Comments on: The First Draft: Obama picks hispanic woman for court

By: Robert Anderson, NY,NY

Robert Anderson, NY,NY — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:31:10 +0000

“Taken out of context”

OK, fair enough….so what do her words mean “in context”?

By: Christy

Christy — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:47:46 +0000

Supreme Court nominees present themselves one way at confirmation hearings but act differently on the court. That makes it difficult for senators to cast informed votes or for the public to play a meaningful role in the process.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, for example, told the Senate that they had strong respect for Supreme Court precedents. On the court they are the justices who have most often voted to overturn those precedents. Justice David Souter deferred more to precedent than his Senate testimony suggested he would.
So much for the conservative “legislating from the bench” canard of branding liberals as activists.
Despite the occasional lapse of honesty about what is going on with conservative jurists attempting to force their own worldview on the rest of us from the bench, the false branding really needs to be questioned.
The next time some conservative brings up those “liberal activist judges,” we should all just laugh, because the thought that activist judges like Scalia, Roberts and Thomas aren’t trying to influence policy from the bench is simply laughable.

By: Bernard Elbinger

Bernard Elbinger — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:34:19 +0000

We don’t want a Latino, black, white, man, woman, Catholic, Jew, Muslim for the next Supreme Court appointment. Anyone who makes their selection is either a racist, religious bigot, or a sexist. We need someone who has studied and understands the U.S. Constitution as written, not as the appointee wants it re-invented. We need someone who will follow the rules for the Supreme Court as laid down in the Constitution, only, and will not try to replace the Congress by legislating.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:25:59 +0000

“Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic named to the court…”

Actually Benjamin Cardozo was the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court.

By: jd

jd — Wed, 27 May 2009 12:08:35 +0000

if justice were truly blind and ethnicity irrelevant, we would only need to look at such banalities as competence, background, and track record. what we get with the sotomayor nomination is more government by new age sob story and libtard muzak from mr obama’s teleprompter

By: brian lee

brian lee — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:59:33 +0000

patrick,because of the injustice of the past, certain minorities are given dispensation to say what they like and lack of political correctness is not leveled against them.this could be considered justified ,this is not my call.but this seems to be expected to apply to the democratic party as well, there is an expectation they have the moral right because they represent the least fortunate.this seems to be same for the selection sotomajor, because of her “life story “they say she should be automatically accepted.it is mentioned her early disadvantages will mold her decision making and make her a more rounded judge.on this basis i hope she does not get the free pass that obama got.what about her life style, at the introduction she praised her mother and brother,but no husband or sons or daughters,we are not supposed to ask personal questions like these,but we have had nominees wives crying at the harshness of the inquiry.were does she stand on abortion or gay marriage?because if certain “life stories” would affect decisions,so would “life style”.

By: jason

jason — Wed, 27 May 2009 03:38:02 +0000

Don’t know much about her but if Obama picked her, she will not be one to support the constitution, liberty, or freedom.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 27 May 2009 02:43:55 +0000

Obama used a Supreme Court Justice position to trap Republicans. This woman has a horrible record for getting any decision, many contradictory to her own previous decisions, overturned by the very court she is nominated for. She is a “case-by-case” judge, which is fine on a smaller level. But she has no sense of the scope of the job ahead of her. And by the way, just because there is not enough women on the panel, should ALL of his possible nominees been women? Race/gender/religious quotas are BS that lead to symbolic choices instead of relevant choices.

Also, LisaP, you are a republiThug (or the liberal equivalent). Using something like this just to take a shot at a political party is proof of how emotionally moronic our “educated” society really is. Does anyone have a valid defense for this woman’s nomination other than how it “looks” or “feels”? The only defense anyone has posted is “Look what the Reps did”….uh, weren’t the Republicans wrong? This is Pakistani politics at its best(worst?). “He did it first, he did it first…”.

By: LisaP

LisaP — Tue, 26 May 2009 23:14:55 +0000

This is a brilliant nomination. Let’s see the “RepubliTHUGS” pick a silly fight, furthering their bad image with Hispanics. Love it, love it, love it.

By: dmeyer

dmeyer — Tue, 26 May 2009 22:43:16 +0000

During the last round of Supreme Court nominations, many Republican Senators went so far as to claim the filibuster of judicial nominees was unconstitutional. They threatened to go nuclear. They praised presidential discretion.

Now, President Obama has appointed Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Will Senate Republicans remain consistent in their position, or commit one of the most blatant acts of hypocrisy in the 220-year history of the United States Senate?

I doubt there’s any uncertainty at all as to the actual outcome. They’ll try to filibuster. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be the Grand Obstructionist Party.