Obama picks Sonia Sotomayor for SCOTUS

reply to post by David9176


I hear ya' Daivd. I really do.
It's kinda like a run away train, isn't it?

Hey David - Side note - did ya' ever finish the book 'Atlas Shrugged'?
Interesting comparisons, eh?

Story Here

Some comments from people about a SCOTUS making rulings according to her feelings and empathy instead of the Constitution.

"Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly. But we will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law evenhandedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences." _ Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

"She must prove her commitment to impartially deciding cases based on the law, rather than based on her own personal politics, feelings and preferences." _ Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

"The Judiciary Committee should take time to ensure that the nominee will be true to the Constitution and apply the law, not personal politics, feelings or preferences." _ Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

And then there was this surprise -

"She has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed, indicating that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court." _ Wendy Long, counsel to the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network.

Sotomayor is a member of the American Bar Association,
the New York Women’s Bar Association,
the Puerto Rican Bar Association,
the Hispanic National Bar Association,
the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage
And I believe
the
National Council of La Raza.

www.abanet.org...

www.nclr.org...
“Today is a monumental day for Latinos. Finally, we see ourselves represented on the highest court in the land,” said Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO. “Judge Sotomayor’s story personifies the American Dream for so many Latinos in this country.”

So basically if I, as a white male, end up before the Supreme Court and the opposition happens to be a latino female......I'm screwed!

At least Obama called Roberts and Alito qualified BEFORE he voted AGAINST them. This lady is a racist of the highest level, and is no where near qualified. Any Repubican voting for this lady will have alot of explaining to do.

reply to post by RRconservative


Anyone voting for this lady better have some 'splainin' to do

From what I've seen and heard, she should be no where near a court room, let alone the Supreme Court.

But I have to say that I believe with all of my heart that this woman will be voted in. She'll be voted in because she is a Hispanic Female and the Democrats have the majority. Most of the Dems will probably vote for her blindly, while most of the Republicans will vote for her for fear that they will be accused a racist and sexist. I hate to say it, but I think it'll be that simple.

Hopefully I'm way off. But when half the country votes for Obama, I can't help but fell I'm not wrong.

reply to post by riddle6


Sadly, I agree

Can someone help me with a second line?

reply to post by FlyersFan


True Flyers, her comment regarding "white males" was not well said but there is a point to be made. Hispanics have been a major voting group, major tax payer faction within this nation for just as long as any other american, possible the longest established out of the american factions in general and not once have we seen an hispanic in the supreme court position. I think its high time we got a representitive that finally represents the population of america as a whole, and with that the woman is more than qualified as well, which marks out the most important part to this job.

If there is outrage of the "biasness to her pick due to ethnicity" in 81 Reagan nominated the first woman to the supreme court position, O'connor, and Bush snr nominated the first african american in 91'. The nomination process for the past few administrations have been politically and culturally bias, I think its commensense other that "outrage" to expect this.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Hispanics have been a major voting group, major tax payer faction within this nation

Sure hispanics vote and pay taxes.
What does that have to do with putting in a racist/sexist SCOTUS Judge?

If Obama wants to put someone on the bench based upon race, skin color, or gender instead of based upon their adherence to the US Constitution .. then he's making a major error.

There have to be other hispanic judges that have good resumes and who aren't sexist and racist. If not .. then it means that there shouldn't be a hispanic judge raised to the SCOTUS at this tme.

with that the woman is more than qualified as well,

I said in my opening post that her resume looks great.

"biasness to her pick due to ethnicity"

People aren't upset because an Hispanic was picked.
People are upset because SHE obviously is racist.
People are upset because Obama picked her because he wants 'EMPATHY'.

People are upset because a SCOTUS Judge is supposed to judge based on the US Constitution and NOT based upon their own feelings.

Would YOU want a SCOTUS to judge based upon his/her own CONSERVATIVE feelings? A SCOTUS that disregards the Constitution in favor of his/her own religious upbringing or his/her own biases?

The other judges you referenced didn't have any of these racist and sexist statements come out prior to confirmation. (If there are any ... I didn't see them). However, this woman has made plenty of sexist and racist statements that need to be addressed and which, IMHO, should disqualify her.

It's too bad. Her resume looks great. But her mouth is overflowing with what's really going on in her brain and heart. It isn't pretty and it definately doesn't focus on the Constitution.



[edit on 5/27/2009 by FlyersFan]

What benefit to hispanics, or to America, will come from this woman's appointment//

A boost in Hispanic pride// What else// nothing.

She is a horrible choice, Too bad she will be appointed. The biddies from Maine will insure it.

// is question mark. broken kybd.

As with every other morning "news" show the good folks over at Good Morning America were talking about her. About an hour ago they had their correspondent out in front of the White House and she said something along the lines of (paraphrasing until I can find video or transcript):

"Her record will be scrutinized as Conservatives look for any instance of ruling based on feeling or empathy rather than a ruling based on law which is how Conservatives believe a judge should rule."

I nearly chocked on my Cheerios. Her tone was this mix of self-righteousness and disdain. Dis what she say mean that as a matter of course those not defined as "Conservative" have no regard for law? That ruling according to law is a bad thing?

This notion that the law is no longer blind but is instead open to all sorts of superficial factors is pretty freaky. Talk about special interests.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

... rather than a ruling based on law which is how Conservatives believe a judge should rule."

Oh boy! :shk:

OF COURSE a ruling should be based upon the LAW and not on the personal feelings of the judge. Just the fact that the reporter sneered at this is a frightening statement all on it's own!!



[edit on 5/27/2009 by FlyersFan]

reply to post by FlyersFan

The video of the segment is up on the GMA homepage.

abcnews.go.com...

Under the "Recently on GMA" column scroll down a little bit to the clip titled "Sotomayor's Judicial Record."

The last 10 seconds is when the statement I referred to comes up.

...going to see a lot of Republicans scouring her record for any clues on where she might have relied on her feelings instead of just looking at the law which Conservatives of course say that's what you're supposed to do.

You have to hear her say it to really get your bowels churning.


Found a YouTube link



[edit on 27-5-2009 by thisguyrighthere]

Sotomayor hostile to gun rights

:shk: Lovely. This judge feels that she should rule by emotion and feelings .... and her feelings run contrary to the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

That's just freak'n great.

reply to post by FlyersFan


From the link you posted:

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."

Are you effin kidding me?

No government can impose on the rights of the Constitution. It even says that!

Grrrrr . . . I am fuming right now.

More Sotomayor quotes ... OH BOY! :shk:

Story Here

As National Journal legal analyst Stuart Taylor reported, “Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere ‘aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.’ And she suggested that ‘inherent physiological or cultural differences’ may help explain why ‘our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.’” The full speech was reprinted in something called the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. “La Raza” is Spanish for “The Race.” Imagine if a white male Republican court nominee had published in a law review called “The Race.”

The full text of the speech, as published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, is available on The New York Times website. Some say it was in 2002 and others say 2001

Inherent physiological or cultural differences .... gender and national origins .... WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUR JUDGING

OMG!! Skin color and where a persons ancestors came from and what sexual organs you have or don't have mean that you will not be able to see the Constitution clearly I guess.

HOLY FREAK'N COW!

A Latina Judges Voice - from 2001

National Journal

Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere "aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others." And she suggested that "inherent physiological or cultural differences" may help explain why "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

[edit on 5/27/2009 by FlyersFan]

reply to post by xxpigxx


Yep.

Sotomayor rules against gun rights

Judge Sotomayor, a New York native, ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Second Amendment Foundation Issues Press Release

Senator X: Mrs. Sotomayor , What are your qualifications for being selected to be on the Supreme Court?

Sotomayor: Well, thank you for the easy question.

I am Hispanic and I am a woman. The court needs diversity. I will be the first Hispanic.

Senator X: Those two assets definitely makes you a qualified candidate.

Some Senators might like this, but I am sure most Americans don't. I am tired of seeing race being a reason as to why this woman is qualified. If she had any honor, she would have turned down the job based on the fact that she was chosen because of her Hispanic background.

As an Hispanic, I can tell you that many of us don't see this as a proud moment. It is being given to her, not something she earned.

I was once offered a job as a police officer because they needed to hire Hispanics within their ranks. I turned them down because they didn't want me for my talents but rather to fill a spot. I see her in the same situation.

I really believe the President is more concerned about garnering votes for his second term as the highest priority for choosing her. He's hoping she'll bring him Latino and women votes.

That she considers policy making a function of the Supreme Court tells me she isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

That she has been reversed 60% by higher courts doesn't seem like a decent track record to me:

www.washingtontimes.com...


Actually, this is about what I'd expect from Obama.

It is really getting depressing to see our country going down the sewer so quickly.

I wonder if they are installing gas chambers at the FEMA camps?

I find some of her views to be disturbing...

However (you knew there was going to be one, didn't you?), Supreme's have a habit of being their own people.

Doesn't change the fact she's a disturbing pick, but I don't think it's the end of the world either...

...my issue is the lifetime appointments that judges have. This should be removed.

Originally posted by seagull
...my issue is the lifetime appointments that judges have. This should be removed.

Amen!! I fully agree. Lifetime appointment? UGH!

Oh ... and thanks for the heartburn seagull ... I was choking on this appointment and now you just reminded me that we'll have to put up with her for the rest of her life. Bad decisions based upon 'her feelings' and all the rest that comes with it.