Obama nominates Judge Sonia Sotomayor

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

President Barack Obama named federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice on Tuesday, praising her as "an inspiring woman" with both the intellect and compassion to interpret the Constitution wisely.

Obama said Sotomayor has more experience as a judge than any current member of the high court had when nominated, adding she has earned the "respect of colleagues on the bench," the admiration of lawyers who appear in her court and "the adoration of her clerks."

She was first appointed by Bush Sr. so I wonder if that will weigh on some of the current Republicans in the Senate.

[bush_cheney2004]

President Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill a pending vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic justice on the court, and not insignificantly, the sixth sitting Catholic. She is expected to be confirmed after only token opposition.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sup...ourt/index.html

Edited May 26, 2009 by Charles Anthony
merged thread

[sharkman]

A pro choice pro gay Catholic I suppose?

[Smallc]

A pro choice pro gay Catholic I suppose?

And what if she is?

[sharkman]

I'm pretty sure that Obama looked at these issues as well before naming her, so maybe you should direct your question to him.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm pretty sure that Obama looked at these issues as well before naming her, so maybe you should direct your question to him.

Judge Sotomayor is a safe bet, having been a favorite of two prior administrations. She'll be fine unless they find her in a porn flick or with unpaid nanny taxes...in that case, President Obama will go to his second choice....Michael Ignatieff !!

[Smallc]

I'm pretty sure that Obama looked at these issues as well before naming her, so maybe you should direct your question to him.

And so what if he did? Would a Conservatrive never name a judge because they have a conservative ideology?

[sharkman]

And so what if he did? Would a Conservatrive never name a judge because they have a conservative ideology?

Way to go, in some kind of convoluted way you just answered your first 'what if she is' post. I figured you knew the answer, and it's best if the poser comes to the answer all by himself.

[Shady]

Obama nominates Judge Sonia Sotomayor, first Hispanic Justice on U.S. Supreme Court

Let the identity politics-fest begin!

[bush_cheney2004]

Let the identity politics-fest begin!

Indeed...I wonder why the moderator deleted my original starting thread on this topic? Maybe not enough identity politics?

[jdobbin]

Let the identity politics-fest begin!

I'm sure. However, when it comes right down to it, Republicans will vote for her or offer token opposition because there are some in the party that think she is capable.

[Smallc]

Indeed...I wonder why the moderator deleted my original starting thread on this topic?

You posted your topic 1 minute later than Dobbin.

[Smallc]

Way to go, in some kind of convoluted way you just answered your first 'what if she is' post.

I really don't see the point you're trying to make. I sit unreasonalbe that a more liberal President would offer upa more liberal judge as his first appointee.

[Argus]

I'm sure. However, when it comes right down to it, Republicans will vote for her or offer token opposition because there are some in the party that think she is capable.

Is that all it takes for you? She's capable? Whoopee. Great way to describe the candidate for one of the most important legal positions in the world.

How about a brilliant, insightful legal scholar?

Sounds to me that Obama appointed her primarily because she could appeal to certain demographics which will be important at election time, and not because she was a brilliant, much-admired legal genius.

[August1991]

Here's an interesting fact to consider:

Sotomayor, an avid Yankees fan, lives modestly, reporting virtually no assets despite her $179,500 yearly salary.

On her financial disclosure report for 2007, she said her only financial holdings were a Citibank checking and savings account, worth $50,000 to $115,000 combined.

During the previous four years, the money in the accounts at some points was listed as low as $30,000.

When asked recently how she managed to file such streamlined reports, Sotomayor, according to a source, replied, "When you don't have money, it's easy. There isn't anything there to report."

Washington Post

Sotomayor is divorced and has no children. If she earns $179,500 annually, how come she only has about $100,000 in savings at age 54? You would think that an essential criteria for anyone to sit on the Supreme would be to have good judgment.

[Shady]

MAJOR PROBLEMS with Judge Sotomayor!

Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

"I know I shouldn't say this, because it's on tape, but the courts are where policy is made."

Also this...

“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,”said Judge Sotomayor.

NYT

[jdobbin]

Is that all it takes for you? She's capable? Whoopee. Great way to describe the candidate for one of the most important legal positions in the world.

Actually, capable covers a lot of the basic ground that Republicans and Democrats say they wanted for the Supreme Court. It meant the candidate was an experienced jurist, had bipartisan support in her career and had handled a wide variety of cases.

How about a brilliant, insightful legal scholar?

She is considered to be an expert scholar and has been an educator at NYU and Columbia.

Sounds to me that Obama appointed her primarily because she could appeal to certain demographics which will be important at election time, and not because she was a brilliant, much-admired legal genius.

She does appeal to certain demographics but she should appeal to many Republicans too as she is considered a centrist, has fought against crime as an Assistant District Attorney and has expertise in areas such as copyright and commercial litigation.

[jdobbin]

MAJOR PROBLEMS with Judge Sotomayor!

Which is why some Republicans will not vote for her ever.

[jdobbin]

Sotomayor is divorced and has no children. If she earns $179,500 annually, how come she only has about $100,000 in savings at age 54? You would think that an essential criteria for anyone to sit on the Supreme would be to have good judgment.

She lives in New York City. She goes to Yankees games. Don't think there is much money after that.

However, tell a Yankees fan that they don't have good judgment about going to games and you'll have a fight on your hands.

[Shady]

Which is why some Republicans will not vote for her ever.

None of them should. She's not a judge at all. She's a racist legislator in a black robe.

[jdobbin]

None of them should. She's not a judge at all. She's a racist legislator in a black robe.

Love it. Keep that up. It will be nice to see the backlash and the backpedalling from Republicans later on when Hispanics and women react to the extremist, radical right wing attacks.

[bush_cheney2004]

Love it. Keep that up. It will be nice to see the backlash and the backpedalling from Republicans later on when Hispanics and women react to the extremist, radical right wing attacks.

Yea, just like they did when "extremist, radical left wingers" attacked and discriminated against Miguel Estrada.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb52...4/ai_n19684669/

[August1991]

She lives in New York City. She goes to Yankees games. Don't think there is much money after that.

If I understand properly, you agree with her desire to spend other people's money.

Dobbin, I venture a guess. If the US is to be a viable entity, the single critical crieria will be how politicians spend other people's money.

By such a standard, in the long term, Canada is not viable.

----

The State's survival is dependent on how it spends, what it buys on our behalf.

Edited May 27, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

If I understand properly, you agree with her desire to spend other people's money.

I have seen no indication that she misspends court dollars.

You seem to have an issue with her receiving a salary as a public servant. You think she should have more savings. Have you ever considered the fact that her savings might be in the home she lives in?

I have no idea where you are going with her salary and other people's money rant. I don't recall you going after Bush and how he spent his money.

Her salary as a judge is far less than what she received in the private sector. She lives in an expensive city and you are concerned with how much she saves as if this marks her as a good or bad judge.

Dobbin, I venture a guess. If the US is to be a viable entity, the single critical crieria will be how politicians spend other people's money.

It is her money. She earned in the public sector as a civil servant.

You are grasping at straws.

By such a standard, in the long term, Canada is not viable.

The State's survival is dependent on how it spends, what it buys on our behalf.

And her salary is relevant to that?

Here is what I think you are getting at: You want the entire planet privatized. We should have no government. It should be all business. Private government, private police, private courts, private armies. Tell me I'm wrong.

Edited May 27, 2009 by jdobbin

[BubberMiley]

We should have no government. It should be all business. Private government, private police, private courts, private armies.

Somalia has been operating like that for years. Perhaps he sees it as a libertarian utopia.