Awesome. Another liberal racist on the bench. This ought to make the moonbats happy for a while.

I have no doubts about her qualification but the way she dodged questions during the hearing really bothers me. Makes the whole process meaningless.

Actually I thought she handled some of her tougher critics pretty well. Particularly when she was asked point-blank whether American citizens had the right to defend themselves (in regards to gun ownership/gun control laws). She took what I thought to be a pretty obvious straw man and turned it into a good lesson on how people can find dangerous loopholes in a Constitutional amendment.

Firstly, looking at the records of Sotomayor and the other Justices, she is just as qualifed, if not more so, yet she only receives a handful of votes from the GOP. I take that to mean that the GOP wants nothing more to be a thorn in Obama's side and hope for his failure. They are content to stand aside, nitpick and add nothing constructive to any debate. In the process, the GOP also alienate an entire portion of the US electorate. The Latino vote has not always been solid for the Democrats and W got lots of Latino votes when he ran in 2000. In the end, the is a win for the Democrats as the GOP continue to dig themselves deeper.

Aside from the fact that you cut and pasted that directly from Wikipedia, the ACLU has never been the standard on determining "qualified" and in fact does not even use the word "qualified" in their opposition to Alito. Alito was however unanimously rated "well qualified" by the American Bar Association. Seems that if you don't get the rating you like from one group you simply go shopping for a second opinion. If you actually read the ACLU's website you find that they simply didn't like his positions which is certainly within their rights. However, you want it both ways. You want Democrats to be able to vote against a nominee based on their positions but you want the Republicans to vote based on a third party's definition of qualified.

And I also asked you about Roberts. Twenty two Democrats voted for him and twenty two voted against. The ACLU did not oppose that nomination. Using your logic he should have received far more votes. Is he qualified or not?

The American Bar Association is political and I don't use their ratings as the only source but as one of the sources. I won't think any President would chose a candidate that is in bad standing with the ABA. You did mention Alito. I can't state a vote on a hypothetical candidate but lets say that Sotomayor was a white male and everything else remains the same-(her rulings, her birthplace etc) then I know more of the GOP would have voted for her. I need to look up Roberts background. what was unfair was the attacks on Sotomayor's "wise Latino" comment. She has more experience on the bench than any recent nominee and her stellar educational background coupled with her record as a judge leave little room for attack.

Judges are not robots who simply apply the law and facts without any type of intuitive and experienced analysis and thought

I know more of the GOP would have voted for her.

Sorry but you simply can't prove that. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. It's not fact.

The American Bar Association is political

The ABA is hardly political compared to the ACLU. And the ABA still has a left leaning bias so to imply they said Alito and Roberts were qualified was politically motivated is laughable.

Education:

Roberts: undergrad: Harvard, law school Harvard

Alito: Princeton, Yale

Sotomayor: Princton, Yale

So can we toss out education as a factor?

Judicial experience:

Roberts: 2 years on the DC Circuit

Alito: 16 years on the Third Circuit

Sotomayor: 6 years US District Court judge, 10 years Second Circuit

So tell me why you think Sotomayor is qualified and Alito is not? The only logical conclusion is that that the ACLU doesn't like his positions on the issues. Go to their website and read what they said in 2005.

And sorry but she deserved getting raked for the "wise Latina" remark. If a white guy said “I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn’t lived that life” not only would that person not get confirmed, he probably would have been forced from whatever judgeship he currently held.

i never said the ABA qualification for them was political. I said they were political org. However the ABA ratings are not the factor for supreme court nominees. No president would select a candidate with a bad standing with the ABA. The ABA rating is not the bar for supreme court justices, otherwise why even have a confirmation hearing? The ABA board are mostly white corporate male lawyers and they don't represent the makeup of America. Our elective representatives represent their district's makeup. I strongly believe the Nays were too high for such a qualified candidate who was attacked only on her "wise latina" comment. I believe these naysayer will reap what they sow in the next election.

ALL DAY ALL NIGHT

largely for his death penalty and torture stance. http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/Alito_Death_Penalty.pdf

In his 15-year career on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Judge Samuel

Alito has participated in 10 capital cases. Five were decided unanimously by three-judge panels.

The other five provoked strong disagreement between Judge Alito and his colleagues. In each of

the five contested cases, Judge Alito ruled against the inmate. His opinions, which we examine

in detail, show a disturbing tendency to tolerate serious errors in capital proceedings. They

reveal troubling perspectives on federalism, race, and due process of law, and they have

worrisome implications for the protection of individual liberties in the war on terror.

the racism is that the GOP did not want a 'WISE LATINA' to apply the law and facts with HER intuitive an experienced analysis and thought. that is the RACISM. If the GOP attack her on relevant matters then their votes wouldn't reek of RACISM

anyone who thinks this is bad for republicans in terms of "the hispanic vote" is a retard. i would even go so far as to say that anyone who thinks that is subtly implying that hispanics (or any other minority) are mindless drones who react only to manufactured "race" based controversies. did the "black vote" change for the democrats when they pooped on clarence thomas' face and talked about his pubic hairs? no. it's all politics. hispanic and black people are just like white people. they usually have a political leaning and will stick by it. if they don't, the things that will influence their leaning are issues, not if "one of their own" was asked some embarrassing or presumptive questions in a bullshit hearing.

That may be the case over there in faith based reality land, but over here in reality based reality, the facts paint a different picture:

Favorability of Republican Party among Latinos

May 18-21 (before the Sotomayor nomination)

Favorable 11

Unfavorable 79

No Opinion 10

June 15-18

Favorable 8

Unfavorable 86

No Opinion 6

It depends on his qualications bur I am sure there wouldn't attack his selection as affirmative action. She was qualified and their faux news attacks on her was racists.

I assume that was a reply to me. You essentially ducked the question. Assume the nominee was a white male with identical educational and professional experience. Do you think he would have received more votes than Sotomayor? The next question is how do you define "qualified"? Alito was unanimously rated "well qualified" by the American Bar Association. His educational background and professional history is on par with Sotormayor's. His confirmation vote was 58-42 with 4 Democrats voting for and 40 against. And yet you won't even entertain the possibility that these votes are politically motivated? The days of 100-0 votes are over.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) formally opposed Alito's nomination. The ACLU has only taken this step two other times in its entire history. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero justified the decision saying that "At a time when our president has claimed unprecedented authority to spy on Americans and jail terrorism suspects indefinitely, America needs a Supreme Court justice who will uphold our precious civil liberties. Judge Alito's record shows a willingness to support government actions that abridge individual freedoms."

I replied to you but it posted below.

"When President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to serve on the high court, I voted for their confirmation, as did all but a few of my fellow Republicans. Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the president’s call to make... It is part of the discipline of democracy to respect the roles and responsibilities of each branch of government, and, above all, to respect the verdicts of elections and judgment of the people. Had we forgotten this in the Senate, we would have been guilty of the very thing that many federal judges do when they overreach, and usurp power, and betray their trust."

- John McCain, 2008

In 2009, John McCain said:

"... he'll oppose Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor when the Senate votes on her confirmation this week.

The Arizona senator calls Sotomayor a judicial activist who tried to walk back from that record during her confirmation hearings. He says President Barack Obama's nominee has used her position as a judge to try to change the law."

Petty, and partisan, and disingenuous.

Good but not great. This still only maintains the status quo. We need one of the conservatives to retire. Take a powder, Scalia. Although I'd be just as happy if Thomas or Roberts left.

I look at Scalia and wonder how long his heart can keep pumping anything through that butcher's apron of fat and bigotry...