About Sonia Sotomayor

Published July 14, 2009 | 6:58 pm

Two Faces of Sonia Sotomayor

Statement by Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network.
The first face is the one we know from three decades of her life as a lawyer and judge. The second face is like a mask she donned today, and can only be chalked up to a "confirmation conversion": she is saying things today that are irreconcilable with what she's said for the last 30 years.
She denies to Sen. Graham that she adheres to the Legal Realism school, yet she wrote a law review article embracing it.She tries to dimiss her comment about how her gender and ethnicity determine "the facts [she] choose[s] to see" as a judge, saying she just doesn't "stand by" it.   She says her comments about the "wise Latina" making a better decision than a white male were just a "rhetorical flourish" -- but it is a "flourish" that she used over, and over, and over, in speeches and in writing, over a decade.She tells Sen. Schumer that she will "absolutely . . . commit to the rule of law."   This is a textbook definition of an "empty promise."She says PRLDEF's purpose was to "promote equal opportunity for Hispanics in the United States," and that as a board member she did not review briefs, and was not aware that the fund advocated public funding of abortions.  But she was not just a board member, she was the head of litigation.  She refuses to answer questions about a memo she signed calling the death penalty "racist."

Get The Facts

Learn More Here

What Others Are Saying

  • "President Obama abided by his dismal and lawless ‘empathy’ standard and, in his selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, picked a nominee whom he can count on to indulge her own liberal biases. Sotomayor’s outrageous shenanigans in Ricci v. DeStefano—the case now awaiting a ruling by the Supreme Court in the next four weeks or so—shows what the Obama “empathy” standard means in practice: disfavoring politically incorrect litigants, in this case firefighters who devoted their spare time and their scarce resources to study hard for and pass a promotional exam. See here for more on Sotomayor’s incoherent account of her selective empathy, here for her sorry record of Supreme Court reversals (a record made worse by the Court’s recent reversal of her ruling in the Riverkeepers case), and here for Jeffrey Rosen’s recounting of liberal concerns that Sotomayor just isn’t smart enough."
    Ed Whelan, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center
  • "The problem will soon arise, as it inevitably does for any judge in a court of last resort, of what happens in a particular case when the second factor of limited judicial role impartiality conflicts with empathy? When push comes to shove, will a Justice Sotomayor favor individuals over institutions, employees over corporations, the poor over the rich? My hope is that she will recognize that a judge is supposed to be objective, impartial, free from bias. When it comes to judging, impartiality must trump empathy."
    Justice Raoul Cantero, former Florida Supreme Court Justice
  • "For all the President’s talk of finding ‘common ground,’ this appointment completely contradicts that hollow promise. Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy undermines common ground. She is a radical pick that divides America. She believes the role of the Court is to set policy which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the National Abortion Control Board denying the American people to right to be heard on this critical issue. This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench at a time when the Courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations – supported by the vast majority of Americans – like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance."
    Dr. Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life President & CEO
  • "President Obama's choice of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the U. S. Supreme Court is consistent with his ideological view supporting Supreme Court justices that rule based on personal feelings and political agenda, rather than a strict and disciplined adherence to the rule of law. While, as a woman who has been a lawyer for almost 25 years, I applaud his choice of a woman jurist for a seat on our nation's highest court, this does not allay my concerns about the impact this appointment will have on Supreme Court jurisprudence. It is imperative that our next Supreme Court Justice rule based on the law as it stands, blind to the emotional, cultural, or political appeal of the issues presented."
    Leslie Hiner, Freedom for Educational Choice