Bill Donohue: Will Likely "Quietly Root For" Sotomayor (!)

i have no big issue with her per se, but to many catholic making rules for us goverment. We need even balance set of judge from all walks of life. I think we need none believer in judge seat too. I am Christian and believe all my judgement are relasted to my belief.Anywho most of these so called Catholic judges do not really pratice what the Roman Catholic's church teaching. But, I am one to talk, I converted to Protestantism.

Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed whether or not any of us like her. Time to move on to fixing American crapitalistic healthcare, where doctors don't make health decisions; but insurance companies do.

All the lines of attack I see against her are the same, she advocates making policy from the bench, she's not that bright, she's a racist. I'm persuadable on all those (though the racist thing seems a stretch), but let's see something that proves those assertions from her legal opinions, rather than from speeches or from poorly sourced articles.

I'd love to know the name of one single judge who does not "make policy from the bench."

It seems to me that cases only get high in the legal system because there's a serious question of the policy by which the law was applied in lower courts. Winners always applaud the court for "upholding the law" while losers always accuse the court of "making policy from the bench," but that's posturing, just like the losing team was always a victim of the referees.

The notion that Sotomayor is a "radical" liberal is disingenuous and pretty much false.

Whatever her political inclinations may be, nothing from what I've seen so far shows that she will judicate as a "radical"

Those who are labelling her a radical----you DO realize that in one of her rulings she ruled in favor of a Bush-era rule prohibiting taxpayer money being sent overseas for abortions? That's just one ruling---there are so many others to learn about her record from---and too many to go through here.

She may be a liberal, but she is hardly a radical judge. Donohue should be commended for his statement.

This statement by Bill Donahue makes me even more suspicious of the fact that we really don't know where Judge Sotomayor stands on Roe v Wade. She has never issued a ruling concering this criticle issue and has ruled with the Bush administration concerning their policy of denying funds to any organization which offers reporductive counceling that includes abortion. Scary!

A reversal of Roe v Wade would be a disaster for Women's reproductive rights and we really must find out where Judge Sotomayor is on the issue.

There is much Sotomayer can be criticized for, such as her rulings on the race quota for firefighers. She identifies herself as a Hispanic woman. That of course is what she is, but it is also how she defines herself and her thinking. She is not inhibited to proclaim as much. A white man can not do the same thing in our time and get away with it. BTW, looks like the fact that she is at least nominally Catholic is not bothering the Left at unlike the cases of Roberts and Alito. I suppose political theory trumps race, gender, and religion in this matter after all.

That being said, as Donahue implies she can be confirmed. So I say, "what the heck, let it go, confirm her!" But if the next Obama SCOTUS nominee publically defines themselves by their race and gender there should be a big fight.

This life-long Republican is rooting for Sonia Sotomayor too!

Whiner,

Excellent points. Appeals courts are made up of 3 judge panels (15 or so if en banc), so Sotomayor was not the only person ruling on the Ricci case. It is, in fact, a very interesting legal question and I'll be looking to see what SCOTUS says about the issue.

The issue there was not purely about reverse racisim (as people who haven't actually read the case would say), but whether the city was jusitifed in throwing out the test because it would create a disparate impact...a rule they are supposed to follow under civil rights laws. The city wanted clarity because in some ways they were dam*ed if they do, dam*ed if they don't.

As for her bringing in her experiences, race, etc... yes, we all look at situations the way we were brought up, the way our religion reflects our views, etc. I don't know what it's like to live in the projects, I don't know what it's like to be a different race and the implications - good and bad - that come with that. It's naive to think judges leave that at the door as all of us view the world through our experiences. However, as if they can find in her opinions where her race, her religion, etc influenced her decisions over the actual law, then I'd be concerned. As yet, no one has done that.

Making a statement vs. actually ruling on something because of your race is totally different.

"Justice Antonin Scalia has himself said: that Catholic judges have no obligation to bring to bear their religion in deciding matters on the court."

Note the word "obligation." There's the wiggle room.

Pope Benedict has openly decreed that any Catholic in any kind of official office who rules in favor of any type of abortion will be excommunicated from the Catholic church. With six Catholic judges on the court, what would they do if an abortion rights case made it to the SCOTUS? Would they recuse themselves? Would they risk excommunication?

I think the answer to both of those questions is a resounding "no." And so it makes perfect sense that Bill Donohue will 'quietly root' for her confirmation. The court is now stacked and if they can get a case in front of SCOTUS, I can't see any of those sitting judges put ruling on legislation above their beliefs or the threat of excommunication. Non-Catholics just don't seem to get it.

And so if Sotomayor has not taken any stance or shied away from a stance on abortion rights, there's a calculated reason for her to do so. I can't even imagine Scalia giving up his Opus Dei membership card.

Those who condemn her for the Ricci case are condemning her for NOT being an activist judge. As a Circuit Court judge she is compelled to follow a previous case decision by an earlier 3 judge panel in the Circuit. The only way to overturn the case -- and not be "activist" is for the Circuit to hear the case En banc (entire 15 judge panel) or by the Supreme Court to overturn it. SHE FOLLOWED THE LAW. Reading the decision, I think it was purposely set up for SCOTUS to hear it and settle it once and for all.

If it is overturned, she will not be but the case that she was bound by will be overturned.

It's time for a course correction in civil rights law. 40 years ago, it was more probable than not the test was unfair to minorities, so the skewed results were enough for a legal presumption of discrimination. Today, when the fire department has good minority representation throughout its ranks, the results of one test should not give that presumption of discrimination. After 40 years of civil rights jurisprudence, the only body that can tweak how the legal presumption is applied is the Supreme Court. That is probably why they took the case on cert. in the first place.