Supreme Court

In his weekly radio and Internet address, President Barack Obama urged the U.S. Senate to get to work and confirm his pick, Judge Sondra Sotomayor, as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court before the court begins its next sitting in October.

Sotomayer begins the confirmation process this Tuesday, meeting with senators, while Obama travels overseas.

Some Republicans -- including the de facto leaders of the GOP, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, have seized on a remark Sotomayor made in a 2001 lecture speech as fodder to oppose her nomination. Gingrich Twittered his opposition and Limbaugh took to the airwaves, calling Sotomayor a reverse racist.

Here's the comment that has conservatives fired up:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Read the entire speech -- "A Latina Judge's Voice" -- here and let me know if you think the remark is racist.

Obama made reference to Sotomayor's critics in the address:

There are, of course, some in Washington who are attempting to draw old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor’s record. But I am confident that these efforts will fail; because Judge Sotomayor’s seventeen-year record on the bench – hundreds of judicial decisions that every American can read for him or herself – speak far louder than any attack; her record makes clear that she is fair, unbiased, and dedicated to the rule of law.

NDN has had a great deal to say about Sotomayor's nomination, including Simon's essay on what her confirmation means for immigration reform and Andres' thoughts on what Sotomayer's nomination means to Hispanics. We also have compiled a backgrounder on NDN's leading work on Hispanic electoral issues, our nation's changing demography and immigration.

You can watch Obama's weekly address below:

The first reaction to President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court was extremely positive, as least from those on his side of the isle.  She has an impressive judicial record, a compelling personal story, she is a woman and will be the first Hispanic ever appointed to the Court.  However, it wasn't long before the unease started to set in and I started to question this impressive nominations position on choice.

As the New York Times reported yesterday, in nearly 11 years as an appeals court judge, Sotomayor has never directly ruled on a women's right to choose. However, she has written opinions that touched on abortion disputes where her opinion lay in favor of abortion opponents. In 2002 she wrote an opinion siding with the Bush Administration's policy to withhold aid from international groups that provide or promote abortion services overseas - otherwise known as the global gag rule.  This was one of the first Bush policies Obama overturned upon taking office.  And in 2004 she sided with anti-abortion protesters who sued police officers who allegedly used excessive force to break up the anti-abortion protest in front of an abortion clinic.  As someone who worked at an abortion clinic for years, the fact that she sided with the protesters worries me greatly.

That being said, the pro-choice community seems torn on the issue.  Wednesday, Planned Parenthood Federation of America sent out an email praising the nomination and Sotomayor herself, commenting on their confidence of her "commitment to the protection of our individual liberties".  In the meantime, NARAL Pro-Choice America sent a letter to senators urging them to demand Sotomayor reveal her views on privacy rights before any confirmation vote. 

Being pro-choice himself, it is of course not possible that President Obama does not understand the implications of this important nomination and of course, we all assumed he would appoint someone who would uphold Roe v. Wade.  With the last two decisions being decided by a 5 to 4 margin, there is no doubt that Roe v. Wade and the basic rights of women and families are at risk here.  However it is now being reported that President Obama did not vet the issue specifically.  I find that extremely hard to believe.  I am going to assume that when the Supreme Court is mentioned, a large percentage of the population calls to mind Roe v. Wade.  I'll go even further to assume that it is the only Supreme Court case that a large percentage of our population can even name!  And you are going to tell me that it didn't come up when vetting a new nominee to the Court?

I'm thrilled that Obama has nominated a women and a Latina.  I am excited at the possibility of a Supreme Court that looks more like America, but I want none of that at the risk of loosing my right to choose.  Luckily, I think our President understands the enormity of the decision he has made and hopefully he made the right one for everyone.  Still, I feel the administration may want to work on their answer to the question of how Sotomayor is going to respond when asked about her views on privacy, becuase they will be asked again, and they are going to need a more plausable response next time.

Simon's statement today on the selection of Sonia Sotomayor was featured in the Chicago Tribune. Here's an excerpt from the article: 

"President Obama's pick of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the Supreme Court is an acknowledgement and affirmation of the great demographic changes taking place in America today,'' says Simon Rosenberg, president of New Democrat Network.

"Driven by years of immigration, our nation is going through profound change,'' he suggests today. "The percentage of people of color in the United States has tripled in just the past 45 years, and America is now on track become a majority-minority nation in the next 30-40 years.

"The movement of our nation from a majority white to a more racially complex society is perhaps the single greatest societal change taking place in our great nation today,'' he suggests.

"And if the Supreme Court is to have the societal legitimacy required to do its work, its justices must reflect and speak to the people of America of the 21st Century,'' he says.

"The pick of Judge Sotomayor, a highly qualified, twice-Senate confirmed Latina to serve as one of the nine judges overseeing our judicial system, will not only put a thoughtful and highly experienced judge on the Supreme Court, it will go a long way toward making the Supreme Court one that can truly represent the new people and new realities of 21st Century America."

Rob was quoted in a national Associated Press story about Obama's move toward the center on some issues:

Rob Shapiro, a former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, said Obama's winning of congressional support for the $787 billion economic stimulus plan soon after taking office, mostly on terms he wanted, remains a major achievement.

The next crucial test will be whether Obama can make progress on health care overhaul, a signature proposal for his first term, said Shapiro, now with NDN, a centrist think tank formerly known as the New Democratic Network. Some of the other issues matter less, since presidents rarely get everything they want even from a Congress controlled by their own party, he said.

"Obama calls himself a pragmatist. That often ends up with fairly centrist policies," Shapiro said. "In the end, the progressives, the left in Congress, will support the president even on getting a half loaf in health care rather than a full loaf," he added.

Finally, Morley and Mike's recent LA Times Op-Ed was re-published in The Oregonian this week, and was also featured in The Arizona Republic, DailyKos and MyDD.

Below please find a statement by NDN President Simon Rosenberg and an NDN backgrounder on the changing demography of America and the growing power of Hispanic Americans.

Rosenberg Statement

"President Obama's historic pick of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the Supreme Court is an acknowledgement and affirmation of the great demographic changes taking place in America today. Driven by years of immigration, our nation is going through profound change. The percentage of people of color in the United States has tripled in just the past 45 years, and America is now on track become a majority-minority nation in the next 30-40 years. The movement of our nation from a majority white to a more racially complex society is perhaps the single greatest societal change taking place in our great nation today. And if the Supreme Court is to have the societal legitimacy required to do its work, its Justices must reflect and speak to the people of America of the 21st century. The pick of Judge Sotomayor, a highly qualified, twice-Senate confirmed Latina to serve as one of the nine judges overseeing our judicial system, will not only put a thoughtful and highly experienced judge on the Supreme Court, it will go a long way toward making the Supreme Court one that can truly represent the new people and new realities of 21st century America."

A Brief Overview on Hispanics' Rising Political Power

• Hispanics Poised To Flex Muscle in Politics, Policy, by Andres Ramirez, Roll Call, 5/18/09 - In this op-ed, Ramirez writes that Hispanics must seize this opportunity by continuing to increase their electoral participation as they have in recent years. This will give them maximum influence over a range of issues.

• Making the Case: 7 Reasons Congress Should Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform this Year, Huffington Post, 4/30/09 - Rosenberg argues that the answer to whether Congress can pass reform this year is "yes."

• Latinos Vote in 2008: Analysis of U.S. Presidential Exit Polls (PDF), Andres Ramirez, 1/18/09 - Ramirez provides an overview of the Hispanic electorate in key states from the 2008 presidential election. The analysis concludes that Hispanics participated in record numbers in this election cycle, increasing their turnout from the 2004 election;  Hispanics significantly shifted towards the Democratic nominee in 2008, reversing trends from the 2000 and 2004 presidential election cycles; Hispanics played a key role in Obama’s victory in Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico; Hispanics are poised to make other states competitive in future elections; and if these trends continue, the national map will continue to get harder for Republicans.

• Hispanics Rising II (PDF), 5/30/08 - This important document provides an in-depth narrative of how the immigration issue has impacted American politics and mobilized the Hispanic electorate.

Polling on Comprehensive Immigration Reform Shows Consistent Support for Reform

• NDN Polls on Comprehensive Immigration Reform in Battleground States, 9/10/08 - NDN conducted polling in key presidential battleground states, that show overwhelming support for comprehensive immigration reform.
  

Other Resources

• The 50-Year Strategy (PDF), Simon Rosenberg and Peter Leyden, Mother Jones, November 2007 - Rosenberg and Leyden lay out a grand strategy for how today's Democrats can build a lasting electoral majority and today's progressives could seize the new media, build off new constituencies like Hispanics and the Millennial Generation, and solve the urgent governing challenges of our times.

• 21st Century Demographics, the GOP on Race and the Long Road Back, Melissa Merz, 5/20/09 - NDN has been writing and talking about the state of the conservative movement and the deterioration of the Republican Party for many years. As Republicans continue to debate the GOP's future path, NDN offers up some of its past and recent work on the state of the modern conservative movement and the end of the conservative ascendancy.

• On Obama, Race, and the End of the Southern Strategy, Simon Rosenberg, 1/4/08 and 11/6/08 - Rosenberg writes that for progressives to succeed in the coming century, they must build a new majority coalition very different from the one FDR built in the 20th century. The nation has changed a great deal since the mid-20th century, as we’ve become more Southern and Western, suburban and exurban, Hispanic and Asian, immigrant and Spanish-speaking, more millennial and aging boomer and more digital age in our life and work habits than industrial age. Twent-first century progressive success would require building our politics around these new demographic realities.

It is being widely speculated that President Obama will replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who is to retire, but expected to remain on the bench until a replacement is found, with a woman.  Currently, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the only woman serving on the Supreme Court.  The three front runners are Elana Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Diana Wood, with Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm also being talked about. 

As the blogs and newspapers immediately pointed, appointing a woman to the Supreme Court is going to be an appointment based upon quite a bit of "judgment".  SCOTUSblog points out age is going to be a factor. All four women mentioned above were born between 1950-1960 and while Diana Wood is the most respected judge, she is also the oldest - strike one.  Kagan and Granholm are the youngest and Granholm has the experience of being AG, dealing with law enforcement and legislature - plus 2 for Granholm.  Sotomayor however is a Hispanic and would be the first ever Hispanic nominee to Court - plus 1 for Sotomayor. 

However, as the Daily Beast pointed out over at DemConWatch.com a commentator is concerned that Kagan and Sotomayor may be too fat, yes, that is what I just said, too fat, and therefore may be a health risk and not last long on the Court.  The commentator went on to say that Diana Wood, while she is the oldest, is the only one who looks "healthy" - plus 1 for Wood.

In the meantime, the weight debate raged on over at The Washington Monthly where a commentator claimed "To all the short-sighted libs who are clamoring for the youngest-possible nominee... Right idea, wrong methodology. You want someone who will serve the longest, i.e. with the greatest remaining life expectancy-and that involves more than simple age. I tried assessing their respective health prospects, and ruled out all who even border on overweight. Best choice: Kim McLane Wardlaw, whose ectomorphitude reflects her publicly known aerobic-exercise habits."

And finally our friends at Salon put it so elegently when they said of Sotomayor "How do you say 55, overweight, and diabetic in Spanish?"

I'm going to guess none of these concerns came up when some of our "big boned" male justices were nominated, but I could be wrong.

Regardless, it is a wonderful feeling to not be gripped with panic over the Supreme Court being tipped towards over turning Roe v Wade because we are losing such a wonderful advocate.  Not to mention the wonderful feeling of hearing only women's names bandied about when it comes to having him replaced.   Even if it means having her weight and outfits and hair judged along the way as long as it gets us more diversity on the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade is upheld, sexism be damned.

Katie Couric sits down with both Vice Presidential nominees and discusses their views on the Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade.

Waking up to this morning's papers, I can't decide if it's worse to be someone who has to breathe or worse to be a spokesperson. I suppose I do both.

I usually don't blog about the environment. I leave that up to our Green Team and the incredibly whip-smart head of our Green Project, Michael Moynihan. You can read his much more technical and interesting blog posts here.

But, hey, I take my own bags to the grocery and recycle roughly the equivalent of a K2-sized mountain of Diet Coke cans (OK, and a few wine bottles) each week. So I have the street creds to write this blog.

So, down to the business at hand. Let me get this straight, because it's not easy. According to an article by the Washington Post's super sharp Juliet Eilperin (who has the somewhat crazy job of covering the weird, parallel universe beats of the envrionment and U.S. Sen. John McCain's presidential bid), the U.S. EPA was ordered sometime last year by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS, if you want to be really hip) to determine whether greenhouse gases were bad. Duh. EPA at first issued a report from its scientists and staff, saying, yeah, they're pretty bad. They hurt humans who breathe the air (like, all of us) and contribute to global warming, also bad. But wait. President Bush, the consumate oil man, got other federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture (who knew USDA was such a bully?) to gang up on EPA and say that Western civilization as we know it would end if EPA did anything to help us breathe easier under the Clean Air Act. Best to punt to Congress, which recently failed itself to do anything. And in another bizarre twist, the EPA decided that although it announced its own findings were DOA the day they were announced, they would open up the proposal for public comment. WHAT? WHY BOTHER? That's like getting people to sign a guest book at a wedding then tossing it before the end of the reception.

So, is it worse to be human and have to breathe or worse to be a press secretary when you have to lie through your teeth? Which is exactly what White House flak Dana Perino did yesterday when she said acting on greenhouse gases and global warming would cause gas prices and home heating costs to go up. You go, girl. Play on those fears of the average family when you get paid a zillion dollars a year to spin away. Oh, but wait. She said we should we should invest in alternative fuels. I suppose she means drilling in ANWR, which would provide enough oil to keep us going for about a nanosecond.

But there is hope. NDN and the Green Project ACTUALLY do believe in exploring different ways to reduce pollution and increase output from alternative energy sources. That's why we are hosting a lunch next week with the head of our Globalization Initiative, Dr. Rob Shapiro, who has co-authored a thought provoking paper on a carbon tax that would reduce the payroll tax. That's why Michael is hard at work on what promises to be a compelling paper on why extending the solar tax credit is a legisative no-brainer and that's why we were thrilled earlier this week when U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, spoke to the NDN Community. You can read his very insightful comments here.

And to conclude (while I can still draw enough breath to type), a separate front-page article in the Washington Post had more bad news for those of us who can't hold our breath until we die. A federal appeals courth has thrown out a Bush Administration effort to reduce unhealthy levels of soot and smog (read: black junk in the air that coats your lungs) because the court said EPA had overstepped its bounds. Call me zany, but if EPA itsn't supposed to reduce black crud in the air, what is it supposed to do?

So, in sum, we have the White House reject policy in favor of politics. The losers: humans who breathe. We have a White House press secretary who added considerable amounts of her own hot air into the atmosphere (bad). The losers: humans who breathe. And to top off this stellar day, we have a federal appeals court who thinks the EPA shouldn't do anything more than give awards to 5th graders who win the local science fair. The losers: humans who breathe.

As a human being and press secretary, I am ashamed. I have to go now. I'm feeling a little short of breath.