Thursday, May 28, 2009
So, Who is Sotomayor? Questions about her position on abortion; why she is a moderate, not a liberal; why the conservatives have been sophomoric in their opposition:
E.J. Dionne: ‘She’s the anti-Roberts and she isn’t a liberal’:
In his September 2005 speech explaining his vote against Roberts, Obama argued that 95 percent of court cases are easily settled on the basis of the law and precedent. But in "those 5 percent of hard cases," Obama said, the "legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision" and "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."
And that is where Obama found Roberts wanting. The young senator insisted that Roberts "far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak" and "seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process."
Obama believes Roberts's subsequent behavior on the court has justified his initial suspicions. He hopes that Sotomayor will be the anti-Roberts, a person whose experience growing up in the projects of the South Bronx will allow her to see life and the quest for justice in a way Roberts never will.
Conservatives -- particularly those who run direct-mail outfits and want a big court fight -- would love the decision over Sotomayor to hang on Obama's call for judges who show "empathy." They would cast her as a dangerous activist willing to bend the law to produce the results she wants.
They want to turn Obama's argument on its head and claim that Sotomayor would show bias in favor of those who share her background -- and never mind that they dismiss such assertions when they are raised with respect to white, conservative, male nominees.
The problem is that this approach is untrue to who Sotomayor has been and has little relationship to the decisions she has actually rendered as a judge. News accounts from the 1990s consistently described her as a "centrist" in her politics. Her lead sponsor when she was first named as a judge, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was hardly a conventional liberal. Obama may have found himself an empathetic judge, but she practices her empathy from the middle of the road.
A careful analysis of her record by Business Week, for example, concluded that she is a "moderate on business issues" and would fit the court's current alignment on such questions.
She also upheld a ban on federal funds going to family planning groups that provided abortions overseas. Sotomayor wrote that "the Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/27/AR2009052702906_pf.html
Concern about her ‘thin record’ on abortion: Greg Sargent: The Left should question:
This gap in her record puts Dem Senators in a bind. Pro-choice groups are mounting a campaign to press Senators to insist at her confirmation hearing that Sotomayor clarify her position on Roe. If these Senators punt, they’ll anger those groups and open themselves up to GOP charges of inconsistency. And if they do ask, they have to weigh how hard to press Sotomayor for full clarification.
Even more dicey: The possibility that Sotomayor could give an unsatisfactory answer. While many have assumed she’s reliable on Roe, there’s precedent for surprising turns from Supreme Court justices, such as David Souter’s 1990s vote to uphold abortion rights. Indeed, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs conceded yesterday that Obama had not directly asked her in their interviews whether she supports the Roe ruling.
No one expects Dem Senators to not support Sotomayor. But if she does give an unsatisfactory answer to the Roe question, it could suddenly become a lot more dicey to do so. This one’s worth watching. http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/sotomayors-thin-abortion-record-puts-dem-senators-in-a-bind/
White House: She’s OK on abortion
The White House signaled Thursday that President Obama is confident that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor won’t vote to overturn abortion rights.
Obama, a supporter of abortion rights, is “very comfortable with the fact that she shares a similar interpretation to the Constitution” as Obama, said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.
Sotomayor, who has served as a federal appeals court judge for more than a decade, has never ruled directly on a woman's right to an abortion. Because of her thin record on the issue, pro-abortion rights advocates have called on Sotomayor to reveal her views on a constitutional right to privacy, which has been the legal key to upholding abortion rights.
In answering questions about the groups' concerns, Gibbs noted that Obama, a former law professor, is familiar with the Constitution and has found Sotomayor to have similar views on it.
"In their discussions, they talked about the theory of constitutional interpretation, generally, including her views on unenumerated rights in the Constitution and the theory of settled law," Gibbs said. "He left very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his, though the bulk of the conversation was about her approach to judging."
Obama, in keeping with the practice of past presidents and senators, hasn't asked his high court nominee directly about her views on abortion or a right to privacy, the White House has said. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-confident-on-sotomayors-abortion-views-2009-05-28.html
The Conservative opposition has cited her cuisine, her intelligence, her “racism”; they seem bent on purifying the GOP still further. What’s going on? Paul Krugman posits:
The thing that is really driving conservatives crazy, I think, is that their identity politics just isn’t working like it used to. Their whole approach has been based on the belief that Americans vote as if they live in Mayberry, and fear and hate anyone who looks a bit different; now that the country just isn’t like that, they’ve gone mad. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
Israeli Settlements: Obama Gives Unambiguous Message: Calling for a complete freeze of construction, articulated by Clinton as, “He wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions."
President Obama and top Israeli officials staked out sharply opposing positions over the explosive issue of Jewish settlements Thursday, propelling a rare dispute between the two longtime allies into full public view just days before the president is scheduled to deliver an address in Egypt to the world's Muslims.
Obama brushed aside Israeli objections to his call for a complete freeze on settlement activity in Palestinian territory and insisted a halt was one of Israel's obligations in peace talks, a point he made in a meeting last week with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"I was very clear about the need to stop building settlements, to stop the building of outposts," Obama said Thursday after meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
The developments put Obama in the unusual position of taking a hard line with Israel early in his administration, adding a note of contention to the start of a grueling period of peace talks that the White House has vowed to aggressively pursue.
By contrast, former President Bush, like most other U.S. leaders, took pains to avoid any appearance of disagreement with the Israelis, even when differences existed. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-obama-abbas29-2009may29,0,3079180,print.story
The Foreclosure Crisis- Another Round Begins:
More homeowners than ever before are falling behind on their mortgage payments and sliding into foreclosure, according to figures released on Thursday, a sign that the country’s housing crisis is spreading through the ranks of previously stable borrowers.
About 5.4 million of the country’s 45 million home loans were delinquent or in some stage of the foreclosure process in the first three months of the year, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. About 12.07 percent of all mortgages were delinquent or in foreclosure, up from 11.93 percent at the end of 2008.
Temporary halts on foreclosures imposed by lenders and mortgage underwriters have mostly ended, and banks are moving quickly against delinquent homeowners.
Housing specialists said the number of foreclosures would probably keep rising as more people lose their jobs or are forced to trade full-time work for part-time. Nearly six million jobs have been lost since the recession began a year and a half ago, and many economists expect the unemployment rate to rise to 10 percent from its current 8.9 percent.
More defaults by unemployed homeowners could shunt more houses onto an already saturated market, economists said, dragging prices down farther. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/economy/29home.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=print
’04: McAuliffe offered Nader $ to stay out(?) Nader’s assertion, not [yet] denied:
Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader went public Thursday with an allegation that Virginia gubernatorial hopeful Terry McAuliffe offered his campaign money to stay off the ballot in key states during the 2004 elections -- a disclosure timed to raise questions about McAuliffe's fitness for public office.
"Terry McAuliffe is slipperier than an eel in olive oil," Nader said in an interview.
He said McAuliffe, who was the Democratic National Committee chairman at the time, had offered Nader's campaign an unspecified amount of money, believed to be party funds, to spend in 31 states in exchange for an agreement to withdraw from 19 battleground states where he could potentially hurt Democrat John Kerry.
The allegation -- which McAuliffe has not disputed -- is the latest attempt to suggest that the candidate's lengthy career as a confidant to President Bill Clinton and top party fundraiser could now be a political liability. McAuliffe's aides countered that any effort he made to thwart Nader might actually play well with party loyalists. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803823_pf.html
Massachusetts Politics: Fiddling while ‘Rome’ burns- Our Democratic leaders have done an atrocious job of bungling the fiscal situation, mocking each other while delaying revenue-raising and gutting much of state services. David Bernstein does the honors:
First up for a zinger, surely, must be Senate President Therese Murray. Her mantra, "reform before revenue," has already gone up in smoke. Perhaps a more realistic timetable would be "reform before Rapture."
Since taking over for her mentor, Robert Travaglini, Murray hasn't exactly cleaned up the old revolving-door lobbyist/legislator relationships. But Travaglini is cleaning up — in his new job of high-priced, all-purpose lobbyist.
All those fundraisers for Murray at Joe Tecce's Restaurant are now paying off for Travaglini, whose access to the president helped him earn nearly $300,000 last year in lobbying fees. That included $60K from Suffolk Construction Company, which hired him to help secure an $8 million contract to renovate Logan Airport's E Terminal. Suffolk got the contract — undoubtedly as the result of a fair and open process!
Who needs lobbying-and-ethics reform when things are working that smoothly?
And the Senate's ethics-reform bill guts the pesky State Ethics Commission, which tries to investigate, you know, ethics allegations.
That office, you'll recall, had the temerity to ask former Speaker Sal DiMasi for materials relating to his own alleged improper backroom deals. DiMasi refused, under the legal theory that it's none of your damn business how a sweetheart provision for ticket brokers got tucked into a bill, or how a big contract was awarded, both benefiting clients of DiMasi pal Richard Vitale.
Of course, if we're roasting DiMasi for that, we'll also have to take a shot at his successor Robert DeLeo — along with the rest of the House Democrats, who kicked off "reform season" by voting to reward DiMasi's secretiveness with another term on the throne.
DiMasi is now gone, but his documents remain carefully guarded from prying investigators; I have not heard one House Democrat publicly call for them to be released. Sunlight being the best disinfectant, the representatives are courageously protecting the rights of the germs.
Is anyone responsible?
Perhaps the biggest mystery, though, is how Governor Patrick managed to be the one to lose the public trust, in the midst of all this cowardice and inaction by the legislature.
That's a rhetorical question, of course: Patrick's list of roast-worthy faux pas and missteps this year are legend. Apparently, the way Patrick celebrates the "season of reform" is by rewarding friends with plum jobs and unearned raises.
At least Patrick has offered something like real pension reform — unlike the legislature, whose reform would begin taking effect in a quarter-century (seriously), as the Globe's Scot Lehigh has explained. Everyone currently employed by the state is grandfathered in. It's a fairness thing: there are officeholders who would never have gone to all the trouble of calling in favors to get these jobs if they had known they would have to actually work 20 years to get their pensions.
The legislature is also resisting Patrick on the mammoth transportation-reform effort, thanks to Patrick's inspired selection of James Aloisi, the Don Rickles of intergovernmental relations, to alienate everyone in his path. http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/84066-Roast-pork/
-R
