Sotomayor nomination: No smoking gun

 

  Some commentary has a longer shelf life than others.  An earlier posting lasted minutes before President Barack Obama announced the appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the David Souter vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

 She’ll attract considerable debate, largely because of a speech she made in 2001 where she seemed to express the opinion that a Latina woman and a white man would reach different conclusions when ruling on the law.  Said she:  

   “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 was speaking at a University of California diversity lecture.

She will also draw fire because of a statement she made in 2005 that the U.S. Court of Appeals, where she served, “is where policy is made.”  Those are the words of an activist judge.

A fuller reading of her diversity remarks leaves her thoughts open to interpretation.  I don’t think there’s a smoking gun there.  It’s not enough to evoke a filibuster.  

Initial reaction here is that, barring something else, she’ll be confirmed without filibuster. 

119 comments Add your comment

Get Real

May 26th, 2009
10:23 am

Sotomayor, nominated by George H.W. Bush in 1992 to the Federal Court bench. Wasn’t a problem then for Wooten I bet. Nothing to see here, Wooten had the blog typed already with “insert nominee’s name here.”

sane jane

May 26th, 2009
10:39 am

Got any background on that UC diversity speech, other than the one line you might have pulled out of context. Because if she was talking about, say, the pros & cons of abortion vs. adoption vs. keeping the child, I might give her a little leeway. Ladies might arrive at different conclusions because of their plumbing and that might be, you know, OK.

“Activist judge” is a red herring. Just like the “Fairness Doctrine.” Obama’s coming to take away your gun! And your AM Radio! Everybody will be shotgun-gay-married and FORCED to have an abortion

Road Scholar

May 26th, 2009
10:39 am

Jim you are slipping. It took you until the 4th paragraph to blurt out the Repub mantra “activist judge”!

Anyone who “interprets” the law creates “policy”. Hopefully, the “interpretation” is in line to previous rulings, and is founded in clear and logical reasoning. Also, if the “interpretation” has been discussed with other multi faceted lawyers and judges, and it still has merit and conforms to the Constitution, then, it is a legitment ruling.

Just because you don’t like it, or disagree with it, doesn’t mean it is activist.

Peter

May 26th, 2009
10:41 am

About Face………… Forward March Jim ! All in a matter of hours Jim !

SaveOurRepublic

May 26th, 2009
10:42 am

I’ve not researched Sotomayor’s background enough to have a definitive opinion. However, her being appointed by Globalist shill “Bacrock Obuma”, I’d imagine she’s probably Leftist leaning & Globalist minded (not a strict adherent to the Constitution). I’ll have to do more homework in order to better validate my assumption.

Road Scholar

May 26th, 2009
10:46 am

Sane Jane: Since you didn’t add a period at the end of your last sentence, please excuse my forwardness to end it for you with “while you are in a Federal Park with a loaded handgun!”

Another solution to a problem that does not exist; Federal Parks have the lowest rating for violent crimes. Besides, they are FEDERAL, so do state rights apply? If so let the states pick up the fees for running and maintaining them. Sonny could be responsible for the fishing although he’ll gut the budget as he has here in Georgia!

Copyleft

May 26th, 2009
11:07 am

Why bother, SOR? You’ve already made up your mind simply becuase Obama nominated her. Now go find some canned outrage you can cut-and-paste here about this “latest betrayal of the Constitution.”

Truth

May 26th, 2009
11:13 am

They seem to forget that…it probably got lost when this was uploaded.

clyde

May 26th, 2009
11:14 am

Will the No party say no and risk losing the Hispanic vote?Tell them what to do,Rush.

The Snark

May 26th, 2009
11:19 am

Judge Sotomayor began her career as a prosecutor and spent many years representing real clients in private practice. The Supreme Court is a little top-heavy with academics and people with government resumes. Wouldn’t it be nice to have somebody on the Court with some practical experience?

kato

May 26th, 2009
11:21 am

Does it take a Hispanic, Black, White, gay, to balance society? Why not nominate a Native American, they have been the most abused in this country.

RetLTC

May 26th, 2009
11:30 am

Certainly she will draw fire from the Republican right. President Obama certainly knows how to continually drive the demographic stake right through the heart of the Republican party. Every howl that the right wing emits on an issue that can remotely be tied to race costs them more votes. The Republican party is slow cooking themselves and will eventually be no more than a black smoking hole in the ground. If they had any political savvy left they would see to it that Sotomayor sails through the confirmation process at warp speed. But the best is yet to come. Comprehensive immigration reform will be the death of the Republican party. You can’t count on splitting the white vote with Democrats and losing an overwhelming majority of minority votes and stay alive in national contests. How much dumber can Republicans get?

The Snark

May 26th, 2009
11:33 am

Here is the press release prepared by the Republican Party prior to the announcement of President Obama’s nominee:

“[insert nominee's name] is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks [his/her] own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written. [He/She] thinks that judges should dictate policy and that one’s sex, race and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench. [He/she] is out of touch with the values of mainstream Americans and far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court.”

Peadawg

May 26th, 2009
11:39 am

It’s funny how Obama wants everyone to get along and work together, yet elects a far left judge. Wouldn’t he elect someone in the middle if he REALLY wanted everyone to work together?

Reality Check

May 26th, 2009
11:45 am

Kato @ 11:21am
What are you afraid of? What is wrong with having a Supreme Court the is reflective of the real America?

Copyleft

May 26th, 2009
11:47 am

Peadawg: I notice you’re copying your comments, word for word, into multiple blogs.

Do you have the time to provide any SUPPORT for the claims you’re making? Since you’re saving so much time by not coming up with any original commentary, after all….

Reality Check

May 26th, 2009
11:48 am

Pea(brain)dawg

Please tell us what makes her a “far left” judge? And you can’t say, Thats what Rush and Hannity said!!

B NICE

May 26th, 2009
11:56 am

She is an excellent choice. The Republicans better not try to not confirm her because they will make them even more idiots than the party they are now. The are still gonna drum up hate, immaturity, and negativity to get their message to the American people, “we can’t be stopped”. That is why I don’t like the GOP. I’d rather go independent

buzz

May 26th, 2009
11:57 am

Nice work, Snark Did you hack their website or use your decoder ring?

Get Real

May 26th, 2009
12:10 pm

….so George H.W. Bush appointed a far-left leaning judge to the federal bench? Sure.

jt

May 26th, 2009
12:16 pm

The nomination of Sotomayor only matters to the R & D party dumb masses.
What is one more societal leach lawyer added to the payroll of an unlawful federal goverment?
The rule of law has been dead for years. Whoever has the most money or political power wins in our perverted judicial system.
Thank God, this whole system is rapidly becoming irrelevent to the majority of natural law Americans.

Tomhere

May 26th, 2009
12:17 pm

How much dumber can Republicans get?

Uh…… Uh…… Ummmmmm……

Tomhere

May 26th, 2009
12:19 pm

He just SAYS he wants everyone to work together. He knows that the republicans will oppose him no matter what he does. He doesn’t mean it. He’s just giving them as much rope as they are willing to pull off the spool.

Jackie

May 26th, 2009
12:42 pm

The Repubs have a dictionary of terms that is truly dynamic in scope. It reflects a sense of “right now” which fails to incorporate the root of the terms being used. It destroys their mantra of being conservative and constitutionalists.

klshfytd

May 26th, 2009
12:54 pm

since being appointed by old man bush, this woman has had 4 of her rulings reversed by the supreme court, 3 of those times it was because she got the law wrong

the evil rich

May 26th, 2009
12:56 pm

Oh, I’m sure being a woman and a latino has nothing to do with her being the choice. It’s not to early to start working on that 2nd term. Now, she might be, but what happened to the BEST person for the job?

Will

May 26th, 2009
12:58 pm

By the time the radical republican seccessionists get finished spewing their bile toward this nominee, finding a republican party Hispanic
will be as hard as finding republican radio entertainers that think more of the party than themselves!

If I were a Georgia republican, I would hold my money for candidates and ignore the blizzard of solicitations that will soon come from special interest groups that see this as only a splendid fund raiser. You know, “We cannot let the socialist president destroy our nation by having this known communist appointed to the highest Court in the land. Please, send us (any amount of money you have) today so that we can right this wrong (read: send us your money so that our salaries and benefits can be paid and we can continue to receive the perks we deserve).

What’s that you say, the democrat special interest groups are no different? Please…….is that the standard to which you aspire? I though you guys were the ones with more integrity!!

ProgressivePeach.com

May 26th, 2009
1:05 pm

Came here for the impotent rage of conservatives. Was not disappointed.

Whattheheck

May 26th, 2009
1:06 pm

at the level of the Supreme Court, its all about policy. things dont get to the supreme court based upon facts, but rather, the interpretation of the law in which the facts are applied. whereas in lower courts, i.e. the trial courts, facts play the central role, at the appellate level, the social policy plays the central role, no more so than at the supreme court level.

hryder

May 26th, 2009
1:18 pm

Amazing how people on the far left and far right can not understand opposing points of view and call those others ignorant, stupid, and other terms seeking to denigrate the people. This name calling does not logically refute the others statements which is what should be done if and when it is possible. I suggest that when hearing deragatory terms instead of reacting in kind demand that the shouters refute your statements with logic and/or opposing true facts.

Try again

May 26th, 2009
1:20 pm

Sotomeyer has been upheld by the Supreme Court in about 95% of her rulings. If your a “tighty righty”, in 2002 she went against abortion rights advocates on the “Mexico City Policy”. Look up her cases before you automatically decide your against her simply because she has been nominated by our President.

Copyleft

May 26th, 2009
1:23 pm

“Thank God, this whole system is rapidly becoming irrelevent to the majority of natural law Americans.”

Yes, the vast majority of that 500-member fringe group is completely uninterested in the law and our system of governance… so what? We’re completely uninterested in THEM, too.

Skram30082

May 26th, 2009
1:47 pm

the evil rich:

The BEST person for the job?

Do you remember Harriet Myers? Everybody…but Repubs were the loudest…questioned her credentials until she was forced to withdraw. And then we got that eunuch Sam Alito.

But I guess that’s OK…at least he’s a conservative, right? Is there any other kind of eunuch?

Saxby Shameless Chambliss

May 26th, 2009
1:53 pm

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., today made the following statement regarding Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination for the Supreme Court.

“I have consistently stated that Supreme Court nominees must not engage in legislating from the bench, but must interpret the laws as they have been passed. The Senate deserves an appropriate amount of time to review this nominee. I look forward to a dignified and thorough confirmation process.”

Johnny TARP Isakson

May 26th, 2009
1:55 pm

U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., today issued the following statement on the President’s nomination of federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. Isakson is traveling in Africa this week on Senate business, but issued the statement through his Washington, DC, office.

“I look forward to a thorough examination and debate of her credentials and legal views during the Senate confirmation process.” Isakson said. “I believe a qualified judge is one who understands the value and the strength and the power of the Constitution of the United States of America, who will rule based on the law, and who will not legislate based on the position.”

jt

May 26th, 2009
2:16 pm

Copyleft

May 26th, 2009
1:23 pm
“Thank God, this whole system is rapidly becoming irrelevent to the majority of natural law Americans.”

Yes, the vast majority of that 500-member fringe group is completely uninterested in the law and our system of governance… so what? We’re completely uninterested in THEM, too.

I used to think low voter turn-out was a bad thing too. Concerning the percentage of people who vote, Do the math on just REGISTERED voters alone. Even a R & D party member could see that the “Fringe” outnumbers 500.

Chris Broe

May 26th, 2009
2:22 pm

It’s supreme court payback time, Mr. Wooten. How does it feel? The Supreme Court is a great place for an activist judge, don’t you think? So much more pariotic than the traitors who perpetrated the Scalia-led election coup of 2000 which gave us perpetual war.

The Right isn’t done expressing their abhorrence for a Democratic President making decisions for their vastly stupid conspiracy of disinformation.

Copyleft

May 26th, 2009
2:24 pm

JT: Your mistake is in thinking that all nonvoters are as crazed and reactionary as you.

jt

May 26th, 2009
2:32 pm

Copyleft

May 26th, 2009
2:24 pm
JT: Your mistake is in thinking that all nonvoters are as crazed and reactionary as you.

YOUR mistake is in thinking that all non-voters are as gullible as you.
The goverment employees of the socialist paradise of the USSR made the same mistake.

TP

May 26th, 2009
2:54 pm

So – she says we’re not all supposed to think the same and draw the same conclusions when presented a problem? She says that men and women and whites and blacks and latinos and asians approach problems differently and draw different conclusions based on their backgrounds and life experiences? Hormones and race affect how we make decisions and deal with situations? Sounds like independent thinking to me. I shudder to think what you all would say if a conservative voiced this opinion. You all would be screaming “unfair” and saying, “how dare she think this way” – “we are all supposed to think the same, draw the same conclusions, tow the politically correct line” – “there’s no room for independent thinking because your opinion might step on my opinion’s toes and that wouldn’t foster the common good”. She actually says what I believe: men and women are different, people of different ethnic backgrounds are different; they have differening opinions, are suited for different jobs, etc. This conservative may actually like this judge.

RINO

May 26th, 2009
3:05 pm

“The G.OP. has to make a stand,” said Scott Reed, manager of the 1996 presidential campaign of Bob Dole. “This is what the base and social conservatives really care about, and we need to brand her a liberal with some out-of-the-mainstream positions. Forget about cosmetics and ethnic heritage, and focus on her record.”

RINO

May 26th, 2009
3:08 pm

“Judge Sotomayor is a liberal activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written,” said Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, a conservative group that has been preparing for this battle.

RINO

May 26th, 2009
3:10 pm

“As a conservative, it could be worse,” said the Rev. Luis Cortes Jr., who as president of the national Hispanic Christian group Esperanza USA was personally courted by President George W. Bush and has since appeared at the Obama White House. “And as Latino, it can’t be better.”

Country Boy

May 26th, 2009
3:17 pm

Another punch on the ticket to socialsim. Taketh and Giveth.

Jim Right

May 26th, 2009
3:18 pm

So why, then, are Republicans such a hopeless mess today?

Pretty simple.

Take the charm of Brooke Astor’s daughter-in-law, Charlene, the fiscal integrity of Bernie Madoff, the fidelity of John Edwards and the weird fetishes of Boy George, combine them all together into a crusty old white guy from the South, and you have today’s Republican Party.

Let’s face it — you know you’ve got serious problems when Dick Cheney is your best spokesman and a slight uptick in his approval rating is the closest thing you have to a heartbeat.

Truth is, the three Republicans left in Washington have enjoyed a right good string of victories lately.

Democrats have conceded that they were pretty much kidding these past four years about all their harshest political attacks on the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress.

Gitmo ain’t so bad, after all. At least it’s better than any alternative.

These military tribunals didn’t really make President George W. Bush and Cheney the international war criminals Democrats have portrayed them as for years.

But no matter, because all the Republican rightness in the world means one thing in politics: Absolutely nothing.

Republicans have nothing without a messenger. It’s like the brilliant concert violinist playing Mozart on his Stradivarius in the subway as people bustle by obliviously.

You’re flat broke unless you got a salesman, a pitch and a shtick.

And without them, you may as well just sit there leaning against the dirty tiled subway walls all smelly with your shoes off, talking to yourself.

Right now, the GOP leadership — although they’re right about a lot of things — is sadly just that.

EJ Moosa

May 26th, 2009
3:24 pm

GHWB gave her a chance. Since then we have seen her in action.

She does not deserve to be on the Supreme Court, altering our lives, for the next 30 years….

@@

May 26th, 2009
3:34 pm

Jim, although it goes against what many of the conservatives on these boards are saying, I’m inclined to agree with you.

The gun ain’t smokin’ cause nobody’s lookin’ to commit political suicide.

Obama has chosen Sotomayor for political reasons (she is NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer).

Republicans will hold back for political reasons.

Anyone seeking justice in the high court will be “the subject” of political maneuvers much like in our day to day lives.

‘Tis sad….so sad.

Kermit

May 26th, 2009
3:42 pm

“When we are sick, we want an uncommon doctor; when we have a construction job to do, we want an uncommon engineer, and when we are at war, we want an uncommon general. It is only when we get into politics that we are satisfied with the common man.” (or woman) – Herbert Hoover

RetLTC

May 26th, 2009
3:57 pm

Sotomayor is the perfect choice at exactly the right time in this nations history.

Copyleft

May 26th, 2009
4:00 pm

@@ “Obama has chosen Sotomayor for political reasons (she is NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer).”

And for proof of this, you offer…????