Posted on 05/28/2009 9:36:46 PM PDT by Kaslin
What's the likely fallout — politically and judicially — of President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals?
Politically, Obama gets a plus for naming the first Hispanic justice (unless one counts Benjamin Cardozo, nominated in 1932, a descendant of Portuguese Jews). Sotomayor has an appealing biography:
She grew up the daughter of Puerto Rican parents in the Bronx, had a fine academic record at Princeton and Yale Law School, served in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan and practiced commercial law.
Republicans delayed her confirmation for the appeals court in the 1990s for the same reason that Democrats delayed and prevented the confirmation of Miguel Estrada for a judgeship during the first Bush term: To prevent the other party from promoting a Hispanic who would be a plausible Supreme Court nominee.
In Her Own Defense
Sotomayor is that — she clearly meets the minimal standards for the job. Republicans are unlikely to prevent her confirmation, and Democrats can tell Hispanic voters they put one of their own on the nation's highest court.
It remains to be seen whether Sotomayor will prove as charming and articulate in her confirmation hearings as Chief Justice John Roberts was in 2005. And she will presumably have to defend some of her public statements, such as: "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."
That amounts to an assertion that some Americans are more likely to have the "empathy" that Obama said he sought in a nominee because of their gender and ethnic origin. It's not clear that most Americans agree.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
I was told today that Portuguese arent Hispanic, Some one should tell The Lorenzen’s
And why shouldn't we? Makes her look like a first-year law student intelellectually and covers more minorities than she does (women are not a minoity).
With Republicans like John Hussein Cornyn? I highly doubt it, and by that I mean no way in hell.
If Sotomayor fails to gain confirmation Obama will find a much more radical but also much better credentialed candidate. This is not a reason to give Sonia a pass, but a simple statement that Obama’s goal is to move the court much further leftward and there is precious little the GOP can do about it.
GOP needs to get on the stick big time & right now
Bull crap. She has been overturned 60% -of the time for lame Jurisprudence
Shut her down.
And the next clown.
Slick, implying the two contrast each other. In fact, her life story perfectly compliments her rulings, and show a consistent radical marxist.
0bama says he wants ‘empathy’.
His definition of ‘empathy’ is being predisposed to certain individuals due to a shared background or identity.
To me, that is the definition of ‘bias’.
Will, I'd have more faith in a white male high school dropout exposed to the grandeur of this country through generations of his family, than a Latina riding the back of Affirmative Action with 60% of her cases overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Soto’s going down. She’s an idiot, a racist, a “living Constitution” type. The Pubs won’t do much against her, but the people will.
60% is a result of 3 of 5 cases granted certiorari. I wouldn’t condemn a baseball player because he only got two hits in 5 at bats. i wouldn’t credit him either. The average overruling is 70%. There are reasons to oppose Sotomayor, good and true reasons, but her 60% rejection rate is not one of them.
Hows about if he kicked three ground balls out of five?
I watched Ramon Martinez do that in LA for the Mets last week. Didn't make me happy but at the time a better choice at short than Fernando Tatis.
I’m afraid that if Sotomayor is stopped, we will get someone worse.
Are we talking about giving her a lifetime seat on the most powerful judicial bench in the history of the world or are we considering making a Lifetime Channel Movie of the Week about her?
Life story means NOTHING compared to proven competence (or lack thereof) for the job in question.
A compelling life story is nice, but save it for the next home makeover show. Give me officials and justices who are not just minimally qualified, but the best person available for the job. Why is that so friggin hard?
A simple statement!
Not so simple, nor a statement of a fact. Instead it a request for a certain type of reaction, for the putting on of certain type of emotional reaction to the situation.
Your take can be summed in one seven letter word: Despair.
Well, good Freeper, despair is the unhealthiest of reactions.
As the character James Tiberius Kirk said in the recent Star Trek movie: "I don't believe in the no-win scenario."
That is a fundamentally American fierce boldness in the face of what appears to be overwhelming adversity. Real examples of similar statements in American History are:
Admiral David Glasgow Farragut at the Battle of Mobile Bay 1864: "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"
General Washington's motto for the Attack on Trenton 1776: "Victory or Death"
General Chesty Puller, Korean War: "We're surrounded. That simplifies the problem."
General Anthony McAuliffe at the Battle of Bastogne 1944, surrounded by Panzer tanks, almost out of ammo and his troops cold and exhausted: "Nuts!"
Time for our Republican "Generals and Admirals" to take their turn at being MEN.
Both the oath and the scripture on which it is based prohibit “empathy”, ie, partiality.
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.