View Full Version : You be the judge! (tee hee...)

26th May 09, 03:36 PM
So I have yet to hear the regular politicos whining and cheering for the pick of Supreme court judge. So I guess I'll start it off and see if I can get someone to tell me what to think like a good zed.


WASHINGTON -- Republicans have little chance of blocking Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court unless a shocking disclosure emerges, but they signaled Tuesday that she isn't going to sail through the confirmation process.
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which takes the first look at Ms. Sotomayor, are already voicing concerns that she would make policy from the bench.
"That probably will be the principal focus, or at least my focus," said Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas). "I will want some significant assurance that she will not be another legislator in black robes."
Republicans are stressing two issues that Mr. Cornyn called "red flags." The first is a 2008 affirmative-action case in which Ms. Sotomayor supported a decision by the city of New Haven, Conn., to discard the results of a firefighter test after no blacks qualified for promotion.
The second is Ms. Sotomayor's 2005 comment that the "court of appeals is where policy is made." She added, "I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it," though she seemed to say that as a mock formality, and the audience laughed.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), a senior Judiciary Committee member, also cited the 2005 comments. "Give me a break. Courts are not supposed to make policy," he said. "By necessity, they have to decide tough situations, but that doesn't mean they substitute their own policy preferences."
In 1998, Mr. Hatch, along with 24 of the other 54 Republicans then in the Senate, voted to confirm Ms. Sotomayor when President Bill Clinton promoted her to the appeals court. "I had questions but I supported her because I believe the president deserves deference," Mr. Hatch said. "And at that time, we didn't have an awful lot of statements from her."
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), a top Judiciary Committee Democrat, insisted Ms. Sotomayor would be easily confirmed, in part because of her life story and Hispanic background.
"I think it will be hard for any senator, Democrat or Republican, to vote against her," Mr. Schumer said. "Any Republican looking at the future of his or her party -- not just on diversity but just on not being extreme -- will vote for her."
The Democrats have a 12-7 advantage on the Judiciary Committee; Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who had been the committee's top Republican, recently switched to the Democratic Party.
The White House is looking beyond the committee to the full Senate, where Democrats will have 60 senators voting with them if Al Franken is certified the winner in Minnesota.
The Obama team is courting moderates like Sen. Olympia Snowe (R., Maine), who urged Mr. Obama to select a woman. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called Ms. Snowe Tuesday morning to inform her of Ms. Sotomayor's nomination, and Ms. Snowe issued a warm, if noncommittal, statement.
Republicans are urging the Democrats not rush the confirmation, saying they need time to examine Ms. Sotomayor's record. Democrats don't want Mr. Obama's broader agenda to be sidetracked, and they are wary of giving Ms. Sotomayor's critics time to pound away.
Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) said more time is necessary because some of her decisions raise questions. "We will want to examine that carefully, to make sure she will decide cases based on the law, not on how she feels about them," Mr. Kyl said.
Mr. Obama is counting on Ms. Sotomayor's compelling background, including her childhood at a Bronx housing project, to generate positive feelings about her. But Republicans said her personal story is irrelevant.
"I hope I'm impartial about a person…the same way Lady Justice over the doorway of the Supreme Court is blindfolded," said Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa.). "I have a responsibility to be blindfolded to all that and choose the best possible person for the court."

This was simply the first hit on google news, but it brings up one aspect that I would agree is disturbing, if people would stop taking it out of context.

Ms. Sotomayor thinks that policy is made in the court of appeals. I heard this sound byte and I don't believe that was what she was saying. It seemed more an admission of a flaw in the judicial system. That she doesn't support or advocate it (as she says - everyone seems to want to throw that part away), but it's there, it happens.

The second thing I was interested in wasn't mentioned here, but on Rush (yes, I listen to him, it tempers my own socialist ideals - though in an insane way). Is it true that %80 of her decisions have been overturned? this would definately hit my confidence in her hard.

So basically I don't know enough to make a good decision on this. What do you fellow opinions think of her? Is this good? Are the Republicans idiots...let me rephrase this - how much of an idiot is the Republican party for compromising on something like a Supreme Court judge just because they think it might hurt their approval rating?

26th May 09, 04:55 PM
It's actually 83% = 5 of 6. So it's true, but not terribly damaging.

Anything that gets appealed to the supreme court is likely to be ideological, and she is a liberal appellate judge dealing with a conservative SC.

But the pubs are going to want to talk in generalities, since I'm pretty sure that most americans would have agreed with her on at least 4 or the 5.

27th May 09, 01:59 PM
You're the first response so I'll ask you. Where should I go to get more info on this in order to decide what to write my senator?

27th May 09, 02:05 PM
I googled the name. There is quite alot out there.