<< Lying About Lying | Main | Blog Scan >>


Little for Liberals in Confirmation Hearings

| 1 Comment
That's the headline of this story by Amy Goldstein and Paul Kane in the Washington Post.

Either way, Sotomayor's reticence, if not her nomination, has disappointed legal thinkers on the left. The hearings "did serious damage to the cause of progressive thought in constitutional law," said Geoffrey R. Stone, a University of Chicago Law School professor who was dean there when Obama joined its faculty. Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal think tank, called them "a totally missed opportunity. . . . The progressive legal project hit rock bottom [last] week."
Let's hope so.

1 Comment

It's doubtful that most liberals even care--"Just win baby" probably sums up their attitude on this. The real problem for liberals, I suspect, is not that Sotomayor had to, ahem, revise her views for the benefit of the Senators who will give her their voices, see Coriolanus Act II, Sc. iii, but rather the fact that Sotomayor isn't all that talented and thus won't do much other than be a reliable vote for what the left cannot enact democratically.

An example of Sotomayor's utter lack of talent is this response to Senator Kyl:

"I don't believe that's how I read the dissent. It may have to speak for itself, but Iā€”Justice Ginsburg took the position that the 2nd Circuit's panel opinion should be affirmed; and she took it by saying that no matter how you looked at this case, it should be affirmed. And so I don't believe that that was my conclusion reading the dissent, but obviously it will speak for itself."

First of all, there is no possible reading of Ginsburg's opinion in Ricci that it would have affirmed Sotomayor. None. The best that can possibly be said is that it's unclear. Footnote 10 of the dissent says "if" summary disposition were appropriate, and Sotomayor really cannot change the "if" to would, so that's a pretty slender reed. But there's an even bigger problem. Remember, the plaintiffs (i.e., Ricci) raised Equal Protection arguments. And Ginsburg's dissent didn't even mention them. And in order to affirm summary judgment, Ginsburg's opinion would have had to deal with those arguments. Assuming Sotomayor is correct, there would have been a huge hole in Ginsburg's opinion--and you know that's not the case.

This woman has been sitting on the federal bench for 17 years. And she couldn't even correctly read a dissenting opinion in a case in which she was involved. Not sure if she hit Judge Clay territory on that one, but it's pretty bad.

Sotomayor made an elementary mistake about a case she wrote.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives