by Mark Silva
As advocates of abortion rights attempt to fathom whether Judge Sonia Sotomayor is with them or against them, the White House says President Barack Obama, who supports abortion rights, is "comfortable with her approach to judging.''
The president was careful not to ask his first nominee for the Supreme Court about how she might approach specific cases, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today of a one-hour interview that the president held last week with Sotomayor (pictured here in a court photo), a member of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
But did Obama speak with Sotomayor about the broader question of the constitutional right to privacy?
"Obviously we talked about this throughout the process,'' Gibbs said of the selection of the president's first nominee to the high court. "The president obviously is familiar with the Constitution and the teaching of constitutional law.
"In their discussions, they talked about the theory of constitutional interpretation generally, including her views on unenumerated rights in the Constitution and the theory of settled law,'' Gibbs said. "He left very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his, though the bulk of the conversation was about her approach to judging.''
Are "unenumerated rights'' code for privacy, since it's not enumerated in the Cosntitution, the spokesman was asked.
"I think there was... a general discussion about constitutional interpretation, about how one viewed the document. And the president left very comfortable with the fact that that -- she shares a similar interpretation that he does,'' he said. "I think he feels comfortable with -- comfortable that she shares his philosophy generally on the Constitution.''
Asked if the nominee should be asked about these issues at her confirmation hearings in Senate, the White House spokesman suggested that the president, for his part, was careful to avoid that, as predecessors have.
"I think that the president was careful not to, as previous presidents have been careful not to ask, and I think others have been at hearings careful not to ask specifically how one might rule when a case comes -- in a case that could come before the Supreme Court,'' Gibbs said. "So again, I think the president felt comfortable with, generally, with her view and, again, with her approach to judging.''
Comments
I'm sure the Republican party leadership will use the Sotomayor nomination to raise a boatload of cash. Their direct mailers will scare the money right out of the wallets of the little right-wing minions.
I love watching the Republican party and their "leadership" wringing their hands over why they aren't in the majority while once again alienating the Latino vote by attacking a Latina who is eminently qualified for this position.
Everytime a right-winger feigns outrage, I smile a little more. It's amusing how Wingnuts are only outraged when it isn't something that benefits them.
The more vehemently the Wingnuts attack her the more likely they will only get 20% of the vote while losing Arizona and possibly Texas in the 2012 election. Pretty soon all the GOP will have left is Alabama and Mississippi - yeehaw!
Posted by: Mick Hendrix | May 28, 2009 3:23 PM
Wonder what her opinion is on concealment of birth certificates.
Posted by: Inky | May 28, 2009 4:11 PM
There is a wing of the Republican party mob that's convinced itself it's still living in 1692 Massachusetts. In the last 24 hours, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has been called "racist," "wild-eyed judicial activist," "Hispanic chick lady," "cold-hearted ideologue," "hack," "affirmative action pick," "reverse racist," "lacking intelligence," "Latina woman racist," "bigot," "a hothead," an Obama pick (don’t ask), and even...um..."Maria" (real classy, Huckabee!) And straight out of right-wing field is National Review's Mark Krikorian, who wants to boil her in oil because she pronounces her name funny. (This from a guy whose name is pronounced Crackwhoreian. At least that's how I started pronouncing it as of about 30 seconds ago.) The only way this could get any more bizarre is if Dick Cheney showed up at the Senate hearings with his water-torture board.
Posted by: Don't listen to Faux News and Rush | May 28, 2009 4:27 PM
She'd be great, if only she were a white guy. Nothing wrong with her experience and academics.
Posted by: Dinky | May 28, 2009 5:12 PM
That's kind of a weird twist to this, that Sotomayor doesn't have much of a record in ruling or speaking on abortion rights. I think the pro-abortion crowd is a little more nervous than they would like to admit, but I can't imagine Obama nominating someone who doesn't support abortion rights. Then again, I didn't think Bush Sr. would nominate someone who supported abortion rights (Souter), so we may not know how she stands until a case is actually before her.
Posted by: Herbie H. | May 28, 2009 5:21 PM
After the Grand Old Pugs get through savaging Sotomayor, you'll be able to fit what's left of the Republican party in a pup tent.
Listen to your own, fools:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/28/rollins.sotomayor/index.html
Posted by: dt☢ | May 28, 2009 6:03 PM
Consider Sotomayor’s Dissenting Opinions:
+ Kelsey v. County of Schoharie = requiring a newly admitted jail inmate to disrobe in front of a corrections officer = strip search violation of the Fourth Amendment (and any reasonably intelligent corrections officer should know this).
+ USA v. Juan Vincent Gomez Castrillon = money laundering conviction should be vacated = evidence didn’t amount to guilty beyond a reason doubt = defendant drove $500,000 to meeting with agent / defendant was lookout / defendant had $6,000 on him.
+ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. = Trucking Company shouldn’t have rejected job applicants on medication that might impair driving ability = truck driving is a broad class of jobs (this though the employer only saw applicants as unfit to perform a certain job for which they were seeking applicants).
+ Thomas Pappas v. Mayor and Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New York = Police Officer kept receiving letters asking for contributions, so he anonymously returned racially bigoted materials = he was fired = majority opinion—“For a New York City police officer to disseminate leaflets that trumpet bigoted messages expressing hostility to Jews, ridiculing African Americans and attributing to them a criminal disposition to rape, robbery, and murder, tends to promote the view among New York citizenry that those are the opinions of New York’s police officers.… In the words of Justice Holmes,‘A policeman may have a constitutional right to [speak his mind], but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.’”= dissent opinion—where an employee serves no supervisory role, the danger to an agency’s successful functioning is minimal = also the “statements” were made while off-duty = also anonymous nature—“… the Department should have swept the matter under the rug hoping no one would ever learn the facts; and if it chose instead to bring charges against Pappas, it has only itself to blame for the resulting harm to its reputation …”
+ S.H. Croll v. M.Y.Croll = married couple (US Citizens) residing in Hong Kong got divorced and the Hong Kong Court decreed that the child can not be taken from Hong Kong without both parents consent = mother took the child to US = majority decision—child cannot be returned to father in Hong Kong = Dissent Opinion—child can be returned to Hong Kong.
+ L.N. Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda = Burmuda should be recognized as an independent state—rather than a British Overseas Territory.
+ USA v. J. Gori = as officers listened in, a busted drug dealer called his source = when source was subsequently busted with kilo of cocaine = he told cops that someone in apartment 1M had given him the cocaine = cops went into the lobby pending further instructions = when pizza delivery man came to apartment = cops were afraid of being exposed = stood on either side of delivery guy = when door opened cops ordered everybody into the hall = suspect consented to search of apartment = busted for cocaine…= majority opinion—quotes Katz (389 US at 351)“A suspect in her open doorway becomes ‘as exposed to public view, speech, hearing, and touch as if she had been standing completely outside her home.”= dissent opinion—“’[t]he right of the people to be secure in their … houses …’”=“…the Fourth Amendment has drawn a fine line at the entrance to the house.”
Posted by: Michael L. Wagner | May 28, 2009 6:27 PM
MEMO TO HISPANIC VOTERS:
The Republican party thinks that being Hispanic is racist.
Just so you know.
Moments like this make me wonder how any decent human being could back the slop that the current GOP talking heads vomit out.
Posted by: Bl!nky | May 28, 2009 8:01 PM
A MEMO TO THOSE THAT WANT MORE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
Blinky is your result
Posted by: Terry | May 31, 2009 12:36 PM