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.

@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.

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 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.

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.

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.