NYT: Abortion backers uneasy on Sotomayor - The New York Times- msnbc.com

According to the New York Times, the Supreme Court nominee, Sotomayor may not be what the Pro-Choice folks want.

I would be surprised if she wasn't completely pro choice. Then again, personal convictions shouldn't come into play.

What? You mean a person can hold a position of authority and uphold the laws of our country, even if the laws are in violation of their personal feelings and beliefs? NO WAY!

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

I'm glad that Obama picked a female; I'm glad she's hispanic. I wish she wasn't Catholic. Catholics are 10% of our population. We have 9 justices. Of those, 5 are Catholic. Sotomayor would make the 6th. We still need more women. I'l nominate Anita Hill.

I just read that almost 70% of Hispanics are Catholic...I also did a quick google search and found statistics that show 24% of the US population is Catholic (as of 2002)

I didn't know that 5 of our justices were already Catholic!

This should be interesting.

__________________
"The errors of faith are better than the best thoughts of unbelief." - Thomas Russell

Just because they are "catholic" doesn't mean they follow the teachings of the church though. RE: Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Kerry, etc...

...And if you're Pelosi, you're not even sure what the teachings of the church (Catholicism) are...


Catholic lawmakers decry Pelosi 'error' - Washington Times

__________________
"The errors of faith are better than the best thoughts of unbelief." - Thomas Russell

Just curious, what does her being Hispanic have to do with anything?

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I read something somewhere that Pelosi has been nicknamed Pinocchio Barbie (Palin was Carribou Barbie)

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

It better reflects the makeup of the population of the US. At least half of the justices should be female.

It should not matter what sex or nationality they are. They need to to enforce the law not legislate from the bench!

cmmcmm

Sorry, but I think that is stupid. Why on earth should gender matter?

What percentage of the population has red hair? Blonde hair? I think they are underrepresented on the court! How many Asians do we have? Surely if the court needs to 'look' like America we should have one Asian on there.

And while we're at it, geography matters. We need to make sure rural Americans are every bit as represented on the court as city folk.

And what's with all these ivy leaguers? I'm sorry, but that doesn't represent my background at all. I got my BS at a private liberal arts university and went to grad school at a large state university, neither of which were anywhere near the right or left coasts.

I don't see why gender and race get 'flagged' as the go-to characteristics that dictate what quotas we fill when we look for Supreme Court appointments. It isn't supposed to be about your *past* or your *upbringing* or your personal *take* on things. It's supposed to be about the Constitution.

I much prefer Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's famous quote that "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases" to Sotomayor's thoughts about a Hispanic woman having a better perspective than a white male. What a racist thing for her to say!

I really don't see how what she really said makes her a racist: "would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

I believe her remark was in answer to a very specific question -- not a sweeping generalization.

I'm on my way out the door so I can't find it now but I will look it up later.

__________________
Cecilia

"We must love them both--those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. For both have labored in the search for truth, and both have helped us in the finding of it."
Saint Thomas Aquinas

Had a white man said "would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life" --- had a white man said that, can you imagine the outcry!!

I don't see why it's so important our next justice should be a Hispanic. That has no relevance at all.

But who is to say a "white male" had some perfect life?

And seriously - even if a while male did have perfect parents and ... gosh, I don't even know where to start.

Most people feel passionately that we want kids who live in difficult situations - for whatever reason - to have things be *better* for them.

And yet we also seem to want to *punish* adults who come from the very quality of life we say we want for everyone else.

I assume the white male background she was essentially poo-pooing is of the white picket fence variety.

Regardless... a person is a person is a person, and I don't think anyone's racial or socio-economic background should disqualify them from being seen as capable of sound judgment, whether their background was nice or rough. To presume anything else is to be viewing things with prejudice, and last I knew... we were supposed to be against that.

Sometimes people coming from 'rough' see 'reality' more clearly, and sometimes they see things with a chip on their shoulder. Sometimes people coming from 'perfect' are out of touch with the struggles others face, and sometimes those people operate out of a sense of obligation because they can see that they were blessed beyond that which their poorer neighbor was.

To state that her gender and racial background elevates her ability to have sound judgment over someone with a different - not *better*, but simply *different* gender and racial background is, IMHO, racist.

If a white male - a Kennedy or a Bush - had said, ""I would hope that a wise white man`with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life,"... wow. How condescending and racist would we say THAT was?

But she gets a pass.

Why is that?

Could someone please put Sotomayor's comments in context?
I don't think she just came out and said that, with nothing before or after. I could be wrong, I suppose.

I hate it when one sentence or statement is taken out of context and used against or for something--when if you'd put the whole thing together, it means something else altogether!

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Marilyn, I believe she was doing a speech at a Berkley event.

Here's a little more context:
Frankly, what she said *after* that is almost as scary to me because... well, she went on to talk about things that sound good, and they are probably useful if you are parenting or dealing with others in the workplace. But I don't think they have any place in interpreting the law. She talks about how her experiences make her evaluate and re-evaluate her positions and that sometimes she changes her positions based on new experiences.

Again... in parenting, in conflict resolution... that's all good. Great, even. But as a judge whose job is to determine whether a law was broken, I don't see her personal experientially-developed feelings as relevant.

Marilyn, I believe she was doing a speech at a Berkley event.

Here's a little more context:
Frankly, what she said *after* that is almost as scary to me because... well, she went on to talk about things that sound good, and they are probably useful if you are parenting or dealing with others in the workplace. But I don't think they have any place in interpreting the law. She talks about how her experiences make her evaluate and re-evaluate her positions and that sometimes she changes her positions based on new experiences.

Again... in parenting, in conflict resolution... that's all good. Great, even. But as a judge whose job is to determine whether a law was broken, I don't see her personal experientially-developed feelings as relevant.

I think this is the link to the full speech that Sotomayor gave at Berkeley (Oct. 26, 2001)
This is the press release from Berkeley.

05.26.2009 - A Latina judge's voice

The white man is being oppressed!

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Umm.... that's a non-link to an extremely biased website... Fauxlon.com

Oh, bloody please. Sotomayor said that she was enriched and informed by being a Latina. She brought something to the table that others without that background didn't.

Who doesn't agree with that? Aren't you enriched by your background? Haven't you supported and advocated candidates because of their backgrounds? We listened during the last election and those before about how the candidate was one of the people. Most recently, we heard it with Palin, who tried to ping every demographic. "I understand you. I'll do better by you, because I understand you."

Don't you think that persons with experience in the area bring more to the table than those that don't?

Who do you want to fix your car? The mechanic who works on them every day or the engineer who studied them in college?

Personally, I sure as hell don't want a judge who is operating purely in some Ivy League, think-tank environment when he or she is deciding real life issues. Richard Posner, for example, would be one of my least favorite Supreme Court picks even though he is extremely bright, capable, and knowledgeable. He just has no real life experience other than academics and then the 7th Circuit.

If Sotomayor is deciding the decisions with some semblance of understanding the reality of the situations in front of her, so much the better.

There are a lot of federal judges who are highly revered in the business world because they have roots in and understand the realities of the business world. I'm hard pressed to understand why those persons are embraced for having real world experience, and others like Sotomayor, who talks about her life experience as a Latina, are degraded.

I further don't think that you who are opposing her have the least bit of understanding as to how moderate she is. I personally wasn't her advocate. I thought she was far too inclined to retreat to the narrow compromise resolution.

Personally, I think all of you who are opposing her should wipe your brow, and say, "bullet ducked." The fact that you are attacking her on this point shows me that you don't understand that YOU LOST THE ELECTION.

Like it or not, the president selects the new Supreme Court justices. While the Senate gives advice and consent, approval is pretty hard to withhold with qualified candidates. Hell, Rehnquist, with all his baggage, was appointed as a justice and later Chief Justice.

Seriously, the reason that there isn't a serious effort at a filibuster going on? The Republicans in the Senate know that if they spend their political capital fighting Sotomayor, they might get worse down the road.

Honestly, you opposing her frustrate the hell out of me. You seriously don't understand how much of a compromise nominee she is.

But whatever. Roll, and roll, and roll in your angst. She will be confirmed, and we can all use this as a dress rehearsal for when a more influential seat, like Kennedy's, becomes open.

I remain unsurprised that the GOP takes a molehill and blows it up. I remain unsurprised that the right wing pundits say something and it immediately becomes a "fact" to its listeners.

I am surprised that anyone is listening to that bastion of immorality and bigotry, Newt Gingrich. He needs to go back in the hole he crawled out of.

You listen to Rush rant, I'll read Salon.com.. This is the United States. Everyone has a right to be heard.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Yowza... Time to take a deep breath there, and repeat to yourself: "This is only a coupon message board...This is only a coupon message board..".

This thread is interesting and I appreciate hearing both sides, both of which have been bringing up valid points (even most of your post... ).

Why the venom?

__________________
"The errors of faith are better than the best thoughts of unbelief." - Thomas Russell

Are you deliberately or just selectively blind?

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

Happy 14,800th post! What a personal achievement!


As for your question, I just calls them as I sees them...

__________________
"The errors of faith are better than the best thoughts of unbelief." - Thomas Russell

I'm glad that you brought up legislating from the bench. Clarence Thomas, followed by the other conservative judges has been more willing to overturn legislation than any other justice.

Frankly, the whole term is nonsense and GOP gobbledygook.

At least Salon makes sense.

Should be interesting to see her view on illegal immigration, huh???

Personally, I'm not going to get all in a huff over the nomination. She'll get in no matter what we have to say about it. We'll just have to sit back and watch what happens.

I can see why people would have a problem with her saying her experience as a Latino women gives her better perspective than a white man, or whatever the quote was. Like another poster said, fill in the blanks from a white man saying he brings more than a black man. But, I can see both sides of the coin and not defend "my side" to the death.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Funny that the same thing that certain GOPers are using to pick at Sotomayor with is the same thing they raved about in Alito and Thomas.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

Honestly, I don't understand what all the hullabalo is about. I must be stupid.

__________________
I was walking home one night and a guy hammering on a roof called me a paranoid little weirdo. In morse code. -Emo Phillips

Whenever there's a new Supreme Court nomination, the other side will question it. And sometimes get downright nasty. Look how the Democrats treated Samuel Altio during his questioning. The Democrats have no reason to cry foul on this one because they've done far worse. Gosh, they had Altio's wife crying during their 'interrogation' of him.

I decided long ago not to talk poltics anymore. Mainly for reasons mentioned above. As I also have decided long ago I wanted Obama to be president he is and I am very happy, we needed a change. I honestly have not been very happy with every choice he has made, however he is human and I never expected him to be perfect. But for me the bottom line is he will be our president for the next 4 years like it or not. For some here I honestly feel they cannot fully except that fact. Which is okay because I had to deal with Bush for 8 years and sorry but I will not fight or argue, we all gave Bush a chance please please try to give Obama a chance. Afterall we do live in the greatest country we call home America....On a final note I honestly feel what separates us so much here and that no republicans can admit Bush did anything wrong, perhaps just perhaps things would be a but nicer here. Anyway again no fighting here just speaking my view and no fighting for me is the best. A sincere peace to all. Catherine

I am curious as to your definition of "long ago" ?

Minutes? Hours? Days? Months?

Again, curious.

dl

The only time that Alito's wife cried was after a question from Lindsey Graham who has a big fat R behind his name.

SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment. You had better believe that all candidates will face very tough questions. Mrs. Alito should probably have stayed home.

One thing that you won't find Dems doing is twisting a candidate's statements into something far removed from reality.

And, oooooooooo, what Liddy and Newt said won't endear any Latino to the GOP.

I'm just really, really, really happy to have Newt, Rush and Dick as the faces of the GOP. It's like my birthday and Christmas all rolled into one!

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

Is this your joke of the day??!! That one did make me laugh out loud!!!

What did they say? I don't keep up with what Newt has said and don't know enough about Liddy to even know what he would say.

Also the democrats tried to filibuster the nomination of Alito.

I wish they had filibustered.

And Glenn Beck, he's got to be certifiable.

TO answer deddlastt I would say one month or perhaps a bit longer I have not discussed politics for awhile now if I did perhaps you may find a post, even in the one above I did not get mad or angry just spoke my peace and it will be a long time before I do again because like I said I know who I voted for and why waste my time here arguing over a subject that is important to me. I will not change the minds of posters here to are againist Obama nor do I wish too. I would rather focus my time and energy into other posts, because to me its personal and upsetting so I rather jump in here and there and nothing major or mean spirited at all. Hope this answers your question. Peace. Catherine

I suppose that you are right in the sense that this is a limited audience with a certain demographic. But I've always considered these discussions as exemplary of a larger discussion going on in households around the country.

If you are satisfied that the discussions here aren't worthy of much personal investment because they are only "coupon boards," that's just fine.

As far as "venom," that will come at a later day, when hopefully this administration nominates a true liberal visionary, when all the conservatives will wring their shirts over issues that are flat out inconsequential, and I will blast them with my mighty laser vision of true blue velocity of righteousness.

I don't actually have "venom." I do have impatience. It is hard to watch people get their drawers in a knot over inconsequential things.

So, maybe we are a coupons board. Not much reason to pay attention to what anyone says, by that reasoning, because we are only a coupons board.

But, even on a coupons board, I feel free to say that those of you who are getting your drawers all knotted up are engaging in an exercise of futility. If that is how you want to spend your time, so be it. But I find it utterly stupid, and I feel free to say so.

But you don't have to pay much attention to what I say, because, after all, it is only a coupons board.