I could easily rename the blog, “Janus states what should be obvious to everyone but apparently isn’t.”

The fact that the focus of the debate is centered on race is hardly surprising, although it is disappointing.

However, I will disagree with your assertation that the correct question is “Is she the best qualified person for the job?” on the grounds that that is a highly subjective judgement that we could argue endlessly about with no resolution. The purpose of the vetting process is to decide whether she is qualified for the position, period. And while some people may question her judicial record, she is by far the most experienced jurist to be nominated to the Supreme Court in quite a while.

I personally think that she is an interesting choice for Obama, and one fitting in with most of his other nominations, in that she is a Washington outsider, and one from a background that gives her insight into the portion of the populace that many feel have been left behind by politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Chason,

I have to respectfully disagree with you.

From my perspective one can take a very objective and mostly nonpartisan look at perhaps the most fundamental aspect of being “qualified” to be a justice in the highest court in the land: does this nominee believe that they should be an umpire who can make decisions based upon the law and the constitution (independent of their own ideology) or does this person instead believe that they should seek specific ends, including crossing over into the Constitutional turf of the legislative branch spelled out in Article 1?

Sonia Sotomayer may have experience being a judge but I strongly argue that her public statements show that she solidly believes in judicial activism. Furthermore, her own controversial statements about the significance of her ethnicity and gender suggest that she would decide constitutionality differently based upon the ethnicity/gender of the people appearing before her in court – an affront to constitutional equal-protection principles.

She is not willing to remain in her [one third] branch of our constitutional government.

I’d like to make clear before I continue that I am in no way shape or form a Constitutional scholar, and am not intimately familiar with the specific cases of judicial activism that have been occurring since the Marshall court.

I don’t think that you can apply a strict constructionist philosophy to our Constitution as it is written. It is a purposefully vague document that was meant by at least some of our founders (including Alexander Hamilton) to constantly evolve according to the needs and values of the times. Additionally, I would argue that judicial activism has served a very important purpose enabling the Judicial branch to participate in balancing the powers of the Legislative and Executive branches from overextending their reach. I think this is supported by the fact that there has been no Constitutional amendment clarifying the role of the Judiciary, and as far as I know, no such amendment has ever been seriously debated by the Legislature. The “umpire” analogy frequently used by proponents of Judicial restraint is inapplicable IMHO — the rules of sports are clearly defined, undemocratic, and limited in scope as opposed to the rules of law which are vaguely defined, philosophically bound to the principles of equal rights and access, and incredibly complex and broad in scope.

As far as Judge Sotomayer’s public statements suggesting that she would decide constitutionality based upon race or gender, where you see a potential violation of equal protection, I see a desire to to make sure that the laws and regulations put forth by the Legislative and Executive branches do not tread upon the egalitarian and democratic basis of the Constitution. It is all too easy to read into the Constitution ones own opinion and disregard other’s interpretations as inaccurate (from an activist or a restrained perspective). What we need is more justices who recognize that the laws of this country need to be held to the highest standards of both the letter AND the spirit of the Constitution.

I’m sorry for the lengthy post, but thank you for the interesting debate.

Sorry to add to an already lengthy comment, but I felt obliged to link this page of prominent decisions by Judge Sotomayor: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/

With a jurist of Sotomayor’s experience, I think more important than looking at her personal opinions (something more relevant to previous nominees who had a limited case background), is looking at her rulings as a standing judge. And I actually think that her rulings go against many people’s opinions of her. I am only partway through the list but she seems to have a history of fair, impartial rulings with a strong legal backing. But in any case, you should read the link and decide for yourself.

I think she’s perfectly fine, except that she belongs to La Raza, the Hispanic racist organization. It’s like a white nominee being a member of the KKK. I’m sure that’s something that can be worked around but it is a bit disturbing, the last thing we need on the highest court in the land is a racist of *ANY* color.

Bah, the supreme court is a tarnish on our government. It’s full of a bunch of megalomaniacs, who aren’t elected, and (as evident by so many 5-4 decisions) person political partisanship ALWAYS influences the outcome of cases. Nobody is qualified to be on that court because it was never intended to wield the power it now does. I oppose her appointment because I disagree with a number of her past rulings, simple as that. I’m not going to pretend it’s about some higher calling to Constitutional integrity (that went out the window decades ago.) I think she’ll make liberal decisions that I’ll disagree with, therefore I oppose her appointment, and anyone who pretends that they support or oppose her because of some ‘higher’ cause are either naive, fooling themselves, or consciously misrepresenting their motivations. Simple as that.

@Cephus Can you explain to me how “La Raza” (and you’ll have to be more specific, do you mean the National Council of La Raza?) is a racist organization on the same level as the KKK? As far as I’m aware, the largest criticism that can be leveled at them (the NCLR) is that they are similar to the NAACP.

@Andrew Clunn Which past rulings do you disagree with, specifically? I linked above to a list of her prominent rulings, including the ones that she wrote the opinion on, and they seemed to be a healthy mix of judicial restraint and clear headed legal thinking. I found very little for conservatives to be angry about, but not being a conservative myself, it’s hard for me to say.

Chason, well of course there’s Ricci v. DeStefano, but everyone points to that one. I doubt I need to reiterate the issues many people have with that case, as I’m sure you already know them. I also notice that the article that you linked to doesn’t mention Flamer v. City of White Plains. This was a case where Sotomayor upheld the ‘right’ of a religious establishment to display religious iconography in a public park. This may seem ‘Conservative’ to you, but bear in mind that this site is called “The Secular Conservative” and so public intrusion by religious establishments is looked down on here.
Also, in Ford v. McGinnis, she goes one step further by stating that religious freedom mandates special treatment in the form of a provided feast. This is a gross abuse the First Amendment. Religious freedom is meant to allow expression of an individual’s faith, not guarantee that the State provide for their religious ceremonies. This kind of Statist attitude is reflected in a number of her other rulings such as Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush. This case is pulled directly from your article where her opinion is quoted as saying that the government, “is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position.” Now I am pro-life myself, but wince when does the government have the right to enact policies favoring one stance or the other without legislation? Oh that’s right, ever since Roe v. Wade decided that democracy couldn’t be trusted with handling this sensitive issue, but I digress.
I have purposefully mentioned cases that (on their face) might appear to be ones that would endear her to Conservatives if we merely looked at it from the false dichotomy of right and left. At its heart, my Conservatism is a respect for free markets and the democratic process (though, yes I know we have a Republic.) As such, I do not support justices that would:
1) Use the bench to expand the realm of, powers of, or responsibilities of government.
2) When presented with a law that they view as unjust, believe that they have the right to interpret the law however they see fit, rather than rely on elected officials to do their job.
I have given up on anyone avoiding #2 (As I point out in my previous post,) but she also fails on issue #1. Now that isn’t to say that I don’t have other standards (Of course I do) but these are the ones that Sotomayor fails in my opinion.

Yet the NAACP is also racist, in the sense that they seek to promote the interests of people of a particular skin color over those of other colors. Groups like La Raza and MEChA are just as bad, especially since both seek to overrule our current immigration laws and allow anyone, regardless of legal status, access to taxpayer-funded medical, educational and social programs with absolutely no repercussions whatsoever.

So yes, they’re absolutely racist and anyone who wants to represent the interests of America, such as someone who promises to uphold the Constitution, needs to be seriously looked at if they’re a member of organizations that seek to tear down the laws of this nation.