Jeffrey Rosen has written a few times about Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, and her “compelling” life story. Compelling? Whatever….so is Justice Thomas’ story. That didn’t help him a whole lot during confirmation tho.
What’s even more interesting is the view of her from those who have worked with her:
Over the past few weeks, I’ve been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.”
~~~Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It’s customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn’t distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions–fixing typos and the like–rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.
Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details.
The ones he did find who had a favorable opinion of her almost all brought up the fact that she doesn’t wilt like a flower under heavy pressure.
Yeah….much better to have a Supreme Court justice who is domineering rather than intelligent.
As you can imagine the lefties went a little nuts over his article and demanded to know who these sources were so a few days later he put out another post:
Readers have asked for more information about my sources. A few weeks ago, I received phone calls from eminent liberal scholars I know and trust. These scholars closely follow Sotomayor’s work and expressed questions about her temperament. They did not have axes to grind or personal agendas; they are Democrats who want President Obama to appoint the most effective liberal Supreme Court justices possible and were concerned Sotomayor might not meet that high standard. They put me in touch with others in the same situation–mostly former Second Circuit clerks and prosecutors who have argued before her–and nearly all of them expressed the same view, with exceptions I noted in the piece.
~~~I was satisfied that my sources’s concerns were widely shared when I read Sotomayor’s entry in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which includes the rating of judges based on the collective opinions of the lawyers who work with them. Usually lawyers provide fairly positive comments. That’s what makes the discussion of Sotomayor’s temperament so striking. Here it is:
Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. “She is a terror on the bench.” “She is very outspoken.” “She can be difficult.” “She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry.” “She is overly aggressive–not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament.” “She abuses lawyers.” “She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts.” “She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn’t understand their role in the system–as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like.”
Another quote from that almanac is telling:
Lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor writes good opinions. “Her opinions are O.K, by and large.” “She writes very clear and careful prose in her opinions.” “Her writing is good.” “Her opinions are generally well-reasoned and well-argued.” “She writes well.” “She is a very good writer.” “Her writing is not distinguished, but is perfectly competent.”
“Competent”. Not steller, but just ok.
Awesome
See author page
The WaTimes cites Sotomayor’s rulings have been reversed at least 60% by the higher court. Does anyone else see a major problem here?
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/
Say you went to a surgeon that had 60% of his/her patients NOT make it. But NOT because it “just wasn’t meant to be, or it was their time” … but because he/she wasn’t “interpreting” the law of physiology, biology, anatomy correctly and it was a clear case of “malpractice” … what malpractice insurance company would take on such a surgeon? Which is what the problem is in Sotomayor being overturned 60%. That’s not a small and unimportant percentage. Obviously she is not interpreting the law or the Constitution correctly. Judicial malpractice. Insurance?
Thankfully there was a higher court to oversee her mistakes …
Horrifically, when she puts on the robe and sits her butt on the bench of the SCOTUS … there will be NO higher court to reverse her mistakes …
We’ll just wait to see how her obnoxious behavior sours on the rest of the justices. I’ve seen her kind
before and know that she will be squashed….Let the wavering Obots see the worst of the worst.
Sometimes losing is winning!
Amazing! Only in America can an idiot win the presidency, bankrupt us for the next 2,000 yrs, appoint other thug idiots to high post that put all of us in tremendous danger!
So an obnoxious, unqualified dummy president selects an obnoxious unqualified dummy for the supreme court.
This is a surprise why, exactly?
Why has no one from the supposedly vaunted dinosaur media asked Mr. Obama questions. First, since he believes that she is qualified to be in the company of giants like Chief Justice Marshall, Justice Cardozo, Justice Holmes (or even Justices we may seriously dislike, like Justice Warren and Douglas) which opinions of Judge Sotomeyer does he believe are of a like inspirational and intellectual caliber, that one hundred years from now, lawyers, judges and/or even the general public will be citing with approval such opinions? Can Mr. Obama cite one or two opinions of Judge Sotomeyer that gave him confidence that she had that spark of intelligence and legal sense that would make her appropriate for the SCOTUS, and please state what the opinions were and whether Mr. Obama agrees with the decisions and reasoning.
For Judge Sotomeyer, she should be asked, given that she believes that a Latina Judge like herself renders better opinions than white Judges, please cite each of the opinions that she has written that are better analyzed and written and decided than the opinions of Chief Justice Marshall, Holmes, Cardozo, Frankfurter, Warren, Black.
Let’s be very careful about that “60% reversal rate” argument.
Sotomayor has written approximately 380 majority opinions during her time on the bench. Of those, the SCOTUS agreed to hear an appeal of five, and ultimately reversed three of them.
First, consider that, in a typical term, the SCOTUS reverses the lower court in approximately 75% of the cases it hears. By that metric, Sotomayor is ahead of the curve, albeit by a small margin.
Secondly, we must consider those other 375 majority opinions. Since they were not argued before SCOTUS on appeal, one of two things must have occurred…either:
a) The losing side didn’t appeal to the SCOTUS, or
b) The losing side appealed to the SCOTUS, and was denied cert.
There are any number of reasons that might lead to the lack of appeal, but the latter is far more relevant. When the SCOTUS denies cert (e.g. refuses to hear the appeal), that is a de facto affirmation of the lower court’s decision. I’ve tried to find this data, but have been unsuccessful to date. Given our litigious society, however, I’m guessing that more than a few of those “other 375 decisions” were appealed to–and, through denial of cert, affirmed by–the SCOTUS.
In any case, I think we need both numbers before we start talking about “60% reversal rate.” If even 10 of those other decisions were affirmed by the SCOTUS through denial of cert, that 60% drops to 20%; if 20 were denied cert, the rate drops to 12%…..
wes, first welcome back.
But on this one, you’re a tad late to the party. And oddly enough, you’re bringing trizzlor’s talking points. Where are you guys getting the idea that one should consider her entire bank of opinons with a statistic?
Triz and I have exhausted that subject on yet another Sotomayor thread. To catch up, start with triz’s opening statement, then follow our back and forths.
And most notably you missed that the expense of appeals to the High Court may have many reasons for why cases did not end up in front of the Supremes.
If you want to consider a 75% reversal average by the robed ones, then you may also want to consider that Sotomayor has had 5 already wind up there, one pending an opinion now (Ricci) and another scheduled to show up in June (Maloney).
She’s been on the Circuit for 10.5 years… seven cases taken thru the whole enchilada. By contrast, Alito was on the Circuit for 16 years, and had four that I can find. She has a high rate of risky opinions, IMHO.
But true… the numbers game can always bite one in the butt. Look at any poll for proof of that. What we should be concentrating on is her “judicial philosophy”. And if Ricci is reversed with the high concentration of liberals on the bench, Sotomayor is even too left wing for them.
Mata,
When are we likely to see a decision on Ricci?
Perhaps October?
They say by next month, Aye… and most certainly prior to any Sotomayor confirmation. What’s really interesting is Emily Bazelon’s article in the very liberal Slate a few days back, scratching her head about why Sotomayor “punted” this case.
I think Bazelon raises a very troubling issue when she states the liberal wing of SCOTUS may dump the Constitutional issue (Equal Protection Clause) at the heart of Ricci in order to preserve Title VII. Especially since the firefighters themselves have a violation of Civil Rights Act’s Title VII (race discrimination in the workplace). As is the norm, Kennedy will be the swing vote.
And it is moments like these where judicial philosophy has import. Instead, Obama has picked a woman who says:
“facts that judges *choose* to see”??? Oh my. Well, we see what facts Sotomayor chose to ignore in Ricci.
I genuinely hate wasting so much time on Sotomayor. It’s unlikely the GOP can lodge any significant block to her confirmation. And it’s even more unlikely the Blue Dog Dems will rally to their side. There’s only one thing that has a chance to take Sotomayer down. A reversal on Ricci. And even that is no guarantee… her misjudgment on the matter will be whitewashed.
Speaking of whitewashed… the opinion isn’t even in yet, and MediaMatters is busy spinning the yarn already…
It’s my opinion, that for all that might too left or lacking with Sotomayer, I think she might be pro life. Perhaps in wanting a Latino women activist, President Obama just “assumed” he would get the whole enchilada. One would think they had that “private conversation”, but I’m not sure that’s the case or that it would be legal to do so.
There are some possible hints of it here. Who knows, maybe she will be a bigger suprise, or disappointment, depending on what lens one is looking through, than Justice Kennedy.
Also, she appears to have a strong Catholic upbringing (education), which BTW, I’m shocked hasn’t been more talked about being that she will make the 6th Catholic on the court. I guess as long as one is a “bad catholic”, no big deal.
My guess, to the horror of the left, is that she will be a pro lifer on the bench, maybe even the “deciding” swing vote.
I could well be wrong, but based on all that I have read, it’s my gut feeling on her. that she will be pro life.
Hope I’m not rehashing anything here. I’ve been too busy to read much lately, just jumping in now for a quick comment.
MataHarley, I didn’t mean to stir an old pot of soup. *chuckle*
You’re quite correct to note that there can be many reasons for a circuit decision not to be appealed to SCOTUS. It’s equally important, however, to note the nature of the reversals that did occur. At least two of Sotomayor’s reversals were 5-4, which puts her pretty much on a par with the current SCOTUS. She STILL isn’t an outlier.
I did find two recent discussions of her decisions that I found rather interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28circuit.html
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/
They’re an interesting mix. She backed the Bush Administration over abortion rights activists, has ruled both for and against Big Business, and has come down on both sides of the eminent domain question. After reading descriptions of the specific cases, she doesn’t seem nearly as radical as some would have us believe.
The Ricci v. DiStefano case has exposed a pretty gaping hole in the law. Even the folks filing amicus briefs with SCOTUS point that neither the law nor the courts have settled the question of when a city’s moves to avoid legal liability run into the reverse discrimination wall, and that’s the core issue in the appeal. In that context, I don’t see the District Court’s decision as all that extreme, but it did provide the “different circuits ruling differently” marker that demanded SCOTUS attention.
And a third reversal was unanimous, Wes. Not often the Supreme’s gang together in harmony, and she has a reversal that carries that dubious honor.
Certainly not all of any sitting judge’s opinions are deplorable. However we’re not talking about a lower court appointment here, but one for life and in the highest authority of the land. One who actually answers to no one. In this case, I consider both her judicial philosophy with a penchant towards affirmative action, her belief that her life’s experiences and gender/race drive her decisions, make her one very unblindfolded choice for that lofty position.
Media continue to parrot the same soundbyte from a 2001 lecture in Berkeley she gave. Frankly, reading the text, I find many more of her comments more troubling. Granted the entire speech was focused on women and Hispanics in the judicial system. But then, that makes it all the more revealing about her judicial character. And the point is, this woman sees herself first as a Latina woman, and not a judge who should be blind to the same standing before her.
A few excerpts:
Now I’m not sure about what part of her tasks as a judge she is missing, but she is there to interpret the law. Not mold it with “choices” to her sense of fairness.
Men, beware if you stand before this judge. Your very anatomy works against you, and you start with an automatic strike. Not to mention, her speech advocates for more women and Hispanics. More BS on choosing people first on their gender or race, and not necessarily on their ability.
Personal experiences should never cloud *facts*. And “choose to see” is exactly what she did in Ricci, attempting to bury the firefighters evidence.
And on Ricci, I can’t see a gapping hole at all. Constitutional rights are always at the top. The firefighters’ Constitutional rights of the Equal Protection Clause, combined with the ironic application of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act directed towards caucasians instead of black, trumps a city’s panic about litigation costs. And even in the oral arguments in April, it is said that the city did not fare well.
Oddly enough, New Haven officials were trying to dodge a Title VII lawsuit, and found themselves right in the middle of a big one. Sotomayor side skirted the Constitutional issue of Equal Protection, and they gave an extraordinarily brief statement considering the magnitude of the violations.
This lady is bad juju. Ricci may be her undoing… not because it’s another reversal with a palatable “number” of 5-4… but because of the substance at the heart of her decision.
I suggest you read her 2001 speech I linked above in it’s entirety, and get to know the lady. A Hispanic le femme, who has every intention of bringing her NOW attitudes to the bench, and “remaking America” along with Obama.
And if you’re curious about CLPR v Bush, the one you say she supported Bush’s policies INRE abortion financing, you’ll find the decision an interesting read.