May 27th, 2009
02:46 PM ET
13 years ago

Cafferty: GOP dare vote against first Hispanic SCOTUS nominee?

[cnn-photo-caption image= caption="Judge Sonia Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic U.S. Supreme Court justice if confirmed."]Republicans are in yet another tough spot – this one when it comes to the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States. Chalk up another brilliant bit of political strategy to our new president.

President Obama’s nominee would be the first Hispanic justice — and only the third woman justice — in the history of the nation’s highest court.

Conservative critics are branding her as a liberal activist judge, and are pointing to her past comments. In 2001, Sotomayor said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Full story

Filed under: Sonia Sotomayor • Supreme Court
soundoff (73 Responses)
  1. Hammer

    The media is pushing the fact that if the Republicans oppose Sotomayor that the Latin will not vote for Republican, which would indicate that they think that congress should vote for whoever will generate the most votes and ignore the issues envolved or to do what is right no matter the consequence. That is the way the government has been operated for years and now the congressmen and women will do anything for a vote. That is true with both parties.

    May 27, 2009 03:56 pm at 3:56 pm |
  2. Ralph

    Siince when does personal experience overrule the constitution?

    May 27, 2009 03:56 pm at 3:56 pm |
  3. Puff the Magic Dragon

    Whats with all the Angry White Men chiming in calling Ms Sotermayor a racist? Rush and Gingrich really should get a grip. An adulter and a pillhead....really!! Who are they to cast stones?

    Where is John McCain? Surely he wont let this opportunity slide by, to pipe up with his two cents worth in the fine company of these two GOP intellectuals... Hannity and Billy Boy wont be far behind, I'm sure, to jump on this racist bandwagon.

    May 27, 2009 03:57 pm at 3:57 pm |
  4. Mike in Philly

    You can't be a "reverse" racist; you can only be a racist. It can either be for or against a race. That race can either be a minority, or in the majority. Regardless, it's still racism – nothing "reverse" about it. Sheesh.

    But sure, they can oppose her. I expect them to. Partially because they're the other party, and that's what you reflexively do. Partly because they probably have a point, at least as far as questioning her .. as they are supposed to question any nominee.

    May 27, 2009 03:57 pm at 3:57 pm |
  5. Mark in Vegas

    Newt is right, she should withdraw with that racist comment about a white man's life experiences compared to a Latino. BTW, what does life experiences have anything to do with being a judge? You inforce the law, you don't legislate from the bench, i.e. liberal activism.
    Racism comes in all colors folks, but it seems the MSM won't call a spade a spade when it happens to one of their own.

    May 27, 2009 03:57 pm at 3:57 pm |
  6. John Janski

    Every notice when Jack walks he leans way to the left? Jack, your a liberal propagandist. No wonder you work at CNN.

    Typical that you would let Sotomoyar get away with blantantly racist statements. This woman is a disaster. She has not right to be on the Supreme Court of the US with her understanding of the role of the judicary.

    May 27, 2009 03:59 pm at 3:59 pm |
  7. mike

    They should absolutely challenge her. While you note her two comments in 2001 and 2003, you (and the ENTIRE confirmation committee) should pay more attention to the handling of the New Haven fireman case. That is racism and activism straight from the bench that doesn't require additional context to plainly see.

    May 27, 2009 03:59 pm at 3:59 pm |
  8. Doug, New Jersey

    "Siince when does personal experience overrule the constitution?"

    When you are a liberal Democrat who is void of ever being honest, fair and objective.

    Keep in mind these are the same people who believe tolerance is telling someone that becuase their skin is a certain shade that they are not allowed to form their own views, beliefs, and ideology, just refer to their comments about Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and Micheal Steele.

    May 27, 2009 04:02 pm at 4:02 pm |
  9. james

    @Kevin in Ohio:

    You use Bork as a symbol of Democrats being foot draggers? Bork was the biggest quack that we could have had on the supreme court. He believed (and changed his story in the hearings) that free speech only appllied to political speech, equal protection didn't apply to women...etc.....

    Talk about an "activist" judge..

    May 27, 2009 04:02 pm at 4:02 pm |
  10. John Janski

    I get kick out of all the naive libs posting in support of this radical woman. Should she be confirmed, ( I pray she is not), it will be ironic to see the those who support her react when her rulings prevent their more qualified kids from getting that job that ends up going to a less qualified minority. Be careful what you wish for.

    May 27, 2009 04:05 pm at 4:05 pm |
  11. james

    @Mark in Vegas:

    Judges don't "enforce" the law, that's the job of the executive branch. The supreme court interprets the law. There's a large difference there, which may be why you claim judicial activism where it doesn't exist.

    May 27, 2009 04:05 pm at 4:05 pm |
  12. Polar Bears Against Palen

    Now, report back to Boss Limbaugh all you right-wing, torture loving war mongers. You are the racists and you know it. What a bunch of phoney hypocrites. You scum destroyed the world the past 8 years. Now, you're foolish enough to pull this stunt.

    Just out of curiosity, why aren't some of you flag waving right-wing water carriers in Iraq right now fight Bush and Cheney's lie of a war? Well? Answer me?

    May 27, 2009 04:05 pm at 4:05 pm |
  13. FORMER republican, NEVER again!

    Don't republicans ever get tired of the hate, narrow mindedness, intolerance and evilness? I sure did, that is why i will NEVER be a republican again! I thank God every day he opened my eyes. I am now a PROUD DEMOCRAT.

    May 27, 2009 04:06 pm at 4:06 pm |
  14. Fort Lauderdale

    Ethnicity is not the basis on which to choose a Supreme Court nominee. In fact, the choice of Sotomayor is a political choice, meant to solidify Hispanic support for Democrats in future elections. That is transparent, and on that basis, it is worthy of criticism.

    The best and most qualified candidate with the strongest judgment and reasoning powers should be chosen for the highest court. Both parties have been guilty of politicizing the bench, thereby downgrading the level of justices and overall of the Supreme Court as an institution.

    Sotomayor may stand on her credentials or not. If not, then she should not be approved.

    May 27, 2009 04:07 pm at 4:07 pm |
  15. Chris

    RE: Dreamer

    Given your inability to spell, perhaps your struggle is as great as hers!

    Good luck to you.

    May 27, 2009 04:08 pm at 4:08 pm |
  16. Lou

    Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich should give it up move to Vermont and have their marriage legalized. They should run for office… put out or shut up.....

    This two morons calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist is so laughable that borderlines in the absurd.

    Does anyone have any duck tape big enough for their mouths…This is what the GOP have? this is the best they can do? It’s ridiculous….

    May 27, 2009 04:08 pm at 4:08 pm |
  17. Common Sense 09

    Inspite her race, she's still a qualified nominee who was first nominated by a republican, then second by a democrat and now another democrat! Meaning she's well respected for her work by both parties...looks like a shoe in to me! The only possible problem now is, Obama is nominating so there may be problem because it's him....strange but that's how the "Party of No" has been doing it...therefore Cafferty is definitely right!

    May 27, 2009 04:09 pm at 4:09 pm |
  18. confused

    Republicans' isn't the constitution built with the racist and sexist mentality of its authors. I guess someone had to be an activist to change the constitution and that is why there are a huge number of amendments in the constitution.

    May 27, 2009 04:09 pm at 4:09 pm |
  19. Matt

    Stop taking these quotes out of context! This isn't a racist remark, it is a remark on the striking socio-economic disparities in life experience.

    Perhaps if CNN could stop regurgitating sound bites and talking points and actually provide objective and thoughtful reporting and analysis like a responsible news organization should, we would all be better informed and make more educated decisions.

    May 27, 2009 04:10 pm at 4:10 pm |
  20. mw

    Gingrich spreading hate speech. Needs to shut up. Sit down. Go away. Apologize for hatefulness. When are the old white men in politics going to get over themselves. Spreading hate, lies, arrogance is no way to win and influrence intelligent people. Now Buchanan is acting like an ass just like newt, rush, mike h., hannity, cheney, and such hate speeck ilk.

    May 27, 2009 04:11 pm at 4:11 pm |
  21. Sharon

    Gingrich needs to stop all of this. Republican Party is in trouble!!! Party just needs to start doing business. Stop these same ole' vicious attacks.

    Judge Sotomayoer is a good choice, I feel. She also has bi-partisan support. And she was first chose by first President Bush, then appointed higher by President Clinton. Now President Obama has chosen her for higher position.

    I am Republican, but getting very tired of the actions of my party.

    May 27, 2009 04:11 pm at 4:11 pm |
  22. Madison

    How quickly we forget the nomination of Harriet Miers? Her highest accomplishment at the time was a clerk!?!? for the US Chief Judge of a district court of Texas.This is the (Cronyism) affirmitive action that I am familiar with by the GOP.
    You object to sheer qualifications? Sotomayor graduated from Princeton University summa cum laude and from Yale Law School. She has spent 17 years on the federal bench, longer than either John Roberts or Samuel Alito had served before they ascended to the Supreme Court.
    HIspanic, woman or whatever. She is more than qualified.

    May 27, 2009 04:12 pm at 4:12 pm |
1 2 3