 2009 - 2:24pm.

George H.W. Bush (A.K.A. 'King George') was historically far from a right wing Republican. He appointed Souter (A flaming liberal Republican) and was himself endorsed by most liberal Republican politicians, such as Bob Packwood (R-OR), Dan Evans (R-WA) and others. Plus, in the 1960's the Bush family favored legal abortions.

The "powers that be" will soon become the powers that were.

Sotomayor's Dissenting Opinions = Real Bad Joke!!!

Submitted by Michael L. Wagner on May 27, 2009 - 1:26pm.

+ Kelsey v. County of Schoharie:

Sotomayor’s Dissenting Opinion = requiring a newly admitted jail inmate to disrobe in front of a corrections officer = strip search violation of the Fourth Amendment (and any reasonably intelligent corrections officer should know this).

+ USA v. Juan Vincent Gomez Castrillon:

Sotomayor’s Dissenting Opinion = money laundering conviction should be vacated = evidence didn’t amount to guilty beyond a reason doubt = defendant drove $500,000 to meeting with agent / defendant was lookout / defendant had $6,000.

+ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.:

Sotomayor’s Dissenting Opinion = Trucking Company shouldn’t have rejected job applicants on medication that might impair driving ability = truck driving is a broad class of jobs (this though the employer only saw applicants as unfit to perform a certain job for which they were seeking applicants).

+ Thomas Pappas v. Mayor and Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New York:

Sotomayor’s Dissent Opinion = Police Officer kept receiving letters asking for contributions, so he anonymously returned racially bigoted materials = he was fired = majority opinion—“For a New York City police officer to disseminate leaflets that trumpet bigoted messages expressing hostility to Jews, ridiculing African Americans and attributing to them a criminal disposition to rape, robbery, and murder, tends to promote the view among New York citizenry that those are the opinions of New York’s police officers.… In the words of Justice Holmes,‘A policeman may have a constitutional right to [speak his mind], but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.’”= dissent opinion—where an employee serves no supervisory role, the danger to an agency’s successful functioning is minimal = also the “statements” were made while off-duty = also anonymous nature—“… the Department should have swept the matter under the rug hoping no one would ever learn the facts; and if it chose instead to bring charges against Pappas, it has only itself to blame for the resulting harm to its reputation …”

+ S.H. Croll v. M.Y.Croll:

Sotomayor’s Dissenting Opinion = married couple (US Citizens) residing in Hong Kong got divorced and the Hong Kong Court decreed that the child can not be taken from Hong Kong without both parents consent = mother took the child to US = majority decision—child cannot be returned to father in Hong Kong = Dissent Opinion—child can be returned to Hong Kong.

+ L.N. Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda:

Sotomayor’s Dissenting Opinion = Burmuda should be recognized as an independent state—rather than a British Overseas Territory.

+ USA v. J. Gori:

Sotomayor’s Dissent = as officers listened in, a busted drug dealer called his source = when source was busted with kilo of cocaine = said someone in apartment 1M had given him the cocaine = cops went into the lobby pending further instructions = when pizza delivery came to apartment = cops were afraid of being exposed = stood on either side of delivery guy = when door opened cops ordered everybody into the hall = guy consents to search of apartment = busted for cocaine…= majority opinion—quotes Katz (389 US at 351)“A suspect in her open doorway becomes ‘as exposed to public view, speech, hearing, and touch as if she had been standing completely outside her home.”= dissent opinion—“’[t]he right of the people to be secure in their … houses …’”=“…the Fourth Amendment has drawn a fine line at the entrance to the house.”

Diversity

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on May 27, 2009 - 5:45pm.

I guess you leftists are not quite up to rational thinking. Of course I meant government enforced, politically correct "diversity". Not the diversity we have been so fortunate to obtain from LEGAL immigration. So I ask again, what benefit have we gained. And BTW- the founders of this country were not a "diverse" group - you should read some history and not the pseudo-history drivel that Howard Zinn would have you believe is "history".

Conservatives believe in equal opportunity- leftists belief in equal outcome, regardless of qualifications or abilities.

The "Diversity" provided for

Submitted by Trollstein on May 28, 2009 - 6:48am.

The "Diversity" provided for by our government programs and the LEGAL immigration are intermingled as to cause and effect. One depends on the other. If LEGAL immigrants were not able to make a living here, there would be no LEGAL immigrants. For LEGAL immigrants to have the chance to support their families some government intervention is both proper and necessary. Besides, you anti-afirmative action people overlook one important point. If everyone were graded and promoted and accepted into schools purely based on their skills, the white population would have a different (but perhaps worse) problem. Namely, Ivy League schools would be full with Chinese, Japanese, East Indian and Jewish students.

The "powers that be" will soon become the powers that were.

Diversity

Submitted by Jane (not verified) on May 28, 2009 - 1:02pm.

Anonymous--Many white men aren't really into diversity. Many white men believe that white men are the best for every position. However, white men are a minority. If white men want doctors to treat them when they're REALLY OLD white men, they have to hope that smart people of all races and both genders enter medicine and succeed because there won't be enough white, male doctors to take care of everyone.

What benefit have we gained? I'm sorry you haven't found any all by yourself and have to ask. I've found diversity to be uplifting and exciting, meaningful and challenging. There's joy in learning from others who don't share the same opinion and who have different backgrounds. If you can't see it, that's your loss. We really can't explain it to you.

Diversity

Submitted by uk visa (not verified) on May 28, 2009 - 1:55am.

The extreme right of America likes to slam diversity and the left, it tends to do this under the pseudonym of Anonymous which is odd given the conviction with which the hate emanates.
Let's take a quick look at genetics (that'll get rid of the creationists; which is a damn good start) diversity is preferable to purity; purity of genes tends towards inbreeding and inbreeding tends towards Republicanism.
Diversity is natural; balance is natural; democracy is about balance; democracy is about listening; try Voltaire for a start; Anonymous - try reading before writing...

You seem to want diversity

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on May 28, 2009 - 6:16am.

You seem to want diversity as long as everyone agrees with your opinions. Diversity is difference. You claim to want difference as long is it gets rid of the things (like creationists) you find lacking. How is everyone having the same beliefs and opinions diverse? Diversity is not a physical attribute, it is a difference of cultures and beliefs.
I've found that most hate and intolerance stems from those spouting about diversity. Especially at University's, where the only views accepted are the ones popularized with main stream media. Dissention from these popular views made one an acceptable target for harrassment and questions about intelligience.
Can you not see the irony in supporting diversity while wanting to get rid of all who have beliefs you deem unintelligent?

Only Nazis could possibly have a problem Sotomayor

Submitted by BleedingNeoCon on May 28, 2009 - 2:43pm.

The sanctimonious tone from the left is pretty funny. The right shouldn't dare oppose Sotomayor because her life story is so compelling? Yes, you on the left certainly treated Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzalez and Miguel Estrada with that same caution and respect (I know- they were all Nazis so whatever could be done to oppose them was justified!). We shouldn't pick at what she has written and said because it will be momentous to have a Hispanic woman on the court? No, it will be momentous when we look at someone's substance rather than their gender and ethnicity.

If you agree with the substance of her rulings that's one thing. But please spare us the indignant lectures on how we're all just a bunch of misogynist racists.

Funny you chose to say some on the right want to Bork her. Didn't the left invent Borking?

Affirmative action is evil

Submitted by Porky (not verified) on May 29, 2009 - 2:24am.

This woman is racist and sexist, but towards whites and men so i guess that's cool. I hope her videotaped claim that the bench is where legislation is made sinks her.