Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Chooses Sotomayor for Supreme Court Nominee
President Obama will nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as his first appointment to the court, officials said Tuesday, and has scheduled an announcement for 10:15 a.m. at the White House.
Sonia Sotomayor is tipped to replace Justice David Souter, who resigned on Friday (Photo: Pace.edu) Ms. Sotomayor, 54, will be the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court if her nomination is approved by the Senate.
The president reached his decision over the long Memorial Day weekend, aides said, but it was not disclosed until Tuesday morning when he informed his advisers of his choice less than three hours before the announcement was scheduled to take place.
The president narrowed his list to four, according to people close to the selection process, including Federal Appeals Judge Diane P. Wood of Chicago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Solicitor General Elena Kagan.
In what may be her best-known ruling, Judge Sotomayor issued an injunction against major league baseball owners in April 1995, effectively ending a baseball strike of nearly eight months, the longest work stoppage in professional sports history, which had led to the cancellation of the World Series for the first time in 90 years.
117 Comments so far
Show AllThis judge is among those to which the Republicans had an already-in-place response prepared. Within a few minutes we should start hearing the talking-heads reciting the talking points and expressing grave concerns. Take your Dramamine and something to suppress nausea. Here we go.
The Republicans remind me of a bunch of babies who've had their toys taken away.
Hamster, I loved your comment.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Yep, it's pretty much all anyone in the media is talking about today.
She was appointed by Bush Sr. so hardly representative of the liberal wing. Obama follows in his footprints of appeasing the Right and NOT challenging it. Obama proves once again that he is a gutless wonder shaking in his boots for fear of taking on the status quo.
This appointment just shifted the Court further to the Right and put in jepordy a woman's right to choose. Furthermore, she is Catholic like Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts: all anti abortion.
Thank you president dung head.
Sioux Rose
ELOHIM: Thanks for the data. I was wondering what her record would look like. I expected a centrist. Pushing the team to go back to work/play shows her willingness to side with corporate rulers over workers/people. I'd like to think that since she's a woman she's closer to the font of compassion; but the Catholic aspect (there are of course Catholics for Choice) could be a problem.
Do any of the history buffs in the CD forum remember a time when the U.S. had a more conservative court?
By your very own admission, she is a centrist so there. Stop complaining.
It is hard to tell what her views on abortion are. She has made 2 rulings that could be interpreted as kind of against abortion, but at the same time, at least according to the legal scholars / lawyers that I've read, the decisions and reasonings she made were legally correct.
The Center for Reproductive Law & Policy challenged the Bush admin on the Bush policy stripping U.S. aid to foreign NGOs advocating for or performing abortions, the "global gag rule". Sotomayor wrote an opinion dismissing the case, for lack of legal standing.
In another case, plaintiff teachers challenged a school district policy, whereby teachers should report student pregnancies to the student’s parents. Again, dismissed for lack of standing, Sotomayor joined the opinion.
As for the baseball strike, you've misinterpreted the situation. The corporate rulers, the owners during the time of the strike were using non unionised replacement players, non members of the MLBPA (MLB Players Association). Sotomayor issued an injunction AGAINST the owners for violations of the National Labor Relations Act during collective bargaining negotiations with the MLBPA. The MLBPA voted to return to work, if they got this favourable ruling. Sotomayor did not side with the corporate owners over the workers. She sided with the workers.
Sotomayor is very likely not going to be a liberal civil rights lioness, nor is she likely to be an antitrust expert going after mega corporations; for the first, Kathleen Sullivan, who would have triggered a huge amount of vitriol from the right, a fight that Obama has demonstrated no stomach for; for the second, Diane Wood. However she likely isn't a conservative either.
She wrote an interesting opinion that appears to validate a theory that was used by the Warren court, and the likes of Justice William Brennan, to (greatly) expand civil rights. A theory that is hated , and explicitly rejected, by the likes of Antonin Scalia.
She appears to be pretty much a US style centrist. Not a Ginsburg, certainly not a Brennan, but not a Scalia either.
Sioux Rose
RFLOH: Thank you. In this case I will concede to your accurate facts-checking. I am not a sports fan so I didn't understand the situation. As for the 2 cases you relate that focus on abortion, she skated the issue by using the lack of standing.
I dated a lawyer 10 years ago and one day when we were at the beach, whether its expanse inspired a sort of confession from his soul, or whether he thought the story he was about to relate would impress me, he told me how he had a murder charge dropped due to a problem with venue. It was a small technicality that got a killer off. Sometimes law makes a mockery of itself when tiny details obscure the true nature of a crime at work.
Given Obama's record thus far, I would be surprised if this new Court Justice provided room for female reproductive rights. She will probably argue for the center, which itself is nebulous. It doesn't suprise me that N.O.W is supporting her, as many women presumed Hillary would be a great president. It seems clear that Hillary and Obama get their marching orders from the same identical source.
In the past few days I viewed 3 films that all share a common theme, that of corporations absolutely decimating life in this nation (a disease rapidly spreading around the world). The films were: "The Smartest Guys in the Room," about Enron and the degree to which big $ mesmerized the media "audience." "Fast Food Nation" which shows how corporations have taken over livestock and how compromised the food is as a result. And "Sicko" showing how the U.S. allowing profit to trump every other concern has fallen so behind what other civilized nations provide for their citizens. To see this president once again bow down to these same corporations turns my stomach and compels me to write, teach, and raise consciousness wherever I can.
I can understand and sympathise with the NOW decision to support her. I'm sure they would prefer someone like Kathleen Sullivan or Pamela Karlan, both of whom are civil rights champions, but those 2 would have been fought madly by the right. Obama has shown no stomach at all for that fight. So, NOW took what they could get.
Have you read the book Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser, the book which the movie is (loosely) based on?
Sioux Rose
RFLOH: No. I have only begun to catch up on a long reading list. Finishing my own book took precedence until its recent completion. Is the movie that different from the book that I would need to read it? I don't eat any fast food and haven't for years. I used to drive through McDonald's to get my dog a cheeseburger and tell the cashier exactly what I was doing.
I was with a friend, we stop at McDonalds to get his dog a burger, and after he ate it he threw it up. That was over 30 years ago, and the last time I ate fast food.
The problem lies with the chemicals that go into making these foods. We've been conditioned into accepting it all while for dogs, it's generally tougher to trick them into it. The same thing for a cat. Feed them conventional milk and they can throw up. Feed them raw milk and they'll love it. Pets sure know how to tell good food from bad food.
Sioux Rose:
Try to see, "This Little Piggy Made Me Vomit" from Ira Glass's program, This American Life.
Also, there's another documentary called, "King Corn", about our ubiquitous corn products and "confined lot", "grain-fed" livestock .
Sioux Rose
BLUEHEELER: My best friend, extremely good-hearted, once asked me how I can live with what I know. Most of the people I connect with do NOT want to know about all these things, or they can handle some items in VERY small doses. I have to watch the tendency to "overdose" given all the negativity taking place all around us without pause.
"I dated a lawyer 10 years ago and one day when we were at the beach, whether its expanse inspired a sort of confession from his soul, or whether he thought the story he was about to relate would impress me, he told me how he had a murder charge dropped due to a problem with venue. It was a small technicality that got a killer off. Sometimes law makes a mockery of itself when tiny details obscure the true nature of a crime at work."
That's scary. Sorry you had to go through that one.
""The Smartest Guys in the Room," about Enron and the degree to which big $ mesmerized the media "audience." "Fast Food Nation" which shows how corporations have taken over livestock and how compromised the food is as a result. And "Sicko" showing how the U.S. allowing profit to trump every other concern has fallen so behind what other civilized nations provide for their citizens."
That's one of the reasons I wish that SCOTUS nominees would be vetted on economic justice more than on just the social issues alone. It's not that I oppose abortion and I don't. It's just that if only progressives and liberals focused on economic populism first and foremost, the social issues would automatically be taken care of. I don't see Roe v Wade overturned although they may add a few more restrictions to reproductive rights if presented a case.
Ginesberg was appointed by Clinton when the Republicans controlled both houses of congress and held veto power. If Ginesberg is MORE liberal, and made it through Republican control, why do you suppose a true liberal in the mold of Ginesburg would not make it through a Democratic controlled congress currently?
As I said, Obama has demonstrated no stomach for the fight to get someone like Kathleen Sullivan or Pamela Karlan onto the court. Karlan herself has expressed the sentiment that she thought that her being nominated as Souter's replacement was unlikely.
I noted that in your missive,floh.
What surprised me is no value judgement attached to your analysis.
Are you happy with what you got?
Nope. I hoped for Sullivan. Constitutional expert, civil liberties champion. Or failing that, Karlan, another civil liberties champion.
But, I expected this from Obama. There is no way, no how that Obama would have the courage to nominate either Sullivan or Karlan, even if he wanted them on the court. Even with a Dem controlled Senate, the Bayh types, the Liebermans, the Nelsons, would very likely fight a nomination of someone like Karlan. And the Repubs would very likely fight to the death, on a Karlan nomination.
I always saw Obama as pretty much a careerist centrist / right of center Dem. My expectations of him were low. On this, he has lived up, or lived down if you prefer, to my low expectations.
Rose, troubling, like everything else Obama has done.
Sioux Rose
ELOHIM: VERY troubling, and I completely agree with Rfloh's analysis. I'm glad we found an area of common ground.
So she's a right-winger because she was appointed by Bush Sr.?
My understanding of that appointment is that the two parties were taking turns in recommending judges to the federal courts. She was an appointee of George H.W. Bush as the recommendation of former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan(D).
Regardless of that, it seems a bit narrow to say she's a right-winger based on this alone---I guess you think all Catholics are anti-abortion too.
"Sotomayor's ascent from Bronx housing project to Princeton and Yale Law School to Supreme Court nominee -- driven by merit, intellect, talent and diligence -- is nothing short of inspiring." ----Glenn Greenwald
Fallen, you ought to stick to what I said, and not parroting back your presuppositions about what I said.
I noted that the four other justices on the court who are Catholic are anti abortion: I did not affirm that all Catholics are anti-abortion. Do you understand the difference?
Traditionally Hispanics are conservative. Given that Obama moved rightward, it is no surprise he carried the Hispanic community in the election.
Obama has not named one progressive in any capacity to his cabinet. That is a fact, lad.
I would posit that one cannot tell what they are getting (lacking a paper trail) to the Supreme Court until they start issuing decisions.
Obama's pick is in keeping with his centrists to right of center policies.
www.greenparty.org
"Obama has not named one progressive in any capacity to his cabinet." elohim, not quite. Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary has been a strong advocate for labor and the EFCA. The right wing howled over her nomination, and held it up for a very long time (sorry, not sure exactly how long). She is hated by business and the right. He appointed an asistant who is hated as much, but didn't need confirmation. He's also increased the NLRB budget by 12% over 2 years for addressing labor disputes. I have repudiated my vote for him, but I always want to give credit where due, and here it is due.
I agree with your Supreme Court comment, as George HW Bush would ruefully concur in the case of Souter. But I suspect Sotomayor will not start voting with the rabid right on the court.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
While I am all for strong labor support, I don't consider Sollis to be progressive. The strongest labor supporter in congress is John Dingell (who was once my congressman) and one of the most egregious despoiler of the natural world.
To me a progressive is engaged vividly with the most pressing problem facing the human race, and that problem is climate issues.
Van Jones would fit that bill in my mind, but he's not quite a major appointment. What about Lisa Jackson though?
Jackson is a product of the business world and never worked as an environmentalist before being appointed steward in NJ under GOv Corrizon.
Bill Mckibben would have been ideal, or Ralph Nader, or Dave Forman, to name a few. Trouble is Obama cannot think outside the box. Apparently, he is becoming the uniter of business with green washing standards, what Bush attempted and failed.
Even Browner is the product of a mutual fund company trying to profit off of nature by maintaining business interests in every decision, and at the expense of defending Mother Earth without exceptions.
I know a lot of very liberal, progressive, even communist, Hispanics. Where does this "traditionally Hispanics are conservative" come from? Again, perhaps a statement that is a little too global in its assessment of an entire population that is very diverse.
I was not referring to global hispanics, obviously South America has turned leftward toward socialism and I wish it would take root in this country.
I was referring to polling in the US on hispanics and their voting concerns. With the rise of the neo-con movement along with fundamentalist Christians, the Republicans have shifted to the extreme Right. The Dems meanwhile filled the vacuum they left, by moving in a conservative fashion integrating business interests without a check on their interests: look at TARP as a case in point. You might also check opensecrets.com or org to track corporate money investments to Dems. Moreover, Gueithner and Summers created the financial melt down through their previous deregulation standards on behalf of Bush and Clinton. As a result, they were promoted by Obama to clean the mess they created in the first place.
It comes from the rightwing Cuban exiles in Florida who are lock step right-wingers because Castro took over the casinos and threw out the Mafia which they worked with in the early 20th century. Before the current invasion of Hispanics the Florida Cubans were the only people the media saw and since Jesse Helms and Dick Cheney used to make headlines voting in lockstep in favor of the continuation South African apartheid and maintaining the Cuban blockade the Floridians in a state traditionally against Blacks, the newly patriated Cubans voted conservative against Blacks and established a pattern of conservatism which remains today. The Whites in power played the two groups against each other and it works horribly well. This is the manner in which Whites stay on top. Want to learn some more complicated racial political maneuvers just come to San Francisco and then you can watch the Asians in the mix as well. It is similar to stopping a fight between yourself and two or three drunks by forcing them to punch each other rather than you.
These are the vicious right wingers who kept Elian Gonzalez from returning to his father after his rightwing mother kidnapped him and brought him to Florida. These are the vicious right wingers who have taken to dealing cocaine and heroin in our streets.
But also there are leftwing Hispanic cocaine dealers in the halls of the most progressive institutions in the country including Pacifica Radio. It takes all kinds to terrorize the world, and some people have to call themselves left before they gain access. Words are cheap and can open doors.
get off your partisan/ideolog horse and accept the necessity of piecemeal change and pragmatic decisions. We're not talking about a mathematical theory here, but a diverse fragmatized society.
-She was appointed by Bush Sr. so hardly representative of the liberal wing. Obama follows in his footprints of appeasing the Right and NOT challenging it.
That is it. God forbid if Americans had voted for a Green and McCain came up the middle! McCain might have done awful things like continue the Bush doctrine of illegal war, torture and wiretapping, McCain might have, {gasp} even promoted a Republican appointed judge to the supreme court where all those Bush crime cases might end up.
My advice is to try thinking outside your conservative box for once.
enough with pushing the green party already - we saw what that did in 2000- it does make a difference.
Enough with pushing the Democrats/Republicans already - they make war, torture, and destroy the constitution while being re-elected by people like you.
"we saw what that did in 2000"
Wow, using "passing the buck" to describe that old canard would be an understatement.
Not a single Green had anything to do with the judicial coup d'etat back in 2000, despite some popular talking points still floating around. Republicans orchestrated it with the help of the Democratic Party's apathy and spinelessness to challenge it. Greens have never backed down from stating that fact, and we deserve your gratitude, not your spite. I also believe we can work well together as we build more in strength and size. At the very least, we can pose a challenge to Democrats to be more, well, democratic.
As an unapologetic Green, I'm happier with Dems back in power but I'll retain my right to remain skeptical when it's warranted. And, it is. Some of the flip-flopping coming from the administration and Congress is a bit disheartening, but it demonstrates the value for having a healthier opposition than what's coming from the fossils in the Republican Party.
The country needs to develop a new strategy for dealing with the problems we're facing. The old right-center script is officially bankrupt, but it creates an opportunity for a left-center one to develop and forge ahead with solutions. I'm confident we can, but will we?
Sotomayer doesn't have me doing cartwheels, but at least I'm not cringing like I did when (Sc)Alito and Roberts were confirmed with the support of both parties in power.
Oregoncharles
Are you saying that the two corporate parties are more interested in crushing a growing opposition than they are about any one party winning an election? Do you think they get together on these things?
Why else would Democrats collude with Republicans in 2000? Why did Gore cave when he won?!
Why did Gore write a self-serving book on environmentalism when his own living style - with multiple, obscenely spacious homes - is one that is based on conspicuous consumption? (see snopes.com "tale of two houses" ). Gore's record suggests anything but environmentalism: a 64% lifetime rating from League of Conservation Voters, which is, what? a D grade? In comparison, John Kerry's score is in the high 90s, an A grade.
Did Gore, who had little in common with dedicated environmentalism, write the books to make Nader's opposition look really bad in comparison? "Gore the environmentalist lost because of Nader the spoiler! It's bad, bad to oppose Democrats!" Could the two-parties (which Noam Chomsky says are really just one entity competing for the same money) be scamming the voters so that the agenda can move forward without a lot of messy opposition? Obama's support from progressives was absolute. Clean as a whistle. Mission accomplished!
I voted for Nader in 2000 and lived in Florida. I would do it again.
elohim, you left out Anthony Kennedy, so if Sotomayor is confirmed, 6 out of 9 justices on the court would be Catholic. A bit top heavy, considering the national percentage of Catholics in the US is 23%.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Thanks, I did not know Kennedy was Catholic.
elohim, he's conservative, but those right wing freaks have driven him to the middle so he came out centrist. He also appears to be - at least to some extent, pro choice.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
word.
I've been typically very anti-obama (I'm a radical liberal, whatever that means) but I was struck by something while reading "Obama follows in his footprints of appeasing the Right and NOT challenging it."
There are people in power or trying to get power, that I can only assume do not share my interests or even my morality- being about power and money, and not about issues and governance. Whether you are on the right or left, as long as you are not one of those uber-powerfull/rich, or are completely apathetic, you probably have some sort of moral stance on many issues.
I'd love a revloution, but maybe reaching common ground is a good thing, to applaud the President, but I'd like to also see a slight reframing of perspective from the masses on both sides. Can it be less of a battle between the powerfull left and right, and more of shifting the power divide to accruately reflect the left and right's moral values?
There have been some excelent pieces on CD about the moral values of each 'side'. They both have them and both of them are valid. What sucks is when things get twisted for personal gain of the elite.
Yes, we can respect sactity and purity... but why not start with what effects the most people- like lying financiers who affect all our pockets, rather than gay marriage that affect people, but a lot less people.
Yes, we can respect authority.... but why not base that authority on institutions that reflect the majority's interests, and not the minorty of financiers.
Yes, we can do no harm to others.... and at the same time protect our group, if we agree to the majority's priorities- like employment over profit.
See, I like finding common ground- but a common ground between the elite and the majority is not a middle ground.... compromises between the poor left and the poor right seems much more fair.
Thanks for the rant. Screw the rich.
Thank you President Obama for showing honesty and independence. The losers on the blogs thought you'd elect another corporate rightwinger but you proved them WRONG WRONG WRONG !! The purists on both sides are now the SORE LOSERS !! OOOOOOOOOOO !!! LOL !! GO OBAMA !!
Thanks for your latest Obama talking point.
The fact is she was initially appointed by Bush Sr to the bench.
So much for the herd mentality proclaiming Obama would appoint a liberal and a chief reason why we ought to vote for him.
www.greenparty.org
The Green Party looks nice but is too liberal and too fragmented to function at all. Obama successfully smashed Nader and the Green Party to irrelevancy and will do it again in 2012 ! GET READY FOR A HUGE OBAMA LANDSLIDE VICTORY ON NOVEMBER 2012 !!
What do you like about Obama? Is it that he's a Republican in Democrat's clothing?
He's a moderate, practical, ready to accept compromises and negotiate, and not a partisan ideologue. He's following Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and Eisenhower in being practical and compromising. Nader and Mckinney on the other hand are too liberal, too demanding, lawbreaking in the case of Mckinney, and controversial.
I thought you might have some examples of specific things he's done that you like. But, I guess there aren't any.