The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


Supreme Court

Women's Groups Vow to Fight for Swift Confirmation

By Garance Franke-Ruta
Women's groups that had been urging President Obama to select the fourth female Supreme Court nominee in American history greeted his choice of Judge Sonia Sotomayor with enthusiasm.

The New Agenda, a nonpartisan group formed during last year's presidential campaigns, hailed the selection as "inspirational" and pronounced itself "thrilled" that four of the 10 women it suggested for the court were interviewed by Obama.

"It's a great day for America and a great day for women," said New Agenda co-founder Nancy Hopkins. "The choice of Sotomayor also shows that excellence and diversity go hand in hand. In this case, they were inseparable," she added.

The National Organization for Women also cheered the nomination of Sotomayor and president Kim Gandy said it would launch a campaign to ensure her "swift confirmation."

"Judge Sotomayor will serve the nation with distinction. She brings a lifelong commitment to equality, justice and opportunity, as well as the respect of her peers, unassailable integrity, and a keen intellect informed by experience. President Obama said he wanted a justice with 'towering intellect' and a 'common touch' and he found both in Judge Sotomayor," Gandy said in a statement calling for Sotomayor's confirmation before the Senate's August recess.

The National Women's Law Center hailed the "historic" choice, with co-president Marcia D. Greenberger praising Sotomayor's "sterling academic credentials, extensive experience as a practicing lawyer in both criminal and civil matters, and service both as a federal trial court and appellate court judge."

The support of such groups comes against a backdrop in which a number of the attacks against Sotomayor are being greeted by supporters of judicial diversity as expressions of implicit bias against her as a woman, rather than as legitimate critiques, and where those committed to the representation of women in the professions have kept detailed accounts of how far women still have to go before they achieve representational parity in the judiciary.

It's a debate that's sure to heat up, should critics seek to engage on questions of Sotomayor's "judicial temperament," rather than past decisions -- and one that could prove especially tricky for partisans on both sides, given the impassioned nature of debates about gender and sexism.

Posted at 4:10 PM ET on May 26, 2009  | Category:  Supreme Court
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: As Interest Surges, Battle to Define Court Nominee Starts Online | Next: Obama Adds Saudi Arabia Stop to Mideast Trip

Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Please email us to report offensive comments.

So any vetting of this nominee will be assailed as bigotry, racism and sexism. Interesting those are the very critiques that have already been brought to the forefront about the nominee. So once again women as the most privileged, subsidized and catered to class are immune from being analyzed and evaluated. Any demonstration of inquiry is tantamount to the extra hurdles have to leap???? The duplicitous nature of that statement alone is so deeply flawed- we want her to be judged equally but don't judge her record or statements like we do with other nominees??? Once again women's advocacy groups demonstrate with aplomb, that they want women to be treated with modern day chivalry and catered to like children--immune from the standards we demand of males in this society. Racism and sexism once again flares its ugly head, and as usual, it is women's advocacy groups practicing it in defense of a women whose own record of racism and sexism is troubling-- even for this woman. Not sure how these groups continue to think that women are a monolithic group and it would be refreshing to hear them grow up and recognize women have varied views and thoughts, just like [horror] men.

Posted by: konnick | May 27, 2009 5:35 PM

Well, I am just getting to know of Judge Sotomayor, but given what I have learned, she has an excellent background, and one that is absolutely 'inspirational."

There will be opposition, but I expect her to be confirmed. The GOP cannot afford to burn what little capital they have at this time, fighting a bitter, protracted 'battle.' But thats just a guess.

But kudos to the President for selecting a lets move on to Act I, Scene II -- the confirmation.

Posted by: Victoria5 | May 27, 2009 11:01 AM

"Judge Judy would have reminded Obama, that she is not his friend, but a tool of the Court and racheted him on the schmooze."

Yes, let's nominate Judge Judy instead.

Seriously though, If Republicans condemn this nominee, they will lose huge numbers of Hispanic voters in 2010.

Posted by: seemstome | May 26, 2009 10:23 PM

When will we get some honesty from national women's groups? N.O.W. (The National Organization of Women) should be renamed L.O.W. (Liberal Organization of Women). They only support women whose political positions line up exactly according to their manifesto. A bunch of self-involved hypocrits.

Posted by: ddnfla | May 26, 2009 7:41 PM

It is pathetic that in the entire history of the Supreme Court, there have only been TWO female justices. My interests are not served by the likes of Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia.

All the "conservatives" who are crying about Sotomayor need to take a look at the supposed "intellect" and "activism" that these four old crusty MEN have brought to the bench.

Obama won the election, folks. He gets to pick. Better get used to it.

Posted by: marSF | May 26, 2009 7:38 PM

Of course, all the far right lunatic fringe fundamentalist Christian groups, the anti-Latino racists and just the plain old ordinary bigots who still think that America is a country for rich white Southern men only will oppose this nomination to the bitter end.

We will soon see what Obama is really made of. If he backs down on this one, he will be finished.

Posted by: algasema | May 26, 2009 6:26 PM

What's with the HUG from Barry Soreto?
It is inappropriate.
Should the vetting of secreted Court records for Obama become an open case in short coming months,there should be a distinct respect for her position. Misuse of the Court, to bypass disclosure to the American people by a Public Servant, is a huge case of fraud.

Judge Judy would have reminded Obama, that she is not his friend, but a tool of the Court and racheted him on the schmooze.

Posted by: dottydo | May 26, 2009 5:48 PM

These endorsements CONFIRM Sotomayor is a radical PRO ABORTION nutjob.

Posted by: JaxMax | May 26, 2009 5:39 PM

Las republicanos no tienes pantalones.

Vamos Sotomayor! Esta noche tenemos que ganar!

Posted by: bs2004 | May 26, 2009 5:34 PM

If the womans group here support her, there has to be something wrong with her. But she is replacing a rotten judge anyway so it could have been worse.

Posted by: niceday971 | May 26, 2009 5:20 PM




While the media is distracted by the "stories of the day," democracy is being stolen at the grassroots -- and the domestic TORTURE and gradual financial expropriation of the "unjustly targeted" continues unabated under an apparently "unaware" Team Obama.

Please read this:

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

Posted by: scrivener50 | May 26, 2009 4:39 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company