Sonia Sotomayor | 07/13/2009 8:35 am

Sonia Sotomayor's Confirmation Hearings Start Today; Many Expect Her to Dazzle

Although Republicans are expected to send tough questions her way on racial preferences and judicial activism, most expect her to sail through the process.

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Sonia Sotomayor will go before the Senate Judiciary Committee today to convince Congress that she should be confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice.

Although many believe the Bronx-born Latina judge already has enough votes to get confirmed, she undoubtedly will face a slew of tough questions from Republicans on her judicial philosophy, racial preferences, as well as hot topics like abortion, the death penalty and gun control. Reuters says the week-long hearings "should provide plenty of political drama as Republicans seek to spotlight what they fear will be Sotomayor’s — and by extension [President] Obama’s — ‘activist’ approach to the law." President Obama expressed confidence in his nominee.

"There’s a very good chance she’s going to get as many or if not more votes than [Chief] Judge [John] Roberts got, which was 78," Schumer said on NBC’s "Meet the Press" Sunday. "People meet her and they are impressed, Democrats and Republicans, not just with her story, but she’s smart, but also practical. She’s down to earth."

Meanwhile, Anita Hill, a professor at Brandeis University, writes for CNN’s "Larry King Live" that it’s high time for another woman on the bench, and Sotomayor is the right candidate for the job.

Hill writes:

Republican senators ought to be reminded that President Reagan started the Supreme Court on the course of better gender representation in 1981 with his first nominee, Sandra Day O’Connor. We are now in our fourth year with only one woman on the country’s highest court and Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation, which would double the number of women on the court isn’t parity, but it’s a start … As an experienced lawyer and jurist, Judge Sotomayor is representative of a generation of hardworking and talented women lawyers who draw on their life experiences to improve the law, and not, as some have suggested, replace one form of bias with another … No longer does the argument that there are not enough qualified women to achieve some semblance of gender parity in the judiciary carry any weight.

If confirmed, Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic sent to the highest court in the land — a fact not missed by anyone.

"It’s very exciting to see another woman nominated," Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-CA, told MSNBC this morning. "Of course it’s exciting to see a Hispanic considered for the court … it’s an exciting time for all of us."

You can watch Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing live on the Web here.

75 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

They just need to confirm her. They also need to stop playing games.

By S G on 07/13/2009 8:54 am

e-mail alert

Confrimation hearings have nothing to do with "playing games"…or being a woman…or being a Latina….or the size of her shoes…or anything else other than what she has done in past rulings and actions, personal or otherwise.

Sotomayor has brought the unwanted attention upon herself. She made statements, numerous times that should be questioned. She herself has ruled and been overturned. She herself has resided on boards of racially designated boards.

Perhaps she should have thought better of flaunting her discriminating views. It certainly shows a lack of fore thought, that she would not consider that her words, written and otherwise would be considered a window into her judicial process.

By Kelly In Texas on 07/13/2009 12:11 pm

e-mail alert

Sotomayor has brought the unwanted attention upon herself. really? really??!! only true in the context of wanting to be a supreme court justice. all the other bunk is manufactured by limbo-loonies, faux noise drones and others that rely more on drama & inuendo and less on fact. ms. sotomayor is experienced, smart and well-educated. therefor she is the perfect choice. obviously, she doesn’t meet repugnicant metrics. thank god!

By Gloria Johnson on 07/13/2009 5:20 pm

e-mail alert

Yes Gloria..really. By repeating a statement over 5 times, she was obviously not taken “out of context” nor is it inuendo. She said it, she obviously believes in the sentiment enough to repeat it over and over in speeches to the public. Her own doing. It was not a very smart thing for a “smart and well educated” woman to do. She even been taped making comments that are unbecoming a Supreme Justice…again not that “smart” of a move.

By Kelly In Texas on 07/13/2009 6:10 pm

e-mail alert

The majority of her rulings were overturned! Holy smoke! REd flag! OMG! people, we are not talking abt running the PTA or some women’s lib group that does not even support all women. She is affirmative action. I do NOT want affirmative action doing my heart surgery nor sitting on the Supreme Court of our great country!!

By Mimi Jones on 07/15/2009 1:10 am

e-mail alert

From what I have read, Sotomayor is one of the best qualified candidates to the Supreme Court. She has worked hard, done her homework and has lead a good life. And as indicated above, there is a need for gender parity on the High Court. I imagine most women agree that we should have fair representation irrespective of the candidate. Fortunately we have a good person who is willing to go through the public process to join the other lawyers on the court. On the other hand, today’s proceedings should make for great television watching. All the commercial commentators’ continual critical calculating comments on the Congressional Committee’s proceedings should make all the television advertisers happy on all the cable stations.

By Suzanne Frazier on 07/13/2009 9:04 am

e-mail alert

I am glad that she has a long judicial record that speaks for itself, and that record shows a serious, fair, and professional judge. I am confident that she will be a successful Supreme Court justice.

But I wish she had never made those remarks that as a "wise Latina" she might hope to reach better conclusions than a white man. First - holding up one’s own ethnic background as an intellectual advantage only feeds into racial/ethnic tension. It is exactly the same as a white man saying that his Western European background enables him to think more clearly than other racial/ethnic groups. And second - truly wise people rarely refer to themselves as wise, so that strikes me as a bit of conceit best not shared in public statements.

Here’s hoping for confirmation based on her judicial record, and here’s hoping that we never hear that speech again.

By Lila Kuh on 07/13/2009 9:08 am

e-mail alert

I was shocked at the indignation of the "white male" over Sotomayor’s comment about being able to make a good decision. Every woman who is married knows that that is true. I wonder if the indignation was over her being a Hispanic woman or just a woman? I never got clear on this?

By Suzanne Frazier on 07/13/2009 9:15 am

e-mail alert

Hi Suzanne,

Sotomayor said in multiple speeches that her status as a "wise Latina" might enable her to reach BETTER conclusions than white men. I’m not a white man, but I am offended anytime someone thinks that their color or ethnic origin makes them smarter than someone else.

Sotomayor has a great track record. I wish she had said, instead, that her status as a Latina had nothing to do with her performance, and her performance - which is excellent - speaks for itself. That is true, non-offensive, and is the best ammunition against bigots.

By Lila Kuh on 07/13/2009 2:01 pm

e-mail alert

i believe you’re taking her comments out of the context they were made in, as well as attributing a great deal of meaning to two words. the fact that you list two words and not the full quotation, nor make any reference to where you heard this, or from what media points to the fact that many americans find it easier to spend their time commenting on what they hear, rather than critically examining what they hear. is it just possible that someone that is female and of hispanic decent, is in fact a latina (in the vernacular of say the spanish language)? is it also possible that someone with an advanced education, and years of experience does indeed meet the criterion of being wise (assuming of course they were republican)? i do think that education and experience make someone wiser. no guarantee there, but the probabilty is increased. so, by saying she is a wise latina has a certain congruence. is it really that shocking to anyone that people that are in the public eye have a bit of ego? isn’t that a job prerequisit???

By Gloria Johnson on 07/13/2009 5:33 pm

e-mail alert

I think if she had said that a wise Latina would make better decisions than a less experienced white male, or words to that effect, there would be no problem (not for me anyway). But she did not add such a qualifier. Which makes it a much more sweeping generalization. Hence the problem.

By Deena B. on 07/13/2009 7:04 pm

e-mail alert

By way of clarification, I do know that she said "….a white man who has not lived that life." That’s not precisely the sort of qualifier I’m getting at, though. One can have plenty of life experience without coming from any particular background. She seems to be saying only someone with her background would have the sort of wisdom of which she speaks.

By Deena B. on 07/14/2009 12:00 pm

e-mail alert

Gloria,

1) Full transcript is at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewant…

The paragraph in question is:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

This remark or a variation of it has appeared in her speeches in 1994, 1999, 2001, 2002, and 2004.

Yes. I notice she also extolls the virtues of the all-white-male courts which made advances in civil rights. But the above paragraph stands.

2) I read. A lot. I see no reason to reproduce the speech here, when most WOW women are capable of finding it for themselves if curious. I was not setting out to write a term paper with footnotes.

3) I’m female. I’m of Hispanic descent. I am not, however, Latina. They are not the same thing. Latino/a is a subset of Hispanic which includes other subsets. I think any race or gender is just as intellectually capable as any other, and that’s why the remark bothers me.

By Lila Kuh on 07/13/2009 7:51 pm

e-mail alert

Lila, thank you for posting the comment, and the chronological line in which the same mindset/phaseology was used.

I do find the remark troubling. I agree that ‘any race or gender is just as intellectually capable as any other…’ and I am further troubled by the pretzel like logic used in the ‘defenses’ of this mindset. Have we become so equal that some are perceived more equal than others by virtue of some race/gender/ethnicity rationale that trumps all? It appears, to me, that by the lockstep defense of the ‘wise Latina’ remark…we have come to that point.

By Mary Quite-Contrary on 07/15/2009 11:05 am

e-mail alert

… more equal than others… ha, you must have read Orwell’s Animal Farm! Which illustrates the idiocy of it quite nicely. I would love to see the day come when race, ethnicity, and gender all take a back seat to merit and capability, but it won’t come in my lifetime. Maybe human beings are just not equipped for that.

By Lila Kuh on 07/15/2009 2:40 pm