Columnists Respond To Selection Of Sotomayor As Supreme Court Nominee

Main Category: Women's Health / Gynecology
Also Included In: Litigation / Medical Malpractice
Article Date: 01 Jun 2009 - 3:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

The New York Times, Washington Post and Washington Times recently published opinion pieces on President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Summaries appear below.

~ David Brooks, New York Times: "Supreme Court justices, like all of us, are emotional intuitionists" because "they begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads," Times columnist Brooks writes, adding that "[t]hese are models of how the world works and should work, which have been idiosyncratically ingrained by genes, culture, education, parents and events," and which "shape the way judges perceive the world." Therefore, the "crucial question in evaluating a potential Supreme Court justice ... is not whether she relies on empathy or emotion, but how she does so," according to Brooks. He writes that Sotomayor "will be a good justice if she can empathize with the many types of people and actions involved in a case, but a bad justice if she can only empathize with one type, one ethnic group or one social class." He concludes, "It's not whether judges rely on emotion and empathy, it's how they educate their sentiments within the discipline of manners and morals, tradition and practice" (Brooks, New York Times, 5/29).

~ Michael Gerson, Washington Post: By opposing Sotomayor's confirmation, Republicans could be entering "a trap" by "further alienating Hispanic voters the GOP has recently driven away in droves," which might "confirm an image of Republicans as the party of the male and pale," columnist Gerson writes in a Post opinion piece. He continues, "Barring unforeseen ethical revelations, opposition to Sotomayor seems both politically risky and ultimately futile." However, "Republicans must still enter the trap -- with open eyes and no expectation of gain -- not to defeat a nominee but to maintain a principle" that the court "should be a place where all are judged impartially, as individuals," Gerson writes. He continues that the "Obama/Sotomayor doctrine of empathy challenges this long-established belief," and this "is not a minor matter." According to Gerson, "Concerns about the doctrine of empathy will not defeat Sotomayor -- and perhaps they should not defeat her." However, the "problems raised by selective empathy require a substantive (not harsh or personal) national debate -- and this requires Republicans to carefully, warily, enter Obama's trap" (Gerson, Washington Post, 5/29).

~ Michael Kinsley, Washington Post: "What conservative Republicans don't like about the Supreme Court can be summarized as three, or maybe four, A's: abortion, affirmative action and activism," columnist Kinsley writes in a Post opinion piece. He adds that "[r]ecent Republican platforms have pledged to appoint judges who not only will overturn Roe [v. Wade] but will make clear that fetuses have the same rights as people under the 14th Amendment's guarantee of 'equal protection of the laws.'" Kinsley continues that supporters of Roe "clearly represent the 'activist' side," while opponents of the decision "are right that Roe represents the highest tide of Warren Court activism." However, this "doesn't mean the critics of Roe are right on the merits;" rather, it means that "'activism' is a near-worthless concept, and comparative activism is nonsense," Kinsley writes. He continues, "Although I am pro-choice, Roe makes me unhappy because it was poorly reasoned, not because it 'went further' than other decisions." According to Kinsley, "many opponents of Roe would not be satisfied with merely seeing it overturned and the issue returned to the states," and, in fact, the GOP platform "effectively calls for a litmus test for judges: Will they rule abortion illegal in all 50 states no matter what the people want?" He continues, "Now that would be judicial activism with a vengeance" (Kinsley, Washington Post, 5/29).

~ Eugene Robinson, Washington Post: The fact that Sotomayor "is a proud and accomplished Latina" apparently "drives some prominent Republicans into a state resembling incoherent, sputtering rage," columnist Robinson writes in a Post opinion piece. He notes that much of the conservative outcry centers on a "widely publicized, out-of-context quote from a 2001 speech in which Sotomayor mused about how her identity might or might not affect her decisions as a federal judge." According to Robinson, the speech "was actually a meditation on Sotomayor's personal experience of a universal truth: Who we are inevitably influences what we do," and that each individual "carries through life a unique set of experiences." During her confirmation process, Sotomayor will "have the chance to supply the missing context for any quote they throw at her," Robinson writes, adding, "I can't imagine that her opponents in the Senate will be able to lay a glove on her." He continues that Sotomayor "has made clear that she is proud of her identity, and she offers that pride not as an affront but as an example -- not white, not male, not Anglo, not inclined to apologize." Robinson concludes, "She is the new face of America, and she has a dazzling smile" (Robinson, Washington Post, 5/29).

~ Cal Thomas, Washington Times: "That statue above the Supreme Court -- the one of a woman wearing a blindfold and balancing scales in her hand -- is meant to depict the law as blind to one's gender, race and personal circumstances," columnist Thomas writes in a Times opinion piece. He adds that President Obama "wants that blindfold removed and the law tailored, like a suit, to fit the individual," which is "the classic liberal view of the law." Although Democrats "have the votes in the Senate to confirm" Sotomayor, Republicans should still oppose her confirmation "if for no other reason than to train for the next nomination, not to mention standing on principle," Thomas writes. He continues that a GOP opposition strategy "should be played out on at least three fronts," in which Republicans counter Sotomayor's rulings, her interpretation of the Constitution, and the "hypocrisy of the left, including Obama." Thomas notes that Obama while serving as a senator voted against the confirmation of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He asks, "why shouldn't Republicans do unto him what he did unto a Republican president and vote against Sotomayor for her liberalism?" Thomas concludes, "At a minimum, her statements and record should receive a thorough going-over" (Thomas, Washington Times, 5/29).

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.