# Sotomayor Hearings **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2009, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858 "2009-07-13T15:18:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![kenner116](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecb155/32.png) [@kenner116](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenner116)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/41 "2009-07-13T18:22:37Z")
Franken should be up in a few minutes. He’s right after Arlen Specter. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/42 "2009-07-13T18:34:15Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Yes, but the President in selecting the nominee no doubt considered the nominee’s views of how the law should be. Why does the President have that right but not the Senate? It’s my position that the Senate has and should have the right to accept or reject nominations for whatever reason they see fit. In my opinion, the President shouldn’t consider the nominee’s views on what the content of the law should be. I do think the President is justified in selecting a nominee with whose judicial philosophy he agrees. I have no special constitutional justification for that, though, and I think your view is reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Birdmonster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/71e660/32.png) [@Birdmonster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Birdmonster)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/43 "2009-07-13T18:42:19Z")
Is Sotomayor a Latina? I’m not sure we’ve covered that yet, Senators. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/44 "2009-07-13T18:43:49Z")
> [@Birdmonster](#): > > Is Sotomayor a Latina? I’m not sure we’ve covered that yet, Senators. Has anyone asked her if she’d like to do a rendition of “I Like to Be In America”? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/45 "2009-07-13T18:47:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Look, I believe that substantive law and policy should be made by elected officials, not by unelected judges with lifetime appointments. I always have. And where the elected offical makes laws that are unconstitutional? Judges are more than just referees. They are our last defense against overreach by the executive and legislative branches (and in some cases overreach by the judiciary branch as well). The courts undoubtedly make policy and when they do it is rarely at the District court level because there are so few cases of first impression that do not have some sort of precedent that the District Court can apply (District Court judges are in fact a lot like referees). The Appellate Courts have to think a little harder because most of those precedents are not only distinguishable they are usually appellate decisions to begin with. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law but even there, appellate courts have felt pretty free to find factors that distinguish cases before them from SCOTUS precedent (otherwise question like abortion (already covered by Roe V Wade) would never get revisited). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/46 "2009-07-13T18:55:21Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > We have done that in \*every \*election for quite some time. Sometimes candidates claim the opposite, but most of us recognize (as do most of the target audience) that “judicial restraint” is just dogwhistle code. > > The view that the judiciary is part of the government, with a role in policymaking, on par with the executive and legislative was settled in _Marbury_. Or so those of us burdened by lesser educations have been trained to think. Which is real funny because that is not what they are actually advocating. Did you watch the Alito and Roberts confirmation hearings. All the Pro-Choice Democrats wanted assurances that Alito and Roberts would respect precedent (Roe v. Wade) which is basically judicial restraint. Not overturning the decision of New Haven is also an act of judicial restraint. Its like conservatives who want to control costs (but only on stuff they don’t like, 140 billion/year in Iraq, no problem; an extra 3 billion for chidlren’s insurance, its tax and spend). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/47 "2009-07-13T19:02:51Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Is there? Isn’t someone’s ideology what they think is good for the country? That has not been my experience. Ideologies are often about what is good for me not what is good for my country. Listen to doctors talk about tort reform, they have all sorts of reasons why it might be good for the country but ultimately it is about what is good for them (BTW, I support some forms of tort reform). Listen to some folks talk about estate tax policy, it is almost always shrouded in bu11sh1t economic policy arguments but it is ultimately about what is good for them. With that said there are many legitimate policy difference about how best to run a nation. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/48 "2009-07-13T19:13:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Moreover, i don’t believe the “advice and consent” the Senate must offer should extend to substituting their own views for those of the President. The Senate should answer, “Is she qualified?” not “Is she the one I’d pick?” FWIW, Barack Obama disagrees with the above. [Cite](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121901817146948231.html), [cite](http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/472559,CST-NWS-sweet18.article), and [cite](http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/ef53c8ee-ba5f-4700-9a00-5e0b63baa0ea). Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/49 "2009-07-13T19:18:55Z")
The Supreme Court is made of conflicting types because each president gets to appoint them. If they got blown up and one president was going to repopulate the whole court, it would be a political riot. It is generally assumed that the prez gets to have it his way. You have to be a real nut to get booted. Thomas made it for example. Few thought he was the best choice. Fewer think so now. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/50 "2009-07-13T19:31:03Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Is there? Isn’t someone’s ideology what they think is good for the country? Well, there are opinions about what policies would be better or worse for the country, but there also has to be a recognition that not every issue is a four alarm fire in which the very survival of the country is at stake. I’m against the death penalty, but I don’t think the welfare of my country rides on that one issue, and I don’t think it would be appropriate to hold up a Supreme Court nomination. My view of SCOTUS nominations is that it’s part of the President’s prize that he gets to make these picks. It’s one of the spoils of the election. The voters know when they vote that making these appointments is a key part of the job, and they vote accordingly. I’m of the mind that confirming these appointments should be all but automatic unless it can be shown that there is a real question as to qualifications, or a showing of some kind of severely irrational temperment or ideology that would interfere with their ability to apply genuine scholarship, professionalism and sobriety to the role. A nominee who is an active member of the Nation of Islam, and publicly avows a belief that white people are devils, for instance. Basically, I’m saying unless the nominee is crooked, crazy or just plain unqualified, they should be confirmed. If you’re wondering, I did say the same thing about Bush’s appointments – that basically, I didn’t like them, but it was his right to pick them, and the Dems shouldn’t hold them up. The only one I really opposed was Harriet Miers, and that was on her lack of qualification, not her ideology. Even Republicans were skeptical of her qualifications, so it wasn’t a partisan thing. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/51 "2009-07-13T21:26:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > FWIW, Barack Obama disagrees with the above. [Cite](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121901817146948231.html), [cite](http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/472559,CST-NWS-sweet18.article), and [cite](http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/ef53c8ee-ba5f-4700-9a00-5e0b63baa0ea). I only had time to read the first of your cites, but I don’t think it says what you think it says. In fact, it seems to say the opposite. It is an opinion piece discussing his response to the question of which currently sitting justice would he _not_ have nominated. Obama’s response as quoted was: “I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don’t think that he, **I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker** at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.” (bolding mine) So, setting aside his disagreement with Thomas on interpretation of the Constitution, he said he did not think Thomas was qualified at the time of his elevation. So, that particular cite seems to say the opposite of what you were trying to provide evidence for. (I feel obliged to also mention that the writer of that opinion piece then goes on to essentially accuse Obama of racism regarding Thomas.) ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/52 "2009-07-13T21:41:20Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Is there? Isn’t someone’s ideology what they think is good for the country? Yes and no. I don’t want nine people of my ideology on the Court, because I think it is important for it to fulfill its role for there to be differing interpretations of the Constitution and the law in general on that body. I wholeheartedly oppose textualism, but like there being textualists on the Court. I think Alito was a step too far in the number of textualists, but there you go. I’m also heavily influenced by Legal Realism, which is why I find a lot of opposition to Sotomayor disturbing - essentially the focus on the “wise Latina” remark, and claiming that it is a disqualifyer for her is, to me, a statement that Legal Realism has no place as a philosophy on the Court. So, to stop rambling, it is perfectly possible to have one legal philosophy and to think it is in the best interests of the country that the final arbiter of constitutionality is not made up by that philosophy entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/53 "2009-07-14T02:43:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Two words: Harriet Miers > > ETA: (Although to be fair Bush might have been dumb enough to think she was actually qualified) The dude did pick Brownie to head FEMA and Alberto Gonzalez to be Attorney General, so I lean towards the latter argument. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/54 "2009-07-14T03:00:49Z")
> [@ShadowFacts](#): > > I only had time to read the first of your cites, but I don’t think it says what you think it says. In fact, it seems to say the opposite. It is an opinion piece discussing his response to the question of which currently sitting justice would he _not_ have nominated. Obama’s response as quoted was: “I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don’t think that he, **I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker** at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.” (bolding mine) > > So, setting aside his disagreement with Thomas on interpretation of the Constitution, he said he did not think Thomas was qualified at the time of his elevation. So, that particular cite seems to say the opposite of what you were trying to provide evidence for. > > (I feel obliged to also mention that the writer of that opinion piece then goes on to essentially accuse Obama of racism regarding Thomas.) A better example is in the second cite where he says: > [@](#): > > There is nothing wrong in voting against nominees who don’t share a broader vision of what the Constitution is about. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/55 "2009-07-14T03:26:08Z")
> [@Birdmonster](#): > > Is Sotomayor a Latina? I’m not sure we’ve covered that yet, Senators. She was introduced as being raised by a single mother from Puerto Rico. That makes her a Latina, right? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/56 "2009-07-14T03:32:54Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > She was introduced as being raised by a single mother from Puerto Rico. That makes her a Latina, right? I think you’ve been whooshed. The Dems today were falling all over themselves to talk about her Latina heritage, almost to the point of head-patting condescension. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/57 "2009-07-14T03:54:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is absurd. There is no principled reason that I am aware of to oppose her. In this day and age, can you imagine a scenario where a SCOTUS nominee gets confirmed without opposition? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/58 "2009-07-14T03:58:43Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > “Abortion? Why, I’ve heard of it. Is it a flavor of ice cream?” > > -Joe Yes. Yes, it is. 😃 I am **so** going to Hell . . . ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/59 "2009-07-14T04:10:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not really. > > Look, I believe that substantive law and policy should be made by elected officials, not by unelected judges with lifetime appointments. I always have. > > But it’s undeniable that many others don’t agree with this view: they see the judiciary as a vehicle to enact social change. I don’t agree, but I cannot say their view is categorically wrong or unprincipled – just unwise. But elections have consequences. We elected a man who believes in the latter view of the judiciary. he’s selected someone who, to the extent she has this view, has been remarkably circumspect about using it. Moreover, i don’t believe the “advice and consent” the Senate must offer should extend to substituting their own views for those of the President. The Senate should answer, “Is she qualified?” not “Is she the one I’d pick?” She is undoubtedly qualified. If the American people don’t want a jurist with this sort of philosophy selected, they have a ready remedy in November 2012. Robert Bork certainly was **qualified,** in the sense you’re using the term. That doesn’t mean the Senate should have confirmed him. [Thank Og it didn’t!](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slouching_Towards_Gomorrah) :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858/60 "2009-07-14T04:13:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There’s a difference beween considering what’s good for the country, and focusing only on partisan ideology. Not in the eyes of anyone who **holds** an ideology, there isn’t, and doesn’t that include most of us? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sotomayor-hearings/502858.md?page=4)