SCOTUS: Worth Noting About Sotomayor’s Skills

A former clerk of Judge Sonia Sotomayor has written an opinion piece in the NYTimes regarding the questions of "temperament" that keep getting floated. 

Funny how those sorts of questions only seem to come up in a negative connotation for female judges, isn’t it?  Any of the lawyers in the crowd want to tell me about their experiences with milque-toasty judges who allow the lawyers to run over them in their federal courtrooms? 

Not certain I’ve ever run into one either. 

There is a specific point made in that opinion piece that needs amplification:

On another occasion, I drafted some research for her that was not well written. When she discussed the memo with me, she started by saying, “You are too smart for me,” and proceeded to ask me a series of questions that I had not addressed. I realized later that this was her polite way of saying: “This isn’t good. Do it over.” She could have said just that, but evidently decided that positive reinforcement was the way to go. This is exactly the kind of skill that a Supreme Court justice needs to persuade her colleagues, who tend to have powerful personalities and do not take criticism well.

A few weeks ago, I wrote that the real prize in any new SCOTUS nomination would be the opportunity to sway Anthony Kennedy into a majority coalition and away from the more conservative bent into which he’s strayed since Roberts joined the Court. Roberts selection wasn’t just based on his legal skills, which are substantial frankly, but also on his persuasive and genial social abilities which were sorely needed in the conservative wing of the Court after Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement.

If Judge Sotomayor has comparable skills in that arena? Excellent.

(H/T to reader wb for the heads up on this one.)

 
28 Responses to "SCOTUS: Worth Noting About Sotomayor’s Skills"
demi | Wednesday May 27, 2009 07:50 am 1

Sounds good to me too. And, I might add, those kind of communication skills seem to go along with the way the president works. As I’ve said before, I like Nice.
You get more flies with honey than vinegar. That’s just the way it works.


foothillsmike | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:00 am 2

Tact is a valuable trait in most walks of life but I would wager that the more of Sotomayor’s positive traits are pointed out the more the rabid right will feed fact free negative dogma into the discussion to counteract all positive information.


demi | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:03 am 3
In response to foothillsmike @ 2

Do you think that would be a bad thing? Maybe some on the fence people will say, Oh, look how mean they are being to that nice, smart lady.


foothillsmike | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:06 am 4
In response to demi @ 3

Agreed. Unfortunately Sotomayor doesn’t have a spouse who could break down in tears about how mean they are being to her.


demi | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:10 am 5
In response to foothillsmike @ 4

Maybe her mother can come out and shake her finger at them.


demi | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:13 am 6

Regarding the point on sexism, there’s a whole list of adjectives and adverbs that are used to show unfairness. The only one I can remember is He’s stern; She’s a bitch.


Petrocelli | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:16 am 7
In response to demi @ 6

Yep … the ReSlugs are going to throw everything at her. Let’s hope the Dems will counterpunch effectively and not cave in.


demi | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:19 am 8
In response to Petrocelli @ 7

Counterpunch? I’d prefer a more Eastern approach. Turn to the side, and let them fall on their faces. I think her answers during confirmation questioning will be the strongest defense. Dems have a lot of work to do. Better to keep their eyes on the prizes. Know what I mean?


foothillsmike | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:25 am 9

Meanwhile the nominations of Dawn Johnson and Judge Hamilton continue to be blocked. A good strategy for the dems would be to ramp up obstructionism claims regarding the rethugs.


Petrocelli | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:26 am 10
In response to demi @ 8

Ordinarily I would agree with the eastern methods – Aikido readily comes to mind. But I think they will use the tactics they save for HRC on Sonia and the Dems had better get in front of this.


Christy Hardin Smith | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:34 am 11
In response to foothillsmike @ 9

SIGH Don’t even get me started…


foothillsmike | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:38 am 12

Yasm. But seriously if the obstructionism case can be made (since it is there) it could help to free up these nominations too.


Christy Hardin Smith | Wednesday May 27, 2009 08:42 am 13
In response to foothillsmike @ 12

The problem is that the democrats have to be sufficiently motivated to make that case. And, sadly, I’m not seeing a whole helluva lot of motivation on the rule of law front.

Do I sound ticked off? Why yes, I am.


demi | Wednesday May 27, 2009 09:04 am 14
In response to Petrocelli @ 10

I guess I’m not sure what we are talking about. Dem pundits, Dem politicians? Ultimately, there’s going to be a hearing and then a vote. And, then she’ll be in. And I don’t think the tsunami of comments on either side are going to mean much of anything. That’s just what I think.


oldgold | Wednesday May 27, 2009 09:10 am 15

Christy,
Last week Senator Whitehouse was here. He was asked about Dawn Johnsen. In response he said something interesting.

I plan to help Chairman Leahy on the floor with the confirmation of Dawn Johnsen. I think it’s a fight we can win directly without other holds. Moreover, because it allows us to discuss the misdeeds at OLC, the torture memos, the OPR report – if it’s out by then – I think it’s a good fight to have.{My Bold}

Could waiting for the OPR Report explain the delay?


Petrocelli | Wednesday May 27, 2009 09:11 am 16
In response to demi @ 14

I was talking about Dem Pols but the Pundits have to get into the fray.

I agree that she will be confirmed but the level of vitriol might just impact the next 2-3 nominations.


Petrocelli | Wednesday May 27, 2009 09:15 am 17
In response to oldgold @ 15

I think the Repugs are delaying this to their detriment. Whitehouse & Co. will use the OPR report to smack them around and we get ringside seats to the spectacle.


foothillsmike | Wednesday May 27, 2009 09:15 am 18
In response to Petrocelli @ 16

The level of vitriol could impact elections too.


oldgold | Wednesday May 27, 2009 09:17 am 19
In response to Petrocelli @ 17

Exactly.


BargainCountertenor | Wednesday May 27, 2009 09:22 am 20
In response to Petrocelli @ 16

It’s pleasing to me that the Guys Out of Plans have formed up another circular firing squad. Sotomayor is a no-win proposition for them in an electoral-PR sense. I don’t believe they’ll be able to block, barring some completely unexpected finding in the background check. Given that she’s been confirmed twice by the Senate, that’s most unlikely.

The only thing they have to lose is what little grip they continue to have on the fastest growing ethnic group today. The subtext in Sotomayor’s nomination is straight out of Dirty Harry: Go ahead, make my day.


Millineryman | Wednesday May 27, 2009 09:50 am 21

It will be interesting to see what Obama’s tactic will be to defend his appointment. The rational rise above it all me has been missing of late, however I do see some benefit in allowing all this ugliness to be exposed by letting those who hate spew their hate. The message is coming directly from the source.


foothillsmike | Wednesday May 27, 2009 10:06 am 22

Americablog has quoted you on the emerging reichwing garbage
http://www.americablog.com/200…..-with.html


Petrocelli | Wednesday May 27, 2009 10:20 am 23
In response to Millineryman @ 21

Obama’s M.O. has been thus far to let the person spewing venom continue to do so while he brushes away the dust to make that venom more visible.

In 2008, he won two major victories with this technique and I see no reason why he would change tactics at this point.


Petrocelli | Wednesday May 27, 2009 10:23 am 24
In response to foothillsmike @ 18

I believe it will impact elections in 2010 & 2012, to the Repugs’ detriment.

BO is a master in Aiki-do … using opponents’ own energy to defeat them.


Petrocelli | Wednesday May 27, 2009 10:24 am 25
In response to oldgold @ 19

Oldgold ! How’s things ?


Millineryman | Wednesday May 27, 2009 11:25 am 26
In response to Petrocelli @ 23

No I don’t either, and I do think it’s a good move poltically. That being said, I would also like to see some form of demonstrated commitment from him. His word is becoming tarnished rather quickly.


demi | Wednesday May 27, 2009 11:26 am 27
In response to Petrocelli @ 23

Uh, huh. That’s what I was talking about. Letting them do their thing is not counterpunching.
I guess that means we agree.
Not that that’s going to change the world.


Ruffian | Wednesday May 27, 2009 02:22 pm 28

You know I was dreading the crap that was going to come with the next supreme court nomination process, but I am enjoying this one so far…..love to watch these guys stumble over themselves and the total cluelessness they expose as they do…..go ahead, piss off the women and hispanics more….and for what? to be the bigger “guy” for the base….so juvenile.


Sorry but the comments are closed on this post

Close