Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

As a person who finished first in her class at Princeton, had an exceptional academic record and was on Law Review at Yale Law School, followed by a notable career as a big city prosecutor, private practice, and then several increasingly responsible appointments to the bench by Presidents of different political persuasion, I'd have to say that Judge Sotomayor is pretty high up the steps on the competence scale.

Are there others that are equally smart and experienced? Probably so. So what? Judge Sotomayor was the one nominated by the President--not any of the others. The Senate's job is to determine whether she meets the Constitutional requirements to sit on SCOTUS. So far, there have been criticisms of how her ethnicity and gender might effect her decision-making. But no one that I've read so far has demonstrated how her background has had any influence on her judicial decisions whatsoever.

The Constitutionally required process for the nomination and confirmation of a SCOTUS justice is well established. What the process is not is a candidate search to be conducted by the Senate. That's the responsibility of the President. The President did his job, so at this point the Senate's job is to consent to the nomination--nothing more.

As I've said before, all this racism conversation is little more than political posturing. Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed in a landslide vote--because she more than meets the required qualifications. Period.

So didn't Bork~~~~~~

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Her qualifications - academically and experientially - to do the job are fine. It seems that most of the complaint about her is that people don't "like" her.

One of the best management instructors I know used to describe organizations as having two types of people - the popular and the competent, and only very rarely do you find someone who is both. And she described that the most awkward point came when she asked students to honestlly categorize themselves as popular or competent.

As we examine the curent SCOTUS team, every one of them is indeed competent, yet each one ticks off some group of people big-time due to personal traits, heritage, attitude and opinions.

Judge Sotomayor rubs many people the wrong way, for a variety of reasons. However, she has shown herself as a highly competent jurist whose appellate rulings mirror the law. So, is the preference for an Associate Justice who is popular or would you rather one who is [I]competent[/I?

Very clearly, she seems to be competent but in her own words, out of her own mouth it is very clear that she will try to make policy and law whether than just interpret it. She speaks clearly as not being a proponent of equal rights. She favors the poor and minorities.

It has nothing to do with her being "unpopular" other than the unpopularity of her qualifications. Demeanor and temperament are also qualifications for the job. When any candidate is clear about their actions in a given case and these actions are anti-constitutional, she is not qualified.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

I say dump her....is Bork still available?

Judge Bork wasn't rejected because he was too conservative. Pretty much the same Senate confirmed Anthony Scalia not too long afterwards.

Bork's fatal flaw was not his ideology. Rather, two substantive drawbacks emerged in the confirmation process, both relevant to the arguments over Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination.

The first was Judge Bork's failure to apply any judicial philosophy consistently. His record of rulings as an appellate judge could largely be predicted by who the parties were. Judge Bork's record showed that he almost always ruled for the government in actions brought by consumer, environmental and civil rights groups. Yet in cases brought by business interests against federal agencies, he would often abandon his stated commitment to judicial restraint and rule against the government.

Bork's second drawback -- exemplified by his now famous statement that serving on the Supreme Court would be an "intellectual feast" -- was the notion created by his testimony that he thought that the justices' primary role is to wage a war of intellect and ideology divorced from very much concern for the law and the impact of their rulings. Those statements even turned off the conservatives considering his nomination.

We'll have to wait and see what falls out of Sonia Sotomayor's closet during the confirmation hearings. As I recall, Judge Bork was pretty highly thought of until he made those really dumb statements during his confirmation hearings that ultimately proved to be fatal to his nomination.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Judge Bork wasn't rejected because he was too conservative. Pretty much the same Senate confirmed Anthony Scalia not too long afterwards.

Bork's fatal flaw was not his ideology. Rather, two substantive drawbacks emerged in the confirmation process, both relevant to the arguments over Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination.

The first was Judge Bork's failure to apply any judicial philosophy consistently. His record of rulings as an appellate judge could largely be predicted by who the parties were. Judge Bork's record showed that he almost always ruled for the government in actions brought by consumer, environmental and civil rights groups. Yet in cases brought by business interests against federal agencies, he would often abandon his stated commitment to judicial restraint and rule against the government.

Bork's second drawback -- exemplified by his now famous statement that serving on the Supreme Court would be an "intellectual feast" -- was the notion created by his testimony that he thought that the justices' primary role is to wage a war of intellect and ideology divorced from very much concern for the law and the impact of their rulings. Those statements even turned off the conservatives considering his nomination.

We'll have to wait and see what falls out of Sonia Sotomayor's closet during the confirmation hearings. As I recall, Judge Bork was pretty highly thought of until he made those really dumb statements during his confirmation hearings that ultimately proved to be fatal to his nomination.

Of course, it depends who's ears are hearing what that determines what's dumb.

Originally Posted by Keedy

I say dump her....is Bork still available?

I believe Harriet Miers is still available. "The Decider" nominated her for SCOTUS in 2005. Unfortunately, she is currently in an undisclosed location avoiding supboenas.

Originally Posted by bimmertl

I believe Harriet Miers is still available. "The Decider" nominated her for SCOTUS in 2005. Unfortunately, she is currently in an undisclosed location avoiding supboenas.

At least she withdrew......Well..Maybe there's hope then, huh? Come-on Borky!!!