Sonia Sotomayor

With a newly minted sixty-vote Democrat majority in the US Senate, the approval of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is all but assured.
But what isn't assured is that it won't cost the Democrats something before all the dust settles.  And that's up to the Republicans.

Do they have what it takes to make her positions on hot-button issues so toxic that the Democrats from "purple" or "red" states who support her will find themselves in political hot water back home?
Her record represents just such an opportunity.

Before becoming a judge, Sotomayor was a leader of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), even serving as the Chairman of its Litigation Committee.  And there we get a glimpse of some of the issues she was willing to lend her support to.  read more »

CNSNews.com) – At her confirmation hearing this week, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor refused to give her personal views on abortion. However, Sotomayor spent more than a decade serving on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), a group that opposes “any efforts” to “in any way restrict” abortion.

According to legal briefs filed by PRLDEF, the group opposed parental consent laws, waiting periods, and even the broad “undue burden” standard, which says abortion restrictions cannot be too burdensome for women wanting to end their pregnancies.

Sotomayor did not provide those legal briefs to the Senate Judiciary Committee...

Who says people can't change (or flip-flop)?  Sotomayor has proven that you certainly can...especially when you get nominated to the Supreme Court and you've got some otherwise inconvenient statements or actions in your past that you need to have people overlook.

For example:

On impartiality, Sotomayor had previously suggested that "there is no objective stance"...

In the hearings she stated: "The process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind.  It's the process of not coming to a decision with a prejudgement ever of an outcome. (7/14/09)

But previously...

"There is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives...aspiration to impartiality...is just that, an aspiration..." (Women in the Judiciary, Women's Bar Association of the State of New York, 4/30/99)

On whether "predjudices" are appropriate, she said "predjudices are appropriate"...

In the hearings, she stated, "[I] Would Not Prejudge Any Question That Came Before Me If I Was A Justice On The Supreme Court."  And, "I Don't Pre-Judge Issues."

But previously...

"I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and gender but attempt...continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate." (Women in the Judiciary, 40th National Conference of Law Reviews. 3/17/94)  read more »

In her bid to pooh pooh conservative fears (brought on by her judicial record) that she can't be relied upon to apply the law, instead of being a judicial activist, Sotomayor vowed "fidelity to the law" and told the Senate that she had not advocated for policy since she became a judge.

Of course, "advocating" for policy isn't necessary when you can "set policy", as she herself admitted that the Court of Appeals does.  And presumably she would know, since she's on the Second Circuit for the Court of Appeals.

In her statement to the Senate, she said:

"In the past month, many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law," Judge Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"The task of a judge is not to make the law - it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress intent; and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and my Circuit Court."  read more »

Washington (AP) - An anti-abortion protester briefly disrupted the opening of Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination hearing.

The outburst came during Sen. Dianne Feinstein's opening statement Monday. A man in room interrupted her remarks by shouting: "Senator. What about the unborn!" He called abortion "genocide.

Capitol Police identified the protester as Robert James, from Virginia. He was charged with unlawful conduct and disruption of Congress...

(CNSNews.com) – The right to an abortion is not different than any other “fundamental right,” according to a legal brief issued by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), in a case regarding Missouri state funding restrictions on abortion from 1988 when attorney Sonia Sotomayor was a member of the group’s governing board.

Sotomayor, now a U.S. court of appeals judge nominated by President Barack Obama to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, served on the board from 1980 to 1992, during which time the organization weighed in on five abortion cases. These included the 1988 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold confirmation hearings on Sotomayor next week...

(CNSNews.com) ­– Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is again drawing fire from conservative groups, this time as the result of a 2003 ruling against a Christian group.

In the case of Okwedy v. Molinari, decided in 2003, Sotomayor sat on a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court’s ruling (from 2001) against Keyword Ministries and its pastor, Kristopher Okwedy. The ministry had purchased billboard advertisements featuring Bible verses that condemned homosexuality.

The ads were taken down after a local government official complained about their message to the company that owned the billboard, and Okwedy sued both the company and the government official who wrote the complaint...

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee says his party might throw up procedural roadblocks to delay next week’s planned confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

“We feel like the date was too early,” Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama said Monday after committee Republicans met to discuss their strategy for questioning Sotomayor.

Republican senators want more time to prepare their questions for the nominee, especially about a legal advocacy group for Latinos that Sotomayor was affiliated with in the past...

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor on Friday resigned as a member of the all-women Belizean Grove club amid mounting pressure from Republican lawmakers.

"I believe that the Belizean Grove does not practice invidious discrimination and my membership did not violate the Judicial Code of Ethics, but I do not want questions about this to distract anyone from my qualifications and record," Judge Sotomayor wrote in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, and Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, the committee's ranking member...

It seems that the more information that becomes public on Sonia Sotomayor, the more cause for concern Americans would seem to have about the possibility of her sitting on the highest court in the land for a lifetime appointment.

During the past few weeks, she's made the rounds in the Senate, paying courtesy calls to various senators so they can "get to know her".  Of course, this is part of the usual PR plan for pretty much every Supreme Court nominee, regardless of party.  But as she's made these visits, she appears to be raising some eyebrows on some pretty important issues.

When it comes to gun rights, she seems to have some hostility to the Second Amendment, or at least the way in which the vast majority of Americans interpret it.

After her meeting with Senator Jim DeMint, he stated that she was "unwilling to say the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right that applies to all Americans, which raises serious questions about her view of the Bill of Rights".

Indeed, in the case of "Maloney v. Cuomo", she and her fellow appellate court judges ruled that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to state or local governments - an opinion that's in direct contrast with the view of the current Supreme Court in last year's "Heller" case, where it ruled that the Second Amendment provided all Americans with an individual right to keep and bear arms.  Given that the case was decided by a one vote margin, her thinking on this issue is very, very important.  read more »