Obama Nominates Sonia Sotomayor; Offers Hope for Women Everywhere
Published May 26, 2009 @ 08:59AM PT
By now hopefully you've heard the news - President Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court Justice to replace Justice Souter. Undoubtedly, her nomination process will be tough given the criticism already rising from the Right saying she's "not of the intellectual firebrand, a disappointment from liberals" and that there are "better options" out there. Oh yeah, and this guy thinks she's a "racist" and a radio host today called her an "intellectual light-weight because she is a woman."
I find all of these excuses to be complete bullshit, clearly.
For those who are still in the dark about WHY she's a great mind, a great intellectual and a great pick, here is some additional information compiled by CNN on her judicial resume:
Judicial Career: U.S. Appeals Court judge, 2nd Circuit (1998-present); U.S. District Court judge (1992-1998); Nominated to federal bench by Bush in 1991, Clinton in 1997
Government/Legal Career: Former N.Y. County Assistant District Attorney (1979-1984); Former private practice attorney, Pavia & Harcourt, New York (1984-1992)
Notable cases:
Sided with environmentalists in a 2007 case that would have allowed the EPA to consider the cost-effectiveness of protecting fish and aquatic life in rivers and lakes located near power plants.
Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court.
Mexico City policy: Sotomayor ruled against an abortion rights group in its challenge to the so-called "Mexico City Policy," which states that nations that receive U.S. funds may neither perform nor promote abortions. The abortion rights advocates alleged that the policy violated their First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights. Sotomayor upheld a lower court ruling dismissing the case, saying that the group's First Amendment rights had not been violated and that it had not been denied due process.
Wrote the 2008 opinion supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions. The Supreme Court heard the case in April 2009 and a final opinion is pending.
Major League Baseball Strike: As a district court judge, Sotomayor issued an injunction against team owners for alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act during collective bargaining negotiations with the MLB players association. The owners had sought to end the system of free agency and salary arbitration and imposed a lock-out against players as negotiations began to break down. The ruling ended the longest baseball strike in history.
And of course, with her we also have a LATINA FEMALE nominated to the Supreme Court. If her nomination goes through, she will be the first of her kind to sit on that bench.
Now, why, is this important you might ask?
Well, for one, as Justice Ruth Ginsberg said in a recent USA Today article about a strip search case and the response of her fellow colleagues:
"They have never been a 13-year-old girl," she told USA TODAY later when asked about her colleagues' comments during the arguments. "It's a very sensitive age for a girl. I didn't think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood."
To put it simply - there are just certain things that you can't learn in law school. Namely, what it is like to be born with a uterus. And while we are still waiting to hear more from Sotomayor in terms of her position on Roe v. Wade and abortion rights, we are assuredly gaining an overall advocate on the Court for women's rights.
Women's rights have been in serious peril throughout the tenure of the John Roberts Court. Just last week in the case, AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, the Court ruled that women who took maternity leave in the 1970s can be paid less by their employer than men who worked for the same amount of time that they did. Dina Lassow, Senior Counsel to the National Women's Law Center said the following in an email interview about the ruling:
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) adds a provision to Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 - the basic employment discrimination law - that makes its clear that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is prohibited.
The problem in Hulteen is that the Court chose to read the PDA narrowly, and not in way that ensures that no women - including those now of retirement age - will be adversely affected by their pregnancies. While Hulteen is a harsh decision, it only affects women who took maternity leave before 1979 - the effective date of the PDA. AT&T changed its policy in 1979, and admits that it cannot discriminate now the way it did against Noreen Hulteen and the other women in her situation. So, the future of maternity leave should not be compromised.
The amicus brief filed by the Center presented the context in which to view AT&T's decision to discriminate against its pregnant employees in the 1960's and 70's, and to continue that discrimination when it set their pension benefits years later.
So, pardon my enthusiasm over this nomination. I'm only a little biased. But there is great reason to celebrate the possibility of another female joining the Supreme Court, particularly Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who has been quoted as saying:
"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."
I think you already know, Judge Sotomayor, that the disservice has already been done and now it's time for justice to be served.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
2009 Election: Winning Female Candidates & Democrat Losses
-
Friday Femme Fatale: AirAmerica.com, Airbrushing and Arms Trade
-
The GOP Has A Problem...With Women
Comments (38)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Jen Nedeau is a social media consultant, progressive activist, feminist speaker and writer. She currently lives in New York City, where she works full-time as the Director of Digital Strategy at Air America Media. In August 2008, Nedeau was selected to be the Editor of the WomensRights.Change.Org where she facilitates daily discussion about the feminist movement. Additionally, Nedeau volunteers as the Chief Technology Officer for New Leaders Council, a non-profit that offers exclusive training for young leaders. You can follow her on Twitter @HumanFolly or learn more here: www.jennedeau.com.
Featured Women's Rights Actions
-
-
-
Tell the U.N.: The Rapes Must Stop Now!
9615 People
-
Tell the U.N.: The Rapes Must Stop Now!
Well said Jen! No one is going to be "good" on every issue anyway. This is an exciting day.
Posted by Cynthia Samuels on 05/26/2009 @ 10:27AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think it'll be great to have another woman on the court, and a Latina at that. That's great. But...what's this about an anti-choice ruling? How do we know she will protect our reproductive rights as women?
Posted by Michelle Bak on 05/26/2009 @ 10:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you for providing real information about Sonia Sotomayor. The obstructionists are likely to raise a battle cry. Her pro-choice rulings will mean that all kinds of hysteria will likely saturate the corporate media. Fundamentalist cultists are also likely to in attack mode. There are also a few dems throwing around the meaningless term 'activist judge.' She's going to need a loud and visible defense. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta
Posted by Rev Bookburn on 05/26/2009 @ 10:36AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm guessing she was upholding what was federal law at the time, I'm not sure she would rule the same now that the Global Gag Rule is reversed.
Posted by Jen Nedeau on 05/26/2009 @ 10:37AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm excited about Sotomayor as well, but also worried about her stand on reproductive rights. She is a woman, but that doesn't necessarily mean she's pro-choice. Do we have any other info on her and reproductive rights cases?
Posted by Criss Cox on 05/26/2009 @ 11:52AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Im a true believer that anyone that has dual citizenship shouldn't be in high govt office.. it becomes a check mate and easy for another country to take over our country.. Dual citizenship shouldn't be tolerated.
Posted by Joe Wilson on 05/26/2009 @ 01:35PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
A dual citizen of what? The U.S. & Puerto Rico? Last time I checked, P.R. is commonwealth of the U.S., just like the state of Virginia....unless I'm missing something here, i don't understand your point.
Posted by Jen Nedeau on 05/26/2009 @ 01:44PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Joe,
How can a country take over another country because of one person's dual citizenship? That is so ridiculous, it's not like that person is a spy, and they usually love both countries equally.
Also, are you saying dual citizenship should not be tolerated in all cases? or just in high govt office?
Posted by Juan Portillo on 05/29/2009 @ 02:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
She was born in the Bronx. She does seem more Hispanic than American which makes some people wonder about her loyalties in a pinch. She isn't smart enough for the job.
Posted by Pam Crooks on 05/31/2009 @ 09:37PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I guess I need some clarification here:
1) is her loyalty questionable because she's Hispanic or because she was born in the Bronx?
2) What forms of duel citizenship are acceptable and unquestionable? American + Canadian, American + UK?
Posted by Lisa Smolen on 05/31/2009 @ 09:46PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
She was born in the Bronx. The Bronx are in America.....but just barley.
Posted by Pam Crooks on 05/31/2009 @ 09:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Pam, with all due respect, your logic is a bit off. How can one be "more Hispanic than American?" Race and nationality are two different axes of variation. In other words, they aren't by definition opposed to one another. All it takes to be American is citizenship; ethnicity has nothing to do with it. And isn't that part of what makes our nation great?
Posted by Jennifer C on 06/01/2009 @ 08:13AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
She looks like my mom but a little chunki-er tahaha
lol i miss family
Posted by lisa dar on 05/26/2009 @ 07:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think she's an excellent choice. The Supreme Court badly needs a 'breath of fresh air'...'new blood'...etc....and I believe Sonia Sotomayor is just that. And leave it to a man to make an ignorant statement...
Posted by Monica Morton on 05/26/2009 @ 07:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Quick question: why are liberal judges labeled "Activist" while conservatives get no such label?
In my honest opinion, I think that the Supreme Court should be populated by extremes on both sides because this country is so extreme. With 9 judges, there should be room for Liberals, Conservatives and at least one moderate to add some levity to the conversation.
Personally, I don't want a wishy-washy liberal-ish judge. I want one who absolutely stands with my extreme views on womens' rights & environmentalism, social liberalism & equality for all.
Posted by Lisa Smolen on 05/27/2009 @ 07:35AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I completely agree.
I wouldn't say that Sotomayor is perfect at her job, but I will say that her nomination is perfect because of the views she brings into the mix.
I may disagree with some of the things she's said or done in the past, and I will probably disagree with some things she'll rule in the future, but overall I think it was NECESSARY for someone like her to join the Supreme Court. She'll be able to represent so many people whose points of views are poorly understood by other judges.
Posted by Juan Portillo on 05/29/2009 @ 02:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
She is supposed to represent the law.....not a special interest group
Posted by Pam Crooks on 05/31/2009 @ 09:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Since this is a womens' rights blog, I'd just like to say that I don't consider myself or women in general a "special interest group."
Posted by Lisa Smolen on 05/31/2009 @ 09:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
she's not going to favour anyone in particular, I don't think, but she will be more sensitive to certain issues, but that is great! that means the supreme court will represent the entire country in a more realistic way, don't you think?
Posted by Juan Portillo on 06/01/2009 @ 08:41AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The nomination has brought deep-seated ugliness out in too many who use bigots' fear of gender and race to obfuscate the more substantive issues pertinent to society. G. Gordon Liddy, felon and radio host, implied that Sotomayor could not be trusted to judge as she may have PMS. He also referred to speaking in spanish asspeaking in "illegal alien". Perhaps a well timed peaceful demonstration, a sort of "en-menses en masse" in front of Mr. Liddy's program would let him know how much he cramps the style of the non-misogynist americans. Just a thought.
Posted by Kristi O. on 05/29/2009 @ 09:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Is the goal to make him change his mind? or is the goal to show the rest of the world how wrong he is?
I don't think he'll ever change, but he can still influence people and that's the real danger.
Posted by Juan Portillo on 06/01/2009 @ 08:43AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I dont see anything right or wrong about her. Race, gender, background - thats all just window dressing and stuff for lefties and righties to talk about. They all rule on their opinions based on their backgrounds anyway. She'll help keep things balanced at least.
Posted by CJ Shume on 05/31/2009 @ 07:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
JUSTICE IS SUPPOSED TO BE BLIND, NOT EMPATHETIC.
This woman albiet has an excellant acedemic record is the antithesis of BLIND JUSTICE. This woman in my opinion is a reverse racist, just ask Richey and the other defendants on the New Haven CT. Fire Department. I'm looking forward to the Supreme court overturning her decision as a majority of her decisions have been overturned in the past 17 years.
Posted by Donald Parsons on 06/01/2009 @ 04:23AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"a majority of her decisions have been overturned in the past 17 years"?
The information I found stated, "Only five of the 232 opinions Sotomayor has written in her 11 years as a 2d Circuit judge have been reviewed by the Supreme Court. Of those five, justices overturned three - including one environmental and one prison abuse case that are drawing attention." (Read the rest of the article here: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202431087253&slreturn=1)
I'm no math major, but 3 out of 232 hardly seems like a majority.
Posted by Criss Cox on 06/01/2009 @ 08:29AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
lol, "majority"??
Ideally the legal system, or justice, should be blind. However, we can all agree that certain groups of people feel that having a homogenous group of justices hardly makes justice blind. She is as good an ingredient in the mix as one would consider liberals and conservatives a good mix of justices.
Am I making sense?
Posted by Juan Portillo on 06/01/2009 @ 08:47AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/sotomayor_overturned_60_of_the_time_by_supremes
Here is a point of interest and YES I would call 60% a MAJORITY. Anyone who thinks she won't bring her bias to such a high position is NOT making sense. There are plenty of run of the mill liberals he could pick instead of playing the race card. By that I mean he specifically chose her daring Republicans to not only vote against her but to attack her in a personal way injuring the GOP more than they already are. Obama promised to be a different kind of leader and be transparent and tarnscend political lines, so much for more of the same. In my view a politician is just a POLITICIAN, talking out both sides of their mouth to get elected then doing whatever the hell they want. I don't trust any politicians as they are out to serve one person's interests and those interests belong to them. I just hope that she gets a better shake from the Republicans than Thomas, Alito, Bork, and even Chief Justice Roberts got from the Democrats. If Justice is truelly blind than a Latina woman and a White male should come to the same conclusion. I'm very interested in you thinking that a WOMAN (Ginsberg) a BLACK man (Thomas) 4 WHITE men (Roberts, Kennedy, Souter, ?? ) I'm sorry I have forgotten the rest off the top of my head but this example flies in the face of your homogeneous remark, there is diversity in the court already. I'm not overly concerned because it is trading one liberal vote for another although she is a FAR LEFT liberal whereas Souter was supposed to be a conservative voice sent to the court by a Republican President (George H. W. Bush). How about having Democrat Presidents send up a nominee that is conservative and Republican Presidents send up nominees that are liberal that way you won't get the extremists on either side.
Posted by Donald Parsons on 06/01/2009 @ 09:54AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm sorry I meant to say that 60% of her cases reviewed by the Supreme Court where overturned. 3 out of 5 and by my calculations that is 60%.
Posted by Donald Parsons on 06/01/2009 @ 10:02AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If yu choose to look at 3 of 5, then yes, it's 60%. I choose to look at 3 of 232.
Which number is more meaningful? Which is more telling?
I know which one is more sensationalistic, but I'd rather look at substance.
I think this is where we disagree.
Posted by Criss Cox on 06/01/2009 @ 10:40AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/sotomayor_overturned_60_of_the_time_by_supremes
Posted by Donald Parsons on 06/01/2009 @ 10:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.resume/index.html
Posted by Donald Parsons on 06/01/2009 @ 10:10AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/sotomayor_overturned_60_of_the_time_by_supremes
Posted by Donald Parsons on 06/01/2009 @ 10:12AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/sotomayor_overturned_60_of_the_time_by_supremes
I can only get a portion of my posts to come up for some reason, it could be me, or this site. Last attempt before work.
Posted by Donald Parsons on 06/01/2009 @ 10:18AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/sotomayor_overturned_60_of_the_time_by_supremes
Posted by Donald Parsons on 06/01/2009 @ 10:22AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/sotomayor_overturned_60_of_the.html
Posted by Donald Parsons on 06/01/2009 @ 10:25AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm going to concede this issue because it is a winless battle as she will be confirmed in the end , unfortunately. I'll save my energy for the next Obama administration mistake to debate over, and hope she at least apologizes for her reprehensible remarks in 2001.
Posted by Donald Parsons on 06/01/2009 @ 10:55AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm very, very encouraged that Sotomayor has gone on record saying that the Constitution "says what it says."
If she really feels that way, maybe children have a hope now in America of gaining the long denied 14th Amendment birthrights to "equal protection" under the law. Maybe CAPTA and state child protection laws that permit the assault of children by parents/caretakers/teachers will be rewritten to reflect this birthright entitlement to 'equal protection.'
Nobody should be able to intentionally hurt any U.S. citizen (or other person for that matter!), regardless of age, location or motive. I think her record may give us reason to believe Sotomayor agrees on this.
Posted by Christine Clarke on 06/01/2009 @ 06:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think a dual citizen is a choose the person whats not about what government the like or dislike,, that is their choose to make... and it not about just have a dual chitizen ,, it about the forgetting where you come from and some personal matter ....
Posted by Zuleyma Mayorga Castillo on 06/02/2009 @ 06:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think a dual citizen is a choose the person whats not about what government the like or dislike,, that is their choose to make... and it not about just have a dual chitizen ,, it about the forgetting where you come from and some personal matter ....
Posted by Zuleyma Mayorga Castillo on 06/02/2009 @ 06:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.