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!!

  • http://bloggingblue.com Zach W.

    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!!

  • http://admin kev­in­bin­ver­sie

    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!

  • http://bloggingblue.com Zach W.

    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.