The Escape and Evade of Sonia Sotomayor

Anon

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07 ... questions/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31917681/ns ... ite_house/


Sotomayor Declines to Give View on Abortion, Gun Rights

This is a dangerous person to have on the bench. Her refusal to answer direct questions with direct answers is disturbing. Her past history has shown her to either run her mouth too quickly for her brain to catch up or that she is someone who is too unstable to interpret the law to be on the highest court.

Commy

be honest. you don't agree with her views, has nothing to do with her remarks or being dangerous.

soulsinging

JB811 wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/15/day-sotomayor-returns-questions/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31917681/ns ... ite_house/


Sotomayor Declines to Give View on Abortion, Gun Rights

This is a dangerous person to have on the bench. Her refusal to answer direct questions with direct answers is disturbing. Her past history has shown her to either run her mouth too quickly for her brain to catch up or that she is someone who is too unstable to interpret the law to be on the highest court.

I'm more bothered by the fact that Congress is directly asking the judge to say how she would rule on specific issues that are not before her as a litmus test to make sure that their politics are enshrined on the bench.

tybird

soulsinging wrote:

JB811 wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/15/day-sotomayor-returns-questions/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31917681/ns ... ite_house/


Sotomayor Declines to Give View on Abortion, Gun Rights

This is a dangerous person to have on the bench. Her refusal to answer direct questions with direct answers is disturbing. Her past history has shown her to either run her mouth too quickly for her brain to catch up or that she is someone who is too unstable to interpret the law to be on the highest court.

I'm more bothered by the fact that Congress is directly asking the judge to say how she would rule on specific issues that are not before her as a litmus test to make sure that their politics are enshrined on the bench.

Casting their nets for votes in the next election cycle????

blackredyellow

ok, I'll bite... what exactly in her past history "has shown her to either run her mouth too quickly for her brain to catch up or that she is someone who is too unstable to interpret the law"? The whole line of attacks from the right is about her statements in some speeches, not her judicial history.

While her views are probably politically different from yours, nothing I have seen has shown her to be unqualified for the appointment. This is what happens in elections, to the victor belong the spoils. In the past administration, Bush's appointments were qualified (well, except for Harriot Myers), and they were confirmed to the court... The left didn't like them for the most part, but they were definitely qualified.

BRMLAW

soulsinging wrote:

JB811 wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/15/day-sotomayor-returns-questions/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31917681/ns ... ite_house/


Sotomayor Declines to Give View on Abortion, Gun Rights

This is a dangerous person to have on the bench. Her refusal to answer direct questions with direct answers is disturbing. Her past history has shown her to either run her mouth too quickly for her brain to catch up or that she is someone who is too unstable to interpret the law to be on the highest court.

I'm more bothered by the fact that Congress is directly asking the judge to say how she would rule on specific issues that are not before her as a litmus test to make sure that their politics are enshrined on the bench.

They ask those same questions at every confirmation proceeding. It's standard protocol.

blackredyellow

What is annoying is that the whole thing is a political grand-standing sham...

She has a 100% chance of getting confirmed, but it gives politicians a chance to grandstand and bloviate on TV, so they can go back to their base and say that they were tough on the crazy, liberal activist judge...

They dont' care about her answers, and she has been prepped to not fall into any traps with her answers, so all it ends up being is a few days of political theater.

CServant

blackredyellow wrote:

ok, I'll bite... what exactly in her past history "has shown her to either run her mouth too quickly for her brain to catch up or that she is someone who is too unstable to interpret the law"? The whole line of attacks from the right is about her statements in some speeches, not her judicial history.

While her views are probably politically different from yours, nothing I have seen has shown her to be unqualified for the appointment. This is what happens in elections, to the victor belong the spoils. In the past administration, Bush's appointments were qualified (well, except for Harriot Myers), and they were confirmed to the court... The left didn't like them for the most part, but they were definitely qualified.

John Roberts is no more qualified than Sotomayor! No matter who the Justice is, they make decisions along party lines. That is why the Presidential election is so important.

Anon

My problem with her lies in her judgment that the Bill of Rights does not apply to individuals. That, to me, is lock them up crazy.

WaveCameCrashin

Out of 6 cases that she ruled on 4 have been overturned by the supreme court. That's not a good record. If she turns out to be another Ruth Bader Ginsburg this country will take a huge turn for the worse. IMO I think she is an activist judge all you have to do is look at the New Haven Firefighters case and some of her speeches.

gimmesometruth27

it would still be a 5-4 conservative majority. so what is everyone complaining about? jeez.