Posted on 05/27/2009 8:22:45 AM PDT by Liberty Valance
When Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his retirement earlier this year, Federal Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor quickly became the frontrunner for the post. She possessed all the qualities necessary to make her a prime choice for President Obama. She’s Hispanic, a woman and, judging from the limited amount of her work on the federal bench, fairly liberal.
With a large Democratic majority in the Senate and with most Republicans leery of aggressively contesting her nomination for political reasons, it appears Sotomayor could breeze though Senate hearings on the way to a speedy confirmation. Senate Democrats soon may hold a filibuster-proof majority when the outcome of the Minnesota race is finalized. Since Sotomayor’s confirmation would not alter the basic make-up of the court, don’t expect Senate Republicans to play all their cards battling this process.
Those who have the fortitude to question her despite her race, sex and personal story could do Americans a great service to ask her to explain some past actions and comments. During a 1997 Senate hearing regarding her confirmation to the appeals court, Sotomayor stated, “I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. We should honor it.” Yet, in a recent case, Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor basically ruled the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to states. Her ruling is contrary to a recent U.S. Ninth Court of Appeals ruling and counter to the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller v. D.C.
More troubling were her comments made at a forum at Duke University in 2005 when she said the court of appeals is where policy is made. Perhaps she should re-read the Constitution before bending it.
President Obama spoke of Sotomayor’s success of rising out of a New York City project to become a federal judge and praised her for possessing the intellect and compassion to interpret the Constitution wisely. That’s all we can ask for in a judge, what we should expect and demand; that’s all we hope we get if Sotomayor is confirmed.
and Bill Clinton is fairly a womanizer.
One would think that her racism shouldn’t even have seen her nominated in the first place. But these are democrats.
If the Republicans can’t take down this cretinous racist then America, in practice, is dead. If they don’t even try then they should all go to hell.
Yes, the woman is a left-wing radical, but still a rather tasteless, and quite possibly racist remark.
Also rather pointless, as many "Republicans," voted for her for the federal bench, and fairly recently. Given the numbers Obama I has at his disposal, this is your next Supreme Court Justice. Deal wit it.
You will hear lots of "harrumphing" noises from your friendly RINO's about "legislating from the bench, yadda yadda yadda" but she'll appease them and get most of their votes.
Yet another reason why more "conservatives" should have held their noses and voted for McLame, although frankly, I probably wouldn't have like his picks all that much, either.
"quite possibly racist"
Well even thinking it could be racist would make it racist right?
At first, I was going to say, "maybe she should be a giving drivers license exams at the DMV", but that would burden all of us. Then I thought, "maybe she should be some admissions director at a local community college", but that too would burden us.
Cleaning homes is what she could do and not have a harmful effect on the city, state, or nation she lives in.
Political Correctness has infected most of us here, but not me thankfully. Political Correctness is this nations version of Stalinism.
I hope that her tax filing records are also examined.
It would be ironic if we focused “only” on her previous judgements and forgot to look at the most obvious and common failing of obama’s nominees - paying their taxes!
Great point Guna!
Otherwise, nobody would have seen my "quite possibly racist" comment.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 19, 2005
Sen. Schumer On Bush Nomination Of Roberts To Supreme Court
Hearing Process More Important than Ever Because Nominee’s Views Are Largely Undefined and Seat Held by O’Connor Was a Swing Vote on So Many Issues
Today U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Courts, released the following statement on President Bush’s nomination of DC Circuit Court Judge John G. Roberts, Jr.:
“There is no question that Judge Roberts has outstanding legal credentials and an appropriate legal temperament and demeanor, but his actual judicial record is limited to only two years on the D.C. Circuit Court. For the rest of his career, he has been arguing cases as an able lawyer for others, leaving many of his personal views unknown.
“For these reasons, it is vital that Judge Roberts answer a wide range of questions openly, honestly, and fully in the coming months. His views will affect a generation of Americans and it is his obligation during the nomination process to let the American people know those views.
“The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove he is unworthy.
“I voted against Judge Roberts for the DC Court because he didn’t answer questions fully and openly when he appeared before the committee. For instance, when I asked him a question that others have answered – to identify three Supreme Court cases of which he was critical, he refused.
“But now it is a whole new ballgame – for those of us who voted against him, for those who voted for him, and for Judge Roberts.
“I hope Judge Roberts, understanding how important this nomination is, particularly when replacing a swing vote, will decide to answer questions about his views. Now that he is nominated for a position where he can overturn precedent and make law, it is even more important that he fully answers a very broad range of questions. I hope for the sake of the country that Judge Roberts understands this and answers questions openly, honestly, and thoroughly.”
LOL! - She should at least be put under the same microscope that Roberts and Alito were scrutinized with. If that puts her ‘under’... so be it. ;o)
... with most Republicans leery of aggressively contesting her nomination for political reasons, .... Sotomayor’s confirmation would not alter the basic make-up of the court, don’t expect Senate Republicans to play all their cards battling this process.What a bunch of .. carp.
Everyone remember the Gang of 14 and the agreements made as to dropping filibusters against certain picks - like Janice Rogers Brown. Weeeell the ever conciliatory RATS, like DICK Durban and Chuck the Schmuck attacked her on the senate floor like she was a hand-maiden of Satan. They called her everything but a white person.
So the RATS can attack an extremely qualified conservative BLACK FEMALE, but a dim witted left wing Hispanic Woman is off limits for Republicans? Nah, I don't think so.
this is why I'm not in politics. most of my time would be spent in jail for assault and battery of democrats :-)
But ya had me on '1995', it was 2005
No offense :-)
“If the Republicans can’t take down this cretinous racist then America, in practice, is dead.”
The Republicans dont even have the numbers for a filibuster, let alone enough to vote her down. The best they can do is dissent while she is confirmed.
If none of the 60 Senate Democrats stands up and say she is not qualified then it’s over.
“Yet another reason why more “conservatives” should have held their noses and voted for McLame, although frankly, I probably wouldn’t have like his picks all that much, either. “
This woman is to the Constitution what Kryponite was to Superman.
But you know the rel problem? Obama UP FRONT told he wanted judges with ‘empathy’ which is utter bullpukey. The law is the law, and if ‘law+empathy’ gives you a different decision from just a judge who goes by the law, then you have subtracted from the law, not added to it. That is the essense of judicial activism, using personal and policy preferences to dictate decisions.
We will get more dreadful, awful picks like this, and it wont matter if its this woman or a white male like Lawrence Tribe; Obama’s picks will be bad because Obama wants the judges with the worst inclinations and predispositions towards the law and Constitution.
Seriously, if I were Mexican, I'd be worried about this bigotress on the bench. No love lost between Mexicans and Puerto Ricans!
Oye Chicano, you gonna fry for this!
With any luck, Obama himself will put her under a bus. Just as soon as she becomes a liability. Which I think she will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.