Your girl begs the question.

It's a morning when I am happy with my country as a whole. I am still employed- I am not panicked. I even remembered to bring a packet of hot cocoa with me for breakfast when I biked off to work. And President Obama picked a thoroughly qualified female candidate for the Supreme Court. When she gets in, Sonia Sotomayor will be the first Latina to hold a spot on SCOTUS.

She's got an amazing story. The child of Puerto Rican immigrants, Sotomayor grew up in a housing project in NYC. She knew she wanted to be a judge when a diagnosis with childhood diabetes turned her attention to Perry Mason. So she got into Princeton, and then into Yale. She's got brains, background, and balls.

Given that, I hate to nitpick. There is diversity in this choice, and there is reason to it, though it shows little bravery on the President's part. Sotomayor has an activist streak that scares Wendy Long- which I find endearing, even if it isn't enough of an activist streak to truly excite me. She's a solid pick, a moderate with a loyalty to the appointing executive's party, but that has been the formula of late.

She's another Ivy League educated Federal Appeals Court Judge from the Northeast.

This makes nine judges that are from the Federal Appeals Courts, seven from the Northeast, and eight law degrees from Ivy League schools, mainly Harvard. John Paul Stevens went to Northwestern, and he is the oldest of the appointees. Excuse me for observing, but this is beginning to look like something of a club.

I don't want to harp on education. It is wonderful to have brilliant, educated people in positions of power. However, questions of money and influence come into play when it comes to graduate study in law at these institutions. I do not want to see the Supreme Court closed off to those who have experience outside of the appellate courts, or those who, for whatever reason, may have elected to study at some of the great state law programs or outside of the top right corner of the country.

Diversity means more than the obvious, and I am happy with what Judge Sotomayor will bring to the court. I mean, I'm a baseball fan. She's got an excellent attitude to bring into a decidedly male dominated judiciary. I guess I just wanted to go on the record, and say that I hope the next choice takes better advantage of the opportunity to be a little radical, a little activist, a little nontraditional as I am sure we have not seen the last of Obama's SCOTUS appointments.

For now, I'm just going to revel in Wendy Long's pain. And yes, I will take my first democratic appointed judge in 14 years now, please.

Oh, the empathy.

President Obama says he wants his Supreme Court replacement to have "empathy." According to conservative pundits, we'd all better watch out!

"Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, speaking on This Week, warned that if a jurist were to show empathy, 'politics, preferences, personal preferences and feelings might take the place of being impartial and deciding cases based upon the law, not upon politics.' In an opinion piece in the Washington Times warning that Obama is poised to be the 'first president to make lawlessness an explicit standard for Supreme Court Justices,' Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network saw empathy as a kind of temporary insanity that so distorts a jurist's vision as to make it difficult "to uphold the federal judicial oath to dispense justice impartially." Over on Fox News, Sean Hannity warned that empathy is the first step toward "social engineering." And in a delicious Freudian slip, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama snorted: 'I don't know what empathy means.'"

Snatched from Slate, "Once More Without Feeling" by Dahlia Lithwick

I think that, cutting through the hysteria, what is basically in play here is a fear that Obama will choose an activist, liberal judge. I doubt he will, much as I would love to see that. Souter, a liberal leaning moderate judge will, in all likelihood, be replaced by another of that mold. But, in wake of two Bush administration appointees and a bench that had more viciously political 5:4 splits then had been seen at any point in its history, a moderate will merely maintain the status quo. What many Americans may not realize is that such political polarities as we have experienced in my time as a voter are not common in the Supreme Court.

They may also not realize that the most liberal and most senior member of SCOTUS, John Paul Stevens, was appointed by a Republican, Gerald Ford. Souter, another who votes with the "liberal bloc" was appointed by George Bush Senior. They are the last, I worry, of a kind of judge whose understanding of law was not dominated by the party of the president appointing them.

What has happened to the courts? When did judicial activism become unspeakable? It is clearly meant to be one of those balances between branches of government, and yet, Chief Justice Roberts sees his role in the system as merely that of "a referee"*. If he wanted that job, he should have stayed out of the appellate courts. When Justice Stevens says, "Including myself every judge who’s been appointed to the court since Lewis Powell** has been more conservative than his or her predecessor. Except maybe Justice Ginsburg. That’s bound to have an effect on the court." He is not exaggerating. The court does not need a moderate- it needs a progressive, for the sake of balance, because neither of my favorites, Stevens or Ginsburg, are young. Empathy is a good start, but it's not enough. Conviction and the strength of will and character to wield the incredible power of the bench for the right reasons is.

So, empathy doesn't sound so bad to you now, does it, Wendy Long.

* His words, not mine.
**1971, President Nixon

Your girl has a bad case of SCOTUS.

Your favorite pandemic may be the Swine Flu, you trendy scenester you. You may have a personal weakness for SARS or a historic crush on Small Pox or the deadlier Spanish Flu. I'm not going to fight you if you come down on the side of the Bubonic Plague, classic as basic black.

That said, these diseases are not for me. I have caught a bug all my own, and let's be frank, all I want to do is read about the various possibilities in line to replace Justice Souter* in the Supreme Court when he retires this summer. SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the United States, has long been an object of interest for me. I can offer no clever explanation of the origin of my chronic interest in the goings on of the gavel wielding. Sorry if the blog posts about the bench have become too much, but if you come back after the confirmation hearings, odds are on there will be a post or two about zombies or pies.

That said, there are resources on hand for those similarly afflicted. I tend to stick with SCOTUSblog, which is no nonsense and gives concise updates on arguments and opinions as they are delivered. Underneath Their Robes, a gossip site about the federal judiciary, is a girltalk confection, a kind of Perez Hilton for the judicial groupie. Above the Law, a similar site that I like less, has a leaderboard of potential Souter replacements. Sonia Sotomayar is leading there, and she's a reasonable choice. You know me, so you know I'm rooting for Kathleen Sullivan, a professor of law at Stanford who has presented amicus curiae to the court in the past. She's a big lesbian, an equal rights activist, and wrote the book I studied in my con law class in college. She could keep my beloved Bader Ginsburg company. I would be perfectly happy with Elena Kagan too.

Here are three opinion articles I've read recently about the Hopefuls:
Slate ran an article about the prejudices facing single women.
Daily Beast reported on a big, fat problem.
Vanity Fair presented an awkward reunion option.

* I will miss him.

Ladies, I salute you.

Maira Kalman's blog is one of my favorite parts of the NYT. It's half comic and half diary, and Kalman's observations and ideas are presented in a beautiful, artful way. This latest entry made me tear up a little, and wish I could be more. You may recall my admiration for Ruth B. Ginsburg- a significant portion of this entry is devoted to her. Most poignant is this frame.

Taken from The New York Times, credited to Maira Kalman.

"I return to court to hear Justice Ginsburg speak to law students. And in answer to the question, 'How does it feel to be the only woman on the court?' she answers simply, 'lonely.'"

In other, important news, it's my dad's birthday. Happy day to you, Stephen Raymond Cronk. I love you, and you are the best principal I know.

Judicial Oversight

My parents are educators, you may or may not be aware. I have, as a result, always had a real and obvious bias towards teachers in most political disputes. I will, on any given day, side with a teachers' union in a contractual dispute. I believe that teacher retention is the real key to community building and reforming public education. As a result, I have sometimes overlooked issues of student rights. I think, in retrospect, this has been an oversight on my part.

I don't object to hall monitors, to drug dogs sniffing lockers, to metal detectors in school entrances. I don't think public schools are necessarily the most dangerous they have ever been, as some pundits of increased school security have claimed. Regardless, there are many more guns in the world today than there were in 1960, many more drugs, and many more students. It's a numbers game.

A member of the ALCU (card carrying!) since I was 16, I have tended to be a little lax on my civil liberties agenda inside of school walls. I mean, I railed against searching cars with the best of them, but again, that's outside the exit.

Let me get to my point. In 2003, a then 13 year old Savana Redding was commanded to remove her clothes by officials at her school. They had a "hunch" that Miss Redding, pictured below, had prescription ibuprofen that she was sharing with classmates. After they could find no pills in her backpack, pockets, shoes or socks, the two intrepid investigators demanded that she pull down her bra and panties and "shake" to see if any pills would be dislodged.

Image borrowed from the NY Times - photo credit Jim Wilson

While Justice Clarence Thomas seems to think that nudity in a school setting is a hilarious aspect of the adolescent right of passage, I would go so far as to call a forced strip down inhumane and callous. Antonin Scalia, everyone's favorite anti-choice relic of the Reagan administration, displayed his usual eloquence.

"You’ve searched everywhere else. By God, the drugs must be in her underpants."

Really? How about, you have searched all the places you are allowed to search? How about, if you think that there are illegal drugs, you call the police? The point is, a hunch doesn't give you the right to make a young lady take her clothes off.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as usual a voice of reason in a He-Man Woman Haters judiciary, questioned the process of the investigation, noting “But there were no questions asked at all," on the subject of the hunch and Miss Redding's spotless record. Good call, Ruth B.

These school officials were clearly abusing authority, and if there were a real ongoing drug issue, there would have been other opportunities to catch the culprit. Opportunities that probably would not have required a humiliating scare tactic that will undermine many students' view of the fairness of school.

Because, friends, if there's one thing teachers and principals have to be in order to maintain the trust necessary for a good school, it is fair. You know what is not fair? Strip searching an honors student who may have been carrying prescription headache medicine. But then maybe I am being cavalier- whoa buddy, that aspirin alternative will mess you up.

The Court will rule, and in all likelihood, it will rule against Miss Redding. Here's my prediction (I've been watching too much ESPN lately) 6:3, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito*: Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter.

*Gag me.

Your Weekly Pie #3

Yesterday, I told my friend, Kathryn, a little bit about my plans for next week's pie. I explained that after three fruit pies (the latest is a little blackberry number) I think it is time to veer into the creams, custards, and chiffons. Actually, I said that if I made another fruit pie next week, it would feel like I was cheating.

"You're going to stress yourself out," she laughed.

But here's the thing. I love cooking and baking and I love silly, arbitrary rules I make up to challenge myself in projects like this. Besides, after my blackberry pie with lattice cinnamon streusel crust, I want to try something different. Maybe I will attempt a merengue.

The pie was really delicious, and I was lucky because a swarm of friends descended on the apartment to watch Project Runway and hang out, so it all got eaten save the one slice I had with a cup of coffee for breakfast this morning. It was my first fall pie, and I liked the way it came out. The blackberries were rich and dense, the crust was flaky and buttery. All in all, this is my favorite pie of the project so far.

But, other updates. Troy Davis's execution was stayed by the Supreme Court two hours before he was due to die on Monday. It's a good sign, I think. Hopefully the justices will decide to hear his case. I'm crossing my fingers and my toes. To be honest, I think I will be heartbroken about Georgia a bit, if he doesn't even get a hearing.

The economy is falling to pieces, and John McCain plans on going in there with his tool kit and a few tricks he learned from the Viet Cong. I don't mean to be dismissive. I am glad President Bush has called both prospective presidents to Washington to be present for the first actions taken to fix what is broken. I am glad that there is a degree of transparency about this, and that he gave an address. I am glad that I can read Secretary Paulson's plan to save the market. But I want to see a debate. I want to hear arguments clearly presented from these two candidates, and I want to see them respond to each other. I think it's important, particularly in this election, which has made me feel so far removed from half the country. Not just by things like the Sarah Palin rape kit story, or by John McCain's slide to social conservatism and inability to count his homes, but also by my own biases. I want to see them talk to each other, because I would like to stop a nascent prejudice I've formed against all Republicans. For that, I need to see John McCain make some rational arguments more than I need to see Barack Obama refute them. Because it would be nice not to feel terrified of the GOP.

That said, I want Senator Obama to whoop his ass, and I want white women to stop liking Sarah Palin just because she's spunky. If Santa Claus did advance deliveries, that would be all I want for early November. Oh, but a girl can dream.