Sotomayor Hearings: Winners and Losers? Our Experts Weigh In.

re: Sotomayor Hearings: Winner and Losers? Our Experts Weigh In

Dredd — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:56:38 GMT

One thing to keep in mind: the federal judiciary has more conservative judges than at any time since the 1930's ... and Sotomayor is just a wee bit to the right of the Justice she is replacing, Souter.

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/05/conservative-judiciary-vs-obama.html

re: Sotomayor Hearings: Winners and Losers? Our Experts Weigh In.

John Dough — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:00:04 GMT

Newsweek your bias is showing - quit gushing over the dems and their choice and report the facts. When GOP Judges have been nominated you've been on the attack assaulting them and hailing democrats for theri due diligence to "grill" nominees. You in journalism wonder why your numbers and business are fading need only look at your own biases for it. The left wing media acts like the Soviet controlled media but you do it on your own. That is why Fox News is flourishing.

re: Sotomayor Hearings: Winners and Losers? Our Experts Weigh In.

sieg6529 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:23:38 GMT

Sotomayor is more conservative than Souter, who she is replacing. Why are conservatives complaining? Take your winnings as they are!

re: Sotomayor Hearings: Winners and Losers? Our Experts Weigh In.

mulkey — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:57:25 GMT

agree with John Doe; the only way the Democrats can do any wrong is by wishing for even more liberalism? Good lord, then why even allow Republicans to speak?

re: Sotomayor Hearings: Winners and Losers? Our Experts Weigh In.

Lee Holmes — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:59:19 GMT

Yeah, leave it to acute legal minds like Finemans [ insert: Frankenian ''deadpan'' here],who blast the GOP before the hearings as ''losers'' if they ''go after Sotomayor'' and then calling them ''losers'' for not doing so.[suumbuddie needs to get Fineman a jackass water trough turned upside down on KOs COUNTDOWN instead of the wellworn chair he usually occupies].

This said, we may expect Sotomayor to be more liberal in property rights cases as her record proves, tougher in ''law and order'' cases [ rejecting death penalty appeals for one instance],with more neutrality shown to minority or AA rights after the spotlight shone on her in RICCI. Rather than a ''Souter'' she may well become more a Stevens or Kennedy.

re: Sotomayor Hearings: Winners and Losers? Our Experts Weigh In.

paulte — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:54:39 GMT

The bottom line is that her inevitable nomination is probably a slight win for conservatives. She is replacing a total deadbeat, dishonest liberal in Souter, so she can be no wrose! She probably took a few notes on the New Haven firemen and her wise Latina remark and sees the death of affirmative action. Her rulings on abortion have been conservative and she has a Catholic background, so it is possible that she may be a surprise on this issue in the same way (but opposite direction) that Souter was. Pro-Lifers will be praying endless rosaries for this to happen.

Also, Hispanics tend to be liberal on economic issues but conservative on social issues. The only foreseeable problem with Sotomayor is her opinion on the death penalty which is clearly against it but this is still a wash in terms of the deadbeat, dishonest liberal (Soter) whom she is replacing.

re: Sotomayor Hearings: Winners and Losers? Our Experts Weigh In.

doggett314 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:10:51 GMT

How many fictional characters who are lawyers normally get mentioned in hearings for Supreme Court justice? How many of them serve as inspirations to young people resultling in them serving as a prosecutor and later a Supreme Count nominee? Just being inclulded in this current conversation makes Perry Mason a winner. If Katie and Holly had read as many Perry Mason mysteries as I did many years ago, there is no way they could make a mistake and label him a loser.

re: Sotomayor Hearings: Winners and Losers? Our Experts Weigh In.

geneg61 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:09:32 GMT

You forgot Jeff Sessions. I'd say he was the biggest loser, came across as deaf (how many times did she answer the same questions from him?), racist (how dare a Latina characterize herself as wise), and in the final "crack cocaine" comment demonstrated beautifully Sotomayor's point about being taken out of context.

re: Sotomayor Hearings: Winners and Losers? Our Experts Weigh In.

carybeas — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:11:09 GMT

I voted for Barack Obama because I share more of his views about what is good for this country than any other candidate. I would not vote for Sarah Palin because I do not share her political views but I do not agree with those who are demonizing her. Had Sarah Palin made a comment that Senator Jefferson Smith from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was her inspiration in the same vein that Judge Sotomayor (who I think is a good person and good candidate for the Supreme Court) did, Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman would have had a fit and ridiculed her. The obvious double standard which exists is laughable. The media in this country must return to civil discourse without rancor or we will never again achieve the stature of a great country! And we as good citizens must stop watching and stop buying their publications or it will never come about.

re: Sotomayor Hearings: Winners and Losers? Our Experts Weigh In.

John Jeter — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:28:31 GMT

Jeff Sessions. How could you have neglected him. Loser.

Lindsay Graham. Charismatic?

Grandstanding Old South wealthy white men with narrow worldviews ... showed less of the *Honorable* Judge Sotomayor and more of their biases than America ever wanted or needed.

Thanks for ... what, exactly?

re: Sotomayor Hearings: Winners and Losers? Our Experts Weigh In.

ed c — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 23:13:26 GMT

biggest loser? easily sessions, who came across as thick headed, racist and wildly hypocritical....please remember that he was rejected for his bias when he came before this same committee seeking approval as a federal judge.......he is a pathetic comic book character...only in america