Steele: I Really Don’t Know Whether Sotomayor Is An “Activist” Judge
This one could put a crimp in GOP efforts to mount a united assault on Obama SCOTUS pick Sonia Sotomayor.
In an interview with CNN radio, RNC chair Michael Steele declined to endorse the claim that Sotomayor is an “activist” judge, putting him at odds with Republicans and conservatives who say this is one of their central objections to Obama’s nominee.
Asked if he agreed that she’s an activist judge, Steele gave a straightforward answer: He doesn’t know. “Based on what I know so far, it’s very hard to say with a high degree of certainty,” Steele replied. (Audio here.)
Steele then cited two comments from Sotomayor that have been widely cited as proof of her judicial “activism”: Her 2005 claim about policy being made on the appellate court, and her 2001 speech on how her race and gender shape her judgments. Those are going to leave a lot of people wondering “where her orientation is,” Steele said.
But he added: “Until we have a full view of the facts and a comprehensive understanding of the record, our party right now will avoid partisan knee-jerk judgments that typically come with these things.”
Steele’s fellow Republicans and conservatives, however, say those Sotomayor comments prove she is an activist judge. Senator Orrin Hatch told MSNBC yesterday that Sotomayor’s 2005 claim “means you’re going to get an activist justice on the Supreme Court.” Americans United for Life denounced her as an “avowed judicial activist.”
Steele doesn’t agree. Yet.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Its all a set up. Actually for once Steele might be on the right side of messaging on this one. See if Republicans could hold their water then later they could come back and say “Well we meticulously went through her record and we did in fact come to the conclusion that she is a judicial activist” Now thats not to say people would buy it, but at least it would give the appearance of giving her a fair shake. These idiots coming out and making statements against Sotomayor on the same day she is nominated are basically insuring that nobody listens to their beliefs about her for the duration of her nomination. Hatch comes out like the worlds biggest clown yesterday when he is called out because he voted for her 2 times previously and says “Well this is different, this is for the highest court in the land”. So what are you saying Orin? Its ok to put a hack on appeals courts where people’s lives and livelyhood might be on the line? For once I think I have to give Steele props for his strategery. There is no doubt that in time he will say she is an activist and not worthy but at least he knows now is not the time to say that.
The GOP talking points on this, released more broadly than intended, include Steele’s approach you’ve noted, Greg.
.
“Until we have a full view of the facts and comprehensive understanding of Judge Sotomayor’s record, Republicans will avoid partisanship and knee-jerk judgments — which is in stark contrast to how the Democrats responded to the [Chief Justice John] Roberts and [Justice Samuel] Alito nominations.”
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rnc-fumbles-sotomayor-talking-points-2009-05-26.html
Liptak in the Times today and Turley on MSNBC yesterday both forwarded the opinion that this nominee’s rulings have demonstrated “no larger vision.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/politics/27judge.html?_r=1&hp
I can’t say, of course, but it wouldn’t surprise me (’vision’ can be easily perceived, correctly or not, as ‘ideology’).
But Lithwick, on MSNBC yesterday, pointed to the nominee’s rulings as demonstrations of “process”…that the nominee is “a process person”. In other words, she goes by the book or shows serious respect for precedent (an approach which both Alito and Roberts praised but perhaps haven’t actually followed much).
I’m coming around to thinking about this ‘process’ issue in a new way after reading “The Price of Loyalty” (Suskind’s book on O’Neill). A fundamental reason (perhaps the fundamental reason) O’Neill did not fit in that administration was because he had developed, in his experience as CEO at Alcoa, a rigorous process of data gathering, data checking and no-holds-barred debate (after bringing together the best opposing minds on some matter). His notion was that this was the only dependable way to get closest to the truth of things and the best policies. Rove/Cheney/Hughes et al had no intention usually of facilitating such a process because far too often it would undercut some political or policy preference they had as a consequence of electoral goals or PR ideas or allegiances to interest groups.
“Rove/Cheney/Hughes et al had no intention usually of facilitating such a process ”
Bernie, honey – I luv ya, but you’re telling us stuff we know already. I know what the Bush administration did and didn’t do – it’s no secret.
I noted last night that media matters had quoted Bush (the oneth) in his nomination announcement of Thomas where Bush had extolled Thomas’ “empathy”.
Here’s a portion of an answer Thomas himself gave during his confirmation hearing…
.
“And I believe, Senator, that I can make a contribution, that I can bring something different to the Court, that I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the Court does. You know, on my current court I have occasion to look out the window that faces C Street, and there are converted buses that bring in the criminal defendants to our criminal justice system, bus load after bus load. And you look out and you say to yourself, and I say to myself almost every day, “But for the grace of God there go I”.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905260048
.
Of course, we might make the leap here to thinking that this present propaganda smear campaign against the nominee is not bothering to adhere to another well respected ‘process’ – opening and reading a dictionary.
Am I being pedantic again? It’s a failing (family of teachers). I’ll try to pull it back in. Keep me posted when you see me fall into this. That’ll fix me for a day or two.
Well as long as it’s just pedantry and not getting a cut on the Suskind book. But I actually like the teacherly thing. It doesn’t hurt to round up the old points and compare what happened then to what’s going on now. The Obama managerial style seems to be a lot about process. I happen to favor that, though it’s probably a big part of the reason the hotter parts of the left have being having serial meltdowns.
ABC – thankee, but Tena has a point (which my wife, also from Dallas as it happens, would quickly validate).
But anyways, thinking of that ‘process’ viewpoint or methodology, take a peek at Gerson’s column today. In it’s main thrust, it’s good. He does this once every thirteen columns.
At the risk of being pedantic I want to point out that the problem with Steele’s messaging on this is that while its the right move he will probably be attacked by the base for it. Right now the GOP is at war with the radicalized wing of its party and they feel beholden to it. Its part of the reason why a few of the Republicans in the Senate felt the need to go off script yesterday and attack Sotomayor. Its also why if Limbaugh or Hannity call him out Steele will ALSO end up having to go off script. I say have to but the reality is that its only the perception that matters here. I really believe that the majority of Republicans would understand slow walking this attack. But the loudest in the party are the fringe and the GOP thinks loud=majority of opinion. So basically what I forsee is the establishment GOP being dragged into a fight that they know will hurt the party when election time comes in order to please the wingnuts. What they need to have is a so called “Sista Soulja moment” (I hate that term) where they slap down their base and go about trying to win elections with some common sense. But the truth is they are more beholden to their fringe than the left has ever been or ever will be. And unfortunately for them their fringe is much more concerned with misguided symbolism than it is with winning elections or governing responsibly.
Very funny intro there, sg.
I think you’re right re the problem for Steele. He’s quoted a talking point but the one on that list that is custom-made to cause him further problems with the base. He (or Gerson for that matter) are rather saner than the Limbaugh/Hannity contingent. Re how the elected Republicans and their strategists will proceed…gad, who knows? There are huge dangers potentially waiting. The LA Times has a good piece today on this (the Latino element quite relevant in Calif, of course). http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-assess27-2009may27,0,4057686.story
What everyone is missing in this endless attack upon the republicans si what are the democrats doing about the nominations. they are suppose to be selecting an impartial judge, non-party affiliated. therefore they should ask the same tough questions they asked of Roberts or any other nomination they opposed. Why is it assumed that when thye are attacking immediately any republican nominee that they have the country’s interest at heart, while an outright approval of a democratic nominee is right. They are hypocrites (actors in a play) if they do not agressively question this nominee. Let’s challenge them on this issue. i was a democrat until recently I see that if you do not follow the party line and support Obama you are attacked. No longer will I support this constitutional failure. they have the responsiblity to be a balance to the executive branch. that is not a political ideal, but the whole purpose of our form of government.