Sotomayor says she has ‘never thought about’ rights of unborn, senator reports

cna ^ | June 13, 2009

[NYer]

Judge Sonia Sotomayor / Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)

Washington D.C., Jun 13, 2009 / 07:22 am (CNA).- Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s views on abortion law and the unborn were topics in several of her meetings with U.S. Senators. One pro-life senator reports that Sotomayor told him she had never thought about the rights of the unborn, while a pro-abortion senator says that she clearly acknowledged to him “the importance of precedent.”

On Tuesday Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) discussed his meeting with Sotomayor.
“We had a good meeting that covered a wide array of issues and Judge Sotomayor was very personable and engaging. However, I didn’t hear anything today that eased my concerns,” he said.

“When I asked if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it,” Sen. DeMint reported. “This is not just a question about abortion, but about the respect due to human life at all stages, and I hope this is cleared up in her hearings.”

“Those who serve on the highest court in America must have an unwavering commitment to the Constitution and equal justice for all Americans,” he said.

Sen. DeMint also expressed concern about her views on the Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms.

On June 2, Sotomayor had a meeting with Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who supports legalized abortion. After the meeting, Sen. Feinstein said she felt comfortable that Sotomayor supports the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade as a precedent.

The nominee also met with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) on June 3. A supporter of abortion, Wyden told reporters he was “very pleased” that Judge Sotomayor has indicated in the past that she possesses “a great respect for precedent,” Politico says.

He reportedly said he asked specifically about abortion and Roe v. Wade, after which “she acknowledged the importance of precedent… She made that very clear.”

[driftdiver]

If true then she’s too stupid to be confirmed. If she’s n ot telling the truth (is there any doubt really?) then she not worthy.

[muawiyah]

Telling point ~ precedent is of absolutely no concern to the SUPREME court ~ except with respect to how the LOWER courts rule.

Understanding that Sotomayor's statement really means "As a Supreme Court judge I expect my precedental rulings to dominate the entirity of the judiciary in all matters".

So this person who expects to have power equal to her ambitions has also not given any thought at all to the rights of the unborn ~ or probably anybody else in one of the groups she despises, e.g. WHITE MALES.

The woman is a racist and a fascist and not fit to sit on any bench. Who the hell let her in the door?!

[theBuckwheat]

Recall that Roe v. Wade (1973) and Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) have one thing in common: the Court determined in the former that abortion was permitted because the fetus was not a person and in the latter, the Court held that an escaped negro slave was not a person.

[Repeal The 17th]

“Liar or complete moron.”
-
Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
(One could, in fact, be both.)

[MarkL]

Why would she? The possibility of the unborn having rights would mean that there's the possibility that the unborn IS a person... And if that's the case, then there's no way to avoid the conclusion that aborting a fetus (outside the very real threat to the mother's life) would have to be murder.

Since that is secondary to a pro-abortionist's philosophy of "choice," I see no reason that she would have given it any thought, any more than a slave owner might think that slavery is a horrible, evil thing.

Mark

[NautiNurse]

When I asked if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it

Willing suspension of disbelief.

[bolobaby]

Good Lord - just find one interview, speech, article, or opinion she has written on the subject and out this beyotch as a LIAR.

[takenoprisoner]

Her false response was simply her smug way of informing DeMint how irrevelent he is to her appointment. Her proceedural obligation was complete once she met with him. From that point, any insight she might determine to offer him would be merely gratuitous.

[Gritty]

This isn't a surprise.

Sotomayer probably hasn't ever thought about the Constitution, either.

[dennisw]

Sotomayer probably hasn't ever thought about the Constitution, either.

I promise you she has thought about the Constitution when she was in the bathroom using it as toilet paper
"Wise Latina" is her name
Identity politics is her game

The Constitution is not applicable today, was written by some dead white slave-holders as far as Sotomayor is concerned

[m4629]

She should look at her old First Communion photo dressed in white with cheerful joy, and reflect on how much she has betrayed the Lord and the Faith.

[Victoria Delsoul]

“When I asked if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it,” Sen. DeMint reported. “This is not just a question about abortion, but about the respect due to human life at all stages, and I hope this is cleared up in her hearings.”

Gosh, Senator DeMint, did you expect Obama to nominate a pro-life justice to the Supreme Court? Obama is just appointing someone who reflects his values and legal world view, and we know where Obama stands on abortion.  He wouldn't have it any other way.