Why Obama wants Sotomayor
Since the Supreme Court decision a couple of days ago with reference to racial discrimination in the case of the New Haven, Conn., firefighters, many usually shrewd observers have noted what a strong indicator the decision is that Sonia Sotomayor simply lacks the qualifications to make sound judgments. Thomas Sowell, for example, said today: “For the fourth time in six cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has reversed a decision for which Judge Sonia Sotomayor voted in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. If this nominee were a white male, would this not raise questions about whether he should be elevated to a court that has found his previous decisions wrong two-thirds of the times when those decisions have been reviewed?”
Sowell and the others are missing the point. It’s precisely because Sotomayor is being reversed again and again that her sponsor-in-chief, Barack Obama, wants her on the high court. He wants to change the Supreme Court just as radically, and as fast, as he’s trying to change everything else. He thinks the court, especially the way it voted Monday, is dead wrong, and he wants to hurry Sotomayor onto the bench so that chances of a 5-4 vote the other way are enhanced. The argument that Sotomayor has been overturned two-thirds of the time is exactly why Obama and his friends want her so badly.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top20 Comments to “Why Obama wants Sotomayor”
Saw a great cartoon. Fireman is up high on a ladder hosing off a burning building labeled “racial discrimination”. Sotomayor is on an adjacent ladder. But instead of handing the firefighter a second water hose she is attempting to hand him a gasoline pump nozzle!
Report comment to moderator
Wouldnt it be nice if current Supremes could be there to interview Sotomayor and the future wannabes BHO will attempt to install on the court?
Report comment to moderator
“…he wants to hurry Sotomayor onto the bench so that chances of a 5-4 vote the other way are enhanced.”
Uh…Sotomayor would be replacing another liberal justice. How would her presence affect any current decisions?
Am I missing something here?
Report comment to moderator
So wait.
This is news??
A president believes the court is too conservative (liberal, when the shoe is on the other foot). So when an opening arises, he appoints a justice who he believes will help take the court in the opposite direction?
I’m shocked I tell you – just shocked!!!
And the prospective justice, being of the opposite bent than the current court, has a higher reversal rate… You mean conservative courts are more likely to reverse liberal judges (and liberal courts more likely to reverse conservative judges, when the shoe’s on the other foot)?!?
Tell me it isn’t so! Who would have thought such a thing!?
What a “radical” change to the court – NOT!
Report comment to moderator
Much of the argument depends if you believe SCOTUS decided rightly, or if you think the majority was in fact, acting in an activist mode. I fail to see in the Sotomayor record, how she particular qualifies for the lable “radical”. Liberal, certainly, but also well within the mainstream, as Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog has pointed out.
Report comment to moderator
The reason Obama wants Sotomayor, from what I can gather, is that she is personally compelling. Her mind is conventional and pedantic. Her writing is devoid of imagination. Worse, she tends to harshness on questions of law and order.
To be honest, I’d rather have Justice Suiter.
Report comment to moderator
Souter may have turned out to be more liberal than conservative, but he is NOT Sotomayor and would not make the same mistakes interpreting precedent as Sotomayor. This would not have happened to him: “For the fourth time in six cases” she was reversed. Gotta tell ya, my judge was reversed about once every five years, once on an affirmative action case, but that was because the Supremes changed the rule. He had followed established precedent. Sotomayor does not. If she had, she wouldn’t have been reversed here. Even I saw this one coming!
Report comment to moderator
I don’t trust Sotomayor whatsoever, and I trust Obama even less – One only need ask themselves ‘what is Obama’s ultimate plan‘? It’s a frightening question, one which many are now asking –
You may have heard the term “Statism or Etatism” – it is being used often lately, with good reason.
Does this sound familiar since Obama took office?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, quoting your quote: “A political viewpoint “that sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, ….”
This is not the American view, or at least not the one on which the country was founded. We believe in government of the people, by the people — that sovereignty is in the hands of the people. This is why Obama and people who support him frighten me so much. They really want to change the very nature of this country.
Report comment to moderator
Since the decision was 5-4, does that mean that four currently seated justices “simply lack the qualifications to make sound judgments”?
Report comment to moderator
I agree with you NJL – but people are now calling Obama’s plan ‘Statism’-
NO our country wasn’t founded on ‘Statism’ but it certainly is heading in that direction. Look at what has transpired since Obama took office.
Report comment to moderator
I saw Ricci coming too, NJLAWYER. It had politics written all over it. The reason Sotomayor and six other appeals judges ruled unanimously, and were affirmed by four justices, is that they were playing by the rules. The majority of the SC changed (one of) the rules. Justice Kennedy admits the change, calling it a clarification of a difficult area of the law. Scalia, Thomas and Alito went further and openly advocate even more extensive changes.
There’s a difference between getting corrected and getting new orders. Find me a case where Sotomayor played the wrong notes instead of a case where SCOTUS switched the music.
Report comment to moderator
You are forgetting that the Circuit Court of Appeals — all the active judges — voted on their own motion for rehearing. So, no, it doesn’t have politics written all over it. You have a very skewed view of how cases are decided on the appellate level and how federal judges operate.
When I said I saw this opinion coming, I based my opinion on precedent. This is where affirmative action has been going for YEARS. You just don’t like it. Kinda like Bush v. Gore, right?
Report comment to moderator
Of course, Obama wants Sotomayor! From Fox, the attached link shows a link to ACORN, not to mention that her feelings about white police officers haven’t changed in many a decade:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/01/sources-puerto-rican-group-sends-sotomayor-documents-senate/
Report comment to moderator
The 2nd circuit unanimously upheld the district court, NJLAWYER. They reheard the case and then took Sotomayor’s stance. Is there something I’m missing, or are you just trying to pejorate Sotomayor by leaving the impression that “reheard” means “corrected.” Actually “reheard” means “double checked”.
SCOTUS didn’t reverse Sotomayor sola — it reversed the unanimous position of an entire circuit. Further, it was Anthony Kennedy’s decision. The conservatives signed on but wrote separate opinions. We’re pretty sure that Roberts thinks like the conservatives but abstained from endorsing radicalism at this stage because he didn’t want to leave Kennedy teetering alone. The fact that the decision was Kennedy’s makes it by definition a “swing” decision.
Wherever this issue goes from here is entirely up to Kennedy. Everything is. All appeals judges in the nation now call him up in the process of writing their opinions and beg to know whether he’s about to change the rules of the game in little ways.
Report comment to moderator
@2 and #3
What you seem to be missing is that Sotomayor is a looney tune. We don’t need looney tunes on the Supreme Court. Sotomayor has failed to understand law two thirds of the time. That is an extremely bad record.
Report comment to moderator
Ah Monty, a looney tune? That certainly doesn’t seem to be the way the legal community describes her (see this post from SCOTUSblog).
Report comment to moderator
Read the article. basically the article indicated that she is not a wonderful candidate but because we have Barack as President and a bunch of Democrats in congress that we can’t dispose properly with her.
Report comment to moderator
In the local library’s used book sale I found and purchased for 50 cents “The Enduring Constitution,by Jethro K. Lieberman. Publish in 1987. It is a easy read, written by a lawyer. Surprise. The two branched of our government that can make you tremble with fear on one hand and over joyed with pride in our system on the other is the Supreme Court and the U.S.Congress. These two bodies of human beings have a long track record of doing the wrong thing first. Then reversing themselves after sometimes years of public frustration. The process requires each Judge and Congressman to set aside all influences and voice and vote via their knowledge and experiences of right and wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Many good comments have been made above, as is often found on these blogs, but what about the biblical basis for a judge, especially in WorldMag blogs? I have thought of some important ones, such as:
Qualifications of a Judge:
Two basic qualifications for a judge are:
1) Knowledge of the law, and
2) Proven ability to apply the law without partiality.
It is straightforward to satisfy 1), but satisfying 2) takes courage and integrity.
The classic representation of Justice as a lady with a blindfold summarizes the importance of 2). A judge must not look at the personal appearance of those in a case, but only consider the evidence in relation to the law.
What better wisdom on this matter can be found than what is in the Bible?
The Bible makes it clear that God cares for the poor and will not hold them guiltless who oppress the poor (Job 20:19, for example). It states more than once that God will raise up the poor and put them in places of honor (Psalm 107:41, Psalm 113:7). It even promises a blessing on individuals who help the poor, saying “he who has mercy on the poor, happy is he.” (Proverbs 14:21). As individuals, we should all have compassion on poor that we know.
But in matters of the law, the Bible makes the key statement: “You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty.” (Leviticus 19:15). In summary, “You shall not show partiality in judgment” (Deuteronomy 1:17). In particular, having diabetes, being disabled, or being Hispanic or female may help us as individuals to be more compassionate on the unfortunate. But these things are of no value in insuring that we will not show partiality in judgment.
In fact, those that consider the appointment of judges should also do so without partiality. That is, they should not look on the personal appearance, personal circumstances or personal history of a candidate. Rather they should concentrate on whether that candidate has the proven ability to be impartial in judgment.
Our entire legal code and justice system was founded on Biblical principles. We should not despise the wisdom found in those principles.
Why is impartiality important in judgment?
One reason for impartiality in matters of civil law is that these matters are zero-sum. The loser must give something to the winner. He has no choice; he is required (forced) to do so. Even if the winner is a group and the loser is a corporation or the government (taxpayers), the result is a forced exchange.
Since a court of law will force one (the loser) against his will to give to the other (the winner), the court must be sure that justice requires this. The court cannot force compassion on the loser; “compassion” that is forced is not compassion at all.
Compassion by an individual is something totally different. If a person wants to show mercy on a poor individual, he does so without coercion. His gift is voluntary. In exchange for the gift, the giver receives a blessing (Proverbs 14:21). So it is not a zero-sum exchange at all. It is “win-win” if you will.
We have in Jesus the perfect example of compassion:
“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through his poverty might become rich.” (II Corinthians 8:9).
Although he was “in the form of God” He emptied Himself of His privileges and took “the form of a servant”. (Philippians 2:7-8).
No one forced Him. In particular, no one took his life from Him, but He laid it down Himself (John 10:18). Since He paid all the penalty of the Law on our behalf, we can go free from the just judgment of God.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!