Why I won't be stepping onto the High Court
Friends have been asking me why Obama hasn't nominated me to be on the Supreme Court. "Did you not get the paperwork in on time?" one high school chum inquired.
No, that's not it. There are several reasons, actually. Consider:
But to detractors, Judge Sotomayor’s sharp-tongued and occasionally combative manner — some lawyers have described her as "difficult" and "nasty" — raises questions about her judicial temperament and willingness to listen. Her demeanor on the bench is an issue that conservatives opposed to her nomination see as a potential vulnerability — and one that Mr. Obama carefully considered before selecting her.At least I had a "Nice Week" once.
| Posted at 12:34 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (14)
Oh joy, one more person with an axe to grind in public life.
Posted by Steve | May 29, 2009 6:29 AM
Smells like the same old sexist BS...women are "strident", men are "assertive." When's the last time you heard a man described as "strident"? It's code for bitchy. Screw that! I personally want someone one the court with the backbone to voice strong opinions. And if she gets called nasty, to me that's a sign she's doing her job by not trying to be some sort of middle-road appeaser.
Posted by M | May 29, 2009 7:53 AM
Given Scalia's temperament, conservatives may want to be careful arguing that assertiveness/combativeness automatically disqualifies Supreme Court nominees.
Posted by Bryan G | May 29, 2009 8:51 AM
Well, the conservatives can't oppose her nomination just because she's a Latina woman, or because they suspect that she is not "pro-life" which is not at all clear anyway. So, they've found a "safe" issue to base their opposition on.
Posted by A Hopeful | May 29, 2009 9:27 AM
"Screw that! I personally want someone one the court with the backbone to voice strong opinions."
===
I concur with that!.
Dish it out straight up.
I think Bojack's straight talk express is far better than the McCain version.
Get that application in for the 2nd nomination.
Posted by Harry | May 29, 2009 9:52 AM
Recall Bolton's ambassadorial nomination and how it was blocked because he had been accused of difficult and nasty.
No, I don't think it's sexist BS, new or old. What is BS is throwing up that canard as if it were indeed an argument.
From her own words however, it does sound as if she is both racist and sexist.
Posted by Larry | May 29, 2009 10:07 AM
As if it were surprising, they're cherry-picking. That same sexist critique of her also includes copious praise. "She is frighteningly smart... intellectually tough"... "She is an exceptional judge overall."
http://crooksandliars.com/node/28492
As long as conservatives embrace Scalia, with his increasingly volatile and nutty behavior, this crazy Latina meme is going to reek of desperation.
Posted by TKrueg | May 29, 2009 10:12 AM
Larry- Going out on a limb here, bit being difficult and nasty aren't the qualities you're looking for when selecting a lead diplomat. Neither is saying you'd rather the UN not exist. Bolton is an ideologue better suited for think-tanks and Fox News "analysis".
Posted by TKrueg | May 29, 2009 10:21 AM
IMO, Judicial temperament has notheing to do with whether one is "naughty or nice". It has to do with whether one is able to see above low politics. Many of the "nice" people aren't.
I am in the middle of Brad Gooch's biography of premier short fiction writer, Flannery O'Connor. Initially, people thought she was a man because her stories tend not to be "nice". I agree with her assessment that if people are "nice", Jesus died for nothing. It is better to be honest if we are to have any hope of solving problems, judicial and otherwise.
Posted by Cynthia | May 29, 2009 10:23 AM
From what I’m reading, it will be about her stand on gun issues. (Did I spell that ok for you jack?)
Posted by dman | May 29, 2009 11:08 AM
Shouldn't you be shooting for the District of Oregon first?
Posted by Anon | May 29, 2009 2:58 PM
Yeah, I'm sure Wyden and Merkley have me on their short lists.
Posted by Jack Bog | May 29, 2009 3:02 PM
Whatever happens with this nomination, it will be fun to watch the fireworks at the hearings. Pass the popcorn, please.
Posted by Bilbo | May 29, 2009 5:04 PM
While they simultaneously attack her "empathy". Go figure.
How about the country actually have a discussion about the judicial process. Is applying empathy really a "lawless approach" as Ed Whelan, former law clerk to Justice Scalia, declares.
Or is empathy the understanding of another's state of mind, and necessary to fully appreciate the damage of legal injustice, such as the purpose of segregation to completely degrade a race of people.
Since gay marriage will be going to the Supreme Court, I think we'll be spending a lot of time discussing the correct approach in applying the law in the next year or two.
http://www.obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=248
Posted by Sandy | May 31, 2009 1:12 AM