Sotomayor deserves our support

Judge Sonia Sotomayor deserves our support for the U.S. Supreme Court. She’s earned it not because of who she is but because of how she thinks and what she has accomplished.
If confirmed, she would become the first member of the nation’s growing and underrepresented Latino population to serve on the court. She would also be the third woman ever appointed. While much has been made of her identity and compelling personal story, it is her academic, legal and real-world credentials that make her a great pick.
Sotomayor graduated from Princeton summa cum laude. You can’t get higher than that. At Yale Law School, she was an editor of the law review, another prestigious spot.
When she became a lawyer, she “worked at almost every level of our judicial system,” as President Obama noted. And he was correct to add that she has “more experience on the bench and more varied experience of the bench than anyone currently serving on the Supreme Court when they were appointed.”
In addition, her experience with financial and securities law would also add some much-needed expertise.
Though the right would like to paint her as a liberal ideologue, her extensive record overwhelmingly shows otherwise.
The most controversial of Judge Sotomayor’s remarks — that her own experiences as a Puerto Rican and a woman inform her decisions — have been wildly distorted. All judges are informed by life experience. That is as true of Justice Antonin Scalia as it is for Sotomayor.
The mainstream character of Sotomayor’s rulings have led to bipartisan support in the past. President George H.W. Bush nominated her for district judge in 1992, and President Clinton appointed her to the appeals court in 1998.
The U.S. Senate has a duty to examine Sotomayor’s qualifications rigorously. It also owes her a respectful nomination hearing.
But many on the right refuse to give her any respect. Rush Limbaugh called her a “hack” and a “reverse racist.” Newt Gingrich called her a “racist.” One commenter at the New York Daily News’ Web site said the only thing new she’d bring to the Supreme Court is “rice and beans.”
It’s unfortunate that such a highly qualified nominee has to face such slurs.
But we should not be misled by them.
Sonia Sotomayor has the experience and the temperament to merit Obama’s and the nation’s confidence.
She will make for an outstanding Supreme Court justice.
Bernardo Ruiz is a freelance writer and documentary producer living in New York City. He can be reached at pmproj [at] progressive [dot] org.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead
|
Resist Censorship in Tucson
- Banned in Tucson
- An Interview with Carlos Muñoz on the Tucson Book Ban
| Banned Authors Respond | |
CURRENT ISSUE: FEBRUARY 2012
Inside the Occupy Movement
Arun Gupta and Michelle Fawcett | We visited nearly thirty occupations in twenty states in two months.
What I got at Occupy Wall Street
Breanna Lembitz | I spent seven weeks in Zuccotti Park, and here is what I got.
Danny Glover
Ed Rampell | The Progressive Interview | March 2012 issue
To Wed or Not to Wed
Stephanie Fairyington | March 2012 issue
Progressive Matt
The Koch Brothers Conspire to Buy the White House
Ruth Conniff at the People's Legislature in Madison
Standing for Justice at the Capitol. Matthew Rothschild.
Come to Progressive Talks and Events
Feb. 18, 5:30 p.m.
Ruth Conniff, Progressive Principles Conference at Yale University 11-1
Read more >>
Thursday February 16 at 7:30 p.m.
VandeBurg Room, Pyle Center. Madison, WI
Not Just Gandhi: The Tradition of Nonviolence Among Muslims in South Asia
Amitabh Pal Managing Editor, The Progressive magazine.
Read more >>
Friday February 17 at 7:30 p.m. Kate Clinton at the Barrymore with Michael Feldman in Madison.
Thursday February 23 at 3:30 p.m.
Garden Key Room, Student Union, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida
Islam Means Peace: Understanding the Muslim Principle of Nonviolence Today
Amitabh Pal Managing Editor, The Progressive magazine.
Read more >>








Comments
GuyP, I noticed you conveniently didn't touch on my post other than to repeat your ridiculous statement that she's voted in agreement with her conservative counterpart on the court 95% of the time.
Again, how can you not see how ridiculous that is on its face. How can you not see that unless you review ALL of those cases she voted on with him, and find out whether she voted in such a way as to concern a Liberal that her having agreed with her "conservative" counterpart on the court on those cases means diddly squat.
For it also means he agreed with HER.
Let me spell out what that means to you. I'll do it as if you're a four-year-old, because you seem to have that mentality on this.
I believe she's been involved in something like nearly 400 cases where she's rendered an opinion. Now, let's say your numbers are correct and she agreed with her conservative counterpart on 95% of those cases. That would mean in 380 cases she agreed with him. However, let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that 375 of those cases they ruled on, they ruled in a way that would be agreeable to most Liberals.
Would it friggin matter then that she had agreed with her conservative counterpart on those cases? Of course not. At least not to Liberals. Now, I'll agree that conservatives would then have a beef with their "supposedly" conservative justice on that court.
So, are you getting it yet? Go do some research and actually find out how she ruled on cases. And spare me that one ruling on abortion. I've read the case, and she simply applied the law fairly there. Although it's a case where I wish the law was different, she did nothing wrong.
Going by your standards, Sotomayor is a concern to you if she doesn't ignore the law anytime it doesn't suit your "liberal" agenda. Sorry, buddy, but that's not the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court. I want someone who will UPHOLD the law, fairly. If that means she renders a decision occasionally that doesn't jibe with every Liberal's viewpoint, so be it. I'm not someone who wants a judge who ignores the law and thinks she can simply rule any old way she pleases.