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…????

RetLTC

May 26th, 2009
4:00 pm

By the way @@. Sotomayor has more experience as a judge right now than did any of the present sitting Justices when they were nominated. But I am sure you are highly qualified when it comes to the qualifications of one judge over another. Maybe your judgement of Sotomayor is based on politics or political ideology. Could that be the case?

RetLTC

May 26th, 2009
4:04 pm

They do have a messenger Jim Right. Rush Limbaugh. LMAO!

Shooting Fish in a Barrel

May 26th, 2009
4:10 pm

…”she is NOT the sharpest knife in the drawer…”

Sotomayor has been overturned by the Supreme Court four times. Three of those times she wrote the majority opinion.

Next.

Dan

May 26th, 2009
4:12 pm

Haven’t had the opportunity to do much research, but if the quote from 2005 stating a court is a place where policy is made is accurate it is troubling, though not surprising. And while many debate what ruling may or may not be considered setting policy from the bench, I have rarely heard, the obviously inane argument, that setting policy from the bench is a good thing. Such a statement whether coming from a conservative or liberal is troubling.

williebkind

May 26th, 2009
4:16 pm

Why is it now that she is OK because she was selected by Bush earlier for an appellate court? I thought the liberals hated everything about Bush and because he was stupid.

Well, stupid is as stupid does! I heard that from another intellectural.

williebkind

May 26th, 2009
4:22 pm

Ok I misspelled intellectual but will Sotomayor be a supreme court intepreter or become “a make law” court justice? So, I can do as I want right? I do not have to follow the law of the land.

Anarchy! Is that what it is or just plain communism?

RetLTC

May 26th, 2009
4:27 pm

Uh, williebkind, are you refering to GHWB or GWB? Huge difference when it comes to the hate factor. But speaking of hate, I would say republicans and democrats are running neck and neck when it comes to hating Bill Clinton and George Walker Bush. Does that fall under the “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” principle? Or would “turn about is fair play” be more appropriate?

kcohen

May 26th, 2009
4:34 pm

I haven’t had an opportunity to look up her judicial record, but I probably won’t need to do it myself. I’m sure that the various camps will dive in and analyze, in great detail, each decision that “proves” their position. In fact, it has already started. How many times have we seen the statement that she’s had a number of decisions overturned? As if that that statistic has any relevance! EVERY federal judge has had cases go before the Supreme Court. The relevance should be on the cases themselves, don’t you think? And while you’re at it, how about looking at her entire caseload, not a selected few.

RetLTC

May 26th, 2009
4:39 pm

Maybe the republican party should accept the fact that republicans like Tom Ridge represent the viewpoint of the majority of republicans..or former republicans. Will they? No. The 20%ers will keep trying to resurrect Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond.

Jackie

May 26th, 2009
4:39 pm

Have you noticed the national Repubs invective machine has thrown a rod?
They have not used these words as talking points, therefore, the supporters have not found their “voices.”

DawgBite

May 26th, 2009
4:44 pm

To the right wing of the Republican party the nomination of that Latina judge Sotomayor must be like the proverbial sharp stick in the eye. It is going to be so much fun watching them squirm. The gall of that Obama guy, huh cons. How dare he put a Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court. And to think that he could get to put 2 more on the court before his 8 years are up. Damn. You angry azz white guys are in a heap of trouble.

Mac

May 26th, 2009
4:46 pm

The Dalton snoozepaper has a story about Kyle Wingfield taking over the Thinking Right ranch on Thursday. Rumour has it time for the awful and spittle spraying truth may make an introductory appearance.

Dan

May 26th, 2009
4:50 pm

Dawgbite, W put more minorities in postions of government power than any other president. So Her ethnicity clearly isn’t the issue, the issue is Her stated desire to set policy from the bench, which is clearly unconstitutional, regardless of which side of the aisle you land on.

Mac

May 26th, 2009
4:50 pm

Sorry, should have been Kyle “Right” Wingfield.

DawgBite

May 26th, 2009
4:51 pm

More like the Thinking Right plantation, I’d say.

DebbieDoRight

May 26th, 2009
4:58 pm

Willie: She was nominated by GHW not Dubya — stupid really IS as stupid does……..

Dan: Everyone has differing views on “legislating from the bench”; but if you look at all the major decisions made by the Supremes in the past 40 years; (Bush vs. Gore; Brown vs. Board of Ed; Loving vs. Virginia; etc); you’ll see that a decision is always going to be considered “legislating” if the other half doesn’t like the outcome.

Shooting: Four out of five of HOW MANY decisions that are made yearly by the Federal Courts? Let’s just say yearly the court Sotomayer sat on made 25 decisions. Now multiply that by 16 years on the bench and you’ll get 400 (16*25); so out of 400 decisions made, FOUR of them were overturned by the Supremes. Not a bad batting average if you ask me.

Glenn

May 26th, 2009
4:58 pm

Richard Jewell owns your asses posthumously, you cheapjack so-called “journalists”!

Glenn

May 26th, 2009
5:03 pm

To the community:

Allow me to say, in bidding my final adieu, that the preceding remark was directed at the AJC editors who’d excised fully three of my earlier remarks.

Long live a free press, elsewhere.

Bye, y’all…

Mac

May 26th, 2009
5:12 pm

Bye Glenn, you was a good’un.

Dan

May 26th, 2009
5:29 pm

Debbie do right, as I stated the perceptions of what is and isn’t legislating from the bench will always differ, so on that point we agree. Additionally simply acknowledging that point, suggests an agreement to the fact that legislating from the bench is inappropriate if not specifically unconstitutional. This candidate wasn’t arguing whether or not a decision was or wasn’t legislating has specifically stated she desires to be on a bench where policy is made. Again regardless of which side of the aisle, this should be a concern
or maybe she is just mor honest ;o)

Munch

May 26th, 2009
5:45 pm

Aw, Glenn got his feelings hurt. Wah.

To topic. Best qotd on Soto:

Sotomayor’s resume doesn’t just look good compared to Harriet Miers. Sotomayor has more than 10 years on the appeals court–by contrast, the current chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, had two years as a judge on the D.C. Circuit before being nominated. As a white man, however, his credentials and intelligence are beyond reproach.

AwfulWaffle

May 26th, 2009
5:48 pm

Her comment that the judicial system “is where policy is made” is pretty scary. That’s not what the US Constitution says.

Munch

May 26th, 2009
5:49 pm

btw, wingnuts, the stats have been compiled for Soto on the Circuit Court.

360 decisions.

3 reversals.

That’s a .0083 reversal rate.

Suck on it.

Jackie

May 26th, 2009
5:54 pm

@ Glenn

Hope that your goodbye is temporary.
Enjoy the sane debate that brought.

Jackie

May 26th, 2009
5:55 pm

@ Glenn

Enjoyed the sane debate that you brought.

Glenn

May 26th, 2009
5:57 pm

Bye, Jackie. Hang tough.

Glenn

May 26th, 2009
6:00 pm

Jackie,

This is one put-up deal, this website.

Jackie

May 26th, 2009
6:33 pm

@ Glenn,

I hope that I will present the sanity and levity you exhibited.

Just Nasty & Mean

May 26th, 2009
7:14 pm

Who wants to bet her entire staff and clerks are black, female, Hispanic, homosexual, transexual or some variations of each—and not a white Anglo in the bunch.

She’s openly stated an Hispanic woman can make better decisions than a white male.

It’s called RACIST people, plain and simple. She’s clearly a Racist.

Peter

May 26th, 2009
7:55 pm

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA………….. REPUBLICAN’S coming UN-Glued……..

Rush calling the President a Racists, and Just Nasty & Mean climbing out of his Perverse Hole………

HA HA HA HA HA ……… Funniest stuff going…… Of course you will never get a Republican to ever clean up a Mess……. Just make one…… Economy and (2) WARS are the example…….

Gosh The President is doing a Wonderful Job ! Poor Republican’s watch as the world turns……

Munch

May 26th, 2009
7:58 pm

Takes one to know one, Nasty.

Now, since the wingnuts got nuthin (and I mean bupkis) that will derail Soto (good call Wooten), let’s turn to another comment that is sure to get the lizard brains all worked up. Take it away, General Petraeus:

__________

In an appearance on Radio Free Europe on Sunday, the man hailed by conservatives as the preeminent military figure of his generation left little room for doubt about where he stands on some of Obama’s most contentious policies.

“I think, on balance, that those moves help [us],” said the chief of U.S. Central Command. “In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

“With respect to Guantanamo,” Petraeus added, “I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice — I talked to the Attorney General the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary — again, how to take that forward. But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees.”

________

Hmmm. Positive comments about Obama, and approving the closing of Gitmo. What a Dirty Fu6|+ing Hippie that Petraeus turned out to be.

catlady

May 26th, 2009
8:35 pm

Two points from the stem: ANY two jurists can have differing views based on the law. That is why we have opinions from the majority, minority (dissenting), and others.

And, anyone with the sense God gave a turnip will tell you that the law means what it is judicially interpreted to mean. It does not mean what the writers intended, but what case law says afterward, up through the appellate to the S.C. (no, not South Carolina). And subject to change upon review or additional cases decided.

I hope she will not be the idiot Gonzales was.

@@

May 26th, 2009
9:17 pm

Copyleft and RetLTC:

I would argue that we weren’t shown on the knives, only the political “steaks”.

Obama’s pick was the safest for him. Among his far left supporters, she’s dull by comparison.

At this point I’m neither impressed or unimpressed by Sotomayor.

Regardless of what he said during the campaign, my impression of Obama is that he’s the typical self-serving politician.

@@

May 26th, 2009
9:29 pm

Note to the AJC. It should not have taken 5 hours to get my 9:17 to post.

Are you sure you wanna put all your eggs in an online basket?

Dr.R

May 26th, 2009
9:56 pm

A GOP president nominates a conservative judge and the other side (Chuck Schumur, head of the pack) reacts with shocked astonishment. A Democratic president nominates a more liberal judge and the other side does the same. Amazing. Apparently, the chattering class in Washington will react with shock if a duck quacks. Whatever you think of Obama or Judge Sotomayor, he won the dang election and he gets to pick. Everyone deal with it. You want more conservative judges? Run a candidate for president who can win. Otherwise shut up and take your medicine.

don pardo

May 26th, 2009
10:16 pm

Jim:

What a tool you are! You either used the quote below out of context, or more likely you just pasted it from the Rush handbook. Either way it’s pretty poor journalism, and provides further proof of complete a total bias on your part. If you can be bothered to look up the full context of a quote you site, isn’t really time to retire and go away once and for all.

“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, about ABORTION!

Mid-South Philosopher

May 27th, 2009
4:54 am

Well, inasmuch as it seems to be the lot of “white men” to become extinct in this society or, at the very least, to be relegated to a position of no consequence, I guess, Justice (to be) Sotomayor’s remark is not out of place. I just wonder who in the “h*ll” is going to provide all the money to support all these wonderful programs after we stupid old white “b*st*rds” are put in our place!?!

midroadreader

May 27th, 2009
6:50 am

Looks like many of you did not read Jim’s column to the end, or just focus on what you want to. His last Para said full reading of her comments left them open to interpretation and that unless there was more he felt she would be confirmed without filibuster. So get a grip on both sides. There will always be those who oppose anything the “other side” does. And yes, Obama, once again, makes a decision based on politics. Day after day he shows he is still a south side Chicago politician. Both sides have that type.

Rush Leader of the GOP

May 27th, 2009
7:08 am

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh blasted President Barack Obama on Tuesday for picking a “reverse racist” and “hack” in Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

“Here you have a racist — you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist,” Limbaugh said of Sotomayor on his show, alluding to the New York federal appeals court judge’s past statement 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.”

Liberals, “of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don’t have the power to implement their racism,” Limbaugh said according to a transcript on his website. “Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power. … Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he’s appointed one.”

Asked about Sotomayor’s remark Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that “if you look at the context of the longer speech that she makes, I think what she says is very much common sense in terms of different experiences, different people.”

Limbaugh used the line to accuse Sotomayor of being a “party hack,” though the radio host conceded that she will likely be confirmed.

“The odds that she could be stopped are long,” Limbaugh said, before turning fire on moderate Republicans who he thinks will be “completely useless” in opposing Obama’s pick.

“When the rubber hits the road, such as in this nomination, where are these moderate Republican groups on the nomination? Where are the moderate senators? Where is Colin Powell? Where is Tom Ridge?” Limbaugh asked.

“I’m the one doing the heavy lifting. Colin Powell panders to moderate Republicans,” he said. “If the moderates in the Republican Party offer no way to address this danger, then they are useless.”

2D

May 27th, 2009
8:10 am

Try Again… Are you sure that Ms. Sotomayor has 95% of her decisions upheld at the Supreme Court? Where did you get that information??? I think you may want to recheck your facts.

In fact, she as only had a single decision upheld at the Supreme Court out of a possible six or seven (I’ve heard different accoutns some I’m stating both). Not real good considering for much of that time, the court leaned liberal.

She is a good story, but a good story does not a Suproeme Court Justice make? Those nine individuals need to be the top of the legal class, need to make rulings based on law versus ideology and need to understand their role in our governmental “Three Ring Circus” (to borrow from Schoolhouse Rock). Since FDR attempted to pack the court, the Supreme Court has neglected the latter two. Hopefully, Justice Souter’s replacement, whoever he/she may be, will not.

Copyleft

May 27th, 2009
8:30 am

@@: So, you admit that your claim about Sotomayor not being “the sharpest knife in the drawer” is pure partisan speculation, with no basis in actual fact.

Thank you. Keep up the good work! We like the right wing having zero credibility.

Californication

May 27th, 2009
8:40 am

The problem I have is that a judge is there to interpret law, not to make policy.

williebkind

May 27th, 2009
8:50 am

Sotomayor made comments that the court makes policy! Do you remember Supreme Court nominee Borg who stated he believed in a strict interpretation of the constitution? The liberals went crazy! Judge Borg was not nominated because the liberals wanted to make policy from the bench.
Liberals expect the American people to accept someone who will make policy from the bench and not interpret constitutional law.

I watched the communist news network (CNN)and “my god” she is the most qualified person in the whole world. It does not matter she is a racist against white males. Do not challenge me with the point that Bush 1 appointed her to some court. Remember Bushes are stupid! It is true the liberals said so.

@@

May 27th, 2009
9:02 am

Copyleft:

I admit nothing of the sort.

Have you read Sotomayor’s dissenting opinions? There’s no flourish….no passion. They’re shallow in content.

Any Appeals Court judge, worth their salt, does not casually dismiss the lives of 20 firefighters with a one paragraph summary order that doesn’t even address the exceptional import as to why it was filed.

You vote democrat, Copyleft.

I fully expect you to accept mediocre while calling it exceptional. I am perfectly happy to sit back and let you do that. The most valuable lessons are often the hardest learned.

RetLTC

May 27th, 2009
9:10 am

Whether that fat POS Rush likes it or not, moderates are the new Republican party. If the part ever makes a comeback it will be because of moderates not in spite of them. The radical right is done. Stick a fork in em.

And by the way. What makes Sotomayor a “leftist” judge. You wouldn’t think a Republican President would appoint a “leftist” judge to the federal bench. Furthermore, what makes her an “activist” judge? The key word is interpret. Just because one judge interprets the constitution differently than another means what? That if their educated interpretation doesn’t agree with your uneducated one that they are wrong? That they are “activist”…”leftist/rightest”? Interpret means just that. The constitution is open to interpretation and just because every judge doesn’t rule like your right wing favorite son Judge Antonin Scalia, doesn’t mean their interpretation is less valid. In every ruling both sides can be absolutely correct in their interpretation or vice versa.

sane jane

May 27th, 2009
9:18 am

Sotomayor graduated Summa from Princeton and then went to Yale Law. (didn’t need legacy help or monied connections to get in, either)

And yet people like @@ casually dismiss her as the “not the sharpest knife in the drawer.”

We should all be so stupid.

sane jane

May 27th, 2009
9:21 am

@@, if SC slots are reserved for only the sharpest knives, please make the case for Clarence Thomas. Has he ever shown independent thought? Has he ever dissented from Scalia on ANYTHING?

Even if Sotomayor winds up being “far left”, all she’s doing is balancing out the composition of the court, which is currently far-right. I’m ok with “fair and balanced” – are you? Or do YOU get to be the only arbiter of what is fair & balanced.

Munch

May 27th, 2009
9:21 am

2D

Sotomayer has a record of 360 decisions, of which only 6 were accepted for appeal to the Supreme Court. Of those 6, 3 were reversed. So while you can claim a 50% reversal rate at the SC, it is important to recognize that the large majority of cases accepted by the SC are ultimately reversed. This has to do with the nature of the SC granting cert; they pick and choose the cases they find “interesting”, whether because of policy questions or issues of clear legal error.

The more important point is that .0083% of her decisions stand as issued.

Californication

May 27th, 2009
9:29 am

See how arrogant this idiot is….She believes it is up to her to be judge jury and policy maker, NO interpret the law you idiot that is YOUR job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

sane jane

May 27th, 2009
9:42 am

Brown vs. Board of Education falls under Californication’s definition of “legislating from the bench” and “setting policy” because it found “separate but equal” Jim Crow laws to be unconstitutional.

It overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson and gobs of other rulings. Judicial activism at its finest.

Cali, are you saying Brown v. Board was a bad ruling? How do you feel about blacks being 3/5 of a person – that’s a strict interpretation of the Constitution (with apologies to the 14th amendment), you know…

Jackie

May 27th, 2009
9:44 am

How does a judge making a decision relative to case law “make policy?”
Our system is one of interpretation of the laws written because someone the law affected felt aggrieved and took issue with the consequences.

The judge has the responsibility to agree/disagree with the law as written; the legislative branch, House or Senate, has responsibility for writing those laws.

What activist judges??????

@@

May 27th, 2009
10:24 am

sane jane:

Please go back up and read my initial post @ 3:34, then go to the previous thread “Any standard-issue liberal for the court…” and read my comment there @ 9:19.

Sotomayor has ruled in favor of Wall Street, pro-lifers, the government on warrantless wiretapping, and against environmentalists. What’s not to like.

I’ll even give her a pass on the “where policy is made” statement. Precedence would have been a better choice of words but then it’s obvious that she’s not prone to elaboration.

It’s her support of identity politics that concerns me. I predict that her ruling on Ricci v DeStafano will be overturned by the SC and will receive a lot of attention that dems will wish it hadn’t. I also predict that identity politics as it pertains to race will die a slow death over the next 10 to 15 years. When resources are limited, a species will begin to devour their own.

Clarence Thomas’s early plight was every bit as admirable as Sotomayor’s. He attended Yale Law School but because he’s conservative and you’re not….”Uncle Tom’s” accomplishments are suspect?

FC Crusher

May 27th, 2009
10:59 am

It seems to me that part of the problem is the definition of the word “policy” being tossed about here. “Policy” or a “policy argument” in the law is a legal term of art that speaks of how the interpretation of a particular law or previous court ruling will be be carried out int he future and whether the effects of that will have positive or negative effects on the citizenry. It DOES NOT mean the same thing as a “political policy”. Every jurist, from the Superior Court to the SCOTUS has to take into account these considerations when making a decision. To say that the courts are where “policy” is made is no political statement. Its a statement of reality.

Oh BTW, if you don’t know what a term of art is and how every profession and industry has them, then perhaps you need to read a little more.

Sharecropper

May 27th, 2009
11:23 am

Ain’t it amazing? Right wingnuts who barely got out of grade school are questioning a court nominee’s intelligence, and she is the one who went to Princeton and Yale? (Now, I admit that one George Bush also went to Yale, though with a disastrous grade point average, earned by a paid grad student no doubt, hurts my case.) I look forward to the Republican Party gearing up and strapping it on and taking on a female hispanic. This will be great for the Democratic Party. Before it is done the Republican Party will be the equivalent of a Boy Scout troop in Keokuk, Iowa. And Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulter will still be in the public square setting their hair on fire. God, this is fun.

HDB

May 27th, 2009
11:33 am

@@: “Clarence Thomas’s early plight was every bit as admirable as Sotomayor’s. He attended Yale Law School but because he’s conservative and you’re not….”Uncle Tom’s” accomplishments are suspect?”

Yes, Clarence Thomas’ accomplishments ARE suspect; what you fail to grasp is that Clarence Thomas was only rated “QUALIFIED” by the American Bar Association, whereas the preponderance of his predecessors – partucularly Thurgood Marshall, the Justice he replaced -were rated “HIGHLY QUALIFIED” by the same agency. Clarence Thomas also wants to repeal the same programs for other minorities that got him to his crescendo. He was chosen by Bush41 as an appeasement; Mme. Sotomayor was chosen by her experience in juris prudence. If you compare the two vitaes, I feel that Justice Thomas falls woefully short!!

FC Crusher

May 27th, 2009
11:43 am

Careful HDB. You came close to revealing the librul ABA’s plot to join with the “Mainstream Media” to keep the poor put upon GOP and their members down. Remember, a conspiracy is only as strong as its weakest link.

Copyleft

May 27th, 2009
12:16 pm

@@: More hypocrisy on your part. You sneer at those who question Thomas’ qualifications and intelligence, and yet you sling those same attacks at Sotomayor, who is factually FAR more qualified and has an even BETTER educational record.

Just admit you hate her because Obama said her name out loud. It’ll save time.

SaveOurRepublic

May 27th, 2009
2:51 pm

Copyleft @ 11:07 (5/26) – My initial estimation is that she’s most likely a Cultural Marxist oligarch who’ll not embrace full Constitutional adherence….however, that hunch is yet to be fully validated (in the way of her SCOTUS rulings, etc.). BTW, I’m not in the business of “cut & paste” posts, nor am I a Neocon’d GOP “Bushbot”…but an Independent paleoconservative Constitutionalist.

http://www.infowars.com

Munch

May 27th, 2009
3:11 pm

What can one say about an SC nominee as blatantly “empathetic” as this one?

“Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.

[...]

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”

That Sam Alito is such a Dirty Fu(|6ing Hippie.

Andre "Pulpwood" Smith

May 27th, 2009
5:34 pm

Funny how the right is clinging to the tired old “identity politics” argument to attack this nomination. When a Democrat nominates a female, it’s “identity politics,she’s only nominated because she’s a woman or latin, not the most qualified, it’s racist” etc, etc, etc.

Consider this quote:

“Within the guidelines of excellence, appointments can carry enormous symbolic significance. This permits us to guide by example, to show how deep our commitment is and to give meaning to what we profess.

One way I intend to live up to that commitment is to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court.

I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can find, one who meets the high standards I will demand for all my appointments.

It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists. I will also seek out women to appoint to other federal courts in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench.”

Who said it? Some bleeding heart liberal? A (gasp) socialist? Nope, it’s the hero of the right, Ronald Reagan, October 14, 1980.

SaveOurRepublic

May 27th, 2009
6:03 pm

“Pulpwood” – Reagan is only a hero to the GOP. From a pure, true (paleo)conservative perspective his terms as POTUS were questionable at best (amnesty for illegals via the ‘86 Immigration Reform and Control Act signing, hawkish on foreign entanglements & green-lighted REX 84).

For us real (paleo) conservatives, our heros are Founding Fathers such as Jefferson, Samuel Adams & Patrick Henry (& rare modern patriots like Dr.Ron Paul).

Munch

May 27th, 2009
7:23 pm

Another d@mned hippie caterwauling about “empathy”:

Republican Senator John Danforth on Clarence Thomas on July 16, 1991: “His empathy is with the disadvantaged people of this country. He would bring a perspective to the Supreme Court which nobody else brings.”

Fu(|3ing Hippie.

Lee

May 27th, 2009
8:05 pm

“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.”

The very fact that she was at a University of California ‘diversity’ lecture should disqualify her in the minds of every straight, white, protestant male in America.

But it wont. The communist media will hide any relevant information about this woman until her big butt is firmly planted on the Supreme Court…

… for the rest of her life.

N.J.

May 29th, 2009
1:56 am

Of course, the Republicans removed this Wise Latina statement from the several hundred words that preceded it and the several hundred that followed it. And of course, they totally reversed the meaning of the statement:

[O]ne of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum….rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then “as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically” but instead of “acting intuitively.”…

Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with…Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases…. whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society…. I accept the thesis of… Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School…that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought….

[B]ecause I accept the proposition that, as [Yale Law School Professor Judith] Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as… Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives – no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that–it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others….

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences…our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure….that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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 who hasn’t lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group…. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown [v. Board of Education.]

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

http://womensissues.about.com/b/2009/05/27/the-racist-uproar-over-sotomayors-wise-latina-comment.htm

One must accept a single thing from these conservative distortions and outright prevarications. That these make them singularly unqualified to serve on any court in any place at anytime.

N.J.

May 29th, 2009
2:17 am

No actually the right wing has been flooding the media with false impressions by their usual methods of misrepresentation.

The “wise latina” statment comes from the middle of a huge paragraph in which she points disagrees with a statement made by Sandra Day O’Connor in which she states a “wise old man and a wise old woman will ALWAYS reach the same decision” Sotomayor states that this is not the case, and gives examples of when they do, and when they dont.

Next, the Republicans make statements about how many times the Supreme Court has reversed Sotomayors decisions, but fail to rate that it has been the LOWER than the average annual rate of reversals for all the appeal courts over the last 11 years. The average rate is 75 percent, and Sotomayors lifetime rate for her time on the appellate court is 60 percent.

What can you express from the political party that chose the prince of darkness as their last vice president.

N.J.

May 29th, 2009
2:24 am

She will be confirmed for two reasons. One is that the rate at which the Supreme Court has reversed her decisions in the last 11 years is one of the lowest rates for that 11 years out of all the appeals courts. Her average rate of the cases the court has decided to accept is 60 percent. The average for ALL federal appeals courts over the same period is 75 percent. The average rate of reversal for ALL her cases sent to the Supreme Court is 1.3 percent. The lowest in the last 100 years.

Next even now, she has MORE judicial experience than Chief Justice Roberts OR Justice Alito if you INCLUDE their years on the Supreme Court. She is the most experienced judicial nominee in the last 70 years. If she is confirmed she will be the ONLY person sitting on the court who has served in EVERY level of the judiciary in the country.

N.J.

May 29th, 2009
2:25 am

In fact she has the more judicial experience than any Conservative appointed to the court did at the time of their appointments since BEFORE Renquist was appointed.

N.J.

May 29th, 2009
2:29 am

How does a judge MAKE policy. They make it every time they hand down a decision. When the president decides he is going to hold some types of people in Guantanamo and thats his policy, and the court says NO you have to bring them into the United States and hold a trial,because the way you are doing it is unconstitutional, that is making policy. The policy then becomes when you have a prisoner of that type you have to jail them in the United States and try them in a civil court and not by military tribunal. You have to do that from now until another court changes that decision. Thats making policy

Chris

June 1st, 2009
2:42 pm

To “Get Real”
I guess you have a problem with reading aboe a third grade levell…Your comments make no sense otherwise…Mr. Wooten is essentially saying that Judge Sotomayer should be confirmed.