Skip to comments.Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court
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, Sotomayors 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 thats 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, Sotomayors 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, Sotomayors 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 hasnt 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.
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.
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?
“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 hasnt lived that life.”
Translation: Feelings trump LAW.
No way, Hosea.
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....
He could have done better if she were a lesbian Muslim and with child.
Who were we to expect...Judge Bork?
This is a disastrous nomination.
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.
He picked someone who had the same feelings as he does.
Wow. That is a remarkable quote. And, IMHO, an incorrect position for a judge, at any level, to assume.
God help us.
“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.
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?
So much for his promise to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.
A pox on all who put zer0bama into office.
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.
You are probably right about that.
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.
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.
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?
No, Eric Estrada! He has it all. Latin, former law officer (on TV), gay,...
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 hasnt lived that life. -Sonia Sotomayor
W T F are you kidding me?
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?
This is the kind of justice we should expect to see...
Sonya Sotomayors 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 Havens 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 Artertons conclusion that the citys 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 Artertons 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 dont 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 Obamas 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.
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?
Sounds like a winner! /sarc
“....BUSH I first appointed this racist sexist idiot to the Federal Bench.”
You gotta be kidding me. He gave us both Souter and this?
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..
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.
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.
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?
He’s planted her in the SC to deter the BC lawsuit. Bet on it.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
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.?”
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.
Yes. Another ‘Rev. Wright’ type. You can call her ‘Madam Justice’
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 hasnt 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.
Insert experiences as a Christian... and imagine the hue and cry that would arise...
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.