Sonia Sotomayer

[6thGen]

So, do you not agree that the Constitution flowed logically from, and in response to, English common law?

9 times out of 10, a Justices job is to be a check and balance to the legislator, no?

Of course it did. One of the core responses to was to limit the power of an unelected judiciary.

As for a "living, breathing Constitution" the Founders put a system in place to change the Constitution. It wasn't through the judicial branch.

 

[30ashopper]

IMHO, the Constitution should be interpreed as a dynamic document reflecting the times we live in. When the Constitution was written there was no stem cell research or intellectual property or mass media outlets and Slavey was an acceped practice. It is not a static document but a living breathing document that needs to evolve to incorporate the complexities of the times we live in.

As long as it "lives and breathes" in a direction you prefer correct? Remember, activist judges can be conservative too. Wouldn't it be better to leave changing its meaning to the people, rather than to a judge's political whims?

 

[Geo]

I heard on tv today (political commentary) that she has more relevant experience today than any of Bush's SC nominees on the day he announced them as his picks. Is this true???

 

[scooterbug44]

She is very well qualified - that's why they have to fuss about empathy and racial politics instead of her resume or lack of experience.

Her name was put forward when W was appointing people too - in fact his Dad is who first appointed her a federal judge!

 

[Lynnie]

She's evidently been on the bench longer than other justices upon their respective appointments. Since Clarence Thomas was appointed (raucous hearings), I don't recall any Justice nominees that weren't approved. Have there been any?

 

[Andy A]

I think they definitely should go ahead and confirm her. Having said that, I don't think she is particularly well qualified, will show empathy instead of following existing law and precedence and make many decisions not in the interest of the populace but in the interest of special interest groups.
The point is, she will do little to change the rulings of the court as it now stands. Instead of wasting energy and effort on a cause that is futile, save your ammunition for one that is further down the road and possibly winnable. One of two things will happen in the future. Obama will gain greater approval by the American public or he will lose their confidence. The next Supreme Court appointment will be the one that counts, not this one. He may not have a chance to make it if he continues with his spending philosophy. This one will not matter. Everything controversial will still be a 5 to 4 vote.

 

[RayStar]

I find nothing wrong w/ citing "empathy" as an additional qualification. Having a soul and regard for other people is a plus IMO.

If it was the ONLY qualification, then I would quibble, but I don't think someone who spent more than a decade as a Constitutional Law Professor is taking a Supreme Court appointment lightly.

I agree. Would anyone want a justice with the mindset of Charles Manson?

 

[RayStar]

She's evidently been on the bench longer than other justices upon their respective appointments. Since Clarence Thomas was appointed (raucous hearings), I don't recall any Justice nominees that weren't approved. Have there been any?

I think if you do a search you may find a couple of them. One woman I think during Clinton's time. The hearings are sure to be interesting.

 

[Lynnie]

Yes, I found one that Clinton nominated and was rejected. I don't think these hearings will be out of hand at all. Although, you never know these days!

 

[TooFarTampa]

I think if you do a search you may find a couple of them. One woman I think during Clinton's time. The hearings are sure to be interesting.

No children, thus no Zoey Baird-style nanny problem.