1. News & Issues

Sonia Sotomayor Nominated to the Supreme Court By President Obama

By May 26, 2009

Follow me on:

President Obama breaks new ground once again with his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. If confirmed, she'll be the third woman and the first Hispanic on the bench of the nation's highest court.

Since David Souter announced his retirement from the Court, Sotomayor has been regarded as a front runner for many reasons; she has solid legal credentials, the real-world experience Obama sought in a nominee, and a compelling story as a girl who rose from poverty in the projects of the South Bronx.

Sources say that the deal was sealed when Sotomayor met with Obama last Thursday and the two hit it off over the course of an hour-long interview. The personal dynamic between a president and his nominee is of key importance; it is usually the determining factor in the selection process. A similar scenario led to the appointment of the Court's first female, Sandra Day O'Connor, who also secured the nomination after a lengthy interview with President Ronald Reagan revealed a mutual love of horses.

At the time O'Connor was nominated, she was one of four female candidates on Reagan's short list; he had promised to put a woman on the Supreme Court and chose O'Connor on the basis of a single interview although she was the least qualified and the only one he interviewed.

The same cannot be said of Sotomayor, who brings both public sector and private sector experience, along with a distinguished career as a federal judge. Like O'Connor, Sotomayor was one of four female finalists under consideration; unlike O'Connor, Obama interviewed all four before deciding on Sotomayor.

Sonia Sotomayor is regarded as a moderate liberal and will change the face of the Supreme Court on several levels. Perhaps the most crucial fact is that she brings to the Court a specific characteristic it has lacked for much of its 219-year history - a diversity that more accurately reflects the melting-pot origins of a large portion of the nation's population. She represents the future of a nation and a renewed, revitalized Court that will benefit from what Obama calls "the wisdom of her life's journey" as it confronts the most challenging issues of our times in the months and years ahead.

If you found this post interesting:
Add to my Technorati favorites
Follow me on Twitter
Bookmark or Share


May 26, 2009 at 10:55 pm
(1) paul ruppert says:

The people of America should take a second look at Obama’s choice. In every instance, she is racists, does not follow the law of the land, in fact everyone of her decisions from her court have been overturned, this in a sense should bring a light on to those of hispanic origin. Better go back and choose a woman of truth.

May 26, 2009 at 11:33 pm
(2) womensissues says:

Paul, making unsubstantiated claims only serves to underscore your ignorance. Where did you get this falsehood that you quoted?

< < in fact everyone of her decisions from her court have been overturned>>

Three of her decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court. Three…out of a 17-year career as a federal judge. Here’s the facts courtesy of TIME magazine. Show us proof of your statement, and not from an ultra-conservative liberal-baiting website. Any mainstream media source would be welcomed.

Thank you for your post. Your own racism is obvious to anyone who can put two and two together. But for those who can’t, I’m happy to point it out:

< < this in a sense should bring a light on to those of hispanic origin >>

Your views shame a nation built on diversity and acceptance. There is no place for racism here.

May 27, 2009 at 3:53 am
(3) whiteknyght says:

And he couldn’t properly spell “racist” – and we won’t even get into the “this in a sense should bring a light.”

Paul, please, if you are going to represent the XY side… learn to write and spell. You’re embarassing enough as it is.

May 27, 2009 at 4:26 am
(4) jb says:

She sounds pretty racist, from her overturning the just plain ridiculous cases such as the “Ricci v. DeStefano” to her saying.. “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.”

source: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1901094,00.html?iid=tsmodule

May 27, 2009 at 5:03 am
(5) Sallie says:

I am pleased with President Obama’s choice of Sonia Sotomayor, it is refreshing to see a woman of my generation posied to sit on the highest court in the land. She will do an excellent job having actually walked the walked.

I must say I was surprised to find here the naysayers already out from their caves.

May 27, 2009 at 10:47 am
(6) wm doyle says:

that a wise white male with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman who hasn’t lived that life does that sound ok to anybody!

May 27, 2009 at 11:56 am
(7) womensissues says:

Regarding the ‘racism’ of Sotomayer’s ‘wise Latina’ comment, I’ll reproduce the words of another commenter on this site who said it succinctly and candidly:

“When one grows up in a lily white wealthy neighborhood, one is never challenged in one’s beliefs. Few of them really ever have to look at life through any eyes other than their own. Having any kind of real political discussion with them is useless. It’s like the old saying, ‘Don’t confuse me with facts. My mind is already made up.’ It fits them, wouldn’t you agree?”

Sotomayor grew up in the projects. Although I didn’t, I did grow up in NYC and understand the challenges of life in the projects – it’s a tough world that very few break out of. She was an Assistant District Attorney in NYC; every day she was involved with the perpetrators of street crimes and understood the circumstances that drove them to these acts.

Her wisdom is street tough, street smart…blended with an exceptional Ivy League pedigree…and a fine legal mind. Yes, I’d say with that background and those varied experiences, I’d expect her to make wiser decisions that understand and take into account ALL levels of society — decisions that would carry the conviction of personal experience that would be completely missing from the judgment of an educated white, upper-middle class man who’s never set foot in the ‘hood and never had to live among drug dealers, petty thieves, and high school dropouts.

Not racism here — just a statement that Sotomayor’s had those life experiences, she understands the minority perspective and the women’s perspective, and that we can all benefit from that wisdom. She is of the people. Can the same be said of Scalia, who goes hunting with Dick Cheney?

The fear expressed by certain white men regarding Sotomayor’s nomination mystifies me. After all, guys, she’s ‘only a woman.’ ;)

May 27, 2009 at 1:47 pm
(8) brojer says:

Life experiences should not enter into a selection. What matters is what a nominee thinks about the Constitution. Decisions that are not covered should not be ruled upon.
BTW just because a person cannot spell or uses bad grammar does not mean their ideas or opinions are invalid. Implying it is makes it another form of racism.

May 27, 2009 at 2:02 pm
(9) ALFRED E. NEWMAN says:


May 27, 2009 at 2:10 pm
(10) Larona says:

Where was your concern about racism when the left attacked Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada and Alberto Gonzales??? All three are minorities from humble origins with facinating rags to riches narratives, but their conservative values made them targets for vicious progressive assaults. Ms. Sotomayor is to be admired for her determination and abilities that have led to her successful appointments. However, it should be mentioned that 60% of her decisions have been reversed by a higher court. Also, she has been guilty of making racially bigoted comments as well as saying that policy is created in the appeals courts. In reality, the courts exist to uphold policy, not create it. Remember the three branches of government are executive, legislative and judicial and they should not, for the sake of checks and balances, overlap each other. Ms. Sotomayor’s background, while admirable, does not give her the ability to understand the constitution or any of the laws of this nation better than someone of a different race or gender. President Obama in the past has stated his disappointment in the Supreme Court because it did not focus on social justice. The appointment of Sotomayor (a proponent of social justice) is simply a means to that end. Now, whiteknyght, I hope you do not find a typo or a misspelled word in my comment. If you do, I’m sure you will handle it with politeness and class and not reduce me to appearing as a troglodyte,
because you are, of course, from the party of tolerence.

May 27, 2009 at 2:17 pm
(11) Caroline says:

I’m absolutely stunned that some folks can’t get beyond the fact that she’s a) female and b) Hispanic to see amazing credentials.

These are the same folks who backed a president who got through Ivy League schools on legacy. The lack of diversity in his administration is part of the reason they made so many horrendous decisions that nearly bankrupted the US in every way that matters.

Diversity always, always produces better decisions. . .it produces a broader perspective and richer points of view.

My family’s been in this country longer than most. We’ve seen wave after wave of immigrants get bashed because of where their ancestors were born. It is a sorry state of affairs when a person can only pull him/herself up by putting another person down.

May 27, 2009 at 2:34 pm
(12) Anne S says:

This appointment has all the markings of a disaster. She has not shown impartiality on some of the cases & decisions she has made & is known to have biases on many issues of ethnicity. Empathy goes two ways, for ALL parties before the court. I am an enlightened, educated woman who believes that judges should NOT legislate from the bench as stated in our Constitution. That is why we have 2 branches that can legislate; executive & legislative. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the laws these 2 branches enact, not to make law. Sotomayor has already stated that she intends to continue her judicial activism. If this is so, she has no place on the Supreme Court or any other Court in the US.

May 27, 2009 at 2:40 pm
(13) Larona says:

Actually, Caroline, what bankrupted this country was the Democrats eliminating the financial criteria to obtain a mortgage. Bad mortgages were bundled with good mortgages and sold as securities which were then sold overseas, thus causing the collapse of economic systems throught the world. The most culpable (and I will give their race because that seems to be so important to you) are Senator Chris Dodd (WHITE), Rep. Barney Frank (WHITE) and the entire Black Caucus (I won’t mention their race for fear you will call me racist). They kept the shenanigans at Fannie May and Freddie Mac going and going and got nice campaign contributions for their compliance. Until this mortgage crisis happened, the economic indicators were all in good shape and that in itself was amazing considering the initial effects of 911 on the economy. But don’t let the facts get in the way of what you WANT to believe.

May 27, 2009 at 2:40 pm
(14) Caroline says:

Larona, you obviously haven’t gone to law school, clerked for a judge, or lived with one. I have. I was licensed to practice in two states.

Your smug assertion that she’s unqualified because “60%” of her decisions have been reversed tells me you don’t have a clue about how the judicial process actually operates. And, I suspect you still believe the fairy tale crap we were all fed in high school civics class.

So, I’m going to take you to “school” about judicial opinions. I hate to burst your bubble, but judges decide how they want to have a case turn out BEFORE they send their clerks to the law library to find precedent to back up their point of view.

And, may I remind you that your hero Clarence Thomas engaged in sexual harassment while heading the agency chartered with policing sexual harassment in the workplace? Clearly, he believes he is above the law. Yet, there he is a member of the Supremes.

Finally, appellate court decisions are made by a PANEL (group) of highly-educated, brilliant judges. The conferences over cases are brutal intellectual debates over fine points of law. They’re also heated political debates. The chief judge assigns the writing of the PANEL’s decision to one of the judges.

Essentially, you are saying that ALL the federal appellate judges in her circuit are idiots.

The folks who visit here tend to be highly-educated, well-informed folks who make up their own minds on issues. We don’t merely parrot anybody’s party line.

And, we’ll smack down anybody who dares to be rude to Linda.

May 27, 2009 at 2:42 pm
(15) Swede says:

Amen, Larona! The phony “tolerant” left as defined by the womensissues statements, et.al., preceding yours is so patently obvious. (Who in the hell is this anonymous “womensissues?) As if the libs are perfect spellers; their inflateable president Yugo-Apologist-Ponzi can’t even remember the name of his Secretary of Defense when it’s right there on his beloved telemprompter. (Rumor has it that Michele {“For the first time of my life I am proud of my country”} is sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom because the Anointed One insists on sleeping with his teleprompters!) The libs wouldn’t give Bush an inch. No way will I give this arrogant expert on abortion doublespeak any tolerance..
It’s a given fact that a female latina jurist will do a better job than a white jurist..NOT! Julianne Malveaux, that great icon of liberal tolerance, urged Clarence Thomas’ wife to feed him lots of bacon and eggs so he would have an early heart attack! Her personal story means diddley squat. Think of Obama’s communist parents who abandoned him rather than abort him. Consider where our country would be today if the reverse had occurred!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

May 27, 2009 at 2:45 pm
(16) Swede says:

Caroline, Caroline, Caroline! You’ll smack down anyone who dares to be rude to Linda! Another “tolerant” leftist floats to the top of the liberal cesspool……

May 27, 2009 at 2:54 pm
(17) Mariya says:

Justice is BLIND to a person. A judge should never base his or her decision based on what this judge “feels” about a person in the case. Nobody is diminishing the accomplishments of Sonya Sotomayor as a Latina woman. The problem is that she is openly admitting legislating from the bench and it is not right. Justice and judges should not legislate, their decisions should only be based on the LAW. Leave empathy for other areas of life.

May 27, 2009 at 2:58 pm
(18) Mack says:

Thank you Mr. President… GREAT choice….. for the high court….. keep up the leadership no doubt after the last eight years we need it…. and God knows the NEW RNC (Rush, Newt, Cheney) they are digging them selves deeper every time they open their mouths… And do you wonder what Cheney is up to with all his openeness…. sounds like he is the former president…. guess we know who was really in charge the past eight years…. he wants to hide something, make sure he has a place in history because he was the real president or he is just plain stupid.

May 27, 2009 at 3:02 pm
(19) Caroline says:

Larona, you amuse me. The economic collapse was caused by failure to regulate Wall Street by the Bush Administration. Greed gone wild.

Dodd and Frank and the Black caucus didn’t put a gun to Bernie Madoff’s head, for example, and tell him to pull of the greatest Ponzie scheme in recorded history. Quite a few investors, however, DID go to the SEC and request an investigation which never happened.

Dodd and Frank and the Black caucus similarly didn’t put a gun to the heads of the executives at AIG (Republicans) and tell them to insure all those stinko mortgages.

And, they didn’t put a gun to the heads of the bankers who wrote those stinko mortgages in the first place.

Back in the day, I was in the room when the idea of PACs was launched. I was a strident Republican back then. But, after three decades of witnessing the greed and corruption manifest from this corrupt foundation, I no longer keep my mouth shut about how the system “operates.”

The difference between us, Larona, is that I know what the code words mean.

An “activist” judge, for example, is quite simply one who makes a decision the Republicans don’t like. I didn’t hear a chorus of complaints when the “activist” judges on the Supremes back in 2000 made the audacious decision that Bush would be president.

May 27, 2009 at 3:14 pm
(20) DJ says:

Before medical science discovered germs and that unsanitary behavior caused disease and death, there was religion telling us evil spirits, Devil, etc., caused it when you engaged in filthy behavior. Labeling Fornication, poor hygiene, (cleanliness is next to Godliness)SODOMY,(the act of wallowing in sewage)as sins, kept this behavior and disease at bay. The medical profession should be the first and most vocal in condemnation of fornication and unsanitary, sewage wallowing, death and disease spreading, criminal, homosexual, deviant behavior. This Supreme Court Judge I fear, will plunge America deeper into Hell’s septic tank. Pedophiles and rapists will get “rights” to do what they were born to do next!

May 27, 2009 at 3:18 pm
(21) Swede says:

Caroline! Your revisionist, slanted version of history is totally laughable! Blarney Frank, et.al. had no involvement. Give me a break! You have to be a Baby Obama!!!! Fortunately, or not, you escaped abortion………………Too, sweet Caroline, please pass on the code words, so all of us can drink the Kool-Aid with you…

May 27, 2009 at 3:28 pm
(22) Swede says:

Obama will add the following five sequels to his “The Audacity of Hope”:
1. The Audacity of Arrogance
2. The Audacity of Ignorance
3. The Audacity of Constitutional Intolerance
4. The Audacity of Inexperience
5. The Audacity of Hopelessness

What’s Obama going to do about North Korea??
Can’t wait to see him “sit down and talk with the pot-bellied little dictator”!

May 27, 2009 at 3:31 pm
(23) Gary Klahr says:

The Ricci case was NOT overturned by her. The District Judge ruled IN FAVOR of the City (the “Establishment here) and the Ct of Appeals panel just affirmed the Dist Ct in NOT overruling the city’s action. That HARDLY sounds like “judicial activism.”

May 27, 2009 at 3:34 pm
(24) Frank says:

Why so many cases overturned? Is she smart enough? What was her ruling all about in the New Haven Firemen testing/promotion scandel.

May 27, 2009 at 3:46 pm
(25) Charles Ponzi says:

Oh,Oh…..the highly-educated and well-informed Caroline can’t spell PONZI correctly!! Earlier in this debate a conservative contributor was ridiculed by a leftist for a spelling error… So much for the highly-educated and well-informed liberals….Them, two, AIN’T purrfekt………..

May 27, 2009 at 3:53 pm
(26) Larona says:

Caroline – How easy it is to make you lather at the mouth. Instead of addressing Sotomayor’s assertion that (1)policy is made in the court of appeals and her comment that (2)a Latina woman could make better decisions than a white male, you have filled your text by personally attacking me. No, I have never gone to law school. I chose medical school instead and spent six years as an orthapedic surgeon in Western Africa, primarily Sierre Leone. I would never assume someone was ignorant because they did not have the medical knowledge that I have. So now that you have my credentials I assume I am permitted by you to have an opinion?? Please address points (1) and (2) in a non hateful way. PS I find the difference in writing style between your first comment and the others that followed interesting. The same hate is there and the same inability to stay on point is there as well, but the style is different. Interesting.

May 27, 2009 at 4:18 pm
(27) Swede says:

Larona, absolutely stunning reply! You unveiled an authentic Kool-Aid drinking leftist for what she truly is: vengeful, hateful, intolerant, venomous….When one argues with a liberal, one is arguing with an infant messing in its pants—he/she does not hear the voice of moral reason and logic….

May 27, 2009 at 4:54 pm
(28) Eve says:

I can’t help but wonder if this woman does not feel about herself the same as she felt about the ‘reverse discrimination’ that applied to those qualified firefighters that sought justice when they studied for months for a test that was thrown out because the minorities couldn’t pass it and be promoted? No, this woman is definitely not what this country needs. We need someone ‘blind’ to race, who would champion the best of the best regardless of race, not someone with a racist agenda. She thinks we owe her this whether she is the most qualified or not. Besides, we need someone who will uphold the constitution, not ‘make policy’. Her policies obviously are not about what is best for our countrymen. This woman would be dangerous in such a powerful position.

May 27, 2009 at 5:01 pm
(29) Larona says:

Caroline – You misspelled PONZI?? Now you amuse me.

May 27, 2009 at 6:11 pm
(30) Swede says:

Larona, the battle has been won. Congratulations! Typical of the cowardice of liberals. Sweet Caroline has slid back under her slimey rock while googling the spelling of “Ponzi”.

May 27, 2009 at 10:50 pm
(31) Carlos Alaniz says:

Not all Hispanics are thrilled or excited about Sotomayor’s nomination How about more than 60% of her rulings being overturned. How about nominating the best candidate regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity and as far as Obama is concerned, we should of had the first Black Prez in Alan Keyes 8 years ago

May 27, 2009 at 11:25 pm
(32) Jeannine says:

Why if someone disagrees with opinions regarding a person who is hispanic, black or whatever do liberals immediately label them as racist. Isn’t this country founded on the basis that we have the freedom to express our opinions? Whether or not this woman is confirmed…. and we all know that with the gevernment so heavily weighed in favor of Democrats, this is a foregone conclusion…one cannot deny that she has already played the bias card in Connecticut. No one sang the praises or praised Alberto Gonsalves or Clarence Thomas for their accomplishments and Alberto Gonsalves came from poverty also. Gee, could it be because they’re Conservative. God help us all.

May 27, 2009 at 11:37 pm
(33) Casey Parker says:

I cannot trust Sotomayor because I cannot trust the man who nominated her. Neither Obama nor Sotomayor abide by the principles this country was founded upon. Obama was only nominated because of the Democratic’s evil policies and socialist ways, which is exactly why the Democrats are trying to prevent the VoterID bill in Texas. They’re against anything that will bring truth and light on their party. Also, all this attention on race makes me sick. For a while there I thought this country had actually made some progress in that area. But I guess not.

May 28, 2009 at 4:31 am
(34) Anonymous says:

To Swede’s comment:

” (Who in the hell is this anonymous “womensissues?)”

Had you thought that this might be the ID of Linda Lowen, the author of the article? Maybe you should be slightly less bashing and quick to judge others.

May 28, 2009 at 7:01 am
(35) Mara_th says:

I really don’t know.
Coyld you pleace give more information?

He is the presidend. That is enough

May 28, 2009 at 8:36 am
(36) Neil says:

It is NOT true that “more than 60% of her rulings being overturned.” The Supreme Court has agreed to review FIVE rulings of Judge Sotomayor since she has sat on the appellate bench. Three have been overturned, exactly 60%. The Supreme Court overturns rulings on 75% of appeals it hears (because the Supreme Court does not agree to hear a case unless at least four of the justices request it, usually because those four find the lower court decision suspect).

Translation: On the rare occasions that the Supreme Court has reviewed a decision of Sotomayor, they have sided with at an above average rate.

May 28, 2009 at 9:18 am
(37) steven says:

Obama is loading up with people he thinks he can manage to have his way.He has surrounded himself with Clinton who is not change and others who are pro amnesty.Many people have turned down an offer to work with him.

May 28, 2009 at 9:19 am
(38) steven says:

He wants to change majority cultural background in the USA.Many problems are spinning off from this.

May 28, 2009 at 11:34 am
(39) Ryan says:

I find this entire thread highly disturbing. From both the liberal and conservative viewpoints I see nothing but disrespect, cruelty and venom.

May 28, 2009 at 12:13 pm
(40) Bill says:

I’m with Ryan. The majority of these comments from both sides displays once again the downward slide of our country into ugly, hateful and uninformed disrespect of each other.

May 28, 2009 at 1:50 pm
(41) libertyweeps says:

Caroline, this comment is very interesting in light of earlier comments about the Bush administration: “Diversity always, always produces better decisions. . .it produces a broader perspective and richer points of view.” Earlier, you said, “The lack of diversity in his administration is part of the reason they made so many horrendous decisions.”

I’m a little uncertain what you mean by “diversity.” If diversity is defined by skin color or sex, then his appointment of Condoleza Rice, a black woman, to the highest cabinet position ever held by either a woman or a minority, should be given credit. In light of your statement about diversity “always always bringing about better decisions,” then you have left yourself no room to discredit decisions made by the state department during the Bush administration, because a. they had diversity under Condy, and b. because diversity “always brings better decisions.”

Sadly enough, this discussion should not be about race or sex. It should center only upon whether the candidate will act upon the Constitution of the United States when making decisions. The Constitution can only be changed legislatively. Laws must be judged Constitutional or not from the bench- not liked or disliked by the judge. In the case of Ricci, she decided it was ok for a white man NOT to be promoted because of his skin color. Why would anyone think this is ok, unless they hate the white race? If you do think it was a good decision, ask yourself this. Is it ok to NOT hire or promote a black person solely based on his race? An Indian? Chinese? Russian? Hispanic? The answer should obviously be no, of course not! But since the color inserted is “white” suddenly its ok- its ok to discriminate against whites, but not any other race?

How silly is that! Yet thats what anyone who give Sotomayor a pass on that decision is saying.

May 28, 2009 at 2:16 pm
(42) Isabel G. says:

Ladies and gentlemen who participate in this forum: I apologize in advance for my spelling mistakes, English is not my first language.
It took me some time to read and understand all the opinions issued from each one of you. I live in one of “those little countries south of Mexico” were murder, impunity and corruption go all the way up to the judges that are supposed to do something for the horrible crimes that are committed over here every day. I dream of one, just one judge that would be half as good as your worst one, in one justice system half as good as the one you have over there. Believe it or not you have to count your blessings.
In the other hand…all of you look so beautiful to me, engaged in your debate, issuing your opinion so freely without fearing to say what you really think. (Fearing that someone will shoot you in the head while parking your car or get strafed in a traffic light because of your ideas) Those of you which use sarcasm are so elegant in doing so and I am not patronizing you, is more like a little envy of your spark. Just try not to fall into what Bill called “the downward slide of our country into ugly, hateful and uninformed disrespect of each other” please don’t. Some other eyes are observing you from outside, hopeful eyes. Yes, I am Hispanic, you can’t afford to be liberal or conservative over here, both sides have their share in the current chaotic situation. “Poverty” meets its real meaning over here. Life in the NYC projects would be paradise for many persons over here, and being a woman is in itself an act of bravery. But we breathe deep and hope for the best. If this lady Sonia Sotomayor is at the Supreme Court, some of the optical for the form your judiciary system is conformed should be perceived by the people over here. Some things may begin to change over here. Some of us hope for that. I hope for that. Thank you for your patience and for everything you taught me.

May 28, 2009 at 3:34 pm
(43) Caroline says:

How could y’all miss the fact that I used to be a strident Republican? Back in the day, I frequently had dinner with the folks in the Bushs’ cabinets (I & II). I know how they operate.

Y’all must have also missed the interview in the Sunday NYT with Frank Luntz. He’s the guy the Republican party pays a fortune to come up with the hateful rhetoric y’all have been manipulated into spouting.

Looks to me like they’ve invested their money well. Ya’ll aren’t interested in understanding how the constitutional process works. You just want to bash somebody with amazing credentials. . .because she doesn’t look like you.

Just remember Luntz can’t buy himself a date even with his fat bank account.

May 28, 2009 at 3:51 pm
(44) SMS says:

My concern is the typecasting all the way around here. I have nothing against anyone’s background providing they can be even-handed in their decisions.

Typecasting all “whites” as wealthy is as bad as typecasting all “latinos” as La Raza sympathizers and all “african-americans” as Black Panthers.

I am white, but neither wealthy nor influential. I do not agree with all decisions made by any race, political party, ethnic background, country of origin, or any other “box” people try to put others in.

There are good and bad people in every race, every background, every country and every religion. It’s just plain stupid to bash anyone based on those criteria.

I have a feeling if she wasn’t affiliated with La Raza some other “dirt” would have been dug up. If she wasn’t latina some dirt on being female would have been dug up. Etc., etc., etc., ad nauseaum.

We don’t know “why” she is affiliated with La Raza, perhaps she councils toning down the rhetoric and extremist actions. Perhaps she has offered legal counsel in some capacity.

I read the La Raza site several years ago, year 2000 I think, and was appalled. However in light of current news I have gone back and re-read what they offer.

I can say that they now have a substantially different view of their function in today’s world than they did eight years ago.

I don’t know how Sotomayor will perform if confirmed. I would hope it would be in the best interests of all of the people, not ANY select group, whites included.

In closing, I detest anyone vetting anything so that it represents their view, and their view only. It’s called “spin” for a reason and I really can’t stand lying, no matter the cause.

So let’s all stop the emotional hullabaloo and perhaps a reasoned and adult-level conversation can take place.

May 28, 2009 at 6:34 pm
(45) Luis says:

The whole issue in here is that Hon. Judge Sotomayor is not a White Anglo Saxon Person (WASP). That is the whole issue! Sonia Sotomayor is a 100% Puertorican that happened to be born in the Bronx. But wait a moment and put everything together. She is bi-cultural if not multi-cultural, she is bi-lingual educated on the best universities of the nation. In addition, she has been nominated by republicans and democrats to serve OUR COUNTRY and she did survive both nominations and served us well. Judge Sotomayor is not an immigrant nor was born form immigrants because; we Puertorican are the only sociological nation that is 100% American. We are all American citizens by birth and whether people like it or not we are here. In addition, we have fought in all the wars since the Hispano-American War! We have been POW, MIA and, KIA.

She is an excellent candidate and the problem that old conservatives have is that it seems that there is no way to debunk her. The KKK is history, our nation is a true multiracial and multiethnic country and the base of power deserves to be evenly distributed throughout all the races! So open your eyes and let’s be good Americans.

May 28, 2009 at 7:21 pm
(46) Ivan S Kirkpatrick says:

Her nomination was a payoff to the latino community for their help in getting Obama elected. This is exactly the same thing going on at the automakers and the payoff to the unions for their support. And of course the 787 billion dollar stimulus is a payoff for the liberals in general. Anyone have a shiny new job coutesy of the stimulus package yet?

May 28, 2009 at 11:31 pm
(47) Swede says:

“Sweet” Caroline, we got the message loud and clear that you supped with the political elite, therefore you are more qualified to make stupid statements. So what? Impressed, not! Luntz can’t buy a date? So he’s finally hit on you in desperation…

May 29, 2009 at 4:19 pm
(48) Mikemcroberts says:

Whether Ms. Sotomayor is a good choice is a matter for much debate. What is not debatable, however, is that this particular article is just a fluff piece of editorial dribble from an under-qualified wanna be journalist.

May 29, 2009 at 5:32 pm
(49) Caroline says:

Swede, this is a debate about politics and qualifications of someone who has been appointed to the highest court in the land.

We’ll take you more seriously if you confine your comments to the issue at hand.

May 30, 2009 at 12:20 am
(50) CJPR says:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is far more qualified to be on the Supreme Court than is Chief Justice John Roberts — “America’s Dishonest Umpire”.

At his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts said that “judges are like umpires, simply calling balls and strikes, but not defining the strike zone”. Roberts has said that judges don’t make the rules of law, but merely interpret them.

However, in the four years that Roberts has been on the Supreme Court, he has ruled in every single case in favor of the power structure — in favor of employers over employees, prosecutors over defendants, corporations over consumers — totally, unanimously, 100% — without exception.

If an “impartial umpire” ever ruled his every single call in favor of the Home Team and against the Visitors, most people would undoubtedly conclude that this umpire was “on the take”, that this umpire was “bribed”, that this umpire was the opposite of impartial, that this umpire was voting his personal prejudices and totally not trying to honestly apply the rules of the game.

How does Chief Justice Roberts’ record on the Supreme Court compare to his confirmation hearing rhetoric?

Judge Sotomayor does not rule in exactly the same way in every single case, regardless of the facts of the particular situation. She applies the law to the facts of each specific case. Judge Sotomayor is much more of an “umpire” and far more qualified to be on the Supreme Court, than is Chief Justice “Robot” Rpberts.

Please Visit My Blog: Conservatives Are America’s Real Terrorists

May 30, 2009 at 12:22 am
(51) CJPR says:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is far more qualified to be on the Supreme Court than is Chief Justice John Roberts — “America’s Dishonest Umpire”.

At his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts said that “judges are like umpires, simply calling balls and strikes, but not defining the strike zone”. Roberts has said that judges don’t make the rules of law, but merely interpret them.

However, in the four years that Roberts has been on the Supreme Court, he has ruled in every single case in favor of the power structure — in favor of employers over employees, prosecutors over defendants, corporations over consumers — totally, unanimously, 100% — without exception.

If an “impartial umpire” ever ruled his every single call in favor of the Home Team and against the Visitors, most people would undoubtedly conclude that this umpire was “on the take”, that this umpire was “bribed”, that this umpire was the opposite of impartial, that this umpire was voting his personal prejudices and totally not trying to honestly apply the rules of the game.

How does Chief Justice Roberts’ record on the Supreme Court compare to his confirmation hearing rhetoric?

Judge Sotomayor does not rule in exactly the same way in every single case, regardless of the facts of the particular situation. She applies the law to the facts of each specific case. Judge Sotomayor is much more of an “umpire” and far more qualified to be on the Supreme Court, than is Chief Justice “Robot” Rpberts.

May 30, 2009 at 1:54 pm
(52) Doug says:

Sotomayor, Does she believe in reverse discrimination or not? Only she can answer this question. We can argue all we want but will she base her decision not on color of a person skin,or the length of his hair but what is their motive. One can only hope and pray she and all the other justice of the Supreme Court do what is best for the United States and not for whites, black, puerto rico,or any ethic,political or social group. The Statue of Liberty states give the United States your poor, weak,hungry masses striving to be free.

May 31, 2009 at 10:50 pm
(53) Phil says:

Wow. The comments on here are incredible – all personal attacks, commenting on spelling mistakes and racism rather than debating the real issues. America really needs to get past this Republican-Democrat divide. Rather than looking at why they lost the election, it seems the RNC supporters are just getting more hateful and twisted. I hear they are just shooting people they don’t agree with now (abortion clinic doctors)!

More incredible are the posts criticising anything about the current administration – regardless of how trivial – when the same criticism was deemed “unpatriotic” when the Republicans were in. The fact of the matter is that the USA is now heading in a better direction, but it isn’t easy cleaning up the mess that the previous administration left in their wake. Some tough choices need to be made, and Obama seems to be able to make them. As that conman Dubya said “you’re either with us or against us” – so pull yourself together USA, you and the rest of the world needs you to step up to the plate!!

June 1, 2009 at 12:03 pm
(54) E says:

I generally make a point of never posting on these things, but I think it’s important to correct things that are flagrantly wrong. there’s a lot of reporting that Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic on the Court. This is not true. Cardozo was.

June 1, 2009 at 4:18 pm
(55) womensissues says:

E, read the recent article in the New York Times regarding Cardozo’s ethnicity; his ancestors were from Portugal. As the NYTimes notes, Cardozo would have identified himself as a Sephardic Jew from the Iberian Peninsula, and as the article states, “Most Hispanic organizations and the United States Census Bureau do not regard Portuguese as Hispanic.”

June 2, 2009 at 10:10 pm
(56) Philip says:

Larona appears to be the only one in here interested in the issue. I agree that Sotomayor, by statements she has made, seems to be a judicial activist. This is even more troubling considering that she appears to judge based on sympathy or empathy for minorities and poorer folk rather than an objective sense of justice. This is most apparent in the whole firefighter fiasco we all have heard. One must wonder why she would even mention race and gender in the hotly debated speech, since it should have no bearing on rulings. I understand that no one is entirely objective, but dragging race and gender into the issue like she did is irresponsible. I admire her rise to prominence, and thinks it stands as powerful proof that individuals are in charge of their own destiny. However, her positions on these issues do not make her qualified for an impartial supreme court, regardless of her skin color, ethnicity, religion, gender or size.

June 9, 2009 at 12:25 pm
(57) Jamie says:

Member of La Raza, The Puerto Rican Legal and Education Fund, ACLU of Puerto Rico and the anti-American groups that she belongs to goes on and on and on. She is a racist… She has NO place on the highest court in the land.
Also, if a white person would have made a statement like the one she has repeated in at least 12 different speeches… their nomination would have been removed at lightning speed.

June 17, 2009 at 6:03 pm
(58) Joe Dodger says:


3 is a lot of overturned cases when only a handful of her decisions even made it to the Supreme Court.


Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court

• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) — decision pending as of 5/26/2009

• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) — reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)

• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) — upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted

• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) — reversed 8-0

• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) — Upheld 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)

• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) — reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

• Affirmative Action (New Haven firefighter case): Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting the City of New Haven’s decision to throw out the results of an exam to determine promotions within the city’s fire department. Only one Hispanic and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam; the City subsequently decided not to certify the results and issued no promotions. In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral arguments in April 2009. Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008)

• Environment (Protection of fish at power plants): Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the “best technology available” must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the “best technology” regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor’s ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor’s interpretation of the “best technology” rule was too narrow. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor’s position. Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)

• Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductable. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor’s decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach “flies in the face of the statutory language.” Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)

• Finance (Rights of investors to sue firms in state court): In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch’s argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor’s ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to “wasteful, duplicative litigation.” Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)

• Health Insurance (Reimbursement of insurance benefits): In 2005, Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from those whom she claimed caused her husband’s injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor’s ruling in a 5-4 opinion. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented. Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005)

• Civil Rights (Right to sue federal government and its agents): Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual’s constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as “Bivens,” which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor’s ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor’s original ruling. Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000)

• Intellectual Property (Distribution of freelance material): As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers’ work on electronic databases and archives such as “Lexis/Nexis” without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor’s decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor’s original ruling). Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, taking Sotomayor’s position. Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)

July 14, 2009 at 2:03 pm
(59) Janohoh says:

A Supreme Court Justice should be wise enough not to make a “foot in the mouth” comment like Sotomayer did. She is either not too bright, a racist, or has a self-inflated ego. Poor choice for a mominee.

August 27, 2009 at 5:57 pm
(60) DP says:

i don’t think at all she is a racist. i think the way her words were said made it seem that way. in regards to weather or not she is a Supreme Court Justice i believe all of us have said or made “foot in the mouth” comments. i think Obama did the right thing by nominating her. eveyone is stuck on the things she has said when what we need to do is leave it be and watch what she does. so she has made some comments that many people are not proud of but we all have and that is because none of us are perfect include Ms. Sotomayor. i say just let it be and move on because she has already been confirmed theres no point in getting all worked about past issues.

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.