Yahoo News: Obama to nominate Sotomayor for SCOTUS

[DjTj]

So the Justices really brought it on themselves thru judicial activism?

:halo:

Well, Roe v. Wade wasn't the start of judicial activism; it's just the start of judicial activism becoming an issue dividing the two major political parties.

Jefferson fought John Marshall and FDR tried to pack the Court, but no political movements grew out of those disputes to bring the issue to the forefront in Congress.

The past three decades have really been unique in the degree to which Congress, and the public, has been engaged in the judicial nomination process.

[twa]

Here's some good info about her: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.resume/?iref=hpmostpop

Nice link...kinda mixed record on SCOTUS review of her decisions

[Burgold]

Can anything top (or get lower) then Ted Kennedy chastising Clarence Thomas about his alleged treatment of women? I think not.

Probably, but it would be tough. Kennedy... or Henry Hyde chastising Clinton about having an affair and demeaning his office while he was in the middle of one himself (and had a history rife with them) was particularly absurd.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I'm bothered by ANY judge (conservative or liberal) that thinks they have the right to make laws. Their job is ONLY to interpret the law.

Curious as to what you think that means?

[NavyDave]

I don't know anything about her either. Latino women in general are a pretty conservative group, politically speaking. I can vouch for this because I'm married to one.

Well I can guarantee that she isn't and she has the track record to prove it.

Maybe we can plant a story of her being best friends with Clarence Thomas so that association can kill liberal support like it did with this liberal female judge.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/thomas-hurts-liberal-judges-prospects

[The Evil Genius]

The GOP is screwed. Hispanics are the fastest growing population in the US. Do they dare oppose Sotomayor and risk alienating this group any more?

[SkinsHokieFan]

The GOP is screwed. Hispanics are the fastest growing population in the US. Do they dare oppose Sotomayor and risk alienating this group any more?

Somehow Dems did just fine when they opposed Gonzalez

[JimboDaMan]

Somehow Dems did just fine when they opposed Gonzalez

Dems? Seems to be some selective history going on here. There was plenty of opposition from the right complaining that Gonzales wasn't conservative enough.

Not to mention, Gonzales was never nominated for the Court.

[JohnLockesGhost]

All I know about her is her name is fun to say.

Re: Contentious confirmation process

I think it goes back to the passage and ratification of the 17th Amendment. It didn't became overtly rancorous immediately, but over time the direct election of Senators has eroded the diplomatic spirit that had existed in the Senate for over a century. Now it's just as contentious as if the confirmation hearings were held in the House of Representatives.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Somehow Dems did just fine when they opposed Gonzalez

Democrats will always be better at racial politics.

[The Evil Genius]

Democrats will always be better at racial politics.

Remind me again when Gonzales was nominated for the SC?

[NavyDave]

Remind me again when Gonzales was nominated for the SC?

The point is that liberals always get away with being bigoted towards conservative minorities.

[The Evil Genius]

The point is that liberals always get away with being bigoted towards conservative minorities.

Wah. Are you suggesting that they should be openly bigoted like you, right?

[JohnLockesGhost]

Remind me again when Gonzales was nominated for the SC?

Well, their opposition to Miguel Estrada did not result in the Democrat Party being labeled "anti-Hispanic." Republicans may have even tried to push that line (I don't remember, really), but it wouldn't stick. The same can't be said if the Democrats play the race card against Republicans who oppose Sotomayor. It'll stick just fine.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Dems? Seems to be some selective history going on here. There was plenty of opposition from the right complaining that Gonzales wasn't conservative enough.

Not to mention, Gonzales was never nominated for the Court.

Actually not at all. Cons loved Gonzalez at first.

And this was for his AG battle, which was not a Scalia 98-0 walk in the park

[The Evil Genius]

Actually not at all. Cons loved Gonzalez at first.

And this was for his AG battle, which was not a Scalia 98-0 walk in the park

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/politics/politicsspecial1/03scotus.html

[Predicto]

Sotomayer looks pretty damn moderate and qualified to me, from what I have read.

And that link posted by jrockster is going to be be blown way out of proportion. The judge was responding to a question about where law students should seek internships, and she said the Courts of Appeal because they are the workhorses of the system.

And the fact is, judges do make policy, all the time, because they have to apply ambiguous laws and common law principles in new ways all the time. It is totally dishonest for any judge to claim that they just apply the "plain language" of the statute, because the plain language of the statute usually is difficult to find, especially in close case. So the judges do their best, and in the process, policy is made. This is especially true at the Court of Appeals level.

Look at it this way. Every single close call lawsuit is one that "creates policy." No matter which way the court goes, it is making policy one way or another.

Now IF you can look at Sotomeyer's actual record and demonstrate that her decisions show that she is an out of control judicial activist, that is one thing. If Stephen Reinhardt was the nominee, for example, you could easily make that case.

But to take this COMPLETELY TRUE statement by Sotomeyer about making policy and twist it into advocacy of judicial activism, that is a buncha bull.

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/politics/politicsspecial1/03scotus.html

And none of that got those groups labeled "anti hispanic"

so pray tell, if this nomination is opposed, how on earth will it be played into "anti Hispanic republicans?"

[Oldskool]

FYI her surname is pronounced Soto-my-or.

And I'm underwhelmed by the fact that the press and Obama are touting her ethnicity (remember I'm a 1st generation American of Hispanic background). I honestly was expecting more of a liberal firebrand as Obama's choice. From the 4 rulings that i've read that she has been a part of, she does seem to be slightly left of center, which is not a surprise.

[twa]

Looking at her decisions in cases that have been overturned/upheld should give us a decent reading of her abilities.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Sotomayer looks pretty damn moderate and qualified to me, from what I have read.

She looks perfectly qualified to me as well.

I don't like the statement she made about her race and whatnot. I tend to recoil from overt race-consciousness, especially in judges.

[The Evil Genius]

And none of that got those groups labeled "anti hispanic"

so pray tell, if this nomination is opposed, how on earth will it be played into "anti Hispanic republicans?"

Because the GOP has been (fairly or unfairly) portrayed as unfriendly to minorities in the recent past (50 years or so).

It's easier to label any future choices they make as being "anti-fill in the blank" because of it.

BTW - are you know restating your opinion of Gonzales being singled out by more than the D party?

[Oldskool]

Here's her bio from the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15sotomayor.html?_r=1

[Popeman38]

There is one battle looming with her nomination: the 2nd Amendment. She is of the opinion that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to all 50 states, but only to the Federal Govt. This could shape up as the main argument for opposition to her appointment.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/

Second Amendment: Sotomayor was also a member of the panel that issued a per curiam opinion in another controversial case that may be headed for the Court next year. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), the panel considered (as relevant here) a claim by a New York attorney that a state law prohibiting possession of a chuka stick (also known as nunchaku, a device used in martial arts consisting of two sticks joined by a rope or chain) violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court rejected the claim on the ground that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. On appeal, the panel affirmed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in Presser v. Illinois, it explained that it was “settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.” And while acknowledging the possibility that “Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,” the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it “directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Maloney’s lawyers intend to file a petition for certiorari in late June.

[JohnLockesGhost]

There is one battle looming with her nomination: the 2nd Amendment. She is of the opinion that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to all 50 states, but only to the Federal Govt. This could shape up as the main argument for opposition to her appointment.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/

Does that mean states can arrest reporters, conduct illegal searches and seizures and make people go to church too?