Is Sotomayor a bully now?

[Coyote]

That seems to be the latest rightwing attack strategy since the racist label backfired but, as usual, facts supporting that allegation appear lacking.

Is Sonia Sotomayor Mean?
by Nina Totenberg


Morning Edition, June 15, 2009 · The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary publishes lawyers' evaluations of each federal judge, and updates those evaluations every few years. In Sonia Sotomayor's years on the bench, lawyers have often raved about her, calling her brilliant, tireless — just the absolute best. They have also called her tough and unwilling to put up with guff.

But in the most recent evaluation, interviews with eight to 10 unnamed lawyers also produced some less flattering comments: "a terror on the bench," "nasty," "overly aggressive," "a bit of a bully."

The subject of the Supreme Court nominee's judicial temperament has so far been raised by just one senator, Lindsay Graham (R-SC).

"There's a character problem; there's a temperament problem," says Graham.

Referring to the comments in the Almanac, Graham went on:

"I just don't like bully judges," Graham says. "There are some judges that have an edge, that do not wear the robe well. I don't like that. From what I can tell of her temperament and demeanor, she seems to be a very nice person. [Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalia is no shrinking violet. He's tough, but there's a difference between being tough and a bully."

Sotomayor's fellow judges view her as always prepared — and tough. Republican and Democratic appointees interviewed for this story rejected outright the notion that she is a bully, though some think she talks too much and too often dominates an oral argument.

Judge Guido Calabresi, former Yale Law School dean and Sotomayor's mentor, now says that when Sotomayor first joined the Court of Appeals, he began hearing rumors that she was overly aggressive, and he started keeping track, comparing the substance and tone of her questions with those of his male colleagues and his own questions.

"And I must say I found no difference at all. So I concluded that all that was going on was that there were some male lawyers who couldn't stand being questioned toughly by a woman," Calabresi says. "It was sexism in its most obvious form."

Entire article - including an analysis here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=105343155

What is that difference Senator Graham?
http://psacot.typepad.com/ps_a_column_on_t...ars-briefs.html
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/04/30/scali...ivacy-invasion/


While I think that often the gender card, like the race card -is overplayed, I don't think that's the case here.

Apparently - if a man dominates oral arguments, doesn't take any guff he is "assertive". If a woman dominates oral arguments, doesn't take any guff she is "overly aggressive", a "bully".

It amazes me the level of character assassination they will stoop to, perhaps because they can't actually attack her qualifications.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Get used to it. The Left started this game where it doesn't matter whether the nominee is qualified, it only matters that they are the wrong political stripe.

See Judge Bork.

Second, I think your analysis of the the "a woman is a bitch" but "a man would be called assertive," is incorrect in this instance. I've practiced in front of all kinds of judges. There are some that are bullies. I've never run into a woman judge that was a bully, but I've been in front of several male judges that were. I've also had several judges of both genders that were tough (as Scalia is described in the OP).

 

[Coyote]

Get used to it. The Left started this game where it doesn't matter whether the nominee is qualified, it only matters that they are the wrong political stripe.

See Judge Bork.

The Left started it the Right started it.....who really started it and does it matteror is it just a convenient excuse for continuing it?

An eye for an eye was all that filled their minds
And another eye for another eye till everyone is blind.

For example you could go back to Fortas, nominated to be Chief Justice under Johnson:

When Chief Justice Earl Warren announced his retirement in June 1968, Johnson nominated Associate Justice Fortas to replace Warren as Chief Justice. However, the Warren Court's form of jurisprudence had angered many conservative members of the United States Senate, and the nomination of Fortas provided the first opportunity for these senators to register their disenchantment with the direction of the Court; they planned to filibuster Fortas' nomination.[3] Senate Judiciary Committee chair James Eastland told Johnson he "had never seen so much feeling against a man as against Fortas."[1] Fortas was the first Chief Justice nominee ever to appear before the Senate, and he faced hostile questioning about his relationship with Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson had consulted with Fortas about political matters frequently while Fortas was on the Court.[3]

I am sure that prior to that was a left jab too.


What ever happened to the "Judicial Confirmation Network's" claim that voters wanted “Senators to do their jobs and hold a straight, up or down vote on nominees based on their qualifications” and that those who opposed President Bush’s judicial nominees were "just playing partisan politics”?

Second, I think your analysis of the the "a woman is a bitch" but "a man would be called assertive," is incorrect in this instance. I've practiced in front of all kinds of judges. There are some that are bullies. I've never run into a woman judge that was a bully, but I've been in front of several male judges that were. I've also had several judges of both genders that were tough (as Scalia is described in the OP).

So...according to Sen. Graham Scalia is "tough" and Sotomayor is a "bully"? Yet her colleagues don't seem to think she is a bully. Why does Graham call her a bully but Scalia not?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Get used to it. The Left started this game where it doesn't matter whether the nominee is qualified, it only matters that they are the wrong political stripe.

See Judge Bork.

The Left started it the Right started it.....who really started it and does it matteror is it just a convenient excuse for continuing it?

An eye for an eye was all that filled their minds
And another eye for another eye till everyone is blind.

For example you could go back to Fortas, nominated to be Chief Justice under Johnson:

When Chief Justice Earl Warren announced his retirement in June 1968, Johnson nominated Associate Justice Fortas to replace Warren as Chief Justice. However, the Warren Court's form of jurisprudence had angered many conservative members of the United States Senate, and the nomination of Fortas provided the first opportunity for these senators to register their disenchantment with the direction of the Court; they planned to filibuster Fortas' nomination.[3] Senate Judiciary Committee chair James Eastland told Johnson he "had never seen so much feeling against a man as against Fortas."[1] Fortas was the first Chief Justice nominee ever to appear before the Senate, and he faced hostile questioning about his relationship with Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson had consulted with Fortas about political matters frequently while Fortas was on the Court.[3]

I am sure that prior to that was a left jab too.


What ever happened to the "Judicial Confirmation Network's" claim that voters wanted “Senators to do their jobs and hold a straight, up or down vote on nominees based on their qualifications” and that those who opposed President Bush’s judicial nominees were "just playing partisan politics”?

Second, I think your analysis of the the "a woman is a bitch" but "a man would be called assertive," is incorrect in this instance. I've practiced in front of all kinds of judges. There are some that are bullies. I've never run into a woman judge that was a bully, but I've been in front of several male judges that were. I've also had several judges of both genders that were tough (as Scalia is described in the OP).

So...according to Sen. Graham Scalia is "tough" and Sotomayor is a "bully"? Yet her colleagues don't seem to think she is a bully. Why does Graham call her a bully but Scalia not?

My recollection was that Fortas was a hack and a Johnson crony. I'm talking about nominees who are VERY highly rated by the ABA. I'm not talking about just plain nominees of one party or the other. Bork was extremely well qualified and he was pilloried for political reasons.

Concerning your question on why Graham thinks as he does, you would have to ask Graham for his motivation. On the open question of whether Soto is a bully or not, I would say you have to ask the people who practice in front of her not other judges. She might be sweet as puddin pie to the other judges and first class a-hole prick to the lawyers that practice in front of her.

 

[Navy1960]

“I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation,” Gibbs said.



White House to Sonia Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful' - Alexander Burns and Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Now this just a personal opinion on this confirmation, but it doesn't help much when the White House is putting out statements like this. Over the years depending on who was in power at the time, the nominee was generally beat up pretty good by the other side. Perhaps, this nominee can be the exception to that rule, however I don't see that as being the case given the environment in congress at the moment. From my reading, she reminds me a lot of David Souter another Bush appointee, I do think however she is going to have a little bit of trouble with the case dealing with the Firefighters but she will most likely be confirmed.

 

[Coyote]

Get used to it. The Left started this game where it doesn't matter whether the nominee is qualified, it only matters that they are the wrong political stripe.

See Judge Bork.

The Left started it the Right started it.....who really started it and does it matteror is it just a convenient excuse for continuing it?

An eye for an eye was all that filled their minds
And another eye for another eye till everyone is blind.

For example you could go back to Fortas, nominated to be Chief Justice under Johnson:



I am sure that prior to that was a left jab too.


What ever happened to the "Judicial Confirmation Network's" claim that voters wanted “Senators to do their jobs and hold a straight, up or down vote on nominees based on their qualifications” and that those who opposed President Bush’s judicial nominees were "just playing partisan politics”?

Second, I think your analysis of the the "a woman is a bitch" but "a man would be called assertive," is incorrect in this instance. I've practiced in front of all kinds of judges. There are some that are bullies. I've never run into a woman judge that was a bully, but I've been in front of several male judges that were. I've also had several judges of both genders that were tough (as Scalia is described in the OP).

So...according to Sen. Graham Scalia is "tough" and Sotomayor is a "bully"? Yet her colleagues don't seem to think she is a bully. Why does Graham call her a bully but Scalia not?

My recollection was that Fortas was a hack and a Johnson crony. I'm talking about nominees who are VERY highly rated by the ABA. I'm not talking about just plain nominees of one party or the other. Bork was extremely well qualified and he was pilloried for political reasons.

Wasn't Fortas though? It seems like it. I do agree about Bork though. If a nominee is qualified then that nomination shouldn't be refused, no matter how distasteful.

Concerning your question on why Graham thinks as he does, you would have to ask Graham for his motivation. On the open question of whether Soto is a bully or not, I would say you have to ask the people who practice in front of her not other judges. She might be sweet as puddin pie to the other judges and first class a-hole prick to the lawyers that practice in front of her.

If you read the link in the OP, they say: Yes, these are tough questions, but are they mean, unduly snotty or abusive? No more so than the questions heard on a routine basis in the U.S. Supreme Court. - and give some examples of Supreme Court arguments that would seem to indicate they are not.

If she is a "bully" then she would fit right in with at least several existing Justices on the court. And that makes Grahams argument rather hypocritical since he states Alito is "tough" but not a "bully".

 

[Coyote]

“I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation,” Gibbs said.



White House to Sonia Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful' - Alexander Burns and Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Now this just a personal opinion on this confirmation, but it doesn't help much when the White House is putting out statements like this. Over the years depending on who was in power at the time, the nominee was generally beat up pretty good by the other side. Perhaps, this nominee can be the exception to that rule, however I don't see that as being the case given the environment in congress at the moment. From my reading, she reminds me a lot of David Souter another Bush appointee, I do think however she is going to have a little bit of trouble with the case dealing with the Firefighters but she will most likely be confirmed.

True enough, but I think the White House is hoping to have the confirmation process focus on qualifications over characte. Really that should be any nominee's right in the confirmation though character assassinations seem to have become the norm when qualifications can't be attacked.

 

[Navy1960]

Goes straight to what I say a lot on here Coyote, and that is to effect real change in Washington it doesn't help much to vote for those people that are there year after year after year and then turn around and call that change no matter what party that happens to be. Personally, I don't see this animosity changing much until such time as they are ALL voted out!! and we really change! Now that would be something to see.

 

[Coyote]

Goes straight to what I say a lot on here Coyote, and that is to effect real change in Washington it doesn't help much to vote for those people that are there year after year after year and then turn around and call that change no matter what party that happens to be. Personally, I don't see this animosity changing much until such time as they are ALL voted out!! and we really change! Now that would be something to see.

I used to think that - but, frankly I wonder. There is a way in which things get done in Washington - and that is by working with the system to effect small changes. Often, when a candidate has come in with the intention of radical reform and sweeping change it's been abysmal.

Remember when Carter came in - with his team of outsiders - and in the process managed to offend almost every group? He ended up not being able to bring about any change because he couldn't work with the structure that was entrenched. I think that is the cynical reality of politics and power. Every time there is a change - with one ideology or party coming into power on the sweeping promise of change from the status quo....once they've become entrenched....they become the status quo. A bit like Animal Farm. When the arrogance and corruption become too much to bear -the opposing party will come sweeping in with it's version of "change".

That's why I don't believe in "big change" - Ibecause of the nature of power. I'll be satisfied to see small changes in critical areas. That's what I voted for.


Would be nice however...to see some viable and strong "third parties".