Should Sonia Sotomayor Be On The Supreme Court?
- Yes 44.70% (1307 votes)
- No 43.64% (1276 votes)
- Undecided 6.84% (200 votes)
- Who? 4.82% (141 votes)
MySpace
Tagged
WordPress
Blogger
Friendster
LiveJournal
Hi5
Website
Link
Statistics
| Votes: | 2924 |
| Views: | 3599 |
Don't forget to vote in this poll.
| Votes: | 2924 |
| Views: | 3599 |
Comments
After 8 years of Bush's "Activism" I'm ready for activism in the other direction. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito are America's long nightmare.
She's anti-white; clearly a racist bag of shit!!!
Obama's choices will range from liberal to progressive with 'activist' as a bonus. They'll tend to be younger so they'll have staying power. Soon the constitutional amendment will be a mere memory, as judges will be able to change the costitution without the bother of that congress middleman.
"Most qualified" is an opinion. All nominations are always political picks, so the nomination is often based upon numerous agendas. Do we want an all white male group of people making these decisions? One might have been able to argue that Marshall was not the "most qualified" at the time of his nomination, but he brought balance to the court where there had been none before. Perhaps that helped make him "most qualified" at the time, and perhaps Sotomayor's experience of being discriminated against as a woman and as Hispanic does the same. In that respect she is "most qualified," but that is not really the question that should be asked. Is she "qualified" is the proper question, and the answer to that is an obvious "Yes."
Who is saying that she needs to be an activist?
George, DO you really think Sotominor is the most qualified judge out there to fill the soon to be vacated SCOTUS seat?
Where in the job description does it call for an "activist"?
Interesting comments. SLim Jim - A reversal by the Supreme Court does not mean that the previous decision was improper, just that there was a different interpretation - hardly "ripping her a new one." You make it sound as if the law is clear-cut, when obviously that is not the case. This is why people who know the law can disagree so often. I think that you would be amazed to find out how many rulings by current Supreme Court justices have been overturned. Jim Evens - If anything, she is not "activist" enough. The only legitimate complaint I can find about her is that she has no clear set of beliefs that make her predictable (which I personally find to be a positive). If you go beyond the sound bites and read the full text of what she has to say, you will quickly realize that the Limbaughs of the country are pulling things out of context in a desperate attempt to find something negative, where nothing actually exists. She will get quick entry into the Supreme Court, despite attempts from the Party Of No.
She doesn't believe in the Constitution, how is she qualified to enforce it?
Once this poll appeared on Free Republic, with the heading FREEP this poll!". all the chance of it being a fair depiction of the sentiments of this site's regular readers vanished.
The issue with her is that her rationale on opinions keep getting slapped down. She has had the SCOTUS tear her a new one 3 times outta 5 and another one, the reverse discrimination case, looks like it might be the 4th. If this woman can not follow the law in crafting her opinions, then why in the heck does she deserve a chance on the SCOTUS? And you are going to tell me she's the best that Obama had to pick from? Of course not! We know this is a political pick.
Experience? Yes, adequately qualified. Activism; NO, too much history of being opinionated by her beliefs versus the facts and/or the law.