Colorado Senators Rubber Stamp Sotomayor

On June 12, 2009, The Denver Post published an article reporting the endorsement Of Federal Judge Sonya Sotomayor to the US Supreme court by Colorado Senator Mark Udall. See “Udall grills Sotmayor”As might be expected from one of the Senates most liberal members, Senator Udall gave Ms. Sotomayor a superficial “rubber stamp” endorsement.. His statement was brief, offering, little reasoning or fact about about her record., other than to say her statement about “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience” would likely reach a better decision as a judge “than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” did not bother him.

Two days before a similar statement was issued by Senator Bennet, using almost the same phrasing regarding the almost universally-(conservative and statist) regarded racist statement by the jurist.. Both articles were written by Michael Riley of the Denver Post, using a Democratic talking point template. Bennet’s examination of Sotomayor was a bit more through than Udall’s in that he queried her about her knowledge and experience with water and land resource law. Like Udall, Sotomayor’s racist statements and lack of experience with water law and other issues of importance to Coloradans did not pose a problem with his endorsement.Infact, considering the Latino resentment when he was chosen to replace Salazar. over sentiment for a Latino by Governor Ritter, Bennet could not endorse the Puerto Rican Jurist fast enough.

The Bennet article did not consider any of the real issues that could disqualify the jurist from consideration and implied by Riley in the article that any opposition was “Republican” and centered along party lines. Of. Course nothing could be further from the truth.

In the New Republic, a very statist (leftist) leaning publication, in an article titled “The Trouble With Sotomayor” Jeffery Rosen, legal Affairs Editor, gives a much less than a ringing endorsement of Justice Sotomayor. Rosen states “But despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor.” Rosen goes on to point out that “ The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” Rosen Goes on “.Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees “ Rosen then closes by saying that many would like to see Obama meet the highesst standard in his first pick of a Supreme Court Justice in that they shold be“the most intellectually powerful and politically effective liberal justice possible.” Rosen closes with the following comment “And they think that Sotomayor, although personally and professionally impressive, may not meet that (The above)demanding standard. Given the stakes, the president should obviously satisfy himself that he has a complete picture before taking a gamble.”

Most Importantly, Justice Sotomayor’s Public record shows an extensive history of advocacy of judicial activism and racism that goes far beyond the few statements that have been widly discussed in the Media as oulined here in a article on CNN ,still yet another statist leaning news view, titled “Sotomayor’s resume, record on notable cases” the 54 year old jurists resume outshines her record of notable cases where 60% of her cases that reached the highesr court were overturned. The article also sites a number of actions and speeches that demonstarte a record of Judicial activism and outright racist attitudes in a sub-section titled “Possible Controversial Positions and Statements”,. Not only Republicans are satisfied with Obama’s search for an activist with his views.

Elections have consequences and the President has the right to appoint who he wants to the court. Udall and Bennet’s superficial rubber stamp of the nominee will most probably thwart advancing a statist agenda. on the court due to her lack of legal expertise and abrasive antagonistic outspokenness. The Senators endorsements will thwart their advocacy for the poor and down-trodden they claim to champion.. Many conservatives are secretly breathing a sigh of relief





Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


6 × = forty two

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>