My thoughts on Judge Sotomayor
Jul 18th, 2009 by David Anderson
The hearings are over and Judge Sotomayor did no serious damage to herself. She actually gained a few points in the polls. I haven’t said much or written much on this subject. I think Dennis Miller may be right that this is inevitable and the Republicans should save their political capital for something where it would make a difference. We need to be winning back Latino Voters not alienating them. My friends who are Puerto Rican have a lot of pride in her appointment. 90% support her. I can’t help but think that is representative. This is a group that has been moving Republican. Puerto Rico elected a Republican governor. The Latino vote garnered in 2004 President Bush his margin of victory in FL, NV, and NM. We can’t write off the fastest growing demographic in America for a useless exercise. I don’t know that the focus on the wise Latina comment had any wisdom to it. It has the potential to do more harm than good. I think her comment that there may be no right to defend yourself could have more appeal as a base of opposition.
I did think bringing the dyslexic firefighter, Mark Ritchie was a good move. It may be why her support is only 43%.
I do have problems with the Judge. She used terms like anti-abortion and pro-choice. She not only referred to abortion rights, but used the loaded term reproductive rights interchangeably. Those facts give clues that her mentor, who said that she would surely support abortion rights, has credibility in spite of her denials.
Another issue that I had was with eminent domain. She seemed to understand the position of the court in Kelo v. City of New London, but seemed not to be able to articulate the other side of the argument. I would not vote for her, but I would not fight her for this seat which was held by Souter.
Maybe the most disturbing interchange was with Senator Coburn. She found a fundamental right to privacy in the constitution which is not stated, and yet could not find a fundamental “right to keep and bear arms” which is. She said that there is no right to self defense, “Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.”
I think that if Republicans focus on the fact that President Obama is appointing people who don’t even think you have the right to self defense, which is a common law right dating back a thousand years, we can gain. That is an extraordinarily dangerous position for a siting justice, and the people who did not read the transcripts of the hearing should know about it. That’s my view.
Should we risk the Constitution on the basis of pointless pandering?
Sotomayor has played a lawyerly game in obscuring her true nature in the hearings. She is an activist and has no problem with using rather recent foreign law as a basis for decisions on constitutionality. Her arrogant treatment of Ricci should have been enough. Then there is her demonstrated disdain for the Second Amendment.
When a Bush nominee of Hispanic origins was blocked by a radicalized Democrat party, what was the cost to that party?
We have some very weak persons who carry the Republican label in the Senate. Playing ‘politics as usual’ trumps principles. This was the mindset that doomed the Whig party.
It appears as if the Whig mindset has infected quite a few of the people who call themselves members of a party that was founded to restore principle to politics.
That this woman is even being considered is beyond belief. Her language skills are appalling, and her obfuscation all too obvious. Typical unqualified product of affirmative-action, with more than enough gender and ethnic identity bias to overcome a minor inconvenience like the Constitution. Still, no worse than Souter.
I agree, David — Sotomayor is replacing a liberal, so the GOP should wait and “bring out the big guns” only when/if Obama gets a chance to replace a conservative on the SCOTUS.
The sad reality is we elected an incompetent man to be President and brought with him a group of equally clueless Senators and Congress members. They won, so they get to pick the people who are there to protect the constitution, a document few of them understand.
They attribute a right under privacy which is not spelled out but they have trouble understanding a clearly written 2nd amendment.
They have clearly supported end of life rules (heart beat and brain activity but ignore these things when they point to the beginning of life.
Mike Protack
Risk the constitution? We did that in November when we elected 57 Democrats to the Senate and this President.
The question is not if we fight them. The question is, given our limited abilities to do anything, where.
If we launch an all out fight on this, we will lose. Worse we will sustain long term collateral damage which will hurt our ability to take the country back. It is a trap set by our opponents. I say turn it around and use it to educate the people on a higher level than wise Latina. Educate them on the type of justice he is appointing and build the ground work.
We are going to need everything we got to stop him where we may get some votes from Democrats like Cap and Tax, amending hate crimes, FOCA, DOMA, and of course health care. Uniting the Democrats here would be unwise. They have the 60 votes. Let them fester in division. We should vote no and explain why, but let it go. As liberal jurists go, she is not a radical. If she goes through easily, I guarantee you that next time he will overplay his hand and we will have him.
You can call it playing politics. That is okay because the last time I checked this was a political exercise. I am not talking about playing for the sake of looking good or having fun. I am talking about how given our limits we can save this country. Falling into an open trap is not the way.
Thanks for the input. It is time for 1100 service.
Sotomayor’s Ricci decision was made according to precedent. The Supreme Court overturned the precedent, which only it can do. So her action was taken with regard to the law, not with emotion based on the eggregious treatment that Ricci et al received.
Everyone of you Conservatives have revealed yourselves as hypocrites. You claim you do not want activist judges and justices; nevertheless, that is exactly the way you wanted Sotomayor to rule in the Ricci case.
Moreover, Sotomayor’s 17 year record on the bench demonstrates again and again that she only regards the law. On the Supreme Court, it is easy to predict that she will be a strict constructionist, tilting the Court from 5-4 to 6-3.
You Conservatives are so confused that you have no idea what you want, and are more than willing to reject a judge whose record is NOT the record of an activist, just because she is an Obama appointment. You are fools, every one of you!
I would love to say Perry told us so and he was right. I think the Ricci decision was a mainstream one. The case could have gone either way and did. The court of appeals split 7 to 6 one way and the Supreme Court 5 to 4 the other way. I am not bashing her for that. I think she got more criticism for trying to ignore the big issues in her one paragraph summary decision. As I said, she is not a radical. That is part of my reasoning for saying hold the fire. We need it for another day.
I am not convinced that she is a closet strict constructionist, but if you are right we shall take a collection to buy you dinner next year. I will be so happy that it won’t matter. I would gladly say I was wrong. It has happened before and I hope it happens in this case.
LOL I don’t think I made many on either side happy with this one. I call it the way I see it.
Sotomayor’s Ricci decision was made according to precedent
What decision? A summary judgement?
In any case, the Supreme Court over-ruled her…again.