Obama calls for swift confirmation of Sotomayor
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
Order by Time Order by Popularity
48 Comments
Login to comment
0
VOR
Whats the hurry? Worried about the truth about your nominee getting out?
This guy is turning out to be nothing more than another sleazy politician and its only been 4 months.
0
yabits
Yes, it sounds very much like a sleazy politician who wanted a smooth and streamlined confirmation process for Alito and Roberts.
The nice difference is that President Obama, despite the Democrats' complete and utter thumping of the Republicans, isn't wagging his finger at Americans telling them about all the policial capital he's going to exercise -- a la Bush 2004.
0
VOR
sleazy is sleazy and glad you agree Obama is just another sleazy politician.
0
yabits
I understand that a Republican who is neck-deep in sleaze will see the whole world that way.
0
yabits
After the previous administration's calls for swift confirmation of its nominees, it strikes me as very odd that a Republican should term this as "sleazy."
I will repeat the fact that President Obama has not blustered, telling the American people about all of his "political capital." What a refreshing change from the sleaze of the past.
If anyone, purposely or accidentally, misconstrues this to to say that I think that Obama is sleazy, they are totally wrong.
0
VOR
its sleazy when the Republicans did it and its now sleazy when the Democrats are doing it. Only partisan hacks would disagree.
0
Sarge
President Obama: "I am certain she is the right choice."
And since President Obama is such a good judge of character, she must indeed be the right choice. Right?
0
VOR
Obama does have a track record of picking some very dishonest people to very important positions.
0
smithinjapan
"its sleazy when the Republicans did it and its now sleazy when the Democrats are doing it. Only partisan hacks would disagree."
Now THAT'S a little bit better, but I don't really see this: "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" as being all that 'sleazy'. Passing money under the table or something to have it done quickly, I could see being called sleazy indeed.
0
Alphaape
yabits, the above is from an AP article about Obama's joining the Dems to stall the nomination of Alito to the Supreme Court.
So your comments of:
are a bit off. So, Obama played polictics when he was a Senator, and he is playing them now. If he really was going to rise above the political fray, he would have nominated a caonservative hispanic woman. Belive it or not, there are some out there who are probably just as qualified as Sotomayor, but the probably didn't get a look. To be fair, Bush could have done the same thing, but he went with his political base for Alito.
My point is, most moves in D.C. are political. Though they have enough votes to get her nominated, they probably don't want her record exposed until after she is seated.
Oh, and the link for the article so you can read it yourself is found here:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVIF9OnrgW2kTS53D8szV4l9GLewD98GGCBO0
0
smithinjapan
sarge/VOR: "And since President Obama is such a good judge of character, she must indeed be the right choice. Right?/Obama does have a track record of picking some very dishonest people to very important positions."
Oh, PLEASE! This coming from two die-hard supporters of the former president, and still support the crushed Republican party? Such people are in NO position to label anyone else as a bad judge of character.
0
Alphaape
smithinjapan: Bush may have picked some "loonies" in his administraion (funny, that they included more minority persons than the previous Clinton administration, but I guess that doesn't count since they are Republican) but at least they paid their taxes.
0
smithinjapan
Alphaape: "Bush may have picked some "loonies" in his administraion (funny, that they included more minority persons than the previous Clinton administration, but I guess that doesn't count since they are Republican) but at least they paid their taxes."
In that respect I most certainly agree that most choices are nothing short of politics (ex. Alito to Supreme Court, or even Rice to the White House Admin.), but reading this woman's qualifications she does indeed seem to be quite high up on the list, if not the highest.
Anyway, I'm sorry, but having a few people who haven't paid their taxes is far less detrimental to the nation than what the aforementioned 'loonies' did. It's like comparing the morality of Clinton's infidelity and his successor's starting more two wars and indirectly/directly killing hundreds of thousands (and in one war, it all being based on lies).
Has this woman not paid her taxes?
0
WilliB
Of course.
Whatever he wants, he wants to push through as quickly as possible, before the public learns what they are getting. Remember 2 trillion, 1000 page pork bill? Pushed through in one night, and then off to a leasurely vacation. Same with all the other things on his agenda.... now, now, now! The sky is falling! And don´t look closely.
0
yabits
Alphaape: You totally misunderstand.
After a very narrow victory over John Kerry in 2004, George Bush told the American people: "I've earned political capital in this campaign, and I intend to spend it."
President Obama won by an even greater margin over John McCain, and the Democrats trounced Republicans in many other places. Yet we don't see President Obama blustering about his "political capital."
I don't know what that has to do with Obama's attempt as a senator to stall the nomination of Alito.
How would that have caused him to "rise above" the political fray? That is not why so many millions of Americans rallied behind his candidacy. (So that he could pick a conservative.)
You mean to say that Republicans get to call Obama "sleazy" and his pick (Sotomayor) a "racist" and then it is incumbent upon President Obama to kowtow to those people? (People whom the American voters soundly rejected!)
Conservatives should be delighted that President Obama picked a moderate. Those on the left -- The Nation magazine, for example -- have serious reservations about Sotomayor. But many of the conservatives I read here don't have an ounce of fair-mindedness in them. Nothing, but nothing, Obama could do would appear "above the fray" to these people.
0
Alphaape
yabits, Obama does not need to bluster about his political capital because he has a majority in the House and Senatae that Bush did not have. So why bluster loudly when you can put the squeeze on GM/Chrysler to bail them out, after they make restructuring moves like getting rid of car dealerships that gave to Republican candidates (not being widely reported but it is being done, I can show you an example if you like from my home state of AR where a big time Democratic leaning dealership is allowed to stay open, but its competitors are being forced to close), or the way that the second stimulus bill has passed through congress. I could go on and on but I hope you see why Obama does not have to just go at it with an out and out political fight, when he has the "clout" to do so without loud fanfare.
But back to Sotomayor, she is more qualified than I am, and I admit she does have a background of moderate views, but tell me, out of all the people on the Federal benches she is the best candidate? If so what makes her this. Is it her background growing up or some of her rulings. So unless she is by far 1 of whatever number of Federal judges on the bench (and I am sure that they do get evaluated) then he would have no problem letting the Rep. have an indepth look at her. Because if so, and she was so great, then the very "witch hunt" that the Repubs would want would come back and bite them since if as you say she would be found to be the best qualified. But I doubt that is the case, hence the need to get this through fast.
0
teleprompter
Have to disagree. I hit a lot of conservative / libertarian sites. At most of them what the Obama admin is doing in Afghanistan gets praise.
They are relieved that he reversed his campaign position on Iraq.
There was plenty of cheering for the way C-in-C Obama handled the Somali pirate affair, putting bullets in the heads of each one of those losers.
In fact, when it comes to matters of defense and security Obama is just cementing the legacy of George W Bush as far as I can tell.
0
zurcronium
telepromter,
if Obama was securing the bush legacy he would have invaded puerto rico by now. Or done something equally as stupid as invading Iraq based on lies.
Bush has one legacy, failure. Thats not Obama. Sodomayor will be approved racking up another victory for him.
This is not how politics works in Russia so I can see how you would be confused. Putin still calls the shots there as you well know.
0
TheQuestion
Let the confirmation process run its course. Don't rush it, don't interfere.
0
teleprompter
As a senator back in 2006 Obama opposed Bush's SCOTUS nominee Alito.
The effort was futile.
Obama's hypocritical demand that the racist Sotomayor be swiftly confirmed is equally Democrat to the core.
0
yabits
It wouldn't have stopped some people. Obama is not one of them.
She is according to the President, who also happens to be an expert on constitutional law.
You should stop believing the terribly unfortunate title chosen or passed along by JT. The title of the President's weekly radio address, given by the White House press office is: President Obama Calls for Thorough and Timely Confirmation for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Here is what President Obama actually said in his radio address:
"Congress returns this week and I hope the confirmation process will begin without delay. No nominee should be seated without rigorous evaluation and hearing; I expect nothing less. But what I hope is that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this process, and Congress, in the past. Judge Sotomayor ought to be on the bench when the Supreme Court decides what cases to hear this year and I’m calling on Democrats and Republicans to be thorough, and timely in dealing with this nomination."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepressoffice/WEEKLY-ADDRESS-President-Obama-Calls-for-Thorough-and-Timely-Confirmation-for-Judge-Sonia-Sotomayor/
He hopes that the confimation process will begin swiftly. And he expects the process to be rigorous and thorough. I am certain that Democrats can be rigorous, thourough, and timely. Are folks here implying that Republicans can't accomplish that?
Finally, the question is not and as never been whether or not Sotomayor meets some mythical criteria for "the best of the best." Can she be an effective Supreme Court justice? Her record of accomplishments -- which are many -- will show that she can. Some of conservatives on this board, following Limbaugh (who wants Obama to fail) and Gingrich, have cherry-picked one remark she made in 2001 to call her a "racist." What they don't seem to be able to provide, however, is a consistent pattern of legal decisions that Sotomayor has made which backs up that slander.
0
yabits
And the obvious misrepresentation by some irresponsible conservatives demonstrates a Republican Party sinking into its own slime.
Obama never called for swift confirmation. He wants the confirmation process to being swiftly, but that it should be rigorous and thorough. What he wants, and what most Americans want, is for this process to flow in a timely manner.
In the end, many Republican senators will vote to approve Sotomayor, leaving the slanderers behind in the dust.
When former-President Bush picked a moderate in John Roberts, the Senate confirmed him after a 2-month process, with no question of delay via filibustering. When Bush nominated Alito, someone many Democrats considered far too conservative, it is true that many Democrats, Obama included, voted to filibuster.
But with Sotomayor, a great many Republicans admit that she is a moderate. However, that doesn't mean much to a lot of conservatives here, who are on record as doing nothing but casting out slander on Sotomayor as well as all Democrats.
0
sailwind
Judge Sotomayor does seem to delve into the realm of 'Identity Politics' in formulating her legal opinions.
I'd suggest she could learn alot from this guy on that matter.
My respect for Morgan Freeman just went up ten-fold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO214IFRW1M
0
yabits
And the evidence of this is where?
Morgan Freeman didn't mention it.
0
yabits
Why would Repubicans want to drag out the confirmation process as long as possible?
One simple reason: To throw red meat out to their base and raise funds for their sorry party.
This is mentioned in the article on the topic relating to how Repubicans are not likely to filibuster.
0
Molenir
I find it amusing to hear, that if Dems call someone racist its ok, no doubt because they are racist. But if a Republican does it, somehow its sinking into slime.
On Sotomeyer. Obama is the president, regardless of whats in the public good. He has the right to pick who he will. Democrats in the Senate, despite having a clear majority, need Republican support in order to get her confirmed. Or at the very least, they need them not to make too big a fuss. Dems on the Senate Judiciary committee have been tiptoeing around their Republican counterparts for precisely this reason.
It will take however long it takes. I don't doubt she will eventually be confirmed, despite from what I've read, her rather poor record. It would take something truly horrendous and shocking coming out to shake up her nomination. And I'm going to assume that Obama's team, despite their incompetence in foreign policy, can at least do a background check and a decent job vetting candidates. Particularly after some of their failures. They'll get the support they need on the Judiciary committee. Though it might not come immediately. Orrin Hatch for example, if no one else will, despite his completely diametrically opposed views, support her nomination out of committee.
0
yabits
The slime comes from overt misrepresentation of President Obama's remarks. President Obama did not call for "swift confirmation" of Sotomayor. He fully acknowledged the need for a thorough and rigorous process. Since the confirmation of Roberts took two months, and the confirmation of Alito took three months, I don't see any reason why a thorough, rigorous examination of an Obama nominee would need to take longer than that.
Slime is added when the misrepresentation by some irresponsible conservatives becomes slander directed against all Democrats.
0
Molenir
As, so if the Republicans use the typical liberal Democrat tactics, then they're sinking into the slime. I get what you mean now.
I have a hard time believing it will take longer then that myself. It might, depending on how rigorous they want to be, but you're right, it probably won't take more then 3 months. Be good to get rid of Souter regardless, even if its with another lib like him.
0
teleprompter
She's a racist. No amount of spin changes it.
0
VOR
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.
0
yabits
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.
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.
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.
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.
0
VOR
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.
0
yabits
No, she hasn't. Sotomayor will end up getting a lot of support from Republicans -- just as Bill Clinton's two appointees did.
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.
0
VOR
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.
0
Molenir
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.
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.
0
Molenir
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.
0
yabits
Gee, that sounds awfully impolite to another poster.
The only thing worse is when that one party is the Republicans.
0
yabits
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.
0
yabits
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.
0
yabits
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?
0
Molenir
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.
Yeah, tell that to Senator Lott. (insert statement belittling your intelligence)
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.
0
yabits
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.
0
Molenir
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.
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.
Once again with the racist remarks. Truly sad, yet an altogether typical way of trying to shut up opposing viewpoints.
Back to top