The "wise Latina" speech wasn't simply about whether a wise Latina could do better, but her express suggestion that white men, not white women, but white men only are different from everyone else. Her words were exactly "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences"(!) It is difficult for me to read her speech and not conclude that she is utterly biased against white men because she believes we are monolithic group with no cultural value. Can anyone tell me why my life, culture, experience, family, etc are less meaningful than her own? Read her troubling comments here http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
I do not believe there is enough opposition to this nominee. She is replacing one of the biggest mistakes a Republican president ever made when dealing with our courts David Souter. My question is who did we think Obama was going to nominate? A believer of judicial restraint? Strict constructionist? She will pass with flying colors unless she loses her cool at the hearings. Actually, she may turn out to be more conservative than Souter! I fear if Obama is re-elected in 2012 he will replace 2 more nominees...
Republican members of the Senate judiciary committee are planning to berate Judge Sotomayor for signing on to an opinion that held the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states. Their premise would be antithetical to an originalist position. Application of most of the first eight amendments to the states has been a text book example of judicial activism, e.g. "ordered liberty". Someone should intervene before they embarrass themselves.
I sure hope Sotomayor describes the Ouija Board she will use so she can discern how Rufus King felt about electronic surveillance, and whether or not limiting the Executive Branch to command of the Army and Navy, meant to exclude the President from control of the Air Force.