• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Questions for Sotomayor on Foreign Law

    In April 2009, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivered a speech to the Puerto Rican chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), where she made it clear that the Court’s citation of foreign and international law was proper, and indeed laudable.  Sotomayor has not yet cited international law in any of her own written opinions, so in light of her speech to the ACLU of Puerto Rico, Senators must press her regarding her view on the subject. Heritage fellow Steve Groves identifies some lines of questioning including:

    • In your speech to the ACLU of Puerto Rico, you expressed your fear that the U.S. Supreme Court may “lose influence in the world” if it was not more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign and international courts. Do you believe that it is the proper role of a justice of the Supreme Court to decide cases based on whether the decision will influence the jurisprudence of foreign courts? If so, how great a factor should the desire to influence foreign courts play in interpreting the Constitution?
    • Recent Supreme Court cases such as Roper v. Simmons (regarding the juvenile death penalty) and Lawrence v. Texas (regarding the criminalization of homosexual acts) have caused controversy since the majority opinion in those cases cited foreign law, international law, and the “opinion of the world community” in reaching a decision. You spoke favorably as to both of those opinions in your recent speech to the ACLU of Puerto Rico. By what criteria should foreign decisions be cited? Should the Court really be looking to adopt norms outside of the American tradition when deciding cases regarding controversial “values” issues such as the death penalty and homosexuality?
    • In your speech to the ACLU of Puerto Rico, you stated that citing to foreign and international law in cases such as Roper v. Simmons and Lawrence v. Texas was proper, since it would “help us understand whether our understanding of our own constitutional rights fell into the mainstream of human thinking.” What exactly constitutes the “mainstream of human thinking”? Since much of American constitutional jurisprudence falls outside of the mainstream–i.e., the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to provide broader protection for free speech and abortion than in most (if not all) of the world–how is it that America’s more illiberal neighbors within “the world community” should influence the Court’s decisions?
    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    95 Responses to Questions for Sotomayor on Foreign Law

    1. Gary, soon to be fro says:

      One more act of Obama's to poison and eventually totally kill our freedom and our country America.

    2. Bill, United States says:

      Judge Sotomayor will make a great Supreme Court Justice. Although the questions you propose are legitimate ones, I expect that she will be confirmed without much trouble.

      See
      http://murder-homicide.blogspot.com/

    3. Barb mn says:

      Excellent questions. The government wants us to assume what they're communicating, but NOTHING CAN BE ASSUMED UNDERSTANDING UNDER THIS GOVERNMENT!

    4. Roger S., MA. says:

      Bill, I have to disagree, but thanks for the link to your site, which gave me the link to the White House's press release on the Sotomayor nomination.

      If the facts there stated are correct, she has a history of violating appellants' rights in the name of legal expediency, and not just in the case of Ricci.

      Example 1: (WHPR)

      " …(her) appreciation of the real-world implications of judicial rulings is paralleled by her sensible practicality in evaluating the actions of law enforcement officers. For example, in United States v. Falso, the defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography after FBI agents searched his home with a warrant. The warrant should not have been issued, but the agents did not know that, and Judge Sotomayor wrote for the court that the officers’ good faith justified using the evidence they found." Say again? Far be it from me to defend a guilty pederast, but if "the rule of law" is to mean anything, then this evidence needed to be suppressed. In the eyes of the law it should have been non-existent. "Good faith" only absolved the agents of any wrongdoing, but not the faulty process, or faulty prosecutorial practice.

      Example 2: "Similarly in United States v. Santa, Judge Sotomayor ruled that when police search a suspect based on a mistaken belief that there is a valid arrest warrant out on him, evidence found during the search should not be suppressed." Say again? The officers believed, ok, so they're off the hook, but a mistake remains just that, so it constitutes illegal search and seizure. Due process was NOT followed, or followed faultily.

      I fail to see where a notion as muddy as "…sensible practicality…" or practical expediency can be construed to violate a defendant's or appellant's constitutional rights of due process or have any place in a proper appellate ruling. If the Government, as the "stronger" party, missteps, it must retract such a step.

      That the SC reached the same conclusion ten years later in Herring vs. U.S. only makes the whole issue even more alarming. No, this person has no business sitting on any bench higher than district courts. As I stated in a comment elsewhere in these blogs, on the Supreme Court a district court judge’s attitudes are about as desireable and appropriate as wearing sandals to formal attire.

      As an experienced and successfull criminal defense lawyer I would actually expect you to concur.

    5. Spiritof76 says:

      Bill,

      By what account should we believe that she would make a great Supreme Court justice? Her legal opinions in the courts, for example in the Ricci case?

      If you want a demogogue that will rule based on her "superior Latina feelings" and classify that as being a great jurist, then you have a perfect fit. Frankly, she would be a better judge in some kangaroo court!

      How about that? The leftist bar association stuffed with Democratic Party loyalists declared that she was well qualified. The whole damn thing is a joke.

      Time is fast approaching for American people to rise up and claim their real country, not the socialist one under Obama.

      Better yet, let us try a referundum. Divide the country into states that want freedom and those that want socialism. People will be allowed to move to whichever mode of government people choose. Socilaists can have Sotomayor, president without term limits, cap and trade, national health care, union card check and whatever else they like. Just leave us alone to practice our freedom and individual responsibility,as the founders had envisioned. Let us see who comes out on top measured by the average standard of living.

    6. Paul Torsiello says:

      Sotomayor is a Left wing radical,Our Supreme Cpourt deserves better. Nice job on that decision in Conn.Fireman's case!

      As it should have been…OVERTURNED!

      So much for impartiallity on Sotomayor's credibility

      Dump this broad!

    7. Pingback: Questions for Sotomayor on Foreign Law « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity

    8. DPK of CT. says:

      Much has been made of the potential compassion of the candidate judge. How can that be a defensible issue when strict adherence to legal principles is what is required most of all. I feel she is now disqualified based on her apparent leftist agenda and rejection rate of her judgements.

    9. Bobby G Texas says:

      Why is the White House able to protect certain

      documents pertaining to SOTO MAYOR from disclosure.

      Thanks

    10. Rick Mills Shingleto says:

      What is the main purpose of the Supreme Court?

    11. Mike in San Jose, CA says:

      Justice is suppose to be blind, but apparently Judge Sotomayor feels that it would be better served through the eyes of a Latina women. That should automatically disqualify her from serving on the Supreme Court.

    12. James from Texas says:

      Considering Sotomayor's stance on the second amendment and her belief that the Constitution needs to be rewritten as the (she) supreme court feels there is no allowing her on that court. Why did we go to years of trouble and effort to write and defend the Constitution and bill of rights just to give them up to her whimsical interpretation?

    13. Catherine H. IN If says:

      It is time the people start to stand up and say, "Enough is enough!" Our rights are being taken from us right and left. Government is supposed to be For the People, and by the people. Our politicians are selling us out in an esculated pace. God help us!

    14. Eric, Central Coast says:

      I believe that Sonia Sotomayor should be asked straight out if she is going to adjudicate under President Obama’s mandate of empathy, etc., or is she going to adjudicate according to her oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Liberalism as it stands today is proving to move farther and farther from what our forefathers wrote and intended. If she says that she will uphold the Constitution, then she must prove herself and convince every Senator. I don’t believe that she has any intention of doing that. I believe that the Constitution is not her agenda doctrine.

    15. John Huchler says:

      She should be asked the following question: In order to ensure that justice is blind and that constitutional issues are judged based only on the facts presented to the highest court, should the name of the petitioner be listed as Joe or Jane citizen so that the judges have no idea what ethnicity, race or color they are? She should be asked if this would be a way of removing the stigma of bringing personal preferences, sympathy or empathy into the decision making process and that decisions would be made only on the constitutionality of the question. John

    16. John Madigan, Phoeni says:

      Question–How many cases (judgements) in England, France, Italy, Russia, Iran, China, and India have been decided on the basis of what the WORLD Community thinks in the last 10 years?

      Since our Constitution and bill of rights have worked well over 200 years I think we should continue to be guided by them only.

      The folly and failure of the UN should be a lesson as to the ineffectiveness of "World Opinion".

    17. mary munizza; levitt says:

      I want to know her stand on abortion and if she wants total amnesty to all illegals in the country now.

    18. Ingrid Dohler, Esko, says:

      I want to know whether she will rule to affectively close our borders and that she does NOT support but rule AGAINST Illegal Immigration and Illegal Immigrants already in our country

    19. Keith Farnham, Fairv says:

      How can anyone read the first ten Amendments to the Constitution and conclude that nine affirm individual rights and one does not? What part of the 14th Amendment excludes the 2nd Amendment from "incorporation"?

    20. Art from Georgia says:

      I want someone to ask three simple questions, and to demand definitive answers from the judge.

      First, for a simple yes or no answer, "Do you believe the Constitution's Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding citizens to own standard, non-military type firearms?"

      Second, "Do you believe a person's ethnic or racial status should be a factor in applying the law, or interpreting the law?" If "yes," then "What is the order in which you would priortize ethnic groups or races to receive the benefit of this factor?"

      Third, "Do you believe non-citizens of the United States are entitled to a guarantee of protection under our Constitution, if they are enemy combatants captured fighting against our armed forces, or illegal entrants into this country?"

      I doubt that she will be asked these questions because our elected officials have a lack of guts beyond a certain point. However, they are questions whose answers will determine the freedom, rights, and safety of our citizens.

    21. Tom Hessler, United says:

      Questions for Sotomayor:

      1. Do you recognize and accept that the supreme law of the land is the US Constitution, and that the duty of a judge or court is to uphold it, and that in doing so does not empower a judge or court to consider any foreign or international laws unless specifically covered by established international treaties?

      2. Do you recognize and accept that it is not the duty of any US judge or court to consider or be concerned with how a decision may affect our influence in the world?

      3. Do you accept that it is unconstitutional for a judge or court to make law?

    22. Marguerite says:

      My question for Ms. Sotomayor: Would it have been a racist and/or sexist statement if Judge Alito or Judge Roberts would have said – not once in a throw away line, but many times to different groups – that the opinion of a white man is superior to that of a Latina?

    23. Not highly schooled, says:

      The Ms Latina seems to have forgotten, that old white men struggled to write a master piece.That will stand the test time,if they the Supreme count use it as a guide, when interpleading a case law. Only the constitution, what our laws are to be based on. They are our defenders of the constitution!!!

    24. Don Dietz, Lauderhil says:

      Judge Sotomayor has shown in previous cases a disdain for the 2nd Amendment, the most important Constitutional amendment though which we derive our basic freedoms and liberty. Her opinions have supported the contention that the 2nd Amendment does not incorporate the several States, counties or municipalities. She needs to be grilled, and grilled heavily on this issue as there is evidence she would support gun controls that would make the 2nd Amendment superfluous.

    25. John Tyson, Spokane says:

      Ms. Sotomayor: In your ratification of the local court's Ricci decision you essentially said that the government has a responsibility to "apportion" rights, outside of both a reasonable interpretation of the constitution and subsequent civil rights legislation.

      Do you agree with my statement, if so, why and if not, why?

    26. Dan4th Fresno, CA says:

      Spiritof76: You said it all. I wish I could express your thoughts as well as you have. All I can say is "Wake up America" before it is too late! As an 80 year old ex Marine Korean Vet, it is so sad to see what is happening to our great country. We have a bunch of FRAUDS running the country, only God can save us!

    27. Gail Leachman, Calif says:

      1. What disqualifies a Supreme Court judicial nominee by the Senate? What parameters are used by the Senate in order to determine that a nominee is truly qualified? Are there certain milestones that Judge Sotomayer believes brought her to the attention of President Obama and what are they?

      2. What in Judge Sotomayer’s career/experience specifically qualifies her to become a Supreme Court Justice? Does the Senate consider Judge Sotomayer the most qualified person in the United States to be appointed as a Justice of the Supreme at this time, and what achievements support her nomination to the highest court in the land? If she were making a nomination to the Supreme Court whom would she nominate? Are any of them already on the Supreme Court?

      3. How can Americans be certain of her qualifications? What critical reviews have been given to her over her career by her peers? What does she consider her highest achievements or qualifications to become a Justice of the Supreme Court? How have her judicial decisions fallen in line with existing law; has she been an honorable citizen of the United States, law abiding, and is she known as a protector of the Constitution? Does she understand the oath of office that she will take and how does she interpret the oath? Does she believe in incorporating International laws with those of the Constitution? Why?

      4. How would she compare herself to each of the other existing Justices of the Supreme Court; and have there been important decisions made by these Justices which she would have decided differently or that she feels should have been decided differently? What Supreme Court Justice would she consider a role model, if any?

    28. mike, Portland, or says:

      Sotomayor has been overturned 60 to 70% of the time. If you had a watch or a car that only worked correctly 60 or 70% of the time would you buy it? If your surgeon was only successful 60 or 70% of the time would you let them perform life saving operations? Political correctness and affirmative action is killing this country.

    29. Dennis Coburn, Bedfo says:

      Judge Sotomayor should be asked:

      1. Do you think that it is possible for non-white people to be racist or do you ascribe to the concept that only whites (in America, at least) can be racist. [i.e., only those who enjoy social power and privilege (i.e., whites) can be racist. The disenfranchised cannot, by definition, be racist because they lack the power to institutionalize any prejudices they may have. http://www.erinoconnor.org/archives/2002/12/only_…?

      2. Do you or do you not ascribe to Dr. Martin Luther King's dream of a 'color blind' society? If not, why not. If you do then how can you treat some people different than others based on race alone?

      3. Your many speeches, writings and opinions seem to say that you see Judges as, more or less, the rulers of America. Do you truly believe that the US government is and should be a government of the people, by the people and, for the people?

      4. Do you believe that illegal aliens have or should have all the constitutional rights as legitimate citizens?

      5. Do you believe that illegal aliens have "as much right to be here (in the USA) as any citizen has?

      6. Do you ascribe to the concept that we should be a country of "laws and not of men"?

      7. If confirmed will you honestly swear to support the Constitution, all of it? And will you willingly resign if you find that you cannot?

    30. Joseph, WA says:

      Sotomayor's decisions have violated the Constitution that she is supposed to uphold. Obama's criteria for a nominee included nothing about the Constitution, so Sotomayor fits his irrelevant criteria. The Senators should hammer the urgency for keeping the Constitution in the game, blast her for her disqualifying decisions and statements, and VOTE AGAINST HER. We are well past the point of believing that Mr. Nice Guy will accomplish anything.

      Remember the many nominees that were lambasted by the Democrats and many not even given an up-or-down vote in the Senate. This is the time to use every parliamentary tactic to keep Sotomayor from getting out of committee. DON'T MAKE DEALS WITH THE DEVIL on this.

    31. Marlene, Baton Rouge says:

      Judge, If you were confirmed prior to the decision about the Connecticut Firemen, how would you have handled the case?

    32. Jim--Texas says:

      Regardless of the circumstances, would you put the best interest of the American people and the United States of America,as defined by the Heritage Foundation, at the very top of your list?

    33. Vance says:

      There is only one criteria for selecting a Supreme Court Justice. All else is secondary. The sole question that should be posed to the nominee is this: Which do you consider to be more important, the individual or the state? If he or she answers, "the state", the nominee should be rejected immediately.

      In Sotomayor's case, I believe that because of her many views that I consider to be "unAmerican", she would be a terrible choice.

    34. james e free, jr says:

      Do you believe that God divinely arranged the establishment of the United States of America as a nation for the furtherance of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

    35. tireofit08, OK says:

      Judge Sotomayor, you were a member of the National Council of La Raza from 1998 to 2004 . What do the words "La Raza" mean in English?

    36. Jerry Miklos says:

      Here's a question for Sotomayor AND any Senator who is thinking of voting for her confirmation.

      If there were a fire at your residence, would you want responders with the highest scores on the firefighter exam or responders who did not score as well ?

    37. Maurice Turner, Vaca says:

      Do you think the Judicial Leaders should make our Government Leaders abide to our laws relating to illegal immigration.

    38. Eric "Rip" says:

      Question for Judge Sotomayor:

      Please explain your relationship with RAZA and what, if any, impact it will have on your ability to judge impartially as a Supreme Court Justice.

    39. Bob K. Florida says:

      How can Judge Sonia Sotomayor even be considered a qualified Suprem Court appointe? She is an addmitewd card carrying member of the National Council of La Raza. This is one of the most leftist , racist group in America. There main goal is to get Illegal Mexacans Citizenship so they can vote in Califoria, New Mexico and Texas to Succeed from the US and be part of Mexico.

    40. gail cohen, californ says:

      Just where in the Constitution does it allow the government to show favoritism in the law on the basis of race,religion, political affiliation or national origin? And where does it say that non-citizen combatants are supposed to be read their Miranda rights?

    41. Erin, Texas says:

      I would really like for someone to ask her a question regarding the tenth amendment. Since I'm not a lawyer or a politician I'm not sure how to frame it but I think her answer will be very important as we try to get out from under this mess we are under…

    42. Denise, Los Gatos, C says:

      I would ask Sotomayer if she agrees with Robert Reich who said that stimulus jobs should go to those other than white skilled men. I would want to know if she had any association with La Raza or any group who promotes open borders or taking back US territory. Does she believe American citizens should pay for health care and education of non citizens? Would she use "empathy" to have American taxpayers support non citizens in any particular situations? Why does she think Latina women would make wiser decisions than white males? Does she feel her judgement is superior because of race or sex? Did she blow off the fireman case because white men were being discriminated against? Doesn't that show the epitome of racism and poor judgement in a judge?

    43. John A. Vassar, Chic says:

      Proposed Questions for Judge Sonia Sotomayor:

      a. How do you feel about a healthcare case wherein the issue is the rationing of certain expensive medicial procedures from an elderly patient, even though that patient wants and can afford the procedure in question?

      b. Again, in the medical field, what do you think about a situation wherein a hospital patient has been declared "terminal" by his or her physicans, and hospital management wants to save him or her from additional suffering through the administration of a lethal injection?

    44. Damon Monty, Westerl says:

      Does Judge Soutomayor support or oppose Row vs. Wade? Or is she somewhere in the middle on this case?

    45. Marcus McIntire, Kan says:

      We all know that lady justice is blind in her interpretation of the law, as we see in the statue of her blindfolded. Some of Ms. Sotomayor's statements and opinions would lead one to believe that she is not 'blind' in her judgements and in fact takes into consideration peoples ethnicity, income level and even sexual orientation. What assurances can she give that she will interpret the law fairly for all people in the future, without bias and emotion?

    46. avpr2 Ohio says:

      Are illegal immigrants entitled to the protection and services of the laws of the United States of America, as afforded to American Citizens?

    47. James Chiles,Winnsbo says:

      1)Do you believe that International Law should be available as a tool for you to consider a ruling that favors your decision in a case before the Supreme Court ?

      2)Have you had an association with the ACLU since you have been a member of the Bar ?

    48. Lakengren Ohio says:

      What happened to "justice is blind"? Cultural background may influence legislation but must not influence the interpretation of the constitution. The culture that founded the constitution is imbeded in it. Changing it is essentially rewriting history.

    49. Steven R. says:

      Do you believe Congress is limited to those areas of authority enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution?

      What is the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve?

      Is it constitutional for this, or any President to appoint "czars"? Explain your answer.

      Is Congress bound by the Constitution to obey all laws it makes?

    50. J R Tenn says:

      Hello—-

      To me it is a serious thing that this proposed judge is a member of the LA RAZA group Whose stated intent is to reclaim by any means the territory the US bought from MEXICO years ago, specifically the Southwestern US and California. My question:

      How can this person swear allegiance to the United States and be seated as a Supreme Court justice when she is involved with an organization which is dedicated to the division of the United States? Does that not make her guilty already of Treason?

    51. Mike, Elko, NV says:

      I would like to ask Judge Sotomayor to provide an example of the difference in a decision reached by an empathetic judge from one with no empathy. If there is no difference, then why are we discussing empathy? If there is a difference then how will that affect Judge Sotomayor's decisions?

    52. Michael D Von Wert, says:

      Judge Sotomayor brags, repeatedly, that she got to where she is because of "affirmitive action".

      That is like saying the only reason she got the job was because her race and/or sex were used to discriminate for her!

      To put it another way. She finished 4th in the bike race, but was given the first place prize because of her race and/or sex.

      I might have more confidence in her if she bragged she was the most qualified and best person for the jobs she was "given".

    53. steve k., myrtle, ms says:

      I would hope that some senator would ask her her opinion on an EEOC question: If a non-hispanic were to apply for a position at a well known Mexican restaurant who only employs Mexicans or those of Mexican decent, in keeping with the "authentic" Mexican restaurant claim, and the person were denied the position and filed suit that landed on her desk at the Supreme Court, how would she vote?

    54. JD Nolan says:

      To Sotomayor: "Is it your judgement that President Obama nominated you to the Supreme Court EXPECTING you to continue to distort the true meaning of the United States constitution as you have in previous decisions that forced higher courts to reverse and over rule your decision in the Connecticut Firemen's case and how do you equate those many reversals to your current judicial philosophy." Now over ruled would you have changed any of your original decisions."

    55. John Howard says:

      Ask her this question:

      I'm not convinced that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a Constitutionally based conclusion than a person who hasn’t lived that life.” Prove to me I'm wrong, with examples from your past as evidence.

    56. Steve Fowler, Washin says:

      Sotomayor needs to be asked:

      1. What in your experience makes you believe that a Latina woman has greater wisdom and makes better decisions than a white male?

      2. What makes you believe that it is within your purview as a judge to legislate from the bench and effectively usurp the Constitutional powers granted to Congres to make laws?

      3. What is it in your experience and beliefs that makes you think that discrimination against Caucasions is acceptable? Doesn't this type of attitude just exacerbate racism and prolong and deepen racial division?

    57. valorie matthews san says:

      Does Judge Sotomayor agree with Judge Ginsberg's approach to abortion, that it should be used to limit populations that we don't want too many of? And what populations would those be? Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Poor people? Catholics, Jews, Muslims?

    58. William, Temecula Ca says:

      Considering that 4 out of 6 of her decisions that have reached the Supreme Court have been overturned, on what basis should someone with a 2/3s failure rate for a position on the court?

      If I only got 1/3 of my business decisions right I can assure you that my supervisors would be looking for a replacement.

    59. Lynn, Austin TX says:

      Not only is Sotomayer's understanding skewed in thinking that the Supreme Court Justices "create" laws instead of upholding the Constitution, BUT she would never be accepted as a juror in a jury trial due to her obvious bias and racism, Why should she ever be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court?!?!? It's an outrage!

    60. Scot-Minneapolis says:

      Do you believe the 10th Ammendment should be followed in your decisions?

      Do you believe in a "right to privacy" laid down in Roe v Wade? Does this privacy apply to a persons financial records , property records, and health records?

    61. Blugirl891 says:

      If you divide the country we will fall.."Divided we fall, United we stand!" I hope by God that she does not get in for she can do alot of damage to our Supreme court for the rest of her life. We need to save this country from where we might never come back from and all our freedoms will be gone forever. I just pray that she doesn't get in. She is really scarry and she will carry out what Obama wants. I can't see her being impartial either.

    62. Pamela Scott says:

      The most fundamental question I have for this nominee to the Supreme Court, or any other judicial nominee, is whether or not he/she will adjudicate based on the law of our land, the Constitution. When justices, as well as officeholders, are sworn in, they swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States–NOT the laws and/or legal decisions of other nations. In addition, why doesn't Congress reign in these "acitivist" judges? I know that Congress has powers in this arena that they have not exercised for decades. It's time for true Conservatives to stand up for what is right and stop Supreme Court and lower courts from trampling our Constitution and destroying our freedom.

      Thank you for this opportunity to voice my question and concerns.

      Pamela Scott

    63. Ann R., GA says:

      Why not devise a basic quiz, i.e. series of questions, on the Constitution of the United States and the citizens' rights – as well as the government's limitations – clarified therein? That is the fundamental issue here, not only her "judicial philosophy." A justice takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution (as does a member of Congress), so it would be very revealing to find out what Ms. Sotomayor actually KNOWS about this foundational legal document. (I realize that this may require some challenging research for Senators, since the current process of legislating appears to be completely outside the parameters of the very Constitution they have sworn to defend. It would be a good exercise for them as well!)

    64. Barry Texas says:

      You have one of the highest rates of cases you decided being overturned in history. That being said, what makes you think you are qualified to be a Justice?

    65. Paul D. Mannix, New says:

      While with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund she advocated race based promotions on NYC Civil Service exams. Did she ever think to apply her vaunted empathy to those who studied hard and were very negatively affected by her actions?

      I was a cop waiting for a chance to take the Sergeant test scheduled for December 1985. Because of a disparate impact lawsuit over the 1983 test my exam was pushed back two and a half years- in fits and starts, which kept us all in limbo- and then when hundreds of minority officers who had failed the test were promoted anyway ( a total of 68 had passed) I had to endure supervision by incompetent Sergeants who placed everyone around them in danger. When confronted with particularly ridiculous orders we would first make an entry in our memo books regarding the unsafe and/or incorrect order given and request the supervisor to sign it as a way of protecting ourselves against disciplinary or liability dangers as a result of the order.

      These exams are only given once every few years so you can see how a delay can very negatively affect someone's career. Not only do you lose time in a higher rank at higher pay, you also miss a chance to take the test for the next higher rank, as you must be a Sergeant to take the Lieutenant test, a Lieutenant to take the Captain test, etc.

    66. Wesley G. Matthei / says:

      Do you agree with Justice Homes' statement in response to Judge Learned Hand that Homes should "Do justice sir, do justice." who responded "That is not my job. It is to apply the law."

    67. steve k., myrtle, ms says:

      She should be asked whether she feels that healthcare is a right.

    68. Holly Simonson says:

      Question: When you are standing before God on judgement dayand you have to answer to everything that you have said and done, do you want God to judge you as a human being or as an hispanic woman?

    69. @aolcompalmetto fl says:

      Since I try to read only reliable sources, I am concerned by the recollection of reading that Sotomayor was part of a group that sought "reunification" of the western US and Mexico. If this is true, it needs to be part of her confirmation hearings.

    70. doris kabureck palm says:

      Since I try to read only reliable sources, I am concerned by the recollection of reading that Sotmayor was part of a group that seeks "reunification" of parts of the western US and Mexico. If this is true, it needs to be part of her confirmation hearings.

    71. Brian L. Lyons says:

      The ACLU and other liberal organizations use the courts to overrule the voters wishes,such as, gay marriage, abortion, etc. Do you believe that the judges have a right to go outside the constitution to make new law that conteracts the will of many states voters?

    72. Bob Osterman, McCorm says:

      I would like to ask Judge Sotamayer how she can pretend to not be racist in light of her "Latina superiority over white men" and in light of her racially motivated stance in the Conecticutt Firefighter's overturned lawsuit . . .?

    73. James E. Mac Donald says:

      My question for Judge Sotomayor would be, does she see the Constitution as the law of the land or does she feel that it is open to her personal views as to what she personaly feels it should be?

    74. Violet Osmun-18064 says:

      Why does she belong to that spanish group,La Roca?

      and why shuld she be approved for the Supreme Court-when 605 of her decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court?1!!

    75. Violet Osmun-18064 says:

      Why should she admitted to the Supreme Court,when 60% of her decisions have been overruled by that same Supreme Court?

      Why does she belong to La Roca?

    76. Metalchemist, Califo says:

      Questions regarding her interipations regarding the second amendment, as well as the first amendment and the retentions of those that are considered dissidents regarding the new administration's policies.

      Question's regarding her comments to the National Origination of Women in San Juan in 2004 regarding her comments about castrating all white men in an attempt to cease their controlling ways…

      Her relation ship and feelings toward La Raza, LULAC, MALDEF, ETC…

      Her feelings about White America, TRUTHFULLY.

      As she could be part of the vendetta called the "agenda".

    77. Dale Anderson, Tacom says:

      What is her position in relation to the "Reconqista" (sp?) movement and its avowed goal of reclaiming the Southwest as Mexican territory? What judicial actions has she involved herself in that further such ambitions?

      Sigh, it would be lovely if someone would ask, "judge, we can't keep track of the thieves in our own government, why should we give a free immigration pass to Mexico, whose total reason for existence is theft?" Wait: one more: "Judge, would you favor turning Sherif Arpyas camps into "Reconquista-South" cadres trained to return to Mexico to overthrow the present government? If so, why? If not, why?Take your time; spell it all out."

    78. Sharon says:

      Since when does fair and equal interpretation of the law include empathy?

    79. P. McBride, Jacksonv says:

      I would like to see a white male questioner to ask Ms. Sotomayer if the tables were turned, and he was sitting in her chair, and had said he felt a wise white male judge would make better decisions than a Latino woman judge, would she, in good conscience, be able to vote affirmatively to seat the man on the United States Supreme Court (or would she vote against him because of his obvious prejudice)?

    80. PJ says:

      Question for Sotomayor;

      Why do you believe that you should be allowed to veer from the law when rendering your judgements? What makes it permissable for you to go with your feelings?

    81. Don Graham, Allen Pa says:

      I wish to address all this CRUD about Life's Experiences as a reason to over look the Rule of Law. Would this include a failed marriage? Meaning the vow of Until Death Do We Part is not to be honored! So much for swearing an oath. How about the experience of a woman giving birth and raising children? How about the experience of providing love and care to a personal family that does not exist in a resume? How about the experience of living outside the Liberal slanted East of the United States….where is that in the resume? The very idea that Courts should make policy rather than apply the law is absurd; or that the most important person in the courtroom is the Judge is short sighted; or that signed contracts are of no value in fair labor practices; or, on and on and on. By the way, who exactly paid for perocial schooling and advanced schooling? Who will explain the true struggle of a family who was disadvantaged? Where is the teachings of a Church ( Roman Catholic ) in these life experiences…today as well as early childhood? No mention that visable, so do we have a Secular Progressive as a Nominee? I suppose I wold ask questions of 'rags to riches' blabber, but there are more important issues to be questioned. Okay, enough already about Life's Experiences. We just need to gleen a nominees CORE VALUES and will the Constitutional Law will prevail throughout a term of office (lifetime).

      Let's not just say NO….Let's say 'KNOW'! I know of your so call experience. I know of your lack of a personal family. I know of your core values as expressed often. I know a phoney story seeking sympathy when I hear one. I know when someone has never breathed the fresh air of travel throughout our great United States…and only has been associated with Eastern thinking. I know an inadequate choice for the U. S. Supreme Court when a closer look reveals the whole truth. May God Bless America.

    82. Josh, Lexington N.C says:

      I wish our elected officials would stop being wimps and take the gloves off on this one. She should be laughed out of the hearings!!! This woman has said enough STUPID and RACIST things on record that she should not be a judge in ANY court. If it werent so serious, it would be funny. This woman is a JOKE. Just another empty suit to pull the left wing nut job agenda line. But what do I know? I'm just a blue collar, hard working, tax paying white guy. I'm sure her " superior feminine latino expeience " has given her such a greater perception of reality that me, a simple southern man clinging to MY GOD AND MY GUNS could ever grasp. Yeah right. She is a post turtle…. dont know what a post turtle is? Ask a farmer and get ready for a laugh.

    83. Lwesson, TX says:

      My finely, and thoughtfully written comment about Sotamayor's membership to La Raza Unida and it's founder's Jose Angel Gutierrez's quote, his actual words, cleaned up a tad, were all too much for the tender sensibilities of the Heritage Foundation to print. Thank you for your censorship as it is in keeping with what is to come. Your censor has a fine career ahead.

      You can take me off your "Heritage" site.

    84. Carmen Wittler says:

      Question for the Judge.

      How would the Judge have ruled on the 2 men Border Patrol, who were wrong convicted; doing their job?

    85. MJD Houston says:

      I would ask her if the framers of the Constitution and the states that ratified the Constitution were correct in writing and ratifying our Constitution. If they were wrong, what philosophical and legal flaws did they demonstrate?

    86. Jo Caroselli Arizona says:

      Questions for Sotomayor:

      How will your membership in La Raza affect your decisions on the bench?

      What would you say are the goals of LaRaza?

      Do you see any problem with the fact that LaRaza is connected to Acorn?

      What part of the constitution did you base your decision to throw out all the firemens' tests

      in the "Ricci" Case?

      Did you file your decision on the "Ricci" Case

      in a way that you hoped would not reach the Supreme Court?

    87. Russ, Alabama says:

      The scary thing about Sonia Sotomayor is her views on what constitutional powers are give to the justices. She believes it is her duty; to makes laws from the bench not uphold them. She clearly does not rule blindly. I think that her rulings have done more to increase racial tensions in a day and age when our youth and for the most part middle age citizens look beyond color. I spent 21 years in the military and I can tell you this; we all work, eat, slept and lived together and one of our most visible assets as a military is we are multi-cultural through out the ranks and work effectively. In many parts of the world today that in its self is a deterrent.

      We are suppose to move forward and to me this is truly a two steps back as a nation; not the right direction to be heading. I thought we have moved or at least were trying to move passed viewing one culture or sex being dominant in ability. I am proud of our melting pot, of what we have overcome in our history and most of all what we are as a nation; I do not feel she is.

    88. Octavius, New York, says:

      This is all a charade. They (the left) have all the votes they need for her to be confirmed, and fully intend to do precisely that. How much is this inquiry costing us? It's all for nothing.

      There's NOTHING which could be revealed in this process which would change a single liberal's mind about her. NOTHING. (We're talking about the same 'people' who re-elect and/or support Charlie Rangle, Barney Frank and Marion Barry, et al -regardless of how corrupt) Why 'qualify' or dignify her appointment by playing along in this absurd 'Emperor's New Clothes' charade?

      No amount of standardized 'questioning' will ever disclose her true feelings, inclinations or intentions. Those issues have already been revealed in her previous unrehearsed, un-coached and candid statements.

      The left insists that it sincerely wants bi-partisanship. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      Whomever succeeds Obama will surely have a huge level of destruction and dysfunction to repeal, roll-back and otherwise correct. But this racist will be with us for our lifetime.

    89. Dave,Kentucky says:

      Judge Sotomayor what is your opinion of stari desis or settled law? Do you believe the US Constitution is the only founding document for which our laws are settled on? Finally who is it that you most base your judicial philosophy on when you rule in a court of law, who's your favorite legal eagle, whom do you most admire or look up to and look to when you make a ruling????

    90. Roger S., MA. says:

      Wesley G. Matthei / Sarasota, FL 34235 writes:

      "…Justice Homes’ statement in response to Judge Learned Hand that Homes should “Do justice sir, do justice.” who responded “That is not my job. It is to apply the law.”

      Nice job selecting these quotes! Apocryphal or true, they illustrate that these conflicts have been present for a long time. Through inference they also indicate a fundamental dichotomy from which our culture suffers, affecting our judiciary and vice-a-versa: That it is one or the other. Either justice, or, application of the law.

      Either mind or body.

      I would contend that in a properly organized and disciplined judiciary, this sort of "choice" should not arise. A proper application of the law should result in recognizable justice. Doing "justice" should be inadequate if not within a proper legal judgement. I would further contend that this is the aim of a Constitution and an independent judiciary. Just "common sense".

      Any applications or confirmations obviously increasing this split should be avoided at all cost, in this case the confirmation of an incompetent racist emotionalist to SCOTUS.

      All parties honestly concerned about this country's future, be they Democrats, Republicans, Independents, need to follow the same line of disapproval in this rare case.

      Sodomayor's nomination is so transparently an attempt to accomplish with one "capstone" appointment what FDR tried (and failed) to accomplish 75 years ago by threatening to "pack the court". All members of the Senate need to feel this nomination as what it really is, an insult to their intelligence. And, of course, to decide accordingly!

    91. Gary, Hancock, Maine says:

      Judge Sotomayer,

      Did the drafters of the Constitution intend that the meanings of their words would change with the passage of time? If so, where is that principle stated in the Constitution? If not, should such a principle require amendment to the Constitution?

      Is constitutional law really anything more than politics in disquise?

      How does one distinguish between legislation by the Congress and opinions of the Supreme Court on matters such as abortion, affirmative action, the daeth penalty?

      When should the Court defer to the judgment of the legislative branch?

      When the Court is confronted with a controversial issue such as abortion why should the Court not defer to the legislative branch?

      When making pronouncements of "a growing national concensus" about an issue such as the death penalty, should the Court provide a statiistical basis, such as reliable polling data or does the pronouncement itself make it so?

      When citing international or foreign law, how does the Supreme Court know whether the legal positions under those laws are intellectually superior to our laws? Perhaps the rest of the world should be following our example.

      Isn't the basis of many Supreme Court opinions merely the result of the composition of the Court at any given time, which itself is the result of who occupies the White House and the political compostion of the Senate?

      When the Supreme Court is split over a case, say 5 to 4, is the minority's legal analysis flawed or is it really just a matter of political differences?

    92. wmagg colorado says:

      Am I the only one that thinks it odd the Sotomayor

      now states that a judge should not make law but abide by the laws as they are on the books. Does this not fly in the face of everything she has said and done for the last 20 years. The bottom line is that she will say and do anything and anybody she has to to get confermed, once she is on the bench thats the end of it and the end of freedom and liberty. Sotomayor is wrong for this position and for this nation she has no honor or integrety.

    93. Ali Arizona says:

      I would ask Judge Sotomayor: What do you believe Pres.Obama's judicial philosophy is and what is your thinking regarding it?

    94. Karin H says:

      QUESTION FOR SOTOMAYOR: If you were on the Honduras Supreme Court, what would have been your vote? (I know of course there would have to be research on Honduran constitution and legislation) but some opinions on this subject is helpful to know during the confirmation hearings

    95. Jeff, Houston, TX says:

      I heard a quote from Sotomayor on the news today that indicated her position was that the constitution could only be ammended by a vote of the people or A RULING BY THE COURTS! Where does she find that in the constitution??????????

    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.

    ×