Thread: Sotomayor declared 'unqualified to serve'

LAW OF THE LAND

Sotomayor declared 'unqualified to serve'

Pro-life leader: She "does not understand or respect appropriate role of a judge'

Posted: July 17, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Judge Sonia Sotomayor

A pro-life leader blasted Judge Sonia Sotomayor's record and judicial philosophy today, telling the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary she is "unqualified to serve" on the Supreme Court and "does not understand or respect the appropriate role of a judge."

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, the nation's oldest pro-life legal organization, told the committee Sotomayor's judicial philosophy is "far outside of the mainstream" and that her confirmation will radically shift the dynamics of the Supreme Court.

Yoest said the role of a Supreme Court justice is to exercise restraint by applying the law and not direct policy.

"When judges fail to respect their limited role under our Constitution, their decisions merely reflect their personal preferences regarding public policy," she said.

As a prime example of a Supreme Court ruling that remains "on shaky ground" with regard to the Constitution, Yoest referenced Roe vs. Wade, the landmark abortion ruling in 1973. She said Americans United for Life does not expect Sotomayor to state whether she would overturn the abortion decision, though Sotomayor previously said she saw Roe vs. Wade as "settled law."

However, she said, "[W]e believe that Americans should know whether Judge Sotomayor is able to recognize the problems with Roe and its progeny."

Yoest warned that a nominee's judicial philosophy is a critical factor in considering an individual's qualification to serve on the court.

She said, "Based on many of Judge Sotomayor's past statements and the extreme arguments made in the (Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund) abortion briefs, AUL believes that her judicial philosophy makes her unqualified to serve on the Supreme Court."

While President Obama's statements about wanting a justice who possesses empathy and varied life experiences are not intrinsically problematic, she said, "[I]t is fundamentally inappropriate for a justice on the Supreme Court to decide cases based on these attributes rather than the written law. What Americans need to know is whether Judge Sotomayor is capable of deciding cases based on constitutional principles, regardless of whether she empathizes with plaintiffs or defendants."


AUL President Charmaine Yoest (photo: AUL)

Yoest continued, "In light of many of Judge Sotomayor's statements, we are deeply concerned that she does not understand or respect the appropriate role of a judge."

She referenced Sotomayor's 2001 lecture, "A Latina Judge's Voice," in which the judge argued that facts and applicable law in a case are not sufficient to reach a decision. Instead, Sotomayor emphasized personal viewpoints and experience: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Yoest said Sotomayor, who serves on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, later implied that as a judge, she does not choose to see all of the facts in cases before her: "Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. … I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

Throughout the week, Sotomayor has said her "wise Latina" comments were a poor choice of words.

"I regret that I have offended some of you," she said.

While Sotomayor stated in her 2001 lecture that "[t]he aspiration to impartiality is just that – it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others," Yoest said impartiality should never be reduced to a mere aspiration.

"It is a discipline, and its necessity is enshrined in the judicial oath," she said. "A judge who applies the law to all of the relevant facts in a case and avoids selectively favoring one litigant over another, ensures equal protection under the law. A judge who injects personal experiences into a decision does the opposite."

In the 12 years that Judge Sotomayor served as a governing board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the organization filed six amicus briefs in five abortion-related cases before the Supreme Court. Previously, Sotomayor told Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., she wasn't aware of what was said in those briefs.

"I didn't review the briefs," she told Graham. "I did know that the fund had a health care docket that included challenges to certain limitations on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy under certain circumstances."

But Yoest said AUL believes that the legal arguments advanced in those briefs reflect the judge's personal views.

"It is difficult to imagine that a member of the board of a legal organization that has staked out a pro-abortion advocacy agenda, who was 'an ardent supporter of their … legal efforts,' would not agree with the organization's decision to sign onto amicus briefs in major Supreme Court cases, and she has provided no evidence to the contrary," Yoest said.

The six briefs expressed a consistent position that abortion was a fundamental right and that any regulation of abortion is subject to strict scrutiny, she argued.

"Notably, the positions taken by the PRLDEF during Judge Sotomayor's service indicate that Sotomayor's support of abortion rights is more extreme than that of retiring Justice David Souter," Yoest said. "… Justice Souter voted repeatedly to uphold laws such as those placing limits on taxpayer funding for abortion, those providing for informed consent, and those providing for parental notification – which polls show are supported by at least 70 percent of the American public – whereas the PRLDEF, during Judge Sotomayor's service, consistently argued that such common sense regulations were unconstitutional."

Yoest warned that, as a Supreme Court justice, Sotomayor would "shape judicial decisions to suit her policy preferences."

"When you couple her judicial-interventionist philosophy with her support for the radical arguments made by the PRLDEF in abortion-related cases, Judge Sotomayor's presence on the United States Supreme Court surely would prove disastrous for virtually all abortion regulations passed by popularly elected representatives in the states," she said.

Yoest told the committee that Americans only want justices who disavow politics and uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.

"[A] careful analysis of Judge Sotomayor's positions taken in the PRLDEF briefs and of her judicial philosophy clearly indicate that as a justice, she would not respect the will of the people or their elected representatives, or even our written Constitution," Yoest said. "Such views, unless explicitly disavowed under oath by Judge Sotomayor, disqualify her to serve on the United States Supreme Court."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104170

"I regret that I have offended some of you," she said.

Yea...she "regrets" if she has offended us, but she didn't say she regrets saying it! Calling it a "poor choice of words" does not mean she rejects the belief or idology the words she spoke were meant to convey!

Yeah she is unqualified, all the more reasons for these idiots to want her in.........there are SO many of them who are unqualified to serve in their positions too .