Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sotomayor declines to talk about abortion views
AP on Yahoo ^ | 7/15/09 | David Espo and Mark Sherman - ap

Posted on 07/15/2009 8:41:20 AM PDT by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor declined repeatedly at Senate confirmation hearings Wednesday to disclose her views on abortion rights, and said President Barack Obama never asked her about the issue before he chose her for the bench.

"I can't answer ... because I can't look at it in the abstract," she told Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., as he sought to draw her out with questions about hypothetical cases.

Even if she knew more about the specifics of a case, she added, "I probably couldn't opine because I'm sure that situation might well arise before the court."

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 111th; abortion; bhoabortion; declines; hearings; sotomayor; views
dog, meet pony.
1 posted on 07/15/2009 8:41:20 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

LOL, the wise Latina woman is too stupid to know how stupid she is.


2 posted on 07/15/2009 8:42:26 AM PDT by Tarpon (You abolish your responsibilities, you surrender your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

U.S. Supreme Court nomineee Judge Sonia Sotomayor answers questions during the third day of her U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill in Washington, July 15, 2009. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES POLITICS CRIME LAW)


3 posted on 07/15/2009 8:42:33 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
What is it with all her eye blinking???

When my kids did it I knew they were lying about something they did.

4 posted on 07/15/2009 8:44:02 AM PDT by Pistolshot (Brevity: Saying a lot, while saying very little.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I"m sick of hearing ...I can't reply in the abstract or hypothetical, just answer the damn question.

This goes for all of them not just Sotamayor.

5 posted on 07/15/2009 8:44:59 AM PDT by Kakaze (Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing.....except not doing it sooner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

but id you also see she said she wouldn’t rely or look to international law for dieas neither.. I guess she’s saying all the right things and then not saying anything on others.

Maybe if she flashed an active and paid up NRA membership card in her name. ;-)


6 posted on 07/15/2009 8:45:36 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Ask Sonia the Quota Queen if she regrets abortion was not a legal option for her mother.


7 posted on 07/15/2009 8:46:28 AM PDT by henkster (A "Living Constitution" yields a Dead Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I don’t know - she’s Catholic and this will secure a Catholic majority on the court. She might surprise us on abortion.


8 posted on 07/15/2009 8:46:47 AM PDT by gondramB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"I probably couldn't opine because I'm sure that situation might well arise before the court."

Translation, "when I am confirmed, I won't recuse myself during an abortion case because the more innocent lives I can help eliminate, the fewer women who will be punished with a baby".

This woman lies like a rock.

9 posted on 07/15/2009 8:48:29 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kakaze
Amen to that.

A couple Senators got a few licks in.

Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) questions U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor during her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill July 14, 2009. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts (UNITED STATES POLITICS CRIME LAW)




>Member of the Judiciary Committee Jeff Sessions addresses US Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor during her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. (AFP/Nicholas Kamm)

10 posted on 07/15/2009 8:49:19 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot

“...What is it with all her eye blinking???...”
____________________________________________________________

I said the EXACT same thing to my wife this morning. I’m not good at reading people, but it’s very easy to tell she is LYING and ARROGANT!

Also, are there any good looking radical lefts? They are all UGLY as CRAP! Maybe that’s why they are so angry...


11 posted on 07/15/2009 8:49:29 AM PDT by mikelets456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

is it just me, or does this lady come across as a befuddled WalMart greeter?


12 posted on 07/15/2009 8:49:46 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

It’s not just you—Walmart likes to have all races represented, too—LOL!


13 posted on 07/15/2009 8:54:06 AM PDT by basil ( It's time to eliminate all "Gun Free Zones")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

I have a hard time seeing her being any different than Kennedy or Pelosi on that particular issue.


14 posted on 07/15/2009 9:01:02 AM PDT by mrmeyer ("When brute force is on the march, compromise is the red carpet." Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
The "Catholic majority" thing was reached when Alito was seated.

From many Protestant points of view the "Catholic majority" existed when Rhenquist (Lutheran) and O'Connor (Episcopal) sat with three or four other Catholic Justices.

I took a quick look at past lists of justices according to professed religious affiliation (note that "professed" although we know many of them were truly in league with Satan, heh, heh) and I didn't catch any earlier Episcopal/Lutheran/Catholic combinations that yielded a majority like that unless John Marshall's Anglican dominated bench did so ~ but I think there were fewer judges in those days.

Today's court with 6 members of a single denomination is very unusual. We don't even have an Orthodox member ~ not sure we ever did ~ long overdue.

15 posted on 07/15/2009 9:02:01 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

I have a hard time seeing her being any different than Kennedy or Pelosi on that particular issue.


16 posted on 07/15/2009 9:04:13 AM PDT by mrmeyer ("When brute force is on the march, compromise is the red carpet." Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Coburn vs. Sotomayor
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl699

“Do I have a right to personal self-defense?” Coburn asked.

Sotomayor: “That’s an abstract question.”

Coburn: “That’s what the public wants to know. Yes or no? Do we have that right?”

The judge thought for a moment, then came up with an answer based on her experience as a New York City prosecutor: “If there’s a threat of serious injury you can use force. How imminent is the threat? If the threat is in this room and I go home get a gun and come back and shoot you, that may not be legal under New York law.”

Coburn: “What the American people want to see is what your gut says.”

Sotomayor said that’s not how judges decide cases.


17 posted on 07/15/2009 9:04:37 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mrmeyer

>>I have a hard time seeing her being any different than Kennedy or Pelosi on that particular issue.<<

Lets hope you are wrong this time.


18 posted on 07/15/2009 9:04:56 AM PDT by gondramB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

What we will get is La Raza on the Supreme Court.


19 posted on 07/15/2009 9:05:08 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
does this lady come across as a befuddled WalMart greeter?

A frumpy one at that.

20 posted on 07/15/2009 9:05:11 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

‘I probably couldn’t opine because I’m sure that situation might well arise before the court.’

Ok, then how about, boxers or briefs?...kissing on the first date?...chocolate or vanilla? Um...


21 posted on 07/15/2009 9:06:13 AM PDT by Leg Olam (Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you. - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot; NormsRevenge
Sonja has had Type I diabetes for 47 years. Dry eyes is one of the more tolerable symptoms that can arise ~ ain't no thang!

What is disturbing is that she has another symptom that can take her out of action for long periods of time and pretty much block court action ~ she can't walk across an airport concourse without breaking bones in her ankles or feet.

What's going to happen when she hits the marble floors at the Supreme Court.

22 posted on 07/15/2009 9:06:15 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

>>The “Catholic majority” thing was reached when Alito was seated.

From many Protestant points of view the “Catholic majority” existed when Rhenquist (Lutheran) and O’Connor (Episcopal) sat with three or four other Catholic Justices.<<

I did know that - I meant this secures that majority.


23 posted on 07/15/2009 9:07:15 AM PDT by gondramB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

>>What we will get is La Raza on the Supreme Court.<<

Yeah... I know.... sigh.


24 posted on 07/15/2009 9:08:10 AM PDT by gondramB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
When you have 5 out of 9 the majority is "secured".

If you mean "Hey,we can lose a Catholic justice and still have a majority", technically that's a "secure majority", but it's not a "guaranteed majority" since you could have two retirees, or two deaths, or two just not showing up simultaneously.

Sotomayor, based on her other affiliations, is probably not a "good Catholic".

25 posted on 07/15/2009 9:10:40 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

It really doesn’t matter what her position is on abortion.

Not a single Supreme Court justice has ever admitted the personhood of the unborn.

All Catholic Supreme Court justices to date are, in my opinon, Formal Catholic Heretics.


26 posted on 07/15/2009 9:13:49 AM PDT by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

She speaks like a politician...never the truth. She dances around questions like abortion but the 2nd. Amend as well.


27 posted on 07/15/2009 9:23:33 AM PDT by JamesA (He who hesitates is lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Even if she knew more about the specifics of a case, she added, "I probably couldn't opine because I'm sure that situation might well arise before the court."

Well, she shouldn't have much to worry about as she has already stated that Roe v Wade was settled law.

28 posted on 07/15/2009 9:24:36 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (ABC-AP-MSNBC-All Obama, All the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

>>Not a single Supreme Court justice has ever admitted the personhood of the unborn.<<

Is that true? Even the dissenters in Roe?


29 posted on 07/15/2009 9:24:45 AM PDT by gondramB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

If she can’t answer; perhaps she shouldn’t be on the SC.


30 posted on 07/15/2009 9:42:21 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
She is lying, just not very well ... Purgery?
31 posted on 07/15/2009 9:52:22 AM PDT by Tarpon (You abolish your responsibilities, you surrender your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor declined repeatedly at Senate confirmation hearings Wednesday to disclose her views on abortion rights, and said President Barack Obama never asked her about the issue before he chose her for the bench.

The reason is simple, the thought and verbal response causes her to smile broadly and send a tingle up her leg at the thought of all those babies being murdered just like her hero the current squatter soiling the Whitehouse.


32 posted on 07/15/2009 10:11:25 AM PDT by chiefqc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

I don’t know how legal terms apply to these hearings.


33 posted on 07/15/2009 10:23:07 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

She is sworn in, and sworn to tell the truth ... Lying to Congress has the same penalty as purgery does, felony.


34 posted on 07/15/2009 10:25:38 AM PDT by Tarpon (You abolish your responsibilities, you surrender your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

I wish to heck they would inforce it. How does it apply to Senators that are knowingly lying?


35 posted on 07/15/2009 10:30:53 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
That's right...none....not even the dissenters.

We have only one way to establish the personhood of the unborn and that single way is through the legislature, not the judicial system. The judges hands are somewhat tied, especially now, because of past errors where people somehow believed judges made policy (kind of like Sotamayor has stated she believes). Judges apply the law, supposedly. Who makes the law? Who makes a person a person in our constitutional law? The legislature does...in effect, we do, since our legislature is supposed to be representative of us. We must get Pro-Life persons in office and get this on the ballots and let the people vote on it and make the law...make the constitutional (state and federal) amendments which includes the unborn as a person, just like we did for black persons. It baffles me that people people don't see the link. What was the reasoning for denying rights to blacks? The answer is personhood...they were some fraction (three fifths, I recall) of a person and not considered a whole person...so, we could treat them as sub-human objects. Well, it disgusts many that this occurred and it disgusts many that it occurs today for the unborn.

Regardless, it is not important what the Supreme Court justice believes in their heart or faith as far as personhood of the unborn is concerned. It is important what the law has defined to be a person, regarding Supreme Court justices.

Just like the sexually deviant are overturning traditional marriage, the Pro-Life need to overturn this legal child murder. This is beginning with one state constitution and then another. Legislate! Legislate! Legislate! These are simple facts to understand and I believe all politicians know this truth. Of all the politicians that have publically "claimed" to be pro-life, but extremely few have ever attempted to establish this personhood. The politicains who have sat back on their laurels and done nothing while claiming to be pro-life are quite dubious indeed - using votes of the pro-life voters to get in office knowing very well there could be little to nothing done on it without state and federal constitutional amendments. Look at california...their constitution has been amended 512 times and not once has the 1.5 million children muredered by their mothers every year played in their priorites....disgusting. And another fact that is disgusting is how the blacks and women can select the sexually deviant to identify and empathize with, regarding civil rights (sexuality is a behavior and there are good and bad behaviors) all the while hatefully denying civil rights to the most innocent and defenseless human persons in the world.

36 posted on 07/15/2009 12:01:52 PM PDT by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson