# Would it look or be good for Obama to withdraw Sotomayor's nomination? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 28, 2009, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913 "2009-05-28T09:49:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/261 "2009-06-04T01:35:51Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I don’t think you understand what a Federalist is. Of course I do–but the [Federalist Society](http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/) has a specific agenda: > [@](#): > > The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order…The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. > > This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law…In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community. In short, they are an advocacy group with unapologetic political and idealogical ties. If you’re so offended by Sotomayer’s affiliation with a race-based advocacy group, you should be equally concerned by the conserative SCOTUS members who are associated with a political advocacy group. The fact that you (by all appearances) aren’t says more about your personal biases and double standards than any that Sotomayer may allegedly harbor. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/262 "2009-06-04T01:36:02Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > So you oppose Roberts? because? ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/263 "2009-06-04T01:41:35Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > So you oppose Roberts? [Exactly.](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/25/090525fa_fact_toobin) > [@](#): > > His jurisprudence as Chief Justice, Roberts said, would be characterized by “modesty and humility.” After four years on the Court, however, Roberts’s record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party. So what we have here is a SCOTUS judge who is a member of a legal political advocacy group and whose rulings align themselves 100% with the idealogical leanings of that group. Where’s the ire? Where’s the indignation? You make all these allegations of Sotomayer based on what she _might_ do (note, you still don’t respond to her long record of race-neutral rulings), but we have the Chief Justice doing exactly what you’re so concerned about–demonstrating a recurring bias, which was telegraphed by his association with an advocacy group–and yet…Nothing. That’s why all your complaints about her stink of classic right-wing talking points: ignoring the evidence in lieu of disingenuous, hand-wringing hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/264 "2009-06-04T01:47:15Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > If she were a Federalist and stood up for the little guy I would be behind her. Her actions and statements, made in full view of the public, suggest otherwise. No, you don’t get this one for free. So, not only don’t you mind bias, you prefer bias. Just as long as it’s your kind of bias. Nice to see the principled stand. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what makes you think this is appropriate but I don’t appreciate racial cheap shots. Then stop making such a huge point of the fact that it wasn’t just an advocacy group, but a Latino advocacy group. How dare that brown bitch? Oh and btw, per your belief in “Federalism”: > [@](#): > > They believe in judicial restraint and not legislation from the bench If you really believe this, then why are you so upset that she refused to overturn legislative action in the New Haven case? Brown bitch. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/265 "2009-06-04T01:51:21Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > Of course I do–but the [Federalist Society](http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/) has a specific agenda: In short, they are an advocacy group with unapologetic political and idealogical ties. If you’re so offended by Sotomayer’s affiliation with a race-based advocacy group, you should be equally concerned by the conserative SCOTUS members who are associated with a political advocacy group. > > The fact that you (by all appearances) aren’t says more about your personal biases and double standards than any that Sotomayer may allegedly harbor. Their agenda is not to make policy from the bench. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/266 "2009-06-04T02:18:47Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I never said she was a jurist. I said she was a prosecuter who was on the board that pushed the lawsuit in the first place (post 238). In your post to which I responded, you said nothing about her being a lawyer. You responded to a statement about judicial decisions with a claim that you were also looking at her judicial decision when you pointed to \*Martino v Ortiz \*. The clear implication being that such activity was, indeed, judicial in nature. I corrected you and you are now weaseling. This is in keeping with the rest of your odd theme, here, in which you react to quotes out of context and invent positions based on your own interpretation of the world, in direct contrast to the actual record. I’m not sure why you are digging in your heels, here, but your continued use of bumpersticker rhetoric is making you look increasingly desperate. I don’t think Rush is planning to retire, soon, and I doubt that you could take his seat if he did. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/267 "2009-06-04T02:20:06Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Their agenda is not to make policy from the bench. Yes it is. ---
**Author:** ![furlibusea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@furlibusea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furlibusea)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/268 "2009-06-04T02:27:08Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Their agenda is not to make policy from the bench. and yet you want to get rid of Sotomayor who ruled the way she did in the Ricci case because she believed that the role of an appellate judge was to NOT MAKE POLICY FROM THE BENCH! (sorry for yelling but some times the round and rounds make me crazy. I realize he has no problem at all when judges make the policy he wants from the bench.) ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/269 "2009-06-04T03:27:09Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Their agenda is not to make policy from the bench. You can say the exact same thing about the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/270 "2009-06-04T14:29:58Z")
Apparently Sotomayer has made the “wise woman” claim on at least [one other occasion](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/03/sotomayor-supporters-focus-on-94-speech/#more-54860). At that time, she defined better: > [@](#): > > What is better? I….hope that better will mean a more compassionate, and caring conclusion ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/271 "2009-06-04T17:15:51Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > In your post to which I responded, you said nothing about her being a lawyer. You responded to a statement about judicial decisions with a claim that you were also looking at her judicial decision when you pointed to \*Martino v Ortiz \*. The clear implication being that such activity was, indeed, judicial in nature. I corrected you and you are now weaseling. No, I specifically said she was a prosecutor. I did reference the wrong post. It was post 235 not 238: **The case is going before the SC. Back in her days as a prosecutor she was on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund which fronted a similar case in Marino v. Ortiz which was struck down.** > [@tomndebb](#): > > This is in keeping with the rest of your odd theme, here, in which you react to quotes out of context and invent positions based on your own interpretation of the world, in direct contrast to the actual record. I’m not sure why you are digging in your heels, here, but your continued use of bumpersticker rhetoric is making you look increasingly desperate. I don’t think Rush is planning to retire, soon, and I doubt that you could take his seat if he did. I think my point is clear. You can match her statements about Latino women/white men plus her statement about legislating from the bench with her Latino activism and draw a conclusion that she will be an activist judge with a racial agenda. The case I sighted was promoted by her organization. She was obviously chosen as a token vote magnet and that is a poor reason to continue backing her when her background is known. When the President has to publicly admit she suffers from foot-in-mouth disease it’s time to cut her loose. This is one of the most important appointments a President can make and the repercussions cannot be undone. There are certainly better judges out there who can uphold the constitution in a neutral manner. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/272 "2009-06-04T17:30:37Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > She was obviously chosen as a token vote magnet and that is a poor reason to continue backing her when her background is known. You’re quite right here. Her background is a much better reason to continue backing her than her race. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/273 "2009-06-04T17:55:30Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I think my point is clear. You can match her statements about Latino women/white men plus her statement about legislating from the bench with her Latino activism and draw a conclusion that she will be an activist judge with a racial agenda. So let me get this straight–her plan was to sit on the bench for years and years without being an activist judge (as has been cited here multiple times), all the while biding her time so when she finally gets picked for SCOTUS, she can then show her true, pernicious, activist colors. My apologies–your position is even dumber than I thought. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/274 "2009-06-04T19:26:02Z")
My side is just doing judicial business. They are just doing the cases that come to them. Your side is going out of the way to get cases that will fit into your agenda. Those are activist judges. From my viewpoint we have an extremely activist Supreme Court. We have had since the Repubs put in their lackeys. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/275 "2009-06-04T23:22:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > No, I specifically said she was a prosecutor. Not in your response to **Gangster Octopus** , you did not. He pointed to her “judicial record” and you said “as did my reference to _Martino v Ortiz_.” That is a clear claim that you either believe that she was acting in a judicial capacity in _Martino v Ortiz_ or clear evidence that you will post anything to make a point even when it is unsupported by facts. **Gangster Octopus** called for an examination of her judicial record and you claimed that her actions as an attorney fit that bill. Just silly. I know it is hard to keep track of what you have posted, it being out there in the thread and all, but you are simply driving around in circles making silly claims and now you are claiming things that you have not said. Much like your claims that her single sentence taken out of context in a speech in which she explicitly noted that white male judges have been able to make good decisions, you are simply posting whatever comes to hand to wave around your opinion without actually paying much attention to what she has said, you have said, or any other poster has said. > [@Magiver](#): > > I think my point is clear. You can match her statements about Latino women/white men plus her statement about legislating from the bench with her Latino activism and draw a conclusion that she will be an activist judge with a racial agenda. The case I sighted was promoted by her organization. Actually, what is very clear is that you will take any side of any issue to put forth your claims that she is not qualified–even arguing that she should have taken the activist judicial position in one case in which she voted for judicial restraint because you need to twist that inside out to make your point. Lots of sound and fury. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/276 "2009-06-05T03:24:36Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Lots of sound and fury. But then, consider the source who tells the tale signifying nothing. So I have concluded after doing my bit to explain the facts, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/277 "2009-06-05T03:45:30Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Actually, what is very clear is that you will take any side of any issue to put forth your claims that she is not qualified–even arguing that she should have taken the activist judicial position in one case in which she voted for judicial restraint because you need to twist that inside out to make your point. Lots of sound and fury. I twisted nothing. She has spoken clearly on how she feels about activist judges. The same woman who pushed a losing Title VII trial upheld it when it came her way on the circuit court. She stuck her foot in her mouth with a racial remark and the President had to stand in front of a camera and explain why a SC candidate misspoke. I would prefer he find another vote magnet who isn’t biased and doesn’t misspeak when rendering decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/278 "2009-06-05T04:27:25Z")
That was a speech, not a decision. It’s odd that you made that mistake, because you’ve talked about it before without stripping away all of the context. Also, there is no such thing as an unbiased judge. Everyone has a bias. That’s the way people work. And, of course, you have no evidence that Sotomayor is any more biased than, say, Alito or Roberts, despite your yammering. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/279 "2009-06-05T05:17:28Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > That was a speech, not a decision. It’s odd that you made that mistake, because you’ve talked about it before without stripping away all of the context. Also, there is no such thing as an unbiased judge. Everyone has a bias. That’s the way people work. And, of course, you have no evidence that Sotomayor is any more biased than, say, Alito or Roberts, despite your yammering. Yes, that was a speech BY her regarding her OPINION on the matter. To suggest that it’s impossible to be bias free, therefore we should ignore it when we see it is illogical, particularly in view of her admission of favoring activist decisions. And the case she forwarded (as a member of a Latino activist group) hinged around the title VII excuse to racially discriminate after the fact. She then rubber stamped a similar case instead of addressing ACTUAL discrimination which the dissenting judge wanted to do. Her bias is to ignore discrimination in favor of quotas. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2009, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913/280 "2009-06-05T13:34:45Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Her bias is to ignore discrimination in favor of quotas. [Not true](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11208733&postcount=240) (though I find it interesting that you continue to conveniently ignore this huge set of data that resoundingly refutes your assertion). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-it-look-or-be-good-for-obama-to-withdraw-sotomayors-nomination/497913.md?page=15)