Comments on: Thinking About Sotomayor

By: ParatrooperJJ

ParatrooperJJ — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:41:45 +0000

It would make a serious point if all the Rs on the committee voted no. That would require a rule change in order for the nomination to come to the floor.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:35:30 +0000

If she were not confirmed, we really don’t know who Obama would put in her place…better or worse…and we don’t know now how she would work out.

Two thoughts:
1. Souter was nominated by HW Bush, supposedly because he would be a moderate conservative, and he turned out badly for conservatives.
2. Bork, a strong conservative, was rejected by the Senate. Kennedy, a more moderate one, was confirmed instead.

Obama is not HW Bush, and Sotomayor is not the obvious liberal equivalent of Bork. But her dissembling indicates she will be just as liberal as Obama, but perhaps not able to twist arms like he does.

By: Stacy

Stacy — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:16:46 +0000

I haven’t been following the hearings too closely, but I notice that all seem to agree her 17-year record as a federal judge is unremarkable and appears to comport with her claims to rule by the law, not her personal feelings.

That said, she could have been biding her time all those years, waiting for a chance to make it to SCOTUS and let her freak flag fly. But I doubt it — that’s a long time to keep your head down among all the happily activist judges, just on the off-chance you might someday be nominated to the Supreme Court.

By: vssapresident

vssapresident — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:04:39 +0000

I have heard at least one conservative talking head say that she is no worse than the Justice Souter and that she may not be as bad. I’m not sure. At least with Sotomayor we have some indication based on her writings and speeches what is going through her mind (not withstanding what she has said to the contrary in the confirmation hearings). We did not even have that with Justice Souter.

By: Carl in Chicago

Carl in Chicago — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:26:24 +0000

“But I also think Sotomayor is not as clueless as she’s coming across in the hearings. I suspect what she’s covering is beliefs that are far outside the mainstream, and views on her role as a judge that are entirely inappropriate for a Supreme Court Justice.”

I nominate the above as understatements of the year.

By: jones

jones — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:17:52 +0000

They are going to ram through a lightweight. The best the Right can do is point out what a dog she is and use it later. Remember when they were going to fiind a left-wing Scalia to convince the world of their jusrisprudence? She is Harriet Meirs, at best.

She should be producing goofy rulings in time for Senate campaigns next year.

By: Brad

Brad — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:48:35 +0000

I’m convinced Sotomayor is quite out of the mainstream and is lying like crazy to keep that fact hidden. But why?

Considering that the Democrats have 60 Senate votes, there is no way that she could be stopped, so why the deception? Why not let it all hang out?

I think the real reason is not to protect her chances of confirmation, since that’s in the bag. The reason for the deception is to protect Obama and the Senate Democrats from political fallout.

By: Monty

Monty — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:12:52 +0000

Is it really that different from past confirmation hearings? No justice wants to commit to something they may need to decide in the future. You can’t really please both sides, so try not to commit? Would be nice if that wasn’t the result, but as much as I don’t like the pick, its not really a reason to oppose her

By: Rush Baby

Rush Baby — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:54:12 +0000

Diabetes is a bitch.

In the end it will work out…