http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/331810476.html

“In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, Judge Sotomayor stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She reiterated her commitment to that lawless judicial philosophy at Duke Law School in 2005 when she stated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”

She also been referred to one who will be the new “liberal anchor”.

May The GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on the United States of America.

But I’m sure it’s ok, if criminals have them. The poor down trodden murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and felons.

capejasmine on May 26, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Under the new hate crimes law, they might as well be.

The short of it: she thinks the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right.

Update: As long as we’re talking about her reversals, a couple of her notable rulings should be highlighted, too:

Here is one straw in the wind that does not bode well for a Sotomayor appointment. Justice Stevens of the current court came in for a fair share of criticism (all justified in my view) for his expansive reading in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) of the “public use language.” Of course, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment is as complex as it is short: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” But he was surely done one better in the Summary Order in Didden v. Village of Port Chester issued by the Second Circuit in 2006. Judge Sotomayor was on the panel that issued the unsigned opinion–one that makes Justice Stevens look like a paradigmatic defender of strong property rights.

I have written about Didden in Forbes. The case involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined. Bart Didden came up with an idea to build a pharmacy on land he owned in a redevelopment district in Port Chester over which the town of Port Chester had given Greg Wasser control. Wasser told Didden that he would approve the project only if Didden paid him $800,000 or gave him a partnership interest. The “or else” was that the land would be promptly condemned by the village, and Wasser would put up a pharmacy himself. Just that came to pass. But the Second Circuit panel on which Sotomayor sat did not raise an eyebrow. Its entire analysis reads as follows: “We agree with the district court that [Wasser's] voluntary attempt to resolve appellants’ demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation.”

Maybe I am missing something, but American business should shudder in its boots if Judge Sotomayor takes this attitude to the Supreme Court. Justice Stevens wrote that the public deliberations over a comprehensive land use plan is what saved the condemnation of Ms. Kelo’s home from constitutional attack. Just that element was missing in the Village of Port Chester fiasco. Indeed, the threats that Wasser made look all too much like the “or else” diplomacy of the Obama administration in business matters.

Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

Uh oh.

Campaign promise about to expire……..

BobMbx on May 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM

But I’m sure it’s ok, if criminals have them. The poor down trodden murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and felons.

Breaking……

Court upholds Prop 8 in California

Knucklehead on May 26, 2009 at 1:04 PM

So will the court appease voters on this, and overrule the voters on the tax proposals?

Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

Uh oh.

Campaign promise about to expire……..

Upcoming Headline:
“Sotomayor discovered to be a tax cheat”
in 3…2…1…

stonemeister on May 26, 2009 at 1:07 PM

With Obama’s track record who would really be suprised.

… Sotomayor is often painted as a moderate by virtue of the fact that President George H.W. Bush formally appointed her to a district-court seat. But, as I’ve explained before, when President Bush nominated Sotomayor to the district court in 1991, the New York senators, Moynihan and D’Amato, had forced on the White House a deal that enabled the senator not of the president’s party to name one of every four district-court nominees in New York. Sotomayor was Moynihan’s pick. I am reliably informed that Bush 41’s White House nonetheless resisted nominating her because she was so liberal and did so in the end only as part of a package to move along other nominees whom Moynihan was holding up.

I’ll also highlight that in 1998, on the roll-call vote on President Clinton’s nomination of Sotomayor to the Second Circuit, 29 Republican senators (including John McCain) voted against her confirmation.

If that’s all of her reversals, it hardly amounts to the “high rate” Wendy Long noted at Bench Memos earlier…

That’s a pretty ignorant statement, Ed. I work for one of the 13 federal circuit courts of appeals. Do you know how very few cases the SOCTUS reviews in a year? How few opinions of a single Court of Appeals judge the SCOTUS reviews, even over a 10 year period? If I understand the statistics correctly, SCOTUS has reviewed five of her decisions and reversed her in four of them. And will probably reverse the Ricci/DeStefano firefighters case, too.

If you don’t think that 4 out of 5 – possibly 5 out of 6 – reversals isn’t a high rate, then what is?

Sotomayor was rebuked in writing by a Latino judge appointed by Clinton, for completely ignoring the laws, issuing her extremely bigoted blatant reverse discriminatory decision.

In her own words, Sotomayor “hopes” she can project her biases beyond rule of law.