Scotusblog should be correct when noting that Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is a no brainer. This does not mean she will not have some criticism though much of it will be stupid. The Manhattan DA supplied yet another answer to such things. A money quote:
The judge's work since she left this office confirms that she is a strong champion of the law. In particular, she has served with distinction on what I consider to be the second most important appellate court in the world, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. To be sure, she is in favor of civil rights, in the sense that she believes there should be fair treatment for all. But that is, of course, the law. And she understands poverty, and does seem willing to accept government action that provides a safety net to the poor. But that is not exactly "radical."
There are some unanswered questions, including her view on privacy and executive power, though Glenn Greenwald links a segment from her questioning at the Arar orals (which I saw, months before she was nominated) that not only underlines her tough intelligent questioning, but suggests she is sane on the subject. Still, we have some arguing that if anything she might not be empathetic enough, too concerned with technical details. See also here (my reply to Emily Bazelon's recent article regarding her ability to persuade people to a conservative ruling, perhaps reflective of her ADA background).*
Really, Republicans should be singing her praises, but they have to play their games, particularly the idiots. Given recent elections culled many of the sane ones out, this group stands out more these days. Meanwhile, the opponents on Bush v. Gore are joining together to raise a federal claim against Prop 8. Many advocacy groups are rather wary; as well they should be. I know the Ninth Circuit is favorable venue, at times, but why not raise a claim in a state (there are many in that circuit) that does not provide full benefits, except for the name?
This "pick your battles" philosophy was cited in the discussion of the Prop 8 ruling on Grit TV, which can be viewed on Free Speech TV. Richard Kim of The Nation reaffirmed my point from yesterday, suggesting California's domestic partnership law provided all the benefits of marriage. No, it didn't -- it might now, but before the last ruling (on this point, upheld in this one), the law supplied nine less benefits. A small number overall, surely, though some were of some importance, such as the need for common residency. Keep your facts straight.
So to speak!
---
* The Bazelon article reflects Judge Sotomayor's work ethic and intelligence as well. This sort of thing allows one to accept a certain gruff side, her temperament an issue for some, something that can be a plus if handled the right way. See this relatively positive article.