Could Obama's Brilliant Pick be the Left's Justice Souter on Privacy Issues

[Sensitivity]

Obama clearly chose a Justice for our time with the pick of Sonia Sotomayer. Someone with her background and experiences is long overdue on the COURT. But, among the list of the 9 "Finalists" and 4 "Short Listers," -- all highly qualified -- she has probably been the least transparent on issues such as Abortion and Gay Rights. Her written opinions tend to be moderate on most issues and the Right has no more reason for concern that the Left. The pre-confirmation writings of David Souter comes to mind, and GHW Bush was surely surprised by the gentleman settled views on key issues once he sat on the highest court.

I have personally wondered whether she could end up leaning, ever so slightly, towards the Roberts positions on such issues once she settles into her life-time appointment as an SC Justice. These things happen.

=====================

White House scrambles on abortion issue

Administration tries to reassure liberals that Sotomayor agrees with Obama's belief in a woman's right to choose

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30994182/

By Robert Barnes and Michael D. Shear


The White House scrambled yesterday to assuage worries from liberal groups about Judge Sonia Sotomayor's scant record on abortion rights, delivering strong but vague assurances that the Supreme Court nominee agrees with President Obama's belief in constitutional protections for a woman's right to the procedure.

Facing concerns about the issue from supporters rather than detractors, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama did not ask Sotomayor specifically about abortion rights during their interview. But Gibbs indicated that the White House is nonetheless sure she agrees with the constitutional underpinnings of Roe v. Wade, which 36 years ago provided abortion rights nationwide.

"In their discussions, they talked about the theory of constitutional interpretation, generally, including her views on unenumerated rights in the Constitution and the theory of settled law," Gibbs said. "He left very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. There are, unfortunately, no guarantees in these things.

Where Sotomayor is today may not be where she is 20 years from now. It happens more often than most people think with regard to Justices, probably a reflection of their immense job security.

[Sensitivity]

2. She has been circumspect. That tell you she is smart, but not much more

As a Catholic, it is hard to imagine that she has not wrestled with the Choice issue, but we have no clues as to where she stands.

[Arkana]

3. As much as Presidents love to say that they don't use

the abortion "litmus test" when choosing a nominee for the SC, you can damn well bet that Rahm and the rest of the vetting team asked her this.

Plus, Sotomayor's a woman...that kinda increases the odds that she's for her own damn reproductive rights.

[Thrill]

4. Actually no one knows if she is a practicing catholic

She was in a casino gambling. Is that something devote Catholics do??

[yellowcanine]

6. Practicing Catholic does not equate to anti choice, particularly with politicians and judges.

But to answer your question, ever hear of Catholic bingo?

[Drunken Irishman]

11. Many Catholics gamble.

[jeff47]

9. More a reflection of the immense job

Part of the problem is an appellate judge only has so much authority. They're bound by SCOTUS decisions, for example. Once on the SCOTUS, you're the one making the rules everyone else follows.

So appellate judges that disagree with a SCOTUS ruling would still follow it. Once on the SCOTUS, they'd get the chance to "reverse" their position on an issue.

[high density]

5. I don't think we have anything to worry about.

Obama knows what is at stake and I have to believe his team is more competent at vetting than a GHW Bush operation. The game has to be hush-hush no matter who is nominated.

[Uzybone]

7. good luck stopping the handwringers from worrying

[jenmito]

8. No. And Gibbs didn't "scramble" to assuage worries about the issue. He was asked

the question many times and he answered many times that she agrees with Obama on his view of the Constitution. He worded it about 10 different (yet consistent) ways when asked about 10 different times. It's obvious that Obama chose someone who's pro-choice.

[Sensitivity]

10. Why is this "obvious". Her record is not biased left or pro-minority

It is fairly middle of the road.

[cali]

12. um, you might consider actually learning something about her record

before you comment. Tbe New Haven fire fighter case? pro-minority. The case about paying undocumented workers fair wages. Re abortion, she sided with NY Presbyterian hospital and against the bush JD in an appeal of an order to disclose information about late term abortion.s.

[Sensitivity]

13. The body of her opinions do not show any notable left leaning on privacy issues. The Ricci case

affirmed settled appeals court precedent, and did not go beyond.

[jenmito]

14. It's obvious that Obama and his admin. found out that she is pro-choice and for Roe v. Wade.

They spent 7 hours with her. We didn't.

[Sensitivity]

15. They specifically say they did NOT, NOT, NOT, ask opinion on Roe or gay rights

[jenmito]

16. NO president has EVER said they asked about Roe v. Wade...

but they ask things that make it obvious what their positions are. "I don't have a lithmus test" (wink wink). Jeez-you must be crazy if you think he didn't ask her her view of Roe v. Wade a hundred different ways.

[Sensitivity]

17. Please tell any report of such a "thing" that was asked. You are making my point:

this is a Souter situation. The candidate opinions on privacy issues is unknown or not yet defined.

[jenmito]

18. Read this transcript of yesterday's press briefing:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-5-28-09/

This is no Souter situation. Obama's a Constitutional Scholar and is keeping his promise to pick a SC justice who supports a woman's right to choose.

[Sensitivity]

19. I read it. Gibbs just repeats the generalities that we all know. That is why the reporters kept

probing for some solid data.

Nothing in the transcript gives solid evidence of where on the spectrum of opinion regarding privacy rights and choices Judge Sotomayor is settled.

Nothing is wrong with that. We will just have to see how she interact with other justices when the next test case arrives.

==========

Q A couple questions, one following up on Jennifer's question. During a Democratic primary debate, November 15th, 2007, then-Senator Obama said, "I would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right to privacy." And yet you're telling us right now that he has a general comfort with her view on the Constitution, but not necessarily with that quote -- not necessarily with the right to privacy?



MR. GIBBS: Well, again, let me be specific that he was not -- he did not specifically ask, as we've stated for the past several days, but as I just said I think he feels -- I know he feels comfortable generally with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his.

[jenmito]

21. "I know he feels comfortable generally with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to

his." (She's pro-choice-wink wink).

[Honeycombe8]

20. It's a GOOD thing that she hasn't gone around discussing her positions on

those issues. That means she's a serious judge without much use for idle political chit-chat, and the opposing side doesn't have ammunition on those issues and nothing to get their base all worked up over.

All they can go for is the silly "she's not smart enough" and "she's a racist" arguments.