if you cannot communicate well orally, in a job that DOES require it, that probably explains why her writings have been critisized by her peers.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

To me, that's the whole point of being a judge, it's a job just like my boring secretary one where I have nothing to do but post on forums from 9-5. A person is going to have personal feelings about subjects, there is nothing super human about judges that exempts them from that. A judge should look at the facts before them and make a judgement on those facts whether they agree with them or not. I think that a capable judge is able to make a ruling even if it is contrary to what they may personally believe.

As a potential SCOTUS justice, how does one balance all that and still be perceived as competent, unbiased, and just plain "justicy". It's a fine line that she obviously can't balance, but I don't think that means she can't do the job.

I mean public speaking on a national scale. I don't think she would have the resume that she does if she wasn't an effective communicator.

I dont have a problem with a judge having an opinion on some issue. In fact, thats probably something pretty relavent. I just think if a judge cant be honest I dont want them having a lifetime appt to one of the most important positions in the country. Im not hiring her to be PC or appear impartial. Im hiring her to be thoughtful, smart, logical. Shoving someone down my throat doesnt go well.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

It doesn’t sound even remotely like your job. It doesn’t sound like your job has the implications or impact on the lives of every person living in the district with which they preside over that a judge has. It doesn’t sound like you have a job in which you can pass, much less have a duty to pass, on an assignment to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. You’re, judges should just look at the facts in the cases before them; but they’re still human, and they’re still swayed by their personal beliefs. This can cause them to make unsound judgments, and thus must be kept to a minimum. It’s a fine line that she obviously can’t balance, that means she is not fit for the job.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

just curious, when does all the racism end?

__________________

when she cops to hers instead of running from it. Hows that?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

there's my answer: never!!

__________________

What racism? For all purposes shes white. She was born in New York, she went to Ivy League Schools. She has white skin. The only reason we know she had parents who came from a country colonized by Spain (thus claiming a hispanic race), was she and her supporters keep telling us. What exactly makes her different from a white person?

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

her veiwpoints. But I see your point.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Ok, true, she does specifically argue for hispanic causes. Not all races, just the one she claims to be. By definition, that makes her racist of course.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Since when is being born in New York or going to an Ivy League school a credential for being considered white?

I think she's identified as being latino because she has a latino bloodline with 2 fully latino parents, grew up in a latino community, etc.

Arguing that she's not a latina is preposterous.....arguing that she's not "hispanic" is to engage in a technical argument over word origins and their common misapplication to our modern vocabulary.

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

Just out of curiousity, what questions would each of you ask Judge Sotomayor if you were on the Judiciary Committee?

Mine would be:

1. Judge Sotomayor, in determining the Constitutionality of a statute, do you believe that the meaning of the constitution can change in such a manner so that what was once clearly understood by society at large, based on centuries of practice and tradition to be permitted by the constitution has nevertheless become unconstitutional merely as a reflection of the your views as a judge of what comprises "the evolving standards of decency which mark the progress of a maturing society", rather than through the Article V Amendment process?

2. Do you believe that when a particular interpretation of the constitution would render a long standing tradition or custom of our society unconstitutional, it is the interpretation that is brought into question, or the long standing tradition or custom as a matter of law?

3. What are the principles you would adhere to as a Supreme Court Justice in when and how to apply the doctrine of stare decisis

4. Do you believe it is appropriate to site foreign court opinions in determining the meaning of the United States Constitution or statutes, and how would you weigh them in applying treaty language when they conflict with the stated interpretation of that language by the government of the United States?

5. Do you accept under stare decisis the general principle that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights against state governments, and if so, on what textual basis, if any, would you as a justice accept as indicating that some, but not all of the rights granted in the bill of rights are incorporated equally?

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

This is the problem with the scotus in general. They let slavery run for 100 years, as well as many other obviously flawed social norms. Brown vs Board of Education is one of the very very very very very very few cases where they ACTUALLY acted to correct an injustice. It will probably take at least 200 more years before the scotus decides on behalf of the citizens of the US instead of the politicians and corporations.

The problem with the judicial system, is that once a bad idea gets legal momentum, it then has set precedent which is hard to overturn. Then that precedent results in further reinforcing precedents, and then eventually Stare Decisis which can be just more of the same bad idea repeated and repeated and legally reinforced over and over.

I was sad to see how little mention was made about the constitution. It was all about whether Sotomayor recognizes the power to make laws is congress's power, and not a Judge's. She was very clear that it is only a judge's role to decide the intent that congress intended when examining a certain law. That's fine as PART of what a judge does. But it is ALSO a Judge's power to decide whether a law is constitutional. That discussion was 100% missing from at least the 3-4 hours I saw of testimony/questioning. When congress passes a bad (unconstitutional) law, it is HER job to invalidate that law as a Justice on the scotus.

Latino is not a race. Its a geographical and cultural term. Race is not even a real term anymore. For all purposes she "racially" caucasion and culturally american. Playing up her parents place of birth is just politics and has no place in judging the law.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson