Sonia Sotomayer

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='BG45' post='1875637' date='May 26 2009, 12:32 PM']Oh and the most important question for a nominee in this Presidency so far...has she paid her taxes? I'm hoping so, it would be an embarassing 3rd or 4th one if not.[/quote]
Yeah... that and has she paid for her nanny's social security. Nanny-gate seems to be an issue with nominees.

[kujo]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1875550' date='May 26 2009, 10:42 AM']I can't other than a conversation I had with a friend who works on capitol hill earlier this morning that knows her stuff. I will try to list some of the things that she told me later when I get back from the road. If you read news reports you will notice most of them say things like [url="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/26/obama-announce-supreme-court-nominee-tuesday-morning/"]"But Sotomayor is considered one of the most liberal of Obama's potential nominees, and could set off a fight from the right during confirmation -- even though Republicans are far outnumbered on Capitol Hill.[/url]" which confirmed for me what my friend said about the appointment.[/quote]

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!

FoxNews is accusing someone of being "the most liberal of Obama's potential nominees?!"

Honestly, do you think they wouldn't be saying that EXACT thing about whoever the nominee was?

[quote name='BG45' post='1875601' date='May 26 2009, 12:54 PM'][url="http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/26/scotus-pick-sonia-sotomayor/"]Personally, on a non-Life front, her comments and judicial rulings worry me.[/url]

She's made comments on how minority judges should allow their color to influence their rulings, that a wise latina woman should know more than an old white man who hasn't lived her life, and she sided with a racist city standard in Riccia v. DeStephano where white firefighters weren't promoted after passing the test because none of the department's minorities passed the test. That lattermost example should go before SCOTUS (the very group she's been nominated to) next month.

We don't need a reverse Rheinquist. He got his start in politics by harassing minority voters. Racism is racism, it doesn't matter which group is the target of it.[/quote]

Yeah. This pisses me off. For real.

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1875626' date='May 26 2009, 01:20 PM']Racist comments may turn some of the pro-choice senators.[/quote]

Don't hold your breath.

[BG45]

And to play Devil's Advocate, in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush she upheld the Mexico City Policy saying that foreign organizations funded by U.S. dollars could not be used in foreign abortions.

[BG45]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1875640' date='May 26 2009, 01:36 PM']Yeah... that and has she paid for her nanny's social security. Nanny-gate seems to be an issue with nominees.[/quote]

I forgot about the nanny-gates to be honest!

[TotusTuusMaria]

I woke up this morning and read that she had been nominated. First thing I did was googled to see if I could figure out her stance and how radical she actually is. You just can't find anything on her.

She ruled against a "pro-choice" group:
[url="http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/05/sotomayor----her-record-on-abo.html"]http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/20...ord-on-abo.html[/url]

That is the only move she had made concerning abortion. Obama wouldn't elect a judge who was in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, but I would rather someone who appears less radical get it then him nominate someone else who might even be worse.

[Didymus]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1875678' date='May 26 2009, 01:42 PM']I woke up this morning and read that she had been nominated. First thing I did was googled to see if I could figure out her stance and how radical she actually is. You just can't find anything on her.

She ruled against a "pro-choice" group:
[url="http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/05/sotomayor----her-record-on-abo.html"]http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/20...ord-on-abo.html[/url]

That is the only move she had made concerning abortion. Obama wouldn't elect a judge who was in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, but I would rather someone who appears less radical get it then him nominate someone else who might even be worse.[/quote]

Amen! My thoughts exactly..

[dUSt]

I can't find any hard evidence of her being pro-choice. I can't find any evidence of her being pro-life either. In fairness, she was originally appointed by Bush #1.

I can't find any hard evidence that she's Catholic either.

For the most part, she's a mystery.

[CatherineM]

I had thought he might appoint a law school professor just because they would have no previous judicial decisions on which to be questioned. There are probably a thousand researchers digging through every decision, speech, and paper she has ever written. Wonder what her high school term papers were on?

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1875689' date='May 26 2009, 02:00 PM']I can't find any hard evidence that she's Catholic either.[/quote]

Well she is Hispanic, is from the Bronx, and attended Catholic schools growing up. She was most likely raised Catholic.

[dUSt]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1875710' date='May 26 2009, 02:22 PM']Well she is Hispanic, is from the Bronx, and attended Catholic schools growing up. She was most likely raised Catholic.[/quote]
Yes, and we all know that there are a million people with this exact same story who are no longer practicing Catholics.

[Didacus]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1875626' date='May 26 2009, 12:20 PM']Racist comments may turn some of the pro-choice senators.[/quote]

How would this matter?

If not her, someone else will be presented and will represent the same ideals. Obama will get what Obama wants in the end; there can be no other conclusion.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1875713' date='May 26 2009, 02:25 PM']Yes, and we all know that there are a million people with this exact same story who are no longer practicing Catholics.[/quote]

Very true. She probably isn't.

[AbsconditaInDeo]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1875721' date='May 26 2009, 03:31 PM']If not her, someone else will be presented and will represent the same ideals. Obama will get what Obama wants in the end; there can be no other conclusion.[/quote]

I couldn't agree more.

Also, I don't know much about this woman but at the same time it could be worse.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1875721' date='May 26 2009, 01:31 PM']How would this matter?

If not her, someone else will be presented and will represent the same ideals. Obama will get what Obama wants in the end; there can be no other conclusion.[/quote]

It might allow the Republicans to delay her confirmation. That kind of thing has happened before, and eventually they withdraw the name. I don't know enough about the woman to say one way or the other if we should oppose her confirmation.

I'm kind of funny. I think justices should be nominated who are the best qualified for the job, not the best qualified woman or minority or pro-death penalty, or whatever the issue de jure. I think we should care about their knowledge of the constitution, and their wisdom, and their ability to remain impartial from the bench.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1875756' date='May 26 2009, 07:59 PM']I'm kind of funny. I think justices should be nominated who are the best qualified for the job, not the best qualified woman or minority or pro-death penalty, or whatever the issue de jure. I think we should care about their knowledge of the constitution, and their wisdom, and their ability to remain impartial from the bench.[/quote]
I agree.