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

Skip to comments.

Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court
HumanEvents.com ^ | 5/26/2009 | Connie Hair

Posted on 05/26/2009 7:53:30 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama

President Barack Obama has chosen Judge Sonya Sotomayor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as his nominee for the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David Souter. The formal announcement will be made by the president later this morning.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Obama would continue playing identity politics by nominating an Hispanic woman. Sotomayor, 54, is also of the most radical liberal activist judges he could have nominated.

In a presentation that will likely lean heavily on style over substance, Sotomayor’s background will allow the administration to again play class warfare with their presentation of her biography. The daughter of Puerto Rican parents growing up in the South Bronx, her father was a manual laborer and her mother a nurse. Her father died when she was 9.

Sotomayor went on to attend Princeton and then Yale Law School before working as a New York assistant district attorney. Former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan worked a confirmation deal with the first President Bush to nominate Sotomayor to the Second Circuit.

In one of the biggest sources of the coming Sotomayor controversy, is her conduct in the New Haven, Connecticut firefighter case that’s now on appeal to the Supreme Court.

In Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor sided with the City of New Haven that was alleged to have used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. Sotomayor joined a per curiam opinion that went so far as to bury the white firefighters’ crucial claims of unfair treatment. Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her in writing for apparently missing the entire host of Constitutional issues that were before the court.

According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”

(To judge just how bad the Ricci opinion is, even liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, wrote of his dissatisfaction with the case, stating, “Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.”

Ironically, Sotomayor’s dreadful decision in Ricci is under review at this time by the Supreme Court with an opinion expected by the end of June when David Souter, the justice Sotomayor is nominated to replace, has announced his retirement.

In another example of her radical judicial philosophy, Sotomayor stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” In the same speech, Sotomayor went on to say, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She restated her commitment to that unlawful judicial philosophy at a speech she gave in 2005 at Duke Law School when she reiterated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”

The Obama administration has made claims in the media that Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic on the court, which is not entirely accurate. Benjamin Cardozo, a Sephardic Jew of Hispanic ancestry, served on the Supreme Court from 1932-1937. Cardozo traced his ancestry to Portugal, yet there is a mixed bag of which government agencies consider Portugal to fall under the Hispanic umbrella. It is accurate to say Sotomayor, should she be confirmed, would be the first Hispanic woman on the court.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: sotomayor

1 posted on 05/26/2009 7:53:30 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

The Constitution is not a living document; it is a contract. It should be viewed as such. But I think this lady will view it compared to her experience as a Latina. And that is a disservice to all Americans - especially Hispanics.


2 posted on 05/26/2009 7:56:16 AM PDT by RexBeach ("Do your duty in all things." Robert E. Lee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

Cardozo’s family had been in Holland and England before coming to the US in the 1700’s. Is there no statute of limitations on ‘Hispanic’ at all?


3 posted on 05/26/2009 7:56:29 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

Change™


4 posted on 05/26/2009 7:59:23 AM PDT by central_va (www.15thVirginia.org Co. C, Patrick Henry Rifles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama
Policy made at appeals court
5 posted on 05/26/2009 7:59:23 AM PDT by OrioleFan (Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July, democrats believe every day is April 15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

“Sotomayor went on to say, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.””

Translation: Feelings trump LAW.


6 posted on 05/26/2009 7:59:26 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified DeCartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

No way, Hosea.

Or Hoseb.


7 posted on 05/26/2009 7:59:45 AM PDT by mkjessup (Yeah, I'm praying for 0bama. Praying for God to light his ass up with a major lightning bolt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

FYI..the author is famed Freeper “Clinton’s a liar” (CAL)..curious that on her biopage on the HR website, she omits that she was Alan Keyes’ press secretary during his WH run....


8 posted on 05/26/2009 8:00:20 AM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

He could have done better if she were a lesbian Muslim and with child.


9 posted on 05/26/2009 8:01:57 AM PDT by villagerjoel (1. Impliment socialist policies 2. ??? 3. Heaven on earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Who were we to expect...Judge Bork?


10 posted on 05/26/2009 8:02:59 AM PDT by mono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” -Sonia Sotomayor

This is a disastrous nomination.

11 posted on 05/26/2009 8:03:50 AM PDT by americanophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

So much for the moderate, studied, middle of the road pick. Right out of the starting gate, 0bama picks a radical anti-Constitution, anti-American left-wing extremist. The 0media is going to swoon over her, and the Socialist Democrats will run over themselves in an effort to vote for her. Constitution, checks and balances, reasoned jurisprudence are all things of our past. Our Hitler is happening.


12 posted on 05/26/2009 8:04:23 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pallis

He picked someone who had the same feelings as he does.


13 posted on 05/26/2009 8:08:05 AM PDT by Piquaboy (Military veteran of 22 years in Navy, Air Force, and Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

Wow. That is a remarkable quote. And, IMHO, an incorrect position for a judge, at any level, to assume.

God help us.


14 posted on 05/26/2009 8:09:18 AM PDT by RexBeach ("Do your duty in all things." Robert E. Lee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy

“He picked someone who had the same feelings as he does.”

Obama was TOLD who to pick by the shadow liberal cabal currently running the country.


15 posted on 05/26/2009 8:10:29 AM PDT by headstamp 2 (Spay or Neuter your liberal today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama
In another example of her radical judicial philosophy, Sotomayor stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” In the same speech, Sotomayor went on to say, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Making law based on one's life experiences, with those experiences framed by one's ethnicity and gender. That's downright frightening. Does she even know that we have a Constitution?

16 posted on 05/26/2009 8:10:34 AM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pallis
0bama picks a radical anti-Constitution, anti-American left-wing extremist

So much for his promise to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.

A pox on all who put zer0bama into office.

17 posted on 05/26/2009 8:10:50 AM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is an EVIL like no other, and must be ERADICATED. Barack OBORTION is a close second.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SumProVita

That is a racist sexist statement which should automatically disqualify her for office.

But will the GOP leadership - McConnell, Bohmer, etc., have to guts to attack her? I doubt it. After all, BUSH I first appointed this racist sexist idiot to the Federal Bench.


18 posted on 05/26/2009 8:12:56 AM PDT by ZULU (God guts and guns made America great. Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

You are probably right about that.


19 posted on 05/26/2009 8:14:42 AM PDT by Piquaboy (Military veteran of 22 years in Navy, Air Force, and Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience..."

Wait, wait, wait... let me go get my violin...

Look, I'm Latino by heritage, American by blood. I had what some would call a hard child hood and you know what, I joined the military, took advantage of the opportunities that my country gave me and made something of my life. Quit the "poor Latino / Latina" attitude. It doesn't matter what your heritage is, that's not what makes you wise. Wisdom comes from humility, and God-Forbid a democrat EVER be humble.

20 posted on 05/26/2009 8:27:18 AM PDT by Mind Freed ("Every man has the right to be a fool 5 minutes a day. Wisdom is not exceeding the limit.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama



Two words: "Miguel Estrada".



21 posted on 05/26/2009 8:34:26 AM PDT by The_Macallan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

BTTT


22 posted on 05/26/2009 8:34:54 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama
Hoo boy, this is going to be a hot riot.

A member of "THE RACE," aka "La Raza," nominated to SCOTUS.

A rabid Balkanizer at the top court......Americans are not going to like this, not even most hispanics.

23 posted on 05/26/2009 8:44:33 AM PDT by cookcounty (He who controls the Language controls the Debate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

i HOPE THE GOP WILL BE SMART ENOUGHT TO QUOTE HER AND ASK HER IN FRONT OF EVERYONE....WHAT IS IT THAT YOU MEANT BY THIS COMMENT? WHY DID YOU FEE YOU NEEDED TO SINGLE OUT THE WHITE MALE...MS SOTOMAYOR?


24 posted on 05/26/2009 8:45:51 AM PDT by Texas4ever (God is Good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: The_Macallan

No, Eric Estrada! He has it all. Latin, former law officer (on TV), gay,...


25 posted on 05/26/2009 8:47:55 AM PDT by Holicheese (He stopped the War on Terror and started a War on Patriotism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” -Sonia Sotomayor
____________________
W T F are you kidding me?


26 posted on 05/26/2009 9:00:54 AM PDT by mojitojoe ( Idiots elected a Marxist ideologue with narcissistic personality disorder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

I have been puzzling over this post for the last 10 minutes, trying to understand the meaning behind it. For example, (and I’m assuming that by “the author” you mean the author of this piece, Connie Hair), what is the “HR website”?

Also, assuming it is true for a moment that Ms. Hair was “Alan Keyes’ press secretary during his WH run”, does this mean the claims made in the article regarding Judge Sotomayor should be automatically suspect?

If not, what relevance does this piece of alleged biographical information have?


27 posted on 05/26/2009 9:01:48 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

This is the kind of justice we should expect to see...

Sonya Sotomayor’s most high-profile cases held that the city of New Haven, CT could disregard the scores on a promotional test for firefighters.

Frank Ricci, a firefighter in New Haven, Conn., worked hard, played by the rules, and earned a promotion to fire lieutenant. But the city denied him the promotion because he is not black. Ricci sued, along with 16 other whites and one Hispanic firefighter. After a 7-6, near-party-line vote by a federal Appeals Court to dismiss the lawsuit, the plaintiffs petitioned for Supreme Court review.

If Sotomayor is confirmed, she will again issue the same judgment she made when she was in the court of appeals.

Five of the majority judges, including Sotomayor, decided that New Haven’s decision to discard the test results and deny what would otherwise have been virtually automatic promotions to the highest-scoring white and Hispanic firefighters was “facially race-neutral.”

The reason? Because none of the low-scoring, ineligible African-American firefighters was promoted either. These five judges also endorsed Judge Arterton’s conclusion that the city’s decision was justified by fears that promoting the high-scoring whites might violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and bring a discrimination suit by the low-scoring blacks.

Simply because a much higher percentage of the whites than of the blacks who took the exams had passed, the majority said (adopting Judge Arterton’s opinion), the city could be “faced with a prima facie case of disparate impact liability under Title VII.”

“Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race,” Obama said in his much-acclaimed March 18 speech about race. “So when they ... hear that an African-American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed ... resentment builds over time.”

So it does. But based on Obama’s record and the views of the civil-rights specialists on his transition team, there is every reason to worry that he will appoint MORE civil-rights enforcers, judges, and justices bent on perpetuating the race-based discrimination against whites (and Asians) in many walks of life that is exemplified by the New Haven firefighter case.

The fact that he elevated Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is just one evidence of that.


28 posted on 05/26/2009 9:03:00 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If Sotomayor is confirmed, she will again issue the same judgment she made when she was in the court of appeals.

I've been wondering about this too, given today's recent events.

Is this true though? Could she possibly review the same case that she voted to deny in a lower court? Wouldn't this violate some sort of "ethical standard"? Wouldn't she be expected to recuse herself from this particular case?

29 posted on 05/26/2009 9:13:31 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama
Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her in writing for apparently missing the entire host of Constitutional issues that were before the court.

Sounds like a winner! /sarc

30 posted on 05/26/2009 9:22:28 AM PDT by proud American in Canada (my former tagline "We can, and we will prevail" doesn't fit with the usurper's goals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

“....BUSH I first appointed this racist sexist idiot to the Federal Bench.”

You gotta be kidding me. He gave us both Souter and this?


31 posted on 05/26/2009 9:27:20 AM PDT by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven
Didn't mean to cause you angst..sorry..

HR..is a typo..should be HE..for Human Events..my bad.

And I was curious as to what she's been up to of late, as she rarely posts here any more...so I clicked on her bio..and I foudn the omission curious..read into it whatever you choose..

32 posted on 05/26/2009 9:28:46 AM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

I’m still wondering what relevance her (possible) involvement with Alan Keyes has with this article.

And I didn’t suffer from any “angst”, but thanks for the concern. Just puzzled curiosity.


33 posted on 05/26/2009 9:31:59 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven

It’s not a “possible”..it was a fact..she is presenting herself as a conservative commentator. She lists some of the races she’s worked on on her c.v. yet omits her major role in the Keyes campaign. I find it curious..don’t you..


34 posted on 05/26/2009 9:40:21 AM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
It’s not a “possible”..it was a fact..she is presenting herself as a conservative commentator. She lists some of the races she’s worked on on her c.v. yet omits her major role in the Keyes campaign. I find it curious..don’t you..

I don't find it relevant because, even if that is true, the only thing it would show is possible bias against Sotomayor on her part. After all, right now, Keyes is trying to have Obama removed on the basis of Constitutional eligibility; so any supporter of his would probably not support any Supreme Court nominee he would offer. IOW, by providing that bit of biographic information, it seems to imply that you are questioning the claims made against Sotomayor in this article.

So, do you deny the claims made against Sotomayor in this article? Do you support the nomination of Sotomayor? Do you believe that the claims made in this article are biased against Sotomayor?

If you answer "No, no, and no" then, my original claim stands: It is irrelevant to mention that the author worked for Alan Keyes in any capacity.

35 posted on 05/26/2009 9:50:46 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven

I’m against the nominee, I believe that the claims made against the nominee in the article are correct...I like Connie...ever since I first met her at the March for Justice..she did magnificent work in the impeachment effort...OK..those are my bona fides...I was just making the observation that the ommission was curious, especially since it was fairly important in her career..and I’d go further and state that probably most of the readers of HE have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of Keyes...so again, why not mention it?


36 posted on 05/26/2009 10:02:48 AM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy

He’s planted her in the SC to deter the BC lawsuit. Bet on it.


37 posted on 05/26/2009 10:18:04 AM PDT by freebird5850 (O-Bomba is not the Messia. Jesus was a carpenter and could build a cabinet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

Ok, thanks for the clarification.


38 posted on 05/26/2009 10:24:53 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

She now can’t complain if someone stereotypically says of her actions:: “Just like a woman!” or “What do you expect from a P.R.?”


39 posted on 05/26/2009 10:37:37 AM PDT by 2harddrive (then)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luke21

Great Guy, Father of Jorge.

The last great American President was Ronald Reagan. After him, each one was worse than the guy before him.

The Obamamessiah is no exception.


40 posted on 05/26/2009 10:42:17 AM PDT by ZULU (God guts and guns made America great. Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

Yes. Another ‘Rev. Wright’ type. You can call her ‘Madam Justice’


41 posted on 05/26/2009 10:43:49 AM PDT by americanophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

In another example of her radical judicial philosophy, Sotomayor stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” In the same speech, Sotomayor went on to say, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

__________

So much for equal protection clause of the constitution! You might as well tear up the whole document.

The Obama Regime stooges are pathetically hypocritical and ignorant.


42 posted on 05/26/2009 11:51:00 AM PDT by AlanGreenSpam (Obama: The First 'American IDOL' President - sponsored by Chicago NeoCom Thugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama
...she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color...”

Insert “experiences as a Christian...” and imagine the hue and cry that would arise...

43 posted on 05/26/2009 12:05:41 PM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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