Lisa Benson for June 01, 2009

ahh, geeze, you GOPers, Presidents get to appoint SC justices … goodness knows you’ve certainly had your share! it’s your job to determine if she’s qualified, which she is, it’s not your job to insist on a nominee that agrees with everything you think … it ain’t your turn for the next four years … sit down and shut up

Great timing. Published the day after a doctor who performed abortions was shot to death in church by a man exercising his “second amendment rights.” Good Grief.

If the first step of the hopscotch was labeled First Amendment, we wouldn’t need the rest of the steps. It’s time to get religion out of government.

“It’s funny how when Republican presidents nominated Supreme Court justices, the left pulled out all the stops to try to block them, but now that [Obama] is in, we’re supposed to just rubber stamp his choices?”

You’re wrong on both points. She’s already received just as withering attacks as any Republican-nominated justice. You will also notice that not a single Democrat is bloviating about giving Sotomayor an “up-or-down vote”, right?

IrishCook states : “Judge Sodomizer is a racist who hates white men”

So you think lying will help your end of the debate????

Pitiful, just pitiful!

The only reason she was chosen was that she is a so-called Latina minority. Brains and intelligence are secondary. Puerto-ricans are not really considered minority. Don’t they own N.Y, city? They get the best of both worlds, They are a US territory and get to keep their country, Spanish is their main language. They could care less about all these so-called Hispanic, Latino bleeep issues. Am an American of Mexican ancestry. You can take this to the bank.

Serpaco said, “The only reason she was chosen was that she is a so-called Latina minority.”

You could say that or you could tell the truth and say she was chosen for her qualifications and experience.

I did say that her brains and intelligence are secondary. No doubt, She is qualified for sure. But again, she was selected on being a minority, period. That seems to be all the news coming out., anyway.

I did say that her brains and intelligence are secondary. No doubt, She is qualified for sure. But again, she was selected on being a minority, period. That seems to be all the news coming out., anyway.

No doubt she is well qualified. No Doubt. But she was mainly selected only on the basis of her gender/minority status. I never doubted her qualifications.

Believecom: “…sit down and shut up.” Ah, the prototypical leftist principle. I mean the prototypical fascist principle. Anyone care to explain why it isn’t fascist?

If the Republican presidents hadn’t nominated so many people unqualified to even work at Burger King or Mickey D’s, there might not have been so many challenges. Heard somebody state that Sotomayor will “push the Court irrevocably to the left”. The fact she actually has more qualifications than any sitting member had on appointment shows her selection and vetting wasn’t random. It’s time for her critics on the right, and the left, to get real.

Sodomayor has the intelligence, the experience and the wisdom to be a Supreme court justice, period. She is also a history making choice. Republicans, please, grow up. Fortunately Republicans on the Judicial Committee are saying sensible, realistic things about her confirmation hearings. As for Irishcook- are you out of your freaking mind with your comments? Your hatred is absolutely evil.

All this bleeep about Sotomayor’s superb “qualifications” is too much. What are they, time served as a judge and good grades in law school? Qualifications should be centered on quality, not quantity and quality not dependent on something as flimsy as academic criteria.

The fact remains that she said that being a woman and a Hispanic makes her superior to a white man as a judge. If that is not unvarnished bigotry, plain English no longer has any meaning.

danielsangeo said, about 6 hours ago

Serpaco said, “The only reason she was chosen was that she is a so-called Latina minority.”

You could say that or you could tell the truth and say she was chosen for her qualifications and experience

but your last statement is not the truth —see johnking

As with many SCOTUS nominations Sotomayor’s is a combination of aptitude and politics. Is she “qualified”? Yes. Will she be approved? Yes. Does she have deficiencies? Obviously. The Democrats commenting here seem to forget history.

Alito 58-42 Thomas 52-48 Breyer 87-9 Ginsburg 96-3

Remember when he was a Senator Obama voted -no- on both Roberts and Alito. The Republican senator who will be the minority head of the evaluating committee was personally defeated by the Democrats when he was nominated for the bench.

Is she the most qualified person in the US to sit on the Supreme Court? Remember that question was asked when Thomas was nominated. Obviously not only is she not but at least 3 names on the Obama short list would make a better Supreme Court Justice- Woods, Kagan and Sullivan. And of course that eliminates all the male potentials.

Bottom line -average choice, not exceptional not a disaster. (for a similar choice-See Alito) To remind the Dems here cloture had to be voted for his nomination.

yes, I said sit down and shut up, which is not to mean others don’t have a right to speak, of course they do. I get tired of false assertions — just read some of these comments for example.

Thomas was one of the LEAST qualified people ever to be nominated to the court (with the possible exception of Harriet Miers). To assert that Sotomayor was ONLY nominated because of her race is an outrageous statement, backed up by nothing.

She has a 17 year history of being on the bench and every objective appraisal of her record has shown her opinions to be centrist.

It seems to me “judicial activism” gets thrown out by the Reps whenever they don’t like the opinion, even when the opinion follows the precedent of earlier law. That’s the case with the controversial firefighters vs. local government case, Sotomayor (and the other judges) upheld the earlier court’s opinion, which found that the city’s action followed existing law. Thus, upholding the earlier court opinion was the OPPPOSITE of judicial activism.

It’s very racist to call every appointment of a member of a minority an “affirmative action” appointment. The underlying belief is that no minority is genuinely qualified.

Even the GOP critics I’ve heard on “news/talk” shows are saying she has as remarkable background of great personal accomplishment and success.

Johnking, you referred to academic criteria as “flimsy”. Have you ever managed to graduate summa c-u-m laude from anywhere, much less Princeton University?

The woman’s qualifications are unimpeachable. You will find exactly no serious Republican senators doubting her abundance of qualifications. The only complaints you will hear will be about her judicial philosophy and her political leanings.

And IrishCook, your bastardization of “Sotomayor” into “Sodomizer” does nothing for anyone’s estimation of your maturity. Look around, little man. Nobody is taking you seriously anymore.

IrishCook, you sound like a guy with an inferiority complex the size of the Grand Canyon.

A manly weakness to fill? Feel threatened? You can still shoot everyone (rolls eyes)

I see, Believecommon, when you said “Shut up,” you didn’t mean “Shut up.” Sure. Then, 17 years on the bench may very well mean one year 17 times. There is a difference. Okay, New Haven followed existing law, but that law scorned equal protection of the laws to everyone. No one has said or implied that her minority is unqualified, merely that her stated belief in the superqualifi- cation of her minority is outrageous. Finally, tpenna, her judicial philosophy is part and parcel of her qualifications. So is her blatant racism, something you people on the left don’t want to discuss.

No, johnking, her judicial philosophy is her judicial philosophy. Respected jurists on the left and the right have judicial philosophies that differ.

Qualifications have nothing to do with philosophy.

And I’m happy to discuss blatant racism. But I don’t see any coming from Judge Sotomayor. I see a poorly worded statement that was meant to illustrate a legitimate point. A person’s background matters.

johnking perhaps you should try thinking for yourself instead of taking everything Rush says as gospel. but this would require you to check a fact or two, way too much trouble , and it might make you question an icon.

johnking: I see, Believecommon, when you said “Shut up,” you didn’t mean “Shut up.” Sure.

yes, I meant it figuratively, not literally.

Then, 17 years on the bench may very well mean one year 17 times. There is a difference.

Huh? there’s a difference between what and what?