Posted on 05/26/2009 5:44:29 AM PDT by reaganaut1
President Obama will nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as his first appointment to the court, officials said Tuesday, and has scheduled an announcement for 10:15 a.m. at the White House.
If confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, Judge Sotomayor, 54, would replace Justice David H. Souter to become the second woman on the court and only the third female justice in the history of the Supreme Court. She also would be the first Hispanic justice to serve on the Supreme Court.
The president reached his decision over the long Memorial Day weekend, aides said, but it was not disclosed until Tuesday morning when he informed his advisers of his choice less than three hours before the announcement was scheduled to take place.
The president narrowed his list to four, according to people close to the selection process, including Federal Appeals Judge Diane P. Wood of Chicago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Solicitor General Elena Kagan.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Bush 41 gave us Souter too so I guess his legacy lives on...
“Soooooo, which Republicans will affirmatively confirm this woman?
About half would be my prediction.”
If that’s true....it may well be time to start another party (and I never thought I’d say that!).
Obama neutralized Hillary when he made her Secretary of State.
There is no way she will run against him. This is a move to further cement the Hispanic vote and appease the far left of the party.
Look for a montage of those exact words to be played by Rush.
No, the media doesn’t meet to determine their talking points, but they DO all think alike.
Needs to be repeated. RINO's appoint Sotomayors and Souters...
There's a reason why "read my lips" only served one term. Not so oddly, it's the same reason McCain lost and Powell is wrong. We don't need more RINO's. We don't need to move "Left".
First Hispanic? What about Benjamin Cardozo, who was of Portugese extraction? I guess he doesn’t count because his ancestors came here before the Revolution, but he was certainly of Hispanic descent.
Sotomayor’s reputation is of being overbearing, long winded, and a bit of a lightweight in terms of legal analysis. In other words, she’s just like Obama.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
That’s worth at least two guffaws.
Sorry, that doesn't make it better for me, knowing what I know now about the Bush dynasty.....and his son's proclivity for ignoring the rule of law when it concerns amnesty.
This was not a stamp of approval or relief when I heard.....rather a red flag.
Thank-you....I appreciate your wisdom.
So was Souter.
The good news is that this doesn’t change the balance of the court.
It is, however, an appointment that should have belonged to the conservative coalition that saw to the 2 elections of Reagan, one of Bush Sr, and 2 of Bush Jr.
That coalition worked for decades to reach a majority court, and right when it was in grasp, the rinos blew the election. Souter, a republican nomination, should have retired so that Bush could have appointed his replacement. Because he is a liberal, he did not. That betrayal is small, though, compared to the greater betrayal....the intentional loss of the last election.
Shame on the fair weather conservative and independent Christians who bought the media line and put a baby killer in office who has now appointed a baby killer to the court.
There will be hell to pay.
For anyone claiming she is a leftie, I don’t have any doubt of her political leftiness, but do any of you have any evidence of truly liberal rulings or if those rulings outnumber more conservative rulings? Everywhere I read, they are stating she is a centrist and I just can seem to be convinced she is truly a liberal judge without the evidence. I don’t think Obama was looking for a liberal specifically, he is a politician first and wants to solidify the Hispanic vote for 2012.
As far as her statement about policy being made at the Appeals court level, she is dead right. Are people familiar with how many damned two, three, four “prong tests” that exist in legal rulings over the last 200 years? Do they know how these come about? Weenie politicians write incredibly nebulous laws so as not to offfend this interest group or the other and the lack of black and white lines in the laws, judges are forced to interpret them to go one way or the other and almost invariably insert a caveat or two in the rulings begging Congress to clarify.
An example would be 528(c) in the Bankruptcy code regarding student loans with the infamous “undue hardship” inserted by Congress. Well hells bells one man’s undue harship is another man’s daily life, so how do you interpret that? The courts had to come up with a three prong test to supplement that idiotic piece of legislation and almost every judge since then has begged Congress to clarify.
So yes, policy is indeed made by Appeals and Supreme courts because Congress lacks the political cojones to make the same policy.
Just a little something to chew on for those that think judicial policy is a perogative of some judges rather than something forced on them by the other branches of government.
Every bit as bad as Ginsberg and Souter.
See here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2258329/posts
The president reached his decision over the long Memorial Day weekend,pulls name from hat 7 1/2 to be appointmented to the court.
Just like Alberto Gonzalez.
She was first appointed to the federal bench by Bush I. The fix has been in for a long time. The dumb show gets dumber and more deadly by the minute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.