"Why couldn't he pick some liberal judge who had no anti-honky skeletons in her/his closet? That would have been painless."

He had enough trouble just finding people that paid their taxes...

How, pray tell, is Sotomayor ever going to be able to write up a legal decision if she is unable to make her sentences say what she means them to first time round? Is there a fancy latin term for "what I meant by that was …" for her to add to the end of her rulings?

The deeper issue is the fact that Sotomayor is Obama's first choice for this appointment, considering she fits the profile of his horde of honky-hating friends.

Why couldn't he pick some liberal judge who had no anti-honky skeletons in her/his closet? That would have been painless.

An activist judge makes legal decisions based on the desire to create an outcome in line with their personal preferences (ie. empathy). A non-activist judge makes legal decisions based on the applicable law.

An activist judge applies the law as it "should" be written. A non-activist judge applies the law as it actually is written.

Folks, unconstitutional laws should be overturned by the court. Bad (but constitutional) laws should lead to bad outcomes. Good laws should lead to good outcomes. If you don't like the outcome, change the LAW via the elected legislature. The court should merely apply and interpret the existing law within the bounds of the Constitution. Barring a Constitutional conflict, the judge should just weigh the facts and apply the law as it is written.

When we expect judges' "empathy" and "desired outcomes" to rule, we give dangerous power to an unelected court. This is the power that allowed Jim Crow laws and separate but equal laws (both contrary to equal protection under the Constitution) to stand while we waited for public opinion to influence the court or new judge appointments to change the court's "empathy." How much sooner would public opinion have changed if those laws were struck down as unconstitutional (which they clearly were), and the only way to keep them would have been amending the Constitution? That would have required the public to actively choose to contradict the idea of equal protection. Instead the public was allowed to passively ignore the problem.

if she meant to say "people have different backgrounds but that there is only one law", but she actually said "wise Latina woman" could reach a "better" decision than a white male, which has nothing to do with the phrase, then she is too stupid to on the supreme court.

Not sure if this is right, but I think Joyce was asserting that, in her perceptions, the bench wasn't wearing its blindfold. She didn't say she didn't like the ruling - she said it was wrong.
Speaking for myself, I don't "support" or "not support" any particular judge. A judge is a judge, and is supposed to make decisions and rulings within strict black and white boundaries of the law, period. Not being a lawyer or even remotely knowledgeable of law, I am at the mercy of the court, so I try my best to keep out of them.

If Sotomayor is confirmed, as I expect her to be, will she recuse herself from the Supreme Court hearing of the Ricci vs. DeStefano case? Because she has already heard it, and her decision is part of the opinion being appealed, wouldn't it be the proper thing to do to recuse herself from hearing it? (I wonder if any senator will have the gumption to ask her this?)
Surely it's happened before, that a new Supreme Court justice is faced with a case he/she has decided on a lower level. What's the precedent for this?

You people just don't seem to get it - if you are non-white you can not be labeled a racist, we will not demand a public apology or demand that you get fired from you job! This is the American society - so you all must get with the program! Geez, is that so hard to understand!!!

Just in case you're not really clear on the commentment that Judge Sotomayer made, go to: mediamatters.org/columns/20090602003
Thia article will clear up any misconceptions, or down outright lying by either side on the comment that was given.
Who knows, it might be the first time that you can think for yourself about what the Judge said,but at least you get the the whole comment in context word for word!

And just how does Sotomayor explain her membership in "La Raza?"

Thomas Sowell writes a great article about this.

'Sotomayor says that "ultimately" and "completely" a judge should follow the law.'

Bill Ayers, "ultimately" followed the law. But not before he bombed the Capitol in some pissant hippy-gone-bad move. I guess a "professor" ought to be appear "legal" in order to cash a paycheck and buy deodorant so nobody confuses him for the hippy he is.

And what Sotomayor is saying is she'll do what she wants, THE LAW ACCORDING TO THIS LATINA, until she's forced to the table and forced to comply with the law of the land. "Ultimately," but only after she's forced to. (And who, pray tell, is going to force her to do anything?)

The lunatics are in charge, and everyone is watching like it's a t.v. show. And the kids, i.e. voters, can't differentiate between Nickelodeon, American Idol, and "grown up" MSNBC and CNN. (Probably because there is no difference.)

Sotomayor, and Obama, and all of them are going to do what they want.

She's going to say whatever everyone wants to hear so they'll give her the post she wants*

After she's installed on the court, just watch her rulings swing so far to the left that even Ginsburg wets her pants.

Again, I mean.

*Gee, who does that remind me of?

Words, just words.