Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A lot of liberals and libertarians have expressed some concern that Judge Sotomayor may end up being relatively conservative when it comes to criminal justice issues. This LA Times article is not likely to soothe those fears. Her background as an aggressive prosecutor and her history of court rulings on such issues as search and seizure do not paint a good picture.
Though her critics portray the Supreme Court nominee as a liberal activist, her colleagues and legal opponents in the early 1980s draw a picture of her as a zealous prosecutor whose experiences combating crime have made her, according to experts who have studied her legal decisions, something of a law-and-order judge, especially when it comes to police searches and the use of evidence.In two major rulings after she joined the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in 1998, she held that evidence could be used to convict a defendant even though police had violated his rights in seizing it. Sotomayor said that because the police and prosecutors acted "in good faith," the evidence need not be thrown out.
In 1999, Sotomayor upheld the crack cocaine conviction of a New York man despite what she called a "mistaken arrest." Last year, Sotomayor spoke for a 2-1 majority that upheld a man's child pornography conviction, even though she agreed an FBI agent did not have probable cause to search his computer.
"I think her experience as a prosecutor balances out her liberal tendencies," said New York University law professor Kenji Yoshino...
Gerald Lefcourt, a high- profile criminal defense lawyer in New York, appeared before Sotomayor while she was a federal district court judge. "She always seemed to be leaning toward the government -- not outrageously so, but if you look at a lot of her criminal law cases you can see she's pretty conservative," he said.
Lefcourt wasn't surprised. He had faced off against Sotomayor when she was an assistant district attorney.
Sotomayor was "very police-like," he said. "Dismissive of what the defendant had to say about anything."
Balko says that the picture emerging of Sotomayor is "one of a left-leaning authoritarian, sort of a mirror image of Samuel Alito. She'll be a reliable vote to uphold government power, be it for cops, prosecutors, regulatory agencies, or the executive." If that turns out to be true, that will be very disturbing. I think it's too early to tell at this point, but I'd like to see some of the liberals on the judiciary committee to question her about this rather than just cheerleading for her because a Democrat appointed her (the way Republicans did with Roberts and Alito).
Politics
Comments
That's what I love about you Ed, your eternal optimism.
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 10, 2009 10:08 AM
The Supremes are there primarily to wage the continuing War on Drugs (TM), and to uphold the power of the executive (and sometimes, the corporations who put him in power). They are otherwise useless, and irrelevant.
Sotomayor is nothing more than a normal, run-of-the-mill, ex-prosecutor who is about to receive a life-time ticket to ride. Tough on Crime! Woo-hoo! Lock the MotherF-----s Up! (In good faith, of course ...)
Too inflammatory? Broad generalizations, lack of true insight and reflection? Sorry, folks, but this one is going to taste really bad, really soon; and for most of the rest of your lives.
Posted by: threetorches | June 10, 2009 10:24 AM
I still have mixed feelings about her. It's because from what I've read of other justices writings, they talk about how fundamentally different the Supreme Court is from the rest of the judiciary process and in winds up changing a lot of the justices appointed to it.
As a prosecutor her natural inclination is to side with the police. Thats where all of the motivation for the job really comes from is securing convictions, even in the face of illegal activity on the arresting side. Sadly she is not that different from most prosecutors in this regard. It's obvious that some of that menatality carried over to her stint as an appeals judge.
But the Supreme court is the end of the line, there are no more promotions and no longer real pressure one way or another, you can't even get fired. I'm just curious as to what kind of judge she'll be once a case is no longer about the 'momentum' of the justice system and is instead about issuing final decisions that have far reaching and long lasting consequences.
Posted by: random guy | June 10, 2009 11:38 AM
Random Guy, I hope you're right, I really do. But your comment has some of the same optimism that many are still carrying for Obama to turn around and stop increasing executive power. I've become a bit of a pessimist on the subject, myself - the nomination of a pro-government judge seems well in line with the current Adminstration's efforts to increase Obama's authority.
Posted by: BobApril | June 10, 2009 1:45 PM
Why does it come as a surprise to anyone that her views closely match the President who nominated her? Put another way, what did y'all expect, anyway?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 10, 2009 3:45 PM
I'm not optimistic. I fully expect her support the administration in every case for the next eight years. Most people never drop there bad habits, and I'm just curious as to how closely shes tied to her apparent left-leaning authoritarianism.
During the Bush years I always thought the worst cases were decided 5-4. Now I just expect the worst decisions to be 6-3.
Posted by: random guy | June 10, 2009 3:47 PM
I guess it just further proves that Republicans aren't interested in reading all of her rulings, or that she just happens to be their first chance to "Bork" an Obama nominee.
I doubt if she's the best thing since tomato sandwiches, too, but none of us know what cases will be brought before the SC in her tenure or how well the arguments will be presented to the justices. I guess I just hope there isn't much harm done. It won't be too many years before other justices are rotated out, anyway.
Posted by: Jon Lester | June 10, 2009 7:54 PM