Why is there NO discussion on whether Sotomayer would protect Roe?

[saracat]

I thought one of the most important reasons to vote Democrat was because of the SCOTUS appointments, and the necessity to protect Roe.

[tekisui]

1. Is it in question?

I know she is Catholic, but so is Ted Kennedy. Is there really a question as to whether she would protect women's rights?

[saracat]

2. I really don't know. That is why I am asking the question. And Ted hardly

qualifies as "Catholic" anymore.I just know that we don't "know" anything or have any reason to believe that she is. just the fact that she is a "woman" isn't enough to suppose that she is.I also find the fact that while she was not only a Clinton appointee, she was also a Bush Sr. appointee a little troubling. It isn't like Presidents haven't been surprised before and more emphasis might be being placed on other aspects of her judiciary experience but it is odd with 51% of the country allegedly not supporting choice anymore that the GOP haven't ujumped her on this yet.

[cali]

9. Ted most certainly considers himself a Catholic

So does Pat Leahy. Who are you to say that they don't qualify as Catholics?

[saracat]

21. As " A " cafeteria Catholic myself, what with the divorce

and everything else I would doubt very much that the Church considers Ted a "Catholic in good standing" regrdless of what he considers himself. I read awhile ago that he wasn't allowed to take the sacraments. I didn't say anything about Leahy!I could be wrong though about Ted. The Church does some squirrely stuff for money! And BTW, I wouldn't hold this against Ted.For many being Catholic has nothing to do with supporting "choice". That is why so many American politicians have been threatened with excommunication.

[msongs]

3. there you go again wanting free and open discussion of the political issues lol nt

[babylonsister]

4. Because she has no history on that topic?

I feel confident it came up in her discussion with the prez. NOW supports her, as does Planned Parenthood...

NOW Cheers President Obama's Reported Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court

Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

May 26, 2009

This morning we will celebrate, and this afternoon NOW will launch our "Confirm Her" campaign to ensure the swift confirmation of the next Supreme Court Justice.

Nominated to serve as the third woman and first Hispanic on the Supreme Court in the history of the United States, Judge Sotomayor will serve the nation with distinction. She brings a lifelong commitment to equality, justice and opportunity, as well as the respect of her peers, unassailable integrity, and a keen intellect informed by experience. President Obama said he wanted a justice with "towering intellect" and a "common touch" and he found both in Judge Sotomayor.

What more do women want? We want a swift confirmation in the U.S. Senate, and Associate Justice Sotomayor to join Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Court before the Senate's August recess.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/05/planned_parenth_3.php

Planned Parenthood On Sotomayor
May 26, 2009 1:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) |

Share This

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, weighs in on Pres. Obama's selection of Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring SCOTUS Justice David Souter:

"This historic nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court sends a strong signal that President Obama understands the importance of ensuring that our Supreme Court justices respect precedent while also protecting our civil liberties.

"Judge Sotomayor has vast experience in nearly every aspect of the law, having served as a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator, a federal trial judge on the U.S. District Court, and an appellate judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. What our nation needs from our Supreme Court justices is a deep understanding of the law, an appreciation of the impact of the court's decisions on everyday Americans, and a commitment to the protection of our individual liberties. Judge Sotomayor will bring this dedication and commitment with her to the bench.

"There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor's story is an inspiration to all. Her nomination as the first Hispanic woman justice reminds us that, with hard work and commitment, all things are truly possible in America."

[sinkingfeeling]

5. I do believe you'll get your discussion when the hearings begin.

[Junkdrawer]

6. Her record is thin. Here's all I could find...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5720946&mesg_id=5720946

[MADem]

7. Didn't Fat Tony Scalia say it was "settled law?"

Roberts did.

http://www.slate.com/id/2123413/

I mean, we know they still don't like it, and think it was shoddily crafted, but it's a stretch from there for them. IIRC, it was Alito that was problematic and hesitant on the question.

[bonnieS]

11. "NOW is supporting her...."

All of the organizations I belong to, including NOW (of which I was a local President) have put out statements or have sent me e-mails supporting her, going into long loving detail on her wonderful American story. None of them have mentioned the issues she stands for. Just like with Clarence Thomas, who also had a fabulous life story, we are to believe that that story is good enough. Only NARAL has sent out e-mails asking us to demand she be asked and answer questions on Roe. The only decision I have so far seen from her on choice has her upholding the gag rule. Rachel Maddow said last night that Sotomayor is NOT a liberal and that she voted with the conservatives on her Appellate Court 95 per cent of the time. Chuck Schumer is all over TV saying not to worry, she is only a moderate. That should tell you something.

Let us not be sheep, please. Let's find out who she is, not just that she came from the Bronx (where I come from, and not everyone thought the same there).

[MADem]

13. NARAL isn't "hostile," to her at all. They want a bit more info, they say..

This CBS article, though, suggests they're onboard totally:

.....Sotomayor hasn't ruled on a case dealing directly with abortion rights -- and in any event would be obliged to follow Roe v. Wade's dictates -- but pro-life and pro-choice groups have already formed into their now-traditional battle lines.

The Judicial Confirmation Network called Sotomayor a "hard left judicial activist." Americans United for Life said she would "impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench," and pointed to a YouTube video saying that courts of appeal are where "policy is made."

NARAL Pro-Choice America lauded Sotomayor's "distinguished record." The National Organization for Women said it was hoping for a "swift confirmation."

Perhaps Judge Sotomayor's most relevant abortion case arose in 2002, when pro-choice groups filed suit against the Bush administration's requirement (since overturned under Obama) that government funds must not be used to promote or perform abortions. The case is called Center for Reproductive Law and Policy vs. Bush.

While the issue at stake in the case was free speech under the First Amendment and due process, not abortion rights, Sotomayor did end up siding with the Bush administration. "The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds," she wrote in an opinion joined by the other two judges on the panel.

Another Second Circuit opinion written by Sotomayor dealt with West Hartford, Conn. police officers accused of using excessive force after blocking pro-life protesters who blocked access to an abortion clinic by locking themselves together. She and her other panel members allowed the protesters' civil rights case to continue. (A third opinion ordered renewed consideration of asylum claims by a Chinese woman allegedly facing forcible birth control.)

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Tuesday afternoon, in response to a question about abortion rights and Sotomayor's religion: "There was no litmus test and the president did not ask that specifically. I believe she was raised Catholic." (In August 2008, Mr. Obama said that a Supreme Court nominee who didn't support Roe v. Wade "would not have the kind of judicial philosophy that I generally believe in.") ........

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5041949.shtml

She was "raised" Catholic, but "serious" Catholics don't do that divorce thing, much, either.

I went and found the full NARAL statement. They're quite friendly, and fulsome in their praise for her record. They do say they want more info, but the overall tone is closer to "love letter" than "inquisition:"

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2009/pr05262009_sotomayor.html

...
"President Obama has selected a nominee with a distinguished record of professional accomplishments as a judge, prosecutor, and community leader. This impressive personal biography signals that she possesses an understanding of how the law affects everyday people's lives," Keenan said. "We are encouraged by the strong support she receives from her peers and other legal scholars and the fact that the Senate has twice confirmed her for federal judgeships. We look forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor's views on the right to privacy and the landmark Roe v. Wade decision as the Senate's hearing process moves forward."

Following is a summary of Judge Sotomayor's professional background:

Bachelor of Arts, Princeton University, 1976
Juris Doctorate, Yale University Law School, 1979
Assistant District Attorney, New York County District Attorney's Office, 1979-1984
Associate, Partner, Pavia & Harcourt, 1984-1992
U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of New York, 1992-1998
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, Second Circuit, 1998-present
Additional Resources:

For information about the Supreme Court's decisions on key cases related to reproductive rights, please visit http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/Courts-SCOTUS-Choice-Cases.pdf

Contact:
Ted Miller, 202.973.3032


I guess the hearings will tell the tale...!

[VelmaD]

15. I do find it interesting...

that she chose, in her opinion in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy vs. Bush, to refer to it as "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life". Perhaps a not entirely subtle message about where she stands on this issue.

[MADem]

17. That IS quite possibly a clue. Very interesting, indeed. nt

[fishwax]

45. I was thinking that too

when I read a few blurbs from that decision. Here's hoping :)

[Libertyfirst]

8. Senator Casey has been urged to oppose her because of this

issue. Since he is anti-choice, I assume they assume she is pro-choice. There is almost no history of her on most controversial issues.

[MADem]

14. Harry Reid is against choice, too. Wonder how he'll play it? NT

[Lasher]

10. Is Sotomayor an Abortion Centrist?

But there’s stunningly little information about her abortion views -– and what we do know hardly paints her as a pro-choice activist.

Judge Sotomayor has ruled on only three cases indirectly related to abortion, and in each instance she took the position preferred by the pro-life forces, albeit for reasons unrelated to the merits of abortion.

In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, she ruled against the pro-choice group wanting to overturn the Bush administration’s ban on family planning funds going to abortion.

Constitutionally, she wrote, the government “is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds.”

In Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford, she ruled in favor of the rights of anti-abortion protesters.

In Lin v. Gonzales,she ruled in favor of a Chinese woman who sought asylum in part because of the forced sterilization and abortion policies of the Chinese government.

http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2009/05/26/is-sotomayor-an-abortion-centrist/

[dem629]

12. What is there to say about it?

Nobody knows how she would vote and, according to the President's spokesmen yesterday (Axelrod and Gibbs) that's the way it should be.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

16. Because there are other legal issues than just that one?

That's my guess.

[saracat]

22. But Roe is THE issue that was used to ispire fear regarding the SCOTUS.

I was told by many right on this board that it was imperative to protect SCOTUS because of Roe. Now, it seems that for many , it is suddenly not important!

[VelmaD]

29. You nailed it in one...

Roe is only important to the Dems at election time when they can use it to bludgeon women with.

[hamsterjill]

38. It is still important to a lot of us!

It will always be important to those of us who remember what things were like BEFORE Roe.

Frankly, I'm a little uncomfortable with Sotomayer's nomination, but I hope to become comfortable with her as I learn more about her.

[kid a]

41. bullshit

[Badgerman]

18. Smart money is betting with Sotomayor, Roe is toast! BUT....

The betting is based on her latinism and catholicism. she does however have a fairly long record of defense of womens rights, if not on the courts at least in pubklic statements. There may be a great conflict in her mind when Roe inevitably rears its head. Personally I have a strong hunch she will land on the side of choice, at least to a limited degree...she is divorced, no children and apparently has never seen a virgin on a piece of toast, so much for Latina/catholic. she is also rational to the extreme and it takes some horrendously twisted logic to support an absolute on abortions. Or so that is what I think anyway.

[saracat]

25. "Horribly twisted logic to support an absolute on abortions " Logic like

women have an "absolute" right to control their own bodies?

[Badgerman]

39. Duh, yeah! Women have the say over their bodies...you don't agree?

[slampoet]

19. Because the GOP is always Anti-caltholic even when it is pro-life and we don't want to go there?

[Badgerman]

40. Odd conclusion..Scalia? Alito? Thomas? Wm F Buckley?n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. i think its because she is known to be prochoice. nt

[saracat]

23. I hope that is true but I haven't seen any evidence of it! which doesn't mean she isn't

.It just means, I haven't heard anything!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. Planned Parenthood just sent me an email supporting her...

You've probably already heard the news: President Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court. Over the coming days and weeks, we're going to be hearing a lot about Judge Sotomayor, both from her supporters and her critics. If you turn on your TV or open up a web browser, you'll see it's already started.

That's why I wanted to let you know what Planned Parenthood has said about Judge Sotomayor. We believe that this historic nomination sends a strong signal that President Obama understands the importance of ensuring that our Supreme Court justices respect precedent while protecting our civil liberties.

Judge Sotomayor has vast experience in nearly every aspect of the law, having served as a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator, a federal trial judge on the U.S. District Court, and an appellate judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

What our nation needs from our Supreme Court Justices is a deep understanding of the law and its impact on everyday Americans, and a commitment to the protection of our individual liberties. We look forward to Judge Sotomayor bringing these qualities to the Supreme Court.

There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor's story is an inspiration to all. Her nomination as the first Hispanic woman justice reminds us that with hard work, dedication, and commitment all things are truly possible in America.

Please keep an eye out for future updates from Planned Parenthood on this historic nomination

[saracat]

28. Thank you for this.I wish I knew how they arrived at their conclisions

but I suppose I have to trust them on this! I hope they know more than we do! I would like to know more though and just can't find anything. On the plus sisde, lack of evidence makes her easier to confirm.

[Dappleganger]

42. Why don't you send them an email

and ask them how they came to these conclusions, then post the answer here? I'd like to know as well.

[book_worm]

26. Do you think she will vote to reverse Roe? If so, why?

Would it be because she is a Catholic? Of course, William Brennan was a strict catholic and a strong liberal and voted for Roe.

[saracat]

30. I have no idea what she will do. That is the point. And we have many "halfway Dems"

who don't support Roe so being nominated by a Democrat or even being one means nada.

[book_worm]

32. P.S. bottom line is no president can be sure how there nominees will vote

Eisenhower was shocked that he appointed two strong liberals--Warren and Brennan to the court. I'm sure JFK was surprised that his first nominee, Byron White, turned out to be a conservative. Poppy was probably shocked about Souter being a moderate liberal.

[saracat]

33. Exactly. And that is why I am nervous! I really hope we get this right!

[Uzybone]

27. What is there to discuss?

is there any indication she would be against Roe? She was appointed by a democrat, is supported by NOW and NARAL, yet the fearmongers want us to be scared of something.

[saracat]

31. We don't "Know" anything. She was also appointed by Bush Sr.

and being a Democrat means NOTHING. Look how many anti choice Dems there are.i am worried about political "expediencey" and whether her lack of a record means anything or is just a "tool" for quick confirmation.

[Uzybone]

34. pretty sure NOW, NARAL and PP know far more than you

about her pro choice positions. Unless they also support her for "political expediency". But if you must worry then no one can stop you.

[saracat]

35. No need to be condecending.I SAID I hope they "KNOW" more.

But just like presidents, they can be wrong too. And there is no reason to assume anything about any nominee! History has taught us that.

[Nikki Stone1]

36. Hey saracat, are you trying to be intelligent and informed again?

Damn you, woman. :D

I'm with you. I'd like to know what her beliefs are on choice. Glad Planned Parenthood has endorsed her, but we know that their endorsements are sometimes the result of political leveraging by outside parties.

[omega minimo]

37. Your point is well taken -- not even a mention of it is highly odd.

The obliviousness in many of the replies here may be a clue as to why.........

I wouldn't make any assumptions about her support, that's for sure. Is she part of a church?

[kid a]

43. Here you go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5728670&mesg_id=5728670

It was there for you to start all along.

:hi:

[Matt Shapiro]

44. Why would anyone who favors a woman's right to choose an abortion

NOT want to know Sotomayer's position on Roe? The poster is absolutely right. Roe v. Wade hangs in the balance. One more anti-choice vote on the court and Roe is history. It is INSANE not to want to know her position. When NOW and Planned Parenthood support her nomination because of her credentials and her story and the fact that she is a woman and a Latina, they do their members (like me) a disservice. NOW should be supporting her because they know she is a strong feminist. Unfortunately, they don't know that. Planned Parenthood should be supporting her because they know she supports a woman's right to family planning information, including birth control and abortion. Unfortunately, they don't know that. NARAL, of which I am no longer a member because of the Lieberman endorsement, while being all lovy dovy about her, at least wants her questioned about her views on Roe v. Wade.

I also would like to see her questioned on other vital issues that affect us today and will continue to affect the generations to come.

* Habeas corpus (as opposed to preventive detention)

* Military Commissions (as opposed to the federal judicial system)

* Spying on Americans without a court order

* Equal rights for LGBTs (not separate but equal, actually equal)

* The use of presidential signing statements to undo the effect of laws passed by Congress

* Torture (water torture, sodomy of children, stress positions, sleep deprivation, extreme heat or cold, etc.) -- Is it a crime? Is anyone not responsible who participated because they were following "orders" or bogus legal opinions? Is anyone not responsible because they were too important, like a president or vp?

* Supplying false information to Congress and the American people in order to justify a war of aggression

* Separation of Powers

* Separation of church and state

* Corporate/business "rights" vs. individual/consumer rights

* Property rights vs. the right of government to protect people or the environment

* The legality of public financing of political campaigns

* The legality of counting votes in secret

That's my short list. Why would any thinking person who considers himself/herself a progressive, a liberal, or even just a democrat, NOT want to hear Judge Sotomayer's positions on these and other vital issues? Her vote on the court could determine the direction this country takes for many years to come. We should know as much as possible about her thinking, rather than simply, and, in my opinion, foolishly, trust others who are supposedly "in the know."