SCOTUS Nominee Sotomayor on Right to Bear Arms: "it is the law of the land right now ..." She's Had a Change of Heart.

During her Senate confirmation hearings, Sonia Sotomayor talked like the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was settled law.

Sotomayor earlier acknowledged the Supreme Court's 2008 decision that overturned Washington, D.C.'s restrictive handgun law, noting that "it is the law of the land right now in the sense of precedent, that there is an individual right to bear arms as it applies to government, federal government regulation," she said.

The Supreme Court overturned Chicago's ultra restrictive handgun ban Monday by a vote of 5-4. Justice Sotomayor was one of the four dissenting Justices.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens said that unlike a ruling two years ago overturning a Washington, D.C., handgun ban, Monday's decision "could prove far more destructive — quite literally — to our nation's communities and to our constitutional structure."

Never believe anything a liberal tells you.

Glenn Beck Mocks Franken and Schumer (video)

Glenn Beck mocked Senators Franken's and Schumer's performances at Sotomayor's hearing. No two senators ever deserved it more.

Glenn Beck Mocks Senators Al Franken & Chuck Schumer At Sotomayor Hearing (video)

Al Franken Asks Sotomayor the Dumbest Question (video)

Senator Al Frankin grilled SCOTUS nominee Sonia SotoMayor about a "Perry Mason" episode. We knew this guy was going to be a joke.

Franken & Sotomayor Discuss 'Perry Mason' Episodes During Hearing

Sotomayor’s uses “play on words” defense (video)

Sonia Sotomayor tried to use the “play on words” defense about her “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion” comment. Senator Sessions didn't accept that response and pressed her on the statement. Sotomayor said her "wise Latina" play on words comment "fell flat" in a speech in 2001. If the comment "fell flat" why did she use this comment at least five times?

Supreme Court Overrules Sotamayor On Ricci Decision

The Supreme Court overrules Sotamayor on Ricci decision today.

According to Breitbrat:

The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

Sotomayor was overturned 60% of the time by the Supreme Court prior to this decision.
I guess being a wise Latina woman didn't help prevent Sotamayor from making a poor judgment in this case.

Robert Bork explains why Judge Sotomayor is a bad Supreme Court candidate

From Newsweek:

His name has become a verb, one so crisp and eloquent that it was added to the Oxford English Dictionary: if you've been blocked from appointment to public office, you've been "borked." The term's namesake is Robert Bork, whose path to the Supreme Court was derailed in 1987 by a hostile Senate. As Sonia Sotomayor braces for the same firing line, Bork, 82, sat down with NEWSWEEK for a rare interview. Excerpts:

President Obama has spoken of empathy as his key standard for choosing judicial nominees. What do you think of that approach?

I don't know exactly what empathy means. I suppose at a minimum it means you want a judge who will depart from the meaning of the constitution when a sympathetic case arises. It does seem to raise a warning that we're talking about a judge who does not follow the law.

And I take it that you don't approve?

You are quite correct.

What are your thoughts about Judge Sotomayor's nomination?

I think it was a bad mistake. Her comments about the wise Latina suggest identity-group jurisprudence. She also has a reputation for bullying counsel. And her record is not particularly distinguished. Far from it. And it is unusual to nominate somebody who states flatly that she was the beneficiary of affirmative action. But I can't believe she will be any worse than some recent white male appointees.

How have you been struck by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito since they were appointed?

My general impression of them is quite good. The justice up there who I most admire is Clarence Thomas. I notice that when he and Scalia differ—it's not that often, but when they do—I tend to agree with Thomas.

Sotomayor Quits Membership in All Female Club

U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor has quit her membership in the all female New York-based Belizean Grove club. Of course, she denies any wrongdoing. So why is she quitting?

CNN reported:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor has quit her membership in a women's club, the New York-based Belizean Grove.

"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," the 54-year-old New York federal appeals judge wrote.

The American Bar Association's judicial code says that a judge's extrajudicial activities "must not be conducted in connection or affiliation with an organization that practices invidious discrimination."

It adds, "An organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation persons who would otherwise be eligible for admission."

According to the group's Web site, "The Belizean Grove is a constellation of influential women who are key decision makers in the profit, nonprofit and social sectors; who build long-term mutually beneficial relationships in order to both take charge of their own destinies and help others to do the same."

A woman who answered the phone at the club, located on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, said no one was immediately available to comment.

Sotomayor isn't that wise or empathetic

Here is a case of a man wrongly convicted due to prosecutor and judicial errors. The case went through Sotomayors court twice. She failed to help the wrongly convicted man both times. He was cleared by DNA evidence after 16 years in prison.
From Politico:

At age 17, I was wrongfully convicted of murder and rape, despite a negative DNA test and hair found on the body that did not match mine. My conviction was based upon a coerced, false confession, the fabrication of other evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and fraud by the medical examiner. I was cleared 16 years later — almost three years ago — when further DNA testing reaffirmed my innocence while identifying the real perpetrator, who subsequently confessed and was sentenced.

Since my release, I have made it my life’s mission to battle against wrongful convictions in an effort to bring about legislative changes that would minimize the chances of what happened to me happening to someone else.

The Westchester, N.Y., district attorney assigned four experts to study my case and, though the study in some ways was flawed, they did say that the system failed on every level, including judicially. All seven of my appeals were turned down. Two stops along the way were in Sotomayor’s courtroom.

Biden opens mouth and inserts foot again with promises Sotomayor can not keep

VP Joe (gaffe) Biden told national law enforcement groups Monday that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor "has your back." From Fox news:

Vice President Joe Biden may have crossed the line when he assured national law enforcement groups Monday that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor "has your back."

The remark quickly stirred criticism in the legal world, since Biden was making a pledge that a fair and objective justice would not necessarily be able to keep.

Biden made the remark at an assembly of eight law enforcement groups after he detailed Sotomayor's tough-on-crime record in the courtroom.

"There's a part of her record that seems to be, up to now, been flying under the radar a bit. And that's her tough stance on criminals and her unyielding commitment to finding justice for the victims of crime," Biden said.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor recycled "wise Latina woman" comment many times

Sonia Sotomayor can not claim her "wise Latina woman" speech was a slip of the tongue. She was reading from a prepared text. This terminology has been used by Judge Sotomayor many times. If a white male had used the term "wise Caucasian male" to reference themselves, they would be called a racist.
Congressional Quarterly reported:

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivered multiple speeches between 1994 and 2003 in which she suggested "a wise Latina woman" or "wise woman" judge might "reach a better conclusion" than a male judge.

Those speeches, released Thursday as part of Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire, (to see Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee click here and here) suggest her widely quoted 2001 speech in which she indicated a "wise Latina" judge might make a better decision was far from a single isolated instance.

A draft version of a October 2003 speech Sotomayor delivered at Seton Hall University stated, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion." That is identical to her October 2001 remarks at the University of California, Berkeley that have become the subject of intense criticism by Republican senators and prompted conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh to label her "racist."

Harry Reid supports Sonia Sotomayor's nomination, but he hasn't read a single one of her opinions

Harry Reid Hasn't Read Any of Sotomayor's Opinions (video)

From the video:

I understand that during her career, she's written hundreds and hundreds of opinions. I haven't read a single one of them, and if I'm fortunate before we end this, I won't have to read one of them. But -- I'm not familiar with that opinion, but there will be plenty of time for people who are concerned about the Second Amendment -- and there are lots of people on the Judiciary Committee who are concerned about it -- they'll have lots of time to offer her questions and she'll proceed to answer them. But I don't know anything about that.

Using the standard Sen. Obama applied to John Roberts, all Republicans and many Democrats should vote no on Sonia Sotomayor

Senator Obama praised SCOTUS nominee John Roberts and said, "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land." Additionally Sen. Obama said, "It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95% of the cases that come before the federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts." After those accolades, Senator Obama voted 'No" on John Roberts confirmation because he disagreed with him 5% of the time. Geez.
From the WSJ:

The following is from then-Sen. Barack Obama's floor statement explaining why he would vote against confirming Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (September 2005):

. . . [T]he decision with respect to Judge Roberts' nomination has not been an easy one for me to make. As some of you know, I have not only argued cases before appellate courts but for 10 years was a member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty and taught courses in constitutional law. Part of the culture of the University of Chicago Law School faculty is to maintain a sense of collegiality between those people who hold different views. What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision.

Given that background, I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearings, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view.

It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95% of the cases that come before the federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.

The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95% of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult.

In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

In those 5% of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country, or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions, or whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.