Sotomayor picked for Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama has chosen federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, two sources told CNN on Tuesday.


Judge Sonia Sotomayor receives an honorary degree from New York's Pace University in 2003.

Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic and third female U.S. Supreme Court justice if confirmed.

Obama plans to announce his nominee at 10:15 a.m. ET Tuesday, sources told CNN.


Read More

Decent choice.. I haven't done enough research on her yet but found more good than bad.. The left was a little disappointed with the pick so it can't be all bad.. I basically just need to know where she stands on the constitution... More later..

While on the Circuit Court, Sotomayor's most high profile case involved her voting to disregard the scores on a promotional test for firefighters because none of the highest scorers on the test were minorities. The case was recently heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, but a ruling has not been issued yet.

Not saying this should disqualify her, but I don't like this sort of thing.

Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making.
I couldn't disagree more with that stament.

Mongo wrote:

Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making.
I couldn't disagree more with that stament.

Agreed.. Should not matter with Constitutional Law... The Constitution is for ALL CITIZENS...

Mongo wrote:

Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making.
I couldn't disagree more with that stament.

I don't know how you could argue that it doesn't affect their decision-making. Whether it should or not is probably a separate question. Personally, I find the inclusion of these nominees who represent important demographics - so long as they are qualified - to be a benefit to the Court for that reason.

I constantly hear the argument that the Constitution can be objectively interpreted. If it could our courts and judicial system would be much more homogeneous and streamlined. As it stands, Justices and lower court judges have to apply their personal opinions as to how the Constitutions should be applied to particular laws.

Ja'far wrote:

I don't know how you could argue that it doesn't affect their decision-making. Whether it should or not is probably a separate question. Personally, I find the inclusion of these nominees who represent important demographics - so long as they are qualified - to be a benefit to the Court for that reason.

I constantly hear the argument that the Constitution can be objectively interpreted. If it could our courts and judicial system would be much more homogeneous and streamlined. As it stands, Justices and lower court judges have to apply their personal opinions as to how the Constitutions should be applied to particular laws.

I'm arguing that it shouldn't, she's saying it should.

Ja'far wrote:

Mongo wrote:

Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making.
I couldn't disagree more with that stament.

I don't know how you could argue that it doesn't affect their decision-making. Whether it should or not is probably a separate question. Personally, I find the inclusion of these nominees who represent important demographics - so long as they are qualified - to be a benefit to the Court for that reason.

I constantly hear the argument that the Constitution can be objectively interpreted. If it could our courts and judicial system would be much more homogeneous and streamlined. As it stands, Justices and lower court judges have to apply their personal opinions as to how the Constitutions should be applied to particular laws.

I think it's very important for all demographics to be represented. It's only fair. People can say that they can view the world from other peoples point of view but you can't know unless you live it.

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

While on the Circuit Court, Sotomayor's most high profile case involved her voting to disregard the scores on a promotional test for firefighters because none of the highest scorers on the test were minorities. The case was recently heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, but a ruling has not been issued yet.

Not saying this should disqualify her, but I don't like this sort of thing.

You beat me to making this point judge. I hope that this is not the normal way of thinking for her but I really believe for that one reason we can see what we are in for. I persoanlly would not want this woman sitting on the highest court in the land.
The liberals preach "fair" and "just", well it just doesn't get any more fair than the highet scores should qualify for the job. I guess it is up the them as to what is fair , in this case she ruled over proven test scores . Especially with a job like a firefighter. I don't know about you but in case of God forbid I am involved in a fire then I would want the best qualified men the dept. could have availible.

I'm interested in hearing more about his case. At the moment, I am only hearing others' interpretation. Does anyone have a link to actual information about the "fire fighter" case?

Annie Oakley wrote:

I'm interested in hearing more about his case. At the moment, I am only hearing others' interpretation. Does anyone have a link to actual information about the "fire fighter" case?

She was a member of the three judge panel that voted to throw out the exam results. She wrote the opinion for the decision.

The Drifter wrote:

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

While on the Circuit Court, Sotomayor's most high profile case involved her voting to disregard the scores on a promotional test for firefighters because none of the highest scorers on the test were minorities. The case was recently heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, but a ruling has not been issued yet.

Not saying this should disqualify her, but I don't like this sort of thing.

You beat me to making this point judge. I hope that this is not the normal way of thinking for her but I really believe for that one reason we can see what we are in for. I persoanlly would not want this woman sitting on the highest court in the land.
The liberals preach "fair" and "just", well it just doesn't get any more fair than the highet scores should qualify for the job. I guess it is up the them as to what is fair , in this case she ruled over proven test scores . Especially with a job like a firefighter. I don't know about you but in case of God forbid I am involved in a fire then I would want the best qualified men the dept. could have availible.

What would repubs do if Fox News and other talking heads didn't exist to tell them what to think? Like 20 years ago before news became entertainment and opinions instead of facts. How would they make up their minds then?
And forgive us "libs" for wanting to be "fair and just". Some wouldn't say a word about this stuff or tests scores if this was a person that some repub nominated. How quickly some forget about nominations like Harriet Miers who was far from qualified but the republicans didn't care about that then, they wanted her anyway because she was a Bush crony. They say democrats were being mean and harsh because Palin wasn't the brightest bulb and thought we were attacking her and being overly worried about intelligence. Flip flop, flip flop.

She's still a little iffy on gun laws and racial decisions.. I'll have to look at a few more of her rulings... http://www.reason.com/news/show/133722.html

Another red flag... The COA does not make policy..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q&feature=related

Did I hear correctly, has she been overturned on several occasions? I even heard she had been somewhat reprimanded by other judges for a few decisions. In her own words she insinuated the upper courts were there to make policy. That in itself should disqualify her IMO...Republican or democrat.

This confirms BHO's disrespect for the Constitution of The United States.

gringaloca wrote:

Ja'far wrote:

Mongo wrote:

Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making.
I couldn't disagree more with that stament.

I don't know how you could argue that it doesn't affect their decision-making. Whether it should or not is probably a separate question. Personally, I find the inclusion of these nominees who represent important demographics - so long as they are qualified - to be a benefit to the Court for that reason.

I constantly hear the argument that the Constitution can be objectively interpreted. If it could our courts and judicial system would be much more homogeneous and streamlined. As it stands, Justices and lower court judges have to apply their personal opinions as to how the Constitutions should be applied to particular laws.

I think it's very important for all demographics to be represented. It's only fair. People can say that they can view the world from other peoples point of view but you can't know unless you live it.

I thought Lady Justice wore a blindfold???????????????

gringaloca wrote:

The Drifter wrote:

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

While on the Circuit Court, Sotomayor's most high profile case involved her voting to disregard the scores on a promotional test for firefighters because none of the highest scorers on the test were minorities. The case was recently heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, but a ruling has not been issued yet.

Not saying this should disqualify her, but I don't like this sort of thing.

You beat me to making this point judge. I hope that this is not the normal way of thinking for her but I really believe for that one reason we can see what we are in for. I persoanlly would not want this woman sitting on the highest court in the land.
The liberals preach "fair" and "just", well it just doesn't get any more fair than the highet scores should qualify for the job. I guess it is up the them as to what is fair , in this case she ruled over proven test scores . Especially with a job like a firefighter. I don't know about you but in case of God forbid I am involved in a fire then I would want the best qualified men the dept. could have availible.

What would repubs do if Fox News and other talking heads didn't exist to tell them what to think? Like 20 years ago before news became entertainment and opinions instead of facts. How would they make up their minds then?
And forgive us "libs" for wanting to be "fair and just". Some wouldn't say a word about this stuff or tests scores if this was a person that some repub nominated. How quickly some forget about nominations like Harriet Miers who was far from qualified but the republicans didn't care about that then, they wanted her anyway because she was a Bush crony. They say democrats were being mean and harsh because Palin wasn't the brightest bulb and thought we were attacking her and being overly worried about intelligence. Flip flop, flip flop.

Classic !!!! What would the liberals do without thew main stream mediia, CNN and especially MSNBS/NBC hate machine to tell them how to think. pot..meet kettle .
Grinc, you seem to have major problems with anyone that doesn't bow down to Obama and his band of liberals. You are very well entitled to your opinion but tend to try and get personal when someone points out a fact/facts about a subject. Should want yo post an opinion, that's fine. I don't think that you are qualified to tell others what to post or to "spin" what you don't like into something else. BTW, you are not a mind reader either so don't try and post thoughts of others. Did I quote you.....NO, Did anyone even mention Sarah Palin in this thread......NO! As I have said before on here,you have the right to post your opinion but so do others. I respect other rights to post, just wish that you would do the same. I don't think it is just my post either, you just seem to have a problem with anyone that has a different point of view than you about anything. I have disagreed with others on this forum as well but was not met with this kind of rebuttal/quote that you have done more than once on me and others. Here is a news flash for you.....it doesn't work that way! Post what you want, that is the way this works I believe but just know bc it is you that post something that others have right to their opinion as well.

I know that I post with an "edge" at times, that's just what I do. I do try to not call anyone out personally though so I apologize to the mods for saying what I did on a personal nature in this post. Should I have done that before I apologize to anyone that thinks I have done that with one of their post. My sarcastic comments have been about subject/person a post a thread was about ad not personal towards any member, at least that's what I have tried and meant to do.

Mongo wrote:

Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making.

This is the rules for jury instruction in Ohio.

GENERAL INSTRUCTION
Consider all the evidence and make your findings with intelligence and impartiality without bias, sympathy and prejudice so that the plaintiff(s) and the defendant(s) will feel their case was fairly and impartially tried.
You must not be influenced by any consideration of sympathy or prejudice. Sympathy is a common human experience and the law does not expect you to be free from such normal reactions. However, the law requires you to disregard sympathy and not permit it to influence your verdict. You should treat each party with equal consideration[, whether that party is an individual or a business]. It is your duty to weigh the evidence carefully, to decide all the disputed questions of fact, to apply the instructions of the judge to your findings and to render your verdict accordingly. In fulfilling your duty as jurors, your efforts must be to arrive at a fair and just verdict.


Both Obama and Sotomayor said you should take empathy into account when making a judicial decision. Wrong.

Mongo wrote:

I'm arguing that it shouldn't, she's saying it should.

Perhaps it shouldn't, but I don't believe they are separable.

Ja'far wrote:

Mongo wrote:

I'm arguing that it shouldn't, she's saying it should.

Perhaps it shouldn't, but I don't believe they are separable.

Then maybe the United Staes should do away with the supreme court all together.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Did I hear correctly, has she been overturned on several occasions? I even heard she had been somewhat reprimanded by other judges for a few decisions. In her own words she insinuated the upper courts were there to make policy. That in itself should disqualify her IMO...Republican or democrat.

This confirms BHO's disrespect for the Constitution of The United States.

She's been overturned 60% of the time. That's incompetence. She's not qualified to be there if she's been smacked down that many times.

And I SURE don't want someone as injudicious as that "making policy" from the bench, for a lifetime....

Big Jake wrote:

She's been overturned 60% of the time. That's incompetence. She's not qualified to be there if she's been smacked down that many times.

And I SURE don't want someone as injudicious as that "making policy" from the bench, for a lifetime....

I hope that no nominee ever has to go through what the Dems. did to Clarence Thomas...

Big Jake wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Did I hear correctly, has she been overturned on several occasions? I even heard she had been somewhat reprimanded by other judges for a few decisions. In her own words she insinuated the upper courts were there to make policy. That in itself should disqualify her IMO...Republican or democrat.

This confirms BHO's disrespect for the Constitution of The United States.

She's been overturned 60% of the time. That's incompetence. She's not qualified to be there if she's been smacked down that many times.

And I SURE don't want someone as injudicious as that "making policy" from the bench, for a lifetime....

That actually is not a bad record. The Supreme Court overturns 75% of the cases it hears. Not to mention she's only had five cases reviewed by the SCOTUS. It's a miserable test for "competence."