• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor in Her Own Words

    Washington, D.C. - May 26, 2009 -- Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the Federal Appeals Court , center, makes remarks after United States President Barack Obama, right, named her as his nominee for Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in the East Room of the White House on Tuesday, May 26, 2009. She will replace retiring Justice David Souter. Judge Sotomayor, 54, of The Bronx, New York, will be the first Hispanic to serve if her nomination is approved by the U.S. Senate. Vice President Joseph Biden looks on from the left.

    Issues Facing Latino Judiciary symposium sponsored by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, October 2001:

    I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

    Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives—no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.

    Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum [of the federal District Court in New York]… believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons… we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning….

    Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…. I am… not so sure that I agree with the statement. First… there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

    I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

    Duke University panel discussion held in February 2005

    “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [Laughter from audience] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [More laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.

    Sotomayor identifies herself as a legal realist:

    Taken from:  Hon. Sonia Sotomayor & Nicole A. Gordon, Returning Majesty To The Law and Politics: A Modern Approach, 30 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 35 (1996).

    The constant development of unprecedented problems requires a legal system capable of fluidity and pliancy. Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions; although changes cannot be made lightly, yet law must be more or less impermanent, experimental and therefore not nicely calculable. Much of the uncertainty of law is not an unfortunate accident: it is of immense social value.

    Frank’s thesis . . . supports a pride that lawyers can take in what they do and how they do it. The law can change its direction entirely, as when Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, or as the common law has gradually done by altering the standards of products liability law directly contrary to the originally restricted view that instructed “caveat emptor.” As these cases show, change—sometimes radical change—can and does occur in a legal system that serves a society whose social policy itself changes. It is our responsibility to explain to the public how an often unpredictable system of justice is one that serves a productive, civilized, but always evolving, society.

    For all the latest information on Sotomayor, please visit our Supreme Court Rapid response page.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    67 Responses to Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor in Her Own Words

    1. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Who asked for her prejudiced legislative rule from the bench? People's elected representatives dictate law, not a vindictive self-righteous judge dismissively waving her hand. Her stated views sound more like those from a Kangaroo court instruction manual.

    2. MAS1916 - Denver, CO says:

      Her clear liberal views on judicial activism are set to become the norm. What Democrats cannot attain through legislation, their court will provide via de-facto legislation from the bench.

    3. Mike Rapkoch, Billin says:





    4. Peter Rubel, Chicago says:

      I appreciate Sotomayor's humility in expressing doubt in absolute judicial objectivity at the same time that I am disturbed by the implication that she excuses and defends her own bias and superiority in matters of equity with respect to law.

      An implication of postmodernism is that fairness in law is an ideal without global foundation in reality. The societal dangers of this implication could scarcely be underestimated where attempt is made to be consistent, were that possible. And by the quotes cited, Sotomayor appears desirous of such consistency.

      It is one thing to claim my superiority of a certain skill by reason of experience. It is another to claim that others with inferior skills and experience are incapable or less capable of making fair and equitable judicial decisions within my turf.

    5. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Although I disagree with Sotomayor's views about courts deciding public policy, I do understand her stated position. Therein is the problem. Her message steps outside a judge's basic trust. It's scary to think she feels compelled to overrule inalienable rights and/or legislated laws to better conform to a fashionably leftist ideology. If confirmed, pray that either Thomas or Scalia is her mentor.

    6. MJD Houston says:

      The SCOTUS is becoming a joke. The greatest court in the history of man is falling apart. Judges are not lawyers with funny robes. The are the arbiters of our society. The must judge in accordance with the laws of the land and in the case of the Supreme Court, they must follow the constraints of the Constitution or we have no system of government. If a judge wants to change the laws, then that judge must give up the robes and run for an elected office. They can't have it both ways.

    7. RF, Pleasanton, Cali says:

      Let's see, can this pass the racist test? "I would hope that a wise white man, with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a Latina female who hasn’t lived that life." No…don't think so, and therefore neither does the same statement when one changes the positions of "white male" and "Latina female". So, POTUS is nominating a self-avowed, unapologetic racist to the highest court in our country. Great. I'm afraid to ask "what next"? What can be done?

    8. Robert, Ga. says:

      It seems as though Judge Sotomayor comes to the job appointment with a preconceived notion as to how her standards for living will better understand the problems of those who are to be judged by her; rather, than interpret the law as written, within the confines of the rule of law.

    9. Matt F. New York Cit says:

      This woman's own words reveal her to be an arrogant racist who has not the slightest intention of applying the law, and every intention of twisting it to further marginalize white culture and advance a way of thinking that is un-American, un-Constitutional, and a slap in the face of all freedom loving people regardless of their race.

      She is incompetent.

    10. Dr. Fillmer Hevener says:

      Justices must apply the law as it is written with as much wisdom and objectivity as is humanly possible.

      Dr. Fillmer Hevener, Farmville, VA.

    11. David, Marblehead MA says:

      Further attack on the rule of law. A government of laws, not men, is democracy. A government of men, not laws, is tyrrany.

    12. whatchamycallitlawbi says:

      I vehemently decry writing any informative litigation, or legislation from the bench. She should be denied a place on the Supreme Court of the United States for that purpose. As she has no feeling/or right for the Counstitution of the United States of America.

    13. Ed Galicki, San Dieg says:

      Its a really good thing this person,a female hispanic, is smarter, and knows what is best in all circumstances than the stupid white males who elected this bunch of idiots and criminals. Aren;t you relieved she is really as much smarter than white males as she thinks she is? There has never been such a bunch of corruption out in the open in these offices ever in the history of the US. A hispanic, with her superior intellect and wisdom, must be the perfect choice. When they run all the white males out of the country, and we take our know-how, experience, drive and determination, and money with us, who exactly is going to pay for all this pork and all the programs using prejudice against white males?

    14. Nick McKee says:

      Sotomayor's nomination is the latest of a continuing effort by President Obama and his party to impose their will by dismantling individual liberty and the rule of law. Property redistribution via executive fiat, the nationalization of private companies and indeed entire industries, fiscal "stimulous" that resembles Argentina 1986 and now nominating a judicial activist who flaunts judicial legislation laced with racism and sexism. All in the first 120 days. This nomination must not stand.

    15. C Walrod, Nebraska says:

      How much more must the GOP be silent when all of America is going to be hurt by someone who has her prejudice be so blatant? I learned that Congress legislates and the courts adjudicate, maybe she needs to be informed of this fact before she goes any higher as a judge.

    16. Pingback: Everything you need to know about the SCOTUS pick « Wintery Knight Blog

    17. Barb -mn says:

      Adult humans do have the ability to reason and comprehend no matter what their upbringing no matter where they may be from no matter what their skin color, no matter what their gender, no matter what their financial status.

      If PEOPLE fail to know the law, let the consequences teach them.

      Ms. Sotomayor, you imply no one can take on personal accountabilities without empathy, but the white man. No one can take on the rule of CIVIL law (created equally for the common good of all human life) but the white man. This is demoralizing to all humanity. Including the white man. It is sad your upbringing taught you nothing but self pity. Let's hope others will stop taking your lead.

      This was a country to build human qualities not promote self pity as Sotomayor and the president insist on.

    18. Rev. Daniel McKay, W says:

      It is obvious, by her own statements, that Judge Sotomayor does not take the Constitution or the oath to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [a justice] under the Constitution and laws of the United States" seriously. Indeed, her words and actions reveal her to be a person who actively seeks to use her role as judge to push her personal ideals, values, principles, and morals on the rest of society. There's a term for such behavior: "judicial tyranny". What's more, her nomination speaks volumes about the President's view of the Constitution and the Judicial Branch of our Government, as well. Clearly, we're headed in a very troubling and dangerous direction as a nation.

    19. Fred Provoncha - Too says:

      The second to last quote of hers cracks me up. Hello! What you are describing Judge Sotomayor is a LEGISLATIVE responsibility, not a JUDICIAL one! You are getting your branches of government mixed up! Of course laws need to change with the times. But it's the Legislature's responsibility to do that, not the courts.

    20. Marsha, Wheeling Wes says:

      This woman is a race hating bigot and hates men for whatever reason. She exemplifies one who hates the very constitution that raised her to where she is in the court of law today. She is prejudice and willing to discriminate for her own whims. A Supreme Court Justice must be one who only sees the constitution as written or an oligarchy may result and this is a major problem for individual freedoms.

    21. BD Warren says:

      To be fair, most of her comments above reflect the idea that human beings have inherent limits in their mental and perceptual abilities to judge the truth in any situation, and it's more honest, realistic and useful to acknowledge one's own unique insights and abilities, alongside one's own biases and limitations, rather than to lie to yourself that you don't have any. Only God is objective. Is anyone on this site capable of offering some intelligent comments about Judge Sotomayor's likely performance in the future?

    22. Gregory, Santa Monic says:

      Go Sonia go. It's great to see a woman and a Latina rise to the level you have achieved. You are right, there is not one definition of wise. Congratulations

    23. Antone Viveiros, Mid says:

      As John Locke said: Freedom of man under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to everyone of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it.(Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, p. 29, par. 21.) I belive judges should be evaluated every three years, to guarantee that their decisions are based on the US Constitution and existing laws, and said laws be stated in their decisions.

      The biggest problem we have is that there is no one to enforce the oath of office that an elected official takes. If they violate it, they should be removed from office.

    24. tttstarr says:

      The Republicans reaction to this troublesome candidate will show whether or not they have any courage and are ready to take control. My bet is that they will be to afraid to attack because of the "consequences". It will be more important to them that they are not called "racist" and "prejudice" by the Democrats and left wing media than the consequences of Sotomayor's radicalism to our nation. If so, obviously, they are not ready to take charge. Love of nation has to come before being afraid.

    25. Bill C., Colorado Sp says:

      This is what we should have expected. The new President will do anything within his power to "remake" the nation. It is far too late for hand-wringing and anger; this is the bed we allowed to be prepared. In four years, when the pendulum swings back to the right … we hope … this judge will still be on the Court. And the next Justice appointed may well be one who supports Sharia Law.

      Next time, we must work harder for candidates who uphold the nation's founders' wisdom, even if he or she is not "perfect." This applies to Senators and Congressmen as well.

    26. JR, Massachusetts says:

      One of the functions of the Supreme Court is to determine if lower courts have erred by making rulings that are unconstitutional. Many of these unconstitutional rulings are made because of judicial activism.

      Now we are going to have this UNPROFESSIONAL judge on the Supreme Court – someone who doesn't wear the proverbial blindfold and does make decisions based on race and gender

      Very sad day

    27. JR, Massachusetts says:

      One of the functions of the Supreme Court is to determine if lower courts have erred by making rulings that are unconstitutional. Many of these unconstitutional rulings are made because of judicial activism.

      Now we are going to have this UNPROFESSIONAL judicial activist on the Supreme Court – someone who doesn't wear the proverbial blindfold and does make decisions based on race and gender.

      Very sad day.

    28. jim smith new york says:

      This nomination is yet another 100 yards of freshly poured concrete, building the road to liberal socialism, and beyond. The Republican leadership must immediately grow a set, and vigorously oppose this travesty, or finally admit they're just another gaggle of irrelevant, cowardly eunuchs.

    29. Brad S,, Detroit, MI says:

      If anyone is surprised by this choice, please raise your hand.

      (Sound of crickets chirping in the background)

      Didn't think so. Now go back to work because our government is depending on you to pay your taxes.

    30. JohnBen, Birmingham, says:

      "Bork" Sotomayor.

    31. Larry, Arizona says:

      Her statements are the most racist statements I've herd since Obama called his grandmother a typical white person. She is a racist and that alone disqualifies her to be a Supreme Court Judge. The Constitution size we are all equal. She doesn't even understand the most basic part of the Constitution on equality. As an Hispanic, she his brought disgrace to my family. I fear she could pass a law to hang white males. This person has a lot of poor statement baggage and lack judgment, unable to bridle her tongue.

    32. Bill, Virginia says:

      Could someone tell me what they teach in law school? President Obama taught constitutional law and Sotomayor has a law degree. Does law school teach that a judge's opinions and experiences may replace the strict word of the law? It seems that law school should teach understanding and interpretation of the law based on how the law is written, not based on personal feelings or opinions.

    33. Dennis A. Social Cir says:

      Her past rulings clearly show she is a racist, and that is exactly what obama and the dems want. They are working to be re-elected from the bench not from the people.Congress does not need to confirm this woman as a justice, now or ever. Then what do I know, I was not educated at an "ivey league" school, but insted from the school fo "hard knocks and the real world".

    34. Phillip Ohio says:

      What did we expect?

      She is everything Obama wanted and NOTHING

      this country needs.

      I hope, as a nation, we are seeing the danger his socialist agenda is to our country. We need this congress reversed in the next election and we need this man gone from government after one term.

    35. Bill, FL says:

      Once again Obama gets who he wants. There is a reason every courthouse in the land has the statue of the woman holding the level scale blindfolded. Well, when Sotomayer is finally approved, and she will be, you can take the blindfold off because now we have introduced racism and personal feelings into law decsion making. The rule of law as we know it will be gone forever. What a travesty.

    36. Dave O, VA says:

      If all judges start ruling based on their personal agendas and the current social winds, what happens to legal precedence? How far can you push the edge-of-the-envelope on which laws matter and which laws don’t? What is the standard of measure when the courts are arbitrary? Following the logical path of this practice into the future, what becomes of the usefulness of any laws? What is right or wrong? How do I function as a citizen when any day at any time a judge can decide that I was in the wrong?

    37. Tim AZ says:

      I would suggest putting some teeth in the oaths taken by all govt. held positions with no exceptions for judges or anyone else. As soon as the oath of office is violated an independent council should be triggered to investigate and if probable cause is found to support the charge. the individual would face prosecution and if found guilty. The individual would be sentenced with the highest felony possible with no possibility of holding any position of trust to the public whether elected or appointed. No more Patty Cake.

    38. Kelly Carter, Carlin says:

      The constitution is not written with a lot of interpratations. When someone as simple as I can understand it, a supreme court judge should understand it, and iterpret law exactly how the constitution is written. If she is going to judge when opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate, then we don't her. But what the hell, the constitution in this country (the document that has kept this country the greastest nation on the face of the earth) hangs by a theard.

    39. Cindy, Fallbrook says:

      While I am continually shocked and appalled by the flagrant power grabs of this administration, I am now resigned to hope they continue unabashedly to overthrow the free market economy and continue to attack the private sector. If this administration continues with it's rapid pace of destroying America as we have known it, we will soon have the masses ready to vote them out in the next election. Obama's popularity is quickly dropping. Many of the democrats that voted in his favor are unemployed and facing the worst financial crisis of thier lives.

    40. Don in North Carolin says:

      She's obviously impressed with her intellect, as I'm sure is Obama but does she even have an inkling of the fact that the Founding Fathers established a government with three branches and the Judicial branch DOES NOT MAKE LAWS OR ESTABLISH POLICY.

      This is the Liberal mindset. It is they, the intellectual elite, who should be running the show and we, the great unwashed, who should shut up, go back to our hedonistic pursuits and continue to pull the right lever in the voting booth until the vote is no longer required.

      Change we can believe in?

    41. Steve,Indpls. says:

      She's not the only one that came from poverty and a broken home and become something better. It happens to a lot of white males also. But then we

      didn't get there off the public's dole either. I'm white ,veteren, and christian. I'm sick of being the brunt of the anger and having to stand in front of the blamethrower. She will turn on a dime and perform the rediculous if it comes between fairness and the white race. She's a racist just like Obama and his clutch.Vote!

    42. PG, NY says:

      I love this. The Heritage Foundation purports to present Sotomayor "in her own words," yet the statement beginning, "The constant development of unprecedented problems requires a legal system capable of fluidity and pliancy…" is not Sotomayor's own words but rather a quote from Jerome Frank's 1930 classic _Law and the Modern Mind_. Maybe y'all could put a *little* more thought into these "rapid responses"?

    43. Cathy, Georgia says:

      There is an unapologetic and blatant effort on the part of liberal politicians to "right the wrongs" committed by past generations of some white Americans. This is obvious by Obama's appointment of a clearly racist and unabashedly biased Supreme Court nominee. But because she is a female minority, it is perfectly acceptable for her to dictate policy from the bench based on her emotions and perceived notions of what is fair and just, instead of the written law. White guilt dictates that this is so, for the evils of the past will never be fully paid until the roles have been reversed. After all, fair is fair. Let's vote this idea of "change" out of office in the next election.

    44. Pingback: Obama’s pick for Supreme Court Justice, Sotomayor – a divisive voice and an embarrasment to the Supreme Court. | The Daily Change

    45. Audrey, Oregon says:

      I pray the the Republicans have the guts to articulate their conservative beliefs and that they can convince the Democrats that this Judicial nominee will not be in America's best interest. The Democrats are now swelled with power but they, too, will have to answer for the dreadful consequences if this nomination passes. Open your eyes!!

    46. LickDaCat says:

      I hope that the Senate comes to the conclusion that this bitch is not fit to serve on the supreme court. Actually she is unfit to serve on any court.

      She is obviously a racist as her membership in "La Raza", the Mexican KKK would suggest. This appointment would be for life and should be taken seriously. Her confirmation would become the last nail in the coffin for congress. We will need to kick out all of the bums and start over, our government is totally out of control.

    47. herbie, ct says:

      It's acceptable to say that latinas have different ways of seing the world, as they are called wiser and better.

    48. l summers, dc says:

      When I said what she said about women I got canned.

    49. Joe, Brooklyn New Yo says:

      Let me start out by saying that even though I am a white male,I am not opposed to a black president, or an hispanic supreme court justice. I wish however that our president was Thomas Sowell, or Walter Williams, or even the guy Will Smith played in "the pursuit of happyness".I believe that these three men are very intelligent and learned men, and I also believe that each in turn would have made a better president then the man holding that office now. I am also quite sure that none of them would have made the mistake of nominating this obviously racist woman to the highest court in the land. It sort of makes you wonder just how racist our president is and if he gets the chance how many other racists he'll nominate for the court.

    50. Diana Richardson, Fo says:

      Our founding fathers set up 3 branches of government with checks and balances. Each branch has a particular job to do. Congress makes law based on the constitution & the Judicial interprets the intent of the constitution. Congress shouldn't be judges & judges shouldn't make or rewrite laws or the constitution. A judge that allows her prejudices to determine her decisions is likely to write law.

    51. James McQuain - Athe says:

      Why is a liberal democrat who exhibits racial bias called an activist while a conservative republican who exhibits racial called a racist?

    52. Pingback: Sonia Sotomayer’s Stance on Online Gambling

    53. arfdah Florida says:

      For what reason does she identify herself as a Latina instead of an American? I would feel every so much open to her if she were an American at heart.

      Also, what is so great about her upbringing? She went only to private schools for her education…(wonder who paid for that?) There are many Americans who did not have the advantages she seems to have enjoyed who have done as well and perhaps better than she has done.

    54. Pingback: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Chuck Schumer, call your office!

    55. Samira Tamer, Los An says:

      It's clear that Sotomayor is caught up in race, ethnicity and multiculturalism…clearly the antithesis of the Constitution. She exemplifies racism in its worst form. She is totally unsuitable as a Justice whose job it is to uphold the Constitution and objectively and unbiasedly interpret the law.

    56. Pingback: Speeches by Sotomayor – What is She Babbling About? « Penraker

    57. B. Sinclair says:

      Just another example of the "Messiah's" calculated steps toward socialism. 62 incompetents will assuredly and resoundedly approve another incompetent. She will spin, twist and distort the laws vs. upholding the Constitution. If Oath? A joke to these clowns. All of the values that made America great are out the window with "change." Can anyone fathom the wrath that would have occured IF Soto's racist comments had been spoken by an Anglo? Consideration would have halted immediately; disbarment would have ensued.

    58. David VanNorman Wi says:

      If she can't interpet law as the contitution is written she should not be a judge. The law is supposed to be blind.

    59. Dave LaPorte, Ashfor says:

      My angle on not confirming this nomination has to do with judicial experience. We are told she has more previous experience as a judge than any other nominee presently on the court. To me, this doesn't necessarily mean she is a good judge, just one that has scored a lifetime appointment. How many times have her decisions been overturned (I don't recall the exact number)? Also, I believe a good number of those cases were overturned because the laws applied to the decision were WRONG!

    60. Frank Mitchell, Hous says:

      Mike, I was just surfing. But I cannot resist. A response to my old debate collegue is in order. Although I think your classical references are probably lost on this crowd, I am curious as to who you think might be a good judge for the court. Is it a man (or woman) of virture as described in The Republic? A philosopher King or Queen who rules from above? If so, can you name a modern day example that would be a good person for the court? You seem to be arguing that a judge is a creature of absolute virtue who rules based upon moral constructs regardless of alternative approaches, viewpoints or personal experiences. Care to define this further? Or explain how this is possible? Or is this simply something to aspire to as the nominated judge suggests? If not possible, can we define how close one could get? And perhaps most importantly, whose definition of absolute morals are we going to accept?

      Understand, I am not yet objecting to your viewpoint. At this point I am attempting to understand it.

      The one issue that is irritating me is the repeated citation of her speech on policy at Duke. For every significant case, both sides have policy arguments. This means that regardless of how the case is decided, there will be someone who prevails who argued a particular policy to support that decision. Judicial restraint is a public policy. Adherence to the original constitutional text without reference to the Federalist papers is a public policy. Declaring a statute unconstitutional has public policy ramifications. Declaring a statute constitutional has policy ramifications. Because the Supreme Court only hears 100 cases a year, the judge is right that the intermediate courts often decide policy questions one way or the other. There may be reasons not to support this judge. Her speech on policy is not one of them.

    61. Dan Tousley, Macedon says:

      'Our' country is being sold down the river at a rapid rate! This 'BO' foolishness has to be stopped before it's too late. We should be ashamed of what we are allowing as judges AND leaders!

    62. Pingback: Busy Busy Busy « Todd Thurman’s Blog

    63. CGS Oregon says:

      Have you sampled her writings? She cannot write clearly. Writing is thinking. She cannot think clearly. Furthermore: Her grades were poor. But, she says, the tests were "culturally biased". And, she says, "statistics proves it". Proves it?!? Is mediocrity a "cultural value"? Face it, this woman is a mediocrity. We have identity trumping competence here. He candidacy needs to be challenged on the basis of competence. Her writings and record provides ample ammunition.

    64. SPR in PA says:

      If Sotomayor is not a racist, let's use the term discrimitory judificationing jerk.

    65. Pingback: FACTS: WHY VOTE AGAINST SOTOMAYOR « FactReal

    66. Pingback: Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings « Sons of Liberty

    67. Pingback: Sonya Sotomayor « Sons of Liberty

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.