Sonia Sotomayor
May 26th 2009 23:38
Obama has chosen Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee for the Supreme Court. Personally, I don't know enough about her to have a fully informed opinion at this point. I'm quite sure she leans left -- maybe far left. Otherwise, she would've never been nominated. However, I don't yet know where she stands on a number of issues. I look forward to seeing her testify before the Judiciary Committee.
With that being said, she has one viewpoint that is anathema to conservatives -- and should be anathema to all Americans. By her own admission, she feels that "policy is made" by the Appeals Court. And if policy is made at that level, why would she feel any differently about the Supreme Court? She'll look at it as the ultimate position to make policy. For someone with such lofty credentials, you'd think she would learned the basic roles of the three branches of government at some point. That comment alone could be grounds for a filibuster.
The GOP will ask her questions in an attempt to flesh out her judicial philosophies, but I suspect they'll largely vote for her. They are usually pretty agreeable when it comes to Democratic presidents and Supreme Court nominees (lower court appointments are a slightly different story). Truthfully, though, the emasculated GOP couldn't muster enough support to block this nominee if they wanted to. And even if they could get the votes, they would hesitate to demonize the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court for fear of alienating Hispanic voters. The Democrats have no qualms about demonization of conservative minority nominees. They did everything in their power to derail Clarence Thomas when he was nominated for the SCOTUS. And they tried to destroy the reputation of Appeals Court nominee Miguel Estrada, whom they feared BECAUSE he was a Latino.
Unless they find bodies buried in her backyard, I fully expect Sotomayor to be the next Supreme Court Justice. Still, I look forward to watching it play out. And while I don't yet know much about her, I will give her kudos for one thing: She was responsible for putting the kibash on that dreadful 1995 baseball strike. For that, I thank her.
With that being said, she has one viewpoint that is anathema to conservatives -- and should be anathema to all Americans. By her own admission, she feels that "policy is made" by the Appeals Court. And if policy is made at that level, why would she feel any differently about the Supreme Court? She'll look at it as the ultimate position to make policy. For someone with such lofty credentials, you'd think she would learned the basic roles of the three branches of government at some point. That comment alone could be grounds for a filibuster.
The GOP will ask her questions in an attempt to flesh out her judicial philosophies, but I suspect they'll largely vote for her. They are usually pretty agreeable when it comes to Democratic presidents and Supreme Court nominees (lower court appointments are a slightly different story). Truthfully, though, the emasculated GOP couldn't muster enough support to block this nominee if they wanted to. And even if they could get the votes, they would hesitate to demonize the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court for fear of alienating Hispanic voters. The Democrats have no qualms about demonization of conservative minority nominees. They did everything in their power to derail Clarence Thomas when he was nominated for the SCOTUS. And they tried to destroy the reputation of Appeals Court nominee Miguel Estrada, whom they feared BECAUSE he was a Latino.
Unless they find bodies buried in her backyard, I fully expect Sotomayor to be the next Supreme Court Justice. Still, I look forward to watching it play out. And while I don't yet know much about her, I will give her kudos for one thing: She was responsible for putting the kibash on that dreadful 1995 baseball strike. For that, I thank her.
| 68 |
| Vote |
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Where did you hear that? I haven't seen that statement from anyone making the case substantively. It may be true, but I'd have to see something to back it up before I'll believe it. I doubt it's true, though. Look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a Clinton nominee). She was a former ACLU lawyer. Even if Sotomayor is ultra-liberal, I think she'll be less liberal than Ginsburg.
Besides, I heard today that NARAL was angry about one of her decisions pertaining to abortion. If she made NARAL mad at one point, she may not be all bad.
I'm hoping she'll be less liberal than Obama thinks she is. I doubt that'll happen, but that's my hope. It's a moot point, though. She'll get in. A liberal justice will replace a liberal justice and the court's makeup likely won't appreciably change (philosophically speaking).
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Comment by Andrew Biviano
The Middle Ground
One other thing. The "policy is made" statement is absolutely true, and is not anathema to any conservatives except the ignorant ones. This is why the appellate courts exist -- why else would we need them, when a judge has already heard the case? It's to fill in the ambiguities in statutes, which exist because laws are the product of compromise so are often left vague. The courts applying the law are left to guess as to what congress meant when it used the word "excessive" or "substantial." Rather than have the thousands of trial judges make up their own meaning, congress created appellate courts, with the job of discerning the intent the best it can, and establishing policy for the courts in that jurisdiction to follow. So, unless you want a supreme court justice who lies or fails to understand the role of appellate courts, you should reject those who complain about this accurate statement.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Have YOU heard that facts of the case? If not, look them up. I've heard them from both liberals and conservatives and both sides admit that the ruling was suspect, if not outright discrimination. And seeing how Sotomayor has already been overruled by the Supremes on at least one occasion, her legal reasoning could very well be out of the mainstream (assuming the Supremes are considered to be mainstream). You like to criticize other's opinions. Let's hear your opinion on the case. You try to defend New Haven's action. Or are we not allowed to have opinions and express them anymore?
"Ignorant", huh? That's absolute poppycock. Did you watch the video of her statement? Even SHE backed off the statement immediately after she stated it. She knew that she was wrong to reveal that much of her intent. There's a line between interpreting the law and setting policy. One is reactive and one is proactive. Are courts supposed to say whether something is wrong? Or are they supposed to tell whether something is wrong and then tell you what's right and put in place a plan of action? You're arguing for the latter and that's an "ignorant" argument.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Then again, if the GOP had won the presidency, Souter probably wouldn't have stepped down.