SUN EDITORIAL:

A fair-minded judge

Senate should confirm Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court justice

Sunday, July 19, 2009 | 2:07 a.m.

Everyone familiar with Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor knows she would be the high court’s first Hispanic and third female justice. Her humble beginnings as a child reared in a public-housing project are hard to ignore.

What is clear, after last week’s Senate confirmation hearing, is that you have a federal judge who has adhered to the rule of law, followed established legal precedent and is thoroughly within the mainstream of judicial thought.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee tried hard to score political points during her confirmation hearing by painting her as a flawed nominee, but not because of her courtroom performance. Rather, they grasped at straws by trying to attack her judgment in other areas, most notably a 2001 remark that a “wise Latina” would often rule better than a white male. Sotomayor apologized for the statement, even though she said it was taken out of context.

That was about as bad as it got for her during the hearing, which isn’t saying much. She displayed the cool, even temperament one would expect from a Supreme Court justice.

One example came in her response to questions about judicial activism. Members of Congress have used this term as a derogatory way of labeling judges who they think wrongfully legislate from the bench, but Sotomayor said she is not a judicial activist and doesn’t think it applies to judges who do their jobs.

“I don’t use the term because I don’t describe the work that judges do in that way,” Sotomayor said. “I assume the good faith of judges in their approach to the law, which is that each one of us is attempting to interpret the law according to principles of statutory construction and other guiding legal principles, and to come in good faith to an outcome that we believe is directed by law.”

Sotomayor has proved she is a fair-minded individual who would serve America well on the nation’s highest court. Based on what we heard last week, the committee and full Senate should confirm her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Discussion: 7 comments so far…

By gnelson651

7/19/09 at 9:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

This woman is not only a racist but a lier as well. If a white man said he would be a better judge than minorities because whites are smarter he would be tarred, feathered and ran out on a rail.

Not an a judicial activist? Read her 1996 article published in the Suffolk Law School journal.In that article, Sotomayor stated: "The public expects the law to be static and predictable. The law, however, is uncertain and responds to changing circumstances."

What about her role as a Board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund? She claimed that her main job was to do fundraising for the group. Sotomayor denied knowing what pro-abortion legal briefs were filed by this Puerto Rican legal group.Internal documents from this Puerto Rican group showing that Sotomayor was not just a Board member but sat on the litigation committee and helped prepare a lengthy document outlining dozens of legal cases that the group had filed.

Although she has claimed that she does not support the use of foreign law in the issuing of rulings based on the Constitution or the laws of the land. In her own word she stateed "... [I]nternational Law And Foreign Law Will Be Very Important In The Discussion Of How We Think About The Unsettled Issues In Our Own Legal System. And further stated "Unless American Courts Are More Open To Discussing The Ideas Raised By Foreign Cases, And By International Cases, That We Are Going To Lose Influence In The World."

Judge Sotomayor gave a short speech affirming her commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law. Her remarks were predictable, but unconvincing to anyone who has read her speeches and her previous articles on how she views the Constitution and the law. She's masking her radical liberal ideology behind a facade of humility.
By longun45

7/19/09 at 9:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sotomayor will promise anyting, act any way that will assure her appointment to the Supreme Court. Just as Obama promised "Hope" and "Change"

It's a Bait and Switch routine that was made illegal by the federal trade commission. Too bad it doesn't apply to judges and politicians.
Obama and his minions promised a banquet and all he is delivering are happy meals.
By KillerB

7/19/09 at 11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

"What is clear, after last week's Senate confirmation hearing, is that you have a federal judge who has adhered to the rule of law, followed established legal precedent and is thoroughly within the mainstream of judicial thought."

Spoken like the truly ignorant, Sun. Too bad you didn't look beyond the headlines, check your own Discussions and some of the excellent links provided over and over again.

The truth is Sotomayor's only qualifications are race and gender. As a judge she's quite mediocre, not very bright, and has demonstrated too often she's not a bit concerned with either "the rule of law" or "established legal precedent."

Your comment that she is "is thoroughly within the mainstream of judicial thought" is the scariest part. If you followed the courts like I have for these last two decades you would see the faithfulness to the Rule of Law and clear Constitutional mandates by the average sitting judge -- at ANY level -- is utterly despicable. Because judges are virtually unaccountable, due to their own rulings, self-created immunities and the creeping monopoly of the Bars, the "mainstream" has turned our courts from being our guardians to tools of tyranny.
By GordonShumway

7/19/09 at 1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Oh my, the righties lost another one! And to a latina.
By El_Lobo

7/19/09 at 4:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

GordonShumway said.....

"Oh my, the righties lost another one! And to a latina."

Gordon, you hit the name on the head. The righties are really going to be upset if & when Obama has the opportunity to appoint at least one more (maybe two.....) Justices to the Court.
By KillerB

7/19/09 at 5:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Gordon -- you're showing off your inner buffoon.

At least for me, one who loathes the right, it's not that he picked a Puerto Rican woman raised in poverty -- it's that he made such a poor choice. Personally I'm a big fan of Sandra Day O'Connor and wouldn't care a bit if she had been Sandra Diaz Sotomayor, whatever. The proof is in what kind of decisions she makes. Sotomayor fails miserably there.
By GordonShumway

7/19/09 at 8:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

She has the endorsement of everybody who is anybody except for you, Jeff Sessions, and others who specialize in taking statements out of context. I was surprised Ken Starr, Clinton's nemesis, highly endorsed her so highly.
Republicans who vote against her will be diminishing the Party further, which is worrisome. If they're really voting their conscience, then so be it, but this will be a prelude to another massacre in 2010 as the sex scandals will still be fodder for Dems to take advantage of. You will probably be able to count the Latino vote for Republicans by hand in 2010.