Souter to retire - Page 2 - Big Big Forums

Jolie Rouge · 05-27-2009, 01:12 AM

About that "Case Against Sotomayor?"
Just Kidding...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...nst_sotoma.asp

This morning, John McCormack noted several outlets highlighting a New Republic piece by Jeffrey Rosen, with the headline: "The Case Against Sotomayor." http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...ind_of_a_b.asp

McCormack ended his post writing:

Quote:

"We eagerly anticipate Rosen's latest take, in which we will surely learn that in reality Sotomayor has a first-class temperament and intellect."

He hasn't gone that far, yet. But Rosen now says:

Quote:

"Sotomayor should be confirmed." http://www.politico.com/blogs/michae...d.html?showall

Sotomayor's Radical Legal Group Helped Kill the Estrada Nomination
By Matthew Vadum on 5.26.09
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/05/26...al-legal-group

President Obama's radical new nominee to replace Associate Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, used to serve on the board of LatinoJustice PRLDEF (White House backgrounder http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...nia-Sotomayor/ ), one of the racial grievance groups that helped to sink the judicial nomination of Honduran-born Miguel Estrada in 2003.

Along with groups such as the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), LatinoJustice fought a war of attrition against President George W. Bush's 2001 nomination of conservative Miguel Estrada, a Honduran-born immigrant, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Democrats in the Senate filibustered the nomination and a weary Estrada withdrew from consideration in 2003. http://www.slate.com/id/2079445/

Today LatinoJustice PRLDEF, a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit, hailed the nomination of Sotomayor on the basis of her ethno-cultural heritage. "As the second largest and fastest growing population in America, with a large pool of qualified individuals to choose from, it was wholly appropriate for the president to nominate a Hispanic," the group said in a written statement. (PDF) http://www.prldef.org/civil_rights/L..._Sotomayor.pdf

According to the group's website, it gets some of its funding from George Soros's Open Society Institute. http://www.prldef.org/about/about.html

A search of philanthropy databases reveals other significant donors to LatinoJustice to be Carnegie Corporation of New York ($1,025,000 since 2000), Ford Foundation ($2,280,000 since 2001), Rockefeller Foundation ($1,275,000 since 2000), and JPMorganChase Foundation ($70,000 since 2001).

Among radical left-wing groups, it has a fairly garden-variety agenda. A captive of identity politics, it pushes for enforced multiculturalism, diversity, bilingual public education, race-based gerrymandering of electoral districts, race-based employment quotas, tenants' rights, and illegal immigrants' rights. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6807

LatinoJustice PRLDEF was known as the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund until last year when it filed Articles of Amendment with New York State to change its name. (See pages 35 to 41 of its IRS Form 990 for the group for Tax Year 2007.)

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/05/26...al-legal-group

anothersta · 05-27-2009, 01:20 AM

There's that name 'George Soros' again.

Jolie Rouge · 05-28-2009, 01:14 AM

The Supreme Court high hurdles contest
Not all “compelling personal stories” are equal
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/27...rdles-contest/

Since when did securing a Supreme Court seat become a high hurdles contest? The White House and Democrats have turned Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination into a personal Olympics event. Pay no attention to her jurisprudence.

She grew up in a Bronx public housing project.

She was diagnosed with childhood diabetes at 8.

Her father died a year later.

And oh, by the way, did you hear that she was poor?

It’s a “compelling personal story,” as we heard 20,956 times on Tuesday. Sotomayor’s a “real” person. Why, she even read Nancy Drew as a young girl, President Obama told us. She’s “faced down barriers, overcome the odds and lived out the American dream that brought her parents here so long ago,” Obama said.

If Sotomayor were auditioning to be Oprah Winfrey’s fill-in host, I’d understand the over-the-top hyping of her life narrative. But isn’t anybody on Sotomayor’s side the least bit embarrassed by all this liberal condescension?

Republicans are not allowed to mention Sotomayor’s ethnicity lest they be branded bigots, but every Democrat on cable television harped on her multicultural “diversity” and “obstacle”-climbing. President Obama made sure to roll his r’s when noting that her parents came from Puerrrrto Rrrrico. New York Sen. Schumer stated outright: “It’s long overdue that a Latino sit on the United States Supreme Court.” Color-coded tokenism dominated the headlines, with blaring references to Sotomayor as the high court’s potential “first Hispanic.” (Not true.)

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill – one of the leading Democrats tasked with guiding Sotomayor through the nomination process — carried the “compelling personal story” talking points to the tokenist extreme in an interview on Fox News:

Quote:

“If you look at what this woman has been through, and the obstacles that she has had to overcome, I think she does have a richly, uniquely American experience that makes her incredibly qualified to pass judgment on some of the most important cases in our country,” McCaskill asserted. “Overcoming incredible odds and I think that is new to the courts. There have been a lot of privileged people that have landed on the Supreme Court. The fact that she has lived the life of the common American, trying to grow up in public housing, reaching for scholarships, reaching for the courtroom as a courtroom prosecutor, all of those things will make her a better and wiser judge. And I don’t think that is identity politics. I think that is the American experience.”

Clever. Challenging Sotomayor’s credentials and extreme views on race and the law is not merely anti-Hispanic. It’s anti-American!

More significantly, Sen. McCaskill waved the high-hurdle card after being asked to defend Sotomayor’s infamous statement at a 2001 University of California at Berkeley speech asserting brown-skin moral authority: “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.” McCaskill actually denied that Sotomayor had make the remarks, then argued the words were taken out of context.

You want context? It’s even worse than that soundbite. As National Journal legal analyst Stuart Taylor reported, “Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere ‘aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.’ And she suggested that ‘inherent physiological or cultural differences’ may help explain why ‘our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.’” The full speech was reprinted in something called the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. “La Raza” is Spanish for “The Race.” Imagine if a white male Republican court nominee had published in a law review called “The Race.”

The selective elevation of hardship-as-primary qualification demeans the entire judiciary. If personal turmoil makes one “incredibly qualified to pass judgment on some of the most important cases in our country,” let’s put reality-show couple Jon and Kate Gosselin on the bench. Millions of viewers tune in to watch their “compelling personal story” of life with eight children on television. It’s a “richly, uniquely American experience” of facing obstacles and overcoming the odds. Get them robes and gavels, stat.

McCaskill’s assertion that “overcoming incredible odds” is “new to the courts” is ridiculous. Is she arguing that Thurgood Marshall, Felix Frankfurter, and Sandra Day O’Connor faced lower hurdles than Sotomayor? And how about Clarence Thomas, a descendant of slaves, grew up in abject poverty in the South without a father. The object lesson, of course, is that not all compelling personal stories are equal. Thomas’s crime, of course, was embracing the wrong ideology. So his incredible set of odds and obstacles don’t count in left-wing eyes.

Democrats are eager to celebrate diversity, you see, as long as the diversely-pigmented pledge allegiance to the Left for life.

***

Slublog in the Green Room spotlights the NYTimes editorial on Sotomayor today, which illustrates my point precisely. http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...e-the-results/

***

Wow, I have had those kind of “qualifications” err.. I mean, “life challenges” too.. I should be nominated!

Schumer had his chance to put a Hispanic on the Supreme Court with Eric Estrada. He had a “personal compelling story” and had an idea what being a judge meant - adjudicating based on law and not empathy

This reminded me of something Joe Biden said when Clarence Thomas was appointed. “He would never have gotten this if he were not black” Oh Lord, I can’t take much more of this insanity and hypocrisy. These people are truly nuts, and they think they are this intelligent elite bunch who can save the world.

Besides sotomayor being a racist, she also believes the duty of a judge is to make policy, not just interpret it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q She has proven her merit…and her racist and sexist views, along with her contempt for the rule of law and the Constitution.

By her own words, she has fully disqualified herself for the nation’s highest court, much less the one on which she sits at the moment.

But, have no fear. She will be confirmed, I can’t wait.

Sotomayor: Her race to the top
http://www.punditandpundette.com/200...ce-to-top.html

Robert Gibbs warns the GOP to “be careful” of the way they talk about Sotomayor http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/20...out-sotomayer/

Sen. Orrin Hatch Questions Racist Sotomayor's Nutty Statements (Video) http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...ns-racist.html

(Hey Senator Hatch, what's the complaint? You voted for her confirmation when she was nominated to an appeals court position by Clintoon.... )

So much for the 2nd Amendment.
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009...ership-is.html

Quote:

President Obama has made a bold choice to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter with Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Ms. Sotomayor, if confirmed, would be the first Hispanic Justice and would be only the third woman on the Court.

Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

Even with her meteoric rise, the nominee still believes there is work to do. In a 1999 interview with a local author, Sotomayor stated that she believed that the United States, "...may never truly be fixed. Racism and economic warfare still crush the dreams of countless second-class citizens. The unfair dimensions of our culture are staggering. You cannot succeed if you are born poor; you simply cannot."

This from someone born poor that has succeeded. Typically, the post begins with identity politics (is anything else more important?). But to argue that the owning of a gun has been illegal/unconstitutional since the Bill of Rights is absurd.

Here's the end of the post:

Quote:

The nomination is expected to go before the United States Senate where Republicans may give a strong fight against what may be considered "judicial activism."

"May be considered?" How about simply "IS!" Remember, Sotomayor thinks the courts are where policy is made....

At what point will it occur to the public that the judiciary is being used to get through the most unpopular policies that liberals want? They can pay lip service to the right to bear arms, but appoint justices who they know will (ironically) shoot down the 2nd Amendment. They pay lip service to not discriminating by race, by appooint justices that will hand out benefits and burdens by races, gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. They say that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but appoint justices who they know will foist gay marriage on We The People. Playing both sides of the fence, given cover by the sycophantic suck-ups in the MSM, and using the judiciary to push an agenda that has zero chance at the ballot box...

Jolie Rouge · 06-02-2009, 08:02 PM

Tuesday, June 02, 2009
The Case Against Sotomayor

In email, a well reasoned letter from Wendy Long of The Judicial Confirmation Network making the case against Sotomayor. Also available here. http://judicialnetwork.com/

June 2, 2009
Dear Senator:

Over the next several weeks, Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be making her courtesy visits to you and your colleagues. At the same time, the Judiciary Committee will be entering into the phase of the confirmation process where her body of judicial decisions and written opinions begin to be evaluated. Based on what the White House has said, it is a voluminous appellate record--participation in over 3,000 panels and nearly 400 written opinions.

How is a Senator to put such an extensive record into proper context in deciding whether to support or oppose the nominee? And, more immediately, how can these upcoming courtesy visits be used productively to begin to assess the Judge's record?

Then-Senator Barack Obama provided some insight into how one might approach this process when he articulated his standard for voting against Chief Justice John Roberts for the U.S. Supreme Court:

Quote:

“The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95% of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult.”

It follows that, in evaluating Judge Sotomayor, President Obama considered her nomination with a view toward those few really significant matters that the Supreme Court decides. And this naturally means that, in scrutinizing Judge Sotomayor’s existing judicial record, attention should be paid to the very small category of cases “that are truly difficult.”

Senators should begin, of course, by familiarizing themselves with Judge Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy, which is contained in the full text of two of Judge Sotomayor’s law review publications. In A Latina Judge’s Voice, 13 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 87 (2002), Judge Sotomayor embraces the view that “Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions” and explicitly disagrees with Justice O’Connor’s assessment that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion. According to Judge Sotomayor, “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 while male who hasn’t lived that life.” In Returning Majesty to the Law and Politics: A Modern Approach, 30 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 35 (1996), Judge Sotomayor challenges the belief that the law needs to be knowable and predictable, borrowing from the early 20th century Legal Realists who rejected the idea that judging involves the impartial application of neutral principles.

The White House is actively trying to dismiss this body of extra-judicial writing, suggesting that the few quotes receiving the most publicity are isolated, off-hand remarks. But a full reading of her articles indicates that the most controversial of the quotes are not the product of inadvertence, but represent a carefully crafted view of the courts as engines of social and political change – in short, wrought out of a devotion to judicial activism.

Senators should also soon familiarize themselves with the small percentage of cases addressed by Judge Sotomayor over the years that President Obama likely would characterize as “truly difficult.” For example:

Quote:

In Ricci v. DeStefano, the well publicized case that will soon be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, Sotomayor sided with a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. The per curiam opinion Sotomayor joined went so far out of its way to bury the firefighters’ important claims of unfair treatment that her colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her, stating that the “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

In Hayden v. Pataki convicted felons sued the state of New York alleging that it violated the Voting Rights Act for New York law to deny them the right to vote. Judge Cabranes wrote a majority opinion upholding New York’s law on the basis that the Voting Rights Act did not encompass such felon disenfranchisement laws. Judge Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the case should have been a clear win for the felons.

In Didden v. Village of Port Chester, Judge Sotomayor sided with a local government that condemned private property for “public use” in what legal scholar Richard Epstein called “about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined.” As in Ricci, Judge Sotomayor decided the case in a very short opinion barely analyzing the important Constitutional claims concerning the taking of private property.

In Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, Sotomayor ignored the clear intent of Congress in passing securities litigation reform, which was designed to preempt abusive state law claims of securities fraud that trial lawyers had been filing with alarming frequency. The Supreme Court reversed her unanimously, enforcing Congress’s clear purpose to preempt such claims and forum shopping.

The Senate must review Judge Sotomayor's whole body of work--for skill, attention to precedent and the fact findings of the trial judge below, commitment to the basic rules of procedure, and adherence to the written law. But, as President Obama has suggested, Senators should avoid falling into the trap of thinking that a jurist respects and follows the Rule of Law simply because a large number of cases at the Court of Appeals level presented no serious questions or involved consensus amongst ideologically different judges. It is, rather, Judge Sotomayor’s approach to those “cases that are truly difficult” that Senators should most carefully consider.

In closing, please accept our thanks and appreciation for the way in which you and your colleagues have opened this process. Members of the Republican Conference have eschewed a Ted Kennedy-style “Robert Bork’s America” diatribe, but, at the same time, have made clear that the nominee will undergo the utmost scrutiny and that the Conference will undertake whatever steps necessary to ensure a thorough process rather than a forced rush to judgment.

Respectfully,
Wendy E. Long
Counsel

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carniv...sotomayor.html

I would add to the list of particulars her interesting views on the Second Amendment, that it applied only to the federal government and not to the state or local governments. I would like some Senator to ask which of the other nine amendments do not apply to state and local governments, and why the Second Amendment is different.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/sotomay...ond-amendment/

Even the Ninth Circuit climbed down from the gun control hobby horse and recognized that Heller applied to all governments. While they did not uphold the right to have a gun show, they acknowledged without reservation that Heller applied to all citizens everywhere, reversing themselves on all previous gun control rulings. What is Sotomayor's response to the Ninth Circuit ruling? The Second's ruling on Maloney v. Cuomo was made in January, 2009, some seven months AFTER Heller. So why is Sotomayor unable to see what the Ninth Circuit saw with singular clarity?

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20/0715763.pdf

The Fourteenth Amendment is pretty clear that all national rights apply at the state and local level: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."

So let her explain why she decided that the Fourteenth Amendment include all rights except for the Second Amendment.

Jolie Rouge · 06-03-2009, 04:45 PM

Sotormayor Likes Her "Poor" Choice of Words

Quote:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

Greg Sargent reports she made an almost identical remark in 1994:

Quote:

“Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”

When Sotomayor's 2001 remarks first came to light, Robert Gibbs responded to the criticism by speaking on behalf of Sotomayor, saying

Quote:

“I think she’d say that her word choice in 2001 was poor.”

President Obama weighed in as well,

Quote:

"I'm sure she would have restated it"

Well, it turns out that she was restating it in her 2001 speech, except the richness of her experience between 1994 and 2001 apparently led her to the better conclusion that being a wise woman isn't quite as impressive as being a wise Latina woman.

Obviously Obama and Gibbs were being completely dishonest when they said she would have rephrased or restated her remarks if she had it to do over again, and you can hardly fault them for it -- what else were they going to say? But now it's clear that these remarks were not a one-off, that Sotomayor believes this so strongly, and that she believes her formulation is so clever, that she would repeat it in almost precisely the same manner nearly a decade later. The White House will need to help Sotomayor come up with a new defense for her remarks before any hearings begin. The poor choice of words defense is no longer operative.

Jolie Rouge · 06-04-2009, 01:28 AM

The full text of Ms. Sonia Sotomayor’s speech at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, as reprinted in the UC Berkeley News:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/s...ersity-lecture

Media claims to the contrary, the context does not make her remarks any more palatable.

On the contrary, her whole speech is clearly tinged with racism.

comments

I had intended to read the whole article, but after having reached the 29th time she used “Latino/a” (yes I counted) I just couldn’t stomach it anymore.

“Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population”

I guess this means if I were to just get up and move to Germany I would be entitled to a seat on one of their highest courts? I’m sure that there are enough Americans there that we could all get together and demand seats in proportion to our population, nevermind that I don’t have a law degree or even speak German, the mere fact that we are there entitles us to positions of power, right?

--

Very simple - it does not unify, it does not advance, it does not build up, it does absolutely nothing to move America forward to promote, idealize, and push forward special interest group think and the divisiveness of Identity Politics.

Until Judge Sotomayor and the Teleprompter Precedent see themselves as Americans first, foremost and only - they will continue to tear apart, set one citizen ‘group’ upon another, and destroy America.

And that is sedition and treason.

I would have posted the speech entire ... but it was close to 24000+ characters and was toooo long to C&P

Jolie Rouge · 06-04-2009, 08:08 PM

WH contacted Sotomayor before Souter announcement
Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer
15 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The White House contacted Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor about serving on the high court four days before Justice David Souter announced that he would retire, the judge revealed Thursday, as she sent a Senate panel a massive portfolio of personal details and writings that will shape the debate on her confirmation.

The five boxes of files delivered to Capitol Hill gave senators a fuller picture of Sotomayor's background and record, as well as of how President Barack Obama came to nominate his first Supreme Court choice. They came in response to a questionnaire the Senate Judiciary Committee sends federal court nominees.

Sotomayor, who would replace Souter on the court if confirmed, first got a call from White House Counsel Gregory Craig on April 27, then had near-daily contact with his office after Souter announced his retirement May 1.

Sotomayor told the committee that no one ever asked her position during the selection process about any issue that could come before the Supreme Court.

There's little doubt that Sotomayor, Obama's first high court nominee, will be confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. But Republicans are balking at Democratic efforts to ensure a speedy set of hearings and summertime vote for the appeals court judge, whose 17 years on the bench they say warrants a longer debate.

Sotomayor returned to Capitol Hill on Thursday for a third day of one-on-one visits with senators. By week's end, she will have met with more than one-quarter of the Senate, and all but a few members of the Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman, wants hearings to begin next month, with the goal of holding a confirmation vote before Congress leaves in early August for a monthlong summer vacation. He's negotiating with the top Republican on the committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who says he'd rather go slower in delving into Sotomayor's voluminous record, with hearings set for September.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Thursday he wouldn't impose an "arbitrary deadline" on Sotomayor's confirmation, but added, "We're going to do this as quickly as we can."

Reid, sporting a button on his lapel that said "Sonia" at a news conference with Hispanic leaders to promote Sotomayor, declined to say whether he thought the GOP was trying to slow down the process.

The White House sought to build momentum for a swift confirmation process, calling attention to the fact that it took Sotomayor just nine days to respond to the questionnaire — shorter than other recent Supreme Court nominees.

"This historically fast completion of the exhaustive questions is no small feat that will hopefully lead to her swift consideration by the Senate," Craig said in a blog posting on the White House Web site.

If confirmed, Sotomayor, 54, would be the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the court.

The documents also described Sotomayor's finances, which paint a portrait of a New Yorker in an expensive neighborhood who may be living largely paycheck to paycheck. She has $1.16 million in assets, but $418,350 in debts, including her mortgage, credit card bills and a big dentist bill. Previous financial disclosure reports showed her with an annual income of about $200,000.

The White House is keeping up a steady drumbeat in support of Sotomayor, but she has been under fire for a 2001 speech in which she said she hoped the rulings of a "wise Latina" would be better than those of a white male without similar experiences.

Democrats tried to defuse the criticism by circulating a 1994 speech in which Sotomayor spoke about how personal characteristics could affect judging, which Republicans never criticized during the 1997 debate on her confirmation to a federal appeals court — proof, the Democrats said, that conservatives are trying to politicize Sotomayor's nomination.

In 1994, Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion" than a wise man. "What is better?" she said. "I ... hope that better will mean a more compassionate, caring conclusion."

Republicans said that the 1994 speech only proves that Sotomayor actually believes the controversial sentiment she restated seven years later and that Obama and the White House were being disingenuous when they suggested she made a poor choice of words in 2001.

Wendy Long of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network said the remark is evidently part of Sotomayor's "stump speech," and a "well-considered theme" in her legal thinking.

"The White House must now acknowledge that this is a hardened view of Sotomayor's, rejecting impartiality and neutral judging, that it is now impossible to spin away," Long said in a statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/..._supreme_court

Jolie Rouge · 06-05-2009, 12:52 AM

Quote:

When Sotomayor's 2001 remarks first came to light, Robert Gibbs responded to the criticism by speaking on behalf of Sotomayor, saying

Quote:

“I think she’d say that her word choice in 2001 was poor.”

President Obama weighed in as well:

Quote:

"I'm sure she would have restated it"

Sotomayor Must Misspeak Every Time She Gives a Speech

Okay, not every time, but CQ reports that Sotomayor was quite fond of touting the superior legal acumen of the "wise Latina woman" or perhaps just the "wise woman": http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/legal_be...reference.html

Sotomayor Repeatedly Referenced 'Wise Woman' in Speeches
By Seth Stern
June 4, 2009

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivered multiple speeches between 1994 and 2003 in which she suggested "a wise Latina woman" or "wise woman" judge might "reach a better conclusion" than a male judge.

Those speeches, released Thursday as part of Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire, (to see Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee click here and here) suggest her widely quoted 2001 speech in which she indicated a "wise Latina" judge might make a better decision was far from a single isolated instance.

A draft version of a October 2003 speech Sotomayor delivered at Seton Hall University stated, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion." That is identical to her October 2001 remarks at the University of California, Berkeley that have become the subject of intense criticism by Republican senators and prompted conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh to label her "racist."

In addition, Sotomayor delivered a series of earlier speeches in which she said "a wise woman" would reach a better decision. She delivered the first of those speeches in Puerto Rico in 1994 and then before the Women's Bar Association of the State of New York in April 1999.

The summary descriptions of speeches Sotomayor provided indicated she delivered remarks similar to the 1994 speech on three other occasions in 1999 and 2000 during two addresses at Yale and one at the City University of New York School of Law.

Her repeated use of the phrases "wise Latina woman" and "wise woman" would appear to undermine the Obama administration's assertions that the statement was simply a poor choice of words. After details of the 1994 speech circulated before the questionnaire's release, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, emerged from his private meeting with Sotomayor and expressed new concerns about the nominee's "identity politics."

Sotomayor Listed as member of La Raza for six years

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=99420

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/0...for-six-years/

Sotomayor's Senate Questionaire Released
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...l?hpid=topnews

Can you imagine the uproar if any white male presented for a judicial position - in any venue - stated that he was better qualified to judge primarily based on being white and male then any minority ( any minority - you pick; gender, race, religion, culture, ect ) ?? The man would be run out of town on a rail ... but here ... no, no, nothing to see here...

:

Jolie Rouge · 06-05-2009, 01:18 AM

WH contacted Sotomayor before Souter announcement
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/..._supreme_court

Sotomayor's Senate Questionaire Released
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...l?hpid=topnews

Thursday, June 04, 2009
The Abortion-Assurance Mysteries
Ed Whelan

Judge Sotomayor’s response to the Senate questionnaire presents some puzzles.

Question 26.b asks whether anyone involved in the selection process “ever discussed with you any currently pending or specific case, legal issue, or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning your position on such case, issue, or question.” It also asks that Sotomayor identify each communication with anyone in the White House “referring or relating to your views on any case, issue, or subject that could come before the Supreme Court.”

Sotomayor’s answer to question 26.b is “No.”

But if, as reported, President Obama sought and received assurances that Sotomayor is pro-Roe, it would seem that the answer should be yes. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says that Obama “was careful not to … ask specifically how one might rule … in a case that could come before the Supreme Court,” but the scope of question 26.b is far broader than specific inquiries.

Perhaps Obama and Sotomayor did a very clever wink-wink routine. But I’ll again suggest that, consistent with Obama’s stated commitment to transparency, the White House ought to make publicly available any record (including any audio recording) of Obama’s interview with Sotomayor so that the American people can know just what commitments and assurances he extracted or received.

Question 26.c asks Sotomayor to describe “any representations” “made by the White House or individuals acting on behalf of the White House” “to any individuals or interest groups as to how you might rule as a Justice.” Sotomayor’s response indicates that she is not aware of any such representations. But it’s been reported that the White House has “deliver[ed] strong but vague assurances” to abortion groups that Sotomayor is pro-Roe. Does Sotomayor really not know of those reports? Or does she somehow regard them as beyond the scope of the question?

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post...RjNzU3NzU4YTY=

Jolie Rouge · 06-19-2009, 01:15 AM

Belizean Grove: More Double Standards, More Double Talk
Wendy Long
06/18 09:56 AM

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post...I4ZDA0ZWE2ZDg=

Thank goodness. Michael Kinsley hits the nail on the head this morning in the Washington Post about Sonia Sotomayor's membership in a discriminatory women's club:

Quote:

If Obama had nominated a man who was a member of the Bohemian Grove, that would be a big issue and probably a fatal one. So how is it different if Sotomayor is a member of a club set up specifically to be the female equivalent? Rather than try to answer this question honestly, Sotomayor chose to make the preposterous argument that the Belizean Grove isn't a women's club. It's just that no men have ever applied for membership, you see. White clubs used to explain the absence of black members the same way. It's a laughable argument — a brazen whopper — and an insult to the citizenry and the Senate that must confirm her.

My husband is a member of an all-male club that has an excessive devotion to pigs and where the men put their shod feet on the table at dinner. I have enough trouble keeping my tablecloth clean and do not mind being excluded from such a Club. But it would not occur to me (or, I should think, other women) to "ask to be considered for membership" when membership is plainly not open to women. Just as I don't mind my husband's club excluding women, I don't mind Judge Sotomayor's club excluding men.

But Judge Sotomayor minds very much when others discriminate, particularly against women. What is objectionable is her absurd contention that her club's discrimination is not discrimination because "a man has never asked to be considered for membership."

That calls to mind the opinion of the district court in the Ricci case, which was embraced by Sotomayor, that the City of New Haven didn't discriminate against anyone, because no one was promoted. See, everyone was treated equally!

That kind of "whopper," as Kinsley appropriately calls it, causes rational people of goodwill to scratch their heads and say, "Huh?"

The White House and Judge Sotomayor have been selling “up is down” this entire nomination, and now we are supposed to believe that an all-women group, specifically designed (as stated in its mission) as a mirror of the Bohemian Grove, is not the mirror the Bohemian Grove.

Just like “Latina woman” was a slip of the tongue.

Then we find out the "slip" occurred regularly over 13 years.

Just like, apparently, "The dog ate my PRLDF files.” But some of them, still not produced to the Senate, are public records.

The White House assures pro-abortion groups that Sotomayor is with them.

Joe Biden tells law-enforcement groups that the Judge has "got your back."

But the White House has given no "assurances" to anyone about how she'll vote as a Supreme Court Justice.

Come again?

Frankly, I don’t have a problem with her Belizean membership. I suspect, like most Americans, I have a problem with the duplicity and hypocrisy that permeate this White House and this nominee.

This is just the typical liberal "do as I say, not as I do" double standard that leads her to implement gender, race, and ethnic quotas for the rest of the world, when, as Investor's Business Daily has noted http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=479320 for example, she apparently hires law clerks under different standards than she would impose upon the society at large.

Jolie Rouge · 06-30-2009, 01:31 AM

6/29/2009
Supreme Court Reverses Sotomayor Decision
http://patterico.com/2009/06/29/supr...ayor-decision/

ABC News reports the Supreme Court ruled today that the white New Haven firefighters were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing an appellate decision by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. The firefighters’ attorney believes the case will have a significant impact on jobs that require an occupational test: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTU...7782103&page=1

Quote:

“I think the import of the decision is that cities cannot bow to politics and pressure and lobbying by special interest groups, or act to achieve racial quotas,” said Karen Torre, the attorney for the firefighters. “If the test is job-related, especially in a dangerous occupation, then the fact that more African Americans pass, or more Hispanics pass, or more whites pass, isn’t sufficient grounds to ignore the results of an occupational test.”

The decision split 5-4 along ideological grounds. ScotusBlog has links to the opinion, concurrences, and dissent. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-opinions-47/

Ilya Shapiro notes that Ginsburg’s dissent talks of her sympathy for the white firefighters, which is reminiscent of the empathy Barack Obama says he wants in his judicial nominees. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/...cial-politics/

Here is Justice Alito’s response (at p. 54): http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/07-1428.pdf

Quote:

“The dissent grants that petitioners’ situation is “unfortunate” and that they “understandably attract this Court’s sympathy.” Post, at 1, 39. But “sympathy” is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law—of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today’s decision, has been denied them.”

I agree with Shapiro and Justice Alito: Americans deserve equal protection, not empathy. It all comes down to what you think the purpose of a fire department should be. Should it be to accurately reflect the racial makeup of the community in which it sits?

Or should it put out fires?