Talk:Sonia Sotomayor

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why Not a Moderate?

Is there any reason at the moment to mistrust the ABA's claim that she's politically moderate? If Ed Poor think's it a "biased claim," then it doesn't make sense to use the rest of the quote. But the rest of the article, her resume and what we know of her judicial record, seem to offer good evidence that she is a moderate. If evidence comes out to the contrary (rather than talking heads claiming she's an arch liberal), then it would only make sense to expose that here. JDWpianist 17:23, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Well, judging how the liberal media presents her, she is in fact a liberal. is there such thing as a moderate-liberal? No

[1] [2] [3] --Jpatt 17:41, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

The concept of a "moderate" is liberal fiction. Most of the important issues have no middle ground.--Andy Schlafly 17:53, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

But Andy, doesn't it follow that if a judge comes down conservative on some issues, and liberal on others, than calling them moderate is accurate? JDWpianist 18:00, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
Sotomayor, being the nominee of an extreme leftist/socialist (as Obama is) is moderate only by comparison to Obama and his base. While it is true she has been more supportive on the so-called "law and order" issues than one would expect someone he supports to be, there are other issues, such as her statement about how judges make policy from the bench, although given a disclaimer at the time, it was apparent she was openly covering herself, even flip about her comment. The comment she made about how being a woman, and more particularly saying her judgment, she expected, would be better than a white man's, due only to the fact of her being female and Hispanic are both racist and sexist. What would be the reaction if John Roberts said exactly the same words, only reversed? She is most certainly liberal, and not moderate. --₮K/Admin/Talk 19:09, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
Good point TK, I would like to add that she is not blind when it comes to justice, as the founders intended. As a liberal, she is content with basing decisions on skin color and gender. The SCOTUS will render a decision on one of her judgments before June. Critics accuse her of race-based identity politics, not a moderates stance.--Jpatt 19:16, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
TK, while I respectively concur that those two isolated quotes sound liberal, one can't deny that judges are judged by their rulings, opinions, and legal briefs; not by who appoints them, and less so by their public statements. There still hasn't been time to sift through her whole record, but of what's been examined so far, some of it looks conservative and some liberal. My question still stands, is there reason to mistrust the ABA's appraisal of her as a moderate? JDWpianist 19:23, 27 May 2009 (EDT)
It isn't a matter of who appoints them, as George Herbert Walker Bush found out with Seuter. What matters is their deportment, decisions, etc. Hers is most certainly liberal thinking in many instances. Personally I am not against some liberals on the Court. It keeps things honest, it makes sure the conservatives think harder, work harder. I think one particular comment was indeed racist and sexist. Remember that one such comment was used by liberals to reject Bob Bork, and the current POTUS wanted to filibuster Sam Alito's nomination when he was a Senator. Thankfully he found little support among his fellow Democrats. The ABA is a liberal captured, Trial Lawyer dominated body. In fact, all current Court members were judged well qualified by them. --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:12, 27 May 2009 (EDT)


"In her fifth year in the office, she was interviewed for The New York Times Magazine about the prosecutors working for [Manhattan District Attorney Robert] Morgenthau. She was described as an imposing woman of 29 who smoked incessantly, and spoke of how she had coped in a job that some liberal friends disapproved of.

“I had more problems during my first year in the office with the low-grade crimes -- the shoplifting, the prostitution, the minor assault cases,” she said. “In large measure, in those cases you were dealing with socioeconomic crimes, crimes that could be the product of the environment and of poverty.

“Once I started doing felonies, it became less hard. No matter how liberal I am, I’m still outraged by crimes of violence. Regardless of whether I can sympathize with the causes that lead these individuals to do these crimes, the effects are outrageous.”

In 1984, Ms. Sotomayor left the district attorney’s office and joined Pavia & Harcourt, a boutique commercial law firm in Manhattan.

“We had an opening for a litigator, and her résumé was perfect,” said George M. Pavia, the managing partner who hired her. “She’s an excellent lawyer, a careful preparer of cases, liberal, but not doctrinaire, not wild-eyed.”


--₮K/Admin/Talk 22:38, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

Not a racist comment

Explain your decision RJJenson--Jpatt 15:16, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

I just put in more of the speech. She is making the conservative argument that there are differences between men and women. She said, "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." Now liberals may call that racism but we're not liberals here and so we don't call it that. RJJensen 15:24, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
Maybe you are right but I am not convinced. 'White' male & 'Latina' women is an argument categorized by race and gender. While the other way around would be considered racist by liberals, at the very least it is reverse racism and she shouldn't get a pass. I will leave in place how you corrected.--Jpatt 15:28, 28 May 2009 (EDT)
agreed. As Gingrich said, her argument would be considered racist by liberals and so they're hypocrites to ignore it. But we're conservatives and we agree with Sotomayor.RJJensen 15:32, 28 May 2009 (EDT)


Her brother was introduced by Obama as a physician in Syracuse. Her Princeton record is pretty clear. see Princeton Press release RJJensen 05:22, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

Senator Schumer weeps at the confirmation hearings

Liberal Senator Charles Schumer wept at the confirmation hearings for Sotomayor.


I think now that Sotomayor is sworn into the Supreme Court it needs an update. Chippeterson August 14, 2009

good idea; I updates. RJJensen 17:16, 14 August 2009 (EDT)


"The Honorable"

I am attempting to make the Justices of the US Supreme Court's pages more uniform by placing "the Honorable" in front of the names in the beginning. Would a sysop please place it here. I do not have the Privileges.

Intro too old

Intro says: After relatively mild hearings, she was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 68-31; she officially became a Justice on August 8, 2009, and will be hearing an important First Amendment case in September on campaign financing.

That's in the past now. That trial already occurred. Someone should update it. Ctown200 08:20, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

Unusual wording in the intro

This sentence has an odd structure: Her nomination was fully supported by the Democrat leadership, whose consistent theme they espouse Sotomayor as "a truly American story."

The clause "whose consistent theme they espouse Sotomayor as" doesn't make sense. I think her name should be removed in order to make it a proper sentence. Also, I'm curious as to why this page is locked. Is there a lot of vandalism on a relatively mundane article? ScottH35 17:02, 9 February 2015 (EST)