Comments Related To: Introducing your next Supreme Court Justice, Sonia "Chainsaw" Sotomayor

A good, fair-minded article that debates the issues with her appointment. Thanks!

Hey..dollars to donuts she's gotta be better than that lady Dubya
wanted to put on the bench! What's her name..Harriet or something?

She'll be confirmed. The signal that would be sent to Latino voters by ganging up on and rejecting the first Latina ever nominated to the Supreme Court would be too devastating. And remember, she'll also benefit from being a woman.

Bush's pick was Harriet Miers.

That's the one Mike! I seem to remember she had barely half the
experience & credentials of Sonia? Yesterdays news I suppose in a world
full of "selective memory"!

Actually, the less "legal" experience as taught in our law schools for the past 50 years, the better. That way, whoever is appointed might actually consider reading the Constitution, before writing their opinion - rather than reading case law studies from university professors, or consulting international law. The experience shouldn't matter so much - a short record that is Constitutionally sound is much better than a long one that isn't, since EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL JUDGE from the lowest to the highest is bound by oath to the Constitution. The fact that some of these cases get to the appellate courts in and of themselves just goes to show that the lower federal judges aren't doing their jobs, or that no juries were involved in the determinations - since one the "facts" are placed before a jury, the courts are precluded from re-examining any jury determined case.

And that is why lawyers hate jury trials - it doesn't get them as much revenue for the appeal process - which is what they live for, wringing as much dough out of every single case as possible - and in the process the courts have become a revenue stream for the legal profession most of all, where there is little justice, and much politics.

This was a political manuever, and Obama is the ultimate politican. He got a great many people to vote for him, didn't he? And he has done absolutely nothing but continue the Bush policies most of all, other than his move to close Guantanamo. Other than that, he is actually a worse version of Bush, than Bush, if that is possible.

Ross, you are correct in that this nomination was more political than a selection based on whether she will judge according to the Constitution or not. Obama is the ultimate politician, and he is taking advantage of many voting classes that don't have a clue or the political acumen to see him for what he really is. I will disagree with you on one point - at least Bush kept us save for the past 7 years.. The jury is still out on Obama in this regard.

Kept us safe? The 9/11 attacks came nearly eight months into his administration. You're giving him a pass on that, but you're all over Obama, who hasn't even had five months to turn around Bush's economy yet.

I'll agree Bush kept us safe -- from something that happened on his watch and had never happened before he was president.

Mike, Obama's Foreign Policy style is reverting back to a pre 9/11 mentality when Democrats cut defense spending. Bill Clinton Had Osama Bin Laden in his back pocket and decided not to pursue him. It is the same style that the Obama administration is employing. Releasing memos on terror tactics used during the Bush 43 years while we are still at war is not my idea of a strong Defense Policy. I believe that history will show that under the circumstances, President Bush did a credible job keeping me & you safe during the past 7 years.

I disagree with you that Bush "kept" us safe. Since I'm a 45 year Arizona resident, there has been more lives lost in the border states since the Reagan amnesty than those in 9/11. And if those borders had been secured under Bush after 9/11, then the lives that have since been lost wouldn't have been. And since 9/11 was the first real mass murder by foreigners in this country since World War II, I don't think its been Bush policies that kept us safe, in fact we are more at risk now than ever before since instead of securing our borders, Bush provided Visa waivers for citizens from over 34 different countries, including North Korea and Great Britain (home of the shoe bomber).

I think you may be a little naive and not clued in on what is going on at our Southwestern borders, if you believe Bush kept us safe. Many Arizonans would disagree, I for one - and thousands of others - including the families of many of the victims and those who have lost their homes due to the escalating property and auto theft rings and drug cartels that operate almost unabated, since a great many of those "corporate" interests also make sums from the drug trade - including the legal "industry," - the immigration and criminal lawyers there.

Ross, I will agree that most of the country is somewhat naive and not clued in to what is going on in the Southwest Border states. Thanks in part to the mainstream Media. They will not make this front page news because they are part of the liberal establishment in this country that wants no part of a Border fence and would prefer to give illegal immigrants amnesty. The Bush administration tried to pass legislation to erect about 700 miles of border fencing but was met with strong opposition by the Democrats who want to get in bed with the Hispanic community by showing that they opposed to building this fence that would keep them on the other side of the border. May I also point out, that your wonderful ex-Governor, Janet Napoletano, thought there was no problem with border violence or that there was a National security issue. Even now as, Director of Homeland Security, she has basically turned her back and looked the other way on this issue. So you can include Arizonans as those that are at fault by simply allowing your ex governor to treat the problem with kid gloves...This should not be about a blame game, this should be about empowering people and electing politicians that want to make a difference and them holding them accountable..