Obama to name Sotomayor to highest court
Word has leaked that President Obama will nominate U.S. appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court.
Based on everything I’ve read, she’s an excellent choice. Raised in the Bronx by her mother after the death of her father, she graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and went on to Yale Law. She’s worked as a prosecutor and was appointed to the federal judiciary by the first President Bush. Her intelligence and hard work are widely acknowledged.
But of course, with the right-wing noise machine already primed to squeal regardless of who the nominee might be, we’re still going to hear a lot of complaints. In the end, the excesses of that campaign will hurt the conservative cause more than help it, and Sotomayor will be confirmed.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
226 comments Add your comment
pat
May 26th, 2009
5:35 pm
When I saw the picture, I thought obama got another dog.
DebbieDoRight
May 26th, 2009
5:38 pm
Wow — great comments today!!!
Fla ’cause you’re not cute enough to live in Ga: She said in a covering statement that a Latino Woman would more often than not make a better decision than a White Male, without the latino’s experience.
Fla you’re taking that WAY out of context and you know it!! Good try though!!!
Demming: Prior to the announcement of Obama’s nominee, the GOP had already indicated that they viewed the nominating process as an opportunity to replenish the coffers of the RNC.
In other words, no matter WHO the Pres. picked the elephants’ll kick up a fuss!! Elephants are so predictable sometimes…..
Obama is leading America in the right direction!! 1.8T budget deficit the first year, 40% drop in Dow coupled with a 10% drop in GDP, since election, N. Korea test-fires two more missiles off its east coast, a day after nuke test
And GWB had NOTHING to do with any of this!!! Why the budget was BALANCED and Obama came into office with a SURPLUS of funds!! — Oh, wait that was DUBYA who came into office with a balanced budget and surplus and then decided to decimate it in less than 2 years, not Obama…..hmm… well anyway, N. Korea NEVER fired missiles until Obama took office!! Why when Bush was pres, they backed down and towed the line just like bush told them too ………oh wait, that’s not true!! OK here’s another salient point!!! well the economy was NEVER bad while Bush was president!!! Why that TARP thing that Obama thought up in October was just, just………oh wait…..Obama wasn’t president in october and he didn’t think of the TARP program…..that was Bush….. DANG IT!!! THat history keeps biting your comments in the butt every time!!! We should BAN HISTORY!!! That’ll teach ‘em!!
DAve R: Two words…. HARRIET MYERS!! Beat that one!!
Dusty: Redneck is COOL!! He always gets a good laugh AND he’s always saying nice things about you!! Heck you gotta laugh at politics sometimes, or you’re just gonna cry all day long!! Give Redneck a break!!!
Redneck: Always a fan!!!
md
May 26th, 2009
5:54 pm
Why should anyone look at her “qualifications” when she herself denied the promotion of firefighters based on race and quotas. Every man taking that test had the same opportunity to study and pass, race should not even be a factor.
Wake up America, this is were we are headed. Those firefighters will have to share their grades with the underachievers in order to get a promotion. Sound familiar?
n22s
May 26th, 2009
7:05 pm
I remember lots of things taken out of context. In the 90’s, for example, Newt Gingrich said something about letting Medicare wither on the vine and was flogged with that comment for years. Of course, he said in the same statement that he wished to replace Medicare with something BETTER, causing Medicare to wither on the vine but, hey, he was a Republican and hypocrisy is okay when it furthers the causes of Democrats.
One of the biggest problems with judicial activism, administration policies that ignore the constitution, the Patriot Act, etc., etc., is their impact on the country 20 or 50 or 100 years from now and not just today’s world.
What if the political winds blow in a different direction 20 years from now? Does any liberal relish the thought of another Bush or Nixon controlling a car company or nationalizing banks?
It wasn’t long ago that the Democratic party was considered out of touch with America.
It has been said that judicial activism put GWB in office in 2000. Is judicial activism only a problem when the results don’t coincide with your views?
How many of you today are praising Sotomayor’s nomination yet complaining about California’s Prop 8 decision? Perhaps if we were all confident about our court system being about the law and state and federal constitutions we could have more confidence in its decisions.
And if you are a liberal and tell me that conservatives are hypocritical because they supported judicial activism with respect to Bush aren’t you saying they are your moral equivalent? Does their hypocrisy justify yours?
Or perhaps you are just as hypocritical, cheap and immoral as you claim conservatives to be.
danjonglee
May 26th, 2009
7:18 pm
Good Choice….How many times has she been overturned on cases? Anyone know?
n22s
May 26th, 2009
7:26 pm
I’m just curious. Robert Bork had similar degrees, experience, intellect, etc. but was denied a place on the Supreme Court because of his views being out of the mainstream. If the public perceives Sotomayor’s views to be out of the mainstream because her views are too far to the left will it be appropriate to deny her a place on the court?
A recent poll revealed 51 percent of Americans consider themselves to be pro-life. If she believes in abortion, any time on demand, would this be too far out of the mainstream?
Why is it that your views are always mainstream but those who disagree with you are out of the same mainstream?
What gives you the right to decide? Why is your current view on what is constitutional be considered correct and older views, incorrect?
Perhaps if we had an unwavering standard, something agreed upon as a rock, unchanging based upon whims and fads we wouldn’t have that problem.
Maybe if we had a Constitution that was more of a rock and less of a living breathing guideline that, because it can mean anything, really mean nothing?
n22s
May 26th, 2009
7:37 pm
If the Constitution is a living, breathing document that can change as today’s world sees fit, does that mean laws deemed Constitutional 100 or 200 years ago are just as valid and moral as the laws deemed constitutional today?
100 years ago, there were many laws against contraception and abortion that were considered constitutional. In fact, primitive polls of the time indicated people supported such laws.
Margaret Sanger, an avowed racist who viewed contraception and abortion as a means of holding down the populations of those she deemed “unfit” changed a lot of those views. I suspect racism was at the heart of a lot of those who supported her views and led contraception and abortion laws to be overturned.
Because laws against contraception and abortion were overturned by evil views only the most vile in the population hold to these days, should the laws be reinstated?
Wow, this whole judicial activism thing gets complicated when viewed 30 or 50 or 100 years after the fact.
vuduchld
May 26th, 2009
8:02 pm
I find it funny that right wing ditto heads can cry about “judicial activism” from liberal to middle of the road judges without looking at their own reactionaries. Alito, Scalia and Thomas are conservative judicial activists. So, I guess it’s okay for them to craft laws that favor conservatives, no matter how narrow minded in scope. A new day has come, we the people could care less what your feelings are because you have proven time and again to be complete dimwits.
You thought you could fire up your bogus base by spoiling for a fight with President Obama. He threw the first punch, knocking your silly asses out. When will you scumbags ever learn!
md
May 26th, 2009
8:22 pm
vuduchld,
Lets see, “ditto heads”, “dimwits”, “silly asses”, “scumbags”.
I’m an independant, but is this an example of the “new” left. Seems a lot like the “old” left.
Are you by chance over the age of 13, or is this what we get to look forward to in the coming generations?
N.J.
May 26th, 2009
9:47 pm
There is nothing in the constitution that suggests that the judiciary cannot “legislate from the bench” by determining that a law passed by the federal government is unconstitutional. This is what conservatives mean by “legislating from the bench”, doing their job. That is their job, to look at any new laws, at the federal, state or local level and determine if these laws are constitutional or not.
The entire conservative idea of strict construction is absurd. The body of the constitution clearly stated that blacks did not have rights as citizens to vote, but the slave owning states could count them as “population” with regard to the branch of government whose membership is proportional to population..the House of Representatives. The Court could have determined that freeing the slaves and giving rights to blacks was unconstitutional because the constitution said they only counted as 3/5th of a person.
Quite the contrary, on issues like abortion, the Conservative justices are quite “activist” because there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that can be contrued to give rights to the unborn, NOR is there any real common law going back for nearly a thousand years by which such can be construed. However Conservative justices tend to be anti-abortion, where there is no legal or constitutional precedent that supports this position. They are every bit as activist as Democratic justices in their interpretations, as they insert their personal opinions into places where there is no legal precedent to support those positions. The fact that the constitution limits some rights of citizens by age is a clear indication that there are some points where rights begin. For example, conception does not allow an unborn child to run for, and serve as president, or senator, or congressman. There are defined age limit where a citizen can serve in each office. These rights are in effect, conditional
Keith
May 26th, 2009
10:00 pm
Wow this country is screwed! Pretty soon no white people will be at the top. We all know how great black leadership is. Just look at Atlanta.
TnGelding
May 26th, 2009
10:00 pm
ARE YOU FREAKIN CRAZY!!!
May 26th, 2009
12:52 pm
I don’t hold Teddy in quite as high esteem as Cuomo. I’ve always liked the way he expressed himself.
N.J,
May 26th, 2009
5:09 pm
Great stuff, but you’d better hire a body guard.
Dr.R
May 26th, 2009
10:03 pm
As a guy on the outside of the whole “pro-life, pro-choice” endless, pointless debate (I do not, as it turns out, have a uterus so it ain’t my fight), it dawns on me that we’d all be better off if the squeaky wheels on both sides had themselves been vaccuumed out before birth. Can we PLEASE find something more important to argue about? Preferrably something that affects the lives of all of us, not just the hypocrites on one side who want to force their religious views down your throat so you’re forced to have a baby you’ll abandon (which they, too, will then ignore) and the others who want to mate with everyone that moves without the negative consequences. A pox on all of you. Abort, don’t abort, I could not possibly care less.
TnGelding
May 26th, 2009
10:05 pm
Keith
May 26th, 2009
10:00 pm
We’re going to have to control the legal immigration as well, but I haven’t heard anyone even suggest it but me.
The Obamas represent what Dr. King dreamed. Let’s hope they are able to live up to his expectations, and ours.
Dave R
May 26th, 2009
10:08 pm
DebbieDoRight, just remember, it was the conservatives who got Meiers to back out, not the libs. At least some people can recognize when a nominee isn’t qualified.
You libs couldn’t act on principle if you tried. You have to have principles to act on them.
Right Wing Noise Machine
May 26th, 2009
10:26 pm
Jay why do you cooks continue to mock the right wing noise machine? They are growing and flourishing while you and this paper are decaying!
I guess you’ve been aborted so to speak! Sotomayor. What a perfect name for a liberal jusdge. I’ve read thru some of writings and speeches. This woman is nothing but a liberal activist judge. She is not a legal powerhouse nor does come across as particularly that bright. How many points were added to her to get into Princeton in the first place. I will say on a positive that she does appear fairly tough on crime. Much more so than Souter. What’s funny is that she’s a big plaintiff’s advocate except when the plaintiffs are white male fireman. She is a simpleton unable to see thru her own biases. She looks like a racist and sexist pig. Typical lefty!
Jay
May 26th, 2009
10:32 pm
“You libs couldn’t act on principle if you tried. You have to have principles to act on them.”
Hey Dave R, remind me again: What’s your stance on torture?
N.J.
May 26th, 2009
10:44 pm
Well unless the Republican Party wants to see polls showing those who self identify as “Republicans” take the next inevitable dive into single digits, the will make their little stink, but will not filibuster this.
Anyway, there IS always the “nuclear option” that Republicans asserted was completely legitimate to use when Alito and Roberts were nominated.
They demanded an “up or down” vote, and even though they asserted that no one had ever filibustered a presidential nominee (another falsehood, they filibustered one of LBJ’s nominees)/
Like it or not, they are going to have to allow a vote, and all it takes is a simple majority
N.J.
May 26th, 2009
11:11 pm
Yes, regardless of their assertions, virtually all of the anti-abortion stances are based on religion. There is no real historical legal precedent with regard to allowing abortion laws to exist, nor is their much medical support for the anti-Roe v. Wade position. Most of the arguments that resulted in Roe v Wade turning out the way it did relied on various aspects of a half millenia or more of both RELIGIOUS and common law positions on this issue.
The right wing noise machine created something that does not exist at all. An liberal activist judge. All these judges have done is look at existing laws, or ones about to be passed, and determined if they were constitutional or not. Conservative judges do this all the time when it comes to conservative issues. The positions that Alito and Roberts take on abortion, for example, are extremely activist. They basically take guesses, based on their personal beliefs, about abortion and insist that the founders MUST have mean that rights extend to the unborn, when there is absolutely NOTHING in the constitution by which they can draw this conclusion. The founders were completely silent on this issue, and all that we can directly conclude from a strict constructionist position is that we are BORN with rights, not that we had them before birth. The fact that rights can be legally denied to minors, backs this up as well. The law CAN deny full rights to a person below the age of majority. They are not allowed those rights until they have reached that age.
Every judge that Bush nominated, fits does exactly the same thing when it comes to conservative issues as they assert a “liberal activist judge” does when they interpret a law as “unconstitutional.
It was rather activist for the conservatives on the court to overturn the gun ban in Washington DC.
For example ONE of Scalia’s “activist” decisions:
Justice Scalia’s views on federalism – which now generally command a majority on the Supreme Court – are perhaps the clearest example of the problem with the conservative attack on judicial activism. When conservatives complain about activist judges, they talk about gay marriage and defendants’ rights. But they do not mention the 11th Amendment, which has been twisted beyond its own plain words into a states’ rights weapon to throw minorities, women and the disabled out of federal court.
The 11th Amendment says federal courts cannot hear lawsuits against a state brought by “Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” But it’s been interpreted to block suits by a state’s own citizens – something it clearly does not say. How to get around the Constitution’s express words? In a 1991 decision, Justice Scalia wrote that “despite the narrowness of its terms,” the 11th Amendment has been understood by the court “to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms.” If another judge used that rationale to find rights in the Constitution, Justice Scalia’s reaction would be withering. He went on, in that 1991 decision, to throw out a suit by Indian tribes who said they had been cheated by the State of Alaska
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/19tue3.html
What Scalia did here was AMAZINGLY activist in that he expanded the very narrow wording of an amendment to the extreme of his defining the founders meaning in terms that go well beyond ANY possible meaning that the founders could have meant by it, in a way that completely violated the “strict constructionist” view that Republicans continually assert that they hold.
Those who hold “Strict Constructionist” and “Non activist” views on the court are CONTINUALLY overturning laws passed by states, as well as amendment to state constitutions when it suits their particular political leanings, such as:
Conservative politicians insist that courts should defer to the democratically elected branches, but conservative judges do not seem to be listening. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority regularly overturns laws passed by Congress, like the Violence Against Women Act and the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The court has even established a bizarre series of hoops Congress must jump through to pass a law protecting Americans’ 14th Amendment equal-protection rights. Congress must prove in many cases that the law it passed is “congruent” and “proportional” to the harm being addressed. Even John Noonan Jr., an appeals court judge appointed by President Reagan, has said these new rules – which Justice Scalia eagerly embraces – reduce Congress to the level of an “administrative agency.”
Justice Scalia likes to boast that he follows his strict-constructionist philosophy wherever it leads, even if it leads to results he disagrees with. But it is uncanny how often it leads him just where he already wanted to go. In his view, the 14th Amendment prohibits Michigan from using affirmative action in college admissions, but lets Texas make gay sex a crime. (The Supreme Court has held just the opposite.) He is dismissive when inmates invoke the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment to challenge prison conditions. But he is supportive when wealthy people try to expand the “takings clause” to block the government from regulating their property.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/19tue3.html
Roberts and Alito have also been just as hypocritically activist on scads of conservative issues they support, taking the most extreme and non literal interpretations of the Constitution and the amendments when it suits conservative priorities and then take extremely NARROW positions on liberal issues.
This is the most direct and succint definition of activism.
Most Conservative, self styled “Strict Constructionists” have gone through far more contortions, turning themselves and the law inside out whenever it deals with conservative issues.
Liberal BS Noise Machine
May 26th, 2009
11:21 pm
I sure am glad that our political bullcrap machine is spinning
louder and better than the right wing machine. I mean heck
it is easy to dupe Jay but we must have a really loud machine
to keep duping all the rest of the suckers in America.
Bud Wiser
May 27th, 2009
8:08 am
From Jay: ““You libs couldn’t act on principle if you tried. You have to have principles to act on them.”
Hey Dave R, remind me again: What’s your stance on torture?”
I am certain that whatever it is, it is better than the liberal refrain –
‘Let us sacrifice innocent Americans in the name of our stance on enhanced interrogation! Innocent, ignorant Americans come cheap – just look at the roll call of them that voted for Obowo. We are replacing them every day with illegals that will soon be able to vote, if they do not already. And the blacks, lockstep democrats for generations, will always be there for us if we keep tossing them some crumbs, and whip white America over the back some more with the lash. Oh we are great at sacrificing what is not ours; it is, after all, our motto – take from the haves (except we the party elite, who skip paying our taxes anyway) and give to the have not/will not crowd.
Sacrificing Americans for our cause is no big whoop.”
There.
That should about cover it.
Copyleft
May 27th, 2009
8:52 am
And another humiliation for the fact-free ravings of DaveR:
“The difference is that Meier’s nomination was pulled because she wasn’t qualified. No chance for this one. She sail through regardless of her lack of qualifications.”
Except, of course, that Sotomayor IS qualified–exceptionally so, in fact.
“Judge Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor has served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since October 1998. She has been hailed as “one of the ablest federal judges currently sitting” for her thoughtful opinions,i and as “a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity”ii for her ascent to the federal bench from an upbringing in a South Bronx housing project.
Her American story and three decade career in nearly every aspect of the law provide Judge Sotomayor with unique qualifications to be the next Supreme Court Justice. She is a distinguished graduate of two of America`s leading universities. She has been a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator. Before she was promoted to the Second Circuit by President Clinton, she was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. She replaces Justice Souter as the only Justice with experience as a trial judge.
Judge Sotomayor served 11 years on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one of the most demanding circuits in the country, and has handed down decisions on a range of complex legal and constitutional issues. If confirmed, Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit, said “Sonia is an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind. She brings a wealth of knowledge and hard work to all her endeavors on our court. It is both a pleasure and an honor to serve with her.”
In addition to her distinguished judicial service, Judge Sotomayor is a Lecturer at Columbia University Law School and was also an adjunct professor at New York University Law School until 2007.”
So, y’know… Dave R is completely wrong. AGAIN. As always.
Copyleft
May 27th, 2009
8:54 am
Bud Wiser: You really don’t understand, do you? You honestly don’t “GET” why Americans should care about such irrelevant nonsense as values, principles, or even the Constitution.
How sad. It’s sad to realize that so many of our fellow Americans really couldn’t care less about America itself, have no patriotism, and are utter, spineless cowards.
I’m just glad nobody’s listening to (or voting for) them any more.
Bud Wiser
May 27th, 2009
9:45 am
I guess that pretty much sums up the fact that you’re part of the problem, and not the solution to terrorism.
Copyleft
May 27th, 2009
10:14 am
Given that your attitude is what makes the problem WORSE, rather than solving it, I’m afraid your reasoning fails.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
2:57 pm
Well, the Republican lose this one in the polls. Those around so far suggest that between 70 and 80 percent think she is the correct choice.
The most recent Time Poll shows that 83 percent think she should be confirmed. The CNN Polls beleive show that 89 percent of people polled think Sotomayors judicial experience is more than enough to qualify her for the bench.
She currently has MORE judicial experience than ALL other members of the court had when they were nominated.
Even before the nomination Sotomayor led polls as to who should be Obama’s nomination by a very large margin.
Of course in 1998 when she was nominated to her current position, a large number of conservatives supported her nomination to that position. They all noted that she was a “moderate”. Including most of those who are now calling her an activist.
More importantly polls that ask if the Republican should filibuster her nomination come in even more dismally for the Republicans.
Even Republican consultant say that opposing Sotomayor would be the last nail in the coffin for the Republican Party. Primarily because she already has won two nomination processes before with a rather large number of Republican votes, both on the floor of Congress as well as in committee. Seven CURRENT members of the Senate Judiciary committee approved her past nominations.
Most commentary is discussing how this nomination will even further split the Republican party paring off even more moderate elected officials from its base.