Sotomayor's radical base isn't happy that she is changing her beliefs for the hearings

Here is an editorial from the Washington Times:

Even some liberals are not enamored with Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

It turns out that many on the left are insulted that Judge Sotomayor has run away from her radical record to appear more moderate during her Senate confirmation hearings.

Georgetown University Law Center's liberal professor Louis Michael Seidman couldn't constrain his anger. "I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor's testimony today," he posted on Tuesday. "If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified ... . Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth. Legal academics who defend what she did today have no such excuse."

Dahlia Lithwick, a contributing editor at Newsweek, complained on MSNBC Wednesday night that Democratic senators and Judge Sotomayor "are promising us that Sotomayor is going to be tough on crime, loves guns, is a strict constructionist, is a minimalist. It is just bizarre." Ms. Lithwick also was very upset that Judge Sotomayor and the Democrats had publicly "bought into [Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s] notion that judges call balls and strikes" without introducing their own personal opinions. . . . .

Labels: , ,


Blogger Harry Schell said...

As far as I am concerned, the wise Latina said what she thought would get her into the job, not what she believes. Which does bring me to agreement about being "morally unfit".

These people have studied her record and her stated opinions. They obviously came to the conclusion she is not what she portrayed herself to be in the hearings. if they were really stupid people, I would be unconcerned, considering the source.

While I disagree politically with the two people quoted, I cannot say they are "stupid" or ill-informed.

That leaves only one conclusion: somebody is being lied to.

I don't think it is these radicals.

And she is therefore "morally unfit" to sit on SCOTUS.

And I agree with some, too, that she really didn't come across as so wise, either.

To say her job is only to "apply the law" quite distorts what happens due to SCOTUS descisions...they do 'make' law. Pick one...er...Roe...for example. I may be picking this bit out of its full context, but there would have to be a lot of explanation to make it work, I think.

I believe she and Obama get along because they are birds of a feather...say what you need to and get the job, then do what you want.

As with Obama, there is little in Sotomayor's history that I know of that alludes to someone with a lot of respect for the Constitution and distaste for modern liberalism and its grievance mentality, among other failures.

Just as with Obama, there was nothing to indicate his leadership would draw from anything but a far-left if not Marxist view, and he has fulfilled this expectation with great energy.

Ms. Sotomayor will have these leftist critics smiling if confirmed.

7/17/2009 7:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home