ترول ایرانی

گالری عکس

Quote of the Day

I firmly believe Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor is the liberal-equivalent of former Bush Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers; in the sense that she fits a profile (Like Miers, she’s a woman, and like Bush before him – Miguel Estrada – Obama wants to put a Hispanic on the high court), and is really under-qualified for the position that’s been asked of her.

As much as Gruber is once again saying this is a bear trap for the GOP (What isn’t Ryan might I ask?), I humbly have to ask if a woman who’s biggest judicial ‘victory’ is ending the 1994-95 MLB baseball strike – you have to wonder where her legal know-how is.

That if anything should be a question as to why she’s being considered for this position.  I’m not alone in this feeling, she comes off as a legal lightweight, so say The New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen said back in March about this woman.

But hey, she’s the quota pick and comes from an Ivy League school.  What else does one expect in a world where ‘diversity’ on the court appears to be the standard, not actual knowledge of the U.S. Constitution?

However, there’s this rather telling quote about her ability to rule objectively from the bench.  It’s taken from a 2001 speech she gave to La Raza. (H/T The Foundry)

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.

Anyone who’s ever visited the Supreme Court will see high about its entrance the words “Equal Justice Under Law.”  A statement such as the one above makes you wonder if she’ll even honor those words as a Supreme Court Justice.

BTW, guns rights advocates would be interested in reading this.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Al k

    You Can Argue Her Views and positions. That i Get.
    But Her Qualifications?
    She’s got more Qualifications as far as various Judicial/legal jobs than any recent nominee….

    As Someone looking to get into the Legal Field,
    you might want to work on how to seperate Fact from Opinion!!

  • “I haven’t read enough of Sotomayor’s opinions to have a confident sense of them”

    That best sums up the quality of Rosen’s reporting. It’s ironic he’d call her a legal lightweight based on “anonymous sources” without actually reading enough of Sotomayor’s decisions to be able to get a confident sense of them. Rosen’s was a hit piece; plain and simple.

    And since you think Sotomayor’s really under-qualified, I’d love to hear what your qualifications are. After all, she’s got as much time on the federal bench as John Roberts had when he was nominated for Chief Justice.

  • Dr. Bob

    i often wonder if kevin even believes some of this stuff or is just trying to get a right wing job?
    they don’t let legal lightweights edit the yale law journal.
    she was at the top of her class at both princeton and yale!!!

    clearly the most qualified academically and as a legal scholar/judge/lawyer….but hey….mr kev wants to be a
    lawyer too…so he buys into bs like rosen.
    he never quotes anyone on the record and admits he hasn’t done his homework!!!
    most would say “why write the article before you do the work”
    kev says “yea ???
    go figure!!

  • You all forgot the part about graduating valedictorian of her high school class too.

    Yes, she’s the first person nominated for the Supreme Court who graduated summa cum laude (Latin for “With Highest Honors) to have 80% of her decisions reversed by the very court she’s likely going to be serving on. And I’ll admit the Rosen piece was poorly thought out, but I stand by my comparison to Harriet Miers.

    That seems to have the entire left in a tizzy. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-filipowicz/watch-is-sotomayor-smart_b_207907.html)

  • Dr. Bob

    actually she had 3 of her decisions over turned out of the 6 the supreme court looked at!

    considering the court only takes 1/100 cases its offered.
    thats not a bad average! they usually take a case for a reason! not to say…yep the appeals court was right!!!

    but, wtf, don’t let the truth get in the way!

  • Hey Kevin, tell me how many years of judicial experience Harriet Miers had before she was nominated by GWB.

    After all, I’m still waiting to hear what qualifications one needs to serve on the Supreme Court, in your opinion.

  • Sonny

    In terms of her resume, how is she any more or less qualified than Alito? I am not a fan of Judge Sotomayor, but she has the resume to sit on the high court.

  • Al K

    Zach, Sonny, Bob, Etc

    kev will only post what he hets from his Right Wing Talking points!

    Look at this!!

    “We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

    Thomas 65.63%
    Kennedy 64.06%
    Scalia 56.25%
    Rehnquist 46.88%
    O’Connor 46.77%
    Souter 42.19%
    Stevens 39.34%
    Ginsburg 39.06%
    Breyer 28.13%”

    SOUNDS LIKE LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH!!

  • Dr. Bob

    good point Al.

    seems like folks don’t mind when justices who’s ideas they agree with legislate from the bench.

    that’s fine. but don’t insult us by pretending anything else is true!

    like mr. kevin saying she’s not qualified or a legal lightweight….consider the source.