Comments on: Get ready for the Sotomayor misogyny-fest

By: bruce nahin

bruce nahin — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:18:40 +0000

John: law students are taught to approach a legal issue as IRAC: Issue, rule application, conclusion. The Supremes are no different- it is not an inherently political body- it is more like the most exclusive law review in the world and by giving them lifetime appointments they are supposed to be above politics

By: John Horning

John Horning — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:17:02 +0000

bruce nahin:

The U.S. Constitution is a political document. Judges are titled Judges because they are expected to bring judgment to bear. The U.S. Supreme Court is an inherently and intentionally political body.

By: bruce nahin

bruce nahin — Wed, 27 May 2009 22:38:51 +0000

and her speech was presented to a Latiino group called La Raza- The Race- imagine if a” white male” had made a similar comment before a bunch of white men at a club called the race

By: bruce nahin

bruce nahin — Wed, 27 May 2009 21:58:37 +0000

Yes she did acknowledge that white males got it right, but given the context she said in essence that given the circumstances a woman of color -she-would get it right more often then the white males

By: Janis

Janis — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:19:30 +0000

Bruce, she is also on record as saying — in the same speech — that nine white males made what was obviously the right decision in cases that were outside of their personal experience, like Brown v. Board. Don’t cherry-pick quotes.

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:18:59 +0000

Chris, judges are meant to uphold the constitution and to determine the consitutionality of the law; they are not to consider their own personal feelings or to create laws; they simply uphold the consitution. Sotomayor stated clearly that courts make the law, and such a statement indicates that she is clearly an activist judge.

By: bruce nahin

bruce nahin — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:43:45 +0000

I dont like her or her views of the court. Sotomayer is a judicial activist.She believes that the court should not simply review the law and apply it to the facts and reach a rationale conclusion based upon the facts. She is on the record as believing “a woman of color will get the right result more often then a white male”. To me, the court doesn’t needs activists, we need law appliers.Legislation should be in the legislature and the judiciary should apply not make laws. In the past we have seen conservative activists with compelling stories( ie Estrada,Bork and Thomas) rightfully attacked because of their judicial philosophy and activism.and in two cases rejected because of it. Activism shouldnt play a part.A judge shouldn’t bring life experiences towards applying the constitution. They should bring their intellect and ability to apply the law to the facts. Will Sotomayer do this- I hope so.

But even if she doesnt, notwithstanding the above- I support the nomination. Sometimes one must hold one’s nose when taking medicine. The” right” woman never will come along if we hold to our political agendas. We must use the rocks we are give to break the barriers in the glass ceilings. Men will not be free until women achieve equality- that as been the cry since the 70’s. We must toss the rocks given to us to achieve this. For this reason I support the nomination, just like in 2010 I will support Ms Whitman to be the first female governor here in Califorina, and Governor Palin for the presidency in 2012. Some may argue that they cant support this woman or that because of Political Agendas but the truth be told- to break the barrier these views in the long run must be subservient to breaking the barriers to equality.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:47:48 +0000

an “extreme liberal”? Hardly. Sotomayor was formerly a criminal prosecutor and corporate litigator. Not exactly bastions of left-wing politics. And your “judicial activism” claim reeks of the classic conservative judicial hypocrisy. A judge is only an “activist” when they rule in way you do not approve of. How is Roe v Wade or any of the recent gay marriage decisions an act of “judicial activism” but the SCOTUS’s recent decision striking down the DC handgun ban not “judicial activism”. Your comment is pitifully transparent. Furthermore, she is a virtual shoe-in for nomination. The Democrats could possibly have a filibuster-proof majority if Franken is seated, and some more moderate republicans are sure to confirm her also.

By: Get ready for the Sotomayor misogyny-fest : NO QUARTER

Get ready for the Sotomayor misogyny-fest : NO QUARTER — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:45:34 +0000

[...] published at The New Agenda. Read about the origins and goals of The New Agenda, which is “100% non-partisan” and [...]

By: Karen H.

Karen H. — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:31:11 +0000

I’m very pleased with the Sotomayor nomination. Best news I’ve heard in a long time! Yes, she is liberal, but so is Justice Souter whom she is replacing (and it IS a Democratic President who is appointing her), so regardless of one’s personal politics, it’s disingenuous for conservatives to suggest her position on the political spectrum alone should disqualify her. If The New Agenda and the threat of women scorned had any influence over Obama’s pick, then kudos! ! It’s about time women stop being apologetic over demanding simple equal representation.