[...] Jay Nordlinger on “hispanics,” “Latinos,” and pesky C-As Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Sotomayor: Justice Denied Jules Crittenden: Souter With A Salsa Beat? and You Say Soto-My-YOR, I Say Soda-Meyer Greg Gutfeld, [...]

I think people have to take solice in the fact that her confirmation would not change the face of the court. We are trading a liberal judge for a liberal judge. Now Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia better not go anywhere.

My Dad also meted out punishment, and I believe, so will Sotomayor, to Conservatives.

Remember when GWB nominated Harriet Myers? She was clearly not qualified and he pulled her as he should have.

Now, Obama has that chance and he will pass.

Hmmm/;

It is no surprise to me or my conservative friends that Obama picked this type of judge. She is a pure political appointment, and she will be confirmed. But Obama's political advisers are not stupid. Sotomayor is a political/judicial hack. I'm guessing that this nomination, and probably the next are designed to draw Republicans into all out attack. He has nothing to lose, and we have little to gain by going beyond a thorough vetting, followed by an up or down vote. He'll give us his worst nominations first to secure the lefty base. Then, when he's ready to spring the trap with the nomination that actually counts, he'll pull out his best-qualified candidate (Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School comes to mind). If we make the mistake of throwing all our best arguments, including a possible filibuster, at Sotomayor and number two, the Democrats can then argue at the third nomination: "There they go again. Same old stuff. And none of it applies to this nomination (even if it actually does)." Instead of reasoning opponents of a bad judicial nomination, they will try to make us look like obstructionists. And if we overplay our hand now, that tactic might just work. On the other hand, if we point out all of Sotomayor's flaws (and they are legion), argue reasonably, then let it go to an up or down vote without rancor, we beat a tactical retreat in order to win the very important strategic victory on the third nomination. All the cards are currently stacked against us. In two or three years, we might have a whole new and fresh deck to play with.

And you are saying Ailito and Stevens and Thomas and Scalia were not poltical appointments?
A President has the right to appoint someone based in ideology. They all do it.
Funny but Ailito said he takes into consideration his immigrant background on some cases. But if Sotomayor says she takes into considration her latino background that is off limits.
Very odd double standard.

I see. So little-mindedness and racism is perfectly acceptable, to you, so long as it's directed towards the groups you don't like, hmm? Maybe we haven't come so far at all, not really. I mean, I had fooled myself into believing we'd progressed past such bigotry but you're proving me wrong, little bigot that you are.

Sonia Sotomayor is more qualified to be there than those 4 boobs combined.

What I find particularly striking is Obama's appointment of political people. Clearly Deese at GM is the "party" apparatchik like so many party people in the old USSR. Sonja will likely function similarly, letting her little brain rely on the brilliance of Attorney General Holder and teh One.

Oh, baloney. Of course they were political appointments. They were also highly-qualified jurists. Sotomayor is not qualified, and her record on appeal substantiates that. I said "pure" political appointment for a reason. It's not a double-standard by any means. All judges take their own backgrounds into consideration. Sotomayor states that her background as an ethnic woman makes her better qualified to judge cases where litigants belong to specific ethnic and economic groups. She is announcing that her background will not only be part of her decision-making, but the very heart of it, including ignoring her oath to do "impartial justice" to the "poor and to the rich." A President has the right to appoint someone based "in ideology." He also has an obligation to appoint well-qualified judges. Sotomayor is not well-qualified. She intends to be a respecter of persons, not of the law. Under certain circumstances that is acceptable at trial level. It is never acceptable on the highest court of appeals in the land.

Yep, conservatism, or more clearly read as traditional American values truly are the evil that has destroyed the world, or something. Those values of country and self-reliance have built a society unmatched, but thankfully these liberals, who know everything, including "nation" being undesirable, can now tear it down.

I believe the operative phrase is "a thorough vetting" and that's only fair. Hopefully, the Republicans will give it their best effort and leave no stone unturned. Their credibility rests on it. Newt is now saying his earlier comments were possibly a bit hasty, I would like to have been around to hear the conversation that lead to that change of heart. I noticed today that Sotomayor has learned to zip her lip when in the company of the media, saying nothing to the press who shouted questions from the sideline. I wonder if, after she's selected, if she'll continue to flirt so egregiously? A coquettish 54YO Supreme Court Judge seems a bit odd, but them maybe she'll fit right in.

It's a shame, because LawHawk seems to be smart and knowledgable, that she would advance the "record on appeal" canard.

So you would support replacing 4 boobs with 2?

Why Democrats think the math at GM makes sense.

Well, to some extent, especially at the level of Circuit, it's not. All it really means is that SCOTUS wants to set new precedent due to the philisophical make-up of the court. And Sotomayor hasn't been overturned often. Just three times in over a decade.

As opposed to that liberal activist judge who allowed a black person to get away with murdering whites about 14 years ago?

Once one begins researching how these judges continue to reach such outlandish verdicts in the face of overwhelming evidence you should notice that it is not just a turnabout is fair play situation when you argue what minority status is getting preferential treatment by whichever activist judge is either liberal or conservative and aha I made you read this I am really only yanking your chain he is actually very respectable which is the only logical conclusion you can reach.

Where is the pie?

…Sotomayor on paper…

Is that 2-ply? I do not like 1-ply.

She has been overturned exactly the same number of times on appeal that Sam Alito was. I'll grant you that it seems likely she'll be overturned once more (there's an appeal pending), but she has been on the bench since 1998. Furthermore, she has been affirmed twice by SCOTUS. Alito's record? Not once. I suspect you didn't say Alito was unqualified. You would've been right not to.

what shocks me is that anyone, anywhere, is still shocked at any of barry's antics. he keeps showing us the new normal, yet we neglect to take him for his word. ( i know. who else snickered at the thought of him keeping his word?)

She's been a Circuit court judge for 12 years.
Thomas and Souter has 1 year as a Circuit judge, Roberts had 2 years, Scalia had 4 years.

She has been a Distrcit and Circuit court judge overall for 18 years.
Before they were appointed to the Supreme Court, Ailito was a judge for 16 years, Breyer for 14 years, Ginsberg and Kennedy for 13 years.

So, yeah, she has more experience. These are facts not opinions.
That said, I'm not saying the other justices are not qualified.

Just think, it has only been a few decades since conservative activist judges were allowing white people to get away with murdering non-whites.

And now the Progressive Activist Judges, especially those in the North East, are fogiving the sexual predators who prey on the children.

You need to understand that both sides have their failures and their winners.

If Conservatism is headed for the dust bin of failed ideologies, it will have a soft landing on the Progressive Movement.

"Conservative" activist judges? They were in the south right? You may want to study southern political demographics from those lynching days. (Hint: the south was overwhelmingly democrat)

a 'few' decades? how about six or seven decades? Even then this was a seriously isolated occurence. Then again what's a few facts between you and the bile? Conservatism is in huge upswing; it is the Republican brand that is hurting- as is the Democrat. Both are down 10-12 percent. However, self described conservatives are up 15% (Pew poll)…

once again auntie is wrong…

to the rescue…

just kidding, Hawk. The ones debating you are both equivocating, and that must be maddening.
What we have been able to evaluate about Sotomayor is that as a jurist she is a stunning mediocrity. Her manner is that of a bully, does not get along well with lawyers, and her comments are unenlightening.

Miss anything?

So you're equating length of experience with quality. Shouldn't an examination of her rulings and her understanding of Law and of the Constitution be a better determinate than how long she's held her judicial position.

While not a perfect analogy, let's look at it from a business POV.

I have worked with individuals with decades of experience who I would not trust to reboot my computer. The fact that they had managed to hang on to their jobs by doing just enough to pass muster does not make them the most qualified person to be promoted to senior management.

Sotomayor having the most experience does not make her the best qualified for the nomination or confirmation to the Court. Thank you.

It's amazing how little you know, yet how much you are willing to open your mouth. You better pray that conservatives don't start acting the way you think we do or the way you think the courts actually work.

dcase, she's not just stunningly mediocre, her decisions are divorced from any understanding of the law. That's a dangerous and stupid combination.

But our little leftos here seem to think that's cool. . . at least until they realize that she's unpredictable and is just as likely to slap down the people they think she will look out for. It's the law of unintended consequences and it's a b~tch.

I saw that on Drudge, I read about Sotomayor's one opinion where she went with precedence in saying the 2nd Amendment was only at the federal level, it didn't extend to the states. I can intellectually see where certain things make sense that way, such as local noise ordinances are not invalidated by claiming 1st Amendment rights. I also see where the 2nd Amendment becomes meaningless if all states can ban any and all weapons as they see fit, it becomes only a right on paper.

Guess that means it is time to send some extra donations to the NRA for both the PVF (Political Victory Fund) and the ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) if this is going to be a state-by-state fight. And if the 2nd Amendment does indeed keep the federal government from infringing then they should immediately strike down all federal civilian limitations on automatic weapons, right now. Between terrorists and drug cartel violence, let alone home invasions, as well as the understood obligation of the citizens to remove tyrannical governments, "fair and reasonable restrictions" now stops somewhere just under nuclear bombs. And on any given day, someone could make a valid case for those as well.

case: Thanks a heap. I'll take rescue whenever it's offered. They keep conflating "experience" with express "ideology," and I do indeed find that frustrating. That a Latina woman would call on her personal experiences is not that far out in left field. To declare publicly that it will be a guiding principle which will make her judicial opinion superior to that of a white male hearing the same case is.

He does have a whole aparatnik thing going doesn't he?

well guys, you pretty well summed it up. The counter arguments both you and Mr Price kept getting were along the line of 'so's your old lady!' kind of thing… we think this woman to be a wild card much like Souter; her opinions may not be doctrinaire leftist.

That doesn't necessarily make us happy. All one wants in a Supreme Court judge is to interpret the laws passed by the legislature as constitutional or not, color, creed, poverty or race be damned.

Is that too much to ask?

LawHawk and AP, thanks for the clarifications that your concerns about her appeal record go beyond the mere numbers. LawHawk, your insight is especially meaningful as you have served as a pro tem judge.

May I ask a question? Now as the Power Line piece shows (and I am glad to see someone else posted the link this time) by percentages her record is not that bad, actually beats the average. And yet getting overturned is such a big deal. Both of those together makes me wonder, just how bad are those circuit court judges?

It is remarkable how consistently Obama appoints flawed but ideologically reliable characters. Contrary to what we´ve been promised, he almost never goes for the "best and brightest". From his old pals to Biden to the tax cheats to his "car czar" to Robert Gibbs, his likes to surround himself with mediocre, weakminded or downright corrupt people.

Clearly, he likes people who are in no place to judge him. People who either won´t see through him or won´t say anything if they do. The few decent appointments – Leon Panetta may be one – are remarkable for being exceptions. It may betray a certain insecurity, and goes well with the narcissim, but I don´t think it makes him harmless. Stalin did the same thing.

It's not as bad as it looks. By the time a case gets to the Supreme Court, it has been through at least one more level of appeal before getting there. A case that actually makes it to the Supreme Court without being denied certiorari most often gets there because a whole lot of good trial judges and appellate courts have come up with too many different rulings on an issue that affects the nation as a whole such that the Supreme Court is compelled to institute a single rule for the sake of consistency. Somebody loses every time. There are several good justices on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who would not want to be vetted solely on the rate of reversal of the full court itself.

As for federal trial judges, reversals can mean many things, and it's necessary to look at each opinion to see if the judge has used a pattern of bad legal reasoning or improper applications of the Constitution, or whether the judge's ruling was just ahead of the pack, but still well-reasoned. That is why I don't think Sotomayor's reversal rate should ever be cited as the sole reason for considering her disqualified. Her personal opinions about the extent that personal experience should affect court decisions, along with her judicial philosophy concern me far more than her reversal rate.

I see, so Yale counts for something in her case, but it made no difference when we were discussing GWB.

Of course, when it comes to race – the modern progressive´s great obsession – Asians are not victim enough. They tend to be hardworking and self-reliant. Progressives need dependent clients, not citizens.
It is the GOP´s greatest failure that they failed to tell Hispanics and Asians and in fact all minorities that conservatism is their friend. But it is so.

I think it demonstrates a desire to consolidate power within the office and a desire for ideological purity. While that can be an effective combination for maintaining control of a government initially, it usually goes wrong quickly.

Ken: Now there's a name I never expected to hear again. I grew up in Southern California where Cal Worthington was a household word. My town had a Cal Worthington Dodge dealership. Considering my age, he must be about 95 by now. He also had a few brushes with the law over his alleged shady business practices, but somehow that only seemed to increase his popularity. Thanks for the trip down memory lane. And it would, indeed, not qualify him for the Supreme Court.

Yeah I guess you really miss the days when the democratic Klan was in charge of justice.

and, Hawk, isn't it true that the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned in history?

It would be a double standard if that were all Sotomayor said. She also said she believes that there are inherent physiological differences between ethnic groups and genders that impact their ability to use reason and logic.

Apparently Barrack Obama did not believe a president has the right to appoint someone based in idealogy, because he voted against Alito and Roberts while admitting they were qualified.

May I remind Mod Dem and other Progressives posting here that it was us far wing nut jobs who ousted Ms. Miers from consideration and not you lefties.

Ms. Sotomayor has been reversed 60% of the time, if that is the kind of quality you PrGos like you'll love socialized medicine and the new GM.

The best nominee in the last 50 years was Robert Bork…denied a vote by the progressives who were quaking in fear of a true constitutionalist.

Who got game. Mr Luck!

Excuse me Dem

A woman who graduated from Princeton and Yale Law being told by some WH press flack to zip it, that strikes me as sexist. Are they afriad of what she might say? Let her talk if she's so smart, what do you say?

dcase: Exactly. If you want to find out what the Supreme Court is going to do with a NInth Circuit opinion, it's usually best to read the opinions of the dissenting justices on the lower court. They are the ones the Supreme Court is most likely to agree with.

You might say her appointment, like her stated conviction regarding race and identity, are DIVISIVE. But that´s a liberal word. Conservatives don´t get to use that word. Or rather, they are too stupid to appropriate it. Steal back our language. Start now.

and that, in and of itself, is sad. So, why select someone from the 9th Circuit which is not known as a deliberative body? One would think even the lefties would want a more predictable Ginsberg-like selection rather than this quas-schizo lightweight…

The irony will be if she is a pro life Catholic & helps overturn Roe v Wade.

[...] Review Online: Her Majesty Sonia Sotomayor vs. the Rule of Law Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Sotomayor: Justice Denied Swampland: Sotomayor and The Culture Wars National Catholic Register: Sotomayor’s Catholicism [...]

Mr. Jena, what about Justice Thomas? Was he nominated by President George H.W. Bush because he was the most qualified candidate for the Supreme Court in 1991 to replace Thurgood Marshall? Or, did the Bush justice department nominate him because he was a very conservative African-American whose race and personal story it felt could overcome otherwise insurmountable ideological objections? Justice Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton. She was the editor of the Yale Law Review. She was a highly respected prosecutor in New York City prior to becoming a judge on the federal bench in 1992. I am unaware of any scholastical honors Justice Thomas received while attending college at Holy Cross or law school at Yale. After his tenure at the EEOC, Justice Thomas was nominated to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, where he remained for less than two years prior to being nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Contrast that with Judge Sotomayor's 17 years on the federal bench. Really, Mr. Jena, are you you serious?