President Obama, then, has found a judge with 17 years experience but no clear ideology on discrimination, gay rights, or abortion and who can't be easily defined by political labels.
At least not by the CBS newscast, which back in 2005 asserted Roberts would move “the court further to the right” and fretted over the Alito pick “tilting the Supreme Court in a solidly conservative direction for years to come.”
Audio: MP3 clip (50 secs)
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
A story on the NBC Nightly News also approached Sotomayor from the left, the very far-left as Pete Williams conveyed the worry of a group on the extreme left: “Though her nomination has widespread support among liberal legal scholars, some say it's not yet clear that she's prepared to take on the court's most conservative justices.” Viewers then heard from National Lawyers Guild President Marjorie Cohn: “I would like to see a very strong liberal voice to counteract Scalia and Roberts, and I hope that she does become that strong liberal voice.”
More on the CBS Evening News in 2005: John Roberts, as anchor, wanted to know of his namesake: “Has President Bush attempted to move the court further to the right with this pick?”
A few months later when Bush selected Alito, CBS reporter John Roberts (now with CNN) filed a story on the newscast, anchored by Bob Schieffer, in which he ominously warned: “If confirmed, Alito would wipe out the swing seat now occupied by Sandra Day O'Connor, tilting the Supreme Court in a solidly conservative direction for years to come.”
From the Wednesday, May 27 CBS Evening News, following a story on “proud” Hispanics and how the selection has put Republicans in a bind:
KATIE COURIC: Now pundits usually label judges as either liberal or conservative, but that won't be easy with Judge Sotomayor. Wyatt Andrews takes a closer look at her paper trail.
WYATT ANDREWS: Behind the applause for her personal achievements, it turns out Sonia Sotomayor has been a very unpredictable judge. For example, pro-abortion rights groups worried aloud today that the President-- who promised an abortion rights nominee -- never asked Sotomayor, who is Catholic, where she stands.
NANCY NORTHRUP, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: We simply don't know Judge Sotomayor's view on the bedrock constitutional case of Roe versus Wade.
ANDREWS: At the Center for Reproductive Rights, the judge is widely presumed to favor abortion rights. But in 2002, she allowed the Bush administration to block federal funds for abortions overseas. “The the government,” she wrote, “is free to favor the anti-abortion position.”NORTHRUP: We were sorry that we lost it, but Judge Sotomayor felt that she was tied in by precedent.
ANDREWS: There is a race going on now in Washington to slap some political label on the judge. Conservative groups worry that the judge's own words -- “that a wise Latina woman” can “reach a better conclusion than a white male” -- proved she will always favor minorities.
TV AD: Equal justice under law, or under attack?
ANDREWS: But liberal groups are pushing her personal story-
AUDIO OF BARACK OBAMA IN A TV AD: I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law.
ANDREWS: -to suggest that she will be a liberal, using the law to help real people. Tom Goldstein, who runs a neutral Supreme Court blog, says they are all wrong.
TOM GOLDSTEIN, SCOTUSBLOG.COM: Her rulings don't just run down the left side of the aisle.ANDREWS: Goldstein, who has studied all 400 of Sotomayor's opinions, says she leans liberal but has often ruled against minorities and for employers in cases of discrimination.
GOLDSTEIN: So there's a real air of mystery about some of the big hot-button social issues we all care about.
ANDREWS: President Obama, then, has found a judge with 17 years experience but no clear ideology on discrimination, gay rights, or abortion and who can't be easily defined by political labels. Wyatt Andrews, CBS News, at the Supreme Court.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I've read how she's ruled on
May 27, 2009 - 21:07 ET by balboaI've read how she's ruled on some cases, and at least in that sampling -- which was small -- she ruled both conservatively and liberally.
Defined RACIST
May 27, 2009 - 22:01 ET by nadadhimmiHer rulings don't matter. She stated that any White male's decision could not be as good as a Latina's. She didn't compare one individual to another individual. She stated that one racial group or one sex was inherently inferior to another. That is the very definition of racism. The unreasoned belief that one group is inferior to another. However, Obama himself is a hate filled, radical black racist as demonstrated by his attendance in Wrights hate filled "church". This will wake people up as to the extant of media bias, cover up and advocacy of hate filled policies the media support. The line appears to be: White men??, well, f*k them!!!!
This women spoke to a La
May 27, 2009 - 22:05 ET by Free StinkerThis women spoke to a La Raza meeting, didn't she ?
Unless they mean the Human Race, she is at minimum a supporter of bigots.
Scuse me, I will wake Bal's sorry A$$ up and see if he has any
May 28, 2009 - 01:54 ET by pahuberurine or excrement to post to you... one moment please....
Sorry... Balboa has let me know that he is totally out of the
May 28, 2009 - 02:22 ET by pahubera fore mentioned material to reply. He wants me to let you know that tomorrow is a new day and that he should have plenty to post to you.
Your definition of conservative no doubt
May 27, 2009 - 22:26 ET by general companyI've read how she's ruled on some cases, and at least in that sampling
-- which was small -- she ruled both conservatively and liberally.
I thought we went over this already, so you saw a ruling that made her appear to be conservative? Give me an example? Do you really think her over all tone is conservative? Oh but you mention that she ruled liberal too. So now were saying she isnt consistent? You could not wait, you posted first, and offered no example of your claim. Even suggesting that what you know isnt much? I will repeate, Good grief, get a grip
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Relax. I was pointing out
May 27, 2009 - 22:30 ET by balboaRelax. I was pointing out that not all her decisions seem based on political ideology.
Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the Mexico City Policy which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations".
Oh, my bad
May 27, 2009 - 22:39 ET by general companySo you meant the policy that Obama turned over first, excuse me!
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Here's a pretty good list of her decisions
May 27, 2009 - 22:45 ET by RESTLESS 1You can go here and look thoroughly at each and every one. Take your time. We promise that we'll wait for you. ;>)
Actually, I haven't had time to peruse each and every one, but what I have read so far doesn't make here out as the wunderkind some are making her out to be.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Why must ANY ruling be 'liberal' or 'conservative'?
May 28, 2009 - 10:35 ET by TailgunnerThe dispute here is whether to interpret the Constitution according to 'original intent', as the Founders advised, or whether to twist, distort, ad, invent, remove, deny, disparage or ignore its meaning as necessary to legitimize a predetermined outcome...kind of like Roe v Wade.
It just so happens that 'original intent' tends to parallel conservative thinking. That does not make it 'judicial activism'.
What Obama's been doing to GM, Democrats have been doing to the Constitution for one hundred and forty-nine years, ever since Dred Scott was ruled by SCOTUS not as a human being with natural rights, but as private property.
This is not judicial 'activism', it's malpractice.
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Anything referring to
May 28, 2009 - 10:51 ET by kgAnything referring to original intent is considered far right by liberals. Don't forget liberals tell us it is a living, breathing, growing, adapting to the left, constitution.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
→ That's it kg!
May 28, 2009 - 11:00 ET by Cool ArrowThe Libs believe if they can attribute human traits to the document, they can abort it.
Do you think the
May 28, 2009 - 17:58 ET by balboaDo you think the Constitution provides for a right to privacy?
Q. Where is the 'right of privacy' found in the Bill of Rights?
May 28, 2009 - 19:47 ET by TailgunnerA. Right under 'separation of church and state'.
Both are legal fabrications by liberal activist justices used as a fig leaf to legitimize a predetermined result otherwise justified by neither the text nor the Founders' intent of the Constitution.
Meanwhile liberals insult the intelligence of 300 million Americans by telling us that the 'right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed' really means the right of the State to keep and bear arms.
Even the landmark case US v Heller, which rules the Second Amendment is an individual right unrelated to service in a militia, is being ignored by judicial activists.
In fact, Judge Sotomayer threw US v Heller under the bus recently by ruling that the Second Amendment did not apply to states...as if the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments never existed.
Aside from her characteristically incompetent legal reasoning, Sotomeyer's judicial philosophy can be summed up as 'facts be damned...full speed to the left'.
I heard she had been overruled by SCOTUS on average five out of six times.
How could Obama nominate such an incompetent liberal hack? On the other hand, has he nominated anyone who was not an incompetent liberal hack?
(The new head of NASA apparently is an exception...unintended, I'm sure. Obama could have kept his loser streak going by nominating James Hansen.)
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
You don't think we have a
May 28, 2009 - 19:48 ET by balboaYou don't think we have a right to privacy?
Balboa, that's pure intellectual dishonesty.
May 28, 2009 - 20:02 ET by TailgunnerYou did not ask me if I thought we had a right to privacy.
You asked me if the Constitution provides for a right to privacy.
This is not written in the Constitution.
Therefore I have answered your question.
However, in typical liberal fashion, you refuse to accept my point, then change the parameters of the debate in an attempt to impugn the character of your opponent.
Your loaded question clearly implies that I am 'against' privacy; which is not only false, but a question that does not follow the debate.
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
I figured when you said
May 29, 2009 - 22:44 ET by balboaI figured when you said right to privacy was "legal fabrications by liberal activist justices" that you were against it.
What, do I have to write this in crayon for you?
May 30, 2009 - 00:53 ET by TailgunnerI stated the simple fact that the 'right to privacy' is not found in the Constitution.
That's a fact, not an opinion.
In fact one of the dissenting Roe justices made a similar point; that Justice Blackmun "...simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes." (emphasis mine)
Therefore what I may or may not believe is not relevant to your question.
Why must you insist on shifting the issue to me, just because you can't beat that dead horse any longer?
And what is your purpose in implying that I'm 'against' a 'right to privacy'?
You're sure as **** trying to make that stick for some reason.
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Katie Delivers
May 27, 2009 - 21:10 ET by Free StinkerThis is why they got rid of Dan Rather.
He screwed up the 2004 assault on George Bush, but Katie keeps coming through with the party line, whether it's on Palin, or a court nominee.
"Gov. Palin has been subjected to one of the most massive and dishonest pile-on smear attacks in the history of liberal media." -- Lowell Ponte
Free, That's because
May 27, 2009 - 21:17 ET by Scuba DudeFree,
That's because Katie cupcake does not bother trying to think. She does just like her Messiah does and reads the Teleprompter in front of her.
"The wrOng ONE was elected"
EE IS
May 27, 2009 - 21:24 ET by Free StinkerLOL Scoob !
Scoob,
May 27, 2009 - 21:38 ET by R D HelmLOL-Man, that was cold.
-Dave
Katie puts out
May 27, 2009 - 21:22 ET by danebramageI don't know about the rest of you, but Katie reminds me of that cloying, annoying, wannabe cheerleader chick who always hung around the popular girls in high school, hoping one of their boyfriends would rub off on her.
She was willing to do whatever it took to be part of the crowd, just like Katie is.
She was, and still is, a
May 27, 2009 - 23:26 ET by mattmShe was, and still is, a cheerleader, only now it's for the Left.
Katie is right. Sotomayer is not a liberal...
May 27, 2009 - 21:29 ET by R D Helm...in the classic sense.
She is a modern liberal of the extreme lefty Marxist variety.
-Dave
Couric knows how to play the game.
May 27, 2009 - 21:49 ET by pocomocoDoes anyone know which CBS suit Couric is currently sleeping with now? That’s initially how she made it to the Top.
She was supposed to be off the air by the first of the year, and here it is almost June.
Either she has something on said suit, or she has one hell of a bedside manner.
It certainly isn’t her intelligence that keeps her on CBS.
I wouldn't watch Katie Couric....
May 28, 2009 - 10:22 ET by Tailgunner...if she was laying next to me. : )
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Reliably Liberal
May 27, 2009 - 21:53 ET by MAS1916Obama has hidden His liberal nominee's activist tendencies and willingness to 'make policy' by focusing on her 'story.' The media, has grabbed the fact that the nominee is a Hispanic woman but has lost the statement that the nominee believes that enables her to make 'better decisions' than her white male counterparts.
The President certainly wouldn't have nominated her if He had any doubt that she would be reliably conservative.
Still, some pretty silly things have been said about this nominee - including Matt Lauer trying to define her by saying Sotomayor is "not reflexively liberal." ( for a top ten list of the silliest things said about her so far, you can hit:
http://firstconservative.com/blog/political-humor/political-humor-the-sotomayor-season-of-silly-statements )
Couric has just re-proven that CBS's ratings problem doesn't have anything to do with performance or news personalities.. rather, their problem is credibility.
Leftist political activist
May 27, 2009 - 22:14 ET by TELeftist political activist Wyatt Andrews falsely asserts: "Sotomayor, who is Catholic, ...."
Sotomayor is NOT Catholic. Evidently, her parents were, but she is NOT Catholic. She does not belong to any church (other than fundamentalist leftism) and only appears in a church for other people's weddings. According to the White House, Sotomayor "was raised Catholic and attends church for family celebrations and other important events." I'll be waiting for CBS and Andrews to issue a timely retraction of their bogus allegation ....
TE... You aren't holding
May 27, 2009 - 22:31 ET by bigtimerTE...
You aren't holding your breath any are you while you wait for that retraction?
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
BT--
May 27, 2009 - 22:33 ET by misterbillHave you ever seen Geraldo and Sonia in the same place at the same time?? Remember the Capone caper kid is a liar--oops lawyer.
CBS (and the rest of the
May 27, 2009 - 22:48 ET by mattmCBS (and the rest of the MSM) 'Can't Be Easily Defined by Political Labels' other than socialist, liberalisitic (I don't call them Liberals), fascist, racist, Theophobic, heterophobic, misandristic (opposite of misogynistic), leftist, marxist, stalinist, tyrannical, elitist, statist...
Quacks like a duck!
May 27, 2009 - 23:47 ET by IamTinmanSomething else we need to know?
Mindless
May 28, 2009 - 01:00 ET by jaywlThese people have no morality at all. I don't know how they can look at themselves in the mirror. This comment says it plainly: "ANDREWS: Goldstein, who has studied all 400 of Sotomayor's opinions,
says she leans liberal but has often ruled against minorities and for
employers in cases of discrimination." Does that mean if she was a true liberal she would have voted for minorities all the time, regardless of the law? I suppose it does. Sad, isn't it?
Yes, because ruling against
May 28, 2009 - 01:15 ET by MrSnugglesYes, because ruling against minorities is racist and conservatism = racism. So therefore ruling against minorities is conservative.
I look back over my early years listening to Walter Cronkite
May 28, 2009 - 01:05 ET by Rush Fanand the other news anchors, and I realize that in those early years I believed everything I heard from those news people. Back then, before the Internet, I believed the news presented was equivalent to fact.
I wonder how much of the "news" back in those days was seriously slanted and agenda driven as it is today? It wasn't until years later that I discovered that Walter Cronkite was a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.
------------------------------------------------------
“Nobody believes what the mainstream media says now anyway. Except the uneducated, the illiterate, and the uninformed -- which, sadly, is a fairly large number” ~ Rush Limbaugh
I guess a valid question
May 28, 2009 - 02:10 ET by Right2thePointI guess a valid question here is what would it take for her to label someone as a liberal?
Has she ever called someone that?
Uh, no, because there ARE
May 28, 2009 - 06:13 ET by motherbeltUh, no, because there ARE NO liberals.
There are only "normal" people (i.e.moderates or centrists) and right wing extremists.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Dead on MB, you need to
May 28, 2009 - 10:09 ET by ReaverDead on MB, you need to know the media code-
Liberal = moderate,centrist,average
Conservative = extremist,radical,hardcore
If stupidity got us into this mess,
then why can't it get us out?
--Will Rogers
Every Supreme Court Panel
May 28, 2009 - 06:32 ET by 10ksnookerNeeds their token Constitutional dunce. Who can deprive the Court their village idiot.
It's an insult to the other members, but I am sure it she will give them a chuckle. Hey she might learn something in the process.
Dead squirel finds buried acorn, broken clock, can't be wrong always.
If they only realized
May 28, 2009 - 06:54 ET by theduck6That fretting over the direction of the Court if moving right and not so much when potentially moving left shows their naked partisanship and bias. Also shows they realize the judiciary is legislating from the bench.
Katie Couric couldn't label
May 28, 2009 - 07:12 ET by HockeyKidKatie Couric couldn't label the color of a black cat if it bit her on the nose. She's a news reader, for Pete's sake.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
fretting
May 28, 2009 - 09:32 ET by criticalthinkingseriously, brent, why don't you take a break with the word fretting? You use it every day, you very rarely use it accurately, and it always makes you sound snarkey. Do you guys have editors?
Drudge is reporting that Sotomayor is a member of La Raza.
May 28, 2009 - 09:37 ET by Rush FanWorldNetDaily: Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police. ....Meaning "the Race," La Raza also has connections to groups that
advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of
America.
--------------------------------------------------------
“Understand something about liberalism. They never stop until they get what they want, and when they get what they want, it's never enough. That's why it's a constant thing to have to oppose them. You can't join forces with them, you can't moderate them, you can't slow them down by joining them, you can't make them like you and have them change their agenda. They have to be stopped.” ~ Rush Limbaugh
→ Excellent Rush Fan
May 28, 2009 - 09:59 ET by Cool ArrowWe must be sure before we accuse her of being a member of a hate group like La Raza.
CA,
May 28, 2009 - 10:06 ET by AgnosticLa Raza is not a hate group. Didn't you watch the news during the immigration rallies? They are just like ACORN; a peace loving group of people that just want justice for the poor unfortunates of society.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
→ Joking right?
May 28, 2009 - 10:19 ET by Cool ArrowI'm a Texan. I'm aware of La Raza's connection to MEChA with a common goal or retaking Aztlan for the brownskinned race.
I knew you were joking when you fell into liberal pity mode.
The comparison to ACORN is pretty close. And you're right about them wanting justice. They want their brand of justice and conquest.
Re La Raza
May 28, 2009 - 10:50 ET by slickwillie2001Good tag poster. This is one of the reasons we don't give up now because as many have said, 'her confirmation is inevitable'. We have no idea what might turn up on this wackjob. If the La Raza story is true, I expect the liberal media will quickly inform us how innocuous they are, how they feed the homeless, etc, etc. I also suspect there are close ties between La Raza and the ACORN crime syndicate and their 190 families.
By the way, do we have confirmation that she has paid her taxes? Or after Turbo Tax Tim, does that no longer matter?
$$$
May 28, 2009 - 10:55 ET by xyzzypoofsHow much of our tax dollars has the Obama administration paid to CBS et al. for this advertising?
Sure
May 28, 2009 - 11:14 ET by StarAZJust a nice Hispanic Acorn....
Is it OK?
May 28, 2009 - 11:13 ET by StarAZAre we calling her the Latina Harriett Myers yet?
Bold faced lies for the
May 28, 2009 - 22:56 ET by RR GOPBold faced lies for the Cause.
I grudgingly admire TASS's steadfastness and determination.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).