Sonia Sotomayor

I have very little of worth to say (which hasn't stopped me before, of course) on President Obama's new pick for the Supreme Court. Her presence would bring the number of Catholics on the court up to six (including the Chief Justice). However, as with most US politicians and her five brothers in the faith at the minute, overt catholicism generally doesn't explain the decisions of American law-makers, and in any event, a Justice Sotomayor would come to questions as a divorced Catholic, which probably makes a difference.

A point Martin in the Marginsdrew attention to on his intelligent secular blog the other day is the very real existence of a catholic tradition of seeking rational or a posteriori arguments for moral behaviour parallel to those of the faith. I think that it is very strong over there. Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback are different in that regard, but they operate under different political rules.

Anyway, more importantly, the Republican assault on Judge Sotomayor is imploding. Newt Gingrich has been caught 'twittering' on an electronic device designed to publicise whims, fancy, and stupidities, about how the working-class Dr Sotomayor is a 'Latina racist'--from or whilst near Auschwitz, where he is making a television programme about the late pope.

Tatooing one's knuckles with the words 'racist ****' and attempting to rabbit punch someone with an inspiring, all-American story from the remains of an infamous death camp, frankly, does not look good. This is especially true given the general ambience; one of the party's brightest performers (and political Christianists) recently referred to Dr Sotomayor as 'Maria' on the basis that someone thought that is what they are all called. The rather lame excuse proferred by Dale Huckabee is that this is her middle name. I suppose it lets him refer to Hussein Obama.

I can think of a few things to add to the offence. Jeffrey Rosen over at the New Republic, a sort of neoconservative conduit for some of those on the radical right in recent years, or what in British terms would no doubt call itself 'decent left', has seen his article basically calling her 'stupid' touted all over the place.

What silly name-calling. Whatever else she may be, I find it difficult to believe that a person goes from the Bronx to two of America's best universities, then prosecutes criminals, then switches to civil litigation and then gets nominated to the federal bench by the first George Bush in recognition of their mediocrity. Still, looking at three of the past five Vice-Presidents, I suppose anything is possible. Really, though, since when was intellectual brilliance the only criteria for Republican endorsements, or for that matter for the Supreme Court? Potter Stewart was a football player, Warren Burger went to night school, and William Rehnquist was a meteorologist. Amongst other things.

The silliest attack? Some, posing as neutral observers, have called her 'an abortion centrist' in a vain attempt to antagonise 'liberals'. What on earth is one of those?

Here's how I suspect this will all play out. The Republicans are going to end up discrediting themselves. If they blow out against someone like Dr Sotomayor, she will end up on the court and the next, more radical picks of President Obama, will slip through. Moreover, the Republicans will reinforce their image as a 'Nasty Party'. Go and have a read of Conservative Cabbie if you want to see a sensible Republican seeing through it all.

Letting the GOP implode suits Obama's Blair-type agenda, which depended in part on demonising opposition and then allowing it to relegate itself to irrelevance. Meanwhile, a real story--that Arlen Specter's cynical switch to the Democrats may result in his losing his seat to Admiral Joe Sestak--is going to be spun into a 'temporary democrat replaced with real democrat' story by a ruthless White House operation and ignored beneath the hubbub.

Then the economy will have stayed wrong, and no-one will have legitimate alternatives to turn to at the federal level. Where do you think that is going to lead?

Note: I have used the title 'Doctor' since it seems appropriate for Judge Sotomayor. Americans generally don't. Almost all their lawyers have a Juris Doctor degree, which is a 'professional doctorate', and are entitled by the American Bar Association to use the title 'Dr'. Almost all their awarding institutions, however, prohibit them from doing so. In Europe, my friends with academic doctorates would also have been accorded titles like 'Dottore' or 'Dottoressa' on the basis of any higher study of the law. I thought that I would split the difference.

UPDATE: For the whole text of Judge Sotomayor's one 'mis-step'--her acknowledgement that the interpretation of law at the level of the Courts of Appeal in America requires an understanding of public policy (not legislative or political policy, but the way Judges derive from others and their own view how they should proceed)-- go here.

UPDATE 2: Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional law professor (like President Obama) and a scourge of journalists, has a great series of columns on Judge Sotomayor here, including notes from lawyers who have appeared before her. He thinks her a strict, legally-minded centrist and that she never plays to emotion at all.