1) The comment about Latina females vs. white men.
2) The comment about making policy.
3) Her connection to La Raza.

The last could be the most serious when you read what La Raza (the Race) stands for and promotes and how a SCOTUS can square the having been a member.

From what I’ve been able to discover, she’s written roughly 380 opinions. Of those, only 6 were heard by the SCOTUS on appeal. That means that the other 374 were either so solid as to be “not worth an appeal to SCOTUS” or were denied cert by SCOTUS. 374 out of 380 is a pretty good batting average.

Even the case currently before the SCOTUS, Ricci v. DiStefano, is in keeping with Second Circuit precedent. SCOTUS agreed to hear it because other circuits have ruled differently in such cases. That’s how the system works.

It doesn’t merely need explaining. It’s the sort of thing that not only ought to preclude her from a SCOTUS appointment, it ought to get her booted from the bench for unethical behavior. We’ve got local governments saying devout Catholics can’t wear necklaces that advertise their faith when executing their administrative jobs because it might offend a non-Christian, but someone who is actually rendering legal decisions that affect white men gets to make that statement? No, no, a thousand times no! A necessary requirement of justice is that decisions be rendered with as little personal prejudice as possible.

Elections have consequences: the consequence of this one is that we have to fight a bunch of increasingly open racists.

On the other hand, is it a big deal in the sense that it should be used as a rallying cry to remind idependents why Democratic presidents are a bad idea? You betcha.

And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

Alito acknowledged that we are all shaped by our experience as individual people, but he also recognized that his *job* is to apply the law, not to change or bend it to achieve a result. A result caused, perhaps, by relying to much on empathy and not on the correct application of the law.

I have yet to see you post something that didn’t stink to high heaven of whale blubber.

This is really an Achilles heel for this gal coupled with the Ricci case.

Circuit courts do decide precedent on unanswered questions of the law for their circuit. Some provisions of statutes and even the constitution are vague, and some intentionally so. For those in the Constitution that are vague, some invite the courts and Congress to decide what are reasonable searches, for example, but many provisions of statutes are left vague for political reasons so as not to offend a voter and on many cases, but not all as Bork says that courts should simply dismiss the case.

But on some cases they have to make a ruling that does make law.

They should never make policy.
But admittedly, these words are vague.

I think that her record as a judge helps interpret what she meant by her public statement, that and that nervous giggle and wink to the libs that telegraph that they are all in on the joke, ie lie.

I know these people. I was dem party official for 18 yrs and have been a lawyer for loner.

http://www.redstate.com/loganyung/2009/05/28/sotomayor-and-baseball/

But by all means, let us have her explain it.

Sotomayor suggested that appellate courts “make policy”, not “make law.” As I mentioned in my original comment above, I don’t think it unreasonable to consider judicial decisions as “policy” within the law, along the lines of the “balls and strikes” metaphor used by Justice Roberts.

I think you’re right on both counts, however; these are certainly legitimate avenues of inquiry for her confirmation hearings.

The thing about personal experiences is that we all only have one and they are all unique in some way and are “better” and “worse” in various ways.

Sotomayor’s statement was akin to classic racial superiority style racism.

I would like her to be asked what she meant and be given the chance to explain. The comment itself does not bother me really, the comment about using the courts to “make law” bothers me more….Clarence Thomas was dirt poor…. period…. and he was chastised by the left in his nomination. I do not care so much about the background, I do believe justice is blind, so a case before her should not hinder on weather the person is rich, poor, white, black, latina, latino, union worker, non union worker, CEO, or hourly labor… If she can operate that way great…… I will say though, that comment would have gotten her dismissed from a jury pool……so she needs to explain herself.