RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
- White House State Dinner: The Menu, Entertainment, and Decor
- Dan Pfeiffer, White House Blogger
- Guests Begin to Arrive for White House State Dinner Festivities
- President Obama on Afghanistan Strategy: “It Is My Intention to Finish the Job”
- The Obamas Kick off their First State Visit, Welcome India's Prime Minister to the White House
- Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy To Include “Benchmarks” and “Off-Ramps,” Announcement Next Week
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
White House Officials Dismiss Criticisms of Sotomayor, Say She Was Likely Pick from the Beginning
May 26, 2009 1:01 PM
As a Latina from humble beginnings, with experience as a prosecutor and a corporate attorney and more time on the federal judiciary than any Supreme Court nominee in a century, Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor always seemed President Obama’s likely pick for the Supreme Court, senior administration officials said Tuesday.
“He’s been very interested in her from the start,” a senior administration official said, as another official dismissed criticisms from conservatives and other critics of her temperament and her eagerness to legislate from the bench as issues that “aren’t going to pan out” as the confirmation battle heats up.
From the beginning of the process to make a list of likely Supreme Court nominees, which began shortly after his election, President Obama was most intrigued by Sotomayor, they said.
That remained the case as the list was culled down to nine and then down to the final four finalists – including Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, US Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood, and Solicitor General Elena Kagan. Wood and Kagan were former colleagues of the President’s at the University of Chicago Law School; Napolitano endorsed him in the presidential primaries and is in his cabinet.
Sotomayor remained the one he knew the least; he met her for the first time on Thursday.
But “at the end of an exhaustive process,” a senior administration official said, “there was no question where the arrow pointed.”
President Obama felt that her experience, intellect and life experience made her uniquely qualified for the position, and the interview process “reinforced that view.”
Of criticisms that Sotomayor can be brusque, White House officials said they spoke to Sotomayor’s colleagues on the Court of Appeals, where she has served since 1998, and the District Court, where she served for the six years before that, and the “overwhelming consensus” was that while she was an “active questioner” of lawyers and ran a “hot court,” there was nothing inappropriate about her manner.
She’s “tough on lawyers who come to her courtroom unprepared,” a senior administration official said. “She’s unapologetic about that, as she should be.”
Another senior administration official suggested she would fit right in since the Supreme Court is not a place of “shrinking violets,” nor a place that operates “at a languid pace.”
As for how she is with colleagues, “the reviews from her colleagues on the court are extremely strong,” an official said, adding that when she sat with a Republican appointee they agreed in 95% of cases.
Officials said that Sotomayor is not a judicial activist, as conservative critics charge, but rather one who follows precedent. Of almost 380 opinions she’s written on the Court of Appeals, three have been reversed by the Supreme Court, which the White House argues is a stellar rate. The Supreme Court has reversed eight decisions of which she has been a part.
In Sotomayor’s most famous case, Ricci v. DeStefano, she joined a three-judge panel upholding the rejection of a lawsuit from white and Hispanic firefighters from New Haven, Conn., who were denied promotions even though no African-American firefighters passed the examination. The firefighters are claiming racial discrimination; Sotomayor and her colleagues refused to re-hear the case. The US Supreme Court is currently considering the case.
“She applied 2nd Circuit precedent,” a senior administration official said, arguing that Sotomayor’s action “shows restraint.”
Conservatives point to remarks Sotomayor made at Duke University Law School in 2005, where she said “the Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”
Catching herself, she said, “I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know.”
As the audience laughed at her comment, Sotomayor said, “I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it…Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. It’s interpretation, it’s application."
An administration official acknowledged Sotomayor’s “poor choice of words” – indeed, the official noted that she seemed to acknowledge as much immediately – but insisted the bulk of her comments and her record advocate judicial restraint.
Any rumblings that Sotomayor doesn’t have the intellect for the job are completely off base, officials also said, pointing to her graduating summa cum laude near the top of her class from Princeton, her editorship of the Yale Law Review, her time as a “stellar prosecutor” in New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau’s highly competitive office, and her being a partner in the law firm Pavia & Harcourt.
As seems to be President Obama’s general decision-making process, he was leaning towards Sotomayor for months, but he let the process play itself out, delving equally into the records and possibilities of other candidates and even having aides play devil’s advocate against Sotomayor’s nomination.
President Obama met with Kagan and Wood last Tuesday. He met with Sotomayor oand Napolitano on Thursday.
Sotomayor traveled by car for her meeting with the president, and she stayed in the White House for seven hours, meeting with White House counsel Greg Craig, deputy counsel Cassandra Butts, Vice President Biden’s chief counsel Cynthia Hogan, and Vice President Biden’s chief of staff Ron Klain. She met with President Obama in the Oval Office for approximately an hour on Thursday.
An official said they largely discussed the law and the president felt that they had a “compatibility” in how they view the role of judges and the law.
On Sunday she also spoke on the phone with Vice President Biden, who as former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee supervised six Supreme Court nomination confirmation hearings.
President Obama took the weekend to make his decision.
Shortly before 9 pm ET Monday night he made up his mind officially, and he phoned the judge to tell her the news.
-jpt
May 26, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (62)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Another Obama mistake. He's a runaway train.
Posted by: Tex | May 27, 2009 4:38:00 PM
WOOOOHOOO! Great choice president Obama. A strong latino woman is exactly what the supreme court needs. Sotomayor is a smart accomplished person. I can't wait for the battle to begin….Get your popcorn folks, it will be great entertainment watching the GOP pick off the rest of their latina votes.
Posted by: SotoMayor Fan | May 27, 2009 12:13:35 PM
I am African-American and live in Miami , Fl. Hispanics are here in droves and I have been in Miami 40 years. Many are racist here and do not associate with Blacks. The Cubans are the worst. Obama should have appointed someone that was fair and did not give racist statements. Many latinos here think they are better than other minorities and Sotomayer already has said some satement thatshe is racist on the "white side also". I don't trust her and Obama should have picked someone else that was not racist. Too bad Obama but I am not with you on this one. This sounds like Political Planning for 2012. No thanks.
Posted by: lowes4321 | May 27, 2009 8:52:01 AM
This woman is a typical Left-Wing Activist Judge who has made some very troubling public statements. She should NOT get a free pass and her record should be scrutinized as closely as those of Judges Alito and Roberts. Barry Obummer did not vote for either of these fine men and even led the fillibuster of Sam Alito. The rude remarks and condescending, nasty and accusatory questions plus the label of "racist" they put on Mr. Alito reduced his wife to tears. I am sure the Republicans will treat this woman with respect, unlike the cretins who slimed Judges Alito and Roberts.
Posted by: SunnyR | May 27, 2009 2:18:40 AM
Why don't the voters get to choose the Supreme Court Justices? Like, have a special election or something.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 26, 2009 4:31:24 PM
MNM:"In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor sided with a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. "
That is your personal opinion. The case question was if the court had power under Title VII law to force the city to not throw out the results of an exam in promotion determination. It should be noted that the exam results were thrown out for everyone who took it, regardless of race (including a Hispanic applicant who did well on it). The city was concerned that the exam, which all black applicants failed (which is unusual for this exam) was poorly constructed and therefore not an appropriate guide for their next two years of hiring decisions.
You are condemning Sotomayor for not writing local city policy from the bench, forcing them to conform to a tortured interpretation of Title VII civil rights law.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 26, 2009 4:30:58 PM
Oh, and for the record Dave said:
"She is a reverse racist who has demonstrated her ridiculous beliefs repeatedly, via her decisions from the bench."
Before helpfully pointing out that he was just making up that bit about 'via her decisions' from (very) thin air.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 26, 2009 4:08:34 PM
Dave:"No, I was referring the woman's ridiculous reverse racist comments like this"
So you do not care about how she actually does her job, but you'd rather hysterically spin some pretty obvious observations she made on reality. You mean that judges are not machines, but people exercising judgment? Gasp! And that women often hold different opinions than men? Oh noes! Next you'll tell me that as a co-equal branch of government the courts impact policy in some way - noooooooo!
Posted by: jhw539 | May 26, 2009 4:07:11 PM
..Everybodies family lives in Florida..
can you come and pick them up and take them home with you..
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 26, 2009 4:02:42 PM
"Such as when she dissented"
jhw,
Its not a fair fight,
You researched cases that she worked on while the wingers are just parroting what Rush told the,
Posted by: Ryan C | May 26, 2009 3:58:46 PM
White House dismisses criticism.
You could stop right there.. all we have heard is that if you disagree with the White House.. you have racial or nutcase motives...
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 26, 2009 3:48:08 PM
"She is a reverse racist who has demonstrated her ridiculous beliefs repeatedly, via her decisions from the bench."
For example?
"This woman in her own words has said that judges "make policy"- of course her nomination is very troubling to anyone with 1/2 a brain."
To those with full brains, not so much.
Posted by: Silky | May 26, 2009 3:31:06 PM
jhw
No, I was referring the woman's ridiculous reverse racist comments like this....
“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,”
or
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
She is part of the nutty liberal crowd who is OBSESSED with race. Without liberals, race would almost never be an issue.
Liberals are the only ones who believe in giving grants, jobs, pay raises, college admissions, ect based SOLELY on one's skin color.
Posted by: Dave | May 26, 2009 3:29:48 PM
Dave:"She is a reverse racist who has demonstrated her ridiculous beliefs repeatedly, via her decisions from the bench."
Such as when she dissented in Pappas v. Giuliani, saying that on First Amendment grounds a NYPD employee (not a beat officer) should NOT have been dismissed for legal, mostly anonymous speech done on his own off-duty time, even if it was racist and hateful speech.
Or perhaps you meant in the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002) challenge to Bush's Mexico City Policy, where she found in favor of Bush and stated the government "is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position" with public funds. Are these some of the ridiculous cases you're referring to? Could you please cite some verifiable examples of these many cases?
Posted by: jhw539 | May 26, 2009 3:23:18 PM
=== 6 of which also included Republican majorities in the House and Senate.===
You sure about that?
Posted by: Axey | May 26, 2009 3:20:34 PM
"Obama and the rest of the liberal loons hate America and the sooner the ignorant masses realize that the better off this country will be."
Yes, I was just thinking that America is so much better off after the past 8 years of a Republican president - 6 of which also included Republican majorities in the House and Senate.
Posted by: seriously? | May 26, 2009 3:14:43 PM
This woman in her own words has said that judges "make policy"- of course her nomination is very troubling to anyone with 1/2 a brain. She is another far-left zealot who believes that "evil America" needs a major overhaul.
She is a reverse racist who has demonstrated her ridiculous beliefs repeatedly, via her decisions from the bench.
Obama and the rest of the liberal loons hate America and the sooner the ignorant masses realize that the better off this country will be.
Posted by: Dave | May 26, 2009 3:09:59 PM
MNM - Obama has a very strong following in Florida, among Cuban-Americans too. Where are your stats to back up your claims?
I'm sure the demonizing of Sotomayor already kicked off by some right-wingers won't help the GOP's cause in Florida considering her family lives there.
Posted by: Padma | May 26, 2009 3:06:40 PM
MNM:"Of course no one would go on record saying that, but that is typical dem identity politics."
Ah yes, your incredible mind reading ability can vouch I suppose.
"There were no claims of his being so far right as to be untenable."
Really? What do you consider a claim? He had no judicial experience at all, so there were no claims about his past judicial work. There were accusations made and a bitter fight over the refusal by the Administration to release any of the memos he wrote while he was at the Solicitor General's office (such memos had been made available for past confirmations).
"They simply exercised their rabid control, as they do now."
It should be noted that they were the minority in 2005. Again, they approved 27 of Bush's Hispanic judges without problem.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 26, 2009 3:04:43 PM
"But don't pretend she is not who she is."
Axey channeling Dennis Green?
Posted by: Ryan C | May 26, 2009 2:46:42 PM
Post a comment
