Sotomayor for the Supreme Court

[netmouse]

btw, regarding the Supreme Court nomination, RH realitycheck writes:

Sotomayor's trail of opinions paints a picture of a fair-minded, incisive legal scholar who is unafraid to stake out unpopular but legally meritorious positions. Right-wingers are going to oppose her nomination with full force - we would be foolish to do it for them.

I quite agree with that last bit. With regard to her history, I still don't know a lot, but the NYT article has a lot of links, here's a bit on the empathy thing, and here's Obama's own video about it.

ETA: comments lead me to read this Salon.com discussion by Greenwald, which is also good and contains links to more material relevant to the topic.

Comments

[tlatoani.livejournal.com]

I'm concerned about her beliefs on abortion rights, as (1) we've never seen her directly rule on it, and (2) she's yet another Catholic and the official position of her church is obviously anti-Choice.

[spacecrab.livejournal.com]

Are you convinced by Obama? I'm not so sure.
See Avedon's comments here. Yes, the Republicans
are blasting Sotomayor, but I'm inclined to agree with
Avedon's analysis that it's, um, a sideshow.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

I've heard, and not yet found details, that she's been reversed "a lot". Until I know something about the cases and her rulings (always assuming there's anything at all to it) I don't know what that means. It suggests (granting it's true for the moment) that she's either not good, or else out of the legal mainstream in her decisions. The second wouldn't have to mean I didn't support her, of course. Anyway, still looking for substantiation and details.

Being on the Supreme Court means never being reversed by a higher court, after all.

[troubleinchina.livejournal.com]

*waves hello* Hi! I was that person who kept randomly introducing herself to you because you looked awesome, but I kept forgetting that I already had (woe for ConBrain).