Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama picks Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
rawstory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:13 AM
Original message
Obama picks Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court
Edited on Tue May-26-09 07:39 AM by rawstory
Source: Raw Story

President Barack Obama has chosen Sonia Sotomayor as his choice to succeed Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court and will announce her nomination Tuesday at 10:15 AM ET.

An Administration official confirmed the report around 8:20 AM ET to CBS Matt Knoller.

If confirmed, Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic woman to sit on the Supreme Court.

DEVELOPING.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/26/obama-sonia-soto... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. I Am So Not Excited
Too much hype and hysteria in the media, too many really bad appointments already in critical offices by Obama, too much public stupidity on display in Congress.

It will be a disastrous appointment, unless we are very, very lucky. I don't think Obama knows how to play for keeps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Since when does he not know how to "play for keeps?"
Well you might not be excited, but that's your problem!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Sotomayor will be disastrous?
Are you just making this up or predicting the future? Or do you have anything to say about her judicial opinions, legal philosophy or qualifications?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
72. Well at least we can predict that baseball will be well adjudicated. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. in your opinion. hardly some undying truth.
I disagree. I think he's made lots of good appointments along with some mediocre ones and some I think are lousy. I certainly think more highly of his knowledge and ability to make a good SC pick than yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. No one's opinion, including Obama's (or yours), is "some undying truth."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
28. What !??!?!?!
A disastrous appointment? Are you kidding?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #28
90. That post was written long before any appointment, or even vacancy, was announced
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kid a Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
76. wow... do you know how foolish your post is? I am so unimpressed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #1
98. Name the really bad appointments.
I know you're going to say Geitner. But, who else? Who else are "the really bad appointments?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #98
163. OK...
Joseph Biden (gaffe-king and credit card whore)
Timothy Geithner (banker and economy destroyer placed in charge of Treasury)
Robert Gates (GW Bush Appointee for f*cks sake)
Eric Holder (the "look the other way on torture", "oppose Valerie Plame's lawsuit", and ____ fill-in-the-bank.... guy)
Tom Vilsack (Monsanto-boy, DLC, and all-around corporatist asshole)
Steven Chu ("clean-coal" advocate, fumbler/bumbler, and dud)
Rahm Emanuel (DLC sell-out extraordinaire)

I'm sure others can add more. But the important point is not that he made some bad appointments. It's that the country is teetering on the brink, had one shot at righting itself, and simply could not tolerate another four years of status-quo. We were at a time when we had to have the very best. And we didn't get it. We got poor to middling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #163
197. Pretend you're Obama and replace his appointments
with your own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
112. Your "concern" is duly noted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
180. what an embarrassing post
A wild prediction, the only basis is on other appointments, NOTHING AT ALL about the actual candidate.

Perhaps if there was something, ANYTHING about the actual candidate, you might have something. But you have nothing.

Why post garbage like this???

What has this website come to lately?

Disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
215. Another DOOM AND GLOOM post
by you. I so couldn't care less if you're "excited" or NOT.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
2. AP says it's Sotomayor. SCOTUS overdue for a Hispanic and another woman, IMO, but is she the
Edited on Tue May-26-09 07:52 AM by No Elephants
right, er, correct choice? For one thing, she is older than I hoped. For another, she is a Bush appointee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fluffdaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
26. Older then I would have like yes, Hopfully we will get 20 years of left leaning opinions out of her
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #26
34. Centrist opinions may be more likely, if descriptions of her are correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #34
56. I think the biggest litmus test for whether she's centrist is her position on corporate personhood!
Edited on Tue May-26-09 09:15 AM by cascadiance
THAT is the issue I want to focus attention on whether she supports it or not. If she does, I want her to be withdrawn!

But, perhaps there are some indications in her favor? An earlier thread asked about her stance on this... Perhaps a legal mind can explain this case a little more to extrapolate her opinion on corporate personhood, and whether its that relevant to it or not...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

This posting also cites this case as well. I think we really need to dig into it!

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/05/this-is-how...

This Is How Obstructionism For Obstructionism's Sake (And For Cash) Works To Undermine The Country

...

According to Charlie Savage in yesterday's NY Times the Republicans and their extreme right-wing allies are stockpiling ammunition to use against any of the frequently-mentioned prospects Obama is thought to be considering.

...

If he nominates Judge Sonia Sotomayor, they plan to accuse her of being willing to expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution.

...

Although the hard right religious radicals who get most worked up over nomination battles never quite understand the concept of separation of Church and State and are always bothering normal people about their religious conceptions and superstitions, the Republican Party's only real interest in this fight-- besides raking in dough from the suckers-- is to force Obama to pick a pro-corporatist judge. In the end that is the only qualification Republicans care about. Their brief against Sonia Sotomayor, for example, "cites a ruling in which she said a man could sue a private corporation for violating his constitutional rights while acting as a government contractor." That's an area where Republicans will never allow anyone to tread.

In 1886 an activist right wing judge made a wrongheaded pronouncement that has been a disaster for American working families ever since and that is the entire basis for Republican Party judicial "thought." The case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company appears to-- or has been interpreted to-- declare that a corporation is, legally, a person and hence protected by the 14th Amendment which guarantees the equal protection of the law. This misinterpretation of the law-- literally put forward by a court reporter!-- has changed the course of history by guaranteeing that rise of corporate rule and a drastic imbalance between powerful private corporations and society (ordinary citizens).

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livefreest Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #56
88. NOW, THIS IS WORTH DISCUSSING
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #56
91. The Problem with Using Corporate Personhood as a Litmus Test
is that to deny it would pretty much put her publicly on record against stare decisis. Not even conservative nominees are going to go that far.

I don't doubt corporate personhood is a bad idea and became law for dubious reasons. But it has to be changed the way other settled interpretations of the constitution are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #91
92. It never "became law" in the constitution. Only a court clerk felt it should be law!
Edited on Tue May-26-09 10:53 AM by cascadiance
And that was a court clerk who was part of the executive leadership of a railroad company earlier... How are court clerks appointed? Perhaps we could get another court clerk to be appointed stealthily to overturn this decision, that would subsequently REQUIRE SCOTUS to rule on it. Then they would find that both opinions conflict with each other, and both are from court clerks, then perhaps they might throw out both and have corporate personhood struck down, without violating stare decisis for other cases such as Roe v. Wade, which were decided by judges' decisions, and not by a court clerk.

We can talk "pragmatics here" and try to rationalize "it will never happen if its public", but I think this could also also be a good test to see if Obama has the capacity to stand up to the corporate hegemony on Capitol hill or if he will continue to back down and follow their wishes to be "bipartisan". This is a critical issue in terms of one that will affect us long after he's president. I hope he realizes that and if he's waiting for a good moment to start taking on the corporate infrastructure in Washington, this might be a good time to do it.

For me, this issue is far more important than whether the candidate is a woman or a person of color (though I think those are also very important attributes too). For me, this is where we need to start taking down Korporate Amerika that we've been suffering so long from. If we don't do this soon, it may never be resolved in a peaceful manner, and I fear the backlash of consequences might not be "democratic" later when the people get fed up with corporate rule to the point of desperation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #92
96. It May Have Been True at the Time
that only a court clerk thought so, but over a century later there are hundreds of precedents. You are not going to find people anywhere near the legal mainstream who are going to say they will rule on the basis that corporate personhood is not law. I don't like it either, but that's where we find ourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #96
100. If it is brought up as an issue protecting stare decisis without legislation to take it down...
Edited on Tue May-26-09 11:14 AM by cascadiance
... then perhaps that will have the added benefit of forcing congress to define it so that it can no longer be supported as law.

I understand the motive of keeping the convention to support what has been supported over and over again in other court rulings. But this is flawed, and is at the source of many of the problems our nation faces now. It NEEDS to be overturned! Now if we need to think through of the effects of such a ruling or legislation going through congress, etc. before changing the rules, so be it. But at some point we need to get back to the country being ruled by people and not "We the corporations" any more...

By bringing this up, we either force the Republicans to back away from Roe v. Wade (if they don't want to lose corporate personhood as a result of throwing out state decisis when it comes to Roe v. Wade), or we deal with the whole consequences of stare decisis, and whether it really even applies to a case where it wasn't the court itself that made the ruling into law, but a conflict of interest-plagued court clerk who did so in his wording of a consequential headnote. Either way, we win if done this way. If we continue to avoid discussing this, and only the Rethugs beat the drum of "being true to the constitution", it will mislead the public more and more falsely that the Democrats don't believe in constitutional law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #56
135. corporate personhood...100%?
Edited on Tue May-26-09 12:38 PM by AlbertCat
"cites a ruling in which she said a man could sue a private corporation for violating his constitutional rights while acting as a government contractor."

I'm sorry, this is confusing. Is the "man" acting as a government contractor? That's what the sentence seems to say, with the qualifier placed where it is. Actually it could mean his constitutional rights are acting as a government contractor. I suppose the private corporation is the thing acting as a government contractor but, Jesus, what a poorly written sentence. This is law....write clearly.

If a corporation is indeed a person, then it should be treated like one, tax-wise and, if guilty of a crime, sentence-wise. Let's say a corporation is responsible for a death. Should it get the death penalty? Life Imprisonment? Of course that's absurd. I suppose if KBR was found responsible for say electrocuting US soldiers, the company should be dissolved forever (life imprisonment) and its assets go...where?


Anyway, the very idea of REAL corporate personhood quickly becomes absurd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #135
137. Yeah, this ruling is a bit confusing to me...
Edited on Tue May-26-09 12:46 PM by cascadiance
It was cited in that other DU link here as an example of a place to look for those interested in her stances on "corporate personhood".

I was hoping there were others out there with far better legal minds than mine who could at least offer an opinion if her role in this case reveals any sort of propensity to rule in favor of or against corporate personhood.

For me, earlier when I was looking at Erwin Chemerinsky, I found his opinion in the Nike case a lot clearer for me that he'd side against corporate "free speech", which had him on my list of favorites for the job then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #56
172. I disagree that that is an important litmus test. Things like separation of church and
state, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, right to counsel, due process, right to freedom from torture, etc. are much more important to me. If we can preserve them for humans, I'll be thrilled, even if corporations get some of them, too.

Corporations need free speech because newspapers, TV snd radio stations and other media outlets are often corporations. And they should get due process, IMO.

Most of the other things I mentioned, like torture and habeas corpus, don't apply to corporations anyway. In sum, I am much more concerned that my rights and yours are protected than I am that corporations may share a few of those rights with us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #172
201. It is because it is NOT a constitutional protection!
Edited on Tue May-26-09 04:40 PM by cascadiance
amongst other things... "Corporate Personhood" was a right "given" to corporations by a court clerk falsely drawing such conclusions from a case where justices didn't make this conclusion (even in a "judicial activist" way that affects other decisions). This person had conflicts of interest since he was a board member of a railroad company before working as a court clerk too.

If corporations *should* have "free speech" laws that is a job for congress to work out in newer legislation authorizing such and qualifying where such protections apply and where they don't, because they ARE NOT human beings, and don't have the same limitations/strengths that human beings have, and therefore they shouldn't derive from the rights humans INHERENTLY HAVE ALREADY that we deem they have because they are physically human beings.

Now whether they need these rights is a completely separate issue. There are many of us here who say that "corporate personhood" "rights" that are given improperly are at the root of so many of the other problems you mention as well as many others that really are critical and arguably is at the root of our pay to play corruption that has screwed up our economy, had us in so many wars, etc.

Look at the issues you mention:
1) freedom of speech - this is curtailed by a corporate press which stands in the way for us to have *equal* speech to what the corporations have if corporations own the communication paths we have with one another and with our government in society.

2) rights to habeus corpus, due process, and right to freedom from torture arguably is also affected by "corporate personhood" rights, that allow those mega companies that control the press control our perceptions of the wars we get in, that keep us in these perpetual wars, justify them on false means, that lends itself to torturing people to yield false confessions to justify these wars that feed the corporate troughs...

3) A lot of these separation of church and state issues are those where a corrupt government owned by governments continues to use stupid right wing Christians to vote for their corrupt agenda by rewarding them with passing religious changes to our laws to appease them and to continue to use them to put in place their agenda that works against all of our interests.

4) meaningful public campaign financing will never get passed unless we get rid of "corporate free speech". Until we get rid of that we'll always have a system of campaign institutionalized bribery that we call "legal" campaign financing.

5) we will never get single payer health care unless we get rid of this campaign institutionalized bribery from health insurance and pharma companies.

6) we won't get domestic spying to end (or get justified in newer laws that now make it legal) if we don't get rid of the campaign institutionalized bribery that is getting congress to immunize our telecomm companies.

7) we'll continue to have lax enforcement of illegal employment of illegal immigrants that steals away the middle class's jobs with the continued campaign institutionalized bribery in place.

8) we'll continue to have unfettered free trade agreements that build institutions like the WTO that allow corporations to supersede nation's laws to get their race to the bottom in terms of profits/costs and messing up our environment as long as we have continued campaign institutionalized bribery in place. This along with corporate welfare of agriculture subsidies (also created by continued campaign institutionalized bribery in place) puts many farmers in South America to sell of their farms to their nations' elites, and instead working in outsourcing company locations there until the companies decide to move someplace else where its cheaper, forcing them to... move up here to work!

In short, you can see (and I've just touched the surface on the many issues) that our corporatocracy is the ROOT of most of our problems today. If we get a decent SCOTUS nominee that will help take away some of these ARTIFICIALLY given "rights" they have (which should be doable in a legal fashion), they hopefully will be less controlled by the continued campaign institutionalized bribery system that the executive and justice branches are plagued by, and when we get enough justices working this way, we can at least have the courts start to fix our system and pave the way for the executive and legislative branches to follow.

I'm not disagreeing with your other priorities being important. I am saying though that this is a fundamental key to all of these issues that needs to get fixed, for us to really do more than just apply "bandaids" to our problems today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #56
222. The US Constitution is a limit on GOVERNMENT RIGHTS, not PERSONAL RIGHTS
Jesus Homer Christ I am sick of living in a fascist power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #34
143. I agree, this goes along with our president's move towards center.
I am not saying that is a bad thing for a president, it just is not very progressive. President Obama wants to be relected again and he has to move to the middle to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #143
166. I don't think Obama has to move to get to the center. And I don't think it has to do only with
Edited on Tue May-26-09 02:42 PM by No Elephants
re-election, although that is part of it.

Obama knew how to say things during the primary to make himself seem like the candidate of the left. However, if you look at his voting record, whether in the Senate or in Illinois, you don't see votes that are out of the mainstream. And I don't expect him to be any bolder in his seond term, when his own re-election will not be an issue, than he is now.

It's about getting and keeping the Party in power, and the two parties get more alike by the day. We almost have a one party system; and it breaks my heart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
31. Clinton appointed her to the Court of Appeals
Bush 41 appointed her to the district court. In those days, there was a deal in NY where the Senator from the party occupying the WH "suggested" two judges and the other Senator got to "suggest" one. Moynihan "suggested" her. She's no Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. Who said she was a Republican? However, if Bush appointed her, she certainly cannot be
very far left; and that conclusion agrees with online descriptions of her as a centrist. Remember, Bush appointed Scalia and Thomas and considered Souter to have betrayed him once appointed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #35
48. Daniel Patrick Moynihan "appointed" her, not Bush Sr.
Edited on Tue May-26-09 08:55 AM by HamdenRice
That was the deal back when she was appointed -- the NY Senators chose and the president rubber stamped. The repugs were firmly against her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #48
168. Please, I don't believe for a second that it was that clear cut and Bush 41 had no say at
Edited on Tue May-26-09 02:53 PM by No Elephants
all. There was a process before Bush ever made the formal nomination public. However, whatever. Her appointment to the U.S. District Court is ancient history. The salient, current issue far left or right her actual decisions from the bench have been.

Everything I've read said she is a centrist, which these days seems to mean more right than left. That is not what the Court needs right now, IMO, not with Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas being so far right, Ginsburg in her seventies and ailing, Breyer in his 70's and Stevens--a true centrist-- in his 90's. A true, vigorous progressive is needed to start to counterbalance the far right decisions of the Chief Justice and his unholy trinity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #35
57. I don't think you get it
In those days in NY there was an agreement to prevent blocking nominations to the federal bench. When a Republican was President, D'Amato appointed two out of every three federal judges and Moynihan appointed one out of every three. If a Democrat was President, it would have been the reverse. Bush 41 then basically submitted the nominations to the Senate. Yes, she probably is not "very far left" because no one on the federal bench is, but centrist is not a fair description either. Using the "she was appointed by Bush" line against her is both unfair and wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #57
174. Sorry, what you are saying is simply not Constitutionally possible. A single Senator cannot
Edited on Tue May-26-09 03:12 PM by No Elephants
nominate a judge, only the President can. Then, the full Senate votes on the nominee.

Whatever the custom may have been then as to nominees, Moynihan had to bring the name to Bush 41 and Bush 41, and only Bush 41, had to make the nomination. Believing that Moynihan brought Bush 41 only one name and Bush simply rubber stamped that name, no matter how far left the person may have been, is naive, IMO. Disagreeing with you does not mean I don't "get" something. It simply means I do not necessarily accept your view of things.

Also, please see Reply #168.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #174
182. HamdenRice is correct
All District Court judge selections in NY were basically rubber stamped by Bush 41 when D'Amato and Moynihan were Senators. I am well aware that only the Executive can send the letter of nomination to the Senate. So what?

Which of her opinions, actions, views or decisions lead you to call her a centrist?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #182
217. The poster is knee jerking and
has no idea what its talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #35
165. Didn't Bush appoint Souter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #165
176. Yes, and Bush's position is that Souter betrayed him, as I had posted in Reply #35.
Edited on Tue May-26-09 03:18 PM by No Elephants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlexanderProgressive Donating Member (238 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #176
223. You don't mention that Clinton promoted Sotomayor
to the Court of Appeals. Bill Clinton was not a wingnut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlexanderProgressive Donating Member (238 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #35
220. Bush appointed Souter, a very liberal judge
Often judges do not follow the ideology of the President who appoints them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #220
235. Didn't Ike appoint Warren?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #31
65. Moynihan wasn't much of a Democrat, either . . .!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
114. 54 is too old??? OMFG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kegler14 Donating Member (541 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #114
156. She has type 1 diabetes and so is at much higher risk
for things like heart problems. Cuts down on expected lifespan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #156
199. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #114
177. Given how young Bush 43's appointees were, yes, I would have preferred a younger judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
waiting for hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
126. Bush also appointed Souter ...
The jury is still out for me ..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #126
179. Please see Reply # 35.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
waiting for hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #179
221. Got it - and Sandra Day O'Connor
was a real disappointment for Reagan. The only thing I'm liking right now about this nomination is that it puts the right in a pickle - hit her too hard and then you may have some backlash from the Hispanic/Woman's vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WyLoochka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
4. At the same time as the CA
Supreme Court announcement on gay marriage? Which will get more hysterical coverage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InfiniteThoughts Donating Member (322 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
7. seems like a good choice ..
Sonia, considered a centrist (lots of refs available in wikipedia on the topic) and appointed to the southern district court by Bush I, was instrumental in breaking the deadlock in the 1994 baseball strike.

i don't see too much to dislike, see a lot of things that i like. Wonder how the repubs are going to attack this nomination?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Killer Joe is calling her "The Most Liberal Pick"
What bullshit. Already the Right Wing Pre$$titute$ are attacking her full force!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InfiniteThoughts Donating Member (322 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. that's finalizes it for me ...
Edited on Tue May-26-09 08:08 AM by InfiniteThoughts
It helped me make my mind. Till now, i was waiting to see if the right wing can provide a meaningful criticism that will showcase any of her weakness. Since the right wing had none, they indulge in the rhetoric shrill complaints.

Thanks Killer Joe. Your NAY vote helped me ease all my concerns on the nomination ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #18
36. He has not yet voted; and I would not base anything on Lieberman, one way or the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #36
55. Um...
I'm pretty sure he means Scarborough...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #55
181. Um....
Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #18
50. Yes Yes for her ~ If Boring Joe says No ,I say Yes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbonds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #50
61. You do realize that Joe would say that about ANY pick Obama made.
He was only waiting to fill in the name of the pick to say it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #61
150. I do realize ~ he is trying for the #1 Thug slot
that Rush now has in his dirty hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #61
152. That goes for almost any pick The President picks.
They will sing it in unison.

Lemmings one and all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dana_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #9
78. that ass would say that anyone Obama chooses is
the most liberal pick! Spew nonsensical shit, spew nonsensical shit. That is his job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #9
105. OMG, The party in power gets to have its say?
makes you wonder where was their sense of fairness while W was appointing people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #7
23. The New Haven firefighters' case will be front and center of their attack
Especially with a ruling expected on it within about the next month. Expect to hear the term "reverse discrimination" a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #23
38. I hope the SCOTUS finds a way to avoid reversing her, maybe by remanding for more findings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #23
68. Have they ever given any evidence of "reverse discrimination" . .. ???
Pretty tricky of women and minorities to be out there discriminating against those
who hold all the power!!

The discrimination of reverse discrimination . . . !

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #68
202. Expect them to trot out arguments
we've heard since the Bakke case of thirty years ago. I'm reasonably familiar with some of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Are_grits_groceries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
8. This will be the chance for the
Republicans to really step in it and lose the growing Hispanic vote for a brazillion years. Somebody will take a cheap shot about ethnicity and that will be all IMHO.
I hope Rahm has gagged Ben Nelson and has him in the trunk of somebody's car for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. I thought the same thing.
It's perfect bait to make the racists expose themselves to the condemnation of the world, driving Latinos away from the GOP for good.

The quip about Rahm stuffing Ben Nelson in a trunk = LOL!!! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Are_grits_groceries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. It was the nicest thing that
I could think of. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. Latina... they fight hard against her, they lose the vote forever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mystieus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #17
97. And we have a winner!! lock thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #11
24. That asshole belongs in a trunk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #8
30. I think even the Republicans are too savvy to make a cheap remark about her ethnicity. They have
been jealously eyeing the state with the most electoral votes in the nation every time it goes blue. And they see the pro-life Catholics of that state, many of whom are "Hispanic" as their ticket to California. That, and their constant efforts to get California to split its electoral votes.

For the 2000 election, Rove targeted ALL minorities, Hispanics being the "first among equals," for their sheer numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Are_grits_groceries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #30
37. At this point,
Edited on Tue May-26-09 08:35 AM by Are_grits_groceries
Republicans and savvy are two words I wouldn't put together. I know there are some of them that will have a clue. There are too may of them off the ranch. If Virginia Fox doesn't say something noteworthy then Steve King will. They are in the House, but that won't matter.
Then there are Rush and Michael Steele.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #37
42. I hope you're more correct than I am, but people on the edge of a cliff tend to watch
where they put their feet. And if they don't, other members of their climbing party will make them. We'll see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #30
120. The smart ones won't make cheap ones. But how
many smart Republicans are left? We could start betting on which of the hatetalkers will be the first to make an ethnic slur. Glenn Beck has to be a top condendor. But I'm putting my money on Laura Ingraham. She seems to be on a track lately to try and outrun Ann Coulter in the flamethrower category.
And there's always the dark horse, Joe Scarborough. Plus, Michael Steele just can't seem to speak without saying something idiotic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #120
183. Oh, I meant elected Republicans or Steele. Limbaugh and his kind--I make no comment on
them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #183
196. But isn't LImbaugh the leader of the Republican Party?
Oh, I forgot. He resigned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #183
219. foxx and bachman are elected
and both are batshit crazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bettyellen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #30
155. they were already dog whistling.. she's an affirmative action pick- not that bright...
mouthy, emotional. chosen because of her "profile".
i hope they keep it up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emsimon33 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
52. lol--but too true
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InfiniteThoughts Donating Member (322 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #8
103. Ben Nelson comment ... real funny
Edited on Tue May-26-09 11:26 AM by InfiniteThoughts
your comment made me go :rofl: and folks around me didn't take it too well ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
129. I can just imagine Rahm
Edited on Tue May-26-09 12:11 PM by fujiyama
with a baseball bat, covering Nelson's mouth with duck tape...stuffing him in the trunk...

Sorry, that made me laugh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
10. WTF! How does she represent me? The last guy inserted two white males.
This is obviously an attack on straight white men like myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JayMusgrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. I love your humor!
Many straight white men will feel very neglected with only 5 of them on the SCOTUS!!!!

But, then again, we don't know if they are all "straight"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #10
39. Yep. And about damn time, too! (j/k) Fortunately, the SCOTUS is supposed to
Edited on Tue May-26-09 08:39 AM by No Elephants
be above all that, but, IMO, it does not hurt for the bench to be a lot more reflective of the nation than it was before appointment of Justice Thurgood Marshall. To the contrary, it probably helps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #10
104. This is a great opportunity for progressive views to really come forward.
Now we can have true control over the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
15. A centrist. What a surprise.
Republicans appoint wingnuts and we counter with a centrist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. And the republicans
will call her liberal. As the country lurches right, we lefties have less ground to defend, having given up so much so readily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #20
190. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fluffdaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #15
22. Prove she's a centrist? please post links of her "centrist" opinions
Edited on Tue May-26-09 08:15 AM by Fluffdaddy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #22
161. She is considered a political centrist by the American Bar Association Journal & the New York Time
Edited on Tue May-26-09 02:09 PM by Lasher
A political centrist, the Bronx-born Sotomayor has been regarded as a potential high court nominee by several presidents, both Republican and Democrat. ABA Jounrnal, 04/30/09

In 1992, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended the politically centrist lawyer (Sotomayor) to President George H. W. Bush, making good on a longstanding promise to appoint a Hispanic judge in New York. The New York Times, 05/26/09


I don't see how it would contribute anything meaningful to the discussion if I were to offer an analysis of her opinions, as the American Bar Association and the New York Times are more qualified to make this judgment. And most likely more qualified than you as well.

And for those who have chosen to pile on downthread to cite current opposition of Republican groups as evidence she is not a centrist: This reaction was anticipated if the nominee had been anywhere to the left of Dick Cheney.

Edit to add blockquote parameters for clarity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #15
51. Really? The head of the liberal Constitution Accountability Center has high praise for Sotomayor.
Edited on Tue May-26-09 09:04 AM by ClarkUSA
"We already know that she is a brilliant lawyer who is committed to ruling based on the Constitution and the law, not on her own personal political views," said Doug Kendall, president of the liberal Constitution Accountability Center, in an e-mailed statement this morning.

However, she is strongly opposed by conservative groups, who -- like her supporters -- began to issue statements criticizing her nomination even before it was announced. And even the Obama administration had differed with one of her more controversial decisions.

"Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written," said Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, in a statement e-mailed to reporters this morning. "She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one's sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #51
59. "she is strongly opposed by conservative groups"
Edited on Tue May-26-09 09:34 AM by GreenArrow
Surely you don't believe that Obama could select anyone -- other than actual conservatives -- that conservative groups would support. In other words, unless the pick is a self defined conservative, conservative groups are not going to support, at least initially, any Obama nominee, whether a moderate, or gasp, an actual liberal.

I don't know enough about this judge to offer an opinon, but based on Obama's cabinet picks, etc, I doubt she's a flame throwing liberal. I'm not getting my hopes up. If she ends up being no worse than Souter, or as good as Souter, she'll be a decent pick, so far as things go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #59
128. Sotomayor ruled in favor of minimum wage for homeless workers in class action suit
Edited on Tue May-26-09 12:39 PM by ClarkUSA
Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

This, plus her baseball and her New Haven fire department rulings all sound like pretty progressive to me.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bettyellen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #59
153. so your opinion of her is based only on the Prez's other appointments, LOL?
w/ friends like you...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #153
232. "my opinion of her"
Edited on Wed May-27-09 10:06 AM by GreenArrow
Actually, I said I didn't know enough about her to offer an opinion. I'll probably wait until her confirmation hearings to do so. From what I have seen, she seems rather moderate, with perhaps a slight leftward lean. Unless it's a Robert Bork clone, the pubs aren't going to like anyone Obama picks, but a moderate will prove easier to confirm. This President hasn't shown that he's yet willing to make bold picks, so based on his previous picks -- a perfectly reasonable gauge -- I think it's a safe assumption that he sees her as a safe pick. If she gets confirmed, we'll all see how she does. Souter certainly ended up being a lot better than expected.

As for "friends like me," no President -- or any other politician for that matter -- has my blanket, unquestioning support. My allegiances are a little broader than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #51
184. Quoting conservative groups to try to prove she is liberal does not do it. They consider anyone
Edited on Tue May-26-09 03:39 PM by No Elephants
left of Scalia too liberal. Maybe make that left of Hitler.

As far as Constitutional Accountability, I believe you are quoting from something posted after Obama nominated her. I don't know why that organization would ever oppose Obama's nominee. And I don't think it describes her as liberal anyway. And the Constitutional Accountablity description of her makes her sound like a strict constructionist, which is what Scalia claims to be, as follows:

"While CACs review of Judge Sotomayors record is continuing, we already know that she is a brilliant lawyer who is committed to ruling based on the Constitution and the law, not on her own personal political views. As Judge Sotomayor herself stated in a recent dissenting opinion: The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #15
70. A woman is good . . .
Edited on Tue May-26-09 09:57 AM by defendandprotect
I'm a little concerned about her comment on the Constitution being what it is . . .

Does that mean she wouldn't have voted for Brown vs Board of Education?

Cause I don't see that case mentioned in the Constititution, specifically!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #15
84. I don't like far lefties either. a centralist is fine with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #84
185. You are entitled to prefer a centrist. However, the choices are not only centrist or "far leftie."
There is a lot of distance between those two poles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #15
121. Why are you defining her as a centrist?
I believe we need a defense of your statement. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #121
164. Here is why:
Please consider this upthread response. I appreciate the polite challenge. We can disagree without being disagreeable. And there is value in fair debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #164
171. Thanks for the link. Her decisions don't
seem centrist to me. I guess centrist is in the eye of the beholder. I like what I see on her decisions. I guess I'm a centrist! Who knew?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #171
175. Keep in mind, the Republican noise machine is in high gear right now.
They are doing their best to characterize her as a radical leftist. When (not if) they go along with her appointment they will try to make it look like they are not obstructionist asses after all. But in reality, Obama is playing to the center again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #175
195. Thanks for all the links. Very informative
I appreciate your taking the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #171
186. Bar Associations would review all her decisions before coming up with a description, not just one or
two. And they would perform that review with a lot of legal knowledge. Also, the American Bar Association has rated every single SCOTUS nominee for a very long time and they compare one against the other.

I have not seen anything on the net that describes her as anything other than a centrist. Then again, I have not done exhaustive research because I trust the American Bar Association as to SCOTUS nominations. Have you seen anything describing her as a liberal judge that is not sourced to Republicans with an axe to grind?

If you prefer a centrist, that's fine. You are certainly entitled. IMO, though, the SCOTUS desperately needs a true liberal at this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
16. Get ready for Republican nut jobs
using the term "activist judges" on repeat for the next few months. Boy, they are tired.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. Faux News: She's "too liberal"!!! RNC gears up for fundraising and a fight. Alert the teabaggers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JayMusgrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #21
49. Teabaggers are lining up. This will be their big issue for the year
They will say she's "not" an American, born in Puerto Rico.

They will make themselves totally irrelevant over this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:05 AM
Original message
McCain was born in Panama too...
Is Puerto Rico less of a part of the United States than Panama is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
188. Supposedly (and probably). McCain was born on a U.S. base in Panama to two U.S.
citizens. Atlhough the SCOTUS has not ruled on that precise issue, I do believe it would rule that he is "a natural born citizen" for purposes of qualifying for the Presidency under Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution. However, I don't think that McCain and qualification for the Presidency has much to do with Sotomayor or qualifying for the SCOTUS. I don't think the CCOTUS even requires judges to be citizens, let alone "natural born" citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #188
208. Yeah, I wonder what the right wing would do with someone like me...
Edited on Tue May-26-09 05:02 PM by cascadiance
... since I really WAS born in Indonesia, albeit by two American citizens like McCain was in Panama. If I were to run (I never would), it would be a good acid test to see how much of their crap is just trying to play the "terrorist" spin card just because they don't like me as a "leeberal", versus trying to look at the real facts any place. And I could of course then ask them, which country did the U.S. last attack, Panama or Indonesia? Now, who was born in a "terrorist state", McCain or myself (or allegedly Obama)? Anyway, none of that would happen, but it's fun speculating how far these idiots will/would go!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iris27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #188
231. Except Puerto Rico is US soil. No customs forms needed to mail stuff there,
no passport, etc. Anyone born there is a citizen just like anyone born in Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #49
233. Sonia Sotomayor was born in The Bronx NY
Her parents were born in Puerto Rico.

They will say what they say, no doubt, but they will also be corrected and ridiculed. Fun!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crowman1979 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #21
67. If Faux News hates it, then you know it's good!
Give her the seat already! Rethugs be damned!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #67
189. Not really. Faux News hates anyone left of O'Reilly.There is a lot of territory between that
and a progressive or liberal Democrat.

According to all I've seen on the net, Sotomayor's decisions are fine, if you prefer centrists. If you prefer progressives or liberals, you may be disappointed. In any event. Faux News is not a standard by which to judge Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #21
145. Typical fund raising tactic. They have to say this. Did you expect them to be overjoyed?
Edited on Tue May-26-09 01:01 PM by wisteria
They need to feign outrage in order to keep the money flowing in. I doubt she is a liberal and see her has someone more towards the middle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FailureToCommunicate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
19. Thank God we still have legal/intellectual GIANTS like Thomas and Scalia!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
25. Excellent, from Raw:
Edited on Tue May-26-09 08:22 AM by elleng
'Her baseball ruling in 1995 was among the most important moments of her career. Because of her position on the bench in New York, she was put in the position to essentially decide the future of the sport she so loved.

Acknowledging the pivotal moment, Sotomayor described how it is "when you see an outfielder backpedaling and jumping up to the wall and time stops for an instant as he jumps up and you finally figure out whether it's a home run, a double or a single off the wall or an out."

Then she scolded baseball owners for unfair labor practices and urged lawyers for striking players and the owners to salvage the 1995 season, reach a new labor agreement and change their attitudes.'


EMPATHY, anyone????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
27. I think she's a great choice too.
It's time for white males to get used to the fact they aren't the masters of the universe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoonzang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
29. Too old...but whatev. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. She's 55. That's on the outer edge, imo, but not too old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FailureToCommunicate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #33
41. "Don't trust anyone over thirty" Or is it twenty? Wait, what did I come in here for?
Hey look, a chicken!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #33
191. It is old in comparison to Dummya's picks. I was hoping for someone who is
actuarily likely to outlast them, just in case Obama is followed by a Repug. (And Sotomayor has Type I Diabetes.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RebelOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #29
40. Why is she too old? She has at least 15 to 20 more years. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #40
134. She's also a type 1 diabetic
which I think knocks quite a few years off your life expectancy, doesn't it?

I'm not thrilled... She's miles better than anyone we've gotten out of Bush but I'd prefer to see someone 40, in perfect health and unassailably pro-choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #40
192. It is not so much that she is too old in the abstract. It is that Dummya's appointees were so
young. Ideally, Obama's appointees would be at least as young as Roberts and Alito were, if not younger, so as to have a good actuarial likelihood of outlasting them by as much as possible. However, Sotomayor is not only older than they were when appointed but is also a Type I Diabetic. In her actuarial favor is her gender, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #29
79. Much younger and she wouldn't have enough experience. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #79
203. How much is enough? At 45, a lawyer could have 20 or more
years experience; and you don't even need to be a lawyer or a judge to be a SCOTUS Justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #203
216. Clarence Thomas was woefully underqualified.
I'm sure the Democrats would have opposed him much more strongly if he weren't African American.

But the Rethugs wouldn't have any similar reservations against a minority candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernlights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #29
93. I'm 55 -- there's a LOT to be said for it...
Wisdom gained through hard experience. Something the snotnoses sorely lack. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoonzang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #93
102. My nose has stopped running with snot years ago. Well maybe like 3 years ago, but that's beside
the point. I'm sure she's a great pick with more experience than any SC nominee in a very long time. I'm just looking towards the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #93
206. Realistically, your vote on the SCOTUS is going to be with the right or the left. It
will have to do more with your politics than with your wisdom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
32. K&R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
43. There's one huge problem with Sotomayor
She's a Yankees fan.

That alone may be a disqualifying factor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. HUGH DRAWBACK!!11 Impeach Obama - I wanted a METS fan!!1!
Edited on Tue May-26-09 08:51 AM by HamdenRice
The Yankees are PURE EVIL INCARNATE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emsimon33 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #46
53. Settle only for a Red Sox fan! Yankees!!! Oh no!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #46
131. Hey, the radical right takes shit like that seriously!
Remember how they all went ballistic over mustard? If any of them are
bright enough to figure out the difference between a Supreme Court
appointment and mustard, we'll be in for it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gmudem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #46
167. She's a Yankees fan?
Awesome. The court could use some pinstriped robes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #43
106. Oh man. I wish I didn't know that!
Oh well. I actually have a few friends who are Yankee fans.

We'll think about it as another exercise in diversity, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #106
118. I can't help but think it calls her judgement into question
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronatchig Donating Member (350 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
44. a question
Is this judge a member of the federalist cabal ...er society?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. No. I don't think it had been founded yet when she was at Yale, plus she's a Democrat. nt
Edited on Tue May-26-09 08:53 AM by HamdenRice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #47
193. Her time at Yale has nothing to do with it. The Federalist Society is not only for students. It is
Edited on Tue May-26-09 04:27 PM by No Elephants
unlikely that she is a member, though, because that organization is peopled by conservatives. Bottom line, though, neither you nor I can say for sure that she was never a member.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
45. Nice, very nice. He had a lot of qualified people to choose from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riona Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
54. Okay folks..
We have an evil, centrist Yankee fan with one foot in the grave. Oh yes, and Rahm in a trunk. Well, I'm entertained.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
58. Very happy with this nomination.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
60. Another Catholic on the Supreme Court. This makes SIX out of NINE.
Edited on Tue May-26-09 09:54 AM by onehandle
LOL!

She's a great pick all around.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #60
63. Not all Catholics are FREAKS. There's such an entity as a "liberal Catholic."
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #63
66. Yes, I know. I'm one of them. nt
Edited on Tue May-26-09 09:57 AM by onehandle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #66
69. Cool, same here. But under DEEP COVER in my right-wing Parish.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #63
71. It would be better to have a Judge who believes in her own right to
personal conscience and self-determination rather than a Pope's rule.

That would certainly help with deciding Constitutional issues --

and then there's the not minor issue of the Catholic Church's war on women.

Let's hope she's a turncoat, pretending in the pews?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #71
101. You can be a Catholic and personally "pro-life" without IMPOSING those beliefs on others.
Many liberal Catholics believe that morality can NOT be legislated and understand that not everyone is of our faith.

Before my father died, he regretted the fact that he could not find a faith that he could believe in. I told him, "Dad, I pray every day and I know in my heart that you will go to Heaven because you have been so good to others."

Liberal Catholics don't JUDGE others based on their religion but only try to set an example personally, without fanfare.

I hope this helps because it's hard to explain how one can stay Catholic yet endure the patriarchal system that is SO WRONG for many? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #101
110. Yes, absolutely
And I admire those who can stay to fight. I couldn't - and joined the Episcopal church.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #101
154. You could be . . .
Edited on Tue May-26-09 01:26 PM by defendandprotect
except Scalia and Thomas are rather poor examples of that --
and organized patriarchal religions all over the world are poor examples of
your suggested non-eforcement.

Prop 8 is also a poor example of the religious minded minding their own busiess ...
rather organized patrarichal religions have long reached out to impose their ideas
on democratic goverments and societies.

Indeed, the war on "Choice" is obviously to control Catholic women and their families
-- who have abortions at the same rate as any other women -- as much as others.
The Church is reaching out beyond the church to control all of society --
always has been.

The Vatican/RCC long supported "death to infidels" which included the native Americans
and Africans enslaved here. These issues have always applied more to pocket-book issues
than any "morality."

Further, the Crusades were a "MORAL STEP BACKWARDS FOR HUMANITY" ...
and also introduced new precedents in violence/torture/cruelty!

Prayer is an attempt to influence the fates --

As the native Americans says . . . "the only real prayer is for wisdom" --


Liberal Catholics don't JUDGE others based on their religion but only try to set an example personally, without fanfare.

As long as "liberal" Catholics continue to support this anti-female, anti-homosexual church
they are not setting any example except one of intolerance.

I hope this helps because it's hard to explain how one can stay Catholic yet endure the patriarchal system that is SO WRONG for many?

It's hard to explain, because it makes no sense --

but then, who ever said that religion was good for mental health?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #101
198. The issue is, will the Pope say you are an obedient Catholic if you are pro-choice? That
seems debatable at best at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #71
109. Many, many, many Catholics are
And believe in the primacy of personal conscience. In fact, that is Catholic dogma - though the jackbooted boys in Rome would prefer to forget it.

I wouldn't ever just assume that being Catholic leads a person to particular political positions. It's always likely to get you in trouble!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #109
200. How people self-describe is one thing. What your parish priest and/or the Pope say may
be totally different, though.

Kerry is Catholic and has never had an abortion, nor will he ever have one. Yet, a priest wanted to refuse him Communion. And I wonder with whom Benedict would side, if consulted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #200
218. Well, I'm pretty sure I can guess
but most American Catholics don't spend a great deal of time worrying about Benedict at all. And don't even give too much concern to what their parish priest might have to say.

Despite the authoritarian structure of the RCC, many American Catholics are not walking in lock-step with Rome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #63
141. Otherwise known as "Catholics destined for Hell."
As I well know, since I'm one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #60
64. That is a concern...
We already have a Catholic court. 5 out of 9 is bad enough. 6 of 9?

I hope Obama looked carefully on what her position on Roe v Wade might be. All it takes is 5 of the 6 Catholics to reverse it.

She will be on the Supreme Court. The Republicans cannot afford to oppose the first Hispanic. It would be the end of the Republican Party since many Hispanics in states like California and Florida and Texas do vote for "family values" which of course takes us back to the matter of what her position on Roe v Wade might be.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #64
74. I could easily say that Catholics are overrepresented on the Court . . .
especially considering the fanatics Thomas and Scalia -- both with dangerously authoritarian

ideas -- and then there's the little matter of Thomas' sexual perversions.

Sounds like the church, itself!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #74
115. He's not perverted...
Just a little kinky.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #64
170. Well, since Catholics as a whole voted for Obama by 53%, we're not all RW antichoicers
"Catholics" are easily the least politically cohesive religious bloc in the United States. American Catholics are everywhere from the far left priests and nuns who picket the School of the Americas to the uber-RW fascist Bill Donohue, and everywhere in between. Of COURSE GWB chose the RW-nut "Catholics" for his SCOTUS picks. If Bush had picked a right-wingnut neocon Jew, would DU be terrified of Jewish justices all of a sudden?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
62. I like it! I like her. :-) NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NBachers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
73. Let the republic slimeballs try to politically invalidate her
She'll chew 'em up and spit 'em back out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamthebandfanman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
75. so we let them have TWO RIGHT WING NUTS
but we are to scared to force atleast ONE liberal onto the court?


im sorry, but im really getting fed up with this crap.


im tired of peoples excuses on DU too..


I think its time I took a break from DU and politics...

God help the democratic party when I return.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
77. Anyone taking bets on a successful Republican blockage of this appointment?
Sadly, it seems that even while in the minority the Republicans get what they want.

I'm sure we'll see all sorts of obstructionist and delaying tactics by them. Too bad these same tactics were not used by the Democrats against Aledo and Roberts.

Does anyone else suspect that the Republicans will successfully nullify this appointment? Damn, I hate to be so cynical...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dana_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #77
82. I disagre
about nullifying the appointment however I do agree that it will take a looong time. They will throw the kitchen sink at her, wail and cry how "liberal" and emotional she is (although they must be careful of appearing sexist with that), and generally throw temper tantrums. In the end, however, I do believe that she'll get through.

Chin up!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
digidigido Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #77
83. Nope, even the party of no can't try to block a centrist hispanic woman and
expect to win elections
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #83
85. Damn. I hope so!
It just seems like the other side is well-organized and single-minded. They only want to deny the Democrats any political space.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #77
95. Couldn't we take THEIR idea and go "nuclear" on them?
Perhaps not even confine taking out the fillibuster for just judge appointments. Perhaps threaten it for other bills too. That might shut them up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #95
207. Democrats did not fillibuster judicial appointments. I am not sure
about this next point, but I think judicial appointments have never been fillibustered before, ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #207
224. Actually the Rethugs did do so for one of LBJ's appointments (Abe Fortas)...
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Fili...

So THEY have already set the precedent for doing it already!

They have ALSO set the precedent for at least threatening to use the nuclear option if the Democrats were to try to do it against Roberts or Scalito!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
80. Not pleased with this pick, not pleased with Obama.
Edited on Tue May-26-09 10:20 AM by ooglymoogly
The media meme is that he kept the balance of the court the same. Hello! The court is not balanced. The court is hard right. O missed one of the most important opportunities of his presidency to move the court back to the center and choose a progressive, and another scary thing; Catholics do not bode well for a woman's right to choose or gay rights for that matter and that is a known fact that is not even open to interpretation or discussion. If Obama is a centrist then the center has moved so far to the right it is no longer even recognizable as anything but an illusion through rose colored gin bottles on propaganda steroids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
digidigido Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #80
87. I understand your rant, agree with much, but respectfully disagree
I think Obama is a pragmatist, and that while the country is not not as far right as the government...
much of the country is. I think that Obama may not be as progressive as you and I, just look at
his record, this isn't Dennis Kucinich we're talking about here. I think he is trying to lead a change
and he's steering an ocean liner, they don't move well quickly.... but when they turn, they do
change course, and the change can be great given a long enough period of time
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #87
205. I think most of the country is center and left of center, not right. (And thanks again, Bush Cheney
for that.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #80
119. Who is your choice? And,
why is that person better qualified?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #119
210. DU posters do not have the staff and outside
advisors that Obama has to recommend judges to them. But, I would have asked people to present me with names of liberals, not centrists.

As an aside, until (1) I started posting at DU and (2) Obama started appointing people, I thought I was a centrist, maybe even sometimes a bit right of center on some issues. I still think that with respect to fiscal waste, but, then again, neocons seem o have less problem with fiscal waste than anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #119
227. I am not in the loop for choosing a Justice.
Edited on Tue May-26-09 09:42 PM by ooglymoogly
Basically we needed someone like warren to counter the radical corporatist's like Alito, Scalia, and Uncle Tom and most of the rest of the easily swayed justices. I would not have chosen a former prosecutor. I would not have chosen a jurist 1st chosen by a pug who is most likely a pug. Obama was supported first and foremost by grassroots progressives and he should have chosen a progressive, if for no other reason than that, because progressives put him in office for just that reason and the promises he intoned to that end. In almost every important decision that is important to the constitution and civil rights of we the folks, O has chosen a bait and switch approach which has been inherently dishonest, siding with corpamerica against we the people. I could go through them but we all know what they are. I do not choose to wear blinders and pretend every thing is hunky dory. We are getting screwed at every turn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #80
123. She is very pro-gay.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #123
211. That is good news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #123
228. link please, proof please. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #228
229. I don't have a link.
Edited on Tue May-26-09 09:57 PM by closeupready
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #228
234. A link I saw yesterday
A couple of positive statements by gay activists.

Sotomayor has also not ruled on any cases involving gay civil rights, but gay legal activists described her positively:

Long-time gay legal activist Paula Ettelbrick said she met Sotomayor in about 1991 when they both served on then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo's advisory committee on fighting bias.

"Nobody wanted to talk to the queer person at that time," said Ettelbrick, who represented Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. "She was the only one (on the advisory committee) who made a point to come over and introduce herself. She was totally interested (in gay civil rights issues) and supportive."

"From everything I know, Judge Sotomayor is an outstanding choice - fair and aware, open and judicious," said Evan Wolfson, head of the national Freedom to Marry organization. "I believe she has the demonstrated commitment to principles of equal protection and inclusion that defines a good nominee to the Supreme Court. In choosing Judge Sotomayor, the first Latino candidate for the Supreme Court, President Obama has made a strong and appealing nomination that should and will receive the support of those committed to equality for lesbians and gay men."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/sonia-sotomayo...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
81. C-Span is running a "Moot Court" where Sotomayer participated . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livefreest Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
86. congratulations to SUPREME COURT JUSTICE Sonia Sotomayor
:party: :toast: :grouphug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
89. Being that she is from Puertorican background...
Edited on Tue May-26-09 11:12 AM by Lost-in-FL
I am almost sure she is a Centrist. Any info on her rulings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #89
94. she is not from PR. she's from NY
and you can google and read some of her written opinions. furthermore, your comment is so broad brush it's utterly useless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #94
99. I am familiar with...
Edited on Tue May-26-09 11:11 AM by Lost-in-FL
her community in the Bronx. I am not trying to paint her with a broad brush as I speak from observation. I guess you did not even noticed that I said I didn't know anything about her and showed my willingness to learn more about her. I have noticed that any comment that might be "considered" somehow critical of Obama are fought violently here in DU. I just didn't know it was this ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #99
124. It's not that your comment is critical of Obama
it's just that it makes absolutely no sense. You don't know anything about her, yet you're already willing to start making uninformed statements. Do you work for Fox News? You seem qualified to be a "Friend" on "Fox and Friends".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #124
132. If I worked in Fox News
I wouldn't have to come to this cespool of anger from those whose only response to a "somehow" dissenting argument is "oh, you must be working for Fox News... you seem qualified to be a "Friends" on "Fox and Friends".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #132
157. What is your dissenting argument?
I have yet to see an argument presented from you. Saying someone must be a centrist based on Puerto Rican ancestry is hardly an argument. It's, and I'm being kind here, a lame statement based on an unwillingness to take the time to find out who the woman is and what her decisions on the bench have been. You're a long way from offering us a rational argument.
(with your reasoning, I guess I must be a Nazi...based on my German heritage)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #157
178. I asked for info on her rulings while you used the monotonous meme of...
"you must work for "Fox News" crap that is getting very old here thus offering more of the angry whining that has become so characteristic of DU. With the exeption of "Adelante", who kindly provided with a link, I only see the willingless to ridicule fellow liberals. Spear me the angry conservative/racist generalization bullshit and provide not with whining but with some sorth of intelectual response to a legitimate question. Do not become another duer sitting on their ass, making opinions and providing no use to democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #178
194. Start with reading all of Lasher's posts on this thread
to name just one of the people here doing his/her homework. There are links to all decisions right here on this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #157
230. What is an argument is that she is a catholic
The stated catholic agenda is disastrous to every thing we as democrats stand for. For the most part that is, do your part, do not pry into the lives of others or just plain live and let live. That pretty much is the basis for the democratic agenda and the constitution which we stand for; Here leaving out all the kaleidoscopic things that make the democratic party what it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #99
136. Are you "familiar with" the fact that NYC Puerto Ricans are overwhelmingly Democrats?
Edited on Tue May-26-09 12:46 PM by HamdenRice
So you don't know anything about her but you are willing to judge her political leanings based on (probably erroneous) stereotypes of Bronx Puerto Ricans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #136
148. Overwhelmingly Democrat is also a generalization
but I suspect you don't know much of NYC Puerto Rican's (or islanders) either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #148
158. No, it's a statistic
Edited on Tue May-26-09 01:33 PM by HamdenRice
And my S.O. is a Puerto Rican New Yorker, I've have raised a Puerto Rican son, been to PR many times, went to high school in the Bronx, had many Newyorican friends, so, no, I guess compared to you, I don't know anything about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #158
173. Well...
I am Puerto Rican, and I am surrounded by newyorican homophobic, catholic, racist centrist democrats that believe that Guiliani was God and a heavy dose of "more than I would like to see" newyorican bigoted republicans living around my area. I don't buy the "if they are from the Bronx they are democrats" crap. In my part of the Puerto Rican world, most are centrist. In their eyes I am a Castro loving-godless- Communist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #173
187. And you happen to be in Florida
where the political tone is set by rabid anti-communist Cuban emigres.

But your observation was about Puerto Ricans in the Bronx (whose political behavior is different), and how Sotomayor's political views were somehow set in stone because of that heritage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #89
108. What an amazingly useless observation.
And racist to boot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #108
111. Racist?
That's a good one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #111
139. Seems so. Your "analysis" presumes that Bronx Puerto Rican political beliefs are genetic
and that her political leanings should not be inferred from the fact that she was summa cum laude at Princeton, attended the relatively liberal Yale Law School, or on the basis of her actual opinions.

All that matters is that she is a Bronx Puerto Rican, which suggests that her political beliefs are immutably based on her heritage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #139
146. That's an extensive "analysis" of a very "meaningless" short statement.
And how the Summa Cum Laude found its way to your statement? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #139
212. Neither her schools, her genes or her honors tell us whether she is neocon, centrist or
liberal. However, the American Bar Association dubbed her "centrist" and that is significant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #89
125. Here is one ruling - on minimum wage for homeless workers
After 7-Year Fight, Homeless Get $816,000 in Back Wages
By NINA BERNSTEIN
Published: Wednesday, October 25, 2000


They slept on plastic chairs or in makeshift beds in a church, rising to put in long shifts in menial jobs, like security patrols at banks across Manhattan's East Side, or cleaning toilets at a shelter. Instead of being paid minimum wage, they got $1 an hour and promises of a path out of homelessness that never seemed to lead anywhere.

Tonight, 198 of the men and women who were homeless when they worked on streets and in buildings around Grand Central Terminal during the 1990's will be handed more money than most have ever seen at any one time, all in back wages totaling $816,000.

The money is the result of a ruling in a seven-year-long federal class-action lawsuit against two major business improvement districts in Midtown Manhattan, the Grand Central Partnership and the 34th Street Partnership. The homeless plaintiffs won in 1998, but received no money because of an appeal, until an unusual settlement this month cleared the way for tonight's payments and celebration.

-snip

Winning either money or vindication seemed elusive to many of the plaintiffs even after a trial and a federal judge's ruling in their favor two and a half years ago. The judge, Sonia Sotomayor, then a Federal District Court judge in Manhattan and now on the Federal Court of Appeals, ruled that the business districts had violated minimum wage laws, had used the cheap labor of so-called trainees to undercut competing companies, and had contributed the resulting profits to hefty executive salaries.


http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/25/nyregion/after-7-year...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #125
127. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superconnected Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #125
209. Good post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #89
226. Racial profiling rocks!
Fuck yeah!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
107. So if the naysayers are correct, Senate will not go along.
Why is all of this being pinned on Obama? The Senate has to decide as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #107
213. The nomination is his call and the likelihood is that a Democratic Senate will
Edited on Tue May-26-09 05:26 PM by No Elephants
back a Democratic President, whether the POTUS nominates a centrist or a liberal. He'd probably have to nominate another Thomas before they'd buck him--and maybe not even then. It's just the reality of the situation.

By the same token, all that has happened is a nomination that is 100% Obama's call. Why are you trying to relieve him of responsibility for that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wabbajack_ Donating Member (669 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
113. Too moderate?
I was hoping for an outspoken proud liberal.

But hey she did save baseball.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hangman86 Donating Member (270 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
116. So far so good
After reading into some of her past decisions I haven't found any reason (so far) to suspect she's a wolf in sheep's clothing. She did rule against pro-choice advocates in a case involving granting federal money to international groups that perform abortions, but it does seem she was truly following her interpretation of the law. Doesn't mean she's pro-life. In fact I highly doubt it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mosaic Donating Member (851 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
117. A Great Day for Latinos
and the United States. She's a great pick, very qualified and capable and someone who worked hard to get the top position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
122. nice. good pick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
130. Obama has the repubs by the balls with this pick.
How hard can they seriously try to block the nomination of the first Hispanic without losing a large portion of the Latino voting bloc?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #130
151. How much of the Latino votes do they now hold?
My understanding was they lost large amounts of Latino voters in 2006, and continued to hemorrhage even more in 2008. At the rate they're going, and the current rate of Latino immigrants, there's a real possibility in the future they could lose the west and the southwest for at least the next generation if not longer. Yet they've yet to even begin to build bridges to breach those gaps.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Creideiki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
133. I'm so glad we voted for a President that would nominate
moderates to Supreme Court.

"Liberal" President my ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevsters Donating Member (109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
138. Let the Obstruction Begin!!!
Joe Scraborough has already started the propaganda campaign by spewing partisan rhetoric in this clip. I'm sure there will be many more.

http://progressnotcongress.org/blog/?p=1352
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #138
149. All part of the game. In the end we will have a moderate female member to the SC. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earcandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
140. I love it that she came up from poverty and is a self made woman!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
142. How long before
Fox News asks the question: Is Obama's Supreme Court pick Karl Marx's illegitimate granddaughter?
Some people are saying she had an affair with Fidel Castro.
Their use of loaded questions and the "some people are saying" qualifiers are an old propagandist ploy.
Fox uses the Pravda floor plan and blames everyone else for doing it.
Now might be the time to invest in Prozak or other anti depressants as the Repubes will be eating them by the handful with every decision our half white president makes.
Whoever Obama picks for any position will get the propaganda organs cranked up to full volume.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
144. I like this pick. It will give the Republicans a chance to hurt themselves VERY BADLY,
if they're dumb enough. I'm betting they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
147. Ron Kuby said he's never won an appeal in her court. He says she's tough
but fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
159. Looks like a pretty safe choice..........
but it's more pandering to the moderates/centrists. We'll see how this choice plays out, will she vote with the liberal side of the court? Or will she turn around and vote with neocons on the court and be the democrats version of Souter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
160. This pick is probably as less-harmful to progressive values as could be expected from this
administration.

It was never going to be a liberal to balance out the reich-wingers who dominate the court now. She won't do much damage, though - just not a lot of good countering the Catholic Mafia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
162. Solid choice
Not the most liberal justice aroudn but a relatively sensible moderate with a fairly good record. From what I'm seeing on the message boards at work, the inevitble firestorm of Republican opposition is going to be based on: she's an "affirmative action" pick; she's the liberalist liberal from liberaland and she once said that the appelate courts should make policy (I presume that's either a slip of the tongue or out of context).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
169. good pick, Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HOLOS Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
204. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
214. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
troubledamerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
225. "Too Dumb Sotomayor" the Neocons accuse? From the Party of Dumb GWB
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/conservatives-sotomayo... /

If Neocons accuse Sotomayor of being "dumb" then that's an "attack their strength" Rove Talking Point special.

We need to remind people of DUBYA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
downeyr Donating Member (158 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
236. I'm not stoked for this either
Roe v. Wade is up for review soon and I'm not sure about her position on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC