Opinion Pieces React To Obama's Nomination Of Sotomayor To Supreme Court

Several newspapers on Wednesday included editorials and opinion pieces on President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Summaries appear below.

~New York Times: Obama "seems to have made an inspired choice" in selecting Sotomayor as his nominee because she "has an impressive judicial record, a stellar academic background and a compelling life story," a Times editorial states. According to the editorial, "Based on what we know now, the Senate should confirm her so she can join the court when it begins its new term in October." The editorial notes that, "Conservative activists have already begun trying to paint Judge Sotomayor as a liberal ideologue, but her carefully reasoned, fact-based decisions indicate otherwise." The editorial continues, "If Judge Sotomayor joins the court, it will be a special point of pride for Hispanic-Americans," and "will also bring the paltry number of female justices back to two." It adds, "Judge Sotomayor, though, is more than just a distinguished member of two underrepresented groups. She is an accomplished lawyer and judge, who could become an extraordinary Supreme Court Justice" (New York Times, 5/27).

~Gerard Magliocca, New York Times: In addition to sharing Obama's "experience and intellect," Sotomayor "also mirror's the president's measured temperament," Magliocca, a law professor at Indiana University, writes in a Times opinion piece. Magliocca writes that he has known Sotomayor for 13 years and notes that although he is a conservative and has at times been "at odds with" Sotomayor professionally, he does not dispute her qualifications. According to Magliocca, "For those of us who think that intellectual rigor and fairness are the crucial factors" to be a Supreme Court justice, "no matter which party the president hails from, there is no question that Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed" (Magliocca, New York Times, 5/27).

~USA Today: Upon hearing that Sotomayor was Obama's nominee, Republican critics "quickly insisted that the Senate assure itself that Sotomayor would not make rulings based on her 'personal politics, feelings and preferences,'" a USA Today editorial states. According to the editorial, "To some extent, the entire argument is overblown. People inevitably are the product of their experiences, and they can hardly shed their history and character at the courthouse door." The editorial continues, "That is why the court is enriched by having an eclectic mix of justices who can bring differing perspectives to bear on the case at hand." The editorial concludes, "Sotomayor's education and experience make her far more than a political twofer who allowed Obama to check the 'female' and 'Hispanic' boxes. But there's a limit to the application of empathy and heritage to the law, and her confirmation hearings will be an opportunity for her to spell out exactly where she believes that line falls," (USA Today, 5/27).














~ Steven Waldman, Wall Street Journal: "Everyone seems to assume" that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is "ardently for abortion rights," but there is "stunningly little information about her abortion views -- and what we do know hardly paints her as a pro-choice activist," Waldman, president and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet and author of "Founding Faith," writes in a Journal opinion piece. He continues that Sotomayor has ruled only on three cases "indirectly related to abortion," and each time ruled in a way preferred by abortion-rights opponents, "albeit for reasons unrelated to the merits of abortion." Although Sotomayor's decisions in the cases were related "to matters of constitutional law and criminal procedure, ... at a minimum, it showed that whatever her abortion views, it didn't produce some powerful inclination against the pro-life position," according to Waldman. "Now all of this might not mean anything. She may prove to be a strong advocate of Roe v. Wade. But it's telling that the abortion interest groups took sides without knowing anything about her abortion views" (Waldman, Wall Street Journal, 5/26).

~Washington Post: In relation to Sotomayor's comments "about how gender, ethnicity and race influence a judge's views," senators in her confirmation hearing "could ask her, then, how, when deciding a case, she balances the quest for objectivity with her personal views," a Post editorial states. Although "[s]enators are right to closely scrutinize ... Sotomayor's philosophy and qualifications," they "also should remember" that Obama, "like any president, is entitled to deference in choosing a justice" (Washington Post, 5/27).

~Ruth Marcus, Washington Post: "Since Obama is likely to have more than one high court spot to fill, picking a Hispanic woman for the first vacancy gives him maximum flexibility for the future," columnist Marcus writes in a Post opinion piece. She continues that she is "skeptical of the initial critiques of Sotomayor -- with a few caveats," and would "like to hear more from Sotomayor herself about some out-of-court statements." Marcus says that she agrees with Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSBlog that Sotomayor has similar ideological positions as retiring Justice David Souter, which "[s]ounds pretty good to me" (Marcus, Washington Post, 5/27).


Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.


© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.