Pro-Abortion NOW cheers Sotomayor SCOTUS pick

[LadyEagle]

From NOW web site:

NOW Cheers President Obama's Reported Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court

Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy​

May 26, 2009
This morning we will celebrate, and this afternoon NOW will launch our "Confirm Her" campaign to ensure the swift confirmation of the next Supreme Court Justice.

Nominated to serve as the third woman and first Hispanic on the Supreme Court in the history of the United States, Judge Sotomayor will serve the nation with distinction. She brings a lifelong commitment to equality, justice and opportunity, as well as the respect of her peers, unassailable integrity, and a keen intellect informed by experience. President Obama said he wanted a justice with "towering intellect" and a "common touch" and he found both in Judge Sotomayor.

What more do women want? We want a swift confirmation in the U.S. Senate, and Associate Justice Sotomayor to join Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Court before the Senate's August recess.

 

[OldRegular]

It appears that some abortion apologists on this Forum are cheering her appointment.

 

[saturneptune]

The only thing good one can say about this apppointment is that the damage is limited because a liberal is being replaced with a liberal, with a net effect of zero. What worries me is if one of the four conservative justices have to be replaced before Obama leaves office, or for that matter, swing justice Kennedy.

 

[BigBossman]

I think I have to agree with Saturneptune. Replacing one liberal with another isn't going to change much, but my concern is what if she is even more liberal than her predecessor? The fact that Obama chose her doesn't surprise me.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I think I have to agree with Saturneptune. Replacing one liberal with another isn't going to change much, but my concern is what if she is even more liberal than her predecessor? The fact that Obama chose her doesn't surprise me.

Remember, most of the "liberals" on the SCOTUS were appointed by Republican presidents.

 

[Revmitchell]

Remember, most of the "liberals" on the SCOTUS were appointed by Republican presidents.

Why is that relevant or even meaningful?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Why is that relevant or even meaningful?

Jump up high and stretch out you arms and maybe you can catch the point as it flies over your head.

 

[tinytim]

Hmmm.. I wonder who a conservative would have appointed? OF Course Obama will appoint Libs..

This is why the people against abortion MUST vote for candidates for Pres.. and congress that are against abortion.

Roe V Wade will not be overturned for decades now.

We had our chance.. and blew it... (Well the ones that voted for President Baby Killer blew it)

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Roe V Wade will not be overturned for decades now.

True, but remember even if that were to happen, it would not outlaw abortion. It would give the separate states the ability to regulate it within their own borders. Or not.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I find it interesting so many on this BB say they know how she is going to vote. Here is a quote from the New Hour last night:

TOM GOLDSTEIN: When you think about the big hot-button social issues -- abortion, gay rights, the separation of church and state, the death penalty -- interestingly, while she's on a very important court and has been there for a long time as a judge, those issues really haven't come across her plate in the volume that you might otherwise expect. So we don't have a lot of information.

We have cases that are kind of similar. So, for example, she didn't have an abortion case, but had a challenge to what's known as the Mexico City Policy, which prohibited the use of federal aid overseas for abortion. And she said that that program couldn't be challenged in court, which is hardly a far left position for a judge to take.

So she is a little bit of a mystery there. We do know she's generally on the left of the court. We can make some assumptions, but you can't be entirely confident about them.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june09/sotoanalysis_05-26.html
You can read the entire transcript of the panel discussion at this link.

I added the bold and underline to draw attention to the fact that she took the position that pro-life people should be applauding. But many pro-life people on this BB are condemning her even though she voted on their side of the issue on this one.

 

[Revmitchell]

I find it interesting so many on this BB say they know how she is going to vote.

Who are these people?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Who are these people?

Read all the posts. Jump up high and stretch out you arms, don't lock your knees and maybe you can catch the point as it flies over your head. Be careful as you land. Don't wanna break an ankle or foot or rupture a quadricep.

 

[Revmitchell]

Read all the posts. Jump up high and stretch out you arms, don't lock your knees and maybe you can catch the point as it flies over your head. Be careful as you land. Don't wanna break an ankle or foot or rupture a quadricep.

You have no answer for your false claim so you resort to the same childish post as MP?

 

[Robert Snow]

You have no answer for your false claim so you resort to the same childish post as MP?

The childishness is you continually asking questions where the answer is obvious.

I find it humorous that right-wingers like yourself already condemn Ms. Sotomayor in spite of the fact that she has already voted on the conservative side concerning abortion.

I believe the real problem is those with your mindset just cannot bring yourself to agree with anything President Obama does.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I find it humorous that right-wingers like yourself already condemn Ms. Sotomayor in spite of the fact that she has already voted on the conservative side concerning abortion.

If you are referring to her position the Mexico City policy, all she said was that something couldn't be challenged in court, right? That's not a conservative position on anything.

 

[Revmitchell]

The childishness is you continually asking questions where the answer is obvious.

I find it humorous that right-wingers like yourself already condemn Ms. Sotomayor in spite of the fact that she has already voted on the conservative side concerning abortion.

I believe the real problem is those with your mindset just cannot bring yourself to agree with anything President Obama does.

What you believe has no bearing on reality. I have not spoken about her on the abortion issue, not sure where you brought that from. The accusation is false.

 

[LeBuick]

It appears that some abortion apologists on this Forum are cheering her appointment.

Actually, no one knows where she stands on abortion. I am sure this question will be asked in her confirmation hearing.

However, I see some hypocrisy here. So many on the right is concerned that she will be an activist on the bench then look for the court to overturn Roe v Wade. It is ok to be an activist for your cause but don't think about it on behalf of anyone else.

I still say we are going about this all the wrong way, instead of hoping someday the court will overturn Roe v Wade, why not do it according to the constitution and have legislation assembled via congress? That is the way it is supposed to work and by doing it this way there is no future court balance that will threaten the protection of life. If it is overturned by the court, it can be overturned again by a future court. That is an endless cycle of insanity.

 

[LeBuick]

I find it interesting so many on this BB say they know how she is going to vote.

What does it matter? If you recall, they were against the appointed before they were ever appointed. I guess that is the roll of the loyal opposition, they must oppose. The Democrats had that job a few years back and did it just the same against Alito.

 

[BigBossman]

Remember, most of the "liberals" on the SCOTUS were appointed by Republican presidents.

Right, I think liberals try calling it being "bipartisan". Yet, when have Democrats ever appointed a strong conservative SCOTUS? That's the problem with Republicans these days, they are trying to please the Democrats too much & getting nothing in return.

I will say that the only sensible SCOTUS that has been appointed so far is Alito. I'll give Bush credit for that one. It was better than his first, original pick (I can't think of that lady's name). Harriet Miers, that's it.

 

[LeBuick]

Right, I think liberals try calling it being "bipartisan". Yet, when have Democrats ever appointed a strong conservative SCOTUS? That's the problem with Republicans these days, they are trying to please the Democrats too much & getting nothing in return..

Your bucket would carry more water if the Right didn't turn against those justices when their true colors came out. You and I both know if they knew then what they know now, that justice would not have been appointed or confirmed. The one retiring is living proof...

I call it not getting what you bargained for but that is what happens with life time appointed SCOTUS justices.