May 26, 2009
Obama To Pick Sotomayor For Supreme Court
Today at 10:15 eastern. If confirmed, she will be the third female and first Hispanic on the bench. Thoughts on how the Republicans will paint this as somehow undermining the traditional family?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Ooooo, pick me! I'll play!
Umm.. let's see. Obama just mentioned her mother and brother, but not a husband. Case closed. She's a traditional family-hater.
Heh. I read somewhere that because her family came from Puerto Rico, that made her an "immigrant" family. Even though PR is part of the US....
Oh, and we are already hearing about her "judicial activism." I still have no idea what that means.
It's funny to me that the Republicans are screaming "liberal judicial activism" when she was first appointed by George H. W. Bush. Who was not a supporter of liberalism. Someone might want to remind them of that.
Though I am not all that surprised, I still would have preferred Michigan's Jennifer Granholm. Given all the political grandstanding, BS, and other hoopla that surrounds nominations, I wouldn't expect anything different this time. While there are certainly legitimate questions and concerns and I am not advocating that the Senate slack off on their duty, these hearings seem to take on a life of their own.
I have avoided mainstream blogs and news and have been following this on Volokh and The Ninth Justice. Both of these sites have had intelligent commentary and have brought up some legitimate questions and issues.
Personally, I think that she is a decent pick. She seems to place an emphasis on precedent and past decisions. She is mostly left on social issues and while she is not pro-business, she isn't anti by any means.
Oh, and we are already hearing about her "judicial activism." I still have no idea what that means.Judicial activism is said whenever a judge makes a decision that a person doesn't like. I can't stand the term, as it is almost completely useless.
Post a Comment