CNN

Those republicans should be careful. Every women's and Hispanic's group is taking notes. They come very close to going over the line and no doubt they will before this is over.

The Republicans are shooting blanks – Sotomayor isn't going to melt down! Just confirm her and get to work before your recess, little boys.

yes yes yes another obama screw up.. she is not he one, taking more of our freedoms away, with no guns and mudering babys. she wont answer cause she cant tell the truth...just like a liberal...lies...lies...and more lies

Gary, I guess you are a white man. Test are made to be cheated on. I can guarantee that if you give it once someone have a copy for their friends. History has it that test has been used to screen similar to poll tax. I haven't heard from the black fire fighters. I bet they didn't ask for any special favors. Like a good stupid black person who has just be dupped we move on. Tell me how do you know when you take a test that someone didn't cheat. Do you know how long blacks has passed test and been told that they didn't. I don't like discrimination under any circumstances, I do think that there should be a better way for firefighters to qualify individuals for promotions. I think the supreme court don't have a clue. As I said before how can you prove things done while drinking a beer after work or sitting around the pool on the weekends. You can! so we move on.

I have been amazed at the lack of understanding of the court process displayed by the committee members. They have no idea what the differences are between the trial court, the appellate courts, and the Supreme Court. It is disheartening to say the least. Did they all forget their civics classes? And aren't some of them at least nominally lawyers? Jeff Sessions in particular seemed to have no clue, causing the nominee to have to spend more time than she should have explaining how the system works in order to properly answer the questions. It was just sad.

there have been a number of interesting things happen in the hearings.....most of all, I now fully understand why a REPUB MAJORITY refused to approve Repub Sen. Jeff Sessions as a Federal Judge...

yes I know about his racist past, and his miss steps as a lawyer, but the man does not even know how to ask a basic question..how could he ever make a reasonable decision???...

But the most strange thing Sen. Sessions says is what is a unanimous decision..In cases where the court rules 5 to 4 in a case...IT IS NOT A UNANIMOUS DECISION.....it is only a unanimous decision if "agreeing completely united in opinion" Webster's Third Addition"...and the bad news Senator is that your saying it was a unanimous decision will not change it...

If he is the PRIDE of Alabama..they are in a lot deeper trouble than they know...

To AntiRush:

Good point. If these rethugs weren't so ignorant, they would understand that. But as you can see, they are complete morons.

"The "latina woman" comment, the all womans club membership call into question her personal bias regarding race and gender."

how soon we have forgotten that justice samuel alito sits on SCOTUS after membership in "concerned alumni of princeton," and touting his membership in that group to obtain a job in the reagan administration. why is membership in an all women club disqualifying, while membership in a group that advocates admitting only white males to princeton is to be glorified?

Lemme ask you all this

Would you want a Justice on the SCOTUS who has preconcieved agendas to sit on the highest bench?

I hope the answer is no.

Judges are professionals and as such have the ability to perform their duties independently of their personal feelings. This is one of the harmarks of a professional.

First the GOP claims Sotomayor is an "activist" judge who uses the judiciary to make "policy" decisions and advance a "liberal agenda." Then, they complain that she is being "vague" for refusing make policy judgments and for insisting that she is not in a position to provide answers without knowing what the facts are and what the relevant laws are. It's been clear that the Republican judiciary members already had their minds made up about her, and that nothing she could say would change their opinions. What a farce!

It is amazing how the (GOP) is so (DUMB) the election was just back in (2008) the (REPUBLICAN PARTY) is polling at an (all time low) most people are afraid to say they are (republicans) Yet Tom Colbern and Graham ,Sessions, and the rest of whats left (arizona senator). Attack this nominee (Judge Sotomayor) as if they are still in (POWER).They have lost their (gop) minds, the hispanic vote ,is the largest growing group in america, and they will become more (NULL AND VOID). What do they think , it is not the (REAGAN ERA)

PFFFT – Do you have any ideas of how many rulings of the SCOTUS sounds today as pure bigotry, racism at its core and clearly 'unconstitucional'? A tip, the marriage of the current president of the USA's parents was, according to some of this shameful rulings, against the 'law of men and God'...
The law is blind, you mean the Justice is blind since the laws are made by people that consider what THEY BELIEVE is necessary at the moment. Wasn't that what happened back at the early days of Rock and roll when some cities made law banning the 'Devil's Music'?
Justice is blind, which is why EVERY case is a different case, has its particularities and cannot fall on general interpretations of the law.

Sniffit – Thanks for pointing out all the mistakes on Rod's post. Rod, what you're saying is, at best, PURE REVERSE DISCRIMINATION!!!!

Man, some of these bloggers that back the firefighters not getting promoted should really listen to what they are saying. The advent that a physical abilities test should out weigh a written one is very dangerous. How can you perform your job without reading the signs, manuals, or performing CPR. If you have no idea how to read a manual, understand, and comply with operational and functional checks on your SCBA gear how are you going to fight a fire?? Second you make it sound like all African American and minority fire fighters are illiterate and ignorant; but they sure can carry a fighter hose. How bout that you just sent the equal rights back to the stone age.

As a Hispanic woman, I'm against Judge Sotomayor as a Justice for the Supreme Court. Her record speaks volumes on what she truly believes not this show she's putting on. Just wait when she's on the bench and doling out these viewpoints.

My vote is NO!

How, after Gore v. Bush, any Republican can utter the words "judicial activism" without blushing...ultimately says alot about Republicans.

Steve wrote:
"Supreme Court decisions are supposed to be based on the Constitution not someones personal views. This women should answer the questions not duck them."

Uhhh, Steve? She is being asked about her personal views and is saying that she needs details of specific circumstances in order to answer.

By the way, the singular is "woman" not "women." Why are so many right-wingers such poor writers?

If you have ever had to give a deposition you know that attorneys are well versed at how to carefully craft their or others deception of the truth. Sotomayor has been working day and night since her nomination with the DNC to craft her answers to the obvious questions of the GOP. The GOP will do exactly what they did with Obama, not ask or pursue any line of questioning that would pose the potential for some poor minority constituent to cry discrimination, you all know, the Race card..... This is just like Obama's pledge to not raise taxes on those making 250k, I mean 225k, I mean 200k, it never addressed the alternate taxation avenues they are now pursuing and it leaves the door open for States to tax you more and businesses to cost you more in the way of cost of goods to pay their increased taxation. After all, what are lawyers experts at other than manipulating the english language in support of their agenda? You know, like arguing what the meaning of is, is... Baaaaa, baaaaa!

@ Alonso Gonzales:

Being a Hispanic woman I too feel you outrage. It amuses me to no end how the blatantly racist questioning/behaviour of Sens. sessions and graham (yes I didn't capitalize on purpose) goes totally unnoticed, and unremarked upon by the same folks who accuse HER of being a racist. It confirms what so many of us already know: this is the kind of treatment that almost subconsciously is inflicted upon so called minorities, by some White people. And we're supposed to take it, and suck it up, because at the first instance that we denounce their behaviour as unacceptable WE stand accused of being racist towards White people. Go figure that one out!!

I thank my God in heaven, however, that I've been blessed with a sharp tongue, and have encountered generally speaking people who are people first and foremost. Of course I do not run in the Sotomayor and sessions circles. I would imagine, by what I've seen so far, that racism can be more subtle, but just as effective in that stratosphere.

@MattR July 15th, 2009 12:30 pm ET

...I suggest you go talk to some Canadians instead of relying on what you hear on television or read in the newspapers. After all, they did just vote Tommy Douglas, ..., as the Greatest Candian of all time. So I guess they think their nationalized health care is pretty good.

For your information, "Canadian" polls show that Canadians like their government run system. HOWEVER, it was also noted that most Canadian's weren't sick when responding to the pollsters questions. Guess it's easy to like something when you don't depend on it....YET. Just wait until you have to rely on a lottery to see a doctor. Hopefully you don't have a life threatening situation. It would stink if YOUR life saving treatment was deemed "ELECTIVE" by the government.

I know its hard to believe, but the rethuglicans have sunk to a new low with these hearings.

Citizens don't expect a racist hateful judge to be deiciding law based on her own hate and biases rather than facts, but liberals certainly do, hate and lies are at the center of the Democratic party.

@Mississippi Mike,

by your standards, the entire right wing of the supreme court should be impeached.

@ Fair is Fair who said "I lost what little respect I had left when she refused to answer the question "Is it legal for a citizen to defend themself".

It's a "gotcha" question. Of course you can defend yourself. But do you need an Kalishnakov rifle to do that? No! Do you need a Mac-11 to do that? No! Do you need an MP-4 to do that? No! A plain old 9mm, .40 cal, .22 cal, .45 mag or 357 mag is all you need. I'm all for hunters and sportsmen having rifles whether it be for sport or competition. Although I believe sportsmen who compete in competition should have the right to own an assault weapon whereas a hunter shouldn't because you don't need an M-4 assault rifle to kill a moose from a helicopter like that Quitter Palin in Alaska.

How about Republican's views on the legal obligation to bear arms? How many of them ducked their country's call to arms unce rthe 1903 Militia Act or the 1792 predecesor? How many served?

I respect this woman a great deal. She has handled the good ole boy club with calm, avoiding their "gotcha" questions, causing them to look more foolish than they usually do.

She is quite qualified to be SCOTUS.

Many here on this posting site are overly concerned with Ms. Sotomayors 'personal views' about Gun control, Abortion, etc. What they fail to understand is that none of her personal views have any thing to do with this confirmation hearing. The basis for this whole interrogation is to determine if she has the extensive and extraordinary ability and sensibility to apply our laws to the issues brought before our Supreme Court, without malice or personal prejudice. Certainly her 3000+ judgements have proven this out. The fact that she is a woman of Latina descent also has no bearing on this. Ms. Sotomayor was nominated and confirmed to the Judicial bench by Former President H.W. Bush. A conservative Republican. Surely, he thought highly enough of her qualifications and personal abilities to give her such a deserved position of authority. To question the nomination of her to our Supreme Court now, due only to her ethnic/cultural background, is an insult. She has far exceeded the 'qualifications' aspect of this hearing. It will be an honor to have her serve as a Supreme Court Justice.

The Other Michael in Houston,

Remember who you are talking to, the se crazy gun folks let a 15 year old white boy of after 17 days in prison for mistaking a woman for a bear. Mind you if that kid was a black kid he would have been tried as an adult with a possibility of a death penalty.

Remember guns are OK, as long as white people are the only ones to have them. God I wish I could see a group of African Americans, thousands of them, on the streets holding pro Gun signs. You would see these white boys back off that second amendment crap so fast your head would spin.

Oh yes, I'm white too, and if I can see the injustice yu better believe that an African American, or American of a Latin heritage can FEEL it.

Senators Coburn, Sessions, Kyl, Graham, et. al, sicken me with their condescension and rudeness to Judge Sotomayor.

In the media, the case is referred to by a given name or general synopsis, we take that generic name and make our judgments on that basis. Judges decide the cases based fine points of law that may not be even hinted at in our knowledge reference of the case. We generally have no knowledge of these fine points on which the decision is based. If the media would better accomplish it's job of informing us we could better support and understand the rulings.

I was on a jury many years ago where we found the accused innocent. Our decision was lambasted as ignorant and misinformed. When I inquired and was informed of the evidence available versus what were allowed to hear, I would have convicted. But alas, most of the evidence was not allowed. In some cases this is true of judges, they are not allowed to consider many things because they are dealing with specific points of law. This is almost always true in an appeal. And was indeed true in the famous rulings in the Bush/Gore case which was decided on a very fine narrow appeal issue. That ruling merely decided the point of law in question.

We individuals don't get that fine detail, we only got the effective results. We don't get to be well informed.

Isn't it interesting that GOP senators spent hours yesterday lecturing her about the evils of justices using their personal experiences, beliefs and fellings to decide cases then in the next breath ask her about her personal feelings and beliefs about gun control and abortion, etc. It's one or the other boys. You can have it both ways!

ROD " Sotomayor's ruling on Connecticut Promotional Exams is Right and Correct.
Supreme Court’s ruling is Wrong and Politically Motivated.
Because:"

No Rod she was wrong. That test is written because the subject of an LT promotion isn't doing a physical job – it is mental. He is the man divising the attack on the fire, determining entry etc. He is not hauling hose!!! The test isn't a big surprise – the firefighters are well aware of what is on the test, so spare me the "unfair" speech. As the wife of a firefighter, I want the guy directing the attack to KNOW what he is doing, not to be promoted because he can haul hose up a tower.

Judge Sotomayor in her wise latina comments, if she have chosen the word black man instead of white man is that would have been a racist comment?. Would she would have been President Obama's choice?. Answer is no. It was a racist comment, and you didn't had to be black either, neither white.

Yeah, some follow the US constitution and others judges prefer International law and feelings like Sotomayor.

Lindsay Graham spoke down to her in a most rude and sexist way regarding the 'wise Latina' comment. I hope they play that entire interview so no one can say it's 'out of context'. I wanted to gag. I really hope some of the Republicans are not like this nasty and disrespectful men. It's like he's taking out his bile against Obama on this Judge. I wonder if he talks to his wife like that?

She should tell those idiot Republicans:
1. I have answered your questions at least 8 times about my speeches and I will not answer anther one.
2. You are not supposed to ask me specific questions about how I will vote in the Supreme Court on abortion or gun control because each and every appeal to the Supreme Court is specific and not a general question and will be judged on its own merit. Being lawyers as almost all of you claim, although most of you have never seen the inside of a court room or heard a case, you should know you are asking me questions I can't answer.
3. Senator______ you have stated publically that you will not vote to confirm me no matter what I say, so I refuse to answer your stupid question.

Affirmative Action Policies are only beneficial to black and hispanic populations, but not applied to other minorities in this country. It is a double standard, period.

Repuclicans will continue to be sore losers forever. This may well still be over the country's handling of Watergate. Right?

The 2nd Amendment is the worst law, besides some anti sex laws in the bible belt states, that the US has. It was created at a different time, before machine guns, bazookas and flame throwers were invented.

All guns should be banned, except the to people with special licences.

YES I SAID IT.

In bootcamp we practiced the 4 rifle safety rules from the time we woke up until the time we went to sleep, and even dreamt about them, for 7 weeks, before they even let us see a bullet. And even then accidents happen...

...and you expect some redneck, drunk on cheap beer, and high on meth, to practice gun safety?

Get the heck out of here. It is a proven FACT (yes one of those things that republicans dont let get in their way when they have their own idiotic agendas), that the countries with strickter gun laws have less murders, gun accidents and deaths than the countries with loose gun laws....

....and you can take your NRA talking points and shove them.....doesn't shine.

Smart lady. Is it any wonder she's running circles around her questioners?

can Sotomayer reverse the bloomberg / mta fare hike !?

One needs to understand that the law at times isn’t straight forward and not easily interpreted, as a result Sotomayor has to be very careful with answering the questions; some answers may require her to beat around the bush and not give a direct answer . her aim at the hearing is to show how knowledgeable she is when it comes to the law and her ability to interpret & apply the law, not to give her opinion or personal views on it..

She's being doing a great job thus far...i enjoy listening to her answer those TUFF questions...i'm not sure how many of us would be able too...

@ Rob

"But I'm sure you're right that if you tested on dunking baseketballs the test scores would have been different."

See what your #4 elicited? Someone has to be smart enough and man enough to end the cycle lest round and round the mulberry bush we go.

We expect the law to be black and white. No grey areas to be interpreted by judges. No alot to ask of a Judge is it ?

"I expect judges to interpret the law in an impartial manner and apply it to the evidence provided. Am I really that far off?"

Nope. And I expect our Senators to interpret her education, experience, qualifications, training, proficiency and fitness to sit the bench of teh SCOTUS based on ALL the evidence provided. Am I really that far off?

The GOP did its job...it got you guys all riled up, gave you the talking points and will now leave you to your anger and resentment, which will continue even if/when 20-25 of them vote to confirm her.

If you believe that a supreme court judge's job is to interpret the law, then what does it matter what your personal views on any issue are? Seems to me that some members of the confirmation panel want it both ways. Unless there is a backdoor acknowledgement that one's life experience does play a factor in judging cases, which then nullifies the whole fake outrage over the 'wise latina' line.

in the end, it just looks like obstructionism by GOP senators. for that the GOP will pay by losing the southwestern states for a generation.

@ Rob

"1. City of New Haven, Connecticut, Properly, Rightly and Correctly threw out the results of Promotional Exams that left too few African-Americans qualified."

Evidence didn't support this. NHFD did not have evidenec that the test was ACTUALLY discriminatory before tossing out the results...they simply assumed it based on the "disparate impact" and got scared of lawsuits. Legitimate fear, because it probably would've happened, but illegitimate choice of which thing to get sued for.

"4. African-Americans would have scored better than Whites if it was based upon a Physical Abilities Test rather than a Mere Written Test."

Do you have ANY idea how much damage you do to the cause by saying something like that? Check it at the door buddy. Racism and discrimination are all about starting from a premise based on stereotypes. You just did so.

@Rod, your repeated rant on this topic in every blog is getting old. A firefighter LT or Capt isn't the one doing the physical labor, they are providing experience, knowledge and leadership. These are all valid test subjects. But I'm sure you're right that if you tested on dunking baseketballs the test scores would have been different. You do realize that your argument basically says the minorities lack the intelligence to pass a written test don't you? Is that what you really mean to say, because it would appear somewhat racist.

I expect judges to interpret the law in an impartial manner and apply it to the evidence provided. Am I really that far off?

So we are doing the quotas thing on the supreme court. Latinos represent a huge group so we might need a few more.

RR, Do you have any kids? Do you believe that your kids should posses AK-47's, AR -15's etc, heck even a .22 caliber?????? Don't get me wrong, I own many weapons but I surely do not think my son should own one until he is an adult. Now Sotomayor cannot answer that directly because the question is too vague. I think you conservatives put too much weight into at best trivial issues. They government cannot take yours or my weapons away but they can create laws to ensure that some nutcase cannot buy one, or some criminal cannot legally own a weapon. So I think how she answered the question was very appropiate, this coming from a gun owner who happens to be Liberal leaning independent voter.

The good old white boy club. I'm surprised they haven't asked her if she is going to require menu diversity for official meals.

Good grief don't these guys know that their behavior is going to be forever preserved and played over and over in documentary's for racist/sexism in America. And Jeff Sessions confirmed yesterday why he was rejected as a Federal Judge for his racist views several years ago.

If a democratic president were to able to nominate Jesus Christ to the supreme the republicans would be upset and question him to no end about his views on rights of citizens.

They would grill him repeatedly about the fact he did not punish a woman caught in adultry. The Jewish law at the time of Jesus was that a woman caught it adultry should be stoned to death and it had been Jewish law for some 12 thousand years.

But when the Pharisees brought the woman to Jesus to condemn her he said let the man who has never sinned to cast the first stone and no one cast a stone and left. When Jesus looked up and the Pharisees had left, he ask the woman did not anyone condemn her and she said no and Jesus said to go and sin no more.

He let a woman that had broken the law go free, no probation, no admonishment, to go FREE

Bottom line is these same Republicans had no problem with judge Alito when he expressed similar views relative to his judgements being influenced by family and ethnic background.
Its grandstanding and the Republicans get to look like the hypocrites they are one more time.

The RACIST leanings of this group of arrogant, beligerent white men is not only appalling, but un-American. Sessions is still pissed because he wore his racism on his sleeve and didn't think anyone would notice when he was nominated for the federal bench. This kind of behavior is PRECISELY what the American people overwhelmingly rejected November 4, 2008. This "gentlemen" and I do use the term loosely, are only accountable to the 26% that still identify themselves as conservative or Republican – clearly region, clearly southern, and clearly out of touch with the rest of the American people. I do hope voters in Alabama, Texas, South Carolina, etc. remember this during election time – especially Latino and African-American voters – and send the same message AGAIN at mid-term elections and the next general election cycle. The behavior and tone of Graham and Sessions is inexcusable but expected for these men who hold anyone not MALE and WHITE in utter contempt.

I do support Sotomayor..I think she is more than qualified.
With that said, I do want to know her stance on abortion, gun control, first admendment issues. These are important to most families sitting at their kitchen table, at the workplace and in the community so it should be up for discussion without dodging the issue.

The GOP has nothing and Sotomayor is eminently qualified. They're just using airtime try to generate some interest. Unfortunately the three remaining people who might be interested in what the GOP has to say are all typing away on comments boards, so there you go.

alonso gonzalez July 15th, 2009 12:35 pm ET

Being Hispanic myself I'm appalled at the way this women has been treated. The thing that bothers me the most is that of all the people attacking them are While old males. No women no Blacks not Hispanics just a bunch of all white men

Thanks

Alonso Gonzalez
============================

I agree with you...its regretable the Republican party has become on of racial intolerance. Jeff Sessions asked why didn't Sotomayor agree with her fellow Puerto Rican – it would have changed the outcome? This from a man that called the NAACP a communist group.

It is socially and intellectually secure white people that are progressives, democrats, liberals and tolerant of race that represent the future of america. The Republican party will eventually become one of the unhappy past.

I got one description of the GOP and their party. ---------- Flatline

I dont understand people using the argument "right to bear arms" for hunting purposes? I always thought it was for people to protect themselves from the government and other potential hostile forces. the right to a militia. If the people in Iran had the right to bear arms, they woulnt be getting beat up for protesting. i think the hunting argument is appeasing those how dont want people to have that right.

Some senators are playing to the camera and to their voters: Sotomayor has spent 17 years as a prosecutor and a judge. She's smart and nimble and not about to get caught deciding a hypothetical case – no matter how many times the senators repeat and repeat their 4 talking points ... all they can find to question in a 17 year record – which shows she is consistent in following the law as written.

Supreme Court decisions are supposed to be based on the Constitution not someones personal views. This women should answer the questions not duck them.

Judge Sotomayor intelligently answers questions with a correct approach to judicial prudence.

C STREET members are simply pandering to a right-wing base.

America is a democracy, not a theocracy.

"If this women cannot give direct answers, how can we trust her to sit on the Supreme Court and give direct answers based on the law? I would love to see a Hispanic female on the highest bench, but I just don't believe this one is it."

This womAn is giving the same answers that every nominee gives. The judicial code of ethics does not allow a judge, or a candidate for a judgeship, to state how he or she will rule on specific cases. Not to mention, the Senators' questions are too broad to describe a real legal issue likely to appear before the Court.

This is why the Republicans during this hearing–and the Democrats during Roberts and Alito hearings–are being ludicrous. Given that most of them are lawyers, you'd think they would know a nominee's limits.

Being Hispanic myself I'm appalled at the way this women has been treated. The thing that bothers me the most is that of all the people attacking them are While old males. No women no Blacks not Hispanics just a bunch of all white men

Thanks

Alonso Gonzalez

PFFT, while the "law is blind", it's interpretation is not blind. The Judges job is not to "enforce the law", that duty actually falls upon law enforcement officials, her job as a judge is to interpret the law. Because she is interpreting the law, her values, ideology, opinions, and experience are very important to know and understand because this will affect her interpretations of the law. Why do you think that every Supreme Court Decision has a majority decision and a dissenting position? If the law were so clear cut and easy to understand, then shouldn't 9 people highly trained in the law always reach the same conclusion?

Mark in St Louis – I don't know. Our nationalized miltary seems to be pretty good. Or were you referrring only to nationalized health care? If so, I suggest you go talk to some Canadians instead of relying on what you hear on television or read in the newspapers. After all, they did just vote Tommy Douglas, the man largely responsible for introducing the Canadian health care system, as the Greatest Candian of all time. So I guess they think their nationalized health care is pretty good.

It's just a high profile opportunity for them to score some points with their base supporters. Then they can go back and ask for money and say look, I fight against abortion and gun control.

Sam Sixpack – Citizens don't understand the law. I have worked in the court system for 28 years and I can tell you from personal experience that that citizens don't understand the law. I can't tell you how many times I have wanted to reach across my counter and just shake some common sense and intelligence into someone. Unless you've worked for the court system, you really can't understand just what goes on.

To PFFT. While the Law is blind, it's interpretation is not. Real people interpret the laws, and being real people they have a unique worldview that is defined by their own personal values, opinions, and experiences. That is why a person's values are questioned so thoroughly before they are appointed to the highest court in the land. Their job is take a circumstance and interpret the laws that are applicable in order to make a decision. The interpretation of the law is key because that is what leads to decisions, hence why it is so important to know Sotomayor's opinions and values.

Some of you people obviously never watched a confirmation hearing for a supreme court nominee before. The all give as little information as possible and only elaborate on particular things if pressed over and over again. Their court rulings really do the speaking for them. She is one smart cookie and she can handle all the crap the republicans are throwing at her. We need Sonia Sotomayor on the supreme court and we are going to get her!

Clearly......
any Supreme Court Justice or nominee that is confirmed for the Court that is in favor of over-turning Roe v. Wade......would be the ULTIMATE judicial activist !!!!!!!!!!!!

That person would have to or be forced to use their own prejudices to do just that, overturn the law of the land, based on their own experience and beliefs and would not be acting by any judicial / legal precedent. If that happened, that's what I would call 'legislating from the bench.'

This Republican claim of a liberal 'activist judge' preaching law or 'legislating from the bench' is such a bogus argument and what's the term, a red herring, that it isn't funny anymore. They would have no problems with a 'conservative activist judge'.

While I understand why Congress might be looking at Sotomayor's personal opinions (its a natural reaction) that is not their job. Their job is to determine if she is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

By Congress trying to determine Sotomayor's personal opinions they are not doing their job. Their job is explicit. Sotomayors job as a justice might be influenced by personal opinion however as a justice she is to remove her opinions and have the law be the final determination. Her determination is then weighted by 8 other opinions. So if there are 9 justices the democratic vote for or against is the final determination.

Congress is the same. They have personal opinions however they are to advance the causes of their constinuents regardless of their personal opinions. A congress person could personally be for or against guns or abortion but their job as an elected official is to advance the causes of their constinuents not their personal opinions or their party affiliation.

This answer is so common that I am surprised that the Senator is surprised. Here's what I would do... bring in a case already heard by the SC. Ask her to rule.

There must be a reason why she wouldn't... but I'd like to see it.

NEWSFLASH – Republican senators are very concerned about seating an "activist" liberal Supreme Court Judge. This line of reasoning has attracted psychologists from all over the world eager to witness this example of apparent mass schizophrenia. Research is being conducted into the conservatives sudden concern for this issue, and their perceived difference between conservative activism and liberal activism, and why for them one is acceptable and welcomed, and the other to be avoided at all costs.

Jeff Sessions is the most disgusting, hypocritical senator to have questioned Ms Sotomayor thus far. He has the audacity to imply that she is racist, when his background is filled with bigotry. This is the same man who was against the NAACP and the ACLU, calling them "communist inspired" organizations because they "forced civil rights down the throats of people." He also opposed parts of the Voting Rights Act. In 2006, he was in favor of letting it expire, although he later voted to extend it. I imagine Sen Sessions wanted to put on a good show for his constituents, letting them know that the "good ol' boys" were still fighting for supremacy.

Marie,
The GOP loves to point out that some of her rulings have been overturned by higher courts – that happens to every judge. What they do NOT point out is that the overwhelming majority of her 3000+ decisions have been upheld by higher courts.

In spite of the smoke and mirrors, the distortion of the facts and a few quotes taken out of context the fact remains that she is an incredibly qualified, competent judge who is well suited to be on the SCOTUS.

Did Drudge link to this story or something? Where are all these wingnuts coming from?

It's pretty unbelievable that those who complain about so-called "activist judges" are criticizing her for not answering broad policy questions. Talk about hypocritical.

If you want her to answer a question about the law, ask her a question about the law. Not her personal beliefs on policy. Whether a person has a right to defend himself is not a legal question, it's a policy question. Whether a specific state law gives a person a right to defend himself under a specific set of circumstances is a question of law. That was not asked.

Her answers remind me of the way past Republican nominees have responded to hard questions from the Democrats when they were out of power. It is nice to ask difficult questions but dont expect a simple answer. I think the Republicans are asking good questions and then getting all bent out of shape if the response dosen't fit their political agenda. So far I have heard nothing to disqualify Ms. Sotomayor just as conservatives, like Scalia, said or didn't say things that would have disqualified them. I hope, if appointed, she will bring some wisdom to the bench regardless of gender or race or experience. There have been numerous bonehead rulings from the SC in our 200+ year history yet still we stumble on inspite of it all.

I hope she don't get confirmed

She makes Sessions and Graham look like the biased, obstructionist GOP, party line fools that they truly are!

The fact is the GOP is flailing and grasping at straws while bracing for her inevitable appointment to SCOTUS. I thoroughly enjoy the right wings wailing and gnashing of teeth!

I see the paid rightwing street teamers are out earning their pay today.It wont work,we know who you are now,even though you use alot of different names to hide your real numbers.Your Rush Limbaugh talking points always give you away.hahaha

You guys must have IQs of about 10. Doesn't matter how socialized health-care is paid for. It doesn't matter who winds up getting covered. The problem is the government running the program. There are NO nationalized programs currently in the world that are any good. Wake up citizens, it is not a perfect system, but it is the best one out there. Why do you dems wish to destroy it?

I don't like blanket answers. Each situation carries it own circumstances and, therefore, needs to be judged separately. That is what Justice Sotomayor is saying when she says she needs specifics. You take each case with their facts and make a judgment based on law and precedents. That is all any judge can do.

Is it legal for a person to defendant themselves? Maybe, it depends on the circumstances. What if the person just says they we're defending themselves when in fact, the opposite is true. You cannot give a blanket answer. To do so would be foolhardy and harmful.

" Tom Coburn of Oklahoma pushed Sotomayor to express her opinions "

I truly do not understand why they keep pressing for her opinions. When she's expressed her opinions in the past they've twisted it and used it against her. How freaking dumb are they hoping her to be? She's not there to express an opinion, as per their mandate. She is there to APPLY THE LAW.

Just confirm her already and stop grandstanding.

I wish the Republicans would take a pass on the "identity politics". This judge is not interested in taking away people's guns. For all I care these paranoid republicans can sleep with their guns every night. I do believe its not necessary to bring the family AK-47 or grandpa's M-16 to church every Sunday morning.

Considering it is Wednesday doubt this will make the post.

I wonder if these posters are part of the fanatics interrupting the hearing which is a crime.

What about the Sessions comment that another judge voted in favor and he was a Puerto Rican too? What is that about? Sounds like a racist comment to me.

The woman is a saint, anyone else would stand and call the racist Republicans out on the double standard. Poor defenseless White men....the misery of 100+ appointments being well to do White men.

Republicans = Male, Pale and Stale

The Republicans would be better off asking her about specific rulings she made in the past. Clearly she sees her job as interpreting law rather than defining policy. Asking her general policy questions is fruitless unless their attempt is to show her as evasive. She's doing the job of a judge which is to get the FACTS before making up her mind.

Aren't Republicans the ones always saying no litmus test on issues?
So why it is now that a person selected by a Democratic president is supposed to say what their personal feelings are? These guys, Sessions, Coburns and the others seeking to trip her up are the most hypocritical people I've ever seen. These are the kinds of people we have to eliminate from our Congress.

She's answering these questions exactly right. The right to bear arms and gun control are vague concepts that need specifics to be discussed, as she has said. What kind of arms? Does a person have the right to protect their property with land mines and window-mounted 50-calibers? Who hunts with an AK-47? The question is not whether we have the right to bear arms, but where the line is. That depends on the reason why we have that right, and what is necessary to accomplish that purpose. It isn't simple, and the republicans and democrats alike try to make these complex issues fit into 30-second ad spaces. In this case, a straight answer is the wrong answer.

The liberals and anti-gun crowd believes your right to self defense is calling 911 and waiting 20-30 minutes for the police to save your bacon.

This is sad that he(Republican Sen. Tom Coburn) did not offer some type precedence. I'm not a lawyer and I know well enough not to walk into a generalized trap that he was attempting to set. She should have not offered an explanation.

Let him and his large staff do there homework. Put some meat on that bone.

Republicans continue to look for the easy way out.

RR: She cannot say that, because that's not the true question by the Senator. There are subvert points within that line of questioning and anyone, especially someone who has her educational and intellectual capability did the right thing. IT DEPENDS ON THE CASE AND LAW AT THAT TIME. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's the kind of answer we'd want from a Justice. Anything outside of that would be true activism.

RR wrote: "Why can't she just come out and say 'Every law abiding American has the right to keep and bear arms for protection and sport, and the state cannot deny that right?'"

Here we have another example of people who ignore the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers. What the Second Amendment actually says is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What "arms" did the founding fathers refer to in this poorly written sentence? Obviously, clearly, and doubtlessly they meant a muzzle loading ball-and-powder pistol or rifle, a sword, and a bayonet. Did the founding fathers mean that every citizen could possess weapons that had not been invented, like nuclear bombs, grenades, flame throwers, poison gas, machine guns, potent poisons, automatic pistols, assault rifles, etc.? Certainly not.

I personally respect the right of any American to carry a single shot musket wherever he or she goes – Walmart, City Hall, universities, hospitals, family reunions, whatever. What I can't stand are these gun-huggers who twist the language of the Constitution into something that none of its authors intended.

RR July 15th, 2009 11:45 am ET

why can't she just come out and say "Every law abiding American has the right to keep and bear arms for protection and sport, and the state cannot deny that right"?

I think she has a gun control agenda based on her past rulings and statements and refusal to answer Sen. Coburn's question.
----
Because if she did make such a comment, she would have to recuse herself on every single gun case that may come to the court. That is why Alito, Roberts, etc., all refused to answer the question of whether they believe the constitution protects a woman's right to an abortion. Simply stated, Supreme Court nominees cannot answer such generally sweeping questions during nomination hearings, as it would be indicative of pre-judging a case before knowing the facts.

I lost what little respect I had left when she refused to answer the question "Is it legal for a citizen to defend themself".

Look at her court rulings and not at her speeches.

I guess there is nothing in her rulings that can raise suspicion.

Thank God we all have a brain!

She sure is a good at evading an answer. She makes me sick. Once she is in it will be a typical bait and switch just like Obama. Say anything to get in and do the oppisite.

If this women cannot give direct answers, how can we trust her to sit on the Supreme Court and give direct answers based on the law? I would love to see a Hispanic female on the highest bench, but I just don't believe this one is it.

She can't win. When she says she will not prejudge a case and that she will only use the specifics of the case to make a decision, the opposition says "She won't take a stand..she won't give her opinion." If she gives her opinion, then the opponents say "She has an agenda, she has prejudged the case, she is biased!"

You can't have it both ways Repubs....of course you will not support her as she was nominated by a Democrat. Why don't you just say that and move on.

If you promise a fireman a promotion for a certain score on the test, and he studies hard and gets that score he deserves that promotion. I don't understand how she could possibly thought otherwise. I don't trust her judgement.

The "latina woman" comment, the all womans club membership call into question her personal bias regarding race and gender.

There has to be a better candidate for the Supreme Court than this judge.

RR, are you trying to say 5 year olds should own guns? They're law abiding Ameicans.
Are you saying I should be allowed to own a personal stockpile of tactical nuclear missiles? That falls under the general term "arms."

That's why she can't just come out and say it. Well, that and because a justice's job is to look at specific cases, not make sweeping generalizations.

It is reassuring to know she believes "citizens" don't understand the law. The more elitists we put in power, the less we'll have to worry our pretty little heads.

By questioning her on specific issues dear to their hearts, aren't these Republican Senators showing how their beliefs clearly affect their decisions?

Progressivepiphany@Kinda like the libs, only they don't plan on a filibuster against her based on partisanship, personal destruction and bigotry, like the libs did on Bush appointments.

The line of questioning from the republicans is baseless and has been addressed already. Can they find something relevant to ask her?

what a mess this process has become

Whatever will be the outcome of this hearing,the Hispanics should never forget the insults this lady has borne from the republican Senators.

Judges enforce the law!! Congress (God help us) makes the laws. The President signs the laws. What's so hard about that understanding? Why is it wrong for me to expect a judge to enforce the law – the law is blind – it doesn't put on liberal or conservative glasses and go to work. It follows impassively what the state says. If she doesn't get that, then she's a joke.

Tom Coburn is out of his league with her.

She's a lock.

It seems clear that these Republican hypocrites are aiming to catch Sotomayor in a catch-22, where any response she gives will be the wrong one.

She is responding in the precisely right way by saying the law must examine the specifics of each case. Supreme Justices have profound impacts on the interpretation of the law, and these congressmen are asking for generalizations.

I can't wait for this circus to end, since it's been clear to me for a while, based on looking at her past decisions (and not just the ones publicized by the media for being most controversial) that she is more than qualified for the position.

why can't she just come out and say "Every law abiding American has the right to keep and bear arms for protection and sport, and the state cannot deny that right"?

I think she has a gun control agenda based on her past rulings and statements and refusal to answer Sen. Coburn's question.

These Republicans, with their absurd line of questioning, are absolutely disgusting!

Funny how those same rethuglicans grilling her also helped along with bush and cheyney to DESTROY this country and they are worried about a comment she made. Why do rethuglicans hate this country so much? It's not country first for them, it's COUNTRY last.