• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

WI Crippler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
15,427
Reaction score
9,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Obama to pick Sotomayor for Supreme Court - White House- msnbc.com

I don't know much about her, but according to the article she is experienced enough for the role. They also bring up an interesting tidbit....

Given Sotomayor's selection, any decision to filibuster would presumably carry political risks — Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the population and an increasingly important one politically

Thoughts?
 
A minority female - it was to be expected.
 
Thoughts?
She's no heavyweight like Scalia or Roberts, but by what I've read about her thus far she is a competent jurist.

She leans to the left, although she did make the right noises in her confirmation to the appellate bench ten years ago.

I'm still reading up on her, so I may change my mind, but I don't see any reason to block her confirmation at this time.
 
A minority female - it was to be expected.

And should be. The Supreme Court should represent more than just white men and one woman. To me, it should represent the United States as a whole.


Yeah, she's a minor-leager with her Princeton undergrad and Yale Law School (and being editor of the Yale Law Review) compared to Scalia and Roberts. Give me a break, celticord.
 
A minority female - it was to be expected.

Is there any reason to believe she was appointed based soley on this criteria? If it is shown she has judicial competence, what does it matter, her race, or gender?

I await RightinNYC's comments. He knows better than anybody here, most of this judicial stuff.
 
Personally, I don't care who he nominates. I'm never thrilled by the justices Democrats and Republicans pick anyway. This one will be no different.
 
Is there any reason to believe she was appointed based soley on this criteria? If it is shown she has judicial competence, what does it matter, her race, or gender?

There's a difference between choosing the most qualified individual versus choosing the most qualified minority female. It's easy enough in this day and age to select a very qualified minority female jurist.

Personally, I don't care if his choice was based on gender and/or ethnicity. It's quite obvious that the Court does not represent the makeup of this country, so more females should be appointed to the court.

I'll congratulate Obama for selecting a female, but that's where it ends for me.
 
It would have been nice to see Obama nominate a liberal to the bench, especially to counter the far-right wing appointees of GWB. However, this does not surprise me at all. Despite what the right-wingers try to convey, Obama is no liberal and it is sadly wishful thinking to believe that he will govern anywhere other than left of center. I don't have any complaints about the pick, though I would ahve liked to have seen a true liberal on the court. Maybe someday.
 
Obama to pick Sotomayor for Supreme Court - White House- msnbc.com

I don't know much about her, but according to the article she is experienced enough for the role. They also bring up an interesting tidbit....



Thoughts?





“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” -Judge Sotomayor


a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”




Awesome, another race baiting bnch legislating idiot. :lol: That's all I need to know about her.
 
Last edited:
And should be. The Supreme Court should represent more than just white men and one woman. To me, it should represent the United States as a whole.

Exactly my thoughts. I couldn't be more please with his selection of a strong Latina to represent on the SCOTUS.
 
Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic

Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama named federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice on Tuesday, praising her as "an inspiring woman" with both the intellect and compassion to interpret the Constitution wisely.
Obama said Sotomayor has more experience as a judge than any current member of the high court had when nominated, adding she has earned the "respect of colleagues on the bench," the admiration of lawyers who appear in her court and "the adoration of her clerks."

Is it ever a good idea to have activist judges on the court? I wonder.
 
Last edited:
What disturbs me about the pick are the following:

1) The New Haven Case - Ironically, she could be hearing the final appeal of a decision that she herself had made.

2) Ordering baseball club owners to settle with the players, in the strike that resulted in no World Series in 1995.

3) Her controversial statement that whether someone before her court was a man or a woman, or the race of someone before her court, would be factors in her rulings.


Sum it all up, and Sotomayor is an activist judge with an activist agenda. I support a Republican filibuster on this nominee.

Here is her bio, and for those who value the Constitution, it is not pretty.
 
And should be. The Supreme Court should represent more than just white men and one woman. To me, it should represent the United States as a whole.

It's the Supreme Court, not Congress.

Their genders and races are completely irrelevant. Only their ability to interpret maters.
 


a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”




Awesome, another race baiting bnch legislating idiot. :lol: That's all I need to know about her.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q]YouTube - Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made[/ame]
 
"“court of appeals is where policy is made.”

there is nothing to interpret here.

Don't care what she said. She's only one of nine.

Besides, my comment was about "bench legislation" in general. For example, Roe v Wade was not legislating from the bench. It upheld the unenumerated constitutional right to privacy.

I'd like to see more of our unenumerated rights - drug use, prostitution, suicide, assisted suicide, gambling, etc - protected in similar fashion.
 
"“court of appeals is where policy is made.”



there is nothing to interpret here.
Do you ever not twist the truth when speaking of people you oppose politically?

She admitted that the quote that you cite was a mistake, that she regretted saying it and that she was wrong so why the "hellh0und" are you quoting her out of context without the complete story?

We all know why you did it - your transparency is crystal clear.
 
I'd like to see more of our unenumerated rights - drug use, prostitution, suicide, assisted suicide, gambling, etc - protected in similar fashion.

I think that just cemented my opposition.
 
Do you ever not twist the truth when speaking of people you oppose politically?

She admitted that the quote that you cite was a mistake, that she regretted saying it and that she was wrong so why the "hellh0und" are you quoting her out of context without the complete story?

We all know why you did it - your transparency is crystal clear.

You're not exactly forthcoming with it either.
 
Don't care what she said. She's only one of nine.

Besides, my comment was about "bench legislation" in general. For example, Roe v Wade was not legislating from the bench. It upheld the unenumerated constitutional right to privacy.


Roe V wade is horrid legislation from the bench. It did no such thing


I'd like to see more of our unenumerated rights - drug use, prostitution, suicide, assisted suicide, gambling, etc - protected in similar fashion.



Then this chaquita is not the droid you are lookin for.
 
Roe V wade is horrid legislation from the bench. It did no such thing


Then this chaquita is not the droid you are lookin for.

Like I said, it's in the eye of the beholder. Do you have something against unenumerated rights? The right to privacy does exist and it's not legislating from the bench.

I already know she's not what I'd look for in a justice. I already said as much in earlier posts.
 
Back
Top Bottom