After having read the entire speech which the "race" remark was claimed, I just can't find anything wrong. Judge Sotomayor portrayed herself as "human" and her explanations of several events in legal history were on the money. There was no "racist" remark at all, and the entire speech, as opposed to a selective sound bite, needs to be reviewed for full context.

If the confirmation hearings and ABA evaluation show here as "qualified," and that process is virtually no different than what occurred for her confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals, then she becomes "Nine of Nine." (Note: this is not to be construed that SCOTUS justices are Borg-like!)

If you care to review the speech in question, please go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...ewanted=1&_r=2

Alright 2 in a row....:agree:

AHHHH LOVE your reply!! Sad, but true!!

Stevez, thanx for the link to the speech. It did lend
 

clarity to the issue.
As I said earlier the credentials seem to fit. Now the way to lengthy time to "evaluate" is under way.

BTK

What wagon load of pumpkins did you just fall off of??

Do you honestly think that a bench full of 80 year old WASPS doesn't bring it's own social filter to the mix? If not, then we don't need human beings as judges, we can use computers.

Perhaps my friend, if we had computers then.............

I do not want anyone's social filter to be used. I think you missed that point.

If you want our country to change every time the there is a new president, there will come the time when you will never get a new president.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

You miss the point if you think any of those judges can truly judge without using their social filters. That is why some of them are considered "conservative" and some are considered "liberal." But above all, they are human beings, and that is how we operate.

In fact, most of them are pretty close to the middle, compared to the extremes, but they do have their leanings. And that is as it should be, to some degree, because they have a very powerful influence on how the law is applied, or even if it is to be applied. And they wield that influence over a lot of people. All of those people deserve to have some representation on that bench.

Something else very interesting is happening here BTW. While I agree her choice was a "political" one, in that Obama is very shrewdly throwing a bone to the Hispanic community, The GOP is being very cautious in how it wants to develop arguments against her appointment. They are scared to death of alienating further that demographic. So while they might want to yell "this is a politically driven appointment", the way they voice their dissension will in itself be very politically driven.

Of course, if your Rush, and you don't really care about the GOP, and you'll never have to actually run for office, and your real motivation is ratings, you can say whatever you want.

Any time a President nominates anyone for anything, someone will say that the nomination is politically influenced - and usually will be right.

If the President has a pool of several qualified individuals from which to pick a nominee for anything - and all nominees are equally qualified - odds are the political value of each potential selection is part of the equation. So, the political value of picking an individual of Hispanic background, ande female as well, could be expected to be touted.

The process is for the President to provide a single individual as a nominee, not a pool of two or more, and then letting Congress rank-order them via the Congressional interview method.

All that notwithstanding, and knowing that the selection process for Presidential nominees has been this process since Pres. Washington, the real issue should be whether Judge Sotomayor is indeed qualified to be in that select pool of individuals equally qualified for being a SCOTUS associate justice, and can she professionally do the job - yes or no.

No President is going to go to the other-party's leadership and seek advice on whom the other-party prefers - and nor should s/he do so.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of politicians (federal, state, or local) who are more concerned with fighting everything on party lines rather than being concerned with either: 1) the professional credentials of a nominee to do the job at hand; or 2) the law to be enacted (or repealed) will actually improve life within the jurisdiction. C-SPAN is beginning to look like a continuous rerun of "West Side Story."

Judge Sotomayor has already demonstrated in two prior evaluations of being professionally qualified to be a U.S, District Court Judge and a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge. The only question on the table should be whether she is professionally qualified to be employed at the next-higher judicial level. Any Senator who asks her any question on her position on anything other than knowledge of the law, or judicial practice and procedure should be looked at as a party hack and political bigot.

In today's world, every employer, or selection committee, is all too aware that the interview process for any new employee has its restrictions as to what can and can't be asked from any job candidate. It would be refreshing to see Congress practice what it levies on the rest of us to insure employees are picked based on professional qualifications, and that racial, ethnic, gender, appearance, political or any other bias or prejudice is absent in the selection process.

:agree:Good points.

on the money!

Well stated, Steve. Too many people fail to accurately assess what "legislating from the bench" really means. Maybe we should ask them what they think should happen when cases are presented for adjudication based on contradictory, unclear, poorly-written, confusing laws? Last time I checked, an answer of "I don't know--the law is too confusing" wasn't an option for a Supreme Court justice. It would be even worse if the Court refused to hear cases where the underlying laws were faulty, unclear and inconsistent. Would the purists be happy if the Supreme Court only accepted cases that were easily adjudicated, leaving those based on imperfect law unsettled?

By definition, ALL Supreme Court justices have to occasionally "make law" when the legislators empowered to do so fail in their responsibilities. That's completely consisent with the Constitution, I think.

Sotomayor
 

By the way, shortly after Justice Souter announced his intention to retire, C-SPAN broadcast back-to-back speeches or recorded events featuring each of those people thought to be candidates to replace him. I watched each with interest, not knowing or having heard about any of them previously.

Judge Sotomayor was video'd serving as one of three justices ruling in an appeals court setting for a George Washington University law school moot court. The other two justices were also experienced federal appeals court judges. The other candidates were featured making speeches on one subject or another.

After watching all four of the prospective candidates featured, I came away impressed that Judge Sotomayor was clearly the best of the bunch. Her conduct from the bench exhibited deep knowledge of both statutory and case law, but most importantly her "judgelike" demeanor was impressive.

Now after reading more about her, I've concluded that her confirmation hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee probably will be TV programming not to be missed. My guess is that she will be aggressive in responding to questioning, particularly from those exhibiting partisan intent. Said in words we all understand, her friends and colleagues have said that she won't take any cr*p from any of the Senators. It's almost certain that none of the Senators doing the questioning will possess her intellectual capacity, and certainly not her legal experience. Her peers and colleagues say that she is not one to either accept unwarranted criticism or suffer fools quietly or politely. She will not be testifying with "hat in hand" so to speak, simply trying to get the confirmation of her nomination. It ought to be fun to watch.

I personally think alot of which has been said is alot of hooey! This is just more politics from a Chicago politician. The left wants a "live" constitution instead of interpreting what the founding father's wrote. If you twist, stretch, expand, dilute and keep changing the form of the constitution...it will become unrecognizable.

Keedy

The "conservative" justices are called that because they tend interpret the law as the founders intended. By the constitution. The Liberal justices tend to went to bypass the constitution and create law rather than interpret it.

We only need the Republican party so that there will be 2 viable parties.

The McCain Republican party cant win. A conservative Republican party will win. Over 60% of Americans identify themselves as conservative. Although Obama was elected, in those states that had major ballot questions the conservative position won.

If the GOP couldn't win the Hispanic vote with an amnesty candidate they never will by sucking up to Hispanics. However, most Hispanic voters are conservative. They will support a conservative they always do.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

I think a real conservative could win the election in 2012. Bush was not a real conservative. His failure to use his veto pen , especially in his first term, was the beginning of the end for the Republican Party. The lack of fiscal responsibility and failure to protect our borders from illegal immigrants is the reason we have this situation in the White House.
I don't think Ronnie Reagan is looking down on us approvingly right now.
Rant over
I return you to your regulary scheduled posters:oops:

Keedy