She is not being criticized only by right-wing extremists (unless you define anyone who criticizes her as an extremist). She is no moderate; she is very liberal. That is not important to me because I have always held that a person's political philosophy should have no bearing on the confirmation process (I wish the Demos felt this way). What I care about is her judicial philosphy and temperament. Regarding her judicial philosophy, she firmly believes that policy can and should be made by the courts and has said so. Accordingly, she is a judicial activist who will attempt to legislate from the bench. If she were a liberal moderate she would not hold this view. I do not know much about her judicial temperament, although I do know that several of her opinions have been overturned by the Supreme Court. She has one now before the high court (Ricci vs. DeStefano) which could be overturned around the time she is confirmed or shortly afterward (and yes, I do believe she will be confirmed). But I don't know what percentage of her decisions have been overturned. Without that information I am limited in reaching an opinion on her overall judicial temperament. However, to her credit in 2002 she decided against an abortion rights group who had brought suit against the U.S. policy that denied funding to any nation that supported abortions "the Mexico City Policy." In 2004 she ruled in favor on an anti-abortion group and on other occassions have ruled against minority plaintiffs. However, she has also shown a proclivity to base decisions on her personal biases (i.e. Ricci vs. DeStefano and other cases). The good thing about her is that she is not someone who will have a great deal of influence on the bench, lacking as she does the power of persuasion to influence others.
Personally I think this point is just beating a dead horse because every judge's opinions are going to in some way be affected by their life experiences, to deny it would to say they are infalliable. So I can agree with you here Red. I think most are trying to use this to say she is sexist and racist which I just don't have enough information to be able to say that. One statement in life doesn't make someone racist or sexist. I take issue with her talking about making policy from the bench and then joking about it on tape right afterwords about how they aren't supposed to do that. Judges are meant to interpret the law as it was intended when written, not to legislate from the bench. Or at least that's how I view their job.
Thank you for posting the entire speech in its context. Its funny to me that when Republicans where touting Alberto Gonzalez hispanic roots, it was the greatest story for the right. Now that she is proud to be hispanic she is racist? The GOP are headed down a road of no return. Go ahead and piss the fastest growing minority off in this country and you will never win another major election. Continue to throw grenades, a few will explode in your hands.
MM, I think you missed it bro. No one is saying she can't be proud to be a hispanic. I certianly don't feel that way, I am concerned with the " it will affect my judging" statement however. See, being proud of your heritage and letting it alter your decision making process are two very different things.
Pride of heritage is not racist, but in a case between a white guy and a Hispanic before Sotomayor my money's on the Latino. Which is the exact reason for the pick by Obama. Political points trump all else. Hate Bush all you want, but his decisions were not politically motivated.
No I got that part, its a realistic point of view, she just admitted it, which was probably wrong in context of her speech. But I find it honest. Now her saying she can make decision better than a white man is divisive. I admit that.
You aren't really going to stand behind this statement? Bush nominated Harriet Miers(personal attorney) for the Supreme Court and thats not a political move. Sabanfan, have some coffee my friend, your not really thinking straight this morning.
