Did she just say she’d never support a group which advocated for something that ran contrary to the well-being of America? Wasn’t she involved with La Raza??? [emphasis mine :]

highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 10:20 AM

That’s yet another of her intellectual conceits: thinking that her involvement with La Raza *was* enhancing the well-being of ‘America’, as she sees it. (Whether or not ‘America’ refers to the two continents or just to our nation.)

He raised the very important issue of HOW our U.S. Constitution is or would be “interpreted” by Sotomayor should she be on the S.C., in reference to a speech she just delivered not too long ago on the merits and importance of the influence on the U.S. justice system of “foreign law” (about which, she says it “gets [her] juices flowing” about which I add, ewwww).

Rosenkranz made a clear complaint about his concerns in this specific regard, saying that he “is concerned about how Sotomayor would interpret the law…in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution (his emphasis).”

He raised the speech by Sotomayor, that she consults and finds of interest to her as also other “judges” she interacts with, “foreign law.”

Which Rosenkranz pointed out, “changes all the time.”

He continued, “(with) this contemporary reliance on foreign law…it follows that one can alter the meaning of the (U.S.) Constitution.”

He then said, “why would one NEED to even READ/consider the laws of…other lands?”

Sotomayor was asked earlier, I believe by Sessions, about the issue of the laws of other nations and how that might influence Sotomayor, she never clearly answered that except to go back to her “rulings” and the Constitution, etc.

BUT from her recent speech, it’s revealed there, as Rosenkranz clearly pointed out, Sotomayor herself declared in that speech her enthusiasm for “consulting” “foreign law” and active enjoyment in discussing it “with other (judges).”

So we have here, yet again, another case of Sotomayor revealing details about her inherent and quite troublesome biases in her speeches about which she declined to comment, avoided admitted or utterly clouded as to the issue in her testimony in these last few days.

The ISSUE here is how one defines our Constitution: it’s either what it is, or, one considers it “in flux” and changeable by the bench, which is judicial activism and it’s a highly popular desire by the Left that that’s what the courts do, they “make law” which they don’t in reality when the Constitution is respected.

The Constitution can only be changed — as one of the Republican Senators pointed out yesterday — “by Amendment by the people” not by anyone from the judiciary (who does not make law anyway, the Constitution defines them as not being able to do so or endowed with that capability).

But for those who consider foreign law — Sotomayor in her recent speech admitted as much and even defined it as a well enjoyed activity and practice — it suggests that they are, indeed, exploring behavior from other nations in reference to our own, and in that, considering the notion that our Constitution “can be” or may be changed (from the bench) or, how they might accomplish that, to be specific.

I got numerous of these contradictions from Sotomayor, despite what’s supposed to be her glowing academic skill, I heard from her many, many confused, confusing, illogical statements, also many that contradicted herself from one statement to the next, and, apparently, which stridently are contradicted, also, by her speeches (off the bench).

This reveals a (very problematic) state of mind. I don’t know at this point “which Sotomayor” is being lucid and which one is her “alter personality.”

Basically, it comes down to this:

Obama nominated her to the supreme court so he could gainer (more) support from the latin community. Doesn’t matter what her racist views are or her views on the 2nd amendment, etc.

That’s the only reason he nominated her. Period.

That and she can spin and lie through questioning with the best of ‘em.

RedbonePro on July 16, 2009 at 5:57 PM

More evidence that Obama really does not have any understanding of – in the respectful sense – our U.S. Constitution, he just has a type of gorging experience with it in his past. He gorged on what tasted good, he never digested it in any way that the “calories” incorporated as better stature on the man.

He does have and admire political scheming. That explains everything about him, and certainly explains the Sotomayor nomination, as also the Democrats’ preposterous chanting over her. I thought the classic example of such, the epitome of the Democrats’ political hunta, so to speak, was Feinstein simpering about being a woman and that “this has nothing to do with the law (her emphasis)…”

Here we have United States Senators and there the Democrat-kind among them are using this hearing process to evidence their awe about non-applicable characteristics. It’s an extremely sad thing to see.

I’m proud of and rather impressed with the Republicans, particularly Sessions, Kyl and even Graham. Cornyn has had a few moments but mostly, he’s passed on challenging nearly anything.

Obama nominated her to the supreme court so he could gainer (more) support from the latin community. Doesn’t matter what her racist views are or her views on the 2nd amendment, etc.

That’s the only reason he nominated her. Period.

That and she can spin and lie through questioning with the best of ‘em.

“Your story is so inspiring. We’re all so impressed that an ignorant Puerto Rican Latina could grow up to be a big fancy judge. In fact, we’re so impressed, that we’re going to put your diploma right here on the refrigerator so everyone can see it. Let’s have a big round of applause for Ms. Sotomayor because she’s done such a good job. Hasn’t she, everyone? Huh? Aw.. so round and cute, too.”

Yes, they are condescending. It reminds me of how people used to talk to me when they learned I’d worked my way up a corporate ladder. There were a lot of “gee, for a woman…” type remarks.

The good news for those of you who dislike her, I betcha bucks that she’s gritting her teeth through these “compliments.”

I sure did.

You, Anna in CA, are an embarassment to fellow californians, but I am used to living amongst your ilk.

No doubt we disagree politically on many issues, but I voted for McCain/Palin.

Not a lawer, but I think you are simply wrong about the “precedents” issue. SCOTUS take up cases all the time that are similar to previous cases- that’s why stare decisis is such an issue.

Well, they pass up a ton of cases because the issue has already been addressed. Usually the cases heard bring up a point that was not clarified or has caused trouble in implementing/applying, etc.

Hope that clarifies. I don’t recall them taking up a case just to reverse themselves. Even Dred Scott didn’t get reversed by the Court. It called for a constitutional amendment before it was addressed, unless my history here is way off.

“Your story is so inspiring. We’re all so impressed that an ignorant Puerto Rican Latina could grow up to be a big fancy judge. In fact, we’re so impressed, that we’re going to put your diploma right here on the refrigerator so everyone can see it. Let’s have a big round of applause for Ms. Sotomayor because she’s done such a good job. Hasn’t she, everyone? Huh? Aw.. so round and cute, too.”

… he pretty much sounds like she is IN THE SEAT ALREADY.

The GOP cannot block her, and on what grounds? She is being appointed by a Democratic president and his rubber stamp Congress.

alliebobbitt on July 16, 2009 at 11:27 AM

That doesn’t mean that he has to vote for her, though, and he sounded like he would. And if he does, I’d find that a pretty stunning and incomprehensible action given how effective he was yesterday in highlighting her disingenuousness and/or failure to address core issues.

BTW, I find her voice really irritating!!!!

Not a lawer, but I think you are simply wrong about the “precedents” issue. SCOTUS take up cases all the time that are similar to previous cases- that’s why stare decisis is such an issue.

Has anyone else noticed that she says “SUPREEN COURT”?
I know I know, but I have really good ears and it bugs me.
LimaLimaMikeFoxtrot on July 16, 2009 at 12:53 PM

More irritating is this habit of treating monosyllabic words like “kind” as phonemic roller coaster rides.

Kiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnuuuuuuunnnnnddddduh. New Yorkers talk like this?

I know I know, but I have really good ears and it bugs me.

Low scores, indeed.

Ironically, if the GOP can find things that the Trial Lawyers Assn. (yes, it has a new name) dislikes, they may be able to do it. (In questioning potential jurors, lawyers ask questions that will get the OTHER side to use up their peremptory challenges.)

Oh, well. Tool!