Politico & AP call SCOTUS appmt for Sotomayor

[sbark]

http://www.politico.com/

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98DTVBG0&show_article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - Officials tell The Associated Press that President Barack Obama intends to nominate federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor (SUHN'-ya soh-toh-my-YOR') as the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court.
Sotomayor, 54, would succeed retiring Justice David Souter if confirmed by the Senate. The officials spoke to AP on condition of anonymity because Obama has not yet announced his decision.

..........just another Lib, who thinks the SCOTUS is a place for legislation

Fillibuster time?

[canters]

From what I have read, she is to the left of Souter and in the league with Ginsburg-no surprise here. My prediction is that the GOP will talk a big game but then roll over in the end and not strongly oppose her.

[Jordan55]

Does she pay her taxes?

[Yeagermeister]

Does she pay her taxes?

:muttley:

[Doomsday101]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama has chosen federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, two sources told CNN on Tuesday.

Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic U.S. Supreme Court justice if confirmed.

Obama plans to announce his nominee at 10:15 a.m. ET Tuesday, sources told CNN.

Sotomayor, a 54-year-old judge on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was named a U.S. District Court judge by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, and was elevated to her current seat by President Clinton.

Supporters say that appointment history, along with what they call her moderate-liberal views, would give her some bipartisan backing in the Senate.

A senior White House official said that Sotomayor was "nominated by George Bush -- then Bill Clinton -- [and has] more judicial experience than anyone sitting on the court had at the time they were nominated."

But she has suffered through recent stinging criticism in the media and blogs from both the left and right over perceived -- some defenders say invented -- concerns about her temperament and intellect.

"Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written," said Wendy Long, counsel to the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network.

"She thinks that judges should dictate policy and that one's sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench. ... She has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed, indicating that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court."

However, the senior White House official said Sotomayor has had "99 percent of her decisions" upheld by a higher court.

Some Hispanic groups expressed concern after a skit last week on "Late Show With David Letterman" compared Sotomayor with a noisy Spanish-speaking judge on a popular TV courtroom show that settles petty legal disputes.

Obama said Saturday he wants intellectual firepower and a common touch in the next Supreme Court justice and said he doesn't "feel weighed down by having to choose ... based on demographics."

Obama's nominee will replace retiring Justice David Souter, who announced this month he would step down when the court's current session ends this summer.

There had been wide speculation that Obama would name a woman to the court, which has one female justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Obama also had been under pressure to nominate a Hispanic justice to the court.

Obama's nomination will have to be confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate.

The nominee is not expected to have difficulty being confirmed in the Democratic-controlled Senate in time for the new court session in October.

The president has said he hopes to have hearings in July, with the confirmation completed before Congress leaves for the summer.

[WoodysGirl]

For the curious who read, but don't post, here's a wiki with some general info about her.

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Sonia_Sotomayor

Notable opinions of Judge Sonia Sotomayor (http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Notable_opinions_of_Judge_Sonia_Sotomayor)

[Doomsday101]

The video with Sotomayor saying at Duke in 2005 that courts make policy does bother me. A judges duty is not to make policy

[Temo]

The video with Sotomayor saying at Duke in 2005 that courts make policy does bother me. A judges duty is not to make policy

Have a link?

[burmafrd]

No surprise here. Female and hispanic. Liberal of course. Probably more liberal then Souter but that is too be expected. I hope the Republicans question her HARD but do not try a filibuster. I would want her to be put on record ab out judicial activism and creating laws and policy from the bench.

[WoodysGirl]

Have a link?
In the judgepedia link:

In the video, Sotomayor says, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience because it is...court of appeals is where policy is made...and I know, and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law I know [audience laughter] ... um, I, okay, I know, I know....I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it, I'm, [audience laughter] you know [Sotomayor laughter] okay."



OfC99LrrM2Q

[Doomsday101]

In the judgepedia link:





OfC99LrrM2Q

Thanks for providing the link. I do think she like any other nomination should be looked at closely after all unlike any other office holder she and other Supreme Court justice is for life

[Temo]

In the judgepedia link:





OfC99LrrM2Q

Nice find.

Seems to me that the the words "I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it" is proof that... she's not promoting or advocating it.

Obviously she should be rigorously screened for the position though.

[Doomsday101]

Nice find.

Seems to me that the the words "I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it" is proof that... she's not promoting or advocating it.

Obviously she should be rigorously screened for the position though.

No she just suggested that is what their job is.

[peplaw06]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court

She was first appointed by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, and won Senate confirmation without dissent. She was named an appeals judge by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

At her Senate confirmation hearing more than a decade ago, she said, "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."
I hope she lives up to that little quote there.

[Yeagermeister]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court

I hope she lives up to that little quote there.

She wouldn't be nominated if she still believed it.

[Temo]

She wouldn't be nominated if she still believed it.

So it's "we'll hate her because Obama nominated her"?

[Yeagermeister]

So it's "we'll hate her because Obama nominated her"?

I didn't say that just saying that she wouldn't be nominated if she didn't think the way he does.

[Temo]

I didn't say that just saying that she wouldn't be nominated if she didn't think the way he does.

You're saying her statement is false because she was nominated by a particular person. That seems like the definition of "judge her by the person who nominated her rather than her established positions and statements." In which case you can't be satisfied by anyone Obama will nominate.

[Rogah]

Nice find.

Seems to me that the the words "I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it" is proof that... she's not promoting or advocating it.

Obviously she should be rigorously screened for the position though.My interpretation is she's pretty much acknowledging that it happens quite commonly and that it's no big deal. She's basically saying (paraphrasing) "Uh.... yeah... sure.... judges don't legislate from the bench.... nope... we sure don't... nudge, nudge, wink, wink."

But I think the whole "legilating from the bench" issue is way overblown anyway. Everybody says they oppose it and they would never do it - right up until the moment where a ruling is issued that they support.

[Temo]

My interpretation is she's pretty much acknowledging that it happens quite commonly and that it's no big deal. She's basically saying (paraphrasing) "Uh.... yeah... sure.... judges don't legislate from the bench.... nope... we sure don't... nudge, nudge, wink, wink."

But I think the whole "legilating from the bench" issue is way overblown anyway. Everybody says they oppose it and they would never do it - right up until the moment where a ruling is issued that they support.

I think the bolded part is pretty on-point. The rest seems like speculation to me.

[Dallas]

You're saying her statement is false because she was nominated by a particular person. That seems like the definition of "judge her by the person who nominated her rather than her established positions and statements." In which case you can't be satisfied by anyone Obama will nominate.


Check that video again.


DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS COMING OUT OF HER MOUTH ????

:laugh2:


Darn sheep.


Well she said she didn't mean it. :rolleyes:

[bbgun]

She could be the Left's equivalent of Robert Bork and the GOP would still be powerless to stop her. Every now and then you have to swallow a crap sandwich, and for Republicans, this is one of those times. Barring something scandalous or some sort of tax issue, she's a slam dunk. That said, the fact that they're playing up her race, gender and marital status--not her raw intellect-- is a tad revealing. The Dems are as enslaved to identity politics as ever.

[WoodysGirl]

Senate GOP holds its fire on Sotomayor

Manu Raju Manu Raju – Tue May 26, 10:30 am ET
Senate Republicans are holding fire on President Barack Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee, with even some of the most outspoken GOP members saying they’ll wait and see before stating their views on Sonia Sotomayor.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) — perhaps the most conservative member of the Senate – said Tuesday that some of Sotomayor’s writings "seem to raise serious questions about her approach to the Constitution and the role of the federal judiciary."

But that’s about as far as any Senate Republican was willing to go in criticizing Sotomayor, and even DeMint vowed to “withhold judgment” about Sotomayor’s nomination “until she has the opportunity to fully present her views before the Senate."

Another conservative, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, said Sotomayor "deserves fair and open hearings and a dignified confirmation process."

The early caution tracks – sometimes word-for-word – the advice laid out in a talking points memo the Senate Republican Conference distributed to its members before the Memorial Day recess began. In that memo, Senate leaders said the GOP should neither “pre-judge” nor “pre-confirm” any Obama nominee – and that senators should expect a nominee to hew to the baseball metaphor Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., used in his confirmation hearing: A judge should call "call balls and strikes" and not "pitch or bat."

Senate Judiciary Committee member John Cornyn (R-Texas), the head of the Senate GOP's campaign arm, said Tuesday it is “imperative that my colleagues and members of the media do not pre-judge or pre-confirm Ms. Sotomayor.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said senators “must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law, calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one's own personal preferences or political views."


Sessions said he spoke with Obama about his pick Tuesday. And in an effort to build bipartisan support – and cut off any threat of a GOP filibuster — White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel gave Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Me.) a head’s up about the nomination before Tuesday morning’s announcement. In a statement, Snowe praised the president “for nominating a well-qualified woman, as I urged him to do during a one-on-one meeting on a variety of issues in the Oval Office earlier this month.”
Snowe voted to confirm Sotomayor to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1998.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) – who voted against Sotomayor’s confirmation in 1998 — said Republicans will treat her "fairly” as they examine her record “to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences."



"Our Democratic colleagues have often remarked that the Senate is not a 'rubber stamp.' Accordingly, we trust they will ensure there is adequate time to prepare for this nomination, and a full and fair opportunity to question the nominee and debate her qualifications," McConnell said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), an influential member of the Judiciary Committee who voted to confirm Sotomayor in 1998, said he will focus on "determining whether Judge Sotomayor is committed to deciding cases based only on the law as made by the people and their elected representatives, not on personal feelings or politics. I look forward to a fair and thorough process.”

Opposition to Sotomayor's nomination surely could emerge during the confirmation process, Republicans say, especially in light of ferocious opposition already coming from some conservative groups off of Capitol Hill. But Republicans want to be seen as being fair in considering her nomination.

"It's not that Republicans are without criticism or concern, but we believe the process needs to play out to get the full review of the record before making a determination," a Senate GOP aide said Tuesday morning.

Some aides acknowledge the need to tread delicately around Sotomayor as well, given that she would be the first Hispanic justice at a time when the GOP has lost Latinos as a critical constituency.

In 1998, 28 Republicans voted against Sotomayor's confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Among the no votes were current Minority Whip Jon Kyl, who sits on the Judiciary Committee.

Kyl said Tuesday that he will take "great care" in examining Sotomayor’s record, and he pleaded for time in considering her nomination. In a statement, he said it took the Senate 73 days to confirm Roberts and 93 days to confirm Samuel Alito

"I would expect that Senate Democrats will afford the minority the same courtesy as we move forward with this process," Kyl said.

Since Sandra Day O'Connor's nomination by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, the average number of days between the designation of a nominee and the start of hearings has been 45 days.

Both sides want a new justice to replace David Souter by October, when the new Supreme Court term begins. But Republicans have suggested that there is no rush to push for confirmation before Congress' August recess -- which Obama wants. If Republicans believe that the Democrats are moving too quickly, that could give cover for many of them to vote against the nomination.

Democrats don't want a nomination hanging over an August recess, which would potentially give time for the GOP to rile up opposition to Sotomayor.

Democrats have a 12-7 majority on the Judiciary Committee and are certain to have the votes to send Sotomayor's nomination to the Senate floor -- barring an unforeseen revelation about her record. On the floor, Democrats hold a 59-40 majority and would need 60 votes to break any GOP filibuster.

Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican-turned-Democrat who sits on the Judiciary Committee, sounded positive about the nomination.

"Her confirmation would add needed diversity in two ways: the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court," Specter said. "While her record suggests excellent educational and professional qualifications, now it is up to the Senate to discharge its constitutional duty for a full and fair confirmation process.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, who spoke to Obama on the phone from Afghanistan Tuesday, said the nomination is a "historic one." In a statement, Leahy said that he expected Sotomayor would be in the "mold of Justice Souter, who understands the real-world impact of the Court's decisions, rather than the mold of conservative activists who second-guess Congress...."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/22964

[burmafrd]

Leahy- someone should see what he said about some appointees.

[DFWJC]

However, the senior White House official said Sotomayor has had "99 percent of her decisions" upheld by a higher court.

.
A Conservative friend of mine sent me this. It seems to say total BS to that 99% quote. She's sound like an activist judge to me...and a loud one at that.
--------------

Sotomayor has a TERRIBLE record as a Circuit Court judge, of being REVERSED by the U.S. Supreme Court over and over again. In fact, OVER HALF of her decisions as a Court of Appeals judge have been STRUCK DOWN

Even pundits on the left are critical of Obama's pick of Judge Sotomayor. Jeffrey Rosen, writing in The New Republic, discussed his investigation of her background, writing, "I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative." Going further, Rosen writes:
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?")
Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed shock and disappointment at Sotomayor's recent approval in Ricci v. DeStefano of the city of New Haven's racial quota system and its decision to deny 18 firefighters their earned promotions -- based on their skin color. This even provoked her own colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes (a fellow Clinton appointee) to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case!"

So it's not just a bunch of biased right-wingers who are worried about Sotomayor's competence to be on the Supreme Court; even experts on the left, including lawyers and fellow judges who worked with her, have expressed serious doubts about her "intellectual capabilities" on matters of law!
Just four years ago, when speaking at Duke Law School, Judge Sotomayor "let slip" what is probably the most famous quote of her career: responding to a question on the pros and cons of different types of judicial clerkships, she let her TRUE beliefs slip out: she state that the court "is where policy is made!" She tried to correct her slip, by joking that "I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't ‘make law,' I know, I know." In other words, she made it clear that she believes judges DO MAKE LAW!

[Temo]

She could be the Left's equivalent of Robert Bork and the GOP would still be powerless to stop her.

That's a shame too. I was still a NJ voter last year and voted for Republicans across the board because I didn't want one party to get a huge majority, knowing that Obama was likely to get the Presidency.

But voting Republican in NJ, you may as well use your ballot to wipe your ***.

[masomenos]

Honestly, I don't think that any of us are qualified to say whether or not she's a good choice simply because we don't have the right background. Let's see what all comes out during the confirmation hearings.

[Temo]

Honestly, I don't think that any of us are qualified to say whether or not she's a good choice simply because we don't have the right background. Let's see what all comes out during the confirmation hearings.

But dude, I got this chain mail today that lays it out so clearly.

[Doomsday101]

Honestly, I don't think that any of us are qualified to say whether or not she's a good choice simply because we don't have the right background. Let's see what all comes out during the confirmation hearings.

I would not expect anything less. She will get questioned on her ideals and beliefs as well as her past record. I'm not saying she is not qualified only that given the nature of the job which is pretty much for life it is critical to know as much about her before she gets confirmed. Dems can do it with or without the republicans but I would hope it thorough

[masomenos]

I would not expect anything less. She will get questioned on her ideals and beliefs as well as her past record. I'm not saying she is not qualified only that given the nature of the job which is pretty much for life it is critical to know as much about her before she gets confirmed. Dems can do it with or without the republicans but I would hope it thorough

Oh, I agree. I hope that both the Republicans and Democrats in the senate force her to answer tough questions. From what I've read about her academic history and her time spent as a judge, she seems qualified, but those two issues are probably the least important. I'd like to see some of her actual rulings.

I will say that I don't agree with appointing "activist" judges, but I also feel that term gets thrown around to freely. I don't think that her quote about making policy is evidence of being an activist judge, simply because sometimes judges do dictate policy. The law isn't always clear and, especially in the case of a precedent, sometimes a ruling will actually set the law. I don't consider that to be activism, or even legislating from the bench, in the sense that most people use the phrase.

Really, I don't have faith in the Senate to turn her down, if she's not qualified. Because of that, I just hope that Obama made a good nomination. Time will tell.

[WoodysGirl]

A Conservative friend of mine sent me this. It seems to say total BS to that 99% quote. She's sound like an activist judge to me...and a loud one at that.
--------------

Sotomayor has a TERRIBLE record as a Circuit Court judge, of being REVERSED by the U.S. Supreme Court over and over again. In fact, OVER HALF of her decisions as a Court of Appeals judge have been STRUCK DOWN



Not quite true...From the judgepedia link I posted earlier. Honestly, it looks like an informative site, but the view is relative depending on where you stand on an issue.

Reversals

The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored. In three of these reversals, the Court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation.

In Knight v. C.I.R. (http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Knight_v._C.I.R.), (128 S.Ct. 782, 2008.), the Court found that, based on an erroneous interpretation of the tax code, Judge Sotomayor applied an incorrect standard.
In Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit (http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Merrill_Lynch%2C_Pierce%2C_Fenner_%26_Smith%2C_Inc ._v._Dabit), (547 U.S. 71, 2006), the Court found that Judge Sotomayor failed to apply precedent correctly in interpreting a scope of preemption provision of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.
In New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini (http://judgepedia.org/index.php/New_York_Times%2C_Inc._v._Tasini), (533 U.S. 483, 2001), the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s reversal of Judge Sotomayor’s district court ruling that the Copyright Act permitted electronic publishers to reproduce all articles in a periodical under a “collective works” privilege, concluding that Sotomayor erred in her interpretation of “revision of [that] collective works” privilege in the Act.
In Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko (http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Correctional_Servs._Corp._v._Malesko), (534 U.S. 61, 2001), the Court reversed Sotomayor for allowing an inmate to sue a halfway house operator for negligence based on a Bivens (http://judgepedia.org/index.php?title=Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Narcotics_Ag ents&action=edit&redlink=1) claim. After the trial court dismissed the case, Judge Sotomayor reversed and reinstated the litigation. The Supreme Court reversed Judge Sotomayor’s decision, holding that the former inmate did not lack effective remedies and that he had full access to remedial mechanisms established by the Bureau of Prisons. The Court also held that the former inmate’s suit would not have advanced Bivens’ core purpose of deterring individual officers from engaging in unconstitutional wrongdoing.
In Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA (http://judgepedia.org/index.php?title=Riverkeeper%2C_Inc._vs._EPA&action=edit&redlink=1) (475 F.3d 83, 2007) The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the "best technology" rule was too narrow. Sotomayor orginally ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the "best technology available" must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor's position[39] (http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-CNBC-38).
In Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh (http://judgepedia.org/index.php?title=Empire_Healthchoice_Assurance%2C_I nc._vs._McVeigh&action=edit&redlink=1) (396 F.3d 136, 2005) In 2005, the United States Supreme Court reversed in a 5-4 decision a ruling in which Madam Appeals judge Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from the respective insurance company where she claimed caused her husband's injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party[39] (http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-CNBC-38). The Supreme Court in its ruling that under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (FEHBA), state courts and not federal courts are the proper forum for a lawsuit by a plan administrator seeking reimbursement for medical costs paid by the plan on behalf of a beneficiary when the beneficiary recovers damages in a tort action against a responsible third party[40] (http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Sonia_Sotomayor#cite_note-39). Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented

[WoodysGirl]

Honestly, I don't think that any of us are qualified to say whether or not she's a good choice simply because we don't have the right background. Let's see what all comes out during the confirmation hearings.
You might not be, but I am. :)


Kidding..

We may not have the quals, but we can certainly form opinions.

I don't know enough about her other than the few things posted here. I'm sure we'll find out more about her soon enough..

[DIAF]

Eh, don't care. Honestly, this appointment could have been a WHOLE lot worse. Republicans somewhat dodge a bullet. I just hope they don't go after this nominee, the latino community is already doing handstands. This is not the hill you want to die on.

[Doomsday101]

Eh, don't care. Honestly, this appointment could have been a WHOLE lot worse. Republicans somewhat dodge a bullet. I just hope they don't go after this nominee, the latino community is already doing handstands. This is not the hill you want to die on.

Republicans can't stop it anyways but that does not mean that a Supreme court justice should not be looked at very closely this is not just some appointment it is a life long appointment so if some activist groups want to complain then so be it but this should not be about color of skin the job is to important

[peplaw06]

Eh, don't care. Honestly, this appointment could have been a WHOLE lot worse. Republicans somewhat dodge a bullet. I just hope they don't go after this nominee, the latino community is already doing handstands. This is not the hill you want to die on.I don't think there's anyway you can know that until she gets on the bench.

[burmafrd]

Sunnunu, that piece of crap, assured Bush 41 that Souter was a conservative.
So you never really know about some. But her record and who nominated her is a pretty good indicator that she is definitly left of center.

THese libs saying that policy statement means nothing and that other statement "wink wink" means nothing make me laugh= the same ones that jumped all over Bush for saying anything.
The same ones that think the Iranian Wack job does not mean it as well.

[VietCowboy]

Not quite true...From the judgepedia link I posted earlier. Honestly, it looks like an informative site, but the view is relative depending on where you stand on an issue.

FYI:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/07/some_thoughts_o.html

Overall, this past term the Supreme Court reversed 75.3 percent of the cases they considered on their merits. The pattern holds true for the 2004 and 2005 terms as well, when the Supremes had overall reversal rates of 76.8 percent and 75.6 percent, respectively.

[Aikbach]

Just to show you the contrast in the ultimate outcome of judicial selection, had John McCain been elected the likely candidate would've been Judge Sidney Fitzwater, a man that George W. Bush would've tapped had a third court opening occurred during his presidency.

I went to school with this man's son and would see him at church of parent's weekend.

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Sidney_Fitzwater

[trickblue]

FYI:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/07/some_thoughts_o.html

Overall, this past term the Supreme Court reversed 75.3 percent of the cases they considered on their merits. The pattern holds true for the 2004 and 2005 terms as well, when the Supremes had overall reversal rates of 76.8 percent and 75.6 percent, respectively.

Shows we have a lot of renegade judges out there trying to make a name for themselves...

[Temo]

Shows we have a lot of renegade judges out there trying to make a name for themselves...

It's more like the Supreme court, which chooses which cases it will consider, will usually not consider cases that it doesn't feel are likely to be reversed.

[JBond]

Honestly, I don't think that any of us are qualified to say whether or not she's a good choice simply because we don't have the right background. Let's see what all comes out during the confirmation hearings.

She has already said she can not live up to the Supreme Court Oath.

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

What she believes:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

"Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know - I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know."

Both of her ridiculous statements contradict the Oath she must take to hold that position. If a white nominee that had conservative leanings came out and said white males are able to make better judicial decisions than minorities there would be hell to pay. Her nomination is a joke and highlights everything that is wrong with the Obama administration and this country right now

[Doomsday101]

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

I have a feeling if the shoe was on the other foot and someone claimed that a wise white man could come to a better conclusion and a latina woman many would be livid with that comment but that is not the case and libs seem content with her comments.

[bbgun]

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

I have a feeling if the shoe was on the other foot and someone claimed that a wise white man could come to a better conclusion and a latina woman many would be livid with that comment but that is not the case and libs seem content with her comments.

Joe Biden:

"I think that the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black. I don't believe he could have won had he been white. And the reason is, I think it was a cynical ploy by President Bush."

Maybe somebody should ask Joe Biden whether Sotomayor would have been nominated if she had been male and white. I think we all know the answer. Remember: being a minority is only an advantage if you're a Democrat.

[burmafrd]

What do you expect from liberals? Honesty, integrity, etc? COME on those mean nothing since their own morals are much higher then those (i.e. being politically correct).

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't know that we could have done better or worse. I think it's too early to tell. However, I will say this, she would not have been my first choice. She would not have made the long list for me but I am Conservative so that plays a huge part in my opinion.

I would also say that I think the Republican Party should just let this go. They should not fight hard on this thing. They should make certain to get as much on the record as they possibly can. To oppose her is foolish IMO. All it does is drive the Hispanic vote further away. It is my view that the Hispanic populas is really much closer to the Republican Party then it is to the Democratic Party but stance on things such as imigration is devisive. The Republican Party, IMO, should try very hard to educate the Hispanic voter base on what the Obama plan really means. How it actually effects there bottom line. What's more, they should make strong effort to speak to the legal segmant of the Hispanic voter base. Opposing Sotomayor is not the right idea. Let it pass. It doesn't really effect anything because she is only replacing an already left leaning Judge anyway. Get everything on record and then let the chips fall where they may. Our time will come again but we need better then 30% support from the Hispanic base if we want to win anything. I think she is being offered up for the wrong reasons and I wished that the Hispanic segment of our Country would be more concerned with the Priciple of what this means as opposed to just seeing a Hispanic Women in the Supreme Court but hey, it is what it is.

Live to fight another day.

[Doomsday101]

I hope Obama remembers how he did Justice Roberts when he voted against the nomination and his reasons.

In his September 2005 remarks on the Senate floor, Sen. Obama explained how a vote against Roberts perhaps felt like a vote cutting against his natural grain, but he ultimately found Roberts' actions while serving in Ronald Reagan's White House and later in the Solicitor General's office cause for voting against his nomination. Unsurprisingly, Sen. Obama did not include any raw political calculation in his statement.

Here is a part of how Obama explained his vote:

"I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearings, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon.

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.

"The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

"In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

"I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn't like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.

"I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

"I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn't like bullies and he sees the law and the Court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.

"The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong."

[Aikbach]

I don't know that we could have done better or worse. I think it's too early to tell. However, I will say this, she would not have been my first choice. She would not have made the long list for me but I am Conservative so that plays a huge part in my opinion.

I would also say that I think the Republican Party should just let this go. They should not fight hard on this thing. They should make certain to get as much on the record as they possibly can. To oppose her is foolish IMO. All it does is drive the Hispanic vote further away. It is my view that the Hispanic populas is really much closer to the Republican Party then it is to the Democratic Party but stance on things such as imigration is devisive. The Republican Party, IMO, should try very hard to educate the Hispanic voter base on what the Obama plan really means. How it actually effects there bottom line. What's more, they should make strong effort to speak to the legal segmant of the Hispanic voter base. Opposing Sotomayor is not the right idea. Let it pass. It doesn't really effect anything because she is only replacing an already left leaning Judge anyway. Get everything on record and then let the chips fall where they may. Our time will come again but we need better then 30% support from the Hispanic base if we want to win anything. I think she is being offered up for the wrong reasons and I wished that the Hispanic segment of our Country would be more concerned with the Priciple of what this means as opposed to just seeing a Hispanic Women in the Supreme Court but hey, it is what it is.

Live to fight another day.They ahve to fight if their conscience is stirred, letting her slide uncontested is truly playing politics more so than challenging her intellect and decision making, it is their obligation to vet her thoroughly and frankly the Obama administration has given them plenty of reason to vet anyone he nominates.

She will likely be confirmed but for pete's sake Robert Bork, an intellectual giant, a man Reagan was completely blindsided by the controversy Ted Kennedy fabricated around him and caused stonewalling in the senate confrmation about him on the ludicrous grounds he was out to turn America into a segregationist society again (mind you thanks to welfare and race baiting it is in several instances).

Bork was abundantly qualified for the Supreme Court, Kennedy took it upon himself to make confirmation hellacious for any stalwart conservative legal mind Reagan appointed to a federal court nationwide, the before mentioned Sidney Fitzwater being no exception, a man I hope is on the court when the next president takes office.

So in conclusion she has to be challenged especially since she's unknown, Harriet Meirs was denounced for being unknown for legal precedents and for having held many non judicial posts yet her track record is comparably unknown as the current nominee.

[ABQCOWBOY]

They ahve to fight if their conscience is stirred, letting her slide uncontested is truly playing politics more so than challenging her intellect and decision making, it is their obligation to vet her thoroughly and frankly the Obama administration has given them plenty of reason to vet anyone he nominates.

She will likely be confirmed but for pete's sake Robert Bork, an intellectual giant, a man Reagan was completely blindsided by the controversy Ted Kennedy fabricated around him and caused stonewalling in the senate confrmation about him on the ludicrous grounds he was out to turn America into a segregationist society again (mind you thanks to welfare and race baiting it is in several instances).

Bork was abundantly qualified for the Supreme Court, Kennedy took it upon himself to make confirmation hellacious for any stalwart conservative legal mind Reagan appointed to a federal court nationwide, the before mentioned Sidney Fitzwater being no exception, a man I hope is on the court when the next president takes office.

So in conclusion she has to be challenged especially since she's unknown, Harriet Meirs was denounced for being unknown for legal precedents and for having held many non judicial posts yet her track record is comparably unknown as the current nominee.

I have no issue with giving complete examination to this lady but it would be a mistake, IMO, to stonewall her. There is nothing at all to be gained, so far as I can tell. She will be confirmed regardless. Spending political capitol on this would not be wise IMO. Better to save it and use it against the next appointment. The political cost associated with this fight would be too costly IMO.

[JBond]

I have no issue with giving complete examination to this lady but it would be a mistake, IMO, to stonewall her. There is nothing at all to be gained, so far as I can tell. She will be confirmed regardless. Spending political capitol on this would not be wise IMO. Better to save it and use it against the next appointment. The political cost associated with this fight would be too costly IMO.

I'm not sure there would be much political cost to fighting her tooth and nail. It's not like poor Latinos are suddenly going to vote republican. We are not the party of freebies. The majority of "poor" people regardless of race are going to vote for whomever gives them the most stuff. It is just the way it is. I suggest we fight her on principle. She obviously has zero comprehension of the responsibilities of a Judge. To her it is to make law, not interpret it. On top of that she is a racist wench that believes Latinos are better able to make judicial decisions than white people. The fact that she feels her race is superior to other races is a major problem. Having a activist, racist supreme court justice is not a good idea.

If the roles were reversed and a conservative white male said he is better suited to make judicial decisions than a person of a different skin color, there may well be a lynching.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm not sure there would be much political cost to fighting her tooth and nail. It's not like poor Latinos are suddenly going to vote republican. We are not the party of freebies. The majority of "poor" people regardless of race are going to vote for whomever gives them the most stuff. It is just the way it is. I suggest we fight her on principle. She obviously has zero comprehension of the responsibilities of a Judge. To her it is to make law, not interpret it. On top of that she is a racist wench that believes Latinos are better able to make judicial decisions than white people. The fact that she feels her race is superior to other races is a major problem. Having a activist, racist supreme court justice is not a good idea.

If the roles were reversed and a conservative white male said he is better suited to make judicial decisions than a person of a different skin color, there may well be a lynching.

Hispanics are more Republican in their views then Democrat, for the most part. The fact that they are voting Democrat is more of a failing, on the GOPs part, to educate them then anything IMO. Many believe that the Hispanic Vote is lost. I do not. You see, we do not have to win the Hispanic Vote. We simply have to split the vote. If we can accomplish this, then we can beat the Democrats. Make a point of illustrating the differences in the two parties positions. Get her views on record. Make note of the areas we disagree on and then step back and let this thing happen. It is foolish, IMO, to push a bad position. We can not win this fight. Better to position ourselves for the next fight and allow things to unfold naturally. The longer we cry foul, the futher we push those who will see the Democratic way for what it is away from a Conservative view point. That only helps the Liberals.

[MetalHead]

Hispanics are more Republican in their views then Democrat, for the most part. The fact that they are voting Democrat is more of a failing, on the GOPs part, to educate them then anything IMO. Many believe that the Hispanic Vote is lost. I do not. You see, we do not have to win the Hispanic Vote. We simply have to split the vote. If we can accomplish this, then we can beat the Democrats. Make a point of illustrating the differences in the two parties positions. Get her views on record. Make note of the areas we disagree on and then step back and let this thing happen. It is foolish, IMO, to push a bad position. We can not win this fight. Better to position ourselves for the next fight and allow things to unfold naturally. The longer we cry foul, the futher we push those who will see the Democratic way for what it is away from a Conservative view point. That only helps the Liberals.

You are correct,I am brown and vote conservative.
It's a segment of the population that drank the stupid cool aid and fell for the "republicans are white and don't want you in their party" BS the dems fed them.
Hell,based on her life story,one would guess that Sotomayor would lean to the conservative side,but the racist bug was in her head long ago.
When she dropped that line about the white man and her ability to make better decisions because her race and gender,I knew where she came from...heard it all before.
She'll be a disaster if she's confirmed.
Too bad the Dead Party has no men with any intestinal fortitude to tell it like it is.

[masomenos]

To those who think that Sonia Sotomayor is racist based on a one sentence quote, I would encourage them to read the actual speech, or to at least take the quote in context (which follows).

The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I 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.


Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.This entire part of the speech is talking about the role that personal experiences play in a judge's decision. Sotomayor says that people from one group (whether race or gender based) can fully understand the issues of another group. After that statement, she points out that courts made up entirely of white men have ruled in favor of minority groups in the past. Combined, those two statements clearly show that Sotomayor believes that white men are capable of making "wise" decisions.

A second point to consider is that, before referring to the "wise Latino woman", Sotomayor brings up the relativity of the term "wise". With that in mind, and based on the previous paragraph, her statement only seems to be focusing the ability of a Latino woman to make a more informed ruling, when it comes to issues where her experience would come into play. Not that she does not say that a wise Latino woman would make a better decision than a white man, but rather a white man without those experiences.

It's not about racial superioty, but rather about how life experiences can lead to different interpretations, when the law is not clear.

Here's the entire speech: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1

[burmafrd]

Its not just that speech. Its what she has said elsewhere and her decisions. I think she is a racist-many liberals are.

[masomenos]

Its not just that speech. Its what she has said elsewhere and her decisions. I think she is a racist-many liberals are.

What else has she said and which of her decisions make you think that she's a racist?

[burmafrd]

I am too busy to put up all the links but there are now plenty out there if you want to look. They are starting to uncover her all the way from Law School. And the signs are there for people who WANT to look.

[NinePointOh]

In all honesty, if this is all they have against her, they really don't have much at all. There have only been 3 failed SCOTUS nominations since 1970:

One (Robert Bork) was because of controversially ruthless and partisan smears against him that have since become notorious -- not a tactic any minority party would likely pursue again

One (Douglas Ginsburg) was because of illegal drug use.

One (Harriet Miers) was because she was seen as grossly unqualified.

If the case against Sotomayor is based only on a few cherry-picked quotes removed from their contexts, she's in pretty good shape.

[MetalHead]

What else has she said and which of her decisions make you think that she's a racist?

maso,later on today i will fire you a PM that will help you understand her way of thinking.

[masomenos]

I am too busy to put up all the links but there are now plenty out there if you want to look. They are starting to uncover her all the way from Law School. And the signs are there for people who WANT to look.

I have been looking, lol. The only thing that comes up is Ricci v. DeStefano, which can't seriously be called racist. I haven't found anything from her law school days though. If you end up with some time, please put up a few of the links.

[masomenos]

maso,later on today i will fire you a PM that will help you understand her way of thinking.

Sounds good, I look forward to seeing what you have to say, Artie.

[burmafrd]

Bottom line is that she is an OBAMA pick and you have to figure she is in line with his thinking. Now I would love it if she did a souter and turned out to be a lot more conservative on the bench but that has hardly ever happened.

Did Obama ever apologize to Roberts and admit he was wrong to vote against him- I really DOUBT it.

[masomenos]

Bottom line is that she is an OBAMA pick and you have to figure she is in line with his thinking. Now I would love it if she did a souter and turned out to be a lot more conservative on the bench but that has hardly ever happened.

Did Obama ever apologize to Roberts and admit he was wrong to vote against him- I really DOUBT it.

Why in the world would Obama need to apologize to Roberts? Obama was praiseworthy of Roberts as well as his credentials and Obama even said that voting against Roberts was a difficult thing to do. In the end, the two men disagreed on issues of political philosophy and that caused a conflict between their legal opinions. I seriously doubt that Roberts harbors any hard feelings over that.

Now, when you say that Sotomayor has to be in line with Obama's thinking, are you implying that because Obama is a racist that his nominee must be as well? That would be ridiculous, considering Obama has appointed dozens of people to high level positions and you'd be extremely hard pressed to prove that they are all racist. If you're not implying that, then what? Of course Obama, a liberal, would replace one liberal judge with another.

[NinePointOh]

Its not just that speech. Its what she has said elsewhere and her decisions. I think she is a racist-many liberals are.

I don't think Republican politicians really want to turn this nomination into a race war. Conservative pundits do, of course, because it's an easily manufactured envelope-pushing controversy that gets them ratings, but for a political party with aspirations of taking back some majorities ... not so much.

It's also worth mentioning that when Sotomayor was confirmed to her current position in 1998, roughly half of the GOP caucus supported her back then -- including 7 of the 19 current Senators who were around at the time. So unless those 7 are going to flip-flop on their previous position, or significant portions of the Democratic caucus are suddenly going to turn on her, the opposition may not stand much of a chance.

[zrinkill]

I don't think Republican politicians really want to turn this nomination into a race war. Conservative pundits do, of course, because it's an easily manufactured envelope-pushing controversy that gets them ratings, but for a political party with aspirations of taking back some majorities ... not so much.

It's also worth mentioning that when Sotomayor was confirmed to her current position in 1998, roughly half of the GOP caucus supported her back then -- including 7 of the 19 current Senators who were around at the time. So unless those 7 are going to flip-flop on their previous position, or significant portions of the Democratic caucus are suddenly going to turn on her, the opposition may not stand much of a chance.

Now that is actually a good point.

[Doomsday101]

I don't think Republican politicians really want to turn this nomination into a race war. Conservative pundits do, of course, because it's an easily manufactured envelope-pushing controversy that gets them ratings, but for a political party with aspirations of taking back some majorities ... not so much.

It's also worth mentioning that when Sotomayor was confirmed to her current position in 1998, roughly half of the GOP caucus supported her back then -- including 7 of the 19 current Senators who were around at the time. So unless those 7 are going to flip-flop on their previous position, or significant portions of the Democratic caucus are suddenly going to turn on her, the opposition may not stand much of a chance.

I agree and I don't think they will but I do think they have every right to question her rulings in cases such as the New Haven fire fighters case and comments she has made. She does not deserve a free ride however she does deserve a fair hearing then an up or down vote.

[NinePointOh]

Bottom line is that she is an OBAMA pick and you have to figure she is in line with his thinking. Now I would love it if she did a souter and turned out to be a lot more conservative on the bench but that has hardly ever happened.

OK, so you're basically saying you'd oppose any pick Obama makes. That's not altogether uncommon or unexpected, but in the Senate, opposition to nominees on purely ideological grounds rarely succeeds.

As I demonstrated above, the only times since 1970 that a nomination has failed were when they were grossly unqualified, had partaken in illegal activities, or when the opposition party decided beforehand that they'd put up a bitter partisan fight regardless of who the nominee was. The first two haven't been claimed about Sotomayor to my knowledge, and I don't know that any party would be stupid enough to do the third again.

[NinePointOh]

I agree and I don't think they will but I do think they have every right to question her rulings in cases such as the New Haven fire fighters case and comments she has made. She does not deserve a free ride however she does deserve a fair hearing then an up or down vote.

They can, should, and will ask all the difficult questions. I just don't think this opposition, as spirited as it may be for some, is going to last long or get far.

[Doomsday101]

They can, should, and will ask all the difficult questions. I just don't think this opposition, as spirited as it may be for some, is going to last long or get far.

Chances are you are right then again the Republicans have little to no say since they don't have the votes to stop it. This is a dem lead house and congress with a Dem President basically they are calling the shot regardless of the opposition. I do think it would be foolish for the Republicans to sit on their hands and not call her out on judicial topics and her comments; this can and should be done without bringing up race or gender. Hell Obama voted against Roberts after talking about how qualified and how professional Roberts was as a judge but still voted against him? Please

[burmafrd]

Obama said some pretty strong things about Roberts as a judge when he voted against him. I think he SHOULD say I WAS WRONG about Roberts.
I mean he claims he is for change and that would be a huge CHANGE in washington. BUT I get it- you really do not want that kind of change.

[peplaw06]

Of course Obama, a liberal, would replace one liberal judge with another.This is sort of tangential, but I wasn't old enough when Bush Sr. was in office... How in the world did Souter fool Bush into nominating him?

Your sentiment here is common knowledge... Presidents nominate justices who align with them politically. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. I mainly blame the nominees. The justices are more interested in pleasing those who align with them ideologicially (pleasing their party) than doing their job.

But knowing that's the way all of these people operate, how did Bush screw that up? It's changed the makeup of the Court, likely for many many years.

[masomenos]

This is sort of tangential, but I wasn't old enough when Bush Sr. was in office... How in the world did Souter fool Bush into nominating him?

Your sentiment here is common knowledge... Presidents nominate justices who align with them politically. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. I mainly blame the nominees. The justices are more interested in pleasing those who align with them ideologicially (pleasing their party) than doing their job.

But knowing that's the way all of these people operate, how did Bush screw that up? It's changed the makeup of the Court, likely for many many years.

Well David Souter replaced William Brennan, a liberal justice. G.H.W. Bush was just keeping the status quo of the court. Don't quote me on this, but I don't think it was unprecedented for a conservative to nominate a liberal, or vica versa, when it was to maintain relative balance. I could be wrong though, I'm tired, lol.

I don't think that the justices are too worried about pleasing those who share their ideologies, it's just that those who share their ideologies are more often pleased.

[NinePointOh]

Well David Souter replaced William Brennan, a liberal justice. G.H.W. Bush was just keeping the status quo of the court. Don't quote me on this, but I don't think it was unprecedented for a conservative to nominate a liberal, or vica versa, when it was to maintain relative balance. I could be wrong though, I'm tired, lol.

I don't think that the justices are too worried about pleasing those who share their ideologies, it's just that those who share their ideologies are more often pleased.

Not quite. Bush Sr definitely thought he was appointing a conservative justice. His Chief of Staff, John Sununu, swore up and down that Souter would be a "home run" for conservatives. Souter's Senate testimony sounded conservative enough, but since he came from a state court and a state attorney general's office, he didn't have a track record on federal law to evaluate him by. He actually was somewhat of a moderate-conservative for the first several years, but seemed to shift to the left around the time of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[JBond]

What else has she said and which of her decisions make you think that she's a racist?

Well, it is being reported she is a member of the racist group, La Raza. If Justice Thomas was a member of the racist black group or if Chief Justice Roberts was a member of the racist white group it would matter just as it should matter in her case.

The fact that she feels she is superior to other races and has promised to make decisions not using law but whatever she feels like should be enough to disqualify her. Everyone knows of Obama's disdain for our Constitution and his love of radical activist judges. So it should be no surprise that this is the type of person he would pick to be on the Court. He has said the court needs to address economic injustices of the past. Who better to do that than his hand picked racist nominee that shares his views?

[JBond]

Why in the world would Obama need to apologize to Roberts? Obama was praiseworthy of Roberts as well as his credentials and Obama even said that voting against Roberts was a difficult thing to do. In the end, the two men disagreed on issues of political philosophy and that caused a conflict between their legal opinions. I seriously doubt that Roberts harbors any hard feelings over that.

Now, when you say that Sotomayor has to be in line with Obama's thinking, are you implying that because Obama is a racist that his nominee must be as well? That would be ridiculous, considering Obama has appointed dozens of people to high level positions and you'd be extremely hard pressed to prove that they are all racist. If you're not implying that, then what? Of course Obama, a liberal, would replace one liberal judge with another.

Obama did not vote for him because he knew Roberts would follow the law rather than making a mockery of it like his current nominee.

[WoodysGirl]

La Raza's racist?

Looks to me like it's the hispanic equivalent of the NAACP (tho it isn't as relevant as it used to be)

For more info on NCLR, here's a link: http://www.nclr.org/

[JBond]

I don't think Republican politicians really want to turn this nomination into a race war. Conservative pundits do, of course, because it's an easily manufactured envelope-pushing controversy that gets them ratings, but for a political party with aspirations of taking back some majorities ... not so much.

It's also worth mentioning that when Sotomayor was confirmed to her current position in 1998, roughly half of the GOP caucus supported her back then -- including 7 of the 19 current Senators who were around at the time. So unless those 7 are going to flip-flop on their previous position, or significant portions of the Democratic caucus are suddenly going to turn on her, the opposition may not stand much of a chance.

Since that time she has been shown to be a consistently poor judge unable to even interpret basic statutory law. They would have every right to change their minds. She is a racist ding bat that is incompetent. She believes the appeals courts are designed to make policy. She has no idea what she is doing.

[JBond]

La Raza's racist?

Looks to me like it's the hispanic equivalent of the NAACP (tho it isn't as relevant as it used to be)

For more info on NCLR, here's a link: http://www.nclr.org/

Yes, "The Race" is a racist group. Here in Kansas City they hounded the mayor for months and months because a 70 year old white female who was on the parks board believed in legal immigration. He eventually was forced to kick her off the board. The vast majority of their membership consists of people who entered our country illegally. The minority business owners I interact with on a regular basis despise them. Doesn't the name, "The Race", tell you enough? Do some more research into them. The causes they support are dubious at best. Most of the time they are running around demanding things they have no right to, especially considering the vast majority of them are here illegally and need to be deported.

[burmafrd]

Woody, I am disapointed in you. Going to a groups site and think you are going to learn anything.

[JBond]

Well, now we know she does not think highly of the right to free speech.

Sotomayor Ruled in "D-Bag Case"

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Critics-unhappy-with-Sotomayors-role-in-CT-free-speech-case.html

President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy has yet another tie to Connecticut. She sided against a student in the infamous “****** bag” case, and that has upset some free-speech advocates.

In August 2007, Judge Sonia Sotomayor sat on a panel that ruled against an appeal in Doninger v. Niehoff.

Avery Doninger was disqualified from running for school government at Lewis S. Mills High School in Burlington after she posted something on her blog, referring to the superintendent and other officials as "****** bags" because they canceled a battle of the bands she had helped to organize.

The case went to court and in March 2008, Sotomayor was on a panel that heard Doninger’s mother’s appeal alleging her daughter’s free speech and other rights were violated. Her mother wanted to prevent the school from barring her daughter from running.

Sotomayor joined two other judges from the 2nd Circuit in ruling that the student’s off-campus blog remarks created a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption” at the student’s high school and that the teenager was not entitled to a preliminary injunction reversing a disciplinary action against her, Education Week reports.

In their opinion, the judges said they were “sympathetic" to her disappointment at being disqualified from running for Senior Class Secretary and acknowledged her belief that in this case, “the punishment did not fit the crime.”

However, the judges decided they were not called upon to determine if school officials acted wisely.

“As the Supreme Court cautioned years ago, “[t]he system of public education that has evolved in this Nation relies necessarily upon the discretion and judgment of school administrators and school board members,” and we are not authorized to intervene absent “violations of specific constitutional guarantees.”

The ruling in this case has come under heavy criticism from some civil libertarians. Some say this case presents a solid rationale for rejecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals to fill the seat of retiring Justice David Souter.

“The continual expansion of the authority of school officials over student speech teaches a foul lesson to these future citizens,” Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, told the New Britain Herald. “I would prefer some obnoxious speech [rather] than teaching students that they must please government officials if they want special benefits or opportunities.”

Copyright Associated Press / NBC Connecticut

[JBond]

These quotes highlight her twisted view of the role of the court.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

"Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives—no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging."

"Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum [of the federal District Court in New York]… believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons… we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning…."

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…. I am… not so sure that I agree with the statement. First… there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I 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."

"I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [Laughter from audience] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [More laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."

Taken from: Hon. Sonia Sotomayor & Nicole A. Gordon, Returning Majesty To The Law and Politics: A Modern Approach, 30 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 35 (1996).

"The constant development of unprecedented problems requires a legal system capable of fluidity and pliancy. Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions; although changes cannot be made lightly, yet law must be more or less impermanent, experimental and therefore not nicely calculable. Much of the uncertainty of law is not an unfortunate accident: it is of immense social value."

"Frank’s thesis . . . supports a pride that lawyers can take in what they do and how they do it. The law can change its direction entirely, as when Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, or as the common law has gradually done by altering the standards of products liability law directly contrary to the originally restricted view that instructed “caveat emptor.” As these cases show, change—sometimes radical change—can and does occur in a legal system that serves a society whose social policy itself changes. It is our responsibility to explain to the public how an often unpredictable system of justice is one that serves a productive, civilized, but always evolving, society."

[WoodysGirl]

Woody, I am disapointed in you. Going to a groups site and think you are going to learn anything.
Why should you be disappointed? I'm an information gather and am willing to read/listen/watch almost anything in my pursuit of knowledge. Being closed-minded is not an option for me.

As for La Raza, I don't know anything about their work other than they what they and LULAC propose to do for the Hispanic community.

I'm more familiar with LULAC because I think they're a lot more active in Houston than La Raza.

[JBond]

Why should you be disappointed? I'm an information gather and am willing to read/listen/watch almost anything in my pursuit of knowledge. Being closed-minded is not an option for me.

As for La Raza, I don't know anything about their work other than they what they and LULAC propose to do for the Hispanic community.

I'm more familiar with LULAC because I think they're a lot more active in Houston than La Raza.

La raza may behave differently in other areas, but at least locally many here have no use for them.

Back to the original topic. Did you have any thoughts about the additional quotes I posted?

[Jordan55]

It's no secret, She is going to be nominated, what I find amusing is the left is now concerned that she may not be liberal enough, she may even be pro-life.
She could surprise all us, just like Justice Souter, when nominated by the 1st Bush administration.
While I agree she should be challanged on her statements, this is a battle the conservatives need to handle with kit gloves, there is always another day. Need to choose our battles wisely.

[Jordan55]

When President Obama first selected Sonia Sotomayor as his choice to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court, a few conservatives wondered if Obama might not get his own version of Souter — a judicial appointment who went in the opposite direction than presumed. That seemed like wishful thinking for conservatives with almost no power to deflect her confirmation, but the New York Times says the notion has appeared on the Left as a concern. Given her lack of a track record, some of the people who first cheered the nomination now want some guarantees that Sotomayor will uphold Roe:
What happens if she doesn't give any gaurantees, can imagine the politics at that point the Dems think they pulled one over on the Republicans, what are they going to do pull the rug out from underneath her what about the latino votes which helped the Messiah get elected.
Where's my popcorn?

[WoodysGirl]

La raza may behave differently in other areas, but at least locally many here have no use for them.

Back to the original topic. Did you have any thoughts about the additional quotes I posted?My general opinion is that both sides are seeking to influence public opinion on who and what Sotomayor is about. I think it'll be good when she finally has to answer direct questions in her confirmation hearing.

I don't think she is a racist. What I do see is a woman who has pride in her culture and ethnicity.

I also don't see her as a radical activist judge...at least not based on that one quote about making policy or whatever.

Based on what I've read, she's an either love her or hate her type of woman. Strong opinions. She doesn't seem to be an extreme far left cuckoo.

[JBond]

My general opinion is that both sides are seeking to influence public opinion on who and what Sotomayor is about. I think it'll be good when she finally has to answer direct questions in her confirmation hearing.

I don't think she is a racist. What I do see is a woman who has pride in her culture and ethnicity.

I also don't see her as a radical activist judge...at least not based on that one quote about making policy or whatever.

Based on what I've read, she's an either love her or hate her type of woman. Strong opinions. She doesn't seem to be an extreme far left cuckoo.

Sounds fair. I guess it depends if you believe the Constitution is a document that is flawed which would justify her decisions to be based on emotions as she clearly does or if you believe it is a legal document that should be strictly interpreted as it was written. Of course I fall on the strict interpretation side because our Constitution set out the means to make adjustment as necessary. Making policy from the bench was a worry many of the founding fathers shared.

[masomenos]

Sounds fair. I guess it depends if you believe the Constitution is a document that is flawed which would justify her decisions to be based on emotions as she clearly does or if you believe it is a legal document that should be strictly interpreted as it was written. Of course I fall on the strict interpretation side because our Constitution set out the means to make adjustment as necessary. Making policy from the bench was a worry many of the founding fathers shared.

Just out of curiosity JB, do you think that the decision in Roe v. Wade was constitutional? I know that you are pro-life based on moral grounds, which I respect and mostly agree with, but what about the constitutionality?

I find it difficult to swallow the "states rights" argument, simply because the decision deals with what the court called a personal, implied right. Time and again, we've seen the Supreme Court effect federal law when individuals rights are concerned. If you look at a case like Loving v. Virginia, which overturned race-based state legal restrictions on marriage, then you're faced with a similar issue. Of course, the decisions in the two cases were founded on different Constitutional reasoning, but they both deal with individual rights.

I guess my point in this questioning is to illustrate that sometimes the Constitution must be interpreted because, while not flawed, it is incomplete in scope. By that, I mean that the Constitution often lays out broad terms which act more as judicial guidelines, rather than dealing with specific issues. When interpretations take place, they aren't necessarily the result of judicial activism or legislating from the bench. Rather, Constitutional interpretation is, and always has been, the very role of the Supreme Court.

[MetalHead]

La Raza's racist?

Looks to me like it's the hispanic equivalent of the NAACP (tho it isn't as relevant as it used to be)

For more info on NCLR, here's a link: http://www.nclr.org/

The direct translation of the name reveals enough.
"The Race"...
The problem I have with all these associations is that all they do is perpetrate the race barrier,remember when you are emphatic for certain group,you will discriminate against others,intentionally or not.

[WoodysGirl]

Sotomayor no fan of campaign cash

Kenneth P. Vogel Kenneth P. Vogel – 1 hr 29 mins ago
Sonia Sotomayor may not have a long paper trail on hot button social issues, but in one area of the law—campaign finance—she has staked a position that could have far-reaching political consequences.

The clarity of her support for limits on campaign fundraising and her background as a pioneering campaign regulator is raising eyebrows among election law experts who say her record is more substantial and explicit than that of any Supreme Court nominee since the dawn of the modern, post-Watergate campaign finance regime.

“There hasn’t been one with as vigorously expressed policy views on campaign finance as this one that I am aware of, and I’ve been pretty aware for a number of years,” said James Bopp, a leading conservative attorney who has won four Supreme Court cases challenging campaign finance regulations.

“I can’t think of anybody who has had such a track record,” said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies and a follower of battles on the issue since the early 1970s. “There are clearly going to be cases coming before the court that will be challenges to the law, and there will be some very important cases.”

Sotomayor brings hands-on experience to the issue from her four years of experience on the New York City Campaign Finance Board, an independent, nonpartisan city agency created in 1988. One of the first members appointed to the board by then-Mayor Ed Koch, Sotomayor helped implement—enthusiastically, according to her cohorts—one of the most comprehensive campaign finance laws in the country.

In a rare and little-noticed law review article, she forcefully defended the policy motivations behind such restrictions, questioning the line between campaign contributions and “bribes,” calling on Congress to overhaul campaign finance laws – including suggesting public financing of its own elections – and blasting the Federal Election Commission for not enforcing existing laws.

“The continued failure to do this has greatly damaged public trust in officials and exacerbated the public's sense that no higher morality is in place by which public officials measure their conduct,” she wrote in a law review article based on a speech she gave to Suffolk University Law School in 1996, when she was a federal district court judge.


On the only occasion when she was confronted with the issue as a jurist, Sotomayor joined a decision that effectively gave a pass to a Vermont law that severely limited campaign contributions and capped campaign spending – a law that the Supreme Court later overturned as a First Amendment violation.

While Sotomayor’s support for limits on campaign fundraising thrills clean election advocates, it positions her squarely against several prominent Senate Republicans—including members of the Judiciary Committee—who vigorously oppose similar campaign finance rules and it is inflaming small-government conservatives who consider such regulations an affront to the First Amendment.

The extent to which Sotomayor’s policy preferences color her judicial philosophy on campaign finance regulation is not entirely clear. And since Sotomayor would replace Justice David Souter, who has reliably sided with supporters of stricter rules, few expect her to affect the court’s balance of power on the issue in the near term. But advocates for more stringent campaign finance rules hope that over the long run, Sotomayor, who is only 54 years old, could reverse a shift towards deregulating political money that took off when former President George W. Bush’s appointees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito – formed a fairly reliable anti-campaign regulation majority with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

“When you put a relatively young person on the court with [Sotomayor’s] kinds of views, it may matter a great deal down the line,” said Rick Hasen, an election law professor at Loyola Law School who runs the influential Election Law Blog, which tends to favor stricter regulation. “Having three or four younger justices who take the view that regulation is constitutional could be quite significant.”

In an analysis of a dozen Sotomayor election law decisions (including on the Vermont law, as well as cases related to ballot access, voting rights and limits on political activity by government officials), Hasen found her “to be on the mainstream left, no different from the kind of opinions I would expect from Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, or Souter.”

Though Sotomayor’s role in the Vermont case was relatively minor (she sided with six other appeals court judges in rejecting Bopp’s client’s request to rehear the case after a three-judge panel upheld Vermont's low contribution limits and suggested that its campaign spending limits might also be legal), opponents of campaign cash restrictions consider it revealing.

The law “severely restrict[ed] the ability of candidates to communicate with voters,” said Brad Smith, a former FEC chairman who heads the anti-regulation Center for Competitive Politics.

Smith said Sotomayor’s role in the case “signaled that she does not view the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as among the most important Americans possess."

But Bopp said her Suffolk Law Review article is more telling, showing that “she’s bought into the most extreme campaign finance reformer rhetoric. And considering that she has on occasions extolled the legitimacy of policy preferences guiding judicial decisionmaking, including her own, you’ve got to take her personal policy preferences seriously.”

In the article, which she co-wrote with the former longtime director of the New York City Campaign Finance Board, Sotomayor contended that privately-financed elections raise “again and again the question what the difference is between contributions and bribes and how legislators or other officials can operate objectively on behalf of the electorate. Can elected officials say with credibility that they are carrying out the mandate of a ‘democratic’ society, representing only the general public good, when private money plays such a large role in their campaigns? If they cannot, the public must demand a change in the role of private money or find other ways, such as through strict, well-enforced regulation, to ensure that politicians are not inappropriately influenced in their legislative or executive decision-making by the interests that give them contributions.”

Six years after she wrote the article, the 2002 McCain-Feingold law overhauled federal campaign finance rules but stopped short of imposing the comprehensive regime she helped implement in New York, which capped private donations and matched small donations to all participating municipal candidates with taxpayer cash.

The unpaid five-member board, on which Sotomayor served while she was a lawyer in private practice from 1988 until she was taped for the federal bench in 1992, implemented the law, recommended changes to it, heard complaints and issued fines.

In the law review article, Sotomayor called it “a model for decision-making in the political sphere,” while the board staff and chairman with whom she served said she embraced the premise of the law and worked to make it stronger.

“In our first go-round with the law, we may not have reduced the role of money in politics, but we increased the amount of information that was available to the public,” said Rev. Joseph A. O’Hare, who chaired the board from 1988 until 2003.

O’Hare recommended Sotomayor’s appointment, according to Koch. And O’Hare recalled Sotomayor as an active participant in enforcement inquiries and post-election reviews of the law.

“The need to have regulations, I don’t think was ever debated,” said Laurence D. Laufer, who served as a board staff lawyer during Sotomayor’s tenure. “It was a question of what the details would look like.”

The board was a major part of its members’ lives in the early years, said Laufer.

“These people made a huge commitment. This was multiple meetings every month—multiple meetings sometimes in a week,” he said, recalling Sotomayor believed “there should be high expectations for the regulated community.”

Nicole Gordon, the board’s former executive director—and Sotomayor’s co-author on the Suffolk article—said the judge deserves “a very nice share of credit” for implementing New York’s campaign finance law.

In her letter of resignation, Sotomayor called her time on the board “a deeply rewarding experience … The Campaign Finance Board is a testament to good and decent government and I am proud to have been one of its founding members.”

That’s music to the ears of some campaign finance reform advocates.

“The New York City Campaign Finance Board has served as a model for campaign regulatory bodies throughout the country,” said Paul Ryan, a lawyer for the pro-regulation Campaign Legal Center. “Judge Sotomayor clearly understands the threat of corruption and, indeed, the threat to democratic society itself, posed by large, private campaign contributions.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/23070

[WoodysGirl]

Sotomayor's views on abortion rights are unknown

By Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 29 mins ago

WASHINGTON – One of the few things conservatives and liberals agree on when it comes to Sonia Sotomayor is that her views on abortion rights are a mystery — and one that must be solved before she can be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.

Sotomayor's nomination has reopened a politically and emotionally charged debate over abortion that's energized interest groups on the left and right — all working to draw members, money and attention by ensuring the issue features prominently in the judge's confirmation hearings.

Unlike many liberal organizations that came out swiftly and enthusiastically to back Sotomayor, abortion-rights groups are withholding their support until she answers questions on the court's 1973 legalization decision and the principles behind it.

NARAL Pro Choice America has praised her experience and background but has stopped well short of endorsing her. "We look forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor's views on the right to privacy and the landmark Roe v. Wade decision as the Senate's hearing process moves forward," the group's president, Nancy Keenan, said Tuesday, the day the nomination was announced.

She declined through a spokesman Thursday to comment further on the subject. The group is asking supporters to urge senators to ask Sotomayor about Roe and the right to privacy.

Neither abortion rights advocates nor foes take any comfort from the abortion-related cases on which Sotomayor has ruled as a federal judge — none of which were decided based on the principles or precedents underlying Roe v. Wade.

"I don't think anybody can draw a conclusion," said Charmaine Yoest, the president of Americans United for Life, which opposes abortion rights. "Given the fact that she has been so outspoken about the view that her personal opinions and personal characteristics come into play at the bar, that's very troubling to us."

On the opposite side, Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, said: "We don't have enough information to take a position at this time. We're waiting to learn more about Judge Sotomayor's views on the constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose."

The White House edged carefully around the issue Thursday in an animated question-and-answer session in which reporters pressed to know whether President Barack Obama had ascertained Sotomayor's views before nominating her.

Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, said the two discussed Sotomayor's "views on unenumerated rights in the Constitution and the theory of settled law" — both of which have been buzz-phrases for backers of the 1973 decision. In Roe, the court recognized a right to privacy even thought it's not spelled out in the Constitution. Abortion-rights backers consider the decision "settled law" — a kind of super-precedent that has survived long enough without major challenge that it shouldn't be reconsidered.

Obama was "very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his," Gibbs said, declining to provide more specifics.

The White House says Obama didn't ask Sotomayor specifically about her view of Roe v. Wade or privacy rights, even though as a presidential candidate in 2007, he said, "I would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right to privacy."

Gibbs said he had "no reason to believe" any White House aide asked Sotomayor those questions either.

Abortion is a perennial hot-button in Supreme Court confirmation hearings, drawing pointed questions from Republicans and Democrats alike. It's expected to play a prominent role in the debate over Sotomayor in part because the court has recently been closely divided on abortion questions.

In the latest such ruling — of major concern to abortion rights supporters — the court upheld a nationwide ban on a procedure its opponents call partial-birth abortion, a decision both sides said could pave the way for further restrictions. It was the first abortion ruling in which the court didn't require an exception to preserve a woman's health.

"On these sensitive high-stakes political issues, it's always a very delicate matter in the selection process — no president wants to have a litmus test," said Emma Coleman Jordan, a Georgetown University law professor and former Justice Department official who worked on Sandra Day O'Connor's 1981 nomination to the high court.

"There are ways to determine inclinations, but not through crude, direct questioning. ... The process is not as hamhandedly political as the interest groups try to make it out to be," Jordan said.

Obama's own pro-abortion rights stance has led many to assume that his chosen nominee would feel the same, but there's a history of presidents being unpleasantly surprised by their Supreme Court choices' positions. Retiring Justice David H. Souter, whom Sotomayor would replace if confirmed, was named by former President George H. W. Bush and was widely expected to support overturning Roe, but in 1992 he sided with a majority to uphold abortion rights.

Sotomayor's decisions give little clue about her views on the subject, although she has issued two rulings on unrelated legal issues whose results favored abortion rights opponents. In 2002, she dismissed a challenge by an abortion rights group to the so-called "Mexico City" policy of denying federal funding to organizations that provide or promote abortions. Two years later, she ruled that abortion rights protesters who had unsuccessfully tried to sue Hartford police officers for using excessive force against them should, in fact, get to go to court.

Neither case turned on the key questions of reproductive rights, privacy or Roe itself.

Some abortion rights supporters say they take heart in Sotomayor's reputation as a judge who respects precedent and exercises restraint in her rulings — a reputation the White House has worked hard to bolster.

"We're hoping and counting on her respect for past legal precedent as an encouraging sign, but we don't have any direct evidence," said Doug Laube of Physicians for Reproductive Rights. "Sure we're concerned, and I think most people who are on our side ... are concerned, but we're happy to take a wait-and-see attitude."

Conservatives, for their part, say there's at least a chance Sotomayor could be on their side.

"There's always the hope that she could be truly Justice Souter's opposite," said Yoest of Americans United for Life. "It gives me some consolation that they're concerned."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090528/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_sotomayor_abortion

[sbark]

Tidbits on Sonia.......

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/28/tancredo-sotomayors-a-member-... (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/28/tancredo-sotomayors-a-member-of-the-latino-kkk/)

As HuffPo notes, it’s not La Raza whose motto is “All for the race. Nothing for the rest,” it’s MEChA (“For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.”). There are links between the two groups — this 2006 Human Events piece by Charlie Norwood is essential — but La Raza’s considerably more mainstream than MEChA, which calls for the reclamation of the American southwest by Latinos.

from 24/7: In the year 2004, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled that ownership of a gun is not a constitutional right. That case is at present being appealed before the US Supreme Court, as are a couple other of her cases. In 2004 Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said owning a gun not a constitutional right. She ruled in this fashion as a judge.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/05/28/the-opinion-of-sotomayor-from-those-whove-worked-with-her/#more-22337

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.resume/?iref=hpmostpop

.......but hey her opinions will be better than any white male...........

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/NewtGingrich) (R-Ga.) on Wednesday charged that Judge Sonia Sotomayor (http://topics.politico.com/index.cfm/topic/SoniaSotomayor) is a "racist."

"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism," Gingrich wrote in a post on his blog (http://newt.org/tabid/193/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4253/On-Supreme-Court-nominee-Sonia-Sotomayor.aspx).

"A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw," he added.



Read more: "Newt Gingrich: Sonia Sotomayor a 'racist' - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com" - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23024.html#ixzz0GtjKtHLo&A (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23024.html#ixzz0GtjKtHLo&A)

[burmafrd]

I hope the REPs work her over good about her rulings- especially gun related.
Does anyone think all this campaign finance "reform" has accomplished anything positive?

[NinePointOh]

Since that time she has been shown to be a consistently poor judge unable to even interpret basic statutory law. They would have every right to change their minds. She is a racist ding bat that is incompetent. She believes the appeals courts are designed to make policy. She has no idea what she is doing.

I'm sure you'd prefer for them to change their minds, but that doesn't mean it's likely. From this and your other posts you've made in this thread, it appears that your objections are ideological; as I've said, opposition on such grounds almost never succeeds and is unpopular outside of the minority party's own base -- not exactly the way to climb back to power.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm sure you'd prefer for them to change their minds, but that doesn't mean it's likely. From this and your other posts you've made in this thread, it appears that your objections are ideological; as I've said, opposition on such grounds almost never succeeds and is unpopular outside of the minority party's own base -- not exactly the way to climb back to power.

This is funny to me since this is exactly what the Democratic Party did when they were the Minority.

[Doomsday101]

This is funny to me since this is exactly what the Democratic Party did when they were the Minority.

True and now they are back in power so railing against the republicans and Bush did not harm them in the least. You had them threaten a filibuster on Supreme Court nominations and even with Judge Roberts Obama himself stated that he was well qualified but voted against him.

[NinePointOh]

This is funny to me since this is exactly what the Democratic Party did when they were the Minority.

They tried, just like large portions of the minority party always does. I'm sure this vote will be no exception. But my point is that they didn't succeed. Roberts and Alito were both confirmed by wide margins.

Harriet Miers was the only nomination since the 80s who has been blocked, and that was because even Republicans complained that she was wholly unqualified.

If history is an indication, at least 15-25 Republican Senators will take a stand and vote against Sotomayor, and 15-20 will support her or abstain.

[NinePointOh]

True and now they are back in power so railing against the republicans and Bush did not harm them in the least. You had them threaten a filibuster on Supreme Court nominations and even with Judge Roberts Obama himself stated that he was well qualified but voted against him.

Again, the point being that they tried and failed. There was talk of a filibuster, but no actual attempt or formal threat, because they knew it was futile and they didn't have the votes to sustain it.

Obama and many others voted against Roberts, just as the conservative wing of the Republican caucus will likely vote against Sotomayor. But 22 Democratic Senators voted for Roberts, just as the moderate wing of the Republican caucus will likely vote for Sotomayor.

Each of those Senators are making a personal decision as to whether or not "railing against" the nominee on ideological grounds would be harmful to their career. If you're in a safe district, it'll probably help you, and if you're in a moderate district, it'll probably hurt you. If the entire caucus does it, you're hurting half the party.

[DFWJC]

Harriet Miers was the only nomination since the 80s who has been blocked, and that was because even Republicans complained that she was wholly unqualified.

.

I would say Miers was more qualified than this one.

[ABQCOWBOY]

They tried, just like large portions of the minority party always does. I'm sure this vote will be no exception. But my point is that they didn't succeed. Roberts and Alito were both confirmed by wide margins.

Harriet Miers was the only nomination since the 80s who has been blocked, and that was because even Republicans complained that she was wholly unqualified.

If history is an indication, at least 15-25 Republican Senators will take a stand and vote against Sotomayor, and 15-20 will support her or abstain.

They did more then try. They succeeded. Not specific to the Supreme Court but the question of regaining power. The Democratic Party undermind every decision, every issue at every opportunity. In the end, it was succesful for them.

[Doomsday101]

Again, the point being that they tried and failed. There was talk of a filibuster, but no actual attempt or formal threat, because they knew it was futile and they didn't have the votes to sustain it.

Obama and many others voted against Roberts, just as the conservative wing of the Republican caucus will likely vote against Sotomayor. But 22 Democratic Senators voted for Roberts, just as the moderate wing of the Republican caucus will likely vote for Sotomayor.

Each of those Senators are making a personal decision as to whether or not "railing against" the nominee on ideological grounds would be harmful to their career. If you're in a safe district, it'll probably help you, and if you're in a moderate district, it'll probably hurt you. If the entire caucus does it, you're hurting half the party.

Dems have the house and senate it did not hurt them they moaned on every single issue they acted no different than the republicans and yes they stopped many nomination for judgeships by not allowing an up or down vote when they took control in 06 and did so on ideological differences. Republican are not hurting themselves by looking at and talking about the rulings and comments made by Sotomayor and would be fools not to. In the end the Dems have control and can get this judge pasted without much support from the opposition party

[NinePointOh]

They did more then try. They succeeded. Not specific to the Supreme Court but the question of regaining power.

That's my point exactly. The caucus as a whole conceding the fight over the SCOTUS nomination (which doesn't mean that nobody complains or votes against, just that enough moderates are allowed to support the nomination so that it passes) helped lead to the success they deemed more important -- electoral victories.

If the current Republicans make the same choice (ie. conservatives oppose Sotomayor, moderates support and allow her to pass), they put themselves in a better position to have similar electoral success. If they make the opposite choice (ie. everybody opposes Sotomayor and backs a filibuster), the moderate ones will almost certainly feel some backlash.

[NinePointOh]

Dems have the house and senate it did not hurt them they moaned on every single issue they acted no different than the republicans

Right. It didn't hurt them because the liberal wing was doing the moaning, but not the moderate wing -- 22 Democrats voted for John Roberts, and not because they supported his ideology.

and yes they stopped many nomination for judgeships by not allowing an up or down vote when they took control in 06 and did so on ideological differences.They did not successfully block any Supreme Court nominations based on ideological differences. Nobody has since the mid 1980s, that one has since become infamous.

Republican are not hurting themselves by looking at and talking about the rulings and comments made by Sotomayor and would be fools not to. In the end the Dems have control and can get this judge pasted without much support from the opposition partyI've said the exact same thing in this thread. I'm not disagreeing with either point.

[Doomsday101]

Right. It didn't hurt them because the liberal wing was doing the moaning, but not the moderate wing -- 22 Democrats voted for John Roberts, and not because they supported his ideology.

They did not successfully block any Supreme Court nominations based on ideological differences. Nobody has since the mid 1980s, that one has since become infamous.

I've said the exact same thing in this thread. I'm not disagreeing with either point.

I'm sure she will pass and have support from some republicans even though there are disagreements in her ideology. Unless something really bad comes out of the closet she will get it.

I'm one who thinks she like any other Supreme Court nominee should get a thorough examination because this is a lifelong appointment not to be taken lightly.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I've already stated my opinion on this. However, I will say that this issue is of concern to me.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/

Judge Sotomayor’s Appellate Opinions in Civil Cases
Friday, May 15th, 2009


Voting Rights: In Hayden v. Pataki, 449 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2006), the en banc Second Circuit rejected a challenge under the Voting Rights Act to a New York law denying convicted felons the right to vote. The plaintiffs in the case had argued that in light of the long history of discrimination, both in society and in the New York criminal justice system specifically, the state’s disqualification of felons constituted disqualification based on race. The majority reasoned that Congress did not intend the VRA to apply to state felon disenfranchisement laws. Moreover, extending the VRA to the state statutes would “alter the constitutional balance” between states and the federal government, and the VRA lacked a clear statement by Congress that it intended to upset that balance.

Sotomayor joined the main dissent from the en banc court’s decision but also wrote a short dissenting opinion of her own in which she opined that the issue was actually much simpler than the majority and concurring opinions would suggest: the VRA “applies to all ‘voting qualifications,’” and - in her view - the state law “disqualifies a group of people from voting.” “These two propositions,” she concluded, “should constitute the entirety of our analysis.” Rejecting what she regarded as the majority’s failure to grapple with the plain text of the statute, she emphasized that “[t]he duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statutes it has created. . . . But even if Congress had doubts about the wisdom of subjecting felony disenfranchisement laws to the results test of § 2, I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it.”


I think there is good and bad that can be taken from this.

The good is this IMO:


Rejecting what she regarded as the majority’s failure to grapple with the plain text of the statute, she emphasized that “[t]he duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statutes it has created. . . .

This would suggest to me that she may, regardless of her own preference, stick to the rule of law and therefore, the Constitution. At least, I hope this is what it reflects.

The bad is this IMO:

the VRA “applies to all ‘voting qualifications,’” and - in her view - the state law “disqualifies a group of people from voting.” “These two propositions,” she concluded, “should constitute the entirety of our analysis.”

The fact that she views the VRA as applicable to all, including Felons, is dangerous IMO. This has been the law of the land since this countries inception, so far as I know. To think that the VRA should apply to Felons is completely wrong minded IMO. That is scary to me.