Tuesday was a haymaker of a news day! First, President Obama announces a Latina woman as his first Supreme Court nominee, and a few hours later, the California Supreme Court upholds Prop 8.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a federal appeals judge in New York, was introduced early Tuesday morning, with an abundance of accolades by President Obama. From humble beginnings in a Bronx public housing project to Princeton and Yale Law, she caps an impressive career with a nomination to the highest court in the land. Heady stuff.
When introducing Sotomayor, Obama stated, "Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers . . . is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court,"
If confirmed she would be the first Latino to sit on the Supreme Court, and that creates a dilemma for the GOP. Republicans desperately want to oppose Sotomayor simply because she is an Obama pick, but they need to court the Latina vote, much of which they lost in the last election, and it would certainly be hazardous to appear racist.
In addition, she was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush and was supported by Republicans.
Looking at her more notable cases, Sotomayor appears to be more moderate than liberal, but that hasn’t stopped the right-wingers from calling her a “liberal activist”, a “bigot” a “ reverse racist” (?) and that she believes in “judicial activism”, all of which have no basis.
All the name-calling is just that and will not carry any weight when her nomination comes up for a vote. As a highly respected federal appeals judge, Esquire Magazine called her a “realist”. They predicted her nomination back in October, 2008 and had this to say about her:
“In her rulings, Sotomayor has often shown suspicion of bloated government and corporate power. She's offered a reinterpretation of copyright law, ruled in favor of public access to private information, and in her most famous decision, sided with labor in the Major League Baseball strike of 1995. More than anything else, she is seen as a realist. With a likely 20 years ahead on the bench, she'll have plenty of time to impart her realist philosophy.”
Sotomayor stands by her record saying on Tuesday, “I strive never to forget the real-world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses and government.”
How refreshing.
California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8
It was a delicate line the California Supreme Court had to straddle on Tuesday when they upheld Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, but allowed 18,000 couples married before the November election to maintain their marriage status.
In its 6-1 ruling, the court said the November ballot measure that restored a ban on same-sex marriage was a limited constitutional amendment, not a wholesale revision that would have required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to be placed before voters. (LA Times)
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald M. George stated that Proposition 8 “merely carves out a narrow and limited exception to the state constitutional protection gays and lesbians now receive.”
Currently, gays and lesbian couples have the right to choose a “life partner” under the state’s domestic partnership law, but cannot enter into marriage.
In addition to banning same-sex marriage, of great concern is the ease with which the California Constitution can be amended. Gay rights advocates and several legal scholars said they were surprised that the court did not attempt to rein in constitutional amendments.
Justice Carlos R. Moreno, the lone dissenting judge, called the ruling “not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.
“The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities.” (LA Times)
Who knows, the issue of same-sex marriage may some day come before the first minority justice seated on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cheri Cabot, Politics Correspondent
Cheri’s column, “Personal About Politics,” published every week, will reflect on how the life of a 59 year-old, middle class woman is affected by politics, policy and the current state of the nation - a look at the personal aspects of politics. Her column is part of Gather Essentials.
Cheri is a freelance writer, living in Southern California. She has two grown children, one in Iowa and one a recent graduate of Columbia University, and is the proud grandmother of two. Cheri is also a purveyor of fine coffee, warm chatter and dry wit.
You can find all of Cheri’s columns on Personal About Politics at www.personalpolitcs.gather.com, The Obama Watch at theobamawatch.gather.com or her home page at www.ccabot.gather.com.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 58
Prop 8 WILL be overturned and Sotomayor WILL be confirmed. Some moron here posted an article claiming that Sotomayor's decisions have been overturned 60% of the time by the Supreme Court. IF he understood Civics at all he would have known how stupid his post is...he also neglected to mention that Supreme Court Justice Alito's lower court decisions were overturned 100% of the time. He didn't even know who Alito was! Aaarrgggghhhhhhh!
I agree Spartan. Unless she has dead hookers in the trunk of her car, Sotomayor is in. I found it interesting that she grew up without a father too. (He died when she was a kid.) That had to be difficult for a smart girl. To be bright and female can be tough anyway. I guess what I'm saying is we are going to be better off with people who have weathered tough times from a young age making decisions. Just so they don't forget how it was.
What's this "life partner" option in California? Is it only for gay couples and what is the purpose of it? I have a "life partner" but choose not to be married.
I don't mean to offend Californians, but what is up with your state?
Years ago, when I tasught California History, I had a transparency of a cartoon. It showed a couple , riding in a car, and there was a large road sign. It said, "You are now leaving California. Resume normal behavior."
OMG George! I love that! That is exactly why I love living in California! For 46 F#@&* years I tried to behave normally, but to no avail. Talk about your slow learner. It took me 46 years to realize I was not normal by Iowa standards, did not belong there and it took me about 10 minutes to fit in to California!
I'm completely bowled over to see Ted Olsen (Olson?) on the side of gay marriage. It's the first act of decency he's ever committed. Did pod people get him?
You know, of course, it's all about money. Did you read the article about him in Mother Jones? It all comes down to money and attention. No surprise I suppose.
I agree with both points, Spartan. Sotomayor has no reason not to be confirmed. All the noise is just that and only because the right figures it is their job to make noise, even if it is unsubstantial.
EM JAY. About California....well.....I too am a bit confused about this ruling. It is unusual for California to be behind other states in making a statement, but they have certainly dropped the ball in this instance. I would have to do more research on life-partner, but I think it allows certain concessions such as insurance, hospital visits etc. but not marriage. Dumb. It will change. I think it took this kind of eye-opening ruling to rally the troops as it were. The gay & lesbian community, and those of us who support them were not prepared for the action taken by the supporters of prop 8 and the out state money and support that was brought into the state. That too will change. It sounds like a new prop will be on the ballot as soon as 2010 and you can bet there will be much better preparation and money supporting gay marriage this time around. California does not like to be left in the dust.....and by Iowa of all states! (by the way, I am a former Iowan who has lived in CA for 12 years...I know of where I speak in both cases)
When Wil was hospitalized (here in OH), all it took was me mentioning to the nurse that he and I have a 23 year relationship and within the hour, a social work came to the room and arranged a medical power of attorney that is good until he revokes it. (I think the nurse was gay because he didn't waste time and didn't ask questions. He just seemed to understand the issue.) No one ever stopped me from being with him at anytime, but they just figured we were married.
I'd only be able to get on his insurance if we were married. That's still a decison made by employers here. I suppose a domestic partnership would clear that up in this state, but I fully believe if something like that is offered, it should be for all people, not just same sex couples. That way if say, if two best friends shared a place, they could be on the same insurance or have hospital visitation rights without the "romantic" connotation of marriage.
a friend of mine did that years ago. like 20 yers ago. She and her room mate, no romante there, but neither had any family and so got a domestic partener document to ensure property rights and medical P.O.W's etc.
I also want to point out a real concern out here in CA. It is way too easy to change the constitution. It can change with the wind. Not good.
Interesting ...
Sotomayor seems a prudent pick for the Supreme Court and confirms Obama's stated intention to reach across the aisle: she is a moderate appointed to the bench by a Republican president. But wait, sorry, I forgot, she's a reverse-racist and simply more evidence of affirmative action at the highest levels, right? Is that the Faux News talking point du jour?
In Canada the term used to try and present an alternative to gay marriage was "civil union". Equal but different in law never works. There is equality or inequality. Eventually, gay marriage will be the norm and no one will bat an eyelash over it. Except maybe the apocalyptic "Christians" who will go out and buy ascension robes.
No, Rory, it's rapture robes. They're all praying for the rapture, when Jesus Christ will come and sweep them all up into the sky.
Carla, back in 1843 the Christian world was caught up in apocalyptic fever (this was the year that Baha'u'llah declared his ministry, by the way). In the Sears catalogue they were selling "ascension robes", I've seen the pages from the catalogue.
Rush Limbaugh's "reverse racist" comment is such a joke. Shows his own racism and ignorance. There is no such thing as "reverse racism". You are either a racist, or you are not. He obviously is one....no surprise there.
Rush Limbaugh a racist? C'mon, Cheri, isn't he just a man who likes to call a spade a spade? I mean, I could understand you calling him a drug addict or a sex tourist, but a racist? Oh, my!
Funny, one of our recent former Prime Ministers, Jean Chretien, who was famous for mangling both English and French, once spoke in front of an audience of Jamaican-Canadians in Toronto and said: "Some people don't like to call a spade a spade, but for me, this is not a problem." No one reacted angrily to the remark because they all understood it was just Chretien speaking Chretienese and no harm was intended.
(But we know that Rush intends harm, lots of it.)
Rush's entire reason for living is to cause harm. He is a miserable, disturbed man and wants everyone else to be miserable too. I hate to disappoint him...
O.K. I may be a bit disturbed....but I'm not miserable!
Yes, lots of it (harm that is).
And I wasn't aware of the ascension robes. I wonder if Sears sells them?
This will be the GOP's chance to shoot themselves in the foot again by opposing Sotomayor's confirmation. This will help further alienate what few Latinos remain with the party, if any. Obama's pick is more than a home run, it is a GRAND SLAM!
I am really enjoying watching the GOP self destruct.
Yes, it will be very interesting to see what garbage they come up with to sling at this nomination. But it could very well come back to haunt them if they resort to their usual tactics.
They have no other tactics other than their "usual tactics" , Carla, they just don't realize it. They think they are very forward thinking, which of course keeps them back in the dark ages where they will remain until they let in some light. Don't look for that any time soon.
When you have no ideas, policies or innovations to offer, tactics are all that are left.
Ahhh...good point, Rory.
The fact that the more utterly despicable of my two senators, Jim DeMint, seems to loathe her speaks volumes in Sotomayor's favor all by itself. He has a 100% record of hating worthwhile people, so he's not a bad measuring stick. It's his only actual use.
Hey, Kris, don't hold back....tell how you really feel about Jim DeMint.
I don't think the GOP is self-destructing, I think what we are seeing is the group of people that hijacked the GOP now moving over to the Democrats and starting to co-opt them - thus effectively moving the US to the right, slowly but surely. I think Obama is playing along with this and I find that sad.
Great information!
It was a good news, bad news week, and one filled with irony. Judge Sotomayor is a strong and prudent choice; her nomination and eventual confirmation will work to assure equal justice under the law. The California justice ruling, however, is a step backwards to the kind of decisions that upheld "separate but equal" for so many years. I agree with the dissenting judge who said this is a defeat for all who seek equal rights and protections under the law.
Hope you are right, Spartan, in that it will be overturned eventually.
I agree with Spartan, I think Sotomeyer will be appointed and Gay Marriage will be 'legalised'.
I don't know why there is opposition. Here in CA especially in West Hollywood. Incorporated and 99% gay and lesbian and even the Mayor is Gay so why was there such a reversal? Like cheri said, out-of-state money from Utah mainly I think they said.
Republicans will have to get in line or fade out as the Confederacy did!
Well, I see you chose to give us the good news first, Cheri. I second Spartan's comment - I think gay marriage will eventually be passed in CA. It does amuse me a bit that the state that prides itself on being the leader in all things progressive may now be one of the last states to approve same-sex marriage (go New England!).
I am happy for Sotomayor and I know Obama has been thinking and researching this pick for a long time. It is probably going to be one of his acts as President of which he can be most proud. I know she will be confirmed and will serve with distinction.
Limbaugh - well, my personal opinion is that he has a huge case of white man inferiority complex, including an itty-bitty penis (which he probably can't even see anymore over his huge fatuosity). And he will spend his life trying to gather a gang of other po' little disenfranchised white men around him to make himself feel better.
Taking so much oxy-contin has prevented Rush from having a bowel movement in decades, so full of it!
California is a pretty conservative place outside the Bay Area and Hollywood. I was disappointed in the CA Supreme Court's decision on Prop 8, but this will happen sooner or later. One thing that made the reactionaries jump was CA's push to marry gays just before the 2004 election. I'll always blame San Franciso's mayor Gavin Newsome for wrecking Kerry's changes by activating the reactionary religious right.
There will be lots of huffing and puffing on the far right, trying to blow down the house of same-sex marriage, but it will come to pass. As I said earlier, I think California is a bit embarrassed it was not the leader here.....little ole Iowa was. Who knew?
It all comes down to equal rights which is what the judges in Iowa said. Say what you will about Iowa, and I personally have said many disparaging things about Iowa, but they do believe in the law. (well, not all of them...including my former neighbor LeRoy...but that's another story). Anyway, my point being, it will have to come to pass precisely because it is about civil rights.
Right on for the judge. I too believe same sex marriage will not only pass in CA but all across the country. It just hasn't had the right legal argument as yet.
Cheri, thank you for the great post. And to everyone else posting up above, you are all just too cool. So refreshing to read, funny and to the point. Love you all.
Boo, to California! They should be ashamed.
I think California is more ashamed they did not put more money and more of a concerted efforted into opposing prop 8. As Georgie said, all that out of state -primarily Utah- money pushed over the edge. That won't happen again. And also as Georgie mentioned, Ca has a huge gay population.
Sotomayor is a plus for Obama. Overall I am not real happy with Obama's choices and this does not make up for them, but she is probably going to be a good justice. I cannot believe the silliness of some comment she made about white men and latino woman decades ago is being used against her. The far right has lost all proportion.
This makes no sense: "California Supreme Court had to straddle on Tuesday when they upheld Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, but allowed 18,000 couples married before the November election to maintain their marriage status. "
The law needs to be for all, not just for some. If all marriage was banned for all except those already married, it's not fair to those who haven't met their spouses yet.
Michigan briefly had a law allowing purchase of alcohol for persons 19 and up. It was a disaster and the age was returned to 21. It did not say that those persons already aged 19 or 20 could continue to purchase alcohol. It said 21 for ALL.
It absolutely makes no sense. How can they validate some marriages and not others? I think most everyone was unhappy with the ruling. They only ones happy are the Utah Mormans.
Sotomayor ruled the the dozen or so firefighters who passed the test were ineligable because no hispanics or blacks passed. That is where the reverse discrimination cry came in. Also she ruled that individual citizens have no right to own a firearm! This is now in appeal and it looks like the supremes will have to decide, even though it was decided last time around. Seems like she is an anti-constitutionalist, but will probably be confirmed anyway.
Can you give us a link on your statement that she "ruled that individual citizens have no right to own a firearem?"
Haven't heard THAT one before.
It is on voteronpaul.com
Very interesting article in the Washington Post today titled "The Mormans Are Coming!", about all the money funneled into California by the Mormans to push Prop8 and how they are trying to do the same thing in other states. However, now that people are aware of what they are doing, others are getting the word out to put up a fight. It's very interesting.
"The average guy does not know the extent to which the Mormon Church was involved on Prop. 8."
Check it out!
Give us a link so we can!
My closest friend is a Unity minister. She does Commitment Ceremonies for couples who can't marry or who choose not to, but want the commitment of marriage. It's not only for same sex partners. Some couples, especially retirees, can't marry because they will lose their survivor benefits from their late spouses.
I'm not saying that a Commitment Ceremony should replace marriage, but it is an option for those who can't be legally married. It doesn't provide employer benefits or tax advantages like a legal marriage, but it seems to be a good choice for some.
Thanks fro penning and sharing this, Cheri.
I gave it a 10.
I don't really have anything new to add to the conversation. Sotomayor's confirmation seems both good and in the bag; and I certainly hope that Prop 8 will be overturned. I've never really seen where it should be up to government to confirm or sanction the practice of marriage between individual adults; unless physical abuse is involved.
Thanks, Cheri,
I'm very surprised at California, and I also think it will (eventually) have to be overturned. It's not the governments business (is it?) who marrys, oh wait, they changed that. I also look forward to the day that we're all known as "just Americans", not judged by those we care for, love or the color of our skin. IF that day ever comes, that is.
Marilyn
Amen to that, Marilyn! Just American should not only apply to whom we marry but the Supreme Court selections.
Well, we have a ways to go before that happy day arrives, but we will not get there sitting on our butts. Thanks for the pushes.
So, I guess I'd better get off my butt then, huh, George. Sigh.
No, you are off yours, but I am still sitting. lol
Â
She has strong support from her clercks ( there is a letter praising her signed by 45 of her collaborators ), she is supported by many Law Professors from prestigious Universities, she is supported by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she is supported openly by many prosecutors and judges like her first legal employer, NYC district attorney Robert Morris Morgenthau, and those in the Judiciary that have worked with her.
She is backed by many Bloggers that specialize in Law and the Supreme Court.
What is most beautiful is the High Quality of her Supporters, people that know a lot about Law and the Judiciary Activities.
I have gathered hundreds of Newspaper Articles and Videos of Prominent People supporting Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court.
And I have also many Videos of Common People, that want Sonia as a Supreme Justice. You can see all of them here :
Milenials.com Â
Vicente DuqueÂ
Great discussion here, guys. Very interesting and prescient perspective considering her position on Prop 8 and homosexuality. I published a discussion on her hearings today and tomorrow broadcast on MPR, and I'd love your perspective! Here's a link to the Gather article. Thanks!