Obama picks Sonia Sotomayor for SCOTUS

Wikipedia Biography
Princeton. Yale. DA office in NY.
Lecturer at Columbia Law. Board of Trustees at Princeton.

Good resume. But she's a racist. Perhaps even a sexist.
Personal feelings are NOT supposed to enter into judicial decisions.
Yet she proudly professes this is an asset and not a liability.
(wonder if she'd say that if the SCOTUS candidate leaned towards conservative feelings?)
Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. Remember the blindfold?

Michelle Malkin

-Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”

Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech “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.” She reiterated her commitment to that lawless judicial philosophy at Duke Law School in 2005 when she stated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”

From one of her cases - Wiki

While on the Circuit Court, Sotomayor's most high profile case involved her voting that the civil right act of 1964 does hold that the city of New Haven may disregard the scores on a promotional test for firefighters because none of the highest scorers on the test were minorities. [38]

So much for a blindfolded Lady Justice.
White men don't know Constitutional Law as well as a Latina woman?
Poppycock.

edited immediately to fix ex


[edit on 5/26/2009 by FlyersFan]

Life experiences have nothing to do with being a judge.

The law is the law no matter your background, ethnicity, sex, religion, etc.

Thanks again Obama.

reply to post by xxpigxx


Exactly. It isn't supposed to matter what color you are, what your gender is, or what you feel. It's supposed to be about the Constitution and upholding the law.

Like I said .. I wonder if she'd like it if a CONSERVATIVE person was on the bench and decided cases based upon his/her CONSERVATIVE views.

Excellent subject and post. S & F.

Thanks for bringing these issues to all of our attentions.

As you have said, Bush would never have been able to even nominate someone as radically conservative as this one is radically liberal.

Here's some more change that we can believe in. I hope my fellow Americans are happy with the clown that they voted into office who does nothing but make a mockery of our entire system.

Who the beep is he to appoint someone who will issue rulings based on her personal beliefs rather then what the law says? This is the whole problem with these liberal activist judges who totally ignore the law and instead rule based on their personal opinions.

At the Supreme court level sometimes there isn't a precedent case to fall back on, meaning personal experience DOES make a difference. I personally don't want all my court justices to be white males (I'm a white male myself, by the way).

I searched out a thread on Sotomayor on ATS trying to find more real statistics and examples of who she is. All I've heard so far is from an NPR speech of the nomination.

Hopefully more will be added to this thread that is legitimate, empirical data rather than what is above. (I'll get onto research now!)

As we know, please read info on Wikipedia with an open mind and ALWAYS check the references, but nonetheless, here's a link that seems to have reasonably complete, non-biased background info on her:
en.wikipedia.org...

Reaction to Obama's Supreme Court pick Sotomayor
dailyme.com...

I haven't been able to find any references to her being part of the "Agenda" crowd. Not CFR, trilateral or Bilderberg from www.mega.nu:8080...

She won the Pyne Prize while a senior at Princeton, and other than the fact that Pyne was tied to banking and the creation of the Federal Reserve, I'm not finding being a recipient of the Pyne Prize a direct indicator of anything (compared to the Rhodes Scholarship, etc)

Edited to add links and further research


[edit on 26-5-2009 by notreallyalive]

Abortion

In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush,[43] Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the "Mexico City Policy" which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as the government "is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds".

[en.wikipedia.org...]

43 - Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002)

[edit on 26-5-2009 by notreallyalive]

I heard no mention of her defending or upholding the constitution in her nomination speech today May 26, 2009. The only thing I heard that was close was she admires the principals of our founders (not exact words). Can someone else post her speech?


Thanks You for posting her speech. I have edited to reflect my understanding of her words.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by alttracks]

Here's her speech:

www.nydailynews.com...

There is a reason why lady justice is blindfolded.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dfa9f97362c0.jpg[/atsimg]

The law is supposed to be blind to your race/color, religion and other beliefs. The law should be applied equally to all.

Below are a few of her outrageous statements:

Sotomayor: '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'.

Sotomayor on the court: 'Where policy is made'.

Sotomayor =

[edit on 5/26/2009 by WhatTheory]

reply to post by notreallyalive


Uhh . . . the precident is the Constitution. Her life experiences should not be used to judge others. The Constitution should be used.



[edit on 26/5/2009 by xxpigxx]

Originally posted by xxpigxx
Uhh . . . the precident is the Constitution. Her life experiences should not be used to judge others. The Constitution should be used.

You are so correct!

Doesn't this nominee disprove Obama's theory about how bad America is?
I mean if America is so bad then how did she become the nominee when she was poor and had nothing? Answer: She recieved her education and made something of herself during the Reagan years. The government did not give it to her. The same could be said about Obama for that matter.

Why do these liberals want to change a good thing?

reply to post by xxpigxx


so, in your opinion, what did the Constitution say about abortion before 1974?

The answer is it DIDN'T! Roe v Wade was a precedent setting case, fought over by how people interpret, with their personal experience, the factors of abortion. The constitution does not answer everything.

Another outrageous example of someone who has no intention of upholding the Constitution.

Is anyone really surprised?

Originally posted by notreallyalive
The answer is it DIDN'T! Roe v Wade was a precedent setting case, fought over by how people interpret, with their personal experience, the factors of abortion. The constitution does not answer everything.

Unless the Constitution accepts murder as legal, then I guess it does cover it.

Originally posted by loam

Another outrageous example of someone who has no intention of upholding the Constitution.

Is anyone really surprised?

Wow, after that statement, she should be barred from being a judge for the rest of her life. She is nothing but a liberal political HACK!


[edit on 5/26/2009 by WhatTheory]

reply to post by notreallyalive


At this juncture, I would say that it is up to the state, since it is not spelled out in the constitution.

If one were to be able to use the Decleration of Independance, though . . . which the courts do, and it is not even close to personal experience . . .

--We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

Once a human is concieved (created) they are endowed with the right of life.



BUT, based on the Constitution, I would leave it up to the states.

She won't be sworn in to the Supreme Court. She couldn't deal with tough issues in her own court. No way they let her in. Unless of course its because she is female and Latino.


Anybody hear about her case where white firefighters in her jurisdiction filed a reverse racism complaint? They scored extremly high on their tests, but were denied promotions because they were given to minorities who scored lower.

She gave an unsigned, one paragraph statement to dismiss the case. It was so ludicrous that she got called out by a fellow judge, who claimed that she is trying her best to bury the case, she failed and it made its way to the US Supreme Court and they are going to rule on it in a couple of days.


This case that she would not hear in her court was heard by the same court that she wants to be a part of.

How is it even possible for a person to nominate her for this posistion?

Originally posted by notreallyalive
I personally don't want all my court justices to be white males (I'm a white male myself, by the way).

I want people who will uphold the CONSTITUTION .. I don't care what color or gender they are. From this womans statements, it is clear that the Constitution isn't foremost in her mind.

She should have a blindfold on like Lady Justice .. but instead she's coming across anti-white-male. And how exactly she's going to be able to be 'just' when she's that biased??? Who knows!

Originally posted by jd140
She won't be sworn in to the Supreme Court.

Betchya she gets in.

Obama wants SCOTUS with 'empathy'

What Obama wants

I think it's also important that this is somebody who has common sense and somebody who has a sense of how American society works and how the American people live.

And then he says this -

But you have to be able to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living.

What the hell does that empathy have to do with the CONSTITUTION?
Not a damn thing.

Blog on this issue

When a person suggests that white men are less qualified for a job than Latina women, we call that racism and sexism. Apparently Sotomayor – and President Obama – call that “empathy.”

NY TIMES

Obama said, “I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives.” That kind of judge, Obama explained, will have empathy: “I view the quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

Pay close attention here. According to Obama -
EMPATHY = JUST DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES


Lord help us! NO! NO! NO!
NO! The US Constitution = Just decisions and outcomes.

I've got a question.

How many actually uphold the Constitution in todays world?

Yeah...it might take you awhile....supreme court judge or not.

But I do agree.....Constitution should be upholded ALWAYS.

A judge abides by the Constitution...a judge should not write laws....ever.

Don't know much about the woman...and frankly what's the damn difference....

No one else gives a flying F about the Constitution anyway so what's one more?

What is everyone worried about anyway?

The border?

LOL! The congress is full of white people and NOTHING...that's right...NOTHING has been done about it.

I don't even care anymore.

I'm so sick of the stupid bickering...no one follows the Constitution anymore anyway.

And i just wanted to add...for kickers...

If anyone deserves to sit on the Supreme Court...

It's the AMERICAN INDIAN,,,,but again...justice is blind and it shouldn't matter.

Seriously guys does it really matter anymore? We let them run amok anyway.

So what if we put in a GOP guy? So he can rail against gay rights and abortion?

I don't even care anymore...it's just a bunch of BS to take away from the fact that entire country is going to hell.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by David9176]