Posted on 05/27/2009 3:29:32 PM PDT by 2nd amendment mama
Now that President Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, it will fall to Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to actually vet the nominee. Democrats are aiming to rubber stamp this judicial activist and try to rush the process so that it can be completed before Congress adjourns for the summer recess on August 9.
The vetting process will fall heavily on the new Senate Judiciary Committee ranking Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Sessions took over the position recently when Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) abandoned the post and left the Republican Party to become the most junior of the Democrat members on the committee.
“Of primary importance, we must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law, calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one’s own personal preferences or political views,” Sessions said of the upcoming process.
Serious questions have already arisen regarding a Sotomayor speech at Berkeley in 2002 in which she stated 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.” At the same public appearance, 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.” Reverse “Latina woman” and “white male” in that statement and see how far that would fly.
“The Senate Judiciary Committee’s role is to act on behalf of the American people to carefully scrutinize Ms. Sotomayor's qualifications, experience, and record,” Sessions concluded. “We will engage in a fair and thorough examination of Ms. Sotomayor's previous judicial opinions, speeches, and academic writings to determine if she has demonstrated the characteristics that great judges share: integrity, impartiality, legal expertise, and a deep and unwavering respect for the rule of law.”
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, weighed in on the nomination.
“The President has done his part, but now it's up the Senate to determine Judge Sotomayor's qualifications,” DeMint said. “Some of her writings seem to raise serious questions about her approach to the Constitution and the role of the federal judiciary, but I will withhold judgment about her nomination until she has the opportunity to fully present her views before the Senate.”
On the Rush Limbaugh radio program yesterday, Rush played a clip of a Sotomayor appearance on a panel in 2005 at Duke University Law School. There was a discussion about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Sotomayor said, “All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know.”
Laughter.
Sotomayor continued, “Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it and I'm not advocating it. I'm -- you know.”
More laughter. Wink. Wink. Shredding the Constitution is fun for liberals.
Senior Senate Judiciary Committee Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said, “The Judiciary Committee should take time to ensure that the nominee will be true to the Constitution and apply the law, not personal politics, feelings or preferences. We need to ask tough questions to learn how this individual views the role of a Supreme Court justice.”
Four times the Supreme Court has reversed Sotomayor-authored opinions and in three of the four the Court held that she erred in her statutory interpretation. Not exactly a stellar track record. The cases are Knight v. C.I.R.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit; New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini; and Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko.
Conservative grassroots groups began to weigh in on the Sotomayor nomination immediately yesterday, among them the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, a group of over 350 organizations working together during the confirmation process in support of most of President George W. Bush’s nominees, Harriet Myers being the exception.
“Although Justice dons a blindfold when weighing the scales of justice, Sotomayor admits that she lifts that blindfold so as to peek at her own complexion and the skin color of the parties before her,” said Kay Daly, President of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary. “That might explain why she held it was constitutional for white firefighters to be denied promotion based on their skin color. Sotomayor's own words should be her nomination's undoing.”
Representative of the pro-life groups, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans for Life, said, “She believes the role of the Court is to set policy which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the National Abortion Control Board denying the American people to right to be heard on this critical issue. This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench at a time when the Courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations -- supported by the vast majority of Americans -- like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance.”
All this and much, much more from just day one of the nomination. Pop the popcorn, folks. This nomination offers Republicans in the Senate (at least those with a spine) the opportunity to actually present to the nation exactly how radical this choice by President Obama really is.
And Sotomayor can't wait to get her shredder fired up.
She is a legal dunce. I suggest they read some of her opinions into the Congressional record.
“Somethings happening here !”
It would be easy to say Sotomayor is pretty much a “cow-like” person.
If cows know as little about the law and it’s application, I suppose if you say so.
Legal dunce refers to her jurisprudence, which is virtually nonexistent.
Her job is to make the next Obama appointee look moderate.
When does McCain start kissing her a$$?
Anyone that gives a shred about our country, our Constitution, and our children and grandchildren’s futures better draw a line in the sand now. Otherwise, bend over America.
Start calling and calling and calling every politician in DC and get your neighbors and friends involved. Our country is being destroyed right in front of our faces.
appointee >> nominee.
Let's start a pool on which republican senator will be the first fawn over this incompetent and dangerous woman for a photo op. My money is on Graham since he's a La Raza award winner.
More scum in Washington.. AA Prez and now an AA SOTUS. What another worthless piece of stinking shit.. DC needs to thoroughly cleansed when this filthy bunch of immoral trash is run out of town. State Radio and the Politboro media etc needs to go as well ....
I've been wondering if that isn't exactly their strategy and she's taking one for the team.
The reason that Rush is hated not only by Obama but also many Republicans is that he has the uncanny knack of always getting to the heart of the issue and exposing it in such unvarnished scrutiny that even the average person from Rio Linda and Port St. Lucie can understand the nature of what Obama is trying to do which is to perpetrate his radical agenda on the American people through the back door of the Supreme Court.
There can be little doubt that our congessional Republican wusses will hem and haw and cough into their fists for a bit, and then fall into lockstep with the Democrats and rubber stamp the appointment.
Since the last election, Republicans in Washington seem all to have taped signs to their butts which read, “Kick me, I’m a Republican.”
I'm beginning to think the Repubs should OK this one.
She's too extreme to be well-liked by the public overall. Plus, Jonathan Turley says she's an intellectual lightweight.
I think a more intelligent not-so-radical-seeming nominee would be much more dangerous over the long term.
I say let her be confirmed to remind the public over the next few decades what an ugly President we had.
Actually one should read her statement about how a Latino woman is better than a bunch of white men and point out to her that a prospective juror can be exempt from a jury if he made a similar remark especially in a court case involving a White plaintiff against a Hispanic plaintiff/or color plaintiff due to possible bias, then how after she making such a statement is more qualify to be a fair judge? That should be the GOP line of attack.
The GOP is a bunch of wusses; they won’t attack. Period. End of story.
Now if they would only figure out that they will be vilified no matter what. They might as well stand up and say what they really think. Yes the media will be on them like stink on skunk for the first 20 times or so. But after that people might start listening. Really how much worse could it get?
“They might as well stand up and say what they really think.”
Men and women of character should NOT have to be prompted to stand up and say what they really think. It’s a sad comment on Republicans in congress that they SHOULD have to be prompted to do so.
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.