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
Again, GuyP, I'll try and spell this out for you, for you obviously are having a hard time understanding my point. It will be the LAST time I try. If you don't grasp what I'm saying after this, I'm through with you.
Whether or not a couple of people on the left have concerns about her, and whether or not no conservatives "supposedly" have had concerns about the "conservative" judge she's agreed with 95% of the time, is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY NOT RELEVANT.
This is because, at least as far as I can see from what you're saying, NONE OF THEM HAVE STATED THOSE CONCERNS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF SAYING THAT IN THOSE 95% OF CASES SHE'S AGREED WITH THE CONSERVATIVE THAT SHE RULED IN A FASHION THAT WOULD BE REPREHENSIBLE TO LIBERAL CONCERNS.
Now, if you can show me evidence that those rulings were reprehensible, then I'll agree that her voting with the conservative judge 95% of the time is wrong and makes her a candidate that Liberals should not stand behind. If you CAN'T, then I suggest you simply shut the FUDDUCK UP. Got it?