Sotomayor's secret files: What don't the Democrats want us to see?

Washington Times ^ | Friday, July 10, 2009 | Editorial

[JohnRLott]

We wonder what Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has to hide. Her confirmation hearing starts Monday, but the White House refuses to turn over boxes of documents for review about her past. Republican senators requested board meeting minutes of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, where Ms. Sotomayor served on the board of directors from 1980 to 1992. White House Counsel Greg Craig contends that all documents deemed "responsive" already were sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Contrary to White House dodging, these board meetings may be important in evaluating Ms. Sotomayor's legal and policy reasoning because the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund was involved in a wide range of controversial legal cases. For instance, the fund fought to abolish the death penalty. It pushed discrimination cases very similar to the New Haven firefighter case in which Ms. Sotomayor's quota reasoning was unanimously quashed by the Supreme Court.

The organization publicly defended members of a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group, . . . .

[Steelers6]

can’t they hold off the hearings for a few days with a procedural committee move or if all the Republicans stick together.

[Humal]

If I were on the committee, I would say, “Turn over the boxes of documents, or it’s an automatic ‘No’ to her confirmation.” Do the Republicans have enough votes to stop this? Would Arlen Specter vote “no”?

[raptor29]

When does our side EVER demand to see the dirt? EVER? I’m so sick of this shit, and I’m taking careful notes.

[Berlin_Freeper]

“Sotomayor’s secret files: What don't the Democrats want us to see?”

There is plenty the democrats don't want you to see.

The president from the “GOD DAMN AMERICA!” church is trying to get this America hating woman on the SCOTUS.

[Red_Devil 232]

For her nomination to get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee one, just one, of these Republicans has to vote for her.

Senate Judiciary Committee rules state that one member of the minority party has to vote for the nominee. It does not matter if every DemoRat member votes for her it would take one of the guys below to also vote for her.

Jeff Sessions
Ranking Member
R-Alabama

Orrin G. Hatch
R-Utah

Charles E. Grassley
R-Iowa

Jon Kyl
R-Arizona

Lindsey Graham
R-South Carolina

John Cornyn
R-Texas

Tom Coburn
R-Oklahoma

[LiteKeeper]

another example of transparency?

[HiTech RedNeck]

The president from the “GOD DAMN AMERICA!” church

Huh, I didn't know Obama went to Westboro Baptist.

[SunkenCiv]

...the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund was involved in a wide range of controversial legal cases. For instance, the fund fought to abolish the death penalty. It pushed discrimination cases very similar to the New Haven firefighter case in which Ms. Sotomayor's quota reasoning was unanimously quashed by the Supreme Court. The organization publicly defended members of a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group...

[Condor51]

'We wonder what Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has to hide'

Hell, what's already out there is enough to prove she should be rejected.

1. "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion that a white male who hasn't lived that life."

2. "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."

3. "My experiences will affect the facts that I choose to see as a judge."

4. "unless American courts are more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign cases, and by international cases ... we are going to lose influence in the world."

5. She also said judges rightly have looked to foreign authorities

   "to help us understand whether our understanding of our own constitutional rights fell into the mainstream of human thinking."

6. "To the extent that we have freedom of ideas, international law and foreign law will be very important in the discussion of how to think about the unsettled issues in our legal system,"

7. ..a book called "The International Judge," Judge Sotomayor wrote that judges should "all attempt to cobble together a culture of justice-seeking in a changed world."

8. Sotomayor in the 1980s actively opposed conservative Robert H. Bork's nomination to the high court calling him a "threat" to the "civil rights of the Latino community."

9. Sotomayor worked for PRLDEF in various capacities from 1980 until she became a federal judge in 1992... documents, which the group's lawyers have said include relevant information about Judge Sotomayor's time there, also show the fund did legal work for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN.

10. For the fourth time in six cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has reversed a decision for which Judge Sonia Sotomayor voted on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

11. (in) Didden v. Village of Port Chester, in which the Supreme Court openly rebuked the unanimous three-judge panel that included Judge Sotomayor for "an evident denial of the most elementary forms of procedural due process."

So not only should she be rejected, she should be impeached and sent packing back to Puerto Rico!

(all of the above from linked articles on Washington Times web pages)

[Theodore R.]

It’s not just the Democrats not giving up documents, it’s the Casper the Friendly Ghost Republicans not wanting to see such documents, for they won’t be pretty.

[Theodore R.]

He may or may not have been voted “most likely to succeed” by his high school class, but on this list, I think Lindsey Graham could be voted “most likely to cave”, but others will jealously want the title too: Cornyn, Hatch, etc. Maybe even Kyl is trying to attract Hispanic votes in AZ.

[Theodore R.]

The American people don’t judge judges on their ability but on their race and “feelings”.

[Humal]

Orrin Hatch is probably going to be a problem, and quite possibly John Cornyn. Cornyn has become a big disappointment. He used to be quite conservative, but not any more.

If/When the nomination gets to the floor of the Senate, what are the chances of it being voted down there? Does it take a simple majority?

[Red_Devil 232]

If it gets out of committee to the floor of the Senate then it is a done deal!

[Jacquerie]

On the Supreme Court this woman will be a 35+ year nightmare.

[Colonel_Flagg]

It’s simple. Sotomayor’s file contains Obama’s birth certificate. :)

[RinaseaofDs]

Hatch and Graham are the problem. Either one votes yes, its history.

This should be easy enough to hold up. Kyl MIGHT be a problem, but I doubt it.

[Red_Devil 232]

I saw an interview of Jeff Sessions by Megan Kelly this morning and she asked him about if no Republican on the Judicial Committee voted for her then she would not be the nominee. Sessions said he did not know about that rule and if it was a rule it had not been applied in recent years.

WHAT?

[Theodore R.]

Casper the Friendly Ghost Republican Cornyn is trying to out-Kay KBH, who is now trailing Perry in the gubernatorial polls. If she doesn’t catch up by November, she may not run for governor but stay in the Senate. That would really upset the Democrat John Sharp who is expected to succeed her if Republican voters sit at home on their laurels.