Obama to Nominate Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court

So, is SotoTUS gay?

Interesting article in the British press today:
When Will Barack Obama Stop Fudging It?

The party of “No” will gear up to fight anyone he would nominate. He could nominate Abe Lincoln and they would oppose.

Abe was a well known waterboarding advocate.

Her firefighters case seems like a real stinker, but I’m of the general opinion the President should get who he wants at SCOTUS.

539..
now we are dancing.. your last paragraph (I’m proud of you, many posters aren’t aware of this grammatical device) makes my point.. better than I did..

MrSmith
The US has a fair system..
.. you can get all of the justice – that you can afford …

“Leviticus 19:15 Don’t be corrupt when administering justice. Never give special favor to poor people, and never show preference to important people. Judge your neighbor fairly.”
Silky 10:01 The bible has no place in Supreme Court decisions.

“.. other than the swearing in ‘on the Bible’ ..”
I said decisions. Entire different things.

By the way, a bible is not required for swearing in.

Masterful timing. Of course all lemmings will now change course and no one, but no one, will be talking about the nukes in North Korea or Iran, much less the 6 Iranian warships sent into international waters. And Ahmadinejad’s challenge to Obama for a debate will never see the light of day. Sigh.

.. they’ll ask Ms. S.S. .. what do you think of waterboarding, what do you think of prosecuting your lawyer friends that say it is legal.. should we release photos of waterboading guys…
Nothing, in other words ….

And H.W. Bush get’s to put another liberal Judge on the Court, with the help of Obama. The Bush family, the gift that keeps on giving to the Republican party. I can not think of a family that has done more damage to the Republican party and the country.
Ex Republican

Satement from nominee: cout is where “policy” is made
SHE IS NOT FIT to serve. Court is where LAW is enforced
Obama another failure

Like all politically correct candidates, she deserves a fair hearing.

Tom Goldstein, SCOTUS Blog, has a great piece on this topic.
“Even more important, Republicans cannot afford to find themselves in the position of implicitly opposing Judge Sotomayor. To Hispanics, the nomination would be an absolutely historic landmark. It really is impossible to overstate its significance. The achievement of a lifetime appointment at the absolute highest levels of the government is a profound event for that community, which in turn is a vital electoral group now and in the future.
Equally significant for not only Hispanics but all Americans, Sotomayor has an extraordinarily compelling personal narrative. She grew up in a housing project, losing her father as an adolescent, raised (with her brother) by her mother, who worked as a nurse. She got herself to Princeton, graduating as one of the top two people in her class, then went to Yale Law. Almost all of her career has been in public service–as a prosecutor, trial judge, and now appellate judge. She has almost no money to her name.
For Republican Senators to come after Judge Sotomayor is not only hopeless when it comes to confirmation (something that did not deter Democrats in their attacks on Roberts and Alito) but a strategy that risks exacting a very significant political cost among Hispanics and independent voters generally, assuming that the attacks aren’t backed up with considerable substance.
Objectively, her qualifications are overwhelming from the perspective of ordinary Americans. She has been a prosecutor, private litigator, trial judge, and appellate judge. No one currently on the Court has that complete package of experience.”

Doesn’t seem that bad to me – the city of New Haven should have the right to chose how they run their fire department.
=============
Cities don’t have the right to discriminate based on race.
Don’t presume you know what I know about the case.

.. she was married for 7 years.. while still at Princeton ..

Kudos to you, Jake, for correctly identifying Obama as a “former constitutional law lecturer”. An AP story in my local paper this morning incorrectly labeled him as a “professor”, a myth pushed by the Obama campaign. Keep up the good work!

Obama is using this day and this nomination as a distraction.
After another STERN, empty warning to North Korea yesterday they fired off a few more missiles, and reuters reports they are readying more as the “US Hostility” won’t be tolerated.
Empty suit Obama will allow N. Korea and Iran to acquire nukes and will play golf and/or sit on his ### while it is done.
And don’t tell me this is GWB’s fault. Clinton gave N. Korea the nuclear reactor if they promised to only use it for energy, and we have been managing that liberal stupidity ever since.
There are so many ways Obama is screwing us and damaging our future, there is not enough room to describe it.

“Even more important, Republicans cannot afford to find themselves in the position of implicitly opposing Judge Sotomayor. To Hispanics, the nomination would be an absolutely historic landmark. It really is impossible to overstate its significance. The achievement of a lifetime appointment at the absolute highest levels of the government is a profound event for that community, which in turn is a vital electoral group now and in the future.
————
Dems had no problem blocking Bush’s hispanic nomination.
This argument is a non starter.
Her racist statements that she would have a different opinion on the court than a white male, only support her other statement that policy is made on the bench.
There are three branches of government for a reason, the court IS NOT THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. Laws, or in her words policy are made in congress.
The judiciary, remember the statue with blindfolds, is supposed to be blind to anything but the letter of the law.
If the people want changes they get to vote. There is no fairness is someone who has not been voted for changing the law.

MNM:”Dems had no problem blocking Bush’s hispanic nomination.”
Bush made three Supreme Court Nominations:
John Roberts
Harriet Myers
Samuel Alito
All of Bush’s nominations are VERY well documented historical fact. Which of those three is Bush’s “hispanic nomination” that “Dems had no problem blocking”?

Bush had Gonzo running the ‘justice’ & torture Dept…… great choice if your running a fascist government

If the Supreme Court rules with “blind justice”…why do we need a Porta Rician, hispanic, black, white or whatever? If it is “blind justice” it won’t matter what your etenticity. And, you can lie and say anyway you feel, but when you are on the bench you have ‘empathy’. Think this lady is doing just that. Why is she hispanic?
Just because she speeks spanish? She is Porta Rician……

President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada–a Honduran immigrant–for the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in May 2001. For two years the Democrats blocked his nomination in committee. When the Republicans regained control of the Senate in 2003 the Democrats filibustered his nomination. Mr. Estrada finally withdrew his nomination on Sep 4, 2003.

James Danley:”President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada–a Honduran immigrant–for the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in May 2001. For two years the Democrats blocked his nomination in committee. ”
It should also be noted that Democrats supported Hispanic Bush appointees to the lower courts, with 27 – 10% of his nominations – confirmed (more than the 23 Clinton got confirmed).
President Bush (with the savvy guidance of Rove) was making a play towards bringing the Latino population into the Republican party’s tent, but their rabid anti-immigrant scuttled any hopes of that when their rhetoric and actions clearly turned against legal immigrants too.

Great news for people who don’t like the Constitution. Does this also mean that we will eventually just phase out Congress now that the Supreme Court will be making laws?

MNM, Judge Sotomayor didn’t just say that she would have a different opinion. She actually said: “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.”
If a white judge had said that he or she would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina judge, there would be a call for that judge’s impeachment. I am only pointing out the hypocrisy that already exists.
The vetting process has only just begun. However based on the early information that is coming out about Judge Sotomayor, I currently don’t see anything that should disqualify her for being a U. S. Supreme Court Justice. I am a strong believer that the President of the United States–especially one elected by a majority of the electorate–should have his nominee confirmed UNLESS that nominee has demonstrated a clear propensity towards judicial activism. That is going beyond merely interpreting law and instead actually engaging in making law. I know that Judge Sotomayor once made a statement in a forum about the Court of Appeals being a place where “policy is made.” However, she immediately backed away saying that she knows that “we don’t make law.”

All of Bush’s nominations are VERY well documented historical fact. Which of those three is Bush’s “hispanic nomination” that “Dems had no problem blocking”?
Posted by: jhw539 | May 26, 2009 11:11:42 AM
——-
“Dems had no problem blocking Bush’s hispanic nomination.This argument is a non starter.”
I never said it was the supreme court. Is that your straw man argument. I said nomination.
Miguel Estrada, US Court of Appeals for DC
and
Alberto Gonzalez, although not for the supreme court, and unjustly attacked non stop for years at that.
It still preempts any attempt to claim republicans would vote Sotomeyer down due to hispanic heritage.

paul:”Would you care to cite a few valid examples of Republican party rhetoric and actions against LEGAL immigrants? ”
Are you aware of Tom Tancredo’s position regarding legal immigration and how he’d reform it? Just read his book and try to say he’s just against illegals.
Or how about the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill debate? Regarding LEGAL immigrant childrens’ access to health care, Senator John Ensign (R-NV) said: “It would seem to me that we are giving more incentives for folks to come to the United States, not just to participate in the American dream, but to get on the government dole. And I think this is exactly the wrong direction we should be going with this legislation.”
Again, that was directly, explicitly, and clearly against policy to treat legal immigrants equally to native citizens.
Republicans haven’t lost the immigrant vote because immigrants are stupid.

I never said it was the supreme court. Is that your straw man argument. I said nomination.
posted by MNM
***************************
You responded with this “Dems had no problem blocking Bush’s hispanic nomination.” in a direct post regarding Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Any logical person would conclude you mean the Supreme Court not any hispanic nominated anytime, anywhere……

“Great Pick President Obama a Woman and Hispanic at that, Great Job Representing the Diversity of our country!”
==========================
Angie in Pa,
Leave it to you to immedialtely go the whole issue of “Diversity” first! I thought he was supposed t be nominating a person for the Supreme Court, Not the Census bureau!
As long as liberals like yourself are around, this country will NEVER move past classification of people in this manner!
I dont care what gender she is, what her ethinic background is. THE ONLY THING that matters is wether she is qualified and wether she truly can seperate interpreting the law and the Constitution from forming political policy.
That is where my beef with this pick is. The rest of what you jump up and down about is why the best people rarely end up in the positions we need them in.

If justice is “blind” what difference
does it make if a justice is hispanic,black, white, woman, man or whatever….as long as they protect
the Constitution of the United States.
Posted by: Monica
“IF”….. the qualifier of all things …
the practicality of the framers in writing the constitution is proven throughout history, it is not a static document of rigid beliefs like the bible, it is a guide and foundation to a live and changing democracy…..
if one was ‘protecting the constitution’ early on in American history, non-whites and women lived without the benefits of the Const….
‘all men are created equal’ leaves out a lot of people, …..
as a separate branch of the govt., the judiciary must think for itself and decide if laws, no matter when written, apply in society today……
I’m sure you would disagree with this interpretation of the Constitution….
We think they [people of African ancestry] are . . . not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. . . .”
— Chief Justice Roger B. Taney,
speaking for the majority