Documents Show Sotomayor Is Mainstream

(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has in the course of her long career compiled a massive public record. She has written or spoken millions of words on what are by definition some of the most contentious issues of our time. She appears to have eaten enough rubber chicken to start her own KFC. And she has evidently schlepped to more sonorous law-related events than any person in their right mind would schlep to over the course of even the longest career. If this High Court thing doesn't work out for her she should make a pitch to Red Bull to become its spokeswoman.

So it should come as no surprise that there were few surprises today in the completed questionnaire distributed to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the White House's confirmation-hearing panel of hacks and tribunes. The first thing to say about the massive document dump is that Judge Sotomayor has an extensive mainstream record in the law that is marked by a few controversial moments of expressed thought. If this is enough to preclude her ascension to the Supreme Court as its third woman and first Latina then judges all over the country will be coming up with excuses to miss their next bar association invite.

We now know from the documents that Judge Sotomayor's now famous "wise Latina" remark in 2005 was a variation on a consistent theme that she had expressed on several earlier occasions. Of all the times she returned to the theme of women as judges, her

---

Andrew Cohen is CBS News' Chief Legal Analyst and Legal Editor. CourtWatch is his new blog with analysis and commentary on breaking legal news and events. For columns on legal issues before the beginning of this blog, click here.

[deftfixer]

Actually Sotomayor?s Dissenting Opinions are Real Lunatic Fringe!!!:

+ USA v. Juan Vincent Gomez Castrillon = money laundering conviction should be vacated = evidence didn?t amount to guilty beyond a reason doubt = defendant drove $500,000 to meeting with undercover agent / defendant was lookout / defendant had $6,000 on him.

+ Kelsey v. County of Schoharie = requiring a newly admitted jail inmate to disrobe in front of a corrections officer = strip search violation of the Fourth Amendment (and any reasonably intelligent corrections officer should know this).

+ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. = Trucking Company shouldn?t have rejected job applicants on medication that might impair driving ability = truck driving is a broad class of jobs (this though the employer only saw applicants as unfit to perform a certain job for which they were seeking applicants).

+ Thomas Pappas v. Mayor and Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New York = Police Officer kept receiving letters asking for contributions, so he anonymously returned racially bigoted materials = he was fired = majority opinion??For a New York City police officer to disseminate leaflets that trumpet bigoted messages expressing hostility to Jews, ridiculing African Americans and attributing to them a criminal disposition to rape, robbery, and murder, tends to promote the view among New York citizenry that those are the opinions of New York?s police officers.? In the words of Justice Holmes,?A policeman may have a constitutional right to [speak his mind], but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.??= dissent opinion?where an employee serves no supervisory role, the danger to an agency?s successful functioning is minimal = also the ?statements? were made while off-duty = also anonymous nature??? the Department should have swept the matter under the rug hoping no one would ever learn the facts; and if it chose instead to bring charges against Pappas, it has only itself to blame for the resulting harm to its reputation ??

+ S.H. Croll v. M.Y.Croll = married couple (US Citizens) residing in Hong Kong got divorced and the Hong Kong Court decreed that the child can not be taken from Hong Kong without both parents consent = mother took the child to US = majority decision?child cannot be returned to father in Hong Kong = Dissent Opinion?child can be returned to Hong Kong.

+ L.N. Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda = Burmuda should be recognized as an independent state?rather than a British Overseas Territory.

+ USA v. J. Gori = as officers listened in, a busted drug dealer called his source = when source was subsequently busted with kilo of cocaine = he told cops that someone in apartment 1M had given him the cocaine = cops went into the lobby pending further instructions = when pizza delivery man came to apartment = cops were afraid of being exposed = stood on either side of delivery guy = when door opened cops ordered everybody into the hall = suspect consented to search of apartment = busted for cocaine?= majority opinion?quotes Katz (389 US at 351)?A suspect in her open doorway becomes ?as exposed to public view, speech, hearing, and touch as if she had been standing completely outside her home.?= dissent opinion???[t]he right of the people to be secure in their ? houses ???=??the Fourth Amendment has drawn a fine line at the entrance to the house.?

Furthermore, in Riverkeeper v. EPA Sotomayor ruled that Nuclear Plants can ignore the Clean Water Act in order to save the cost of building a cooling tower.

SOME JOKE!!!

[rednomo]

I liked my country better back when people worked for their money. We don't need a Justice who's goals are to put a women's spin on interpretation of our Constitution.
Posted by beach671

She belongs in front of a stove and all darkies belong out in the field workin' and stayin' away from causin' trouble like in them good old Gawd fearin' cotton pickin' days.

[polisigh]

The Constitution is what a Supreme Court justice says it is. The Court conservatives claim to base their opinions on their perceived views of what a select few on the Founding Fathers might think today, or might have thought 230 years ago. Actually, they merely rationalize their own ideologies.

Sotomayer is at least as qualified as those on the Court now. If there is a cultural imbalance, it is that she would be the sixth Catholic on the Court.

[legacyabq]

yeah dude, you dont need a law to cover every possibility. That would not be possible.

Instead of saying theres no law prohibiting prayer in schools, look at what there IS.

A clear, established consistent seperation of church and state, in the writings of the founding fathers, in the philosophy of europe and americ over the last several centuries, and the constitutioon itself.

[tx_doughboy]

I'd rather have someone who would uphold the Constitution than a women hell bent on creating a Socialist nation.

Posted by beach671 at 6:04

You guys crack me up! On the one hand you guys are steadfast in the idea that a judge should not base any decisions upon personal reflections rather the letter of the law aka the Constitution. At the same conservatives have declared war on governing laws by pushing the justice department to write legal briefings to justify unlawful acts as lawful. What is the difference between an activist judge and a conservative with a legal briefing redefining a law? I wish you guys were a little more consistent when it comes to the protection of the laws of the land rather than regurgitating conservative talking points.

[Rubeem]

vielmann: - - an obvious leftist with your ugly words - - typical

[Rubeem]

In theory and in un-written rhetoric, Sotomayor's idea of justice is fair. BUT in practice and in her writings prove that her gender and race play a large part in her decisions. Obama appointed her because she is left from center, a woman and a minority, so she was more in line with his thinking and almost a "shoe-in" because if anyone criticizes her, they automatically become racist or gender-phobic - - as has already been displayed.
And I agree with beach671's post.

[vielmann]

I'd rather have someone who would uphold the Constitution than a women hell bent on creating a Socialist nation.

Posted by beach671 at 6:04

Get your head out of Limbaugh's rear end.

[beach671]

That speech you quote on March 17th above she is wondering if she should ignore making her decision thinking as a women instead of as a Judge interpreting the Constitution.

If she's going to think like a women then as she says "to not do a disservice to law and society"....then she will think as a women and think about society instead of being neutral and a Judge to enforce the Constitution.

I'd rather have someone who would uphold the Constitution than a women hell bent on creating a Socialist nation.

I liked my country better back when people worked for their money. We don't need a Justice who's goals are to put a women's spin on interpretation of our Constitution.