She is not racist. I think what she said has been taken out of context by the Rush's and Newt's here.

sandyshores - I would agree with that.

You are absolutely right, sandyshores! However, since Judge Sotomayor is NOT in fact a racist, you should have no issues with her!

Wow, glad we are on the same page!

There is no 'out of context' about it. Every time the left cannot defend their opinion, they invoke Rush, or Newt, or Hannity, or some other polarizing figure. That would be like saying Randi Rhodes is the clear leader of the democratic party...

Dude, I can defend the opinion just fine. All we have to do is go to the portion of the statement that all you rightees love to leave out. The part that says "...who have not shared that experience." See, there are in fact White men in this country who have shared a very similar imigrant experience to that of a "Wise Latina woman", and Justice Samuel Alito happens to be one of them. In fact, he himself has said that he sees nothing racist in her statement!

So while all you rightees have become mini Al Sharpton's looking for racism around every corner, and in the minds of every Latino or Black person, in this case you are dead wrong.

Now. Anything else you need me to defend?

I stand corrected and bow to the 'superior judgement' of the Latina, who based on her life experiences is obviously more qualified to an OPINION.

Well, SanPedro. Since that particular Latina has 17 plus years of judicial experience, then yes, her judgement is far superior to yours!

Yes, but yet in America, her OPINION has no more validity than anyone elses OPINION... Why I sense hostility here. Have a nice day bs...

Is that right, Longhair? Then allow me to join her. My mother made it to where she did in life because of Affirmative Action. I was then able to get to where I am now, because of Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action allowed my mother to make enough money to move into a great neighborhood, and raise me to believe I can be anything I want to be, just like Judge Sotomayor. Of course using your definition, every woman on this board, even the White women, are also racist!

Well, I guess I am now officially a racist, anyone else care to join me?

"her OPINION has no more validity than anyone elses OPINION"

Actually, it does. That is why they call all judges' rulings OPINIONS. That is why judges say "in the OPINION of this court." In fact, that is why we call them JUDGES.

I like the comment she made about not being anti gun. I also have ocean front property in Arizona to sell. This is typical, say whatever it takes.

Actually bs, I am a practicing attorney. Wow, I guess that by your standards, that implies that my opinion is worth more than yours... Interesting perspective. Wrong, but interesting all the same.

Skiddy, I am not anti gun either, yet I feel there should be gun control. This is because we have many neighborhoods in this country where innocent people are getting caught in the crossfire of gang violence, and is beside the fact that there has been more than one mass killing by a gunman who was never checked for priors or prior mental instability before being allowed to purchase one or more guns.

Why is it so hard to understand that even Judge Sotomayor might understand that a gun in the hands of a knowledgeable hunter can be a good thing, but in the hands of a criminal or someone mentally unstable, it is a bad thing?

Ah yes.....the racist Sotomayor and her liberal enablers in the democrat party defending the indefensible. You just have to laugh at the hypocracy of it all. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

Sandy, Just when did she show herself to be a racist???

scarab333

Ah yes.....the racist Sotomayor and her liberal enablers in the democrat party defending the indefensible. You just have to laugh at the hypocracy of it all. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

I am ROTFLMAO over the fact that there are so many people who can't seem to get over the fact that Judge Sotomayor, with 17 years of judicial experience under her belt, is actually QUALIFIED to sit on the SCOTUS!

One more thing? I noticed those that were trying to infer that she was not born in the US did not get very far. Apparently someone finally informed them at even if she had been born in Puerto Rico, she would still be an American citizen!

Oh, well. Listen, I really don't like ROTF, so I will still with LMAO!!!

The democrats act like the republicans should just let her in and not even question her she beyond reproach. I think they should go study up on bushes appointments to the supreme court and see how they were treated by the democrats to make sure the right candidates got through. Hypocrites you can grill judges all you want but we cannot.

She will be confirmed. Only then will the truth come out as to where she really stands on issues. Time will tell.

The interesting thing about the Supreme Court is that, to get there you have to abide by the law, but after you get there, you get to ignore the law and vote any way that you want - just look at Ginsberg.

Ginsberg's reasoning on the firefighters case (they had no "vested right" to a promotion) is a case in point. Virtually none of the cases that come before the Supreme Court involve "vested rights", but they nevertheless render binding legal opinions in all of them.

sds480, please forgive me, but your post makes me laugh. Judge Sotomayor has been approved by the Senate twice before, and both times the Republicans were in control, not to mention the fact that she was nominated by a Republican President. In fact, many of the members talking smack about her now, approved her wholeheartedly in the past. Why then is she NOW such a bad apple, and why is it hypocrisy on the part of Democrats to expect her to be approved without all this utter nonsense?

Sounds to me like the hypocrites in this instance, are the "just say no to everything" Republicans!

Sotomayor is a racist and believes in letting illegals stay and get all the benifits we Americans have paid into our entire lives. This is UNACCEPTABLE and should not be allowed. With her views and stands on illegals then she is too biased to serve in our nations highest court.

enough said

Republicans had to be careful in their criticism of Sotomayor to avoid alienating Hispanics, the fastest growing portion of the electorate. At the same time, the hearings give them an opportunity to galvanize their conservative base after huge setbacks in the last two national elections.

Isn't this the fundamental problem? Their base hates Hispanics, yet they can no longer win national elections without the support of some Hispanics. The same is true in the Southwest and increasingly Texas. Case in point.....

Sotomayor is a racist and believes in letting illegals stay and get all the benifits we Americans have paid into our entire lives. This is UNACCEPTABLE and should not be allowed. With her views and stands on illegals then she is too biased to serve in our nations highest court.

Thanks skydragon! I could not have found a better example myself. I hope Hispanics across the country read your post and the intent behind it.

There is NO doubt that Sodommayor is racist given her past remarks.  She is an embarrassment to the court, and would not have been considered had it not been for her radical judicial agenda (including an endorsement of reverse racism).  Sodommayer makes any previous conservative jurist look moderate by comparison, including Robert Bork.

skydragon7

Sotomayor is a racist and believes in letting illegals stay and get all the benifits we Americans have paid into our entire lives. This is UNACCEPTABLE and should not be allowed. With her views and stands on illegals then she is too biased to serve in our nations highest court.

enough said

If you are correct and that is her view, then are you aware of any other Justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court who feel the same way? If they do, since you feel so strongly about this issue, I would think that you would be the first to call for them to step down...right?

Now, tell me where you got this particular tidbit of information, and please don't say Rush or Bill!

bs, just curious, what law school did you attend that indicates that a judges opinion is more important then that of any other American. The law school that I went to never addressed that class, in fact just the opposite. Opinions need by definition be left out of decisions and only the rule of law applied. That is the measure of a Supreme Court Justice. Opinions included in decisions are ripe to be over turned by the next highest court.

Fineman made a great point in newsweek. The Repub Senators who are on the judicial committee are from Oklahoma, Texas, South Carolina, Arizona, Alabama, Utah, and Iowa.

These Senators will represent their constituents. And in these states Repub constituents are WAY outside the mainstream of American political thought. It should be fun to see them call her a racist while trying to not inflame the growing Hispanic electorate.

Let the games begin!

"Patrick Leahy, a Democrat and the Judiciary chairman who lined up a series of friendly questions for Sotomayor to help her counter Republican criticism"

Gee, I wonder if they reviewed the questions and answers with her beforehand? LOL

And the opinions of Roberts had nothing to do with his nomination by the right. Correct?

TJM07

bs, just curious, what law school did you attend that indicates that a judges opinion is more important then that of any other American. The law school that I went to never addressed that class, in fact just the opposite. Opinions need by definition be left out of decisions and only the rule of law applied. That is the measure of a Supreme Court Justice. Opinions included in decisions are ripe to be over turned by the next highest court.

Oh, please give it a rest. You know as well as I do that a judges "decisions" are known as "opinions" and therefore carry more weight than the average citizen.

And by the way, just in case anyone else tries to make such a claim, I have never once said or intimated that I have EVER attended law school. Thank you!

Sure enough, everyone has made up their minds. Of course, the right wing can't stand it that they lost the last election. They couldn't find anything real to throw at Sotomayor so they take a statement made years ago, completely out of context, and make hay about her being a racist. It sad and funny at the same time. She just committed honesty. I keep hearing 'if a white male had said this''....yeah, yeah, yeah, that's the whole point. If a white male like Roberts or Scalia would only say that they mean, then they might get some questions. I am sure that Chief Justice Roberts and Scalia truly believe that this nation should be ruled by and for white males and in favor of corporations. They know better than to commit such honesty.

You are so right - She expressed herself more than once, so it was not taken out of context - The Democrats have the vote so she will be confirmed - This is a waste of time -Yesterday was ridiculous, it sounded like a "roast"- Get these people back to work- Maybe they should use all of the time they are wasting to read bills. She has practiced her answers for the past month - & she has not changed her mind - she just says so - Once confirmed it will be too late - we get her for life (I am Hispanic & find that she is wrong) We need the best of the best for judges & government - it should not matter our color or heritage - People who vote along these lines are plain stupid - the future of our country and our children is at stake

ROY WILSON-336103

"Patrick Leahy, a Democrat and the Judiciary chairman who lined up a series of friendly questions for Sotomayor to help her counter Republican criticism"

Gee, I wonder if they reviewed the questions and answers with her beforehand? LOL

And of course the Republicans, being the always above board, family values party that they are, would never ever deign to do such a thing for one of their nominees...right?

Hey, perhaps we should ask Judge Sotomayor, since she has now been nominated by both Republicans AND Democrats for various courts!

love the double standard, imagine the uproar if a white male made the same comment.

Since she hasn't shown herself to be a racist...what was your point?

Sotomayor made no overt reference to her place in history as the daughter of Puerto Rican parents who moved to New York. Instead, she said her life has been "uniquely American."

I have remained quiet until now on the confirmation with the exception of remarks to the difficulty she will be faced in confirmation because the President was intent on nominating a woman. I have had no remarks regarding bias, statements she has made or outcome of rulings. So here goes.

The question that needs to be asked: If she had been seated on the supreme court at the time of the overturn of one of her decisions how would she have ruled. Would she have overturned her initial decision or would she have stood by it?

The other question...Please refer to the quote from the article above.

If her life has been "Uniquely American" why would she refer to herself as a "Latina" rather than an "American"?

"WISE" Latino isnt that a oxy moron.

Another stellar post from the conservative base. I wish more would clearly state what they feel as you did, rob.

Sad that the democrats would confirm her simply because she is a liberal and a Obama appointee. Doesn't matter what she stands for or what her past judgements and opinions were. Yogi Bear could have been nominated and they would have put him through simply because he was a liberal or democrat. This woman is not qualified to sit on the supreme court . She is without a doubt a racist and very biased. After this many years there is no way that she is going to change simply because she was nominated for the supreme court. Hopefully after the next election there will be some checks and balances to stop this ultra liberal president from putting unqualified people into positions that they do not belong in.

San Pedro is the attorney

If Senator Sessions is the person the Repubs are using to "repudiate" Judge Sotomayor then they had better go back and try again. Sessions was himself once nominated for the court. but because of his proven racist ideals he could not make it past the first round. The white men sitting on the court already think that because they are white men that they make the best decisions. This country has been run and ruled by white men since its start. I really get tired of those who are fine as long as they get their way, BUT when others with valid, differing opinions come along they feel threatened.

The typical partisan knit picking is the order of the day. This has nothing to do with anything except partisan advantage. The republicans want to label her a racist and the democrats want to get some political advantage out of nominating a Latinoand a woman as if those groups all think the same way on every issue an assumption that has been embraced by both the party's the media and social scientists, eliminating intelligent dialogue. She seems to me to be a bright woman and Icant predict how she will rule, but if she is intelligent I believe she will enrage both sides of the partisan world as intelligent analysis plays no part in their thinking process. I cant say I am not surprised by the knee jerk reactions of the herd and not surprisingly they fail to see how predictably pathetic they are no matter which side they represent.

Racism is not an issue in this case... she is not a racist.

However her decisions have been overturned by the supreme court 60% of the time whic should be the issue at hand and give pause to republicans and democrats alike.

This person seems to either be indifferent to if not unaware of the existence of the constitution... she should get zero votes in a sane senate.

she'll be confirmed, she has all the right qualifications;

1. Obama picked her (means she supports his political plans for america).

2. She is Hispanick (means Dems can mexican votes with her appointment).

3. She is a woman (means Dems can appease their Feminazi supporters)

4. She is a Democrat (means she'll kiss the Messiah's ring and side with any decision he wants.)

Would be nice to see her get the treatment the Dems gave Estrada. Like that would ever happen.

However her decisions have been overturned by the supreme court 60% of the time whic should be the issue at hand and give pause to republicans and democrats alike.

Her decisions that were accepted by the SC on appeal were overturned 60% of the time. That is a tiny fraction of her decisions. Learn to read for yourself for a change.

I see the KKK contingent is here in force. Scotty, nice to see you guys are still out there. Too bad you can't scare people into voting how you want, eh?

The SC decisions are the only decisions made based purely on constitutionality and are therefore the only decisions that say anything about her understanding and interpretation of the constitution.

I read quite well enough thank you and what I read between the lines is more important to me than ever in these days of spin spin spin coming from both sides on every issue... why should I let my mind be clouded by the decisions she made outside the realm of constitutional law... I ask the liberal spin doctors... or with innocent remarks that clearly do not show racism on her part... I ask the conservative spin doctors?

Her record on constituional law is 60% garbage... she does NOT belong on the court!

If another nominee had prefaced anything by saying "as a wise white man" he would have been killed, chopped into little pieces, chewed up and spit out. No hypocrisy here.

I don't take Sotomayors "Wise Latina" comment as Racist, I take it as ignorant.

I'm so sick and tired of seeing politicians do or say something and 5 minutes later their "handlers" advise it was the wrong thing to say because so and so will get offended.

Damage control now, she would never judge based on race. Duh, like she could openly say she has or does or would judge based on race.

There is no exception made for a stupid comment related to one race against another, she can make no excuses, she said it, she is an idiot.

Scotty,

Since you actually refered to me by name I will respond, but I am not sure what to say to your rather odd post...other then, please have a nice day!

The SC decisions are the only decisions made based purely on constitutionality and are therefore the only decisions that say anything about her understanding and interpretation of the constitution.

That's not true. It's really not even close to true. Even the New Haven case was a statutory case that interpreted a portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You simply lack knowledge of how the federal courts work. I'm not here to explain that to you. If you don't know, you just don't know. But suffice it to say a LOT fewer than 60% of her decisions were overturned.

True, but many ELECTED Southern reps, are still covertly iillustrating their prejudices of any one lected that is not white, blond and blue eyed.

Read between their lines or listen between their words. Many southern reps still carry the torch for prejudice, as if Lincoln's laws and the Civil Rights Commitee were just missapproiation of their belief that only a WHITE MAN knows what is best and JUST!

Prejudice was outlawed, so I ask why does it still reign among our southern reps???

Hey schwannomin (1.31): Would you please share with us what source you use to determine "the mainstream of American political thought". I, and I'm sure many others, would like to know that valuable information.

Here is the funny thing if it had been a white woman or male that would have said they had better judgement than a hispanic male or female, there would be hell to pay. They would be forced to withdrawl their nomination. The sad part is because she is hispanic Liberals give her a pass on racist remarks. But this shows you how can she be effective when she has a racial bias?.

People need to get off their azzes and put a stop to this. I don't think any of these Supreme court people should be voting her in, it should be the people that vote them in.

Sen. Hatch, R. UT, is making an elaborate argument about the Fire Fighters case to the effect that Judge Sotomayor wrongly applied "19th Century" cases instead of the more modern 14th Amendment "Due Process" cases as a basis for her decision. What his asrgument boils down to, because she was adhering to precedent she was bound to follow, is that she should have been more "activist" in reaching the decision he would have preferred her to reach. The nuts and bolts of his argument is the sort of hairsplitting appropriate to scholarly analysis, but not in a court following, rather than creating, the applicable law of the specific case. It is extremely disengenuous for him to make this argument unless he is prepared to depart from his usual position crying for strict construction, etc. But Hatch, a trial lawyer with no known judicial experience thinks he knows better than an experienced judge to whom actual responsibility has been given. Principles, Orrin, not pandering!

beparr

If another nominee had prefaced anything by saying "as a wise white man" he would have been killed, chopped into little pieces, chewed up and spit out. No hypocrisy here.

Seriously? We kill White men now for saying they are wise? Dang! And how many have been killed thus far?

I guess Senator Sessions better be on the look out!

Ironically, the three judge panel, of which Sotomayor was a member, ruled according to case law in the case of the firemen. When it got to the Supreme Court activist judges in the conservative majority set a new precedent. Serving up justice with a sprinkle of irony, let Rush explain that one to you.

As we celebrate the diversity of the court we might consider the court has made decisions that have upheld the constitution and ruled for minorities because they were willing to uphold the law without taking into account their cultural back round that would have discouraged their rulings. The argument that these WASPs were incapable of fairness is belied by the facts. I would hope a court of any makeup would rule objectively and not be subject to scrutiny by social engineers who value labels more than truth. A willingness to uphold the constitution is much more important than heritage or back round, my hope is all members of the court will apply the law equally and serve the country well.

And leading the charge is none other than the esteemed Jeff Sessions. For those of us who lived in Alabama back then, we well remember Reagan's attempt to appoint him to the Court of Appeals. Consider the reasons why he was rejected...

Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU ) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert said Sessions had claimed these groups "forced civil rights down the throats of people." In his confirmation hearings, Sessions sealed his own fate by saying such groups could be construed as "un-American" when "they involve themselves in promoting un-American positions" in foreign policy. Hebert testified that the young lawyer tended to "pop off" on such topics regularly, noting that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases. Sessions acknowledged making many of the statements attributed to him but claimed that most of the time he had been joking, saying he was sometimes "loose with [his] tongue." He further admitted to calling the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation," a phrase he stood behind even in his confirmation hearings....

Another damaging witness--a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest. Figures didn't see it that way. Sessions, he said, had called him "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks." Figures echoed Hebert's claims, saying he too had heard Sessions call various civil rights organizations, including the National Council of Churches and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, "un-American." Sessions denied the accusations but again admitted to frequently joking in an off-color sort of way. In his defense, he said he was not a racist, pointing out that his children went to integrated schools and that he had shared a hotel room with a black attorney several times.

Do we have the pot calling the kettle black here regarding racism?

I think you need to change your nickname to BS FAN KAREN, because that is all you put out.  Your arguments are irrational and stink of liberal bias.  Sotomayer will be confirmed for the very reason she was chosen, because she has a liberal bias and the Liberals think that appointing her will encourage more Hispanics to vote Democrat.  Don't try to paint this picture any other way than what it is.

True to Obama's form... He takes today's distraction to push cap and trade, and national health care in the Senate.  Either one of these programs would be an economy buster if it goes through.  Interestingly, today it was announced that Obama's budget was the first ever to reach one trillion dollars in the first six months of his presidency.  This years budget is four times greater than the same time last year.  Not only that, but they did not take into consideration the 1.5 trillion dollars of money that he had printed just for his non stimulating stimulus.  Tell me if this makes sense... If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!!!  We are in an economic hole.  Tell the tax and spend liberal Democrats to stop spending.

Sillyshrinks,

Are you suggesting that all racists live in the South? Do you suggest that there are no racists in the North?

Your an idiot.

Hey schwannomin (1.31): Would you please share with us what source you use to determine "the mainstream of American political thought". I, and I'm sure many others, would like to know that valuable information.

I use the presidential election. It's really the only national accounting for where the majority stands. 6 of the 7 states represented by these Senators voted for the loser in 2008. And all these states are in either Southern or vastly rural regions of the country, where a particular strain of Conservatism reigns supreme. I'd say that places them outside "the mainstream of American political thought."

She has been overturned 60% of the time which is widely reported so you are either as illinformed as you accuse me of being or you are some kind of pathological liar.

Read 'em and weep.

She does NOT belong on the court!

btco no thats not right and what she said is racist and thats what is wrong with people like you giving her a pass she is one scarry person i don't want a person like her in office period if obamma want a latino in the potion then fin pick anothr latino not her she is racist and every one knows it ,

if she gets confirmed we all better watch out.

Oh Carlos! You know you love her. Your name is Carlos! Just admit it.

You make my point.

Only problem here is that she hasn't proven herself to be a racist. It's the racists like Jeff Sessions that are calling her a racist because they have nothing else to offer to deny her a seat on the high court.

Is that right, Longhair? Then allow me to join her. My mother made it to where she did in life because of Affirmative Action. I was then able to get to where I am now, because of Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action allowed my mother to make enough money to move into a great neighborhood, and raise me to believe I can be anything I want to be, just like Judge Sotomayor. Of course using your definition, every woman on this board, even the White women, are also racist!

I don't expect you to do you to do your own research since you would rather use Affirmative Action as an excuse over hard work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#The_Americas

She has been overturned 60% of the time which is widely reported so you are either as illinformed as you accuse me of being or you are some kind of pathological liar.

How many cases have been overturned by the SC? Do you want the answer?

Here's something from factcheck.org. She's been overturned approx 1.3% of the time. There's understanding the truth, then there's "reading between the lines" as you like to do. I assume that means fitting the facts (no matter how forcefully) into your overriding prejudices and political agenda.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percentage_of_sonia_sotomayors_opinions_have.html

It is hilarious to see a bunch of middle aged white men who are shocked and alarmed at what they are pretending to believe is "racism". Really, they ought to filibuster. It is part of the heritage.

So my question for her would be quite simple. Do you believe in the rights of the individual (the consititution) or do you believe in the rights of collective society (progressive indoctrination)?

Skiddy, I am not anti gun either, yet I feel there should be gun control. This is because we have many neighborhoods in this country where innocent people are getting caught in the crossfire of gang violence, and is beside the fact that there has been more than one mass killing by a gunman who was never checked for priors or prior mental instability before being allowed to purchase one or more guns.

Why is it so hard to understand that even Judge Sotomayor might understand that a gun in the hands of a knowledgeable hunter can be a good thing, but in the hands of a criminal or someone mentally unstable, it is a bad thing?

The last time I checked, criminals don't go applying for a gun license and then wait for the background check to clear because the person selling them illegally from the trunk of his car does not bother with minor details like the law.

Her statement was indeed racist and does smack of partiality. I am a staunch liberal but not one who belongs to a "team"! Any waft of of such bias and partisanship should be appropriatley explored.Too many progressives and minorities think that now is their chance for retribution because of politcal and social misdeeds in the past.It is our job as citizens of a democracy to ensure that the interests of all peoples are served equally and justly regardless of race, spiritual beliefs, sexual orientation or political affiliations.........even "white men".

So if she were a white male who made a remark to young white males about being white gave her more wisdom in making a decision, all the lefties would concur that there was no racist intent. Yeah, right! They would be screaming to high-heaven and their favorite race-baiting divider Al Sharpton would be leading the parade to a chorus of shaming by the media. Jeff Sessions was accused of A LOT LESS THAN THAT and they canned him - - strictly for that. This is nothing more than just plain hypocrisy by the left.

btco. I guess she has been taken out of context by most people, even though she has said these things on more than one occasion.

And by the way, how can someone be qualified for the supreme courtWhen 60% of her decisions have been overturned by said supreme court. Oh, may be they want her to get the position to lessen thier workload!

The statement is may not be racist, but at least biased and elitist. What she is saying is that she is a wise latino woman. This does not mean she believes that all latinos are suprerior to white men, but she is. She has made this statement 7 separate times. There is no way this was a "misstatement". This is unacceptable.

She is a racist. There is no other way to interpret her remarks. If she was not a racist, she would not have made these remarks. Robert Byrd's white @!$%#s was meant to be an innocent remark.

Let us be honest, if a white guy said the same thing, just changing the proper nouns, he would be accused as racist. He would be finished! No one would listen to his explanation. Same treatment for this lady racist.

Let us drop that race thing, as it has destroyed good people. I do not care what she said about wise Latinas. Who cares if she is a racist. Everyone has biases. She showed her bias in the New Haven case. We know what she is.

What is important is that she is by her own admission, an affirmative action light weight. This is in her own words. She is just dumb and will be remembered as a affirmative action light weight. Her decisions are frequently overturned.

She will be confirmed because of the Lefty majority in the Senate. Her confirmation is inevitable but it is not the end of the world.

1. She has simply replaced a current lefty, so no change in the court.

2. She will not last long as she is not in good health. Just look at her. I see diabetes and excessive weight. We all know that she can not walk without falling.

She will have little impact.

I do not trust her to make judgements based on constitutionality. I think she is a very bad choice for US Supreme Court. I viewed tape of here grilling 2 witnesses, reminded me of a Pit Bull attack. The tone of her questions, her body language, her total demeanor was over-the-top hostility toward the witnesses. SHE IS UNACCEPTABLE.

Of course she denied being racist! Had she admitted to being racist she'd have lost one or two of the democrats. Lying by a democrat to achieve their goal is their number one action. Had a black female conservative nominee made a similiar statement those defending Sotomayer would be raging about racism!! (A black conservative woman would never make such a racist statement!!)

All of the attacks on her based on the "Wise Latina" language conveniently ignore the "I would hope" language with which she characterized that statement. I would hope that people could regain hope that we can find ourselves away out of this partisan, ideological morrass were are in and regain our belief in the principles for which we stand. Certainly they were never meant to entrench a power elite driving the masses toward their own personal gain. Come on, run Jeff Sessions in 2012 and get it over with.

What else would you expect her to do, but deny she is a racist. The Constitution is far too valuable for the appointment of someone like her who doesn't respect ALL of the Constitution!!!!!

She's a token. She will be confirmed b/c the party of token policies is in control of the confirmation and will vote along party lines. As will the Republicans. Do we honestly expect politicians to evaluate nominees (or policies for that matter) on the merits? Wake up - this is the USA - we don't think for ourselves, we have political parties for that.

Sotomeyer- I'm not a racist! Why do you ask you pinche culero!

Her comment was racist and sexist. Any woman who says they can come to a better decision than a man, because they are female and of a certain race, is racist and sexist. But since our congress is democrate-controlled right now, and this is a democrate presidential appointment being attempted, the good ole democrate boys will allow her to "join the club," so to speak...to please the president, who ought to know better than appoint a racist and sexist man or woman to the highest court of unbiased law in the land!

"WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor stoutly denied racial bias Tuesday at her Senate confirmation hearing and said her oft-criticized remark about her Hispanic heritage affecting judicial decisions was a rhetorical device gone awry."

"I did not have sex with that woman! Define is."

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor stoutly denied racial bias Tuesday at her Senate confirmation hearing and said her oft-criticized remark about her Hispanic heritage affecting judicial decisions was a rhetorical device gone awry.

So why should we believe this self-serving statement when she repeated the "wise Latina woman" phrase numerous times over the years?

Remember she said she would be "better", not equal.

BTCO

So you think it was "taken out of text?" So why don't you amuse us in here by repeating her text, (exact words from her mouth) and explain HOW they "were out of text" We will await your answer.

This is really a "here we go again" situation!

The media just thrives on this as though it is ground breaking. Sure, she will be the first Latina on the court.... but they did not make a big deal when Alberto Gonzales (Latin) was Attorney General... they did not make a big deal about Condoleezza Rice (African American and Female) when she was Secretary of State, and they attempted to blow-up Clarence Thomas (African American) when he was going through the process. The stench of the media and that inflammatory inquisition still comes from the ground today! These were all considered to be tokens just because it was a Republican who made the appointments. They were therefore deemed to not count. It's like all those home-runs hit in the steroid era. There should be an asterisk next to the number.

Will there be a huge parade and parties held for this (Non) ground breaking event? It sure has taken over the airwaves while important legislative issues are being discussed. Other issues are really irrelevant in light of this so-called big news.

Well... hail to our country for having a Hispanic Supreme Court Judge. This administration will go down in history as the first one to include an African-American President, an Hispanic Supreme Court Judge (who is also a woman), and the greatest spenders (in history) of money and credit that doesn't exist.

So why can't conservatives do this? Where are the African American voices (Steele doesn't count... don't ask me why)... Walter Williams doesn't count... JC Watts doesn't count...Hispanic voices? Alberto Gonzales didn't count (could have been the lack of an accent). It boils down to the ideology... not the ethnicity. Its not really a question as to whether or not Republicans accept every ethnicity, it is what a liberal leaning media would have us believe.

Let's just get this thing over with! Cast votes and get back to more relevant issues.

Replace "Wise Latina" with "Wise White Man" and then tell me if you feel the same.

A white man would be crucified for saying that regardless of the context.

Double-standard? I think so.

Sonis is not a racist ...

she just says racist things...

over and over ...

for decades ...

to white people ....

because she is a Latina Judge, it's okay to say those things...

... God Help us!

I don't see whyit's so hard to understand that Sotomayor's "wise latina" statement is not racist. What she was saying was that, in America, it's tougher to be a latina woman than it is to be a white man. The fact is that we live in a society with lots of latent racism and sexism. It's no accident that women and minorities are underrepresented in positions of power - Congress, corporate boards, etc. Judge Sotomayor was saying that, having lived through that, she has experience that a non-minority male might not have, and that increases breadth of experience might inform her decision making in a positive way. I recognize people's concerns that she might throw out the law when a sympathetic plaintiff comes down the pike, but her decisions don't reflect that mentality. If she's confirmed and does as you fear, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. However, if you read the opinions of, say, Ginsburg, you'll see that her opinions are, in fact, founded in law. You may disagree with her interpretations, but she doesn't pull opinions out of her a**. If one was to select the least-deserving justice that has been confirmed to the Court, it would be Thomas, who has barely any judicial experience. Incidentally, Thomas has spoken (and written) of how being black and having been raised dirt-poor has informed his decision making.

The racism charge is not reflected in an examination of her judicial decisions. Out of 88 discrimination cases that went before her that didn't involve other claims or dispositions, Sotomayor and the panel rejected those claims 78 times. In the remaining 10 cases where she and the panel (which consisted of judges on both ends of the ideological spectrum) ruled in favor of the person making the claim of discrimination, 9 of the rulings were unanimous. So in only one case out of 88 did she break from the other judges to rule in favor of discrimination (about 1.2%). Wow, she's a real race-baiting activist judge, huh?

Her wise Latina quote, though poorly worded, said pretty much the same thing as what Alito said about his Italian-American heritage during his own confirmation. Where was the outrage then? I take it that all of the people on the right who are complaining about racism wrote angry letters to Rush Limbaugh when he played the Barack the Magic Negro song repeatedly? I'm guessing you also wrote letters to the NY Post when it compared Obama to a chimpanzee that had to be put down? You also went crazy when George Allen made his makaka comment? Or when Glenn Beck said that the first Muslim elected to Congress needed to "prove" he didn't work for the enemy? Or Brian Kilmeade (one of the hosts on Fox and Friends)- in a statement that would have made Hitler proud- said that European countries basically have it better because their genetics were pure from not "marrying other species" a week or two ago? I guess you're all writing angry posts and letters about that stuff too.

What ever happen to FREEDOM of speech I guess that will be trampled next Oh it already has.

Gus, the reason her ethnicity is more than just a blip on the radar is because the Repubs found her quote from years ago when she made a comment regarding "wise latinas." I'm sure you've heard of it. That is the only reason this is being blown out of proportion.

There were numerous statements about the ethnicity of Alberto Gonzalez, Colin Powel and Condaleeza Rice. Interestingly, when Hariet Myers was shot down by the Repub Senators there was immediate talk among the punditry that Bush was "now free to nominate a white man to Sandra Day O'Connor's seat."

One difference with those appointments was that a Repub made them. So the question was naturally asked if the Repub party, specifically GWB, still held firm that race plays no role in their choice of appointments. In other words, was the Republican party finally conceding to the intent behind affirmative action?

I don't know what you would call her besides a racist. Her opinions will sway her rulings and she is definitely opinionated. There could have been worse choices, though. They all have the one line memorized "a judges duty is to interpret the law, not make it". They certainly have some strange interpretations.

Why do people on the right even believe that she said these statements in the first place? Interesting that you blame the media for everything (I'm sure if an asteroid descended and destroyed half the planet it would somehow be due to media bias), and never seem to trust it. But as soon as it reports on something that is negative toward the left, it is suddenly imbued with all kinds of journalistic integrity. Then it's gospel. Curious how biased your view of media bias is.

What's really odd about this discussion is that about 75% of adult Americans believe that women make better judges than men. They think women are more balanced and fair and have better common sense.

And when accusing Judge Sotomayor of being a racist, Jeff Sessions is the one to do it. His past and current affilitations with the KKK and Aryan Nation qualify him as an expert on racism. And his constant demands that Indians, Pakistani, Ethiopians, Latinos (except Castillian Spanish), and all mixed race people are not "white" and are not "caucasian" are bizarre (in addition to being incorrect. Jeff is a well-known racist here in Alabama who still insists on observing Robert E. Lee's birthday and calls the Civil War "Mr. Lincoln's Tax War" and insists that nothing be discussed in Alabama textbooks about the causes of the Civil War, Evolution, Genetics, Slavery, and numerous other subjects. He still holds that states have a right to secede if they wish.

I love the way someone like Sessions even has the gall to open his mouth. Maybe we should encourage every state that gets more Federal money than it pays in Federal taxes to secede. They we would be rid of virtually every state that went Republican in the last election --- Alaska, South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas and the rest would save so much money that states like California and New York and Massacheusetts that pay more in Federal taxes they receive in Federal funds could get a refund. They we could lower the Federal income tax in the remaining states by around 14%. That's what each of us pays to keep these red states in operation and people like Sessions in their jobs.

Ron Paul 2012!

Have any of you on this page even read the speech where Judge Sotomayor's reference to "a wise latina" reference was made?? She was speaking to a group of Latin American Women Lawyers...That is what all this ridiculousness in her statement is about. She was there giving an "inpirational" speech based upon the relationship of culture and achievement possibilities in the field of law. Her quote "more often than not" was actually relating that those women of Latin descent could have and did have the same equal capabilities of making decisions more often than not be correct, just as with white males (who let's face facts...dominate the Law profession). NOWHERE in that speech did she say that a latino woman would make a BETTER decision than a white male. She has repeatedly had cases before her that there is absolutely NO racial bias reflected in her decision. The Ricci Case, did not deal with a racist issue. It was a contractual issue that the City of New Haven had written into their MOU's for City Government promotability that may or may not have been outdated under it's original form trying to comply with the Civil Rights Act. It was not argued as a Civil Rights case before the U.S. District Court. She voted to uphold the Law as it was written and further it's interpretation to the Supreme Court, which is exactly what was done. She did not cast a vote against White Males. She had to rule in accordance with U.S. District Law and did not have any judicial authority to interpret the law any differently. Even the Firefighters Association knew they needed the District Courts ruling in order to take it to the Supreme Court (where they wanted the case to be heard and ruled on - which it was)

Senator Sessions should be the last one to throw stones about someone being racially biased. He voted against perm and temp foreign work visas (H1B) to fill undesirable positons that american workers would not work doing, ie...field labor. He voted against the Higher Education Act in 2008 under Pres. Bush to continue the act of 1965 for College Opportunities and Affordability, and he voted against the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 to provide incentives for clean energy production, which George Bush also wanted pushed through, and why? Because both these bills also had sections for special needs individuals of ALL ethnic backgrounds as well as underpriviledged poor of ALL ethnic backgrounds and minorities.

I don't know what you would call her besides a racist. Her opinions will sway her rulings and she is definitely opinionated. There could have been worse choices, though. They all have the one line memorized "a judges duty is to interpret the law, not make it". They certainly have some strange interpretations.

I would be interested in seeing actual facts attached to that belief. Because she has ruled against plaintiffs in discrimination cases 78 out of 88 times and only broken once from the other judges on the panel (which consisted of both ends of the ideological spectrum) in the other 10 cases. Which means she has ruled (on her own) in favor of discrimination complaints 1.2% of the time. So your belief that her opinions are going to sway her rulings aren't supported by her body of work. Hopefully that puts to rest your concern.

schwannomin...

that blip that was found... "if this appointment was from a Republican Administration"... it would have turned into a full on Clarence Thomas courtroom brawl! Thomas was so maligned that his writings are virtually over-looked today as shallow and inconsequential.

White man, green woman, African American Japanese.... who cares? It comes down to ideology and those who are the backers of the appointment. This appointment is from a liberal administration and so the balance of the issue of etnicity, instead of worthiness, is constantly thrown in our faces. How she interprets law should be the only fundamental in question. But... that's asking too much, and is far too simple. Ethnicity comes into play because the oppostiton to this appointment is going to be from the GOP side of the eisle. So... they can be labelled as bigots when they vote against her confirmation. And you can be sure that a biased media will make a big deal of it.

"Ground Breaking" is the headline... and it really is not. Balance shift... she is replacing someone who had the same ideals....The ground was broken up by others many years ago... Everyone already knows what her stances are, and how her votes will be.

In the first place a "Wise" person male or female doesn't have to tell other people that they are wise, they are known for it, and a wise person of any race or sex or group would not have felt it necessary to bring up that group or race or sex. Bringing race, sex, religion or other difference up is unecessary, so it was stupid for her to bring it up. That being said, if her judgments have been overturned 60% of the time, she doesn't sound very wise, but very mediocre. Oh and by the way, I am a liberal too, and voted for Obama, though lately I am regretting that I did, as I see little change in the country, and I see more of the wealthy being bailed out than the poor, give me a job and I'll provide my own healthcare. But, I could not vote for McCain when they brought Palin into it, had they chosen another person, perhaps he would have got my vote. I am a liberal with an interest in saving my right to bear arms and all the rest of it. I am also part Native american and they have suffered more than their share of racism.

If she was blonde haired and blue eyed she would be cruxified by the media and her corpse left to rot by the politicians.

Nice system we made for our selfs.

I'm just glad we're talking about her race. Seems her comments today on Roe v. Wade have slipped right under the radar. Uh oh, I think I just spilled the beans.

that blip that was found... "if this appointment was from a Republican Administration"... it would have turned into a full on Clarence Thomas courtroom brawl! Thomas was so maligned that his writings are virtually over-looked today as shallow and inconsequential.

Maybe you have a different standard, but I think there's a slight difference between accusations associated with a poorly-worded public statement and placing a pubic hair on a Coke can.

considering obama's other choices, maybe they better see if she paid her taxes.

schwannomin... Interesting that you would mention Roe V Wade.

As for McCorvey, after she lent her name to the case that had an immediate and drastic effect on the choices available to pregnant women, she had a change of heart, and has campaigned against Roe vs. Wade.

“One thing I noticed, quite clearly, was that in explaining her comment on the wise Latina, she said she was paralleling [retired Justice Sandra Day] O’Connor’s statement that a wise old man and a wise old woman would come to the same wise decision, but the wise Latina comment is 180 degrees away from what O’Connor said. O’Connor was saying that being a woman wouldn’t skew your view, whereas the wise Latina statement said that a woman would reach a better result. So saying that she was following O’Connor was a little disingenuous.” -- Carol J. Williams LA TIMES

SGB....

The difference is that "one is an unsubstantiated accusation"... the other is "a matter of substantiated public record".

I can only judge by her own words.

She's going to be appointed. There is nothing to do about it but to watch the Democrats do what ever they wish to do with our lives. We will have to be patient and hope that what is being done is good for this country and our children. The right and anyone just right of center is defeated....there is nothing left but to hope that we can adjust in 2012 to become more "center". The far left cannot have all the answers because if they did why didn't this stuff get fixed decades ago? They will need the right and center again, we just have to wait until they allow us back in again. Its very sad that one group over powers my life, I never thought that way about any other administration until this year. I feel suffocated....but I will live until 2012 and beyond...hopefully with as fulfilling life as I did before 2009-.

Sandyshores, I wholeheartedly agree. Her excuse to the Senate Committe was that she was trying to "motivate" young poeple by calling their attention to the importance of "expereience." That's a bogus as a three-dollar bill. We all agree that experience of any kind helps, but in that case she should have simply said that she believes "people with experience are in a position to make a better judgment based on that experience than those who lack it."

Instead she chose to say that a Latin woman would make a better decision than a white man who doesn't have that experience. That statement of hers is chock-full of racist and sexist content and only fools or those with an agenda to deny it will say otherwise.

If you just replace her words with word like "a white man is in a better position to make better decision then a black, Hispanic woman lacking the experience of being a white man," her supporters wouldhave screamed "racist, sexist!"

Besides, does she have the experience in everything she passed her judgemnt on? Did she ask her colleagues to make a judgment when she lacked needed experience, such as being a white Anglosaxon male? Or does she just rely on her bias?

We don't need judges like Sotomayor.

She'll be one more nail in the coffin of a free America if her confirmation is not stopped.

SGB....

The difference is that "one is an unsubstantiated accusation"... the other is "a matter of substantiated public record".

Actually, it was substantiated in written statements provided by Angela Wright and Sukari Hardnett who had also worked with Thomas.

I can only judge by her own words.

Or you could also judge her by her judicial decisions which do not reflect the picture you are attempting (quite unskillfully, albeit boldly) to paint.

-Ruled against discrimination complaints 89% of the time.

-Only dissented from her colleagues to rule in favor of the party alleging discrimination in one case out of 88.

-The firefighter case that everyone is raging about was decided 7-6 on the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals and 5-4 in the Supreme Court. 22 distinguished federal judges looked at the case and 11 ruled for the fighters while 11 ruled against. This was hardly a crazy fringe decision on her part- it split courts down the middle all the way through the legal system. So I guess the other 6 judges on the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals and the 4 Justices on the Supreme Court who dissented (including the one she is seeking to replace) are also racists? Give me a break.

So produce some actual facts that can be substantiated that her supposed virulent racism produced a legal opinion that was so far out of the norm that you couldn't help but conclude that she has some sort of insidious agenda. Produce a pattern of cases (not a case that split the federal judiciary directly down the middle like Ricci) that demonstrate your position. Produce a statistic. Produce anything beyond an out of context public statement that mirrored what Justice Alito said in his confirmation hearing.

sandyshores re: 1

Unfortunately, the system does not work the way you propose. The objective is to keep racist people off the Court.

Further, it seems that our country can not agree on a definition of racist.

In my opinion, as a 40+ educated professional woman, a person who describes herself as a "wise Latina who would make better decisions than a white man" is a racist.

Such a comparison says - I am better than you and put in a context of race (ie, "Latina") - is racist no matter HOW it is explained.

Sotomayor said it.

Hey Longhair I bet you are a Bush fan, huh? Well the only reason he got into Harvard was because of being a "legacy" But no one says anything about those "hard working" individuals! I makes me sick the two faced hypocrisy of that and affirmative action. Why aren't you and your ilk going to court over legacies? Is it because it is the white affirmative action?

sandyshores re: 1

Unfortunately, the system does not work the way you propose. The objective is to keep racist people off the Court.

Further, it seems that our country can not agree on a definition of racist.

In my opinion, as a 40+ educated professional woman, a person who describes herself as a "wise Latina who would make better decisions than a white man" is a racist.

Such a comparison says - I am better than you and put in a context of race (ie, "Latina") - is racist no matter HOW it is explained.

Sotomayor said it.

And Justice Alito said the same thing in his confirmation hearing. Clarence Thomas could be accused of playing the race card when he compared the allegations of sexual harrassment against him to an "electronic lynching." So I guess our Supreme Court is full of racists or reverse racists or whatever.

Sorry, but it stretches the limits of credibility to believe that a racist could rule against discrimination plaintiffs almost 90% of the time.

SGB...

I don't think it's important to rattle around in the cage when we already know what the outcome is going to be. This appointment is already going to be confirmed.. and we all know it. So... let it be.

My commentary had to do with the hoopla... not the merit. And the hoopla is nauseaus. There are other things that are going on that are not being paid attention to by the media and star-gazers that are puffing this issue up because of etnicity. That's my commentary angle. I never made comment at all where I stand about Sotomayers statements... only that there is a media double-standard because of the Political Party, gender, and etnicity. Because she's a Democratic appointment... these are all good things from a sincere heart. If she was a Republican appointment... there's a hidden agenda to somehow cater to a group!

Her statement was an attempt at a joke and was made in a well documented 2001 speech. Consider if a white male judge had made the opposite attempted joke in a speech. He wouldn't even be considered for the Supreme court and would probably be asked to step down from the bench. If we're going to hold our jurists accountable for their actions on and off the bench, we should do so with equality. She should not even be considered for the bench because a white male (or female) who made a similar comment would never be a candidate.

She made the same statement in 1994, 1999, 2001, 2004, etc. etc.

She keeps making the same joke? Does she make the same joke when she stated a judge makes the law, not just imposing it?

Then she adds; "I shouldn't say this because it is being taped"

So then we will hire a racist judge that makes the law as she goes and thinks Latina women are more able to make good decisions than White men.

I guess if your Latina in court against a White it's fair.

There is no evidence that she is or every was a racist. If you care to review her legal decisions from the federal bench, that reflect a keen understanding and interpretation of the law and constitution. There is not a shred of evidence that her legal decisions are racially bias or indicate a racist. There are many closet racists in this country, but Judge Sotomayor is not one. Judging from the remarks on this blog, there are many closet racists who express their opinions here.

I read her comments and then I listen to her explanation of those comments. Her explanation makes no sense. It is clearly an attempt to provide a different meaning after the fact. Basically, she is being less than truthful about her positions. She does not have the judicial character to be a Supreme Court Judge.

We deserve better. It is our rights she is going to be impacting. When do we start holding people to what they say when they are not running for something. Then we they run they tell us what they really meant - which is of course politically correct - and then we believe the revised version. When do we stop buying this crap?

Go find another liberal appointment that is honest and sincere. I mean you can be honest and sincere and have a different opinion or interpretation - you do not have to go to a person who is sneaky and dishonest.

Hellooooooooooooooooooooooo- Wake up white america, in a few more years, like 2020, you will be a minority. I say that with the influx of immigrants in our country, like uh say, now that the president has included Ghana in his list of the g8 for united nation, it is now africans, latinos, asians, did I mention african americans; move over because for over 200 years your voices have drowned us the above named groups and they have been literally excluded. Don't take any offense to her comments, don't be afraid. I am glad to see that this lovely judge to be soon nominated has a back bone and yes she is not backing down from the white boys. Right on.

This is not the time or place to vote for hope.

She did not just suddenly have a reformation so that it will be “ok” for her to serve on the Supreme Court.

America has worked long and hard and spent trillions of dollars trying to divest our society, government and culture of all vestiges of institutionalized racism, bigotry, prejudice and discrimination.

If Sonia Sotomayor’s biography were that of a white male promoting his race and gender his past would be considered outrageous and disqualifying.

Sonia Sotomayor’s has a pre-occupation that is unacceptable.

Sonia Sotomayor has stated that she is a sexist racist bigot.

Watch the pendulum swing in 2012 like it did 2008. Many American citizens feel betrayed and alienated.

Sandyshores,

Where you a several decades ago when the all white male Supreme Court upheld segregation?

This white boy believes Sotomayor will be a great addition, making the court more representative of America.

In fact what she said is true - a "wise" Latina judge would usually reach better conclusions than a white man. She did not say "wise" white man. Wisdom is a great thing, and ignorance is widespread.

Conservatives should suck it up and get over it. Rush should take another handful of his oxycontin tabs.

Isn't it ironic and hypocritical that the racist party the Republicans attact a minority nominee for the Supreme Court for being a racist. It is like the party of the rich, the Republicans, attacking as "elitists" Democrats for supporting the humanities. Lyndon Johnson, when Democrats passed the Civil Rights Bill over the objections of the Republicans, said the Democrats would lose the South for generations. Little did he know that the South would turn out to be the only area of Republican support. Republicans as a party deserve the remark that The Terror of Tellico made to that great Republican Senator, Joseph McCarthy: "Sir, have you no shame?"

I’d have to say that her "wise latina" remark was not a “wise” remark at all, however she “meant” for it to be. It certainly didn't seem to win over anyone. I interpreted it not as a racist remark but, possibly, arrogant and prideful which really isnt becoming. I suppose being a humble person, especially in politics, is too much to ask.

I say..."NEXT!!!" we don't need this crap right now do we?

i think we should start accepting her, not much we can do about it. at least she sounds a little pro-life. also, she is representing latinos around the country who are usually conservative. surely she will not want dissapoint the millions of supporters by doing something drastic. good luck, judge.

I think that the Republicans are not trying to stop the wise Latina, but simply to put her officially on record on a number of lightening rod issues. At a later date (when I think that her true colors will finally become unwrapped, the Republicans and Conservatives can exploit inconsistencies between her testimony here and any of her more controversial Supreme Court decisions, particularly if it all can reflect back badly on her sponsor.

Truthfully, replacing Sutor with Sotomoyer is a wash, legally (and politically) speaking.

The books about and by Obama have racial slurs in them as well. Should we remove him from office as they are undeniable in his books. He clearly states he will support the blacks and says he will turn to his Muslim brothers if things go bad for him. Frankly the man scares me.

And once a President, Vice President and adminstration show themselves to violate the Constitution, withold information to the congress that is required by law that President/VP should have been impeached............but now, they should be investigated.

As for Sotomayor.......My.......isn't senator Lindsay Graham showing his true 1000-thread count self today?

Speaking of temperment issues? Hmm. Now which senator was himself not confirmed by fellow GOPs for a federal judgeship? Which other senator called the NAACP a communisty organization? And which senator was a rabid supporter of Mr. Anger Management Candidate himself, John McCain?

Please these people are so over the top incensed that another "one of them' slipped through the cracks.

Yes, because for hundreds of years minorities have denegraded the white race in this country.

Now I know why Obama likes her. She speaks out of both sides of her mouth like he does...

well she didnt mean what she said in the past, dont go by her past rulings...that, that isn't fair! She is a racist liberal, she has rights, she can say something and not be accountable for it! Come on, Obama says she's the best pick he can find........nuff said.

Gov Sanford steals 9,000 to visit on of his many mistresses and 96,000 Ensign spent. No investigation just "oooohhhh well, some Dems also did it". Really? They stole our money and got away with it? Baloney! We spent millions on Clinton to investigate him. Republicans are hypocrites. Even Palin is supporting Democrats.

I just had to laugh at Linsey Graham's performance today taking Sotomayor to task for her "judicial temperament".

My guess is that Graham, a frat boy who went to a second rank law school in South Carolina, probably would have had his lunch eaten in the 2nd Circuit as an attorney by someone who worked herself up the hard way to a first rank law school .

Wimp.

Next to the definition of bigotry should be a photo of Senator Sessions. How stupid to remind the American people of his own pitiful racist history. All the Republican hypocrites need to crawl back under the GOP rock, er uh, tent with the White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis -- and shuddup.

just face it, she will be confirmed. My concern and prayer is that no conservative supreme court justice retires or dies while obama is in office.

Seriously people, turn the "wise latina women" comment around.

A white male states that he would be a better judge based on the fact that he is a "wise white man".

You all do not have to verbally attack me for stating this, simply look at the actual statement itself. Yes, it was a racist statement no matter who she said it in front of.

Sandyshores stated:

"Once a judge shows themselves to be racist they should be disbarred and not be able to take a seat in the higest judicial office."

If that were applied to all holders of public office the republican party would cease to exist......racism and predijudice are very conservative issue as they stir up a lot of emotion in a crowd (I would venture to say the very foundation of their parties way of thinking).

Liberal left wingers have tried to dull the attitude if not wipe out racism for decades but it is still out there and doing well..........................

thanks to conservative biased and unreasonable thinking.......

thanks to folks like Rush and those living in the bible belt and the illustrious KKK and their skinhead friends.

The world has a long way to go before a person knows for sure that others are looking at the color of their eyes and not the color of their skin.

Once a govenor goes AWOL and steal 9,000 or OUR MONEY they should be prosecuted. Once a Senator steal 96,000 of our money and give it to his mistress they should be prosecuted. Hypocrites.

All this nonsense discussions. She has made statements many times in the past when she was not running for anything - already had a life appointment to the Bench. Those statements were clear. NOW she is running for something and those statements are a problem. So just redefine what you meant at the time - even though that explanation makes no sense at all. That is a Supreme Court Judge?

Sessions is the racist. What rock have you been living under?

I guess when you lie through your teeth it's easy to push back!!!!!!!!! If a GOP nominee had made this statement they would not have had a chance!!!!!!!

TYLER....1.7 ...are you serious? Was it the DEM word that got my comment collapsed? GET REAL!

Just a thought, I wonder if she had just said a 'wise woman' instead of qualifying the statement by using 'Latina' if the guys in Congress and on these boards would not be even more annoyed? LOL

Are they all that angry with her comment because she used the word Latina?

There are many 'wise' women of the various ethnic groups who could make better decisions than many of those men who are complaining about and/or harping on what the Judge stated imo. The sad part is that they know that she is right, and feel threatened by that imo. LOL Perhaps they feel the OBN is under attack. LOL

The courts, whether the Supreme court or otherwise, need more diversity imo. It is time that these courts reflect society at large.

Considering that it has been noted that there are more women than men in this country, then perhaps there should be more women not only on the various courts but also in Congress don't you think. LOL

Must clarify here..... more WISE women. The type that can actually finish a sentence without a 'ya bethcha' or a wink or other folksyisms etc ....LOL

Wait, are there any actual WASPs on this board? I highly doubt it, as there are many White people who don't like them either!

It is great to hear that there is a spokesman for all 'White' people on the post...

SanPedro, please get a grip. I did not say all White people! See, I would never be foolish enough to assume that I can step into the minds of an entire group of people, and believe that I know what they are thinking!

Feel better now?

Not me. I love women pilots.

SanPedro and bsbfankaren, please, both of you get a fu%#*ng motel room already.

Can't snake! Apparently SanPedro is a practicing attorney, and has a case that he must get right on!

BS, you say you would never be foolish enough to assume you know the minds of an entire group of people yet you paint conservatives and republicans with a very broad brush. I view these boards daily and see what amounts to "politcal racism" from both sides on a daily basis. It's time to drop the letters next to a representatives name and dispassionately view their records and comments.

What the article fails to mention is that while the direct quote about Judge Sotomayor believing a "wise Latina woman" would have better judgement than a "white male" came from a 2001 interview she has repeated the sentiment on several occasions. If it were an isolated slip of the tongue I could believe that this is not where her true opinion lies. Also I find it disturbing that any judge would try to legislate from the bench, which she has admitted is what she feels the court of appeals is for. Do I think she is a copetent judge? Yes. Do I believe she has the ability to be non- partisan and rule based strictly on constitutional law? No. This is based on her record and public statements.

True.

In this day and age of PC ideology, it is OK to be racist as long as you are not white.

Exceptions are made for homosexuals like Perez Hilton who throw out slurs like they are going out of style. Ever notice that it is OK to be proud of your ethnic heritage as long as you are not Anglo? Yes, there are WASP's on this board, and they are not all Kool-Aid drinkers either! Also, Sodommayer is an activist judge who discounts the law.

Bs,

Just because she was voted in by a republican congress doesn't mean that she should not be questioned. Your remarks make me laugh you proved my point in your own statement.

cade-410364

BS, you say you would never be foolish enough to assume you know the minds of an entire group of people yet you paint conservatives and republicans with a very broad brush. I view these boards daily and see what amounts to "politcal racism" from both sides on a daily basis. It's time to drop the letters next to a representatives name and dispassionately view their records and comments.

What the article fails to mention is that while the direct quote about Judge Sotomayor believing a "wise Latina woman" would have better judgement than a "white male" came from a 2001 interview she has repeated the sentiment on several occasions. If it were an isolated slip of the tongue I could believe that this is not where her true opinion lies. Also I find it disturbing that any judge would try to legislate from the bench, which she has admitted is what she feels the court of appeals is for. Do I think she is a copetent judge? Yes. Do I believe she has the ability to be non- partisan and rule based strictly on constitutional law? No. This is based on her record and public statements.

Isolated slip of the tongue? Perhaps not. But if you are going to take offense to what she said, then at least list the remainder of the sentence, where she stated "...who has not had the same experiences." Sorry, that is not a direct quote, but I can get it if needed. This is why there are folks that believe she was taken out of context, and why I have defended her statement, most recently, right here on this board.

I could simply cut and paste what I stated earlier, but I think it is easy enough to look up my statement since it is toward the top of the threads.

Listen, you as well as everyone else are entitled to your opinions regarding Judge Sotomayor and this particular statement. I would simply ask that you take the entire statement, then consider what her thoughts might have been. I believe if you do that, you will see that her comment was not unlike that of Justice Samuel Alito, who is not racist, and doesn't feel that Judge Sotomayor is either.

I am obviously very passionate on this subject. Judge Sotomayor has 17 plus years of judicial experience, and has managed to empress both liberals and conservatives with her grasp of the law and the constitution as written. I think she sets a great example for all American's, as well as young people from around the world, and will definately cry my eyes out when this process is over!

I didn't even know what a WASP was until just now. Thanks for the insight! Yeah, those WASPS (can I call them WASPS? Maybe it should be WASPs or WASP's? Well, whatever.) Those poor folks have been screwed over for the last 230 years! How many presidents have been WASPs? Only like 40 or so! How about Supreme Court Justices? Not all of them! I can tell you that. It's criminal how oppressed those WaspS are.

Bs,

Just because she was voted in by a republican congress doesn't mean that she should not be questioned. Your remarks make me laugh you proved my point in your own statement.

I have no problems with her being questioned, however this is little more than a sham as those that approved her before already know the answers to their questions, and are simply preening for the camaras.

There are far more pressing issues before this nation and this Congress. There is no reason for this nonsence to last more than another day tops. Confirm Judge Sotomayor, then get Congress back on task! If you need to know her judicial record, you can easily every bit of it up on the internet.

Nothing wrong with that!

dangstraight

BSFarakan,

Dude, why don't you just post your own comment instead of lying in wait and sniping at everyone you disagree. I bet you are a real A$$h*le. Sotomayor is a classic case of someone who would never have been anything if not for the unwarranted bias imposed by affirmative action. Affirmative action is racial profiling, which is scorned in other places in society, but embraced when used to escalate persons (such as Soto and yourself)who are basically no more deserving that the people you were given preference over. You are a despicable bum, just like Obama and Sotomayor. In case you can't figure it out, that is not a compliment.

Ahhh, did I hurt you feelings somehow? Let me start off by saying that I cannot allow you to compare me to President Obama or Judge Sotomayor, although I would dearly love to be in there league, and I am not there yet. Still, I do appreciate the compliment.

I'm sorry, did you say something else? I must of missed it, as I following the lead of my duly elected officials, and preening over my own fabulosity. Anyone have a TV camera handy?

Bs,

That I do agree with you on.

bs

Find a job already.

All the sensorship on newsvine today tells me democrats would rather cover up the truth rather than stand up and take responsibility for your moronic choice of electing a socialist President who was born in Kenya and faked his admission to havard. Why can't Obama produce a real birth certificate and why won't the courts of this country at least hear the case HE IS NOT A NATURALY BORN CITIZEN.

No response just silence Oh well I guess nobody really cares about this Country anymore.

cory-935209

bs

Find a job already.

While I appreciate your concern for my well being, I assure you that I do in fact have a job. However, this is something I feel passionate about, and I will do my best to change a few minds if at all possible.

Confirm Jude Sotomayor!

All the sensorship on newsvine today tells me democrats would rather cover up the truth rather than stand up and take responsibility for your moronic choice of electing a socialist President who was born in Kenya and faked his admission to havard. Why can't Obama produce a real birth certificate and why won't the courts of this country at least hear the case HE IS NOT A NATURALY BORN CITIZEN.

What "sensorship" are you referring to, son? Yes, I see you did not get a response, so I thought I would help you out.

Yawn! Those of us with our eyes open who chose to look, have already seen President Obama's birth certificate, and know that he went to Harvard Law, and did in fact graduate.

So tell me, what's up with the conspiracy theories? Are you just bored today?

Sorry about the misspelling on #2.19, as I know someone is bound to point it out.

Confirm JUDGE Sotomayor!

I just had to laugh at Linsey Graham's performance today taking Sotomayor to task for her "judicial temperament".

My guess is that Graham, a frat boy who went to a second rank law school in South Carolina, probably would have had his lunch eaten in the 2nd Circuit as an attorney.

Wimp.

And, please, look up both of the Obama's on the State of Illinois Bar Association website

Len

I am going to look into this. Did they not take enough MCLE or something?

Are they illegible to practice law? Sometimes, when attorneys don't want to pay the fee, they suspend their membership to the bar for awhile.

Not saying that I adore the Obamas - far from it - but I do respect attorneys (for the most part except certain ones).

Interesting! How it is "typical" that an "anti-American president" would nominate a "racist judge"? Apparently this has happened at some time in history? Perhaps in your lifetime?

Perhaps it was when Samuel Alito was nominated? Sorry, see I wouldn't call him a racist, simply someone who understands that his own families immigrant and ethnic background will inform his judgement when it comes to civil rights matter's. Wow! Sounds an awful lot like the judge that is being grilled today!

Great system we got here!

I cant believe I even bothered to read something as stupid as this statement. First being half black and half white just how is the President racist? That would mean he is hating part of himself.

Why is Al Franken in the middle of this circus? He's in the Senate for a week and ends up on the Senate Judiciary committee at a time when they have an important task to do?

Not to mention, that along with Mr. Obama, she also has a long relationship with ACORN.

The comic now senator has as much experience as any of the other clowns in the Senate.

Since we now have the technology available, why don't we simply contract with IBM to build a supercomputer to replace all of the judges on the high court? It could easily be programmed to remain unbiased and objective, without rendering partisan opinion.

Although this suggestion sounds stupid on the surface, it would at the very least create a court that would exclude personal opinion and activists tenancies. Also, the lack of accountability regarding lifetime appointments is troubling; it makes incompetent Supreme Court jurists untouchable. Instead, they should have to run for reelection.

What has Acorn got to do with any of this? Or with anything, period?

Americans are diverse people from diverse backgrounds and our judiciary should reflect that. The notion that an all white all male jury was a jury of peers for all Americans went out with the civil rights movement. Thank goodness. Likewise, the notion that our Supreme Court should be all white, all male, is finally (but slowly) losing support. Different perspectives from Justices of different genders, backgrounds, races, religions and national origins can only improve the judgments handed down. I am a white woman. I question the abliity of an all male jury or panel of jurists to judge me fairly and completely. I can only imagine how hard it must be for other minorities to trust all male and/or all white panels. Diversity in our judiciary absolutely has to be a priority for the health of that branch of our Government. We'll start with tokenism, as we add the first Hispanic (or Latina, if you prefer,) and look beyond that to the day when race, religion, etc, are not even mentioned anymore.

BS,

you couldn't carry Alito's jock strap.

Uh, Floyd? I'm not sure I'd want to!

Why is Al Franken in the middle of this circus? He's in the Senate for a week and ends up on the Senate Judiciary committee at a time when they have an important task to do?

I was astounded by Franken's brilliance (NOT!). Franken said something to the effect that most Americans are not attorneys and he's not an attorney either.

YEAH - and what is that supposed to mean? I want a judge who has been an attorney and who knows the law. My senators are supposed to grill that person to make sure he/she does.

What a freaking joke that Franken is and the people of MN are even funnier for voting him to be their senator.

And they talk about Arnie. At least Arnie was an action hero and NOT a comedian.

Don,

You are on a broad and mostly ooutdated use of the term correct, one whose origin was the Iberian peninsula however for the last 50 to 75 years the term has entered the lexicon as one whose heritage is from a Spanish colony in the Americas.

JKHayes

Cardozo was of Portugese descent. I asked my Ops Manager (a Venezualan) if Portugal was considered Hispanic. He said no. I think that it's ludicrous if someone can trace their ancestory back to Africa, then they're deemed African-Americans, but someone of Portugese ancestory isn't Hispanic.

Portuguese are not Hispanic but they are Latin...just like French, Italian, Spanish. The word Hispanic is a made up word to help people of Spanish decent identify with those roots but most people of Spanish decent prefer the word Latino or Latina. Latinos did not make up the word Hispanic but it has become acceptable as it can group many nationalities from South America.

Don

Isn't there a lawschool named after Cardozo in NY? Is it Fordham Univ?

I can tell you that most Latinos I know would consider Spain/Portugal - European - not Latino.

The Iberian peninsula borders Spain and Portugal - both of which are considered European - not Latin - countries.

BSBKAREN

Justice Alito NEVER said that Sotomayor's comment was not racist. He HAS NOT COMMENTED on her appointment at all. Stop spreading rumors.

When will America demand that the members of the highest court of the land be chosen not for Political reasons but for their knowledge of the law and the Constitution?

President George Bush, first chose his personal Lawyer for a seat on the highest court, that is how John Rogers became the best choice at the time.

So far Judge Sotomayor's only qualifications seem to be that she is a "wise Latina woman" and not that she is an accomplished Judge with a firm understanding of the Constitution. Personally, I think President Barack Obama is suffering from an EGO trip the size of Texas, No offense to Texas. He is a Lawyer and a Law Professor, shouldn't he know much better qualified individuals to fill this position? Oh wait, he only knows racist ministers, domestic terrorists and slum lords.

What about the scottish-french-german Americans? Where is my representation.

You know..., I don't believe that one-eyed men of Norwegian descent are adequately represented on the highest court of the land either... Why not nominate one of them? Oh yeah, probably not empathetic enough.

So far Judge Sotomayor's only qualifications seem to be that she is a "wise Latina woman" and not that she is an accomplished Judge with a firm understanding of the Constitution

LOL, yeah, and the fact that she has more judicial experience than any supreme court nominee in 100 years most certainly does not qualify her for the position....

lol, you people are hilarious!

grover, judicial experience that's been overturned how many times?

grover, judicial experience that's been overturned how many times?

not entirely sure, but roughly 0.1% of the time?

4 of the 6 cases that were accepted on appeal were overturned. She has presided over 100's of cases...

There is nothing alarming about this rate.

Facts are your friend!

Pop Quiz: Who said the following?

"But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing — the barriers that it puts up to them."

(Answer: Justice Samuel Alito during his own confirmation hearing)

drowninggrover

I know that you get this stuff from from people like Franken but it simply is not true that she has the most experience of any other judicial nominee for the last 100 years.

Two names - William Howard Taft and Benjamin Cardozo. I will just stop with those two but there are more. So I am glad that you find us hilarious. But that does not make your statement correct.

wq, actually by my count I see Taft w/ 15 years of federal judicial experience and Cardozo with 16 years, both less than Sotomayor's 17 years.

To be fair, Taft had time off to serve as president, which would make him arguably much more qualified.

My bad, i suppose i should have said "more experience than any nominee in 77 years."

The point remains that she is highly qualified by any account and one must go back nearly 80 years to find another such example.

First you can't lump all judicial experience together. Second you have to look at what their work product is - you can be an electrician for 30 years and still be bad at it.

There is no doubt she is qualified in terms of length of time for the job. Just hate to see people blow things up into one liners in order to support a person for this job. I think there were many before her with legal careers that were much more impressive and those before her with less impressive careers.

I do not care how long she sat on the Bench - I care what is in her head.

Typical. When your "experience" argument gets blown out of the water, change your point of contention to something no one can guess. Can YOU read her mind? You didn't seem to have any problem with Roberts and Alito's lack of experience and obvious ultra conservative leanings when they were confirmed.

OU Shark

NO did not change argument and my argument was not blown out fo the water. The comment was that she was the most experienced in 100 years - I countered and named two justices with more experience, and there are others - then I was informed that oK the most experienced for 77 years.

I then responded that not all judicial experience is the same - district court is different then appeals court. The content of cases is also a point to deal with. So you can't just lump all judicial experience in the same bag. Length of time, I said, should not be the sole determining factor of experience. I thought it important to define experience since the response was clearly based on time served only. That was not the point originally made.

I never said I could read her mind.

I have no idea what you are talking about with Roberts and Alito. I made no comment on them and they were never part of the discussion.

I also conceded that she is very experienced.

All that being said I see no point to your comment. I did not ask anyone to guess anything. If you feel like you have to guess then maybe you know very little about the subject matter. Maybe that is why you resort to childish comments. If you think that time served is the only qualifying factor when it comes to defining experience then say so. Have your opinion. I was discussing the matter not stating any position whether she should or should not be nominated. I have listened to much of her questioning and her answers. Have you?

And do what?

Paul, What plan do you have, after doing that, for the ensuing chaos and disorganization? If you think it is bad now, do something like that, and you ain't seen nothing yet. You cannot just up and throw everyone that you and I do not like out of office, for one thing it would be illegal and then we would have no checks and balances, which some will say, we do not now. I prefer to think that because of this, we can learn from it, like history, and not repeat the same mistakes.

call in an air stike and start over

A young girl comes into the court who has been strip-searched and subjected to a full body-cavity search by a school nurse at the behest of an aggressive male school administrator who was suspicious she was carrying medication. He was acting within the letter of the law, but she feels violated and that her rights have been violated.

You rule in support of the letter of law right? No empathy allows you to question the law or it's application. right?

As the girls father, I would have beaten the School administrator within an inch of his life for violating my daughter. Then I would have gotten a Lawyer to defend my actions as temporary insanity due to the trauma that I was under going at the time.

"Sotomayor is empathetic, which means she is biased."

I think you need a new dictionary.

Exactly what law states that school officials can strip search anyone?

This is based upon an actual case recently before the supreme court...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062501690.html

I vaguely remember the case but my immediate action would be, the search descended to a level of unreasonableness and therefore, her rights were violated.

Falstaff, Who was the judge who had to educate all those hard line men on the court, tiny Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, and how did she know? Because she is a WOMAN. Not that anyone would rule illegally because they are, but they can identify with how that terrified, wronged young girl felt from that treatment.

That kind of search is reasonable and legal, but only under certain conditions. Those conditions were not met, which is why the SC ruled against the School District. In the case where there exists a safety issue, the school had the right to strip search. In that case, they were only looking for drugs.

the drug in question for this case was ADVIL.

A Supreme Court Judge interprets the constitution. Period. There should be no sympathy in that regard. The constitution says what it says - period. It should be interpreted strictly without bias and without empathy. But it should always be interpreted to protect our freedoms and keep the government in check. That is - after all - the main reason the Supreme Court is there.

A strip search is determined to be unconstitutional if it is determined that it violates a constitution right of "the people". So the court wieghts the governmental needs with "the people's" rights and decides. How the girl felt is not relevant to the determination. Whether a girl is more insulted than a boy is not relevant - if it were then there would be different rights for women and for men. We had some of those before because Judges let their biases get in the way - I do not recall women liking that too much - I also do not recall black people liking that too much. So please lets expect our Supreme Court Judges to not use empathy or bias in any case ever.

Sounds like our esteemed President, when he has a 'teleprompter malfunction'.

as opposed to our last president who spoke clearly and eloquently at all times, am i right?!?

:rollseyes:

@ least he spoke and did not even do a comment before a press conference with one.

err ahhh errr oohhh BHO without having it on a screen. Damn, he is brilliant so smart . Hell I hope he can read.

She is an intellectual lightweight compared to Scalia , Roberts and Alito...She may be a Lantino woman, but "wise" ??? Not so much

She is an intellectual lightweight compared to Scalia , Roberts and Alito

Yeah, and you state that knowing she has more experience than Alito, Roberts, and Scalia did at their confirmations...

She may be a Lantino woman, but "wise" ??? Not so much

of course, which is why she won the highest undergraduate academic award at one the best Ivy league schools in the world....

This "stumble, fumble, tongue-tied" stuff continues to amaze me. Some people actually think and ponder about what they say, and for other, that's an entirely foreign concept.

Experience doesn't always mean better, just as high education does not mean smarter or correct. Scalia, Roberts, and Alito, have much stronger records of correct rullings in tougher cases. Her education and experience says qualified, but does her rulings. The ones that were missed were not handled properly to get the rulings she did. Several very recently. She would best be left at the level she is at rather than promoted.

Scalia , Roberts and Alito make me ashamed to be a 4th generation US citizen. Their decisions and voting record read like the ones of the Nazi judges we convicted and hung in Nuremburg.

"empathy has no place in the law..."

I think this may be why the conservatives have been losing so badly. They actually believe this, and it shows.

Then why have laws at all?

empathy is for the jury we as jurors show empathy. A judge must not!!

George Bush Sr. said his nominee was empathetic. I guess he was a traitorus, socialist. loser too.

I don't know if the nominee is a 'traitorus, socialist loser' but empathy is no qualification for ruling on Constitutional issues, regardless of party affiliation.

Empathy is the basis of every world religion, and every ethical code ever devised. Empathy is what makes us human. Empathy is the reason we don't just let a computer decide our Supreme Court decisions for us. I sure am glad the conservatives are standing firm against empathy!

The Constitution is a document, which could be considered an ethical code. Constitutional issues should be judged based on the content of that document, which is open for interpretation. The judgement should not be based on whether we feel sorry for the individual - those are lower court issues.

How are we going to have justices who are responsive to citizens, an essential part of a government "of by and for the people", if we disqualify empathetic nominees? Come on!

The constitution is very clear on what is written in it and is not open to interpretation.

The supreme court judges are there to be sure the letter of the law is followed according to the constitution without interpretation.

Absolutely love the conservatives coming down in firm support of the Constitution after spenindg the last 8 years of finding ways to weasel around it.

Lemme see, what is it they always say??? Oh yeah, FLIP FLOP.

leave it to the liberals to throw a blanket on eveyone and say they are all the same. I stand by what I said and empathy needs to stay out of law.

I have to beg to differ on Hispanic meaning from Spain - It did mean that at one time. My old boss is from Spain came over here when he was about 4 (legally) the last time he applied for a minority business status he was turned down in the USA Hispanic means Mexican period. They told him he was NOT Hispanic.

Bobaty,

Hispanic has never meant 'mexican period'!

Look it up in any authoratative reference. You're quoting someone who was told something by a low-level government flunky who probably passed high school via correspondance and you think that makes it real?

Paul, you do realize anyone born in North, Central or South America is an "American", right? We are US Citizens, and only American because we happened to have been born here, thus in North America. USA stands for The United States of America because those States are on the North American continent. Obviously you'd fail second grade geography.

P.S. you are ignore now, as I only wish to read the opinions of people with IQ's over 60.

I think he knows that npa. You are just splitting hairs. You know what he means also and quit being so insulting. As I have been told, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and should be respected. Even if they are not of your opinion.

If this nation is screwed it will be because of the mess the admin of the last 8 years left festering on the table. You guys just hope the gullible people will shift the blame for all you did wrong to the new admin. Whats your answer? Return to the policies of the last 8 years which almost collaapsed the entire world financial markets or move forward.

Jim, you must be the alter ego of Jock. One way to the left the other way to the right.

logdump, the answer is no. I hope we will replace many of those responsible. This would give us a new look congress with new ideas. Leave the Barney, Harry, Nancy, Tom, Chuck shows in the dust.

Loggerhead.. when are you libs gonna stop blaming your total failure on George Bush ? This economy and this government belongs to you...Bush didn't take over the banks, or take over the auto industry, or try to Socialize the health care industry, or perpetrate the "global warming" hoax to raise taxes on the American people....and he didn't "bail out" the economy with another wasted $ 1,000,000,000,000 in pork for Democrats....So you own Mr Obama and all his his programs ...I hope they all come home to roost at your front door....when you lose your job, your house, etc you will know who to thank...

YOu really do need a life, or at least some education Osama. You sound more stupid than Bush.

BTW: Ignorant is not knowing, stupid is actually knowing but acting anyhow.

Bush didn't take over the banks, or take over the auto industry

So, when did you start paying attention, last week? It was GW Bush and his man Paulson that brought forth the fabulous 3 page bailout plan last October (all cash/no oversight) and it was Bush that decided to give cash to GM and Chrysler after the Congress sent them packing in December of 2008.

Remember when McCain decided to halt his campaign to attend to the economic crisis last fall? I suppose that Obama and the libs brought that on as well, pretty good for someone who wasn't in office yet, hadn't the Repubs had control for the last decade?

And go have a look at the pork in that stimulus package, 48% belonged to Republicans. All politicians are scum, but the folks here that continue to push flat out lies and innuendo are an even larger danger. You have the right to free speech but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Trash whoever you want, there's plenty of blame to go around for the cons & libs, but put some facts in your posts or go home. If you're not part of the solution then your part of the problem.

I have already heard Republicans stating this morning that they believe she will be confirmed and that they will probably vote for her.

Stop your whinning. It isn't even intelligent.

Yaaaawn! Who let this child out of his pen.

Thank you for the grammatical correction. Any yoy, I meant whining. I am not a bigot and I only 'quoted' what I heard from the Republicans mouths this morning.

C'mon somebody. Put him back in his pen. He's wasting the adults' time.

LOL. I certainly hope you were trying to be funny, because you are.

Aren't they the ones that were involved in that voter fraud issue?

nope, Acorn has never been involved in any voter fraud issues. Some ex-acorn employees were investigated by the FBI for voter REGISTRATION fraud, but only after they were turned in by Acorn.

Facts are your friend!

No, Acorn was not involved in a voter fraud issue. The had some workers who falsified voter registration forms, and Acorn reported these workers and the forms when they turned the forms into the Federal Voter Registration office, as they are required to do by law.

Good grief, this is so easy to check up on. Why has it been mentioned so often in this discussion?

Good grief, this is so easy to check up on. Why has it been mentioned so often in this discussion?

because the rightwing posters on this board will cling to anything they think is a valid criticism, even if they look retarded in doing so...

You can stop you talking points. She will be confirmed and she is not the most overturned decision of any judge. Where DO you get your information. Certainly not anywhere reliable.

most overturned decision of any judge

link?

Actually, she has more judicial experience than any nominee in 100 years. Facts are your friend!

DrowningGrover,

'Facts are your friend'???

Now that's funny. You must be a school teacher. It is sad that this is the first time in history that almost everyone can lookup facts and opinions easily and without cost (via the internet), and yet most people just look for what they want to hear instead (if they look at all). Reliable news sources are drying up like deserts, but rags the like of the National Enquirer are a booming business.

Since most posters here are acting politically and politics has no friends, is it any wonder that our party system is messed up. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy too.

OK Get back under your rock.

Next to the definition of bigotry should be a photo of Senator Sessions. How stupid to remind the American people of his own pitiful racist history. All the Republican hypocrites need to crawl back under the GOP rock, er uh, tent with the White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis -- and shuddup.

She wasn't ruling on that. She was ruling on whether the city had the right under existing Civil Rights law to reject the results of the test on the basis of disparate results. She was obligated to follow existing law and the precedent set by the Supreme Court.

I suppose she could have EMPATHIZED with the folks who passed the test that was rejected, and ruled against existing law and Supreme Court precedent, but that would have been an act of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.

exactly Falstaff, you hit the nail on the head.

Guys, her ruling was thrown out by the Supreme Court as misguided. And it's not the first time her rulings have been rejected. It's quite common for her.

She claims it was all about the test, but the nature of the ruling (if you've ever actually read it) makes it clear that her ruling was about quotas and affirmative action. Exactly the opposite of what she claimed before the committee not an hour ago.

And once again Falstaffsmind, you're premise is completely false. I suspect you already know that.

No, the Supreme Court didn't throw out the ruling as misguided, they in fact reversed themselves and set a new precedent in the case.

You're wrong!