Comments on: Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor in Her Own Words

By: Sonya Sotomayor « Sons of Liberty

Sonya Sotomayor « Sons of Liberty — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:24:29 +0000

[...] And yet, there is currently a Supreme Court Justice nominee (Sonya Sotomayor) who has been quoted, “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…” quoted from http://www.foundry.org/2009/05/26/supreme-court-nominee-sonia-sotomayor-in-her-own-words/ [...]

By: Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings « Sons of Liberty

Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings « Sons of Liberty — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:07:25 +0000

[...] There really is no room for discussion on the matter, and to imply otherwise would be quite literally: insanity. Albert Einstein is attributed with having said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Over and over again, Sonya Sotomayor has proven herself; she has proven herself to be unqualified for this nomination. Her statements are not isolated blurbs in passing, nor are her positions limited to theoretical ramblings. Her actions and judgments are testimonials to all that she says. For a fairly lengthy list of her positions in her own words, please view:http://www.foundry.org/2009/05/26/supreme-court-nominee-sonia-sotomayor-in-her-own-words/ [...]

By: FACTS: WHY VOTE AGAINST SOTOMAYOR « FactReal

FACTS: WHY VOTE AGAINST SOTOMAYOR « FactReal — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:13:35 +0000

[...] Sotomayor made disturbing statements about the role of judges as policymakers [...]

By: SPR in PA

SPR in PA — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:26:20 +0000

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

By: CGS Oregon

CGS Oregon — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 01:10:16 +0000

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.

By: Busy Busy Busy « Todd Thurman’s Blog

Busy Busy Busy « Todd Thurman’s Blog — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:25:32 +0000

[...] it. So things have been piling up. Work is also as busy as ever. I have managed, however, to get a few blog posts in. We have a lot of big fights coming up throughout the summer and fall, and we are [...]

By: Dan Tousley, Macedon

Dan Tousley, Macedon — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:21:04 +0000

'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!

By: Frank Mitchell, Hous

Frank Mitchell, Hous — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:40:36 +0000

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.

By: Dave LaPorte, Ashfor

Dave LaPorte, Ashfor — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:12:06 +0000

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!

By: David VanNorman Wi

David VanNorman Wi — Fri, 29 May 2009 10:50:09 +0000

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