Sotomayor is a liberal, but what would you expect? Liberal presidents nominate liberal judges; conservative presidents nominate conservative judges (though some nominees turn out to be less than what their sponsors had imagined). Get over it. If you want one of your own on the court, elect a president who will nominate them. Political leanings, or ideological disagreement, are a poor reason to oppose a nominee, but President Obama had no other reason to vote against Chief Justice John Roberts or Associate Justice Samuel Alito. Some Republicans opposed Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on purely ideological grounds, and some will oppose Sotomayor on the same grounds.
Sotomayor will get some justifiable scrutiny over her ruling in the racial discrimination lawsuit brought by New Haven, Conn., firefighters. Her unsigned opinion failed to address the fundamental constitutional issues in the case. She ruled that New Haven could throw out the results of a carefully prepared, assiduously unbiased written test for promotion because minority applicants failed to earn promotion, but she offered no rationale or constitutional basis for her ruling. Racial preference was the only explanation for the city's action; is that constitutional? The case is now before the Supreme Court, which seems skeptical of the city's actions.
Sotomayor will also be questioned about some impolitic comments she has made. In one instance, she told a judicial conference at Duke University that appeals courts are "where policy is made." The interesting thing about the inflammatory but essentially truthful statement is that she was so inarticulate in stating it. Look at this video:
Sotomayor also said that a Latina woman could make a better judicial decision than a white male. The implication seems to be that the Constitution, far from being colorblind, means different things to different people, depending on their ethnicity and gender. That assertion is a recipe for dissolution of the union.
Despite these gaffes, Sotomayor will almost certainly be confirmed, unless an Anita Hill-type of skeleton falls out of the closet. One interesting omission I've seen in every news article and bio I've seen on Sotomayor: There's no mention of marriage. I assume she's never been married, given the omission, but the failure to say so, or to explain her personal life, seems to be a serious oversight.
Posts
5 comments:
Perhaps the interesting omissions are because people aren't really interested in her marital status. Nor should she feel the need to "explain" her personal life. Or whatever it is, you are getting at.
In any case, you assume incorrectly. She has been married. Not that it matters.
In an atmosphere where EVERYTHING is open to public scrutiny in the confirmation process, I'm still surprised that none of the sources I checked mentioned that Sotomayor had been married. Irrelevant? Probably, but relevance is not a requirement in the examination of political appointments. Thanks for the information.
Surprised????
Come on dude, you know the liberal press and all their nomads do not scrutinize their people like they do the conservative candidates.
The saul lewinskyites know how to take care of their kind.
Anon#1 is full of it!
the personal life does not matter...........only for her kind.
The reference to Anita Hill isn't germane because Clarence (add nick name here) Thomas unfortunately was still confirmed.
And if it's being "inarticulate" that worries you, I can only assume you must have been doing your best Rip Van Winkle impersonation during the greater part of the decade.
Btw, Bush nominee Souter, has never married. Did anyone care??
Yes, Souter is unmarried, and that was widely reported at the time of his nomination. Regarding inarticulate, if you watched the video, all Sotomayor said in way of explanation was "you know ... you know ... you know." I had expected a better explanation from a widely respected, summa cum laude, law review judge, regardless of who else in the last decade -- or century -- failed to be articulate.
Post a Comment