5/27: An Opportunity Or A Threat?

As we noted yesterday, most conservative bloggers believe that SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor is likely to get confirmed. However, they still think that it's in the GOP's interest to aggressively oppose her nomination. Philip Klein explains that "the upcoming Sotomayor fight isn't really a fight about whether she should be confirmed -- Republicans pretty much lost that one last November -- it's a fight about whether [Barack] Obama gets to define Sotomayor as a 'moderate.'" Similarly, Roger Pilon argues that Sotomayor's confirmation hearings provide "an opportunity for Republicans to reestablish their identity" as opponents of the type of "identity politics" that Sotomayor supposedly represents.

Along these lines, many righty bloggers are focusing on a lecture that Sotomayor delivered in '02, in which she suggested "that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." One conservative blogger claims that this speech reveals Sotomayor to be "a garden-variety race-hustling bigot." Another warns that "if [Sotomayor] does not walk away from her prior statement, then (coupled with her positions on race-based preferences) the Republicans may have (a) a basis for asserting the existence of an extraordinary circumstance and (b) a tenable political basis for obstructing this nominee."

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, contend that a judge's background inevitably affects his or her decision-making. digby writes: "All humans bring their personal experiences to everything they do. Even judges. Admitting this, and believing that your experience gives you a unique insight into certain aspects of how the world works, does not make you a 'reverse racist.'" That said, lefty bloggers don't particularly mind that conservatives are attacking Sotomayor in this way, as they believe that the GOP is only further damaging its reputation among Latinos. Scott Lemieux quips: "If the GOP wants to make a big stand on affirmative action in the context of the first Hispanic-American nominee -- and hence continue its demographic death spiral -- I say bring it on."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• After angering liberal bloggers earlier this month by writing an anonymously-sourced article entitled, "The Case Against Sotomayor", The New Republic's Jeff Rosen claimed yesterday that Sotomayor should be confirmed and complained that conservatives are "willfully misread[ing]" his piece. However, that's not stopping liberal bloggers (Cole, Greenwald, Dayen, Serwer) from blasting him. Conservative bloggers (Ponnuru, McCarthy) also believe that Rosen has no right to complain about how his article is being used.
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Lane, Malkin) are buzzing about the revelation that Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) spoke with the brother of ex-IL Gov. Rod Blagojevich "about how to raise campaign cash for the governor without creating the perception he was buying his way into Congress."

SOTOMAYOR: What The GOP Should Do

While most conservative bloggers think that Sotomayor is likely to get confirmed, they still believe that it's in the GOP's interest to oppose her (although they're wary of using a filibuster):

• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Republicans don't have the votes to defeat Sotomayor -- and should be extremely cautious even in considering a filibuster. There is so much at stake right now that it's going to be important to 'prioritize' properly. But what the GOP will have is an opportunity through the hearings to show what liberal judging is all about -- and they need to take that moment."
• AmSpec Blog's Klein: "[T]he confirmation process of a high-profile position such as a Supreme Court justice is an opportunity to illuminate the consequences of elections. In the case of the Sotomayor appointment, while she's likely to coast through the Senate given the Democrats' sheer numbers, the American public needs to understand why this is such a radical pick. The Obama/Sotomayor idea that judges, instead of making impartial rulings based on the law and the Constitution, should base their decisions (at least in part) on their own experiences and ethnic background, is outrageous. It is perfectly appropriate for Republicans and conservatives to make this point, and there's no reason why they can't do so in a respectful manner. In short, the upcoming Sotomayor fight isn't really a fight about whether she should be confirmed -- Republicans pretty much lost that one last November -- it's a fight about whether Obama gets to define Sotomayor as a 'moderate.'"
• The Cato Institute's Pilon: "President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court will pose difficulties for Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Sotomayor's personal story is deeply compelling, and she is the first Latino nominee to the High Court. Republicans need to reach out to that important voting block. But they also need to reestablish their identity, which has been rooted, from the time of Lincoln, not in the 'identity politics' that has so dominated the Democrats' agenda in recent years but in the fundamental idea that every American should be treated as an individual, nowhere more clearly captured than in our national motto, E Pluribus Unum -- from many, one. Here is an opportunity for Republicans to reestablish that identity, if they handle it smartly, because there is much in Judge Sotomayor's record to suggest that she subscribes to identity politics."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "I submit that Republican Senators should feel free to vote against Sotomayor. Half of the Senate Democrats voted against [John] Roberts and a strong majority voted against [Samuel] Alito. They did this for no other reason than their desire not to have another 'conservative' on the Supreme Court. There is substantial evidence that Sotomayor is a 'liberal.' Thus, non-liberal Senators have every right to vote against her for that reason. [...] So far, I'm aware of no extraordinary circumstance that would justify a filibuster against Sotomayor. Her attempt to 'fly under the radar screen' while upholding racial discrimination against non-black firefighters was deplorable, but probably not sufficiently so."

Other conservative bloggers are fiercely opposed to Sotomayor:

• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "I never in my life thought I could possibly see a Supreme Court pick as bad as Sonia Sotomayor. Barack Obama is quite clearly trying to upend all the underpinnings of American society in order to create his own version of a Brave New World. [...] He nominates the most radical possible choice for the Supreme Court, a woman whose speeches and writings are so obscenely racialist that no white male could possible get away with saying anything like those things and live, professionally, for even a single additional day. [...] This is a war for our civic souls. We dare not lose it."
• RedState's Warner Todd Huston: "[A]ny obviation of conservative principle to pander for the Hispanic vote is a fool's errand. It isn't worth the erosion of our principles to try and cajole votes from the Hispanic community. This is absolutely not to say that we should abandon any efforts to recruit good Hispanic candidates that exhibit strong conservative principles, far from it. But, as in this case, meekly accepting a candidate like Sotomayor will do no good to help us gain the vaunted Hispanic vote. [...W]e should not allow her candidacy to quietly glide by unopposed."

On the other hand, Ben Domenech thinks that Sotomayor is "mostly harmless" because she hasn't demonstrated "the gift for motivating or shifting her fellow justices." Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt believes that "conservative interest groups should spare us the histrionics and work on increasing the number of Republicans in the upper chamber," since "any hope of serious opposition to a nominee requires more Republican senators pure and simple."

SOTOMAYOR II: The Berkeley Speech

Many conservative bloggers are focusing on a lecture that Sotomayor delivered at the U.C. Berkeley School of Law in '02, in which she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life":

• The New Ledger's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "No one doubts that [Sotomayor] has lived a rich life. But why does Judge Sotomayor believe that a white male may not have also lived a rich life?"
• NRO's Rich Lowry: "The Latina Lecture [is] pretty amazing. Have we ever had a Supreme Court justice before who stated quite frankly that he or she is incapable of being objective?"
• Liebau: "By trashing the idea of judicial impartiality -- and discounting the importance of aspiring to it -- Judge Sotomayor engages in a thought (and judicial) process that is not only unjust, but is deeply inimical to the success of a diverse country like ours."
• RedState's E Pluribus Unum: "[Sotomayor]'s a garden-variety race-hustling bigot. You should read the transcript of this lecture she gave at the Cal-Berkeley Law School in 2001. You should read every word of this thoroughly bigoted piece of rotting carp that probably went over well, considering where it was delivered. From top to bottom it advocated the notion that the judiciary was only fair insomuch as the racial and gender makeup of the judiciary approached that of the population. It said, in so many words, that only women and minorities were truly capable of rendering justice."
• Mirengoff: "Sotomayor's suggestion that, other things being equal, Latina judges can decide cases better than their white male counterparts hints at a special circumstance, since it entails a view of judging that arguably is antithetical to existing norms. Sotomayor should be examined carefully on this question. If she does not walk away from her prior statement, then (coupled with her positions on race-based preferences) the Republicans may have (a) a basis for asserting the existence of an extraordinary circumstance and (b) a tenable political basis for obstructing this nominee."
• NRO's Peter Kirsanow: "Does Sotomayor contend that a judge's interpretive approach is hard-wired to her gender and ethnicity? Does that mean that litigants should necessarily expect different decisions from a Justice Roberts than a Justice Sotomayor? What would Sotomayor think if John Roberts had made the identical statement? Is there any doubt that several members of the Judiciary Committee would've declared the statement sexist and racist?"

A few righty bloggers (Lewis, Kopel) are focusing on Sotomayor's Second Amendment views, but Sotomayor's views on race appear to be generating the most commentary in the conservative blogosphere.

SOTOMAYOR III: Everyone Has Feelings

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, dispute the notion that a judge's experiences shouldn't play a role in his or her decision-making:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[T]his argument about 'feelings' is really beneath contempt. Judicial decisions aren't made by robots or Vulcans. By definition, controversial appellate cases arise in situations where reasonable people disagree about how to construe and apply the law."
• digby: "One can't know for sure that the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts, who has so far voted every single time with the ruling elites, was affected by his personal experience as a privileged white male, coddled, groomed and rewarded from his earliest days by the conservative establishment he served, but it certainly isn't unfair to think he might have been. [...] All humans bring their personal experiences to everything they do. Even judges. Admitting this, and believing that your experience gives you a unique insight into certain aspects of how the world works, does not make you a 'reverse racist.'"
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Here is what I have learned today from conservatives about the proper characteristics of a Supreme Court Justice: (1.) It is necessary that the a Supreme Court Justice have no empathy, or feelings of any kind. (2.) It is necessary that a Supreme Court Justice have no gender, ethnicity, or identity of any kind. (3.) It is necessary that a Supreme Court Justice have no views on right or wrong of any kind, and only 'follow the law.' Given these characteristics, unless I am hearing conservatives wrong, what we really need are robots on the Supreme Court."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Conservatives, who seem constitutionally unable of viewing any non-white nominee as anything other than identity politics run wild, have already decided [Sotomayor]'s just a crass affirmative action hire. Out of a decade-long appelate court career, the only opinion of hers they seem to have heard of, or care about, is Ricci. And unlike all the middle class white guys on the court, who are apparently paragons of race-blind rationality, they're convinced that she's just naturally going to be incapable of judging any case before her as anything other than a woman and a Hispanic."

SOTOMAYOR IV: Bring It On

Liberal bloggers are convinced that the GOP is hurting itself politically by attacking Sotomayor:

• TAPPED's Lemieux: "If the GOP wants to make a big stand on affirmative action in the context of the first Hispanic-American nominee -- and hence continue its demographic death spiral -- I say bring it on."
• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "I'd love to see [the GOP] push the argument that a Latina who goes from the the South Bronx to Princeton summa cum laude, who has more time on the bench than of the people serving had when they were nominated, who was nominated to the bench by a Republican, is an unqualified Affirmative Action pick. My sense is that they aren't that stupid -- at least in the Senate. [RNC Chair] Michael Steele and his band are another story."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "The only decision the Republicans have right now is whether or not they filibuster Sotomayor. That is it. They are operating from a point of real weakness right now, and the only choice they have to make is whether or not to go all in. If they decide not to filibuster, all that remains is a balancing act for them -- how to not do a bunch of damage to themselves by way of hyperbolic statements that will be played on infinite loop in heavy Hispanic areas in the 2010 midterms, but at the same time still making it look like they are throwing some red meat to the base to keep the fundraising money coming in to the coffers. I'd argue that having [ex-Rep.] Tom Tancredo and crazy Uncle Pat Buchanan on television screaming 'reverse racism' and 'affirmative action pick' is a particularly striking example of failing to find the appropriate balance. The real question here is how much damage the Republicans will manage to do to themselves, at least right now."
• Drum: "The wingnut wing of the Republican Party seems hugely energized by Sotomayor's nomination and ready to go ballistic over it. This might be good for them in the short term (it's a nice fundraising opportunity, brings internal factions together, etc.), but Obama, as usual, is looking a few moves ahead and understands that a shrieking meltdown from the usual suspects will mostly help the liberal cause: the American public already thinks the conservative rump running the Republican Party is crazy, after all, and this will help cast that feeling in stone."
• Balloon Juice's DougJ: "[T]he fact is that screaming about about quota queens and welfare moms and young bucks buying T-bone steaks simply is not a magic bullet anymore. It works with white southerners and it works with Chris Matthews' cranky uncle. But the Republican party has already maxed out with that demographic. Unless they can improve their standing with women, Latinos, and younger voters, they're screwed. Obviously, attacking a Latino woman for being a Latino woman will hurt politically with Latinos and women."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Latinos are going to be looking very closely at how the GOP treats Sotomayor. And I bet they won't like what they see."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "This president is more cunning than he might seem. Today's news photos of Sotomayor are also strikingly attractive and charismatic. You can imagine how this pick plays in the West and Southwest. As shrewdly as the [John] Huntsman pick for China, this is both a defensible policy pick and a brilliant piece of domestic politics. The visuals of [Senate Judicary Cmte Ranking Member] Jeff Sessions laying into her will not help the GOP in exactly those places it desperately needs. Advantage: Obama."

SOTOMAYOR V: But Who's Gonna Stand Up For The White Guy?

Liberal bloggers are blasting Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) after he released a statement questioning whether Sotomayor is able "to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences":

• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "Yes. Because the worldviews of John Roberts, Sam Alito, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia are not impacted at all by their white male identities. White men are raceless and genderless, haven't you heard?"
• Media Matters' Melinda Warner: "What does that even mean? Would Sen. Inhofe have said the same thing if a white male had been nominated? Would he have asserted that the nominee should refrain from making decisions based upon his race and gender?"
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Inhofe, who no one has ever accused of being the sharpest tool in the shed, could have easily just made veiled references to Sotomayor's ideology, and wrapped it up by hinting at his inevitable opposition to her nomination. But the Oklahoma Republican just had to go the extra mile here, and introduce race and gender into the equation. [...] Put it this way: when was the last time James Inhofe questioned whether a white nominee for the federal bench had an ability to rule 'without undue influence' from his race? Would he worry about the Vatican having 'undue influence' over a Roman Catholic nominee? Has he ever checked to make sure a male nominee was not overly influenced by his gender?"
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "In reality, this helps the White House, because the dumbest thing Republicans can do is try to derail Sotomayor solely on race or gender."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "[Inhofe does] have a point. I mean, do we really want Sotomayor yelling 'Lucy I'm home!' every time she arrives at an oral argument?"

Inhofe isn't the only conservative taking fire from the netroots after criticizing Sotomayor. Many liberal bloggers (digby, Sudbay, Serwer, Morrill) are blasting ex-DoJ atty John Yoo for slamming the Sotomayor pick. Other liberal bloggers (Waldman, Smith, DougJ) are mocking ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) for incorrectly referring to Sonia Sotomayor as "Maria" Sotomayor in his statement criticizing her nomination.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: I've Seen This Movie Before

Drum is tired of the "Supreme Court Kabuki":

"We all know how this is going to play out. First, everyone is going to start looking for some dark secret in [Sotomayor's] background that will derail her nomination. That will probably fail. Then she'll testify before the Senate, and everyone will ask what she thinks of Roe and Casey and Kelo. She'll dutifully claim that she's never even heard of these cases, and on the off chance that any of them ring a bell, she'll sing the usual song about how it would be improper to say anything about any matter that might come before the court in the future. Which is everything. After a few weeks of this, all the Democrats and maybe a dozen or so Republicans will vote to confirm her and she'll join the court in time for the fall term.

It's all so tedious. So instead of going though with it, why don't we just pretend we did all this, confirm her tomorrow, and then get back to something important, like fighting a couple of wars, trying to rescue the world economy, creating a national healthcare plan, and stopping global warming?"

LEST WE FORGET: Touche!

From Overheard in New York:

Crazy, loud hobo on train, repeating: "Jesus" is a six letter word! "666" means the devil! So, Jesus is the devil!
Fed-up passenger: Hey asshole, "Jesus" is 5 letters, not six!
Crazy hobo, pensive: Well, shit, there goes my whole argument.