While they try to play Sotomayor’s bias as nothing more than someone from ‘humble’ beginnings making it to prime time even the NYT fish wrap feels compelled to state the obvious. As if a ‘focus’ on ‘diversity, struggle, heritage and alienation’ does not foretell the kind of decisions the nominee would make based on her predispositions to various issues. As illusive as objectivity can be, humans being what they are, a long history on the bench accompanied by an equally long history of expressing personal opinions and how they affect judgment should spell doom for this nominee. But then politics isn’t about objectivity even when the task demands it.
WASHINGTON — In speech after speech over the years, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has returned to the themes of diversity, struggle, heritage and alienation that have both powered and complicated her nomination to the Supreme Court.
She has lamented the dearth of Hispanics on the federal bench. She has exhorted young people to value immigration. She has mulled over the “deeply confused image” America has of its own racial identity. And she has used on more than one occasion a version of the “wise Latina” line that she has spent much of this week trying to explain.
The CNN report below is an affirmation of the difficulty for the MSM to ignore this nominee’s bias.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Judge Sonia Sotomayor has spoken for years about how her experiences as a Latina woman have influenced her public and private life.
In her speeches, she often discussed her “Latina soul” and explained how even the traditional dishes of her Puerto Rican family shaped her views. And she often said that she hoped those experiences would help her reach better judicial conclusions than someone without such a varied background might reach. The line was almost identical every time:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”
Imagine that. The word ‘objectivity’ appears in an AP report on the opposition party’s take on the SCOTUS nominee.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The senator leading the GOP’s review of Sonia Sotomayor said the central question in her Supreme Court nomination should be whether she allows personal views to color her decisions.
In the Republican Party’s weekly radio and Internet address Saturday, Sen. Jeff Sessions didn’t say whether he thinks Sotomayor crosses that line. But he raised questions that reflect a growing chorus of GOP criticism that the federal appeals court judge sees her role as something more than an impartial umpire.
Of course there is no bias coming from the SCOTUS nominee. Not disclosing a memo about her opinion on the death penalty and suggestion of racial overtones must have simply been a careless oversight. You know, just like Tim Geithner not paying his taxes until nominated for Treasury Secretary. After all, for Sotomayor, what possible significance could an opinion on the death penalty or her various associations have to do with her nomination to the SCOTUS?
Critics of Judge Sonia Sotomayor seized Friday on her failure to include a 1981 memo opposing the death penalty in her response to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questionnaire.
The memo, signed by Judge Sotomayor and two other members of the group, listed eight arguments against the death penalty, including that “capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society,” because minorities are disproportionately represented on death row.
And the public certainly shows some peculiar responses to this nomination. More than half are polled indicating they want Sotomayor confirmed. Yet nearly three to one disagree with her decision in the New Haven firefighters case. It is indeed a strange world we live in.
June 2nd…
Slightly more than half — 54% — said they would like to see the Senate confirm the president’s first nominee for the nation’s highest court, according to the results of a Gallup Poll released today. Just 28% of those surveyed said they opposed Sotomayor’s confirmation, and 19% had no opinion, according to the poll conducted Friday through Sunday.
June 3rd…
Of more than 3,000 people surveyed, 71% said they disagreed with Sotomayor’s vote in favor of tossing out the results of a New Haven, Conn., firefighter-promotion test because no blacks or Hispanics qualified.
It’s real simple. Sotomayor has demonstrated her strong bias and is not suitable for the SCOTUS. Case closed. Except for the notion that Obama nominated Sotomayor to throw Democrats a bone since shamnesty may not get on the calendar this year and the nomination helps liberals at the polls. And this is how they select SCOTUS nominees.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
This entry was posted on Sunday, June 7th, 2009 at 1:48 pm and is filed under Public Affairs, wordpress, Politics, Democrats, Immigration, liberal, News Media, United States, Law, Justice, obama, Opinion, Supreme Court, Sen Jeff Sessions.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Sotomayor’s objectivity on bench is key question
June 7th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
That missing memo from 1981 was certainly no example of judicial excellence. It was pathetic, with no real thinking or analysis involved. It’s reasoning came from “highly respected” public opinion.
At least someone is keeping track of what she offered Congress and what she did not.
This woman lives, eat and breathes racism.
June 7th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
but of course she gets a pass!
June 7th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
If it is true that Obama chose Sotomayor to give Dems a favorable response from the Latino vote in 2010 if they are unable to get shamnesty on the calendar before then his Presidency is truly a sham from every angle.
There may in fact be no opposition party to the liberal majority except for the pubilc. But I have little confidence that enough of my fellow Americans will rise to the occasion or sustain adequate pressure to redirect those in government. I await the impending crisis that always seems to be necessary to stoke the flames of public outrage.
Then maybe we can get something done.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:11 am
Now we also know that she believes Hispanic and Black felons should have the right to vote, and her dissent on the decision that did not agree with her, was also pathetic.
I think as Judge, this woman took the opportunity to write and”opinion,” literally.