Obama picks Sotomayor for high court

Socrtease

Verified User
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama tapped federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, officials said, making her the first Hispanic in history picked to wear the robes of a justice.

If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor, 54, would succeed retiring Justice David Souter. Two officials described Obama's decision on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.

Administration officials say Sotomayor would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice confirmed in the past 70 years.

A formal announcement was expected at midmorning.

Obama had said publicly he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy — the ability to understand the troubles of everyday Americans.

Democrats hold a large majority in the Senate, and barring the unexpected, Sotomayor's confirmation should be assured.

If approved, she would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the current court.

Sotomayor is a self-described "Newyorkrican" who grew up in a Bronx housing project after her parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico. She has dealt with diabetes since age 8 and lost her father at age 9, growing up under the care of her mother in humble surroundings. As a girl, inspired by the Perry Mason television show, she knew she wanted to be a judge.

A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, a former prosecutor and private attorney, Sotomayor became a federal judge for the Southern District of New York in 1992.

As a judge, she has a bipartisan pedigree. She was first appointed by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, then named an appeals judge by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

At her Senate confirmation hearing more than a decade ago, she said, "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."

In one of her most memorable rulings as federal district judge, Sotomayor essentially salvaged baseball in 1995, ruling with players over owners in a labor strike that had led to the cancellation of the World Series.

As an appellate judge, she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters after the city threw out results of a promotion exam because two few minorities scored high enough. Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court.

Obama's nomination is the first by a Democratic president in 15 years.

His announcement also leaves the Senate four months — more than enough by traditional standards — to complete confirmation proceedings before the Court begins its next term in the fall.

Republicans have issued conflicting signals about their intentions. While some have threatened filibusters if they deemed Obama's pick too liberal, others have said that is unlikely.

Given Sotomayor's selection, any decision to filibuster would presumably carry political risks — Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the population and an increasingly important one politically.

Abortion rights have been a flashpoint in several recent Supreme Court confirmations, although Sotomayor has not authored any controversial rulings on the subject.

Sotomayor's elevation to the appeals court was delayed by Republicans, in part out of concerns she might someday be selected for the Supreme Court. She was ultimately confirmed for the appeals court in 1998 on a 68-28 vote, gathering some Republican support.

Among those voting against her was Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, now the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee that will hold sway over her confirmation.

Now, more than a decade later, Sotomayor possesses credentials Sessions said he wanted in a pick for the high court — years of experience on the bench. Obama had talked openly about the upside of choosing someone outside the judiciary — every single current justice is a former federal appeals court judge — but passed on at least two serious candidates who had never been judges.
 
She's the liberalest activistest nominee evah!


Someone wake me up when this is over. There's nothing I have come to hate more than Supreme Court nomination fights.
 
Is this the one they're going to object to because of decisions concerning 'reverse discrimination' or thinking homosexuals deserve equality?
 
Is this the one they're going to object to because of decisions concerning 'reverse discrimination' or thinking homosexuals deserve equality?

No, Republicans will object because she wore a "Frodo Lives" t-shirt in 1978 and that only Godless communist radical liberal bent on over turning the constitution and the whole American way of life would do that.

Trust me on this one. If partisan Republican can't think of any legitimate reasons to object to her then they'll just invent something. Stay tuned to Rush Limbaugh! LOL

Sotomeyer is a moderate meaning the far left will dislike her as much as the wing nuts. I'd call that a good sign.
 
No, Republicans will object because she wore a "Frodo Lives" t-shirt in 1978 and that only Godless communist radical liberal bent on over turning the constitution and the whole American way of life would do that.

Trust me on this one. If partisan Republican can't think of any legitimate reasons to object to her then they'll just invent something. Stay tuned to Rush Limbaugh! LOL

Sotomeyer is a moderate meaning the far left will dislike her as much as the wing nuts. I'd call that a good sign.

Ah yes, the, I can't make anyone happy and that's a good sign, theory.

You will often hear a man brag; you know, I have a girlfriend, a wife, and a paid mistress, and damned if they don't all say I suck in bed. I must be doing something right!
 
Ah yes, the, I can't make anyone happy and that's a good sign, theory.

You will often hear a Republican man brag; you know, I have a girlfriend, a wife, and a paid mistress, and damned if they don't all say I suck in bed. I must be doing something right!

Fixed that for ya.
 
Ah yes, the, I can't make anyone happy and that's a good sign, theory.

You will often hear a man brag; you know, I have a girlfriend, a wife, and a paid mistress, and damned if they don't all say I suck in bed. I must be doing something right!

That's a strawman argument Darla, are you practicing to become a wingnut? I thought only they did that. First, it's not a theory, the center is almost always right versus the extremes. So when the extremes oppose a nomination it usually means that it's a reasonable selection and will have broad support from the center and that's a fact. Second, I didn't say the Sotomayor selection "can't make anyone happy", you said that, I didn't. I said that it wouldn't make the wingnuts or the far left happy. So try not to misrepresent what I or others are saying with your strawman arguments as you won't win many debates with that sort of weak minded logic.

I also fail to see the relevance of your analogy other then it's the insecure prattlings of a sexually frustrated female who is envious of males who are in a dedicated monogamous relationship that desperately and passionately love their wives like I do mine. :p
 
That's a strawman argument Darla, are you practicing to become a wingnut? I thought only they did that. First, it's not a theory, the center is almost always right versus the extremes. So when the extremes oppose a nomination it usually means that it's a reasonable selection and will have broad support from the center and that's a fact. Second, I didn't say the Sotomayor selection "can't make anyone happy", you said that, I didn't. I said that it wouldn't make the wingnuts or the far left happy. So try not to misrepresent what I or others are saying with your strawman arguments as you won't win many debates with that sort of weak minded logic.

I also fail to see the relevance of your analogy other then it's the insecure prattlings of a sexually frustrated female who is envious of males who are in a dedicated monogamous relationship that desperately and passionately love their wives like I do mine. :p

why do you always feel the need to tell me how sexually satisfied you are?

I find it really weird.

That aside, all i can say is...sorry I hit a nerve. It totally wasn't meant personally. I can't imagine why you took it that way...

btw Mott - the center is an ideology, and in fact, you people have become fanatical yourselves. So get off your high horse. and by "get off" i mean get down from, it's nothing sexual. The last thing I want to do is incite another "Dear Penthouse, I never thought I'd be writing to you.." post.
 
Last edited:
Getting back to the subject and off of Mott's sex life (wow), here is another great move by the Republicans. You know, I'm old enough to remember (as ATrios would say), when the Republicans were the masters of the message, and absolutely unbeatable. Not even six months of Obama taking them down court, or whatever that basketball allusion is, and we now have a National party that is no longer national, rational, or even coherent. It's absolutely amazing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/rnc-accidentally-releases_n_207609.html

Of course, I totally love it.
 
why do you always feel the need to tell me how sexually satisfied you are?

I find it really weird.

That aside, all i can say is...sorry I hit a nerve. It totally wasn't meant personally. I can't imagine why you took it that way...

There you go again with another strawman. Who said anything about being sexually satisfied? You did, I didn't. I said I was in love. It's truely pathetic that you dont' know the difference between love and sex and it appears to me that I was the one that hit the nerve on you otherwise, why your vitriolic response based on a derogatory stereotype? Pathetic Darla, pathetic, you want a reputation as being in the league of Dixie as a debator? You're well on your way to earning a reputation as the female Dixie of this board, if you're not all ready there.
 
There you go again with another strawman. Who said anything about being sexually satisfied? You did, I didn't. I said I was in love. It's truely pathetic that you dont' know the difference between love and sex and it appears to me that I was the one that hit the nerve on you otherwise, why your vitriolic response based on a derogatory stereotype? Pathetic Darla, pathetic, you want a reputation as being in the league of Dixie as a debator? You're well on your way to earning a reputation as the female Dixie of this board, if you're not all ready there.

"also fail to see the relevance of your analogy other then it's the insecure prattlings of a sexually frustrated female who is envious of males who are in a dedicated monogamous relationship that desperately and passionately love their wives like I do mine."

That's certainly about sex Mott. As are most posts you make to me. You seem to have some complex. Is it the Tucker complex? Do you feel the need to cross your legs when you see my posts?

I have always found you to be a misogynist, as you know, and I don't really care what you think "I'm well on my way" to being. I feel certain you are aware of this, and with every post you become more and more verbally abusive. Anyone can see who it is being abusive here Mott. And it's you.

Now get ahold of your balls, and understand, I don't want them. They're safe, but you should continue caressing them whenever a woman who doesn't address you as sir, speaks. You know, just in case. :)
 
I'm actually impressed. At least she isn't trying to hide the fact that she thinks its the courts job to set policy, as wrongheaded as it is.


Of all the criticisms of Sotomayer, this is the stupidest.

The very nature of any appellate court is to establish policy since a decision of any appellate court on any issue anywhere will apply not only to the litigants before the court whose case is being decided, but will also be applied by lower courts in the future to cases brought and defended by others.

Appellate courts set policy. Trial courts generally do not. These are simple statements of fact.
 
Of all the criticisms of Sotomayer, this is the stupidest.

The very nature of any appellate court is to establish policy since a decision of any appellate court on any issue anywhere will apply not only to the litigants before the court whose case is being decided, but will also be applied by lower courts in the future to cases brought and defended by others.

Appellate courts set policy. Trial courts generally do not. These are simple statements of fact.
It is the appellate courts job to ensure that the trial court followed all laws and procedures and that the defendant had a fair and impartial trial, NOT to set policy. Setting policy is the job of lawmakers, not judges. I'm sure this is hard for you liberals to accept, but that's the way that it is.
 
Just so everyone can familiarize themselves with the official republican talking points, inadvertently released to the media this morning by the RNC. A couple of which have already made their appearance here. When you see any of these talking points, you'll know you are hearing from a lemming or an operative. Or, an operative who is a lemming:

- President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is an important decision that will have an impact on the United States long after his administration.

o Republicans are committed to a fair confirmation process and will reserve judgment until more is known about Judge Sotomayor's legal views, judicial record and qualifications.

o Until we have a full view of the facts and comprehensive understanding of Judge Sotomayor's record, Republicans will avoid partisanship and knee-jerk judgments - which is in stark contrast to how the Democrats responded to the Judge Roberts and Alito nominations.

o To be clear, Republicans do not view this nomination without concern. Judge Sotomayor has received praise and high ratings from liberal special interest groups. Judge Sotomayor has also said that policy is made on the U.S. Court of Appeals.

o Republicans believe that the confirmation process is the most responsible way to learn more about her views on a number of important issues.

o The confirmation process will help Republicans, and all Americans, understand more about judge Sotomayor's thoughts on the importance of the Supreme Court's fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law.

o Republicans are the minority party, but our belief that judges should interpret rather than make law is shared by a majority of Americans.

o Republicans look forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor's legal views and to determining whether her views reflect the values of mainstream America.
 
Back
Top