President Obama hopes to make one first with his just-announced Supreme Court pick, but it won’t be “the first gay.”
Putting to rest all the speculation and betting, U.S. appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be the high court’s first Hispanic justice if she makes it through Senate confirmation hearings. The official announcement will come later today as Obama races to beat the end of the legislative season to appoint his first justice.
The pick fits with Obama’s earlier statement that he wants a justice who “understand[s] what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old”; if there’s anyone who can empathize, his reasoning goes, it’s a Latina woman from a Bronx housing project. She’s the daughter of Puerto Rican parents, something we can only assume Rush Limbaugh will quickly pounce on.
UPDATE: Video from Sotomayor’s presser:
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
VegasTeaRoom
I only hope to God that she a had huge number of gay friends helping her raise her family.
pz
The principal reason she was selected instead of the Stanford professors (other than Obama’s greater desire to appease the Hispanics than the LBGT community) is her stated philosophy that the “court of appeals is where policy is made.”
No Stanford professor, gay or straight, would hold such an opinion.
Overall, this is a good appointment for the LBGT community, likely better in an activist sense than any of the LBGT candidates, themselves.
Good luck on the Prop 8 decision today.
Alec
@Oaklander: Not really. I’m sure that demographics plays a role, but as far as I know there aren’t any openly gay federal appellate judges. That’s the pool from which the last God knows how many Supreme Court nominees have come from. I think, off the top of my head, that O’Connor was the last one who hadn’t been a federal circuit court judge.
That’s the main reason I don’t find the choice that inspiring. A Stanford professor would have been fresh air for reasons unrelated to their demographic profile.
blake
@Oaklander:
You’re statement is disgusting. Sotomayor is Puerto Rican.
Sotomayor is a good selection for anyone who values progressive ideals, which include LGBT rights. She has a strong liberal background.
Do yourself a favor and read up on how much the Right hates Sotomayor because of her liberal stances.
red phone
Oaklander: What should be simple is the understanding that she is not Mexican and that the word faggot has two Gs.
Go back to kindergarten and try again, you dumbfuck.
Bob R
@Oaklander: Sotomayer is Puerto Rican, not Mexican. Not all Hispanic groups love or even like each other. From my years in Florida I know that Cubans dislike Puerto Ricans and loath Mexicans. Most Cuban Americans I have known think Mexicans are nothing but trash, peons and PR’s, well you get the picture. Growing up in Philly, I had a few Puerto Rican friends, all of whom were incredibly hot, I might add. I know Puerto Ricans and Italians (also some very hot friends) didn’t think much of each other either. Even Italians and Sicilians had a dislike for each other. I never really met any other Hispanics (Mexicans, Central and South Americans, etc) until I moved to south Florida. There I quickly learned not all Hispanics like one another. Like blacks (African-Americans hated Haitians) and Asians (not all Asian’s like the Japanese, for instance)and even gays are not monolithic. So I don’t think Obama picked a Puerto Rican because there are “more Mexicans than fagots”. Of course it probably will help with the overall Hispanic vote in 2012. And, if she’s gay friendly, it’ll help with the gays too.
blake
@Oaklander:
See Bob R’s comment.
P.S.
Sticks and stones.
blake
@Bob R:
You forgot to mention the divisions that exist within Latin nationalities. For instance, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Domincans and other Latinos divide themselves along class, race, and color lines.
Eva Longaria of Desperate Housewives has discussed how much her white Mexican grandmother disliked Longaria for being brown-skinned, a reflection of native Mexican ancestry. One of the worst insults in some Latin American countries is to be called “indio” or Indian. Racism is rife.
Similarly, in countries like Cuba and the Dominican Republic, although the majority of the populations might have African ancestry, having such (or how much it is displayed in one’s appearance) ancestry is still the basis for discrimination. In the Dominican Republic, for instance, many people who are obviously of African ancestry would call themselves “dark Indian” because of the stigma associated with African ancestry. Others who consider themselves white are shocked with they come to the U.S. and learn they are considered “black” here.
dgz
i just wish someone would be nominated who wasn’t a Harvard or Yale grad. there are other good schools with lots of good students out there.
afrolito
@Bob R:
Italians are hispanic now? That might be some major news to them.
As far as Sonia Sotomayer goes, she looks good on paper, and i’m glad he picked a woman of color for such a powerful position. I just hope he properly vetted her, unlike some of his past nominees.
Bob
It’s not that the pick will line up Hispanics behind Obama.
It’s that the GOp bashing a Hispanic will line them up behind Obama.
If you read conservative blogs they’re already in a lot of words calling her stupid.
The minute Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck get on air to call her a retarded Mexican who should be shipped back home.
Obama will win.
Bob R
@afrolito: Hispanics are considered of “Latin” ancestry. Thus, Hispanics refer to themselves as “Latinos” or “Latina”. Italians are Latins. The similarities in language and culture attest to that. I really don’t think it’ll come as a major news shock to them, really. Also, see Blake’s post, No. 8.
alejandro
@Bob: isnt that good if obama wins??
Steve Benen
@pz: There’s a video of Sotomayor speaking at Duke University Law School four years ago, in which the judge said appeals courts are “where policy is made.” Conservative activists and Republican senators have seized on those four words as evidence of “judicial activism.” After all, they argue, “policy” shouldn’t be “made” in the courts; it should come from the legislative process. To do otherwise, the theory goes, is to “legislate from the bench.”
Reiterating a post from a few weeks ago, it’s worth knocking this down. A.L. did a nice job explaining why the argument is misguided.
The entire video clip can be found here: http://www.law.duke.edu/webcast/?match=Sonia+Sotomayor. The context, is that Sotomayor was explaining the differences between clerking at the District Court level and clerking at the Court of Appeals level. Her point, which is unquestionably true as a descriptive matter, is that judicial decision making at the Court of Appeals level is more about setting policy, whereas judging at the District Court level is a more about deciding individual cases and disputes. And the reason for this is obvious. Decisions at the Court of Appeals level don’t just determine the fates of individual litigants; they serve as controlling precedent for all District Court judges within that circuit. Thus any decision by a Court of Appeals becomes the policy of that circuit, at least until it’s overruled by the Supreme Court (which is rare).
There is nothing remotely controversial about this. Cases get appealed to the Circuit Court level for one reason: because the answer to the question being litigated is not clear…. But in Simplistic Republican World, none of this actually happens. Good conservative judges don’t “make policy,” they simply enforce the law. The law is apparently always clear. Indeed it’s a wonder that lawyers even bother to appeal cases in the Fourth Circuit. After all, they should know that the conservative jurists in that circuit will simply “enforce the law” (because they wouldn’t dream of “making policy”), so the outcome should be very predictable.
Sotomayor will no doubt face all kinds of criticisms, and some may be more persuasive than others. This one is just silly.
Juanita de Talmas
@pz: No Stanford professor, gay or straight, would hold such an opinion. That’s not her opinion, either. Get your facts straight and stop parroting Republican talking points.
Hal
She’s seems very smart and qualified. She deserves the nomination.
xiquet
@Bob R: I think you are a little confused about where the term Latino came from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino
my_god_joe
She is divorced, has no children, and lives in a condo in the Village. Uh, elephant in the room, please wake up.
Alexa
I’ve been reading up on her and she seems like a pretty good choice from what I’ve seen.