It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Left vs. Right: Knocking Heads Over Today's Supreme Court Pick

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:38 PM

Left vs. Right: Knocking Heads Over Today's Supreme Court Pick

"A horrible pick," says Rush Limbaugh. "She is a hack, like he (Obama) is a hack." But what do you really think Rush?

"If she is confirmed," says former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, "then we need to take the blindfold off Lady Justice."
"She is a radical pick," says Americans United For Life, "that divides America."
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:38 PM
Well it was bound to happen. They brought up the Left V. Right thing. Honestly... How much do you know about this woman??

Here's the Wikipedia page for her: Sonia Sotomayor

Well she's qualified: Sotomayor has received honorary degrees from Lehman College, Princeton University, Brooklyn Law School, Pace University School of Law, Hofstra University, and Northeastern University.She was elected a member of the American Philosophical Society in 2002.

Other than that I dont really get much a "sense"about her when I look up the things shes ruled on.

Just who is this woman? Is she just a political tool to get the Latinos to like Obama?
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:48 PM
According to this post here on ATS:

1. She believes in making law from the bench, not just interpreting it
2. Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases
3. She believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider (in their jurisprudence) people's “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.”

So if any one of this is true, of course the right is going to oppose her. Actually, if any of those things are true, her appointment should scare the crap out of everyone except the most liberal of liberals. She and Ginsberg should get along really well.

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:53 PM
Well im a firm believer that you never use wikipedia as a source for information ill just state that right off the bat.

As far as im concerned im done with this whole party line crap. However, from what i DO know of this woman , she is very very vocal about her biases and how she thinks they will affect how she runs her position.

I also know that being in her position this is NOT how they are suppose to run their position in the supreme court.

Shes made some pretty outlandish comments in references to this bias, to be quite frank, it scares me that we could elect someone that is so open about these things. IMHO not a good pick at all, but it does however follow the pattern that this administration is following

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 04:35 PM
It is sad that this woman is basically being picked just because she is Hispanic. What is even sadder is that she knows this is the reason and is still willing to accept. Whatever happened to self pride?

"Judge Sotomayor is not one of the leading lights of the federal judiciary and would not even have been on the shortlist if she were not Hispanic," said Ilya Shapiro, editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 04:55 PM
The news reported this morning that in a recent speach she felt a "Latino woman" such as herself with all the "richness" of her experiences would somehow make better decisions from the bench than a "white male". When did racism not apply to those who weren't white? If a white man would have said that white men with all their richness and experience could make better judgments from the bench than a Latino woman he would be dragged out into the streets by now and branded a bigot. This woman, however nice and educated she may be, is at her very heart a racist. Yet another example of our new world, where the purveyors of political correctness aren't so accepting of others themselves.

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 06:29 PM
To the folks who are "outraged" at the pick calling it an "affirmative action pick" to be fair the last few administrations since the 60s have nominated their supreme court picks in part due to their backround. Reagan in 81' nominated Sandra O' connor, the first female to join the supreme court. In 91' Clarence Thomas was the first african american nominated, and that was by Bush snr. and ofcourse Harriet Miers, although not the first female, again was partly chosen in part to gain further support from the female voting block. This pick shouldnt be surprising at all, and at the time during 81 and 91' when none of the conservatives objected, and some dems likewise cried foul, this year is little different, only with conservatives now claiming these pick bias.

Now Sotomayor is qualified and she has been appointed to other positions by both Bush snr and Clinton in the past. Sotomayor is also considered to be a centrist by the American Bar Association Journal. Shes also quilified enough so the only issue here is here supposed "biasness" ideologically. Well I think its safe to say it'd be common sense to expect the conservative presidents to nominate conservative individuals, and liberal presidents to nominate liberal individuals. We can go on and complain that its not good to the court system, but at the end of the day but we may also have our own biasness in this, and that president has every right has he or she sees fit to choose. It'd just be required to have alittle common sense in these nominations, they typically are ideologically bias in someway so the "outrage" ploy is really unnecessary.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Southern Guardian]

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 06:35 PM
She is a flat out racist. Any White Male going in front of the Supreme Court in a case against a Latino Woman will wonder if they are getting a fair shake. We don't need that in the highest court in the land.

What do qualifications matter anyway? Obama said Alito and Roberts were well qualified for the Supreme Court BEFORE voting AGAINST them.

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:41 PM
In 91' Clarence Thomas was the first african american nominated, and that was by Bush snr. nope..

Thurgood Marshall (July 2, 1908 – January 24, 1993) was an American jurist and the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.


posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:45 PM
Silly people!

You know it's only ok to vote WHITE racists in...not other minorities...

It's either follow the frickin Constitution...or you shouldn't be anywhere near a judicial position...EVER.

One's personal beliefs shouldn't matter. A judge can have personal beliefs...but it should never sway how they dictate law.

This goes for anyone...but as I stated in another post...who follows the Constitution anymore anyway?

Let me know if you find any...i know of one.

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:51 PM
reply to post by David9176

Your posts are always on the money David.

No one really follows the Constitution in our government anymore. It's a travesty!

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:55 PM
reply to post by David9176

ha! no doubt..

Hey dude, as long as she is "cool" i am cool with her

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:56 PM
reply to post by David9176

Had to get a Ron Paul jab in huh?

When someone mentions ALGORE the first thing I think about is Global Warming. When I see you post the first thing I think about is Ron Paul.

Weird huh?

Anyway racism, whether it comes from a white person or a minority is still racism. Hope Obama has a less extreme backup for this joke of a pick.

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 07:56 PM
reply to post by Tentickles

Tentickles...I'm getting more disgusted by the day!

It's funny how we fight over how to trash the Constitution..and which side should get to do so...instead of trying to protect it from both of them!

I keep hoping that progress is being made....and I think it is with some...but damn...

Everything is a mess and 1 judge is going to be the least of our problems...cripes people the EXECUTIVE BRANCH and CONGRESS don't follow the Constitution and you expect the Supreme Court to do it?

Holy hell people!!!!

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:10 PM
reply to post by RRconservative

She certainly is far more qualified than either of us RR.

Harriet Myers was a joke.

The thing I find amusing is the right rails against

liberal judges assuming that they will make rulings based on ideology... but conveniently ignore the fact that they want a conservative judge who will make rulings based on ideology.

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:54 PM
After awhile cordinated talking points start sounding like parrots:

Orrin Hatch (R-Utah): "I will focus on determining whether Judge Sotomayor is committed to deciding cases based only on the law as made by the people and their elected representatives, not on personal feelings or politics."

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): "We will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences."

Charles Grassley (R-Iowa): "The Judiciary Committee should take time to ensure that the nominee will be true to the Constitution and apply the law, not personal politics, feelings or preferences."

John Cornyn (R-Tx.): "She must prove her commitment to impartially deciding cases based on the law, rather than based on her own personal politics, feelings, and preferences."

Awk Awk... dumbo wanna crack at her Awk Awk.

new topics

top topics


log in