http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl699 I can only imagine what the response would be if people answered questions like that here. LOL!! What a loser Obama picked. She won't even answer abortion questions. What is she afraid of? I'll tell you what she's afraid of. She was all gung-ho when it came to bragging up her heritage and offending people with what seemed to be a racist remark. But when it comes to SIMPLE, BASIC, LIFE questions that are either ingrained in you or not, she doesn't even have the guts to give an answer. Only then is she on pins and needles. She can't state her beliefs for fear of not appeasing a side and it may upset Obama. Then she would be a BAD puppet. So she can't do that!!! Obama's against self defense so there's no way she could say she was FOR it!! No way!! But then if she said she was against it, she'd look like as much of a fool as Obama is. Better dance around that question! What a joke. She is a tool. This is NOT the best and the brightest this country had to offer. Just another lying, liberal scum, puppet, that Obama felt would help push his agenda through. For years we had to listen to people whine and scream that Bush was going to appoint all these SCJ's and it was going to be a mess!! But now Obama picks a supreme DUD and not a peep out of anybody. It's almost amusing. It makes me ill that they are basically going through motions and she will be a shoe in because that's what Obama wants. What's the point of these non-sense formalities? Give her a robe already!!! She's done, ummm, uhh, ... well, she's a warm body...liberal.... oh yeah, and Latino so there you go!! Qualified! Fu#### stupid.
Has a Supreme nominee ever been charged with purgery? And I thought Rush and Hannity would read any script handed to them. This takes the cake. Lol, a comedy. Deal with it. This is not the issue at hand, health care is. This is a distraction.
So are you guys saying that judges should use gut feelings instead of the law? Or both? Or both, but make your decision or ruling on your gut feeling? Vess, Obama is a liberal. Did you think he was going to pick a conservative judge? Its illegal for most people to own a handgun in NY. So if you have one and you shoot some intruder you'll most likely be found innocent by a jury for that shooting. But you may have to deal with the possession crime. Because it is ILLEGAL. So if you say that should be thrown out, how about if the police come to your house to arrest you for having an illegal gun and they find pot plants growing all over your livingroom? Should they ignore that too? after all they wouldnt have seen them if they didnt come to pinch you for the gun, right? The law is more complex than yes or no. There are a lot of variables to contend with. You know that. So you also know you cannot answer yes or no to hypothetical questions. I know you wish this was the 1600s; where you could just shout 'Witch' and have that person stoned to death. But I think we have advanced just a bit since then.
I actually like SotoMejor, Could you imagine Horatio Sans playing her on SNL?? So my spelling is off, my intentions were to interpet the alphabet, not follow it like a rule yannow. This is better than Janet Napolitano, a gift to the right.
Can I ask if this Lady follows the law as it is laid down in the USA or does she have a habit of making it up as she goes along? The reason that I ask this is because a Judge by the very nature of the job should be impartial and leave there personal agendas at home when at work. And a person aspiering to this high position within the judiciary should be extreemly impartial. Now if she were to go on record as to what her preffrences are in any area then her impartiality is open to question is it not? Also on the question of how she stand on abortion, exactly what right have you or any other person to demand that she tells you? would you care to show me in your constitution were it says that a candidate for office has to reveal all there belifs to the nation, to bear there souls to you? I can just imagine it if you demanded this sort thing from some of the founding fathers LOL it would have definatly been a meeting at dawn in certain cases
Just a couple of other points LOL shall we talk about not commiting one's self to a set of ideals Chief Justice John Roberts, While working as a lawyer for the Reagan administration, Roberts wrote legal memos defending administration policies on abortion then As a lawyer in the George H. W. Bush administration, Roberts signed a legal brief urging the court to overturn Roe v. Wade In his Senate testimony, Roberts said that, while sitting on the Appellate Court, he would have an obligation to respect precedents established by the Supreme Court, including the controversial decision invalidating many restrictions on the right to an abortion. He stated: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." Following the traditional reticence of nominees to indicate which way they might vote on an issue likely to come before the high court, he did not explicitly say whether he would vote to overturn either Chief Justice Samuel Alito, professed reluctance to commit to any type of ideology, stating he would act as an impartial referee. On the abortion issue, he stated that he would look at that with an open mind but would not state how he would rule on Roe v. Wade if that issue were to come up before the court. Now those are two right leaning guy's giving testimony want to tell me that they were clear and concise on were they stood LOL Now back to the Lady in question Is it not true that they have found nothing in her hundreds of rulings in the federal courts in New York to suggest that Sotomayor gives free rein to impulses based on ethnicity or ideology? I like this quote LOL at least this guy is honest Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Told Sotomayor that he knew that "no Republican [president] would have chosen you" But still could imagine voting for Obama's choice himself
We sure have advanced haven't we!? NY teaches us that people should follow their ignorant laws and be dead. Or break the law to maybe save your life or your family's life from unpredictable criminals and become a criminal yourself. What are the odds anyway? Better to play the odds with people's lives than give everyone who wishes a fighting chance. Such advancement! The odds of me getting in a car accident today are pretty slim. I've driven hundreds of thousands of miles without being in a serious accident. But yet I still plan on putting my seat belt on because there is a chance. I think we should advance even more. NY should ban seat belts. There's a possibility that a toddler could choke to death on one if it gets wrapped around their neck or that you might get trapped behind it in a burning vehicle. The odds are so slim of getting in an accident anyway. It may save more people by banning them. Debating this might be time well spent for them. While they're at it, I think metal silverware should be banned in NY and replaced with the spork. Any number of things could go wrong with sharp forks and knives. The people are so stupid that they better pass a law to protect them from these hazards. BTW, the Supreme court found the D.C. gun ban to be unconstitutional. So how does NYC still have a gun ban in affect? Will the Supreme court be relevant after they rule on their next case or not? Or does it depend on if liberal mayors are happy with the decision? Thanks.
New York doesnt have a gun ban? Where did you get this information? Not everybody is going to like every law. Thats tough. But a judge is compelled to follow the law. Not his gut. And dont act like an oaf.
I am pretty sure that she is not allowed to answer questions regarding potential cases. The opposition are trying to trick her into doing that (for instance asking her about abortion). I am looking forward to hearing the exchanges between Alito and Sotomayor they will be heated. Also I think we can count on a center-left court in the next few years as opposed to this ultra right court.
I'm not so sure of the center-left court being the wave of the immediate future. The liberal justices tend to be older. Stevens, for example, was practicing law before 2 (3 if you count Sotomayor) of the other Justices were even born. Most articles I've read expect the tone of the court to remain basically the same for the forseeable future.
Stevens will be replaced by Obama (most definitely with a liberal). If Scalia's health is as bad as his corpulent frame indicates Obama will replace him also and that will give a liberal flavor to the court.
