Sessions gives Sotomayor tough greeting at hearing
2 hrs 2 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The top-ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee has greeted Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor with skepticism.

Sen. Jeff Sessions on Monday cited Sotomayor's much-publicized remarks about the notion that a "wise Latina" woman might be better suited than a white male without the same life experiences.

At the same time, the Alabama senator criticized President Barack Obama's statement that he preferred someone for the high court who has shown empathy with people. He said that "empathy for one party is always prejudice for the other."

do you hope she wins?
my opinion> I think she is a Plus,to the public
an to fairness
I also think they have taken her comments(repubs) out of context

well the circuit court, as to her decision on the firefighters being passed over because they were white but i think had senority, ,and wanted minoritys i think was what it was about,, or whatever,the supreme court overturned her and the rest of the circuit courts ruling, she has been told by the republican leaders in the committee that she will be confirmed unless she has a major meltdown, and no one sees that ..

Ala. senator mum on his decision about Sotomayor
Jul 25, 9:20 PM (ET)
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090726/D99LQUKG0.html

By ERIK SCHELZIG

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - The senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee says he has made up his mind on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, but he's not ready to make his decision public.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama said before the Tennessee Republican Party's annual fundraiser on Saturday that he expects the vote on Democratic President Barack Obama's nominee to take place Tuesday.

Session says he remains "very troubled by her responses" at confirmation hearings.

He also praises his Republican colleagues on the panel, saying they "had to raise difficult issues, and at the same time do it in a way that was not unfair to the nominee."

Two of Sessions' Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, John Cornyn of Texas and Orrin Hatch of Utah, have said they will vote against Sotomayor.

gypsy wrote:do you hope she wins?
my opinion> I think she is a Plus,to the public
an to fairness
I also think they have taken her comments(repubs) out of context

Not just Republicans , several Dems are not totally in her favor, but I agree she probably will get passed, her Latino woman phrase is hurting her and refusing to give her views on gun control and abortion, so guess another case of time will tell. I think I read 80% of her cases have been over turned but I may be wrong.

well i know this topic is in seveal places, lol but like i said, somewhere else, the dems are not gaining anything as i have read,, they are just replacing one liberal with another.
i would imagine if a republican usually was in a tight race, in an area with some Hispanic votes he may choose to vote for her.. even though sutor was a repubican nominee he turned out to vote with the liberals most the time, ginsburg will be the same case not sure when she will go but pancreatic cancer has a 3 percent rate of recovery but they caught hers early i think, but she is pretty old i think,

Opposing view: A confirmation conversion
Nominee lacks deep convictions needed to resist judicial activism.

By Jeff Sessions

Elections have consequences: President Obama's first nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, will likely be confirmed.

But supporters of liberal judicial philosophy might find it a Pyrrhic victory. During three days of careful questioning, Judge Sotomayor renounced the pillars of activist thinking.

She rejected the president's "empathy standard," abandoned her statements that a judge's "opinions, sympathies and prejudices" may guide decision-making, dismissed remarks that personal experiences should "affect the facts that judges choose to see," brushed aside her repeated "wise Latina" comment as "a rhetorical flourish," and championed judicial restraint.

Judge Sotomayor's attempt to rebrand her previously stated judicial approach was, as one editorial page opined, "uncomfortably close to disingenuous."

Why not defend the philosophy she had articulated so carefully over the years?

Because the American people overwhelmingly reject the notion that unelected judges should set policy or allow their social, moral, or political views to influence the outcome of cases. Rather, the public wants and expects restrained courts, tethered to the Constitution, and judges who impartially apply the law to the facts.

In the end, her testimony served as a repudiation of judicial activism.

But pledging "fidelity to the law" and practicing judicial restraint are different things. Which Sotomayor will we get?

At the hearings, which were praised for their substance and respectful tone, we looked closely at the record:

-- Her 2006 private property decision permitted the government to take property from one developer and give it to another.

-- Her 2008 Ricci decision allowed a city to discriminate against one group of firefighters because of their race. That ruling was recently reversed by the Supreme Court.

-- Her 2009 Second Amendment decision would give states the power to ban firearms.

These rulings have three things in common. Each was contrary to the Constitution. Each was decided in a brief opinion, short on analysis. And each was consistent with liberal political thought.

I don't believe that Judge Sotomayor has the deep-rooted convictions necessary to resist the siren call of judicial activism. She has evoked its mantra too often. As someone who cares deeply about our great heritage of law, I must withhold my consent.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.