The US Senate has confirmed Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court justice, making the New York native the nation’s first Hispanic person to sit on the bench. Sotomayor, who faced staunch opposition over her apparent views on abortion and gun rights, is replacing retiring Justice David Souter.
The Senate was still voting Thursday, but Sotomayor had already earned the minimum 50 votes needed for confirmation.
The confirmation was a victory for President Barack Obama, who nominated the 55-year-old appeals court judge of Puerto Rican descent who was raised in a New York City housing project, educated in the Ivy League and served 17 years on the federal bench.
(Source: CBS News)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
16 Responses
No news here. She was a shoe-in.
No news here. Her confirmation was a foregone conclusion. She is an activist judge who, by her own admission, believes policy can/should be dictated by the courts, not the Constitution.
more chevlai mashiach…
Even the Republican Minority Leader in the Senate has said tyat her legal opinions are not activist and that she is in the judicial mainstream. Just the facts.
Think Straigh – you say “who, by her own admission, believes policy can/should be dictated by the courts, not by the Constitution..”
That is false – find and post here one quote where she says such a thing.
#2
Policy should not be set by the Constitution either, it should be set by the legislature. The Constitution is a set of rules and a framework within which the political game is played. The Constitution is no more a place for policy than the bench.
we get carried away with the talk show hosts we enjoy. We as Jews are much better off with democrats and minorities in any position. Think about it.
#2, she spoke at a conference where she said that judges make laws. She said this despite the fact that she conceded that she was being taped. Go to the Mark Levin Show website. It is in his archives.
Mazel Tov Justice Sotomayor. And ach und vay on the rest of us.
5, words mean things and she said them. i dont care that she tried to weasel out of it but she said them and we should have held her to the grindstone on it!
6, you need to follow the rules set forth in the constitution. if you dont like the laws the court should not decide the new law. Thats not the way we are supposed to be. if there is something that needs to be changed, there are ways – constitutional convention followed by a vote – and thats how we change the law of the land. we dont change it by some hot headed latina deciding it doesnt go for her people.
If you didn’t like Souter, you won’t like Sotomayor, though you’ll probably find her to be a very slight improvement over Souter.
If you are a criminal, you may be in for an unpleasant surprise. Religious minorities (e..g non-Christians, for an example check your local mirror) will probably find her more friendly.
YonasonW: If YWN allows me to link to a site, then here is the quote. http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/conservatives_go_after_sotomayor_for_policy_quote.php
#6: You are correct. What I meant to say is that the judiciary should be a place where judges determine what the intent of the original framers of the Constitution was, and if current laws follow those dictates. The Constitution is the basis of all US secular law, and the courts should stay out of legislating from the bench. It should not be a venue for activist judges (on either side of the political spectrum) to impose their views on the electorate.
Casual Observer: the Constitution establishes the fundemental princples to which “policies” (statutes and court decisions) must conform – you cannot separate them as starkly as you seem to be doing.
Did you expect Obama to choose a conservative to replace the liberal retiring justice? If it wouldn’t be her, it would be another liberal. And with a democratic house and senate, did you even expect her (or any other liberal Obama would have chosen) NOT to be confirmed? What’s the difference if it’s her or another liberal?
#10:
I don’t recall saying anything to the contrary. I just said that the Constitution is an equally improper place for policy decisions.
#13:
The Constitution is indeed a set of fundamental principles, or “rules” as I put it. Like I said, it establishes the framework within which policy decisions are made by setting the playing field. I’m not sure how our comments are irreconcilable?
If you are under the impression that Scalia or Thomas or any other conservative judges do not engage in judicial activism, you have simply not read enough of their opinions.