Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoda
I get the impression that she is not someone that I would chose.
In her own voice she stated that policy is made from the bench.
Her decisions have been quite often overturned.
I would guess that she will be seated, qualified or not. She should not be.
She has made statements that indicate that she is a racist, albeit the popular kind of racist.
In our society the laws are made by the elected, not the appointed.
I am not surprised by her nomination. What else should I have expected.
Yoda
A member of the loyal opposition
|
Judge Sotomayor has spoken with brutal candor regarding what happens within a Court of Appeals action. It has been an unwritten rule that this fact of business not be recognized out loud, but it is how it is. She's no political dynasty blue-blood, and in that sense it is refreshing to see someone who does not come "from money" as a nominee. Being "street-wise" should not be a detriment.
As far as having decisions reversed, that happens. I know of several judges whose careers are speckled (some more brightly than others) with appellate reversals, and they are all honorable jurists who can be viewed as "conservative."
If this nomination is contested along party lines, that would be tragic. The question should be whether Judge Sotomayor is a jurist with the education and experience to handle cases within the SCOTUS jurisdiction.
The American Bar Association will be preparing its evaluation of her credentials, and that won't be party-biased. I'm looking forward to the ABA evaluation as it will be factual and blunt.