In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Weighing Sotomayor’s Opinions

Jill

I have a piece up in RH Reality Check today about Sotomayor’s various legal opinions, including her one reproductive-rights-related decision (which has a conclusion that none of us are going to like). A teaser:

Sotomayor would not have been my first choice, primarily because my political leanings are far to the left of her legal theory. But I’ll be supporting her whole-heartedly. Her trail of opinions paints a picture of a fair-minded, incisive legal scholar who is unafraid to stake out unpopular but legally meritorious positions. Right-wingers are going to oppose her nomination with full force – we would be foolish to do it for them.

Check it out.

5 thoughts on Weighing Sotomayor’s Opinions

  1. I completely agree that it would be fantastic to have a Hispanic woman on the bench–I think diversity is not only a nice benefit, but downright crucial to a fair and balanced court. And there’s no question she’s qualified in terms of experience and intellect. But at the same time I disagree with adopting immediate support on the basis that conservatives will fight her nomination (“Right-wingers are going to oppose her nomination with full force – we would be foolish to do it for them.”), or insinuate that it’s somehow foolish to question her nomination, when she has at least two very questionable decisions on her record.
    A lot of feminist bloggers wrote posts around election time saying that while it would be “nice” to have a female president, they weren’t willing to sacrifice their liberal ideals by voting for Clinton. Does the same logic not apply to Sotomayor? And, unlike Clinton, her appointment has no time limit, so if it turns out that she’s not so pro-choice, well, that is going to suck.

  2. Thanks, Jill; another excellent post. Although I think the gag rule was stupid and enormously destructive, it doesn’t seem unreasonable or especially ominous to me for Sotomayor to have ruled it wasn’t a matter for a domestic court.

  3. While I agree that her gag rule ruling isn’t particularly ominous I must say that I am going to withhold enthusiasm and support until we find out more about her. She could very well be on the other side of the culture wars.

    That said the GOP does not have the votes for a filibuster on this and it appears her confirmation is inevitable.so what we mere citizens do isn’t going change things one bit. I’ve been enjoying watching republicans make complete asses of themselves. Huckabee (who called her ‘Maria’ on his web site and Gingrich have been particularly hilarious.

  4. While I also agree that the gag rule ruling is not particularly ominous, I, too, am withholding support until we find out how prochoice she really is. I really have no desire to wait until she is confirmed to find out where she stands on such a critical issue. If, God forbid, she is confirmed as someone who is assumed to be prochoice because of other left of center issues, but turns out (as a practicing Catholic) to favor the forced birth agenda, then we are in for a world of hurt that will turn reproductive rights back to where they were pre Roe.

    I do not mean to be alarming, but I do find it quite troubling that there is not an inkling of data on the subject. Whereas I cannot imagine that Obama would nominate someone who is not prochoice, I also could imagine a situation where the question was never fully explored during vetting.

  5. That was a terrific analysis, Jill.

    Some of the comments on the original post at RHRC left much to be desired however, particularly when one poster claimed that you would be supportive of the appointment of 50 Cent to SCOTUS, and the spewing of the Rethug talking point that Sotomayor is nothing but an Affirmative Action pick, chosen only because of her race.

    I think concerns about her reproductive rights credentials aren’t without merit, but as I understand it, the fact that she doesn’t have a more extensive judicial record on the issue i simply the reality of the 2nd Circuit Court, which doesn’t traditionally address many of these cases, given it’s geographic location.

    I would like to have a little more assurance that she is solidly pro-Roe, but I am not overly concerned that she isn’t, and the fact that she is identified as Catholic doesn’t automatically raise any alarm bells, either. Nancy Pelosi is also a practicing Catholic, but has her stance on abortion ever been in question?

Comments are currently closed.