Here is a New York Times editorial opinion about Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I agree with the board that she should be confirmed. If she isn't qualified to serve on the nation's highest court, then nobody is. I do find the following paragraph of the opinion interesting, even disturbing:
In her rulings, Judge Sotomayor has repeatedly displayed the empathy Mr. Obama has said he is looking for in a justice. She has listened attentively to, and often ruled in favor of, people who have been discriminated against, defendants and other groups that are increasingly getting short shrift in the federal courts. She has shown little patience for the sort of procedural bars that conservative judges have been using to close the courthouse door on people whose rights have been violated.
Three comments. First, is the board implying that some judges (who?) don't "listen attentively to . . . people who have been discriminated against"? What an appalling and insulting accusation! Second, what's this business about Judge Sotomayor "often ruling in favor of" people who have been discriminated against? Did she rule in their favor when the law wasn't on their side? If so, then she was legislating rather than judging. In other words, she was acting lawlessly. If she was ruling in their favor when the law was on their side, why does that show that she has empathy? Isn't she simply applying the law? It's all very confusing. Third, there are reasons other than conservative ideology for various "procedural bars," such as standing, ripeness, and mootness. These doctrines were not invented by conservatives and can be justified on nonideological grounds. Does the board believe that anyone with a grievance has a right to scarce judicial resources? If so, then we're going to need a hell of a lot more judges, jurors, courtrooms, bailiffs, and clerks.
