Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor
 

Not all democrats are fans of Sotomayor:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3-04e10199a085

Here is a snippet from the article: 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?")

What a surprise....lol! It will be interesting to see the conservatives justify opposition after a number of them voted to confirm her in the past. Looking forward to a lot of crap...like she's a bully...lol again! Better they celebrate their "victory" against civil rights in California!

In case you didn't notice, the article was from a liberal newspaper.

Not responding to the specific article, merely predicting the politics of the future. Obviously I love the quandary the right finds itself in....

that is a shame :(

Obama is opposed to same-sex marriages. Does that make Obama against civil rights?

and i just saw this on my home page:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30936298/


The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.


they're bound to uphold what? a constitution that can be changed at a whim? based on a vote? i hope our u.s. constitution is more airtight than that!! the majority isn't supposed to rule, with the ability to gang up on an outnumbered minority, and take their rights away.

I'm pretty sure Obama will have his thumb in the air when it comes to this issue.

Whichever way the public is going at that particular time is what he will support.

Very Clinton-esque.

The Constitution can be amended of course, but not merely at a whim...it takes a lengthy process, years and years for common sense and decency to hopefully prevail. The California court was gutless...hardly unexpected. Rather than run into Constitutional issues, they let 18000 marriages stand but deny the same equality to others. The right says they support equal rights, as long as they are separate....now where have we heard that before?
A local woman wrote a letter to the Chambersburg newspaper in which, intermingled with a lot of psuedo-Christian references, she made the statement that "gays" had no right to the word "marriage" as "everyone" knows that "marriage" is a Christian word....do you laugh or cry?

I disagree with Obama on this issue...yes, I feel that a stand against "gay marriage" is against civil rights...equality can never be obtained by separation.

Cry because about 54% of the country feels EXACTLY the same way. Its all about the Bible. And its very ridiculous.

They have everything backwards... supposedly banning gay marriage is the MORALLY RIGHT thing to do!?!?? When actually denying Americans from having the same rights as everyone else is the MORALLY WRONG thing to do.

This is not politically correct enough in my book. They need to find a lesbian african-american with HPV and a bum leg.

Yes

i know there are steps in place, and it should take years. Interesting, and sad, that the equal rights amendment can't bet ratified, but cali found it so easy to amen their state constitution. glad i don't live there.

as for christian words...i guess stoning is one as well...at any rate, i wonder what the original christian would have to say to his 'followers' about this?

A clerk said that... another Judge's clerk... good source.

Her academic record says the exactly the opposite.
As does her work as a circuit judge. She
has very well written opinions that are well thought
out. And she is clearly liberal. The real sticking point.

She does like to argue. But it is much more constructive
and much less bullying than Scalia. And I am sorry, if Clarence
Thomas gets in with extremely modest credentials, this lady is
a lock if it is a question of brains.

The Republicans are going to have to find a pubic hair
on a glass to get this blocked. They need dirt. They
will have to fillibuster. The Democrats would be wise to let
them. Since Obama has been elected it is a party with no ideas
and nothing but destructive intentions. That status will continue.

The Republicans should be touting that the surge in Iraq did
do its job, when Democrats said it would fail. The Republicans
should say their strategy to get the local Iraqis to handle the
problems have worked. Where are the positives?

Lead in with good ideas on domestic issues or get out of the way.

LOL ..What was it that he said (that made her lose it for real?) I can't understand what he said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPiwC...eature=related

That judge is quite attractive imo.

This can be turned around at the ballot box in California (if it's an off year election.) Problem with that is it can be reversed at the ballot box by the Conservatives(in a heavy Presidential election.) It's a form of discrimination(based on the sex of the two people involved.) It's an interesting situation here, because Democratic Blacks and Latinos usually vote against gays. The Gays pick up some support from the money Conservatives(dat be you, Honu.)

Well......it's not like we didn't know he would pick a liberal judge!....I've seen some plusses and minuses to her being on the Court, if her history is any indication. Too early to tell now,though.

Maybe but if the Mormons flood the anti-gay marriage pool with their money again its going to be a long haul.

I couldn't put my hand on why I liked this Obama appointee so much considering how I feel about most all things Obama but then it came to me. This woman is the spitting image of my grade school lunch lady who used to slip us extra cookies.

i'm disheartened by the reasonable tone and rational discourse so far voiced by elected republicans.

i think senators cornyn, sessions and hatch could do a lot more for democrats if they joined the unholy trinity of limbaugh, gingrich, and coulter in continuing the hysterical tone.

and i mean hysterical in both senses of the word.

it's a little difficult for us to keep tying those millstones around their necks when they don't cooperate by agreeing.

i miss mike steele kissing rush's ass.

So what do you think about her quote, " 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."

Do you agree with that? Would it be ok if a white male said the same thing? If a white male said this, his nomination would be dead in the water. For the record, I think it would be worse if a white male said it, but I still think for her to say it is totally inapporopriate.

i would say "good luck". i'd offer my fervent blessing that this be the line of attack taken.

i'd say that the old white male party wanting to place the focus on the huge national problem of reverse discrimination in a debate about a hispanic woman going into an institution that has a 200 year history which includes 2 women and no hispanics would be awesome.

i'd thank you for express mailing the hispanic vote to us for the next decade. motivate your shrinking base. we'll gladly take the inevitable fallout.

For the record, I'm no big time Republican. I pretty much always considered them the lesser of two evils. But as bad of a job as they did the past 8 years, I think it's becoming a close call regarding which party is the lesser of the two evils.

But with regard to this woman, I think her comments are offensive to more people than you think. Even my liberal friends found her comments offensive.

In my opinon judges who are the on supreme court should not rule with empathy but with decisions in accordance to our laws stated in the bill of rights and constitution. Someone's age , sex, national heritage , sexual orientation or status should have nothing to do with their decisions.
I will admit I do not know alot about this nominee and I need to do more research , but from the limited information that I have read she does not seem like the best choice. Any comment denoting race at any time by someone who is going to be making decisions as important as what the supreme justices make is cause for alarm. In my opinon , they should be unbiased and judge by the law of the land as stated in the bill of rights and constitution.

her decision's have been precisely in line with her extreme agenda of promoting puertoricafeminazism which is why people like me are so worried about moderate even keeled radio hosts pointing out her radicalism.

Like I said I need to do more research on her rulings and statements , I will research and report back lol.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31011651/


“The American ideal is that justice should be colorblind,” said Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “As we see people like Barack Obama achieve the highest office in the land and Judge Sotomayor’s own nomination to the highest court, I think it is harder and harder to see the justifications for race-conscious decisions across the board.”



~i find it interesting that she may get shot down due to her feelings on race-and may well have been nominated due to her race in an effort by obama to provide diversity. an interesting conundrum.

i read an article that there is some discussion over whether she would in fact be the first hispanic judge. according to the article, some believe justice cardozo should be considered hispanic, while others say he should not be...

but of course she would most certainly be the first female of hispanic descent-if she passes the process.

She is a hispanic DEMOCRAT and that is why she is getting a pass on her obvious racist comment. If she had been a Republican nominee all you have to do is remember what Kennedy and Co. did to Alitto and tried to do to Clarence Thomas. Besides I'm starting to catch on to this Obama thing.

President Barack Obama on Friday personally sought to deflect criticism of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who finds herself under intensifying scrutiny for saying in 2001 that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge. "I'm sure she would have restated it," Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that.

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


It's all based on hope not substance, fact or truth. Delusional to the core!

I think it's a poor choice. The following statement is unacceptable.

" 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."


I don't care about the legislating from the bench comment. I'm with Zig on that (Majority rule only insures that a backwards society will stay backwards.) You think the majority of people voting in the South wanted to get rid of segregation? No. In California, majority rules has allowed discrimination(based on sex) to remain intact. Her statement above(if she made it) makes her totally unfit to sit on the Supreme Court. OBA should find one that hasn't made an openly racist statement.

i read some more on her in the paper yesterday. the point was well-made in it that the justices are to be blind to all except what is contained in the constitution when they make their rulings. that is exactly right!! if she doesn't think that way, she should not be confirmed. hell, she shouldn't have been nominated if that is the case. and from what i've read thus far, it is the case.

I don't find it even remotely as troubling once the scare quotes are removed and the entire speech is read.

I do get that it's certainly asking a lot from some people to dig into things and find out what they're really about when there's such a ripe soundbite out there for the taking....but if you're interested -- it's here.

It has much more to do with being the kind of judge who will always strive for impartiality (and there is no evidence at ALL that she has failed in this regard. If this is really some sort of festering problem, there should be ample case evidence from her to prove it, right? No.....oh wait.), while refusing to deny where she came from and being honest and acknowledging that no judge will ever be 100% free from doing so.

Total something out of nothing, or at the very least something out of next to nothing...but this whole thing has to do with Obama, so color me less than surprised.

The hilarious thing is that I hope they torpedo her, because she's not even that liberal, from everything I've gathered in researching her. He could have gone far more liberal, and if this nomination fails, outside of the obvious benefit of solidifying a Republican minority even more, it will give him an opportunity to go even more liberal. I wouldn't mind.

Gunna be an uphill climb for her. See, if you combine the racist comment with the legislating from the bench comment, then you've got (what I feel will be) quite a substantial problem. There's a good chance that you're gunna be against her for one of those two comments. Since they let Uncle Tom on there, I guess she has a chance to talk her way out of it in the hearings. OBA should have saved the bullets for healthcare. She's not worth what it's going to cost.

Anybody he would have nominated would have come under fire for one reason or another. There is nobody he could have picked that wouldn't have been attacked by Republicans all over.

She'll get her grilling, of course, and she'll wind up on the court just fine. I think it's funny so far that everyone has these two comments that they're so worried about, but up to this point, zero actual decisions from the bench that indicate that either of the comments is actually a problem.

So until someone is able to put together a substantive argument against her based on her extensive judicial history, it's all a bunch of throwing **** at the wall hoping something sticks, which is basically all that's been happening since January...and none of it has worked....and it's not going to start working now.

LOLZ to all of it.

EDIT: Really though, barring some REAL bombshell that actually matters, the only way she doesn't get confirmed is if in the course of the hearings, she shows her hand...and it's an anti-choice one from a Roe v. Wade perspective, and that's an issue that isn't totally clear from her past either. That's the only way the current makeup won't confirm her.

Well, most on here would say I am a Liberal, or a Socialist. I supported OBA all the way, and the racist comment is enough for me to say she is not an appropriate person to be making decisions of this kind.


BTW, is there any part of a pig that this woman doesn't like to eat?

But do you have anything outside of a comment, taken out of its proper context, that makes you think she's a racist, or are you just taking the wingnut bait?

Give me a decision. A comment in a decision. Anything from a decision anywhere -- and she has PLENTY of them -- that even comes close to making it seem like this comment actually plays out in her judicial philosophy in the activist way the wingnuts want you to think it will.

Methinks you will find nothing...which is why the scare quote is all anyone's got, because you better believe that if there was even anything CLOSE in one of her decisions, they'd be using that instead of this pathetic attempt at playing the racist/fear of the brown lady card. Since they don't have anything, they go back to their usual -- pulling things totally out of context to scare people...and you're falling for it.

Speaking of meat -- give me something meaty if you're going to go along with those opposing her. Out of context scare quote doesn't cut it...look how well that worked out in the last election.

Brian, How is the quote taken out of context? Does the quote have different meaning if you read her whole speech? I don't think so. If a white, Republican male made the same comments, would you be saying that it's a non-issue and simply scare tactics?

I think you are totally wrong in your assessment of this whole thing. As I said earlier, there are plenty of people that are fairly liberal such as Scuds who are troubled by the comments. I think it's insulting for you to say that anyone who disagrees with you on the issue must simply be falling for scare tactics. I think it's totally the opposite. Her comments are not taken out of context. I think people totally understand her comments and are offended by them. Did you consider the possibility that you may be biased on the subject and that you would find the comments offensive if she was a white, republican male?

I do think you are correct that her judicial record is more impotant than some quotes she has made. But I think her quotes are certainly something that people will and should consider just as they would if she was a white, republican male.