How bad can she be if a Bush nominated her? Looking at her briefly, it doesn't look like she'll be seriously opposed.

Without getting into whatever her politics may be, the argument you're positing really cuts across two eras in judicial appointments.

Back in the Bush I era, neither party was really making judicial appointments 'in depth'. Sontomayer went to the right schools, had the right background, and that was good enough. After all, why waste time vetting every single appointee to the federal court? If you got a bad one, they could just be overruled later.

This conception of low end judicial appointments has changed quite a bit. Both parties extensively vet even the most trivial appointments to the bench on the premise that the people you're appointing today will be the same folks you're discussing for Supreme Court appointments 20 years from now. Essentially, both parties are looking to avoid a Sontomayer situation - where you give someone with an opposing political viewpoint credible experience on the bench going into a Supreme Court appointment.

makes sense. It also gave people from the other party a shot though. Too bad the process has become more political IMO.

Bondsman, you say that the nomination process is too political, yet your knee-jerk approval of Sotomayor is based entirely on the fact that a Republican prez once appointed her. Shouldn't you practice what you preach and look into her accomplishments, intellect, etc before forming an opinion? Something tells me you wouldn't be bemoaning the partisan nature of Supreme Court appointments if it were a Republican making the pick right now.

b0nnylass:

Bondsman, you say that the nomination process is too political, yet your knee-jerk approval of Sotomayor is based entirely on the fact that a Republican prez once appointed her. Shouldn't you practice what you preach and look into her accomplishments, intellect, etc before forming an opinion? Something tells me you wouldn't be bemoaning the partisan nature of Supreme Court appointments if it were a Republican making the pick right now.

LOL, no, I wasn't making a knee jerk response because of Bush's appointment, I was just wondering whether a Left-winger would show up with a knee-jerk response about Bush. And believe it or not, us republicans ARE into fairness - ever hear of Abe Lincoln?

Why when the Republicans were in power, conservative judges were shoved down our throats. Now that the Dems are in power we are suppossed to be afraid of Rush Limbaugh. If he is your banner caller then God help your party.

Federal judges should not be appointed soley by political party, but more by hteir judgements throughout their career.

I am very comfortable with htis choice, as she has much life experience, which should be considered by each judge, and also educational and judicial experience and judgement. Both Refugs and Dems have seen to support her thus far. Glad to see some diversity!!

but she has already stated she wants to make policy instead of rule from the bench and so what if she is hispanic so was alberto gonzales.she needs to be questioned on holding up the rights of the constitution not of her feelings and life expeiences. being catholic will she be for pro life.

" How bad can she be if a Bush nominated her?" Was that a joke?? Bush was the worst pres ever, and I am pretty sure that most reasonable folks understand that Bush was the worst ever. So point was he making?

Obama wants a female Hispanic liberal appointed. One that happens to have minimal experience for the job. Practice what you preach and dont just pick some one because of gender or race. Isn't that promoting discrimination? There were a lot of extremely qualified people, from many different backgrounds, that were disqualified because of their race!

It won't even be close...The Republicans have managed to so marginalize themselves that they are at genuine risk of disappearing as a political force for decades. They really need to pick their fights more wisely, and this will not be a good one for them.

Except for the Rush Limbaugh led Zealots, who are determined to re-enact Masada on a political level, there is going to be little if any real opposition outside of, perhaps, a little half-hearted slapping around in committee.

She breezes..................

She has an 80% overturn rate. This means 80% of her rulings have been overturned by higher courts. This is not a good judge. I can admire her courage and strength of charecter, but only getting it right 20% of the time is not good adjudicating.

She also feels it is the appeals court job to help set make policy, clearly a role she sees that is in opposition to the constitution. Perhaps you want that little document thrown out as well?

You want a woman on the court? Fine. You want a Hispanic? Fine. There have to be better choices.

If this was a Bush oppointee, he screwed that up too.

Wickerr,

You will see how fast the Republican party regroups when the cap and trade impact is felt in each and every Americans' pocket book. When electricity costs hit 17, 18, even 20 cents per KW hour, you will see how fast the Democrats new power dwindles.

Sorry, no pun intended. The laws currently being passed are going to cause a lot of pain for the common man. The common man won't put up with it for very long, and they target those in power. Right now it is the Democrats. Same would hold true if the Republicians were passing this gargage called laws.

Why Congress is so set to turn the whole country into California is beyond me. They rate they are going that state will be nearly uninhabitable due to all the fiscal trouble and chaos.

She needs to be questioned severely. Based on her statements, she is a racist.

Sotomayor Video: Judges Make Policy, Latinas Better Than Whites
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 9:35 AM

By: Kenneth D. Williams Article Font Size

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's pick to become the newest Supreme Court justice, is on the record with some controversial remarks about 'diversity,' 'judicial activism' and female judges vs. male judges.

For example, the New York Times reported that in 2001, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture, Sotomayor had this to say:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said later, regarding non-white, female judges, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

Also, there is a 2005 video of Sotomayor, speaking with potential law clerks, saying that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She added: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it....

I don't know about you, but her comments speak for themselves. She is as racist as it comes. Not only that but it would appear she does not know what her job is. She is not a judge to make policy as that is done by Congress. Her job is to make sure that it abides by the Constitution of the United States. Frankly, based on her answers, she apparently cannot do that. He ethnicity and beliefs prevent her from following the law according to her own words.

Yikes, Bondsman. If you have to reach all the way back to Lincoln for an example of Republican 'fairness' that's kinda sad. And whatever your intentions, if you re-read your OP it definitely comes across as a bit hypocritical, in an oblivious kind of way.