Sotomayor's Defense on 'Wise Latina' Comment Takes Shape

WALL STREET JOURNAL ^ | 7/11/09 | NAFTALI BENDAVID w/ Jess Bravin

[Liz]

When Sotomayor faces the Senate Judiciary Committee next week, she will get to explain her "wise Latina" comment...and hasn't been able to address publicly. However, she did discuss it when she made the rounds of senators......she told Sen Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) '[Latina identity] is something that informs my experience, but I'm always going to look to judicial precedent, I'm always going to follow the rule of law.'"

Sotomayor told Republicans her wording was "inadvertent" and "inartful," but they will press her hard at the hearing for a persuasive disavowal. "I do think that based on her speeches and writings, that it will be essential that she convincingly assert that she will be impartial," said Sen Jeff Sessions (R-Ala) Judiciary's top Republican.

Sotomayor made the now-famous comment at the U of California, Berkeley...she noted that even Oliver Wendell Holmes voted to uphold racial and sex discrimination. The White House initially had spokesman Robert Gibbs say, "She'd say her word choice in 2001 was poor." But it soon emerged that Sotomayor had used similar language on several other occasions......several sentences later in the same speech, she observed that many white men had issued great opinions... and that her 17-year judicial record, including hundreds of rulings, shows no evidence of unfairness or tilting the scales in favor of minority groups, whatever she may have said in speeches.

[Liz]

.........she is likely to say that her judicial record shows no hint of bias or activism and no evidence of unfairness or tilting the scales in favor of minority groups...........

That's a laugh. She could not be more biased when it comes to judging her own. Read on.

By Ann Coulter
HUMAN EVENTS---Vol. 53 Issue 39, p 11,
17 OCTOBER 1997
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR REJECTING JUDGE SOTOMAYOR (Sotomayor was then on the Clinton's fast track to the Supreme Court)

SOTOMAYOR'S ACTUAL WORDS FROM THE BENCH, SENTENCING ADMITTED DRUG DEALER Louis Gomez (a noncitizen), who pleaded guilty to dealing cocaine:

“[I]t is in some respects a great tragedy for our country that instead of permitting you to serve a lesser sentence and rejoin your family at an earlier time I am required by law to give you the statutory minimum. ... [W]e all understand that you were in part a victim of the economic necessities of our society, unfortunately there are laws that I must impose. “Louis Gomez, yours is the tragedy of our laws and the greatest one that I know. ... the one our congressmen never thought about and don’t think about. ... “It is no comfort to you for me to say that I am deeply, personally sorry about the sentence that I must impose, because the law requires me to do so. The only statement I can make is this is one more example of an abomination being committed before our sight. You do not deserve this, sir.”

====================================================

Nelson Castellanos was arrested in NYC outside his Harlem apartment, charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. He was holding his keys and a white shopping bag containing about $10,000, mostly in $1 and $20 bills. That evening, pursuant to a warrant, DEA personnel searched his apartment and found over 1,200 grams of cocaine, six live rounds of ammunition, a .44 caliber revolver and incriminating notebooks. All this evidence was thrown out by District Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the grounds that the DEA agents had not provided the magistrate with probable cause to search Castellanos's apartment.

[RED SOUTH]

she represents everything wrong with liberalism and america ....

[Cheetahcat]

Her idea of wise and reality have a gap the size of the Grand Canyon between them.

[taillightchaser]

Does anyone know who will broadcast this dog and pony show??

[Venturer]

She sounds like Obama’s promises before he got elected.

We can probably place as much faith in them also.

[Liz]

Sotomayor served on the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund's board of directors from 1980-1992.

That alone should disqualify her.

The organization publicly defended members of a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group---the FALN.

QUESTION Did Soto have anything to do with Pres Clinton pardoning jailed members of the FALN----violent Puerto Rican terrorists who bombed US installations? Pardoned----so that then-Senate candidate Hillary could harvest the NY latino vote.

Is that what the WH is trying to hide by refusing to handover Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund's official records?

===============================

ACT NOW Call 202-225-3121 (Congress switchboard). Every senator should get 10-15,000 calls from Americans. Even with Dems in control, that many calls could make a difference.

MESSAGE TO SENATORS: Americans are sending the word across the land: "Sotomayor's rulings shows she would make policy through the court. The US Constitution precludes judges from making policy and laws. It is understandable that Americans are apprehensive: Sotomayor and her crowd are colluding to exert raw power over the majority---to turn the US into a failed Third World satrap. These racialists do not understand a sophisticated superpower----a democracy governed by the rule of law, based on three co-equal branches of government." END MESSAGE Any Senator who votes to confirm Sotomayor risks his/her reelection chances.

===================================

REFERENCE Sotomayor's secret files: What don't the Democrats want us to see?
Washington Times | Friday, July 10, 2009 | Editorial
FR Posted by JohnRLott

We wonder what Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has to hide. Her confirmation hearing starts Monday, but the White House refuses to turn over boxes of documents for review about her past. Republican senators requested board meeting minutes of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, where Ms. Sotomayor served on the board of directors from 1980-1992.

White House Counsel Greg Craig contends that all documents deemed "responsive" already were sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Contrary to White House dodging, these board meetings may be important in evaluating Ms. Sotomayor's legal and policy reasoning because the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund was involved in a wide range of controversial legal cases.

For instance, the fund fought to abolish the death penalty. It pushed discrimination cases very similar to the New Haven firefighter case in which Ms. Sotomayor's quota reasoning was unanimously quashed by the Supreme Court. The organization publicly defended members of a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group (the FALN, pardoned by Clinton to get then-candidate Hillary NY's latino vote)........ . . . . (Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

[Liz]

One of the C-Span stations usually broadcasts hearings.

[IM2MAD]

IMHO, she’s:
1. Obsessed with her Latin heritage and thusly has biases.
2. She’s associated with LaRaza, which wants to overtake several southwestern states and then remove all non latinos.
3. She’s a poor judge, having at least 6 of her cases overturned by a higher court.

[antidemoncrat]

All amoral liberal Democrats...if their mouth is moving, they are lying.

[Cheetahcat]

Sotomayor served on the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund’s board of directors from 1980-1992.
That alone should disqualify her.

The organization publicly defended members of a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group-—the FALN.

QUESTION Did Soto have anything to do with Pres Clinton pardoning jailed members of the FALN——violent Puerto Rican terrorists who bombed US installations? Pardoned——so that then-Senate candidate Hillary could harvest the NY latino vote.

Is that what the WH is trying to hide by refusing to handover Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund’s official records?

---

ACT NOW Call 202-225-3121 (Congress switchboard). Every senator should get 10-15,000 calls from Americans. Even with Dems in control, that many calls could make a difference.

MESSAGE TO SENATORS: Americans are sending the word across the land: “Sotomayor’s rulings shows she would make policy through the court. The US Constitution precludes judges from making policy and laws. It is understandable that Americans are apprehensive: Sotomayor and her crowd are colluding to exert raw power over the majority-—to turn the US into a failed Third World satrap. These racialists do not understand a sophisticated superpower——a democracy governed by the rule of law, based on three co-equal branches of government.” END MESSAGE Any Senator who votes to confirm Sotomayor risks his/her reelection chances.

---

REFERENCE Sotomayor’s secret files: What don’t the Democrats want us to see?
Washington Times | Friday, July 10, 2009 | Editorial
FR Posted by JohnRLott

We wonder what Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has to hide. Her confirmation hearing starts Monday, but the White House refuses to turn over boxes of documents for review about her past. Republican senators requested board meeting minutes of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, where Ms. Sotomayor served on the board of directors from 1980-1992.

White House Counsel Greg Craig contends that all documents deemed “responsive” already were sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Contrary to White House dodging, these board meetings may be important in evaluating Ms. Sotomayor’s legal and policy reasoning because the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund was involved in a wide range of controversial legal cases.

For instance, the fund fought to abolish the death penalty. It pushed discrimination cases very similar to the New Haven firefighter case in which Ms. Sotomayor’s quota reasoning was unanimously quashed by the Supreme Court. The organization publicly defended members of a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group (the FALN, pardoned by Clinton to get then-candidate Hillary NY’s latino vote)........ . . . . (Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Thanks for the Info.

[rawcatslyentist]

Thank You Satan

Rev13:3

[Brilliant]

I would not call her a “wise Latina” in any event.

[Grampa Dave]

There is a Yahoo Poll still running re the La Raza Racist Female wanting to be a Supreme:

http://js.polls.yahoo.com/quiz/quiziframe.php?poll_id=46856

Do you want Sotomayor to be confirmed? Results
Q. In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released just before the start of the Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation hearings, 47 percent of people questioned would like to see the Senate vote in favor, with 40 percent opposed and 13 percent unsure.

Where do you stand? Do you want Sotomayor to be confirmed?

Yes. Sotomayor would be a strong addition to the court. 28%

No. Sotomayor would be a detrimental addition to the court. 70%

Not sure/No opinion. 2%

85708 votes

Please to the Yahoo Link below to vote:

http://js.polls.yahoo.com/quiz/quiziframe.php?poll_id=46856

[roald]

Experience has taught me to fact check anything an extremist (left or right) commentator has to say so I did. Ann's facts are basically correct, but the context is misleading.

In the case of Louis Gomez, Sotomayor sentenced in line with the sentencing guidelines of the time. Many people felt the sentencing guidelines in place in 1993 for drug violations were draconian. Congress agreed and created safety valve guidelines in 1994 for non-violent, first time offenders such as Gomez.

I would like to ask your readers whether they would support a Muslim judge who sentenced a person to public flogging for possessing alcohol as being tough on crime.

In the case of Nelson Castellanos, the detective was unable to get a warrant from the magistrate until it was amended. During the appeal, it was revealed that the detective lied in the amended warrant application. When the evidence that was obtained based on this lie was thrown out, the state, for some reason was unable to get a conviction on the evidence they already had (having a lot of money in a shopping bag).

We hold our law enforcement officers to a high standard, probably and unfortunately higher than our elected officials. We were ready to impeach Clinton for lying under oath for a far more trivial offense than dealing drugs. Why should we let our police off the hook?

Let me ask your readers if they are open to having their homes searched by the police based on lies? Guilty or not, their privacy is invaded, they have a mess to clean up, and their neighbors and the police will be convinced they have something to hide.

[STARWISE]

~~PING to #1

Just take a moment and consider this
criminal hearing and really absorb
the wild radicalism and sickening
victimology in her words and the
totally leftist attitude of Sotomayor,
who’s totally unfit for SCOTUS.

“W]e all understand that you were in part a victim of the economic necessities of our society, unfortunately there are laws that I must impose. “Louis Gomez, yours is the tragedy of our laws and the greatest one that I know.”

!!!!!

AND CALL YOUR SENATORS AND CONGRESSCRITTERS!

~~~~

Thanks for that, Liz.

Why haven’t I seen Ann Coulter pounding
on this ?

[Blu By U]

“She’d say her word choice in 2001 was poor.”
“inadvertent”
“inartful”

Chavez exposed that she had made the same racist sexist statment not just once, but Several times over a period of years. Why didn’t the senators expose that?