-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Even if some non-conservatives are making that charge, I don’t think questioning Sonia Sotomayor’s intelligence is a productive way for conservatives to oppose her nomination, becuase it’s a rather subjective and arbitrary standard that can easily be refuted by her defenders. Sotomayor came from a poor background in the South Bronx and not only attended Princeton but managed to graduate with the highest honors there and go on to Yale Law School. Even with affirmative action, she could not have achieved what she has in her life if she weren’t a smart person. Put another way, I don’t think her biography would have been possible if she didn’t have brainpower. Conservatives barked when Clarence Thomas, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, etc. were portrayed as dumb out of ideological spite, and I don’t think the right should go down that path with Sotomayor.
Some may grant that Sotomayor is smart by most normal standards, but not super brilliant in the way we have come to expect of Supreme Court justices. Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley, for instance, said her decisions demonstrated a “lack of intellectual depth” and warned liberals that her record does not suggest she would be the intellectual equal of Scalia. But if this turns out to be true, isn’t that a good thing from a conservative perspective? Would conservatives have preferred that Obama appoint a really brilliant and pursuasive liberal who could go toe-to-toe with Scalia, flip Kennedy on key votes, and write decisions that would profoundly shape the Court?
As for Jennifer Rubin’s suspicion that, “it won’t be an easy confirmation,” I really don’t see what would give her that impression based on what we know now. Senate Republicans, who only control 40 seats to begin with, have been publicly deferential since the pick was announced and there’s no reason to believe Democrats are wavering.
View all comments (26) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/05/27/re-biography-over-brains
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
D.A. Benson| 5.27.09 @ 11:13PM
This is a really good post. Nice analysis Philip Klein.
Mary| 5.27.09 @ 11:21PM
The people who are referencing her intellect are liberals, by and large. Republicans aren't going down that road, as far as I can see.
Republicans can't do anything, she's going to get appointed. Everyone knows that.
What Republicans should do is ask her some hard questions, especially regarding the New Haven case where you've got a dyslexic firefighter putting a lot of effort into passing a test that he does pass, and then has that test thrown out.
As Will reported Taylor saying; it seemed that all the judges involved in this were giving something really ugly their blessing and trying to hide it away.
I wrote yesterday that she might even prove to be a moderating force because if her writing or opinions lack intellectual heft, other judges might be swayed against her point of view.
If there's nothing in her record that's of much consequence, don't waste anyone's time, but as Rush said, use this to instruct the Country in the rule of Law and the Constitution.
If some of us in the peanut gallery are enjoying a bit of schadenfreude, who can blame us?
Mary| 5.27.09 @ 11:32PM
And if you're saying Turley's opinion bodes well for conservatives, her intellect is still the issue.
He brought it up because he's worried about it. And if he's worried about it, why shouldn't conservatives be? She's going to be interpreting or making law, after all. It's a lifetime appointment whose effect could be far-reaching and ineradicable.
Mary| 5.27.09 @ 11:44PM
Ricci lost to no one. He lost to abstractions who are yet to be recruited and yet to take the test.
What the hell is that if not a descent into the babble of lawlessness?
Heather Robinson | 5.28.09 @ 12:17AM
A fair-minded and astute evaluation, Mr. Klein. I agree; an Ivy education is not in and of itself proof of staggering intellect, but it is proof of above average intelligence, and clearly the woman is smart. Given her early background as a prosecutor known to be at least somewhat tough of crime, I think Obama could've done a lot worse.
J. Jarman | 5.28.09 @ 6:22AM
You may find questioning Sotomayor's intelligence "unproductive," but it is something that the lawyers who have argued in front of her have done. See http://is.gd/EZnk
That certainly ought to be a part of the public record.
Bob| 5.28.09 @ 8:32AM
Few of you seem to understand anything about growing up as a minority and how you achieve success. Sotomayor, just like Obama, learned early in her life that taking risks as a minority would not get her to the top of her class. Obama had the benefit of being half white, so it may have been a bit easier for him. Having grown up in a minority area myself, I can tell you that you don't naturally say things in a way that will be accepted by the majority of middle America. You learn argumentation on the streets and it is part of your culture. It is always a fight to frame an argument in an acceptable way because your natural tendency (nurture, not nature), is to enjoin a street fight. You also learn to steer away from controversy and base your opinions on fact rather than belief.
That's why minorities that achieve a high level of success have learned to be careful. This is true of Powell, Condi Rice, Al Gonzalez and Clarence Thomas. Their intelligence is focused on being acceptable not being ideologues. Clarence Thomas will rarely question in open court and is certainly not seen as a highly intelligent member of the court, but that does not mean he is not smart. Alito indicated in his confirmation hearing that his Italian immigrant background will color his decisions. (By the way, Alito had 100% of his decisions overturned by the Supreme Court while Sotomayor only had 50% of her decisions overturned.)
As for the firefighter's case, I suggest that some of you use your intellect and actually read the opinion. You'd find that Sotomayor actually followed precedent and the law rather than inject her personal beliefs in that case. Interestingly enough, to decide the other way would be to legislate from the bench. This is an example of how she doesn't take risks in her decisions. That's what makes her more administrative than ideological. Turley dislikes that because he wanted a liberal ideologue like Dianne Wood on the bench. Therefore, his comments were taken out of context.
People who grew up in minority areas in the 60's will understand what I am saying. Today, thankfully, things are changing and the assimilation of minorities into the majority population is much more common. I expect there will be less difference on the basis of race and gender a couple of decades from now.
If you read Sotomayor's opinions as they relate to corporate law, you get an entirely different opinion as those are extremely conservative in nature. Personally, I expect her to be liberal in her approach on social issues and conservative on her approach on business issues if she follows her pattern of behavior. I can live with that as that is my approach as well being one of those Powell/Frum/Brooks Republicans.
JP| 5.28.09 @ 8:48AM
Bob,
Alito authored over 25 opinions while on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Are you saying all 25 of them were over-turned? Do you just make this stuff up on the fly?
Mike| 5.28.09 @ 9:00AM
Concerning the Sotomayor confirmation process: The headline could read "Conservative Republicans to Hispanics-Drop Dead." Oh, by the way, please vote for us in 2010 and 2012. This should be fun to watch.
Bob| 5.28.09 @ 9:03AM
JP -- Fox News claimed that 60% of Sotomayor's decisions were overturned by the Supreme Court. Actually, she had 6 decisions reviewed by the court and 3 of them were overturned which was actually 50%. Of course, she had almost 600 decisions in total. Alito had 2 decisions reviewed by the high court and both of them were overturned. The high court reviews less than 1% of all appeals court decisions and of those, overturns, on average, about 75% of them. In essence, they only take on decisions that a majority of them consider questionable. That's why the percentage is so high for all appeals court judges.
Those are the facts and you can certainly check them out. The ideological right will use that data and say that Sotomayor does not make good decisions but they won't use the same methodology to say that Alito makes even worse decisions. It is selective use of data. In point of fact, this data is irrelevant given the total number of decisions made by these judges. I view both Alito and Sotomayor to be very good judges.
I just wish that you and others would use your intelligence to get the facts rather than believe ideologues. As I've said before, I believe that virtually all judges legislate from the bench because they all use different parts of the Constitution to justify their opinions. For example, I believe that Roe was improperly decided even though I am pro-choice. But then again, I'm just a layman when it comes to Constitutional law.
les grossman| 5.28.09 @ 10:53AM
I agree, Sotomayor may not be the smartest nor the best Judge even in her own Circuit, but she is qualified. If Obama chooses a so-so liberal instead of a major lib intellectual, so much the better for us.
I do however think that this is a great opportunity to for the GOP to flag Obama and the Dems for identity politics and for inviting legislation by judge.
JP| 5.28.09 @ 1:19PM
Bob,
I agree with you. The GOP has an obligation to find the following:
a)Her intellectual abilities. She should be grilled on the opinions she authored -especially the ones that were overturned. Despite what many think, the work of SOCTUS is highly intellectual, dry, and devoid of emotion. Unlike say, a local superior court judge, things like empathy for others, or ones background should never come into play.
b)Her judicial philosophy and temperment. Sottomayer has gone on record in the past saying that the main thrust of our judiciary is concerned with policy making. The GOP find out how deeply this opinion goes -especially concerning race and seperation of powers. Will she likely side with those justices who use the power of the bench to over-rule legislatures? Does she believe like Justice O'Conner that racial quotas and set-asides should continue indefinitely?
Bob| 5.28.09 @ 1:49PM
JP, I agree totally with your last comment. When you are dealing with civil cases where "fairness" is a factor, it is not a matter of "strictly interpreting the law" and your background should have an affect. As a judge, it is your decision as to how much the winner gets. When you decide on a case at the appeals level you are, indeed, setting policy because you are establishing precedent -- i.e., stare decisis. Previous decisions, especially at the appellate level, are used to support one's case. Sotomayor used this type of precedent to decide the fireman's case. It doesn't matter whether you think it is right or wrong, only law and precedent should establish a decision. Most people that blog here don't seem to understand stare decisis and precedent in forming judicial opinions. Nor do they understand that policy is, indeed, set with appellate decisions.
Therefore, I would also like to know where she stands on stare decisis and precedent. She will, of course, not answer decision oriented questions as to where she stands on Roe, etc. No candidate answers those questions.
By the way, legislatures are often overruled if their laws violate the Constitution. If the Alabama legislature voted to take away the rights of blacks or women to vote, I would hope it would be overruled by the courts. Don't you????
Smitty| 5.28.09 @ 2:46PM
Powell is a socialist, Bob--he believes in wealth redistribution. Guess that makes you a socialist, too.
Oldefarte| 5.28.09 @ 3:52PM
I don't question Sotomayor's intelligence or her experience-----I do question the sole reason for her selection [her ethnicity]!!!!!
Bob| 5.28.09 @ 4:32PM
Smitty -- do you support social security? Do you support medicare? If so, you, too, are a socialist. By the way, the military is also a socialist institution. Perhaps we should abolish that as well.
I disagree with Powell on many financial issues. I did not support TARP nor did I support the auto bailouts. I would have let many of the banks fail. However, I do support regulating non-bank financial institutions providing capital requirements and transparent reporting. I do agree with Powell on social and military issues, however.
Smitty| 5.28.09 @ 10:06PM
Agreed, Bob--but Powell supports Obama who is a fascist liberal; you do too, right? You know what that makes you.
Basil Plumley| 5.28.09 @ 10:47PM
JP| 5.28.09 @ 8:48AM
Bob,
Alito authored over 25 opinions while on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Are you saying all 25 of them were over-turned? Do you just make this stuff up on the fly?
You have just figured that out? Bob's a sneaky little bastard. You have to read a lot of nonsense and half-truths just to get to his lies.
Hey Bob, if Sotomayor was following precedent in the Ricci case why did another Clinton appointee Jose Cabranes chastise Sotomayer saying the case raised important questions of FIRST impressions in that (2nd) Circuit?
You do realize that "first impression" means there is no precedent. D'oh!!
Bob, only 5 cases were ruled on with the 6th being the Ricci case. Must be that Hahvard education kicking into overdrive.