Sotomayor counters GOP critics over bias claims

She was looked upon more positively than any of three Supreme Court nominees President George W Bush put forward over four months in 2005: Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Harriet Miers, who withdrew from consideration.

This doesn't matter to the anti-Obama crowd. They don't care if the American people want her approved.

Her confirmation would be a setback for civil rights in our great nation.

Yup. "Liberals" can be proud of their party leadership.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, on Sotomayor:

"I understand that during her career, she's written hundreds and hundreds of opinions. I haven't read a single one of them, and if I'm fortunate before we end this, I won't have to read one of them...”

America deserves better than this.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0609/Reids_not_reading.html

The process is underway. Now we await the debate, listen to the facts, and respect whatever decision is made.

Yup. "Liberals" can be proud of their party leadership. America deserves better than this.

You mean better educated citizens than those who don't understand the role played by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the nomination process? As well as the fact that Majority Leader Reid isn't on it?

Once the full Senate receives the recommendation of the Committee, how many decisions do you think the senators should read?

How many are you reading?

The process is underway. Now we await the debate, listen to the facts, and respect whatever decision is made.

A question for TheQuestion:

In all likelihood, Sotomayor will be approved. Who do you suppose it will be that does NOT respect that decision?

Who do you suppose it will be that does NOT respect that decision?

My abuelo, then again he doesn't much like anybody anyway.

Other than him I can only assume and thats not something I take habit of doing.

"A new Associated Press-GfK poll suggested that Americans have a more positive view of her than they did for any of former President George W Bush’s nominees to the high court."

No doubt teleprompter will 'defend' this by saying 'Americans don't worry about polls'. Two minutes later he'll quote some Rasmussen poll about something unrelated and say it matters.

As for THIS poll, it's pretty clear that most Americans back her, and have approved of yet another of Obama's choices. In other words, not many but the few who always decry Obama about anything are crying about Sotomayor. The debate on the issue will be largely non-existant, since it's pretty clear she's going to go through, and the GOP is already broken and needs to salvage itself from the negative politics that lost it the election. They only grab at straws when the desperation is slightly less evident.

Imagine that! - the AP "finds" that Obama's SCOTUS picks are more popular than Bush's were.

The debate on the issue will be largely non-existant, since it's pretty clear she's going to go through, and the GOP is already broken and needs to salvage itself from the negative politics that lost it the election.

Yes, all we are viewing is the lack of intellectual integrity of the kneejerk oppoonents of Sotomayor on full display.

As a racist it seems she will make a good judge -but she needs to stop the liberal flip-flopping and "I have suffered" attitude.

As a racist it seems she will make a good judge...

And the moral of the story here is never say a white man might be wrong.

teleprompter: "Imagine that! - the AP "finds" that Obama's SCOTUS picks are more popular than Bush's were."

Common sense is indeed hard for some to grasp. Hang in there, though.

And the moral of the story here is never say a white man might be wrong.

And as we observe the wreckage of financial firms, auto companies and such, we see the results of the vast majority of decisions made by....wait for it... white males! Yes, minorities are involved, but they advance by their demonstrated ability to think like the people they are aping. This is why ideological rigidity is so endemic to conservatism, and anathema to liberals.

People in powerful positions simply find it very difficult to trust people who think differently from them. And subordinates, in order to be successful, mold and shape their thinking to be what "the boss-man wants to hear."

I think it's high time we let people whose life experiences are less likely to lead them to such disastrous decision-making and groupthink into the mix.

Yabits:

"...those who don't understand the role played by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the nomination process? As well as the fact that Majority Leader Reid isn't on it?"

Trouble is Reid proclaimed his ignorance/indifference after having been asked by a reporter:

"Is there anything in Judge Sotomayor's record that you think gives you trouble or that could make -- could cause her trouble? For instance, she, in January, ruled that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states. Is that something that you agree with, that you could see that -- or that you don't agree with and may be able to give her trouble?"

But you, as a Democrat, are satisfied with a senate leader boasting about his complete ignorance?

Trouble is Reid proclaimed his ignorance/indifference after having been asked...

I have no problem with the Majority Leader deferring to the Judiciary Committee -- which as yet to meet on Sotomayor.

But you, as a Democrat, are satisfied with a senate leader boasting about his complete ignorance?

Seeing so much Republican ignorance so close at hand causes me to pay it no mind. For example: In Sotomayor's ruling on the 2nd not applying to the states, what legal precedents did she quote in her decision? If a judge can cite appropriate legal precedents, she is not "creating law from the bench," now is she?