Editorials Respond To Selection Of Sotomayor As Supreme Court Nominee

Main Category: Women's Health / Gynecology
Also Included In: Litigation / Medical Malpractice
Article Date: 29 May 2009 - 3:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions

Several newspapers recently published editorials on President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Summaries appear below.

~ Boston Globe: "Some liberal activists hoped that Obama would seek a firebrand to counter [Supreme Court Justice] Antonin Scalia, the darling of the right," but "Sotomayor has made her reputation not on hot-button social issues but on matters ranging from environmental regulation to the baseball business," a Globe editorial states. It adds that while Sotomayor "presumably shares Obama's support for abortion rights, she upheld the Bush administration's restrictions on family-planning activities" by international groups that received U.S. funding. Now, "conservative groups have seized upon an offhand remark in 2005" when she described the "federal appeals courts as the place 'where policy is made' ... as evidence that Sotomayor would legislate from the bench," the editorial states, adding. "The attack is disingenuous." The editorial concludes, "Short of any unexpected revelations about her record or her philosophy, though, the Senate should confirm Sonia Sotomayor," adding that in addition to her "intriguing" personal background she "also has the experience to make an excellent Supreme Court Justice" (Boston Globe, 5/27).

~ Chicago Tribune: Sotomayor "has to bring more than diversity to the court," a Tribune editorial states, adding that the "evidence so far suggests that she is up to the job." One "would expect a nominee chosen by Obama to be on the liberal side of the judicial spectrum," but some of her rulings "suggest otherwise," according to the editorial. While Sotomayor "has stressed that the 'duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms,'" on the bench, "she ruled against an abortion-rights group challenging" the Bush administration's "global gag rule," the editorial notes, among other rulings that "could be characterized as 'conservative decisions'." However, "the point is not that she's a closet conservative -- it's that ideology didn't seem to determine her decisions," according to the editorial. The "Senate has a responsibility to undertake a thorough examination of her record and her thinking," the editorial states, concluding, "But for now, it looks as though her critics have a tough task ahead of them" (Chicago Tribune, 5/27).

~ Los Angeles Times: "Sotomayor doesn't possess the political experience that would be brought to the court's cloistered chambers by Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) or Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano," but "she satisfies Obama's other criteria: experience, erudition and, as he put it, 'a common touch and a sense of compassion, an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live,'" a Times editorial states. Sotomayor's "experiences as a Latina raised in a housing project who went on to excel at Princeton and Yale don't in themselves qualify her for the court," but these facts do "complement her sterling credentials and equip her with perspectives that could illuminate legal issues that come before her," the editorial continues. Senate Republicans "should accord her the same respect [they] demanded for Bush's nominees and end the tiresome tit-for-tat that has cheapened the confirmation of federal judges and deprived the bench of some of the nation's most capable legal minds," the editorial concludes (Los Angeles Times, 5/27).

~ Philadelphia Inquirer: "Sotomayor would bring to the court a diversity it has lacked for most of its history," an Inquirer editorial states. Although "[c]onservatives want to make an issue out of President Obama's search for 'empathy' in a nominee" and "criticize Sotomayor for a speech in 2001 in which she said that being a woman of color affects her decisions," neither comment "is sinister nor shocking," according to the editorial. It concludes, "The Senate has a duty to examine Sotomayor's qualifications rigorously and fairly. But she appears to have the experience and the temperament to merit Obama's confidence" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/27).

~ Washington Times: "Justice is supposed to be blind, but some Democrats want everyone to focus on Sonia Sotomayor's race and impoverished upbringing when considering her Supreme Court nomination," a Times editorial states. The editorial continues, "Sotomayor's judicial record and views of the law are what must be examined, not the color of her skin or where she grew up." The editorial concludes, "With the first Hispanic women positioned to serve on the Supreme Court, liberal Democrats are diverting attention from Judge Sotomayor's controversial record by playing the race card" (Washington Times, 5/28).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.