1st Puerto-Rican FEMALE nominated for Supreme Court
@revellanotvanella (4033)
United States
May 26, 2009 1:31pm CST
I think what their saying is that Obama wanted someone who could relate to normal people and clearly her background speaks to this, she grew up in the Bronx and lived in a housing project. Her mother raised her a single parent after her father died when she was a child.
I think the voting was 67-29, and all 29 opposing her Republicans.
And back in 1997, President Bill Clinton nominated her to Appeals Court and the
Republicans argued against that because they said it would "enhance her prospects of being appointed to the Supreme Court," can you imagine what the GOP must be thinking now? They even went as far as BLOCKING her stalling the motion of a vote for one year.
Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy called the length of the hold "disturbing," "petty," and "shameful," also noting that at that time, "[o]f the 10 judicial nominees whose nominations have been pending the longest before the Senate, eight are women and racial or ethnic minority candidates." [year 1998)
In 2001, at Berkeley she stated: "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
This is probably the reason she is being opposed so aggresively because politically she is considered more of a radical (or "opinionated" then the GOP is used to and they knew this was one eventual prospect once Obama was voted into office.
Even in 2005, it was sugggested by many Democrats that President Bush fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Oconnor but that led to Samuel A. Alito.
(In a letter the Democrats did also suggest Ken Salazar as an alternate option should a vacancy in the Court during his term).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Do you think the GOP will let this one go
Do you think the GOP will let this one go 1 person likes this
8 responses
@mommyboo (13174)
• United States
27 May 09
Um, I have two things to say about this. I do not see why there is such a HUGE DEAL made about two things - her gender or her ethnicity! Why can't people just focus on her qualifications? THIS is in essence why we have such a big problem in this country with EQUALITY. People focus on differences and people make a big deal out of both gender (oh wow, first woman) or ethnicity (our first x judge, president, cabinet member, governor, etc) and THAT folks is why we will never truly be equal!
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
28 May 09
You have pointed out one of the major flaws in our current politically correct atmosphere. Everyone is so afraid of saying something that will be interpreted as racism that they are afraid to speak normally. People are so concerned about things like race and color, rather than overlooking them, they are pointing them out. When you have to worry about every word you speak being misinterpreted, you cannot help but take note of any differences in the people around you. Their differences are your total focus, because if you don't take note of them, you might accidentally say something that someone might find offensive, even if you didn't mean to.
We will never have a truly integrated society that has true diversity as long as they keep pointing out our differences and making more of those differences than they do of the traits we possess that actually apply to the situation.
@revellanotvanella (4033)
• United States
28 May 09
I'm for that and I have felt the same way I do not want it to be like this and I do not think the changes will come through government but through our younger generations who have grown up in a society of all sorts of differences and can look past this, so I hope
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
26 May 09
Here's a novel idea, how about a judge who actualy goes by and upholds the constitution? How about a constructionist who won't be consrevative or liberal. How about selecting a judge based on constitutional knowlege and strict adherence to it instead of turning the selection process in to a pagent of political and social correctness? How about selecting a judge who won't try to create law from the bench?
Judges are suposed to be impartial, non biased, and non sympathetic. they interpret law, they are not activist for social injustice, or racial and ethnic agenda, or economic equality. Any judge basing rulings on anything but strict interpretation of law is violating their oath and should be legaly dis-barred.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
26 May 09
I agree. A judge hearing a criminal or civil case can employ mercy or look at mitigating circumstances when it comes to sentencing or damage awards, but when one's job is to adjudicate legal standing based on an interpretation of the law, then one has no business allowing anything else to influence that decision. Law is a dry thing, it sets out guidelines and it is important that those who are entrusted to interpret those laws keep in mind not their own leanings on any issue, but the intentions and meanings of the laws that exist to cover the situation at hand.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
27 May 09
"I think what their saying is that Obama wanted someone who could relate to normal people"
It's not HER JOB to relate to normal people. Her job is to determine if laws are constitutional. That's like hiring a physicist because you think he can relate to normal people. Frankly I missed where "normal" meant living in the projects in the Bronx with a single parent. Am I less normal because I had two parents and grew up in a stable home with parents who earned a decent living?
The real issue here is that many, including me, are not happy because she seems far more concerned with her own personal feelings than with the constitution. We don't need an "activist judge", we need a constitutional judge.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
27 May 09
You clearly don't know too much about our judicial system. Judges write laws all the time. It's called precedent. Roe v. Wade is the single most well known example of judge made law. The most recent example which has received a lot of attention was in May of 2008 when the courts in California legalized gay marriage. THEY made that law, not the state legislature. More recently California courts made a new law that they would recognize gay marriages even though Prop 8, which was voted on and passed, specifically says that California will NOT recognize gay marriages.
Activist judges like Sotomayor are the ones who go out of their way to write laws because they really care more about their political agenda than the constitution.
@revellanotvanella (4033)
• United States
27 May 09
It doesn't require many words to speak the truth --Chief Joseph
@revellanotvanella (4033)
• United States
27 May 09
Relating to people doesn't mean trying to change the laws. I'm sure there is so many precautions in place to avoid this and oversight of our lawmakers do you really think it would be that easy?
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
26 May 09
I really know nothing of her other than what is now being reported in the news. I think it's a bit distracting to have the news so full of her gender and ethnicity as if this has anything to do with being a Supreme Court Justice. Her common touch or how she relates to people are qualities that might be important in a customer service job, but as a Supreme Court Justice, it is only her knowledge of Constitutional law and her understanding of her duty to interpret that law that is important.
In other words, as long as she is well-versed in the Constitution and supports it as the highest law of the land, without respect to any interest groups or personal opinions, but makes her judgments based on the letter of the Constitution, then I am happy enough with her.
If anyone believes that the position of Supreme Court Justice should be used to change policy or make policy, they are mistaken. The only job is to weigh cases and judgment of other courts based on what the Constitution says.
@revellanotvanella (4033)
• United States
26 May 09
Barack Obama's background is Constitutional Law and felt she was the most qualified based on her experience
@di1159 (1580)
• United States
26 May 09
I consider myself to be a moderate Republican (but who really cares?). Anyway, I think that Ms. Sotomayor is an outstanding choice for the Supreme Court. She's experienced, eloquent, and intelligent. I think she has the best interests of the country in mind from what I heard and I hope she gets confirmed without any major bumps in the road.
@revellanotvanella (4033)
• United States
26 May 09
I'm going to the bookstore tonight and going to check out her story if I can find it in a book, sounds like she has a neat store not unlike Obama
@BlueGoblin (1829)
• United States
26 May 09
Another liberal that doesn't believe in free speech. Where can I buy balloons to celebrate?
@rrdj71 (696)
• United States
26 May 09
I actually have admiration for her. I too was raised in a low class area of NY and my mother is Latin. My father a Sicilian mobster(love you dad but I know the truth!!)never cared for me and maybe came by once a year. My mom raised my brother and me on her own and although I am no judge, I have great admiration for Judge Sotomayor. GREAT WAY TO COME OUT OF THE GHETTO!!
@revellanotvanella (4033)
• United States
26 May 09
yea, I've lived in the projects and thats just amazing and especially for those of us who have lived it and remember the feeling of complete entrapments and dread being there.
@TenishaToday (20)
• United States
26 May 09
I think this is going to come down to who is the best at controlling public opinion, and the Obama Administration appears to be saying it is up for the challenge. The more she is presented as the "American dream made reality" the less likely the American public is going to take kindly to Republicans prolonging her confirmation. Moreover, because the republicans are losing support across polling demographics I do not believe ( though I could be wrong) that they would do something that may potentially exacerbate this loss of support from independents and moderates. They know as well as anyone that elections are coming up again in 2010. As far as Judge's qualifications I have yet to actually research her opinions, relative documents, or speeches. I strive not to be bias in my assessment and to critically analyze her positions pertaining to the constitution, public policy, and public administration.
