In the News
Jun 4, 2009 |
Bangor Daily News
Paul Tomey Guest Column: "When President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor, I was eager to jump on the bandwagon of opposition. The problem is that the wagon isn’t going anywhere. A few early tidbits have, so far, turned out to be a tip without an iceberg."
Jun 4, 2009 |
Philadelphia Inquirer
"Sotomayor is absolutely right: Experience matters, and not just in dispensing justice. African American Justice Clarence Thomas and Italian American Justice Samuel Alito have said the same thing.... Judges shouldn't be robots dispensing computer-printout justice that does not take humanity into account. They should use every bit of information available, including personal experience, in applying the law. To do so recognizes that our laws were written by man, and man isn't infallible. That the Constitution has needed amending is proof of that. It isn't racist to say that a Latina judge - or journalist, for that matter - could see nuances that a person of another heritage may miss. Such insight, used properly, can make the truth clearer, and justice more certain. It's an attribute, not a disqualifier."
Jun 3, 2009 |
The Hill
"There are many telling moments during the confirmation process of Supreme Court nominations.
The initial reaction the nominee attracts is very important, but what comes a bit later is more telling; it’s when you can tell which party is more divided.
For example, Republicans were divided when President George W. Bush nominated Harriet Miers, who eventually withdrew from consideration. But Democrats were divided when Bush tapped John Roberts (22 Democrats voted for him, and 22 voted to reject him).
On Sonia Sotomayor, the Republican Party is the one that is split.
Jun 3, 2009 |
Sheboygan Press
"We think Sotomayor is a worthy nominee, ... what is becoming difficult to swallow are the predictable, partisan potshots from the extreme right, such as the likes of Newt Gingrich, which serve no useful purpose other than to agitate the far right and give insipid radio talk show hosts talking points. ... We have not heard anything yet about Sotomayor that would disqualify her in our opinion, and the mindless chatter about her being a 'reverse racist' is nothing but garbage."
Jun 3, 2009 |
Washington Post
Ruth Marcus column: "The amazing thing about the case against Sotomayor is how thin it is."
Jun 3, 2009 |
Bristol Herald Courier
"Looking at her strong academic background and 17 years on the federal bench, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic woman nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, appears to be an exceptionally qualified candidate."
Jun 3, 2009 |
Spring Hope Enterprise [NC]
"it is that same diversity of backgrounds that makes Satomayor such a good choice for the Supreme Court. Empathy is usually a good thing. The Supreme Court now is dominated by clueless white justices who long ago lost touch with the average Americans they serve and who generally have cultural and political biases of their own. With her brians and background, Satomayor will bring a different perspective, and probably fresh air, to the court chambers."
Jun 3, 2009 |
Chattanooga Times
"What is racism in this case, though more opaque, is the tearing down of a person of nonwhite ethnicity for no other reason than the pride they manage to maintain in their ethnic heritage. That Messrs. Gingrich, Rove, Limbaugh, Tancredo and others delight in maliciously using that tactic speaks volumes about their own character — and nothing at all about Judge Sotomayor."
Jun 3, 2009 |
Washington Post
Timothy Shriver Religion for the Heart column: "Empathy is a code word for understanding. Its opposite is close-mindedness. ... Empathy is about being able to experience the thoughts and emotions of another."
Jun 3, 2009 |
Knoxville News Sentinel
"Let's get her confirmation hearings started."
Jun 3, 2009 |
New York Daily News
"There are two Sonia Sotomayors: the fictional character conjured by her opponents and the real-life judge who has a firm record to stand on."
Jun 3, 2009 |
Politico
"I don’t get it. Why was her word choice poor if “she was simply saying that her life experiences” gave her “information about the struggles and hardships” of people?... Sotomayor told the truth in 2001, and now she must pay for it. She must “walk back” her remarks."
Jun 3, 2009 |
Tennessean
"Judge Sotomayor appears to be a solid choice for the court. Not only does the highest court in the land need the diversity that a Hispanic woman would add, but those who have objectively examined her case record have commended her reasoning and hard work, and described her as anything but an 'activist judge.' "
Jun 2, 2009 |
Bloomberg.com
Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s best defense against firearms owners mobilizing to oppose her U.S. Supreme Court nomination may come from an unlikely source: two top conservatives on the federal bench…
Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook, appointed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago by President Ronald Reagan, signaled at a May 26 hearing in a separate weapons case that they side with Sotomayor’s hands-off approach.
Jun 2, 2009 |
Roll Call
Sotomayor said: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” While she could have worded that sentence differently, her point is straightforward: Experience and background inform judges’ decisions, and the richness of her experience might give her an advantage in understanding particular cases. But the statement has sent conservatives in the media on a tear, with Rush Limbaugh and former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), among others, calling Sotomayor a racist. More tempered critics have accused her of judicial activism, of injecting her personal views into what should be a bias-free act of adjudication. Her assertion is, in fact, utterly unremarkable.
Jun 2, 2009 |
Politico
Our founding fathers understood that a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court needed to be meticulously vetted; that the American public has the right to know her views of the law and the role of the judiciary that she would bring to the bench if confirmed. The Republican Party will raise appropriate questions about Judge Sotomayor’s judicial background. For example, in 2005 at Duke University Judge Sotomayor stated the “court of appeals is where policy is made.” As a conservative who believes that the role of a judge is to interpret the law and not create it, this statement is particularly troubling. President Obama has specifically stated he picked Judge Sotomayor because she did not believe in legislating from the bench. Judge Sotomayor needs to explain this statement.
Jun 2, 2009 |
Los Angeles Times
It may go too far to call her a racist -- not necessarily because she doesn't fit the technical definition but because she doesn't fit the popular, emotional definition of one. She's not an evil bigot, which is what the word "racist" colloquially suggests. So maybe we can call her a "racialist." She certainly doesn't seem to believe in official colorblindness. Just ask Frank Ricci, the fireman denied a promotion simply because he's white. He sought justice in her court, but Sotomayor couldn't muster the requisite empathy to give him a fair hearing. There's a lot more to Sotomayor's views on race that seem worth talking about, and her record is far from indefensible. In many ways, she's a perfectly mainstream liberal jurist. All the more reason liberals should defend her positions openly, rather than dismiss or deny them. Obama and the Democratic Party indisputably share the broad outlines of her approach to racial issues. But rather than calmly defend her, they hide behind the robes of the first Latina Supreme Court pick and shout "bigot" at anyone who fails to throw rose petals at her feet.
Jun 2, 2009 |
Wall Street Journal
Judge Sonia Sotomayor's elevation to the Supreme Court probably wouldn't bring a big change to the court's ideological balance, but in at least one area, she would likely make an immediate difference: oral arguments. If confirmed, Judge Sotomayor would arrive on a high court where conservatives have tended to dominate oral arguments in recent years. The arguments are the only chance the public has to see the justices in action.
Jun 2, 2009 |
Forbes
Alas, the inescapable truth is that constitutional law contains no magic bullet that condemns judicial activism and lauds judicial restraint. The public outcry over the Supreme Court's rendering of the "public use" language in Kelo v. City of New London was for its failure to use plain constitutional language to stop the egregious decision of New London to condemn Ms. Kelo's land literally for no reason at all. If that's judicial activism, then words have lost all meaning. These observations have clear implications for the ongoing debate over the Sotomayor nomination. However unhappy conservatives and libertarians might be with her nomination, they won't put a dent in her confirmation prospects in the Senate and they won't alter the terms of the political debate by waving the tattered flags of judicial activism and strict construction. There are no intellectual shortcuts.
Jun 2, 2009 |
Roll Call
Republicans hope to use “a case-by-case, opinion-by-opinion review to come up with a thoughtful critique of this woman’s career,” a senior GOP aide said. And while Republicans harbor no illusions that they can block the nomination short of a major scandal, they do view the process as a “teachable moment” to lay out their differences with Democrats over the judiciary, the aide said. As part of that, Republicans this week will kick off their messaging efforts on the confirmation process in earnest, with an emphasis on the need for a long, exhaustive review of her record while building on their concerns that she will not be a “strict constructionist” while on the court.
Currently reading page 8 of 14.
Previous Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Next Page