Political Hotsheet
By

Jeff Greenfield /

CBS News/ May 26, 2009, 2:45 PM

A Political Matter

5039517
I don't know if President Obama wrote out his announcement statement in longhand, but as he introduced his choice of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, I could swear I heard the sound of a lot of "i"s being dotted and "t"s being crossed.

Diversity? Sure -- with an existing history of 108 men and two women, the nominee just about had to hail from the female side of the plate. And unless you count the late Justice Benjamin Cardozo -- born to a Portuguese Jewish family -- as "Hispanic," Judge Sotomayor would become the first nominee of either gender from that fastest-growing of demographic groups.

And while she follows a quarter-century long pattern of hailing from the federal appellate bench, Sotomayor does come with years of experience as a Federal trial court judge, as well as background as a prosecutor -- thus fulfilling Obama's pledge to bring to the Court judges with "real-life" experience.

There's another sense in which Judge Sotomayor fits a recent historical pattern: judges who make their biographies a centerpiece of their qualifications for the bench.

Curiously, given the strong objection from conservatives to Mr. Obama's call for "empathy" form a justice, it was the nomination of Clarence Thomas in 1991 where biography first became a front-and-center matter.

In his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Thomas employed what his backers came to all "the Pinpoint Strategy,"--named after the small town in Georgia where he grew up. Thomas talked of life under segregation, being raised by a loving grandfather; and underlined his hard-scrabble life as evidence that he would be fair-minded and open to the claims of the less well-off. (Critics will point to his career on the bench as evidence that the Pinpoint Strategy did not offer a powerful clue as to his judicial philosophy).

Ruth Bader Ginsberg also made her biography a central point of her statement after being nominated, paying tribute to her mother, who struggled with cancer for years. President Clinton was so moved by her story that when Brit Hume asked Mr. Clinton a question about the vagaries of the selection process, the president angrily cut off the questioning.

Sotomayor's background as a child of modest means who grew up in public housing may wind up being a point raised by her opponents. Maybe, they may argue, her sympathy for the underdog led her to decide in an affirmative action case that New Haven, Conn., could deny promotions to every firefighter because no minority passed the promotion test. They will likely cite a 2002 speech she made that could be read as implying that minority women bring a special quality to their work that white men may lack.

The fundamental point, however, is that the emphasis on Sotomayor's background demonstrates that Supreme Court nominations are inevitably and fully a political matter.

Jeff Greenfield is a CBS News Senior Political Correspondent.

Sonia Sotomayor: More Coverage And Analysis




© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Popular in Politics

15 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
gravyboat69 says:
She had made some very racist and bigot comments in the past. We dont need another bias on the court. We need fairness and objectivity. She doesn't appear to be it.
Posted by culturechang

You need to read her rulings, and the complete transcript from her lecture.

Quit listening to the talking points, it just makes you look duh~duh~dumb...
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
gravyboat69 says:
In 2001 she said this: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Posted by culturechang

In this statement, she was referring to her background, poor and living in the projects in the Bronx.

As apposed to a white guy who may have lived a privledged life?

Keep tryin though, this is fun!
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
culturechang says:
In 2001 she said this: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
culturechang says:
She had made some very racist and bigot comments in the past. We dont need another bias on the court. We need fairness and objectivity. She doesn't appear to be it.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
busybeela says:
The silver lining of this pick is that it totally exposes who the REAL racists are! From the white house, to these boards here, we can finally see the agenda forming behind all the chattering. (Props to Shmuckey Shumer)
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
busybeela says:
What Obama has done with this pick is disgusting pandering and racism. Her being Latina has NOTHING to do with what kind of judge she would be. Why is the Left so obsessed with race? What happened to judging the content of a person's character? Hypocrites! Who cares where she grew up, if she is a bad judge. Her record speaks for itself. She has been overturned on the majority of cases that reached the Supreme Court. No one is talking about what kind of JUDGE she will be. I only hear talk of her race and gender. Read Michelle Malkin's post on this. Read anything but this poor excuse for mainstream news media.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
deep_throat says:
The SCOTUS just upholds/enforces these laws. They don't make it up as they go based on their diversity.

Her decision should be based ONLY on LAW. Not her personal background or opinion. LAW! She is a bigot and a detriment.
-- Posted by hwy71so at 6:42 AM : May 27, 2009

Cool it, hwy71so. You are just repeating what you hear on the radio from the Neocon talking heads like Limbaugh and Hannity.

The woman has been in the legal business for over 25 years. You think she knows the difference between making law and applying the law?

Instead of building your opposition on one or two comments she jokingly made at some panel discussion/dinner party (look at the video), take the time to look at her hundreds of decisions and opinions she has written in the past 20 or so years as a judge .

Other than a few instances that you can count on one hand, you will see that she has done exactly what she was supposed to do - apply the law and not make it.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
deep_throat says:
Like the fact that 60% of her Appellate Court rulings have been overturned by the Supreme Court. That means she only gets the law right about 40% of the time. That's not even a good shooting percentage in basketball, much less in judging.

-- Posted by tennisgal44 at 8:28 AM : May 27, 2009

Did you know that the Supreme Court typically reverses 75% of the rulings that come before it?

In 2006, the Supreme Court reversed 75.3 percent of the rulings they considered. The pattern holds true for the 2004 and 2005 terms as well, when the Supremes had overall reversal rates of 76.8 percent and 75.6 percent, respectively. (check ScotusBlog.com)

These numbers might seem high, but it makes perfect sense. The Supreme Court, unlike the federal circuit courts of appeal, can choose which cases it wants to hear (certiorari). The Supremes select just a handful of matters (maybe 1-2% out of thousands) each year, and they generally pick rulings they'd like to overturn. After all, if they're happy with an appeals court decision, why spend more time on it if they'd only uphold it?

So, now, the 60% reversal rate of Sotomayor doesn't seem that bad. Does it?

Next time, try to get both sides of the story.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
sly_64 says:
We really need to banish these justices being appointed for "Life". Give them terms like every other elected official. No one is that perfect that they can judge others for the rest of their life.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
tennisgal44 says:
ANOTHER affirmative action appointment goes to someone incompetent!!DETAILS OF SOTOMAYOR BACKGROUND
SHOW SOME DISTURBING THINGS.









Like the fact that 60% of her Appellate Court rulings have been overturned by the Supreme Court. That means she only gets the law right about 40% of the time. That's not even a good shooting percentage in basketball, much less in judging.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/
reply
See all 15 Comments