Getty Images
We've no doubt had plenty of Supreme Court justices who've been widely recognized, and some who've kept a relatively high public profile, but I can't remember the last time a sitting justice reached a level of celebrity on par with Sonia Sotomayor.
At her Wednesday night book talk [in Chicago], Justice Sonia Sotomayor glided through her audience of 700, dispensing homespun wisdom through a cordless microphone, interrupted by impromptu applause.
When the moderator read a question from Tabbie Major, age 7, about which books Justice Sotomayor loved as a child, she found the girl, locked her in an embrace, held on while reminiscing about Nancy Drew mysteries and then called out for a photographer to capture the moment. No need: a good portion of the crowd was already snapping pictures.
Welcome to another night in the life of Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court justice, current queen of the best-seller list and suddenly the nation's most high-profile Hispanic figure.
The NYT piece is a fascinating read, largely because I can't think of a modern judge who can illicit the kind of reactions Sotomayor is currently receiving. She's promoting her book, which is now a #1 bestseller, and her appearances "have the air of celebratory happenings, attended by entire families, people who left work early to line up for tickets and acolytes who quote her recent interviews from memory."
Candidates for national office can sometimes generate this kind of treatment. On rare occasions, senators do, too. Figures like Hillary Clinton and Colin Powell sometimes come along and get these strong public responses. But Supreme Court justices?
A brief highlight reel of audience responses: in Austin, Tex., about 1,500 people waited in the rain to see her, and rival booksellers combined their inventory to supply them with enough copies. Pamela Campos, an Air Force intelligence analyst and student at Portland State University in Oregon, drove 11 hours to an appearance in Northern California; at a networking meeting for Latina women beforehand, the group posed for a photo with books in hand.
Watching the justice in television interviews, "You want to just reach out and be her friend," Ana Flores, 40, who blogs about Latinos and child-rearing from Los Angeles, said in a telephone interview. "It doesn't feel like she's totally become part of the system."
Reading about these public receptions, I kept thinking back to Sotomayor's 2009 confirmation process, and the ugliness of some of the criticisms she received from the right. Indeed, I recall Republican leaders like then-RNC Chairman Michael Steele pleading with conservatives to stop using offensive, insulting, and bigoted attacks against Sotomayor, and those responsible for GOP outreach to Hispanic voters throwing their arms up in disgust.
Ultimately, Sotomayor was confirmed, but not before prominent GOP voices threw around some deeply disturbing rhetoric, and a total of 31 Republicans -- more than three-fourths of the entire caucus -- voted against her.
Given her popularity, I wonder how many of them would care to explain their opposition to Sotomayor's confirmation now?
Leave a Comment:
They should be asked about it, should they run for re-election.
I'd go see her if she came here.
OTOH I don't think I recall ANY other SC justices making an appearance anywhere near where I lived. So on at least two points, Latino history and rarity of the opportunity to see a SC judge... I'd go see her, and bring my kids. I would want to celebrate her presence on the court for many good reasons!
"The NYT piece is a fascinating read, largely because I can't think of a modern judge who can illicit (sp) the kind of reactions Sotomayor is currently receiving."
elicit
Sorry for joining the spelling police, but I agree... A distracting moment in an otherwise great piece.
morrigan - no need to apologize. When a civilian says, "I'll be with you momentarily." when they mean 'in a moment', it irritates and then I get on with life. American English is alive and evolving.
But when someone who makes a living with the language says, 'one of the only ways', or 'continue on', it makes my spankter really itch.
Should be elicit. Please correct it before some idiot (likely on Fox Noise) tries to put hwe name with that misspelling.
Republicans did not need to spend an expensive weekend back in January trying to figure out how to change the party's message to Latino's, African-Americans and women. These groups heard the GOP message loud and clear. What the party needs to do is change its outlook to something more befitting the 21st century, not the 19th where it is currently mired.
As far as Republicans are concerned, Justice Sotomayor was unqualified for the high court because [a] she is a woman, [b] she is Latino, [c] she believes in evolution and [d] she was appointed by that Kenyan socialist Moslem Nazi.
Funny, those are all the reasons I would go to see her. XD
Republicans did not need to spend an expensive weekend back in January trying to figure out how to change the party's message to Latino's, African-Americans and women. These groups heard the GOP message loud and clear. What the party needs to do is change its outlook to something more befitting the 21st century, not the 19th where it is currently mired.
As far as Republicans are concerned, Justice Sotomayor was unqualified for the high court because [a] she is a woman, [b] she is Latino, [c] she believes in evolution and [d] she was appointed by that Kenyan socialist Moslem Nazi.
On the other hand, unlike Justice Thomas, neither she nor her family seem to have a financial stake in the outcome of cases coming before the court.
It's not "illicit", it's "elicit" - the two words have considerably different meanings.
We get criticized for pointing out such things -- yes, I did realize what the writer meant, but it took me a moment and it pulled me out of the flow of an otherwise excellent article.
Maybe people like her because she's not completely insane or deeply ideological, like several of her fellow justices.
But she "elicits" those reactions, she doesn't "illicit" them. Editing, Steve!
Beat me to it, TC. And Mike.
She is for real, that's why. Genuine. Authentically herself. She speaks in meaningful sentences that help people understand and relate her experience to their own --
Hers is a feel-good story, like The Karate Kid. Facing impossible odds and finding the inner strength to break through barriers to attain a rarified place. By acknowledging her journey, we all get to revel in the glory in a wonderfully healthy way. No zero-sum game here. Kudos to Justice Sotomayor and all who follow her example.
Actualy, Charley, I think your last comment should come first: the Republicans hate Obama with a passion. Anything the President says or doesn't say, everything he likes, everything he wants or doesn't want--even something the GOP once liked--they suddenly hate. It's NO all the way and the country suffers.
If Obama said the sky is blue, they'd say NO. Hating everything Obama likes is an Instict.
Justice Sotomayor's book presentation was on BooK Tv this weekend and if you go to Book TV.org and and search her name, you can watch her immediately or check for later airing dates of her presentation.
I think it is well worth a watch...she has such a calm demeanor but also an enthusiasm toward her audience.
Excellent profile in the Washington Post
Along the U Street corridor, Sonia Sotomayor finds all the comforts of home http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/along-the-u-street-corridor-her-honor-finds-all-the-comforts-of-home/2013/02/02/01b88f3c-68a1-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html
I'm sure that several of them have Akin's Syndrome and will speak their minds if asked.
A supreme court justice from either ideology shouldn't be a "celebrity." Your job is to weigh laws created by Congress against the Constitution. Its a conflict of interest to have a "star" judge!!!!
I disagree, ricky. Celebrity literally means one who is celebrated. It doesn't always refer to someone in the entertainment field.
When you consider that this Puerto Rican woman from the Bronx--whose alcoholic father died, leaving her to be raised in poverty by a single mother--has achieved such incredible distinction as serving on the U.S. Supreme Court, that IS the quintessential American Dream. By celebrating her achievement, we all give thanks for what is possible in this country.
I highly doubt that her "star" status affects the way she hears and rules on cases. It's also rather unfair to deem her popularity a conflict of interest, as if her fame were her "fault". There is nothing wrong with a judge that is well-liked, either. Besides... I'm almost sure far-right Teapublicans don't think much of her.
I should add that it's not only her achievement that's remarkable. Lots of people achieve high honors, and some from humble origins. It's that she does it with such grace and humility and warmth, that her stature hasn't erased her understanding that we're all part of the same tribe.
I don't care if her dad was a Romulan and he momma a Vulcan and she was raised on an asteroid!! Supreme court judges shouldn't be celebrities. If you want the lime light start a brainless reality show!!
rickymouse, you're just envious, on Scalia's behalf. He too writes books, he too goes around the country speaking, but he doesn't garner as much love from those appearances, as Sotomayor does (but gets a lot more money for his gigs, I bet, to cheer him up)
magnolia
She's on a book tour promoting her book just as justices before her have. As vbelle said Scalia does the same. You have a fixation and you should work on that.
a modern judge who can illicit the kind of reactions (it's elicit, not illicit)...
I believe the Republicans dislike Obama not quite so much because he's black (although that remains a factor) but because he's competent, and a competent opponent makes them look bad, because - quite frankly - they aren't. They're wrong on so many high-profile issues, which leaves them nothing but ad-hominem arguments to distract the public from their egregious deviation from Republican values of the past.
Republicans want to change the party's message and outlook towards Latino's, African Americans & Women. Stating they want their issues to be addressed and taken seriousely how can that be? Republican legislator in (?) New Mexico said if an MD gives a rape victim an abortion he/she will be arrested for tampering with evidence? So they have changed? It is all about the vote nothing more, nothing less. Justice Sotomajor is a thorn in the Republican's side because She stands always on the side of the Constitution and the rights of ALL NOT SOME
I'm gonna laugh if Rachel slips in the word "illicit" in the commentary on this one.
*elicit, Oh, I guess I'm not the only one with copyediting instincts out there.
It's those dadburned homophones that your teacher never warned you about. And FYI a homophone is not just a phone for gay guys.