The appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is, I think, a strong one — and a positive sign that at least on some fronts, the Obama Administration gets it. Sotomayor has an exemplary record, and a great life story. And the early sliming of her by the usual suspects on the left has convinced me that she will be the sort of nominee that progressives can be proud of.
The fact that Obama was willing to appoint Sotomayor despite the whispered smear campaign that Sotomayor was hot-tempered and stupid — despite the accolades she received in her academic career, despite her ability to rise to the penultimate rank of judges in the American judicial system — tells us that Obama is willing to stand up, at least sometimes, to the more reactionary forces on the left side of the aisle. (If you don’t think there are reactionary forces on the left as well as the right, you haven’t been paying attention.)
Ultimately, Sotomayor is an historic nominee. If confirmed — and she will be confirmed — she will be the third woman and first Latina to serve on the court. But more than that, she is a judge with a strong record and a fascinating life story, the type of person that is the personification of the American Dream, the idea that anyone can make it here. I am impressed with the choice, and if the Republican Party wants to fight against a woman who rose from public housing in the Bronx to the precipice of the most important court in the country, I say bring it on. Sotomayor has proven her mettle; those of us who count ourselves her allies need to prove as tough.
How could Obama have selected one candidate who not only fillsl the needs of the Court, yet place both parties equally in opposition and support of her nomination. This one is a walk. Lots of senators must be gnashing their teeth.
I knew he was smart, or perhaps his advisors are, but I admit that I didn’t think he could do it, or would do it.
Congratulations Obama, on a mid-road selection who won’t be hit by a truck.
correct me if i’m wrong, but i haven’t seen much opposition from the left, except for that unfortunate Jeffrey Rosen TNR piece
Rosen was on NPR this morning talking about how Obama let everyone down from the expectations he created by not nominating one of the governors and strongly implying the only credential Sotomayor has is her life story. That guy is such an ass.
Umm is Jeff Rosen really a slimeball on the left? I always thought ot the New Republic as a right wing rag that hired a few lefties and positioned itself as liberal to better screw with other liberals. They are inside the tent pissing inwards. Did not even know that was controversial. (And yeah, they have some genuinely good guys – Brad Plumer for instance. But I think the New Republic will always find a way to bloc with reactionaires when the stakes are high.)
Gar, how long have you been reading The New Republic if you consider it a “right wing rag”?
Also, what do you consider right wing — Woodrow Wilson? John Kennedy? anti-McCarthyism? opposition to the Vietnam War? Consistent support for Democratic presidential candidates?
Or a “rag” for that matter: do you apply the term only to right wing publications, or does The Nation or Mother Jones also receive the appellation?
I recommend looking at Rosen himself, and his critique, instead of basing your judgment of whether he’s on the left on where he published his article. Rosen very clearly has been grouping himself with those who want a “Scalia of the Left,” a “liberal lion,” a Brennan or Marshall type — all of these, of course, are references to men and masculinity. He didn’t criticize Sotomayor for being too liberal, but rather for being unable to carry the liberal banner strongly enough.
He mostly criticized her for having an unpleasant personality and talking too much.
In terms of the NR, it has freakin changed since its founding. It helped kill the Clinton Health Bill during the Clinton era with critiques from the right, and also attacked single payer health, just for fun apparently since it was never close to happening,. It supports the most right wing forces in Israel, supported the Iraq war, tends to attack unions. So I would say it has long since forfeited any right to be called part of the left. Maybe you can think of it as a Joe Lieberman liberal if you wish.
As to Rosen,he’s been a villager from way back., And of course there are left wing scumbags out there. But there are enough real ones. We don’t need credit for fucking Rosen’s. He’s part of the mushy middle who blocs with the right when it really counts. As recently as the March 4 2007 Sunday issue of the New York he claimedthat Congress has no say over how the war is actually prosecuted. And he said if Congress tries to do so, it would be overreaching and could provoke a constitutional crisis. In short he made a constutional claim that Congress could not use its power of the purse to do anything about the Iraq war.
Rosen supported confirmation of John Roberts and Alioto. And he was still making argument fairly recently that Roberts is a “centrist” on the court.
So Rosen’s a leftist. Please. He’s reflexive contrarian villager, and like all villagers his contrarian streak always curves right.
I knew I remembered Jeff Rosen being a long time wanker. He wrote back in 1994 how his marriage to a Republican had made him and his wife both more “moderate”. Because of course when two people disagree, the truth always lies somewhere in between.
If we’re discounting what TNR was like for the first 60-odd years of its existence, then it’s equally valid to discount what it was like prior to Franklin Foer’s editorship, which is declaredly more liberal than his immediate predecessors. (And under which TNR published articles accusing the U.S. military of engaging in gross misconduct.)
Hmm, well I also married a Republican, am skeptical of unions, support Israel’s right to defend itself, have noticed that Congress does not hold the title Commander in Chief of U.S. armed forces, and think that judicial nominees should get an up-or-down vote because part of winning the White House is getting to nominate the judges you want.
I guess that outweighs the fact that I support same-sex marriage and want sexual orientation to be a suspect classification; am pro-choice on abortion; oppose racial profiling, the death penalty, criminal penalties for marijuana possession, and the privatization of Social Security; favor affirmative action, environmental regulation, the strict separation of church and state, non-military foreign aid, minimum wage laws…
Did I miss the memo where the left decided to try to be as purist as the right?
Rosen was on NPR this morning talking about how Obama let everyone down from the expectations he created by not nominating one of the governors and strongly implying the only credential Sotomayor has is her life story. That guy is such an ass.
The New Republic is left???? “Left” of who? Rush Limbaugh? And isn’t it time for the faux-liberal villagers to start foaming at the moutn and shreiking “Purity Purity Pure Pure Pure” at anyone who raises an objection?
Oops. I see that’s already happened. Carry on…
AlanSmithee,
Your attitude (I don’t have to measure left and right by the actual political attitudes of a United States that includes red states) is precisely the type that pisses off the moderates and centrists whose support is still needed to get anything done. (Have you talked to Jim Webb lately? Or any of the other blue-dog Dems in a supposedly filibuster-proof Senate?)
TNR on most issues is to the left of the average American voter, and therefore I find it simply absurd to call TNR “right wing.”
PG and especially Alan, please dial it down a few notches. Thanks.