• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Will the Real Sonia Sotomayor Please Stand Up?

    The reviews of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s testimony are coming in… and they are not good. The Washington Post’s Eva Rodrigues, who initially supported Sotomayor, wrote:  “I’m surprised and disturbed by how many times today Sonia Sotomayor has backed off of or provided less-than-convincing explanations for some of her more controversial speeches about the role of gender and ethnicity in judicial decision-making.”

    Commenting on Sotomayor’s testimony yesterday, liberal Georgetown law professor and Critical Legal Studies cofounder Mike Seidman said: “I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor’s testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified.”

    And Pajamas Media DC editor Jennifer Rubin reports on Sen. Jim Demint’s (R-SC) comments from Heritage’s tele-townhall last night:

    In a Heritage Foundation-sponsored teleconference held after the Tuesday’s hearings, I asked Senator Jim DeMint and Former Attorney General Ed Meese about this issue. DeMint expressed concern that she had been less than candid not only in the hearing but in her private meeting with him. According to DeMint, he asked her in his office whether unborn children have “any rights.” She told him that she “had never thought about it,” a remarkable statement for any lawyer but especially for a judge who in fact has ruled on abortion cases.

    As for her performance in the hearing, DeMint said that at the Republican lunch Tuesday there was a “growing concern” that she is not being forthcoming. He called her reversals a series of “hearing conversions” and confided that “increasingly more of our reasonable members” are raising the credibility issue. He dubbed her statement that she never read and was unaware of the [Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund] legal arguments a “jaw-dropper.”

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    25 Responses to Will the Real Sonia Sotomayor Please Stand Up?

    1. richard felker/reno says:

      I can not believe what I am not hearing from our so called elected officials in the senate. Their isn't a one of them that has the fortitude to come forth to ask the real objective questions that need to be ask of this person who has the audacity to call themselves fair minded, just in there decisions, without malice in regard to there judgment of the cases brought before them, when serving on the court of appeals, seven of the eight cases that person made decisions on. that person I am referring to is SONIA SOTOMAYOR.

    2. richard felker/reno says:

      After seven out of eight cases that person made decisions on I needed to add [were over turned by the vary same court system that she thinks she is ready to be seated on.]

    3. Judith Hughes, Pitts says:

      Of the many quesions one would assume someone would ask Judge Sotomeyer is: What is more important, being a female Latino activist who is an activist judge on the Court of Appeals or being a prudent American jurist? Why?

    4. Roger S., MA. says:

      "Will the real Sonia Sotomayor please stand up?"

      Good question, reasonable request. Possibly a simple answer:

      The "real" Sonia S. doesn't exist. What exists is a patchwork quilt of pieces of backround, legal education, family ties, ethnic allegiances, gender prejudices, job experiences, friendships, some common platitudes, rehearsed responses, knee-jerk reactions, etc., all without the common theme, center, or direction of a self-defined, internally consistent, steadfast personality rooted in reality. That's how she comes across. The "house of her soul" appears empty, as it were, "nobody home", except for the above listed "furnishings".

      Well able to function on a perceptual level, the higher level of functioning in a coherent abstraction-matrix of concepts, appears very difficult for her. The connection from the abstract to the concrete by an unbroken chain of logical causality, fails. That would also explain today's assertion that "there is a public misunderstanding of the word "use"", or that the "right to self-defense" is "an abstract question with no particular meaning to her." Such people do appear "unreal". They are very dangerous in the position to which she aspires.

    5. Pingback: Will the Real Sonia Sotomayor Please Stand Up? « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity

    6. M. Anderson/Colorado says:

      Where is that conversation? C'mon congress ask the questions regarding why her rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court! We are considering sitting someone in a lifetime position to rule according to law, when she has had more than a half a dozen appealed cases overturned by the Supreme Court? To me that in itself doesn't qualify her to be seated. Especially when asked if she ever thought about the rights of the unborn. Her Answer is "she's never thought about it?" How can anyone live in this country and not think about that travisty? I think it crosses every bodys mind, for or against. Don't seat her. She needs more practice reviewing why the Supreme court overturns her rulings.

    7. Thomas Jonovich, Peo says:

      As a member, how do I go about submitting questions to the Heritage Foundation I would like answered. Is there a place I can e-mail a attached word document?

      I just became a member today but have intended to become a member for a long time now.

      I believe I have the background and ability to assist the Heritage Foundation with insight into issues and would like to find out whom I should contact to explore this.

      Please respond as soon as possible.

      Thank you!


    8. JOHN says:


    9. Tenn Slim Atoka says:


      AU Contrarie… Folks, read the text" Masters of Deceit" circa 1953. Read Old Saul Alinsky Radical Change Behavior, circ 1980s. This tactic of out right denial of Liberal Thoughts, Liberal viewpoints is designed to get the ends IE A nomination to the court. Once there, Katy bar the door. Folks, the entire "outrage" statements from the Left are NOT what they seem. Remember, evade, shift, outright lie, the "Ends Justify the Means".

      We will suivive, if we FULLY UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.

      Semper FI


    10. Keith somewhere in t says:

      Only God knows human hearts and controls the future. Only He holds the hearts of Kings in His hands. Until then, honor all authority. Some dissatisfied with current authority may also want to campaign for more conservative candidates.

    11. NEAL says:


    12. MaryAnn, USA says:

      I think the repubs are doing a good job in the hearings. A couple of them have asked questions regarding her personal opinions on issues such as abortion and race-based law; she has simply refused to answer them. She's a slippery person. The repubs are showing the American people that she is a dishonest person, and may be making it difficult for Obama to nominate an even more liberal judge (if there is one) in the future. Sotomayor's positive numbers are dropping and people are calling their representatives conveying their lack of support of her. Maybe they'll listen.

    13. Lloyd Scallan - New says:

      It doesn't matter what questions are asked of Sotomeyer. Despite the polite wording of some of

      the Senators, Sotomeyer is lying through her teeth, as she was taught by the same socialist that puts the words in Obama's mouth. Just as the election of Obama, we will learn who and what Sotomeyer is after she is on the Court FOREVER. Just as with Obama's election, the truth is being

      hiden and distorted by the liberal news media. Stop the media and you will stop the distruction of America as we know it.

    14. Angel, Ohio says:

      She is just like her keeper Obama. Say one thing do another. They are alike in every way. She is lying through her teeth every step of the way. Similar to the old adage, "Do what I say, Not as I do?" You need to look at her record it should speak to her beliefs — She will say and do anything she needs to do the get what she wants. Once a con, always a con. That is what we are faced with this administration. They are conning the American people everyday.

    15. FireInsideTheMan, Mi says:

      I completely agree with Mike Seidman. This racist woman has no right to be seated on the Supreme Court, regardless of how the Obama Administration and his bought off liberal media try and spin her into something she is clearly not by her own statements and actions on the court over the years.

    16. Tim AZ says:

      The republicans have asked her questions in an attempt to allow her to own every bit of liberal ideology that she has lived and judged by through out her career and public life. The fact that she will not acknowledge her strong held liberal principles is a good sign. It demonstrates that the American people are predominantly conservative and unwilling to accept liberal ideology grounded judges on the supreme court. This angers proud liberals when Sotomayor refuses to publically own her liberal principles to become a supreme court judge. It also makes them appear mentally unstable as she twists and contorts to deny her true beliefs as she answers pointed questions from the republicans.

    17. Milan J. Matulich, P says:

      Why, shucks, folks, her answers to the Reps inquiries are avery bit as conservative as Judges Bork, Alito, Roberts et al. would give. She doubtless is a strict constructionist. Now I have a bridge that I will sell the Senators for next to nothing …


    18. Ben C, Ann Arbor, MI says:

      So, if she reverses herself when making decisions and rules as we suspect she will – do we get to expel her from the court? I am not aware of a process for removing a Supreme Court Justice for lying during the hearings? Anyone have an answer?

    19. Lynn B. DeSpain says:

      Affermitive Action should never be a qualifier for any position anywhere in this Nation of "Free People." There can be no such concept as some being more "free" than others. One either has the ability or one does not.


    20. Christine in NYC says:

      Today, when asked if she would favor race-based policy, etc., Sotomayor replied, "Well…context matters." Moments later, when asked if MLK Jr.'s premise of judgement of character (blindfolded justice) instead of skin color she responded excitedly, "Oh, yes!" Either she is intellectually incompetent or incredibly comfortable expressing her racist views.

    21. Catherine, NJ says:

      What ails our society is the intellectually weak ideology that the "whole" society takes priority over the individual. What Sotomayor essentially has said in many of her judgments is, "I'm going to cut off your head, but that's okay because we're doing it for fairness to others." BTW Kudos to the leader of the Black Chamber of Commerce who faced-down Barbara Boxer, a bigoted bully, with the truth.

    22. Mike Mancuso, San Jo says:

      I received an email from the president asking me to support his nominee for Supreme Court. Responded that I couldn't because she is a racist, ignores the constitution and lies about her beliefs. Someone or something else is always to blame…the devil made her do it.

      Obama's pick for Surgeon General may add some light as to how he picks his people. A black person that can fit the affirmative action mold, therefore pro-cheap insurance and certain to be grateful for the selection.

      Now I understad Biden. Obama will always look very smart next to that white dummy. Every time Biden opens his mouth… Same with his press secretary.

      This is being written by a conservative Latino.

    23. Marshall Hill MI. says:

      Can you walk and Chew at the same time,without the

      explanation of who you are?

    24. Trisham, Tucson, AZ says:

      After reading the other comments, I couldn't help but throw in my two cents. What is going on in this administration might as well be a circus act. There are some many lies and uncertainties floating about, how are we even supposed to take anything they do seriously. I believe in accountability, if you are going to open your mouth, please have a spine to back it up. I'm tired of reverse racism and all the double standards. How are we supposed to live in harmony if every time we say something political, we are called racists. My honest opinion is, if all the mental liberals have such a problem with reality, common sense and the truth, please check yourself into a hospital…you would be doing society a favor. Oh ya and please someone tell these people they need to be educated before they fill in that little bubble on the ballot, this is not standardized testing okay…the results actually matter.

    25. Jerry from Chicago says:

      She is as transparent as cellophane and is lying through her teeth. She will say anything to get confirmed. Using the terms of the liberals, it is obvious to me she is a sexist and racist. As Lindsey Graham said, " If I had made remarks saying that a white man, in the richness of his experiences, would make better decisions than a Hispanic women (or any woman for that matter) my political career would be over. And everyone knows that is true. She just sits there and grins at the analogy, also knowing it to be true.

      She believes in affirmative action and quotas, she demonstrated that belief by ruling against the promotion of white firefights who scored highest on the qualifying exams, because minorities couldn't pass the test. I hope the next time she needs a doctor, she gets one who was given a medical license despite failing to pass the necessary qualifying tests because they were too stupid.

      She wouldn't answer a direct question of whether she believes a person has a right to defend themselves. This was directly relative to the Second Amendment. She never did give a straight answer. She brought circumlocution to an art form. The bottom line is she does not believe that individuals have a right to keep and bear arms, period. If she supports this right she should come out and say so.

      She believes that the courts do in fact make laws by their decisions. In unguarded moments, when a Supreme Court nomination was the furthest thing from her mind, she let's this be known. "I know I'm not supposed to say this, but we all know that we do make the law in the appelate court". There is a reason you're not supposed to say it judge, it's because you're not supposed to do it.

      She should not be confirmed. Not because she said that a Hispanic woman would make better decisions that a white man; it's because she lied when she said she didn't really mean it.

    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.