The 68 to 31 vote came after about 18 hours of debate over the past three days. The confirmation came as little surprise, since her hearing before the Judiciary Committee last month failed to ignite much controversy. Nine Republicans joined the 59 Democrats present to vote in favor of Sotomayor, while 31 Republicans voted against her. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, is ill and did not vote.

Judge Sotomayor, 55, is expected to take the oath of office on Saturday, with a formal ceremony scheduled for September. She succeeds Justice David Souter, who retired in June. She follows Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as the third woman on the Court.

During the nomination process, Democrats pointed to Sotomayor’s qualities that led her from humble beginnings in a Bronx housing project to the pinnacle of her profession. Republicans countered that her background made her too “empathetic,” and that she lacked impartiality.

Political strategists have suggested that Republicans who opposed Sotomayor may face a backlash from Hispanics, the fastest growing U.S. minority. It will be interesting to see if there are political repercussions, especially for Republican senators in states with large Hispanic populations.

Related posts:

1. Souter out, Sotomayor in
2. Sotomayor’s road to Supreme Court
3. Supreme Court rules strip search illegal

Right now, their loudest condemnation centers around a comment Sotomayor made while speaking in 2001 at a UC Berkeley School of Law symposium titled “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.” In that speech, Sotomayor said she “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.”

Her lecture was part of a conference focusing on issues of diversity and the need to increase Hispanic representation on the bench. Taken in context, her comment was just one piece of a discussion about her Latina identity and how it has influenced her presence on the bench. As the president pointed out, in that very same speech Sotomayor emphasized “that it was nine white males who passed down Brown versus Board of Education, which is partly responsible for me sitting here,” referencing the 1954 Supreme Court decision that made school segregation illegal.  “[T]hat’s hardly the kind of statement that would indicate that she subscribes to identity politics.”

But opponents have taken that sentence and run with it. They claim such comments are evidence that Sotomayor will engage in judicial “activism,” relying on personal feelings rather than the rule of law when deciding cases. They also point to the statement as being racist against white males.

President Obama has called such criticism nonsense, defending Sotomayor by claiming that her background and experience “will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through” and make her a good judge.

In early June, Sotomayor made “courtesy calls” to U.S. senators on Capitol Hill, hoping to pave the way for a smooth confirmation process. Her conversations ran the gamut, from bicycling to Nancy Drew books, and even a legal discussion of the doctrine of stare decisis (respect for legal precedent). Naturally, the 2001 speech crept into the dialogue. She assured senators that not only did she make a poor choice of words, but that she’s bound by law when ruling on cases.

Her face time did not dissipate everyone’s concerns. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, admitted he was still bothered by the “wise Latina” comment. He challenged Sotomayor to prove that she will remain unbiased and base her legal rulings on nothing but legal principles.

But in the end, it’s becoming evident that Graham and other opponents are in the minority. Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSBlog notes that Sotomayor’s record shows genuine balance, so it’s hard to accuse her of being a liberal ideologue. Conservatives, too, are having a hard time rallying the troops when they can’t point to any Sotomayor writings on controversial social issues such as gay rights and abortion.  And then there is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s retraction of an early comment that Sotomayor is racist.

So, will the minority continue to raise objections to Sotomayor’s nomination in the hopes of delaying or derailing the process, or will they back off their opposition? Confirmation hearings will begin on July 13. At that time, we will see if the hearings process will be a cakewalk for the nominee.

This is the first article in an occasional series about the Road to the Supreme Court.

Related posts:

1. Sotomayor confirmed to Supreme Court
2. Supreme Court rules strip search illegal
3. Souter out, Sotomayor in

In his introduction, Obama praised Sotomayor as someone who will bring to the Court “not only the knowledge and experience acquired over a course of a brilliant legal career, but the wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life’s journey.”

If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor, 54, would be the first Hispanic and only the third woman to ever sit on the Supreme Court. The daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants, Sotomayor grew up in a Bronx housing project.  At age 8, she was diagnosed with diabetes. A year later, her father died, leaving her mother to raise her and a brother.

Sotomayor rose above her difficult beginnings. After graduating summa cum laude from Princeton University and then Yale Law School, she worked as a prosecutor and private attorney before being appointed a federal judge for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. She became an appeals judge in 1998 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which covers New York, Vermont and Connecticut.

Her nomination doesn’t come as a complete surprise, since her name had been floated as a possibility ever since Souter’s announcement on May 1. She was high on the replacement list in part because of her personal story of triumphant over adversity. But she’s not without judicial merit. Supporters say she questions lawyers vigorously and delivers well-considered decisions. Baseball fans applauded one of those decisions in 1995, when Sotomayor ended the major league baseball strike.

Progressive activists already are cheering the pick. “We already know that she is a brilliant lawyer who is committed to ruling based on the Constitution and the law, not on her own personal political views,” said Doug Kendall, president of the liberal Constitution Accountability Center.

Obama supporters may be enthusiastic about his choice, but the love doesn’t necessarily reach across the aisle. Earlier this month, conservative talk radio hosts began questioning her credibility, and anonymous lawyers and law clerks attacked her temperament and intellect.

And last weekend, before Sotomayor officially became the nominee, Republican lawmakers said they would attempt a filibuster against her confirmation. It’s uncertain how far Republicans can go to block her appointment, especially since seven of their 40 members voted to confirm her in 1998.

Obama has said he wants to see Sotomayor confirmed by the start of the Senate’s five-week recess, slated to begin Aug. 7. Almost certainly this means a summer filled with political fireworks, as Democrats and Republicans try to make the case before the public for and against the nominee. In the end, Obama’s pick won’t change the ideological composition of the Court overnight. But the President’s decision to choose an Hispanic woman will likely have long-lasting political, legal, and social effects for the Court and the country.

Related posts:

1. Sotomayor confirmed to Supreme Court
2. Sotomayor’s road to Supreme Court
3. Supreme Court rules strip search illegal

This month, our new President tried his hand at another type of challenge — dealing with the first pirate attack on a U.S.-flagged vessel in over 200 years. His leadership was impressive, and his results successful. The captain and crew survived to tell their stories. The 17,000-ton freight carrier was carrying food aid to the Kenyan port of Mombasa when it was hijacked. Captain Richard Phillips offered his own life to save the lives of his crew and was held hostage for five days. His bold rescue came after Navy SEAL sharpshooters were given permission to fire and killed three pirates with three shots.

While the pirates were surprised by the fight put up by those aboard the relatively small Maersk Alabama, that resistance has not decreased the violence. As one pirate claimed,  ”[e]very country will be treated the way it treats us. In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying…We will retaliate (for) the killings of our men.”

This confrontation was the first with an American ship in a very long time, but piracy has been far from dormant, and attacks in the Gulf of Aden, off the Horn of Africa, and in the Somali Basin, have been numerous in recent years. In fact, the assault on the Maersk Alabama was the sixth in that week alone. What do we make of the increase in pirate attacks of late? And what do these continual attacks mean for foreign relations, global awareness and humanitarianism?

At one time, thousands of Somalis relied on fishing for their livelihood. But in the 1980s, foreigners began fishing in the area, which greatly reduced the once-abundant supply of fish. The problem became even more pronounced in the early ‘90s when the Somali government fell, leaving no one to protect the country’s coastline.

Pirates sprang up in response, trying to stop the illegal overfishing and dumping of toxic waste that still exists today. At first, the pirates asked the foreigners to pay taxes on the fish they were taking, but when those efforts failed, more organized piracy began. At the same time, pirates took over fishing ships, demanding the companies pay ransoms that have quickly climbed into the millions. With piracy ransom last year totaling more than $50 million, the pirate business now serves as one of the country’s main sources of income.

The recent surge of pillages in Somali waters has widespread ramifications. Not only are shipping companies’ insurance premiums getting higher, but shipping companies are reluctant to travel at all through areas with such rampant pirate activity. This raises costs and adds travel time for aid agencies, delaying the arrival of much-needed nourishment to women and children in poor countries.

In addition, those in poorer countries view Captain Phillips’ rescue as a threat to their own nations’ hostages who are still being held captive because their companies cannot afford to make big payouts. The potential for strained relations with those countries is yet another risk with which we must contend.

While it is still more economical for shipping companies to pay ransoms than rebuild entire ships, the risks of being forced to negotiate with pirates seem rather high. Just days after the Navy’s rescue of Captain Phillips, another American ship carrying aid was attacked.

It is evident that the pirates remain a stronghold on Somali seas. As we attempt to preserve our national security and continue our global good will, we must keep in mind that these are muddy waters – filled not only with pirates, but with economic, social, and political crises that play as much a part in the raids as in their resolutions.

No related posts.