Sotomayor?
The great American story right?
What’s not to like?
She was good enough for George H.W. Bush.
What are our thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
Sotomayor?
Sotomayor?
The great American story right?
What’s not to like?
She was good enough for George H.W. Bush.
What are our thoughts?
"So what is big is not always the Trout nor the Deer but the chance, the being there. And what is full is not necessarily the creel nor the freezer, but the memory." ~ Aldo Leopold
"The Greatest Obstacle to Discovery is not Ignorance -- It is the Illusion of Knowledge" ~ Daniel Boorstin
At a glance an activist judge, one whom thinks she, instead of Congress, should make the law.
If you believe that the SCOTUS should make law instead of upholding the law then Sotomayer's your girl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q
Obama has his first Hispanic woman for Supreme Court Judge that is about the only thing I find interesting about her. And to be honest I am getting bored with the first this and the first that being a qualification above everything else.
Despite her prior support from a minority of Republicans like SpecterI think she will just another liberal activist judge more interested in revising the constitution than defending it.
Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?
All things considered, from a conservative perspective, he could have done a lot worse (i.e. picked a more liberal/activist judge). Sure she's no Antonin Scalia, but she's no wingnut like Ruth Buzzy Bader Ginsberg either. Some liberals are expressing disappointment with the nomination, so that's somewhat comforting.
Elections have consequences. I wouldn't expect Obama to pick Robert Bork and I had hoped he wouldn't pick a beyond-the-pale liberal whackanut. From what I know about her, it would seem like Obama made a pretty decent choice somewhere between the two extremes.
Answer me this Hew. Where is the fun in being reasonable?!? huh? huh?Originally Posted by Hew
Just kidding, your right it could be a lot worse. I wish there was a better way of picking judges though.
Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?
Don't confuse a seat on the SCOTUS with being a federal trial judge. One has a far greater capacity to influence the US for a long, long time and the other is subject to review and being overturned if they get too far afield. Bush 41 may or may not have considered that she might someday be nominated for the Supremes so it would be wrong to look upon his appointment as a full blown endorsement.Sotomayor?
The great American story right?
What’s not to like?
She was good enough for George H.W. Bush.
What are our thoughts?
Dennis McConnell
Warwick, NY
The New Republic is a generally liberal publication. For that reason, their take on Sotomayor is very revealing.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3-04e10199a085
Eric
Last edited by Eric Johnson; 05-26-2009 at 08:01 PM.
A member of SCOTUS who got the nomination for being a Hispanic female instead of any concrete qualifications. Thankfully she doesn't change the balance of power on the court.
Bob Gutermuth
Canvasback Chesapeakes
ROLL TIDE!
She's the appeals court judge that said you can toss a test for municiple promotions if you don't like the racial outcome. New HAven CT FD now going to the supreme court. She does not belong on the supreme court.
She hates our Constitution as much as Dear Leader hates our Constitution. Her decisions are constantly being overturned because she blatantly disregards the law. Forrest Gump would have been a better choice.
We live in Cuba now.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote