Obama calls for swift confirmation of Sotomayor

Sunday 31st May, 07:59 AM JST

WASHINGTON —

U.S. President Barack Obama called Saturday for a swift confirmation of his Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, calling her “fair, unbiased, and dedicated to the rule of law.”

“After reviewing many terrific candidates, I am certain that she is the right choice,” Obama said in his weekly radio address. “In fact, there has not been a nominee in several generations who has brought the depth of judicial experience to this job that she offers.”

On Tuesday, Obama nominated the 54-year-old jurist, whose parents came to the United States from Puerto Rico, to be the third woman to sit on the Supreme Court, filling the vacancy created by retiring Justice David Souter.

If she survives a confirmation battle in the Senate, Sotomayor will join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be the second woman now serving on the high court and the first-ever Hispanic.

But Republicans have vowed to probe Sotomayor’s legal paper trail for signs that her political views may have tainted her interpretation of the law.

Obama blasted “some in Washington” who he said played political games trying to paint “a distorted picture” of Judge Sotomayor’s record.

“But I am confident that these efforts will fail; because Judge Sotomayor’s 17-year record on the bench ... speak far louder than any attack,” the president said. “Her record makes clear that she is fair, unbiased, and dedicated to the rule of law.”

Obama added that he hoped that Sotomayor’s confirmation process would begin without delay and that she would take her place on the bench later this year, by the time the Supreme Court decides what cases to hear.

Wire reports

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 43 Total Comments Show All

teleprompter at 12:08 AM JST - 1st June

She's a racist. No amount of spin changes it.
VOR at 12:55 AM JST - 1st June

What's wrong with the American people fully understanding exactly who their next supreme court justice will be? What's wrong with learning how she conducts herself on the bench? What's wrong with learning about who she is through her own words? What's wrong with learning about what organizations she belongs to? It is very disturbing to see the Obama administration and their loyal followers acting like jackbooted thugs whenever anyone questions the actions of this heavy handed government.
yabits at 01:27 AM JST - 1st June

What's wrong with the American people fully understanding exactly who their next supreme court justice will be?

While "fully understanding" can be interpreted different ways, there is no problem with attaining the understanding sufficient to make an effective decision. Irresponsible people calling her a racist on the basis of one innocuous remark does not appear to me to be a good faith attempt at seeking an understanding.

What's wrong with learning how she conducts herself on the bench?

Nothing at all. Republicans are pouring over all of her cases looking for a smoking gun. The fact that they have yet to come up with something by now indicates something.

What's wrong with learning about what organizations she belongs to?

Again, nothing. But irresponsible conservatives labeling organizations like La Raza as "racist" does nothing but serve to show their bad faith. Espcially when reminded that many leading Republicans have supported La Raza.

loyal followers acting like jackbooted thugs whenever anyone questions

If you expect people to just roll over and act like creampuffs when attacked by irresponsible conservatives acting in bad faith, you have seriously misjudged your opponents. Speaking for myself, there is no need for jackboots; the conservative negative momentum makes judo the most effective counter.
VOR at 02:26 AM JST - 1st June

The problem is she has made comments and decisions and belongs to organizations that should disqualify any nominee, Republican or Democrat from sitting on the highest court in the land.

Her statement that she as a Latina made her more qualified than a white man is just as racist if a white judge said he was more qualified than a latina because of his experience being a white male.

As we learn more about her judgments, we will see if she made similiar race based decisions like the one she made against the white fire fighters.

If her affiliation with La Raza, an organization that does not recognize the US border claiming that Mexico's ancestral homeland was stolen by white Americans is not troubling enough, her affiliation with an organization that is actively assisting people break US law she is sworn to uphold should be.

If Obama and the Democrats put a person like this on the highest court of the land, the American people should know it before they go back to the voting booths in 2010.
yabits at 02:51 AM JST - 1st June

The problem is she has made comments and decisions and belongs to organizations that should disqualify any nominee, Republican or Democrat from sitting on the highest court in the land.

No, she hasn't. Sotomayor will end up getting a lot of support from Republicans -- just as Bill Clinton's two appointees did.

If Obama and the Democrats put a person like this on the highest court of the land, the American people should know it before they go back to the voting booths in 2010.

It will not just be the Democrats. Sotomayor will garner a fair amount of Republican support too.

The American voters, nearly 60% of whom reject Republicanism, will go to the polls in 2010 knowing that President Obama made a masterful choice.
VOR at 03:18 AM JST - 1st June

pitiful response yabits, you ducked each of the three reasons Sotomayer's background needs to be seriously looked into by providing only a weak head in the cloud response only a mindnumb robot could conjure up.

Americans are becoming increasingly uneasy about what Obama and his democrats in Congress are doing. This supreme court nominee will likely only further convince the American people that its a bad thing when one party takes total control of the government and vote to restore the balance of power in Washington.
Molenir at 03:20 AM JST - 1st June

Again, nothing. But irresponsible conservatives labeling organizations like La Raza as "racist" does nothing but serve to show their bad faith. Espcially when reminded that many leading Republicans have supported La Raza.

La Raza is a racist organization. Or rather, some of their stated aims are. Do a little research on the subject and you'll see what I mean. They don't have the same connotations that the KKK does. Thus pols aren't afraid to be associated with them, and since those politicians want their votes... Both Dems and Reps can be found seeking their endorsement.

No, she hasn't. Sotomayor will end up getting a lot of support from Republicans -- just as Bill Clinton's two appointees did.

Despite what a lot of people on the left say, Republicans in general actually believe in the constitution, and support the right of the President to appoint who he will, unlike some Democrats. Thats why Clintons nominees got the support they did, despite their being raving nutcases, and why Obama's will as well.
Molenir at 03:22 AM JST - 1st June

One thing I forgot to mention. If a white male judge said the same thing about Latina Justices, that she said about them. There is no doubt in my mind, that they would automatically be labeled racist as well as sexist, and disqualified from serving on the SC. Once again just goes to show the double standard that exists in todays society.
yabits at 03:25 AM JST - 1st June

you ducked each of the three reasons Sotomayer's background needs to be seriously looked into by providing only a weak head in the cloud response only a mindnumb robot could conjure up.

Gee, that sounds awfully impolite to another poster.

This supreme court nominee will likely only further convince the American people that its a bad thing when one party takes total control of the government and vote to restore the balance of power in Washington.

The only thing worse is when that one party is the Republicans.
yabits at 03:30 AM JST - 1st June

La Raza is a racist organization. Or rather, some of their stated aims are.

I've looked at the aims of La Raza and don't find their aims to be racist at all. The more a person is geared towards white supremacy, the more they are likely view La Raza as racist.

Sotomayer can speak in front of them. So can George W. Bush (and has). But David Duke? No way.
yabits at 03:35 AM JST - 1st June

If a white male judge said the same thing about Latina Justices, that she said about them. There is no doubt in my mind, that they would automatically be labeled racist as well as sexist, and disqualified from serving on the SC.

No. They would first be staunchly defended by Republicans spouting "persecution due to political correctness."

Republican white supremacy would never be so overt as to specifically target a specific group like "Latina Justices." What it comes out as is focus on nativist issues like "English first" and who says what about the border with Mexico.
yabits at 03:47 AM JST - 1st June

Despite what a lot of people on the left say, Republicans in general actually believe in the constitution, and support the right of the President to appoint who he will, unlike some Democrats. Thats why Clintons nominees got the support they did, despite their being raving nutcases, and why Obama's will as well.

Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsberg are highly respected, and their conservative colleagues would, I am sure, object to their being referred to as "raving nutcases." If Republicans believe in the constitution and support the President's appointees, why do they behave like, well, "raving nutcases" on forums like this one?
Molenir at 05:36 PM JST - 1st June

I've looked at the aims of La Raza and don't find their aims to be racist at all. The more a person is geared towards white supremacy, the more they are likely view La Raza as racist.

Nice backdoor way of calling others racist. If you find them racist, you are a racist. Very typical Dem tactics. You should be proud. Regarding what you actually said. I think many people would consider them racist. Not David Duke level racism, but promoting hispanics over blacks and whites in ways that if done by whites, or for that matter even blacks, would be considered racist. You may disagree. Many do. As I said, they're not racist to the David Duke level, more along the lines of preferences and quotas, and hence, sad as it is, acceptable to the mainstream.

No. They would first be staunchly defended by Republicans spouting "persecution due to political correctness."

Yeah, tell that to Senator Lott. (insert statement belittling your intelligence)

Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsberg are highly respected, and their conservative colleagues would, I am sure, object to their being referred to as "raving nutcases."

You're of course correct. It goes too far to say they're raving nutcases. Just because they're judicial philosophy is extreme to say the least, doesn't not mean they're nuts.
yabits at 10:34 PM JST - 1st June

I will take your last point first: "Just because they're judicial philosophy is extreme to say the least, doesn't not mean they're nuts."

Extreme to say the least? I see a pattern here. Justice Breyer is a moderate to liberal justice, very much like David Souter. Justice Ginsberg is a bit more liberal than Breyer, but certainly not anything extreme. Sotomayor probably falls to the right of Breyer on some issues, and probably no more to the left of Ginsberg on others.

If there are members of the Supreme Court who are extreme in their views, you would never see any 9-0 decisions. Yet, of course, we see lots of them.

There are some people whose opinions of Sotomayor should be heard, like everyone else's, but whose opinions should not matter very much. I really don't think people should pay too much heed to what people harboring feelings of white supremacy have to say about this. Calling some Justices "nutcases" and "extremists" is indeed going too far beyond the pale of reality.
Molenir at 08:49 AM JST - 2nd June

Sorry, have you done no research on this court? I find it hard to believe you can classify Justice Ginsberg as Moderate to Liberal. I mean, having read some of her opinions, I would rate her as extremely liberal. While Breyer is not quite as liberal as Ginsberg, he likewise is pretty far out there. With Stevens falling in between the 2 depending on the case. As for Sotomeyer, until you start reading her decisions, we have no real way of judging where she will stand on the court. Though I don't doubt that she will be a reliable liberal vote.

If there are members of the Supreme Court who are extreme in their views, you would never see any 9-0 decisions. Yet, of course, we see lots of them.

On average, how many 9-0 decisions are made every session? And what type of cases are they. I think you'll find there are a lot fewer of those then you think. And, that they comprise decisions in which arguments aren't even presented.

I really don't think people should pay too much heed to what people harboring feelings of white supremacy have to say about this. Calling some Justices "nutcases" and "extremists" is indeed going too far beyond the pale of reality.

Once again with the racist remarks. Truly sad, yet an altogether typical way of trying to shut up opposing viewpoints.