Skip to comments.Sotomayor declines to talk about abortion views
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 ...
‘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...
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.
>>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.
>>What we will get is La Raza on the Supreme Court.<<
Yeah... I know.... sigh.
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".
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.
She speaks like a politician...never the truth. She dances around questions like abortion but the 2nd. Amend as well.
Well, she shouldn't have much to worry about as she has already stated that Roe v Wade was settled law.
>>Not a single Supreme Court justice has ever admitted the personhood of the unborn.<<
Is that true? Even the dissenters in Roe?
If she can’t answer; perhaps she shouldn’t be on the SC.
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.
I don’t know how legal terms apply to these hearings.
She is sworn in, and sworn to tell the truth ... Lying to Congress has the same penalty as purgery does, felony.
I wish to heck they would inforce it. How does it apply to Senators that are knowingly lying?
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.
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.