Is Sotomayor Pro-Life?
Some pro-abortion groups are concerned that she might be:
President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has provoked concern from abortion rights advocates, who say they have seen no evidence that she supports upholding Roe vs. Wade.
In 2002, Sotomayor rejected a challenge to President George W. Bush’s so-called Mexico City policy, which required foreign groups receiving U.S. funds to pledge that they would not support or promote abortion.
Two years ago — in a case of concern to women’s groups — she joined an appeals court ruling that upheld a school district’s policy requiring teachers to notify a parent if they saw that a girl was pregnant. The court said that the teachers had no legal basis for objecting to the policy.
Personally, I highly doubt that Sotomayor would be anything but a reliable vote in favor of Roe v. Wade. The cases in question here involved matters that were fairly open and shut, legally, so I don’t think they tell us much about her views one way or the other (at most one could glean from the decisions that she is not so rabidly pro-abortion as to rule against any pro-life policy regardless of the law or the circumstances). And while the White House claims it never discussed the issue of Roe with her prior to nomination, I don’t believe that for a second. The irony of having the fifth vote to overturn Roe come from an Obama-appointed justice is so great as to make me really want to give the idea credence, but the reality is that she will almost certainly end up as part of the Court’s pro-Roe block.
UPDATE: Looks like the abortion rights crowd has another reason to be worried. According to this article, the Catholic League’s Bill Donahue is says he will “quietly root” for Sotomayor to be confirmed (the article also quotes Vox Nova alum Steve Dillard).
Comments are closed.
I would also be seriously shocked if she were anything other than a reliable Roe vote, especially given the constitueny of Obama.
Now what is very interesting was her recent actions on the Ricci case. This has the potential to be transformative – especially given the clear cut and disturbing nature of the facts…..Sailer has details here, and he’s done a lot of number crunching and research on it in the past few months:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/05/sonia-sotomayor-v-frank-ricci.html
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/05/slate-well-actually-it-isnt-mystery-why.html
Even William Donahue is quietly rooting for her
But even a scintilla of concern along this line would belie the fevered narrative that Sotomayor is a key part of the antiChrist’s campaign to divide and conquer the Catholic Church.
This week, some loud people at St Blog’s and elsewhere have had nervous breakdowns. They need help.
Can somebody with a good idea of how these things work paint a scenario for Roe v Wade being overturned? Are there really pro-Roe and anti-Roe justices? Clearly a case has to come before the court that gives anti-Roe justices an opportunity to overturn Roe? What kind of case would that be? Is it likely that 5 justices on the court would directly overturn Roe? Would we go, in one 5-4 decision, from abortion being guaranteed as a constitutional right to abortion law being solely the responsibility of the state? Would the Supreme Court leave no remnants of Roe behind at all? Would a decision of the court turn back to the states the right to outlaw abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother? Even if McCain won and appointed “pro-life” judges to the Supreme Court, was it expected that Roe would be completely overturned? And was that expected to be forever and ever, or do people expect for the constitutionality of abortion to change every time the liberal-conservative balance on the court changes?
Isn’t it possible for Sotomayor not to know whether she would vote to overturn Roe or not until an actual case was before her? And isn’t that how it should be for all appointees and sitting Supreme Court judges? Don’t they need arguments put before them before they come to a conclusion as momentous as overturning Roe would be?
And while the White House claims it never discussed the issue of Roe with her prior to nomination, I don’t believe that for a second.
Is it naive for me to believe that Sotomayor wasn’t asked, “Would you vote to overturn Roe?” and that she said, “No, you can count on me to keep abortion constitutional.”
Being “pro-life” or not should have no impact whatsoever on a Roe ruling – at least not in a perfect world.
David,
I think it would very naive to believe the question had not been asked, as long as you keep in mind that there are many different ways of asking the question.
I should have known that Jonathan would obsess about the race angle, and quote his favorite racist who concludes that “blacks, on average, aren’t as smart as whites”.
For a good analysis of the Ricci case, and for a good exercise in ripping to shreds the nonsense about “judicial activism” (her critics in the Ricci case thought she was not activist enough, was not inclined enough to toss out precedent!), see Larison.
I think the criticism in the Ricci case has less to do with the way Sotomayor voted than with the fact the opinion was one paragraph long and didn’t address the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. If she did this on purpose in attempt to avoid review by the Supreme Court, that would be a serious issue.
And while the White House claims it never discussed the issue of Roe with her prior to nomination, I don’t believe that for a second.
I neither believe nor disbelieve Gibbs’ claim. I’m curious as to why you think Gibbs would lie.
Exactly, Blackadder. She ducked the issue, and that hardly speaks well of her.
But better her than Diane Wood.
I’m curious as to why you think Gibbs would lie.
Well, he is the press secretary.
I should have known that MM would have taken a very valid criticism regarding a very important issue comprehensively considered and find a way to take cheap pot shots without addressing any actual substance whatsoever.
Touchy, touchy MM.
Larison’s assessment of Goldberg is specious. It is not that the “right wing” (that’s right…I used ‘em…scare quotes baby, for you know they are out to get you) wanted her to be more of an activist. They just wanted her to do her job, i.e. address the constitutional issues in the case and come down with a decision. Instead she chose to punt, and do so in such a perfunctory manner that her own colleague on the court and fellow Latino called her on it. I suppose, though that he was a racist too.
But no, MM, you’re right. Jonathan’s race-bating quotation from a racist who was commenting in his all-too-typical racist manner about the racially splended Sotomayor is beyond the pale (no pun intended… well alright it was a little intended).
Considering what we *could* get in an Obama pick, I’m perfectly happy with what I’ve read of Sotomayor so far. She seems to combine liberal “compassion” with a strict constructionist and even states’ rights legal interpretation, which seems to be the right balance. I take comfort in her three “pro-life” rulings (all of which were for “liberal” reasons). I take comfort in the fact that she does have strict constructionist leanings. I take comfort that, like Thomas was when he joined the court, she is a “cultural” Catholic who, according to the White House, only attends Mass for special occasions: this would mean that, like Thomas, she has the potential to *return* to active participation in the Church while on the Supreme Court.
Many of the statements used against her by conservatives are ones that I prima facie would agree with (e.g., yes, presuming that a Latina woman is a pro-life Catholic, I do think a Latina woman can make better judgements about things than a white male).
I take comfort that, like Thomas was when he joined the court, she is a “cultural” Catholic who, according to the White House, only attends Mass for special occasions:
Just to set the record straight, Justice Thomas was a communicant in the Episcopal Church when he joined the Court. The White House statement referenced above did not include the word “only”.