« | »

Wise Latina: Abortion Is ‘Settled Law’

From an elated Associated Press:

Sotomayor calls abortion rights ‘settled law’

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court aspirant Sonia Sotomayor says she considers the question of abortion rights "settled law" and says there is a constitutional right to privacy.

The federal appeals court judge was asked at her confirmation hearing Tuesday to state how she felt about the landmark Roe versus Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1973.

Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee that "there is a right of privacy. The court has found it in various places in the Constitution." She said this right is stated in the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and in the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the law. She declined to say pointblank if she agreed with the high court’s precedent on this volatile issue.

Dred Scott was ‘settled law,’ too, once upon a time.

And yet it seems like only yesterday Ms. Sotomayor was bragging about what an ‘open mind’ she has.

Still, was there really ever any doubt that Ms. Sotomayor would pass the Democrats’ most stringent litmus test?

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, July 14th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

19 Responses to “Wise Latina: Abortion Is ‘Settled Law’”

  1. proreason says:

    Well, now we know. Courts only make policy when the law isn’t “settled”.

    And as a judge, of course, she gets to decide when the law is “settled” or not.

    Sweet, isn’t it?

  2. Steve says:

    Here is a transcript courtesy of the Washington Post of Mr. Hatch’s questions to Ms. Sotomayor:

    Sen. Orrin Hatch Holds a Hearing on the Nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to Be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court – washingtonpost.com
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071401426.html

  3. tranquil.night says:

    Precedent is like a judge’s way of taking the fifth.

    For such an outspoken personality outside of the courtroom, it should be more surprising to find out that the woman is afraid to give her independent legal opinion on nearly any issue (except the 2nd Ammendment, haha). As Rush said, she’s afraid to declare who she really is; she has to hide it. Her entire professional career has been geared to reaching this point and she made damn well sure that it wasn’t going to have any obscenely radical rulings without being able to claim she isn’t responsible for them. We see how she does it now, kind of like how Obama passes off his problems and every liberal manages to evade ever being responsible for anything – precedent & standard – it’s someone elses issue, it’s someone elses fault.

    Never question, never challenge. Keep your step in line, lie to cover your tracks, don’t cause problems, and you go right to the top (if your personal story is compelling enough) – that’s how the liberal system works. Spineless.

    I haven’t been watching but apparently the libs have to at times help her answer the Republicans questions, which from the sounds of it aren’t even close to reaching the calibre of the ammunition out there against her. She’s got little intellectual depth. I look forward to reading rulings from her in the future and comparing them side by side with the likes of Thomas and Alito.

  4. Reality Bytes says:

    Liberal First. Catholic Last. How do they do it?

  5. GetBackJack says:

    Sotomayor pretends to be Roman Catholic.

    I say pretend, because the Sixth of God’s ten commandments (not suggestions) is ..

    Thou shalt not murder

    If anything is Murder, it is abortion.

    I put myself through a number of years of university as a surgical technician, the guy who manages the equipment and scrubs next to the surgeon and hands out the instruments. I’ve seen more than my share of abortions, back in the day when it was the Saturday morning schedule … D&Cs and termination of pregnancy. This is a family friendly forum, so telling you explicitly what I saw, and what I participated in before I developed a horror of it, would be inappropriate. But it is ghoulish, unholy and a sin against God. As a surgical guy, I rarely saw anyone afterward, like in Recovery. But occasionally I would and I never saw a woman thankful for an abortion. They were heartbroken, emotionally crushed and spiritually shattered. One girl had seen me in the suite before she went under anesthesia. She’d dated one of my friends. It was a brief recognition, but she woke up crying for the nurses to come get me. They did and I tried to comfort her, but she clutched at my clothes crying and wailing for me not to tell anyone what I had seen. I never did. But this otherwise wise-ass, secular devil may care girl turned to spiritual mush right after they ripped the fetus from her.

    Abortion is spiritual war.

    I had a conversation once with a woman whose father had survived the Nazi camps. A rabbi. he understood that one of the main reasons for herding the Jews together and sacrificng them was to feed the ritual satanic powers of the Nazi heirarchy. It takes Life, human life to power occult rituals which is why a practitioner always has acolytes around. He’s not going to use up his life, he uses theirs.

    The Nazis employed the dying life force of 6 million Jews to work their evil.

    The feminists and liberals in America have so far ritually sacrificed 50,000,000+ lives on the altar of their quest to destroy Christian America.

    And that … is settled law?

    • jobeth says:

      Jack, your post is so right on. The idea of not having to worry about a child before abortion is nothing to the reality after it. In most woman the stark reality of the gravity of their actions will eat at them for the rest of their lives. What would he/she have been like? How old would they be now. It doesn’t leave. She will forever remember that baby. No way will she be able to say to herself that it wasn’t a baby. She’ll always pay for this with agony in her soul.

      Those who don’t face this reality like this I suspect of not even having a soul.

      Call it anything you want…it will always be a baby…a human that was killed for convenience. Or because the poor child had the misfortune of having a monster for a father who raped their mother. What a sad situation that is. But one thing for sure. You don’t nullify one tragedy by committing a bigger one.

      Any child’s life that is terminated for the life of the mother is another type of tragedy. I don’t think there are many who would hold the mother to task for that situation. In my opinion I don’t even feel God would not understand that hard choice.

  6. MinnesotaRush says:

    In the eyes of God .. I suspect that “abortion rights” may be “settled law”.

    “Settled”, if you will, to be dead wrong!

    Another one of Sotomayor’s decision gets reversed (and on a MUCH higher plane).

  7. Howard Roark says:

    Wow…you can get whiplash listening to this wise Latina.

    Yesterday she begged us to think that she knows that US Supreme Court Justices don’t make law, they apply it. Yet no consideration has been given for the fact that Roe vs Wade is an interpretation [which could, of course, be turned over at any time], which has been treated as law ever since 1973.

    The video here gives a glimpse into Sotomayor speaking honestly, when she hasn’t had two full months to practice her answers on such weighty matters of whether the court can make laws.

  8. bronzeprofessor says:

    This woman is despicable. And to think, the MSM made such strenuous attempts to frame her as middle of the road, not a dogmatic leftist. Yet she has nothing to say about the myriad questions regarding abortion, calls it all a question of privacy. Middle of the road, my Puerto Rican a**.

    The Repubs have got to take her down; otherwise they are not worthy of status as a party.

    • neocon mom says:

      “Yet she has nothing to say about the myriad questions regarding abortion, calls it all a question of privacy.”

      Very telling, just like the way she quickly and neatly issued summary judgment in the Ricci case. And claimed precedent when there was none; in fact, such issues pertaining to race-based affirmative action are supposed to be subject to strict judicial oversight, not a rubber stamp.

    • GetBackJack says:

      Well, ‘privacy’ was the original Roe v Wade ruling, that whatever occurs between a physician and patient is a matter of medical privacy and cannot be breached. This was then used to provide cover for terminating pregnancies under the rubric of privacy, when abortions were still illegal. Case law and activist jurists soon compiled a body of opinions contrary to the Law under the cover of this ‘right to privacy’ ruling making infanticide even more unholy.

      There is no ruling that authorizes abortions, per se. But the tendrils of Roe v Wade have spawned a number of allowable sins as a matter of ‘settled law’.

    • canary says:

      I got the impression Sotomayer was using the amendments in of privacy, and unreasonable search, as an excuse that she did not have to answer the question on abortion do to it being a private matter, such as her own right to keep her medical opinions private. Doctor’s take oaths to save people. They can’t murder anyone and keep it private. Most of those that did illegal abortions were those supporting their way through med school.

      In Roe vs Wade, she fought under the pretense she was raped. I think it was about 1995 ish, that she publically admitted she was never raped, and decided it was wrong.

      The difficulty in convicting the now deceased killman Tillman the baby butcher who performed unlawful late-term abortions, was lack of evidence do to the court refusing the prosecution’s obtaining the sensitive medical records of the women suspected of recieving unlawful abortions. Even though, the courts would have referred to them as Jane Doe 1, 2, – 1000, 1001, if they had to go on the witness stand, it could have been harmful to the woman’s lives.

  9. canary says:

    Sotomayer statement following her excuse of an improper ruling, (blaming other’s who went along)

    SOTOMAYER:”…once you have settled precedent in an area, then, on a precise question, then the Supreme Court has to look at that.”

    No, the Supreme Court does not look at all the circuit court decisions. The Circuit court always trys to shoot down as many cases as they can, delaying and financally crippling the little person, to make it difficult for that expensive request to appeal to the Supreme Court, who then will decide if they will even hear the case.

    SOTOMAYER: And under the deference one gives to stare decisis and the factors one considers in deciding whether that older precedent should be changed or not, that’s what the Supreme Court will do.”

    She made this statement when the entire subject and context being addressed is the Fundemental Rights of the Constitution and it’s Amendments gives Americans. So, in my opinion, her attitude of changing the Constitution would be as easy as her changing the ingredients for a Beanio Grove recipe of chili and beans.

  10. canary says:

    Sotomayer may end sports,auto repairs, tree trimming, sewing, and eating. Ban may include baseball bats (sticks that can be swung), golf clubs (sticks that can be swung), crow bars, chain saws, sissors, and cooking and eating utensils, the list goes on.

    HATCH:” … Now, is that your understanding of how the Supreme Court has evaluated whether a right should be deemed fundamental?

    SOTOMAYER”… And whether that framework and the language you quoted are precise or not, I haven’t examined that framework in a while to know if that language is precise or not….

    HATCH: Now, here’s my question: Am I right that those later cases to which the court referred involved the 14th Amendment’s due process clause rather than its privileges and immunities clause?

    SOTOMAYOR: It may have. I haven’t read it recently enough to remember exactly.

    HATCH: Right, that’s my point. That’s my point. As a result of this very permissive legal standard — and it is permissive — doesn’t your decision in Maloney mean that virtually any state or local weapons ban would be permissible?

    SOTOMAYOR: Sir, in Maloney, we were talking about nunchuk sticks.

    HATCH: I understand.

    SOTOMAYOR: Those are martial arts sticks.

    HATCH: Two sticks bound together by rawhide or some sort of a…

    SOTOMAYOR: Exactly. And — and when the sticks are swung, which is what you do with them, if there’s anybody near you, you’re going to be seriously injured, because that swinging mechanism can break arms, it can bust someone’s skull…

    HATCH: Sure.

    SOTOMAYOR: … it can cause not only serious, but fatal damage.

    Obama thought those long spears were so cool on his Kenya visit. And to think in his homie Indonesia, the extremist muslims are spearing the non-extremist muslims as we speak. And now sticks.

    SOTOMAYOR will do everything in her power to outlaw the right to bare arms. This is insanity.

  11. canary says:

    SOTOMAYOR: But the principles underlying when employees could bring a case are the same, when they establish a prima facie case, which is, can an employee be sued — employer be sued by employees who can prove a disparate impact? And the basic principles of those cases were the same, regardless of what form the practice at issue took.

    This answer makes no legal since. Establishing a prima facie case has nothing to do with an employer being sued. She will not admit she was wrong, and the Supreme court even had earlier rulings, that they all could have agreed, instead of the split.

    .

  12. Liberals Demise says:

    *************ABORTION SHOULDN’T BE USED AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL***************

  13. bill says:

    Eugenics is the goal, they could careless about the woaman’s right to choose. Ask Buzzy for details.

  14. Right of the People says:

    I hate nitpicking but this is driving me crazy. In the articles and in some of our comments, the phrase “bare arms” keeps coming up. It’s “bear arms” as in to carry! Whenever I see bare arms, I’m thinking about people wearing tank tops. Now if you’re talking about arming bears, that’s a whole different matter.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      You must be talking about the Second and a Half Amendment ……..
      “The right to keep and arm bears.”


« Front Page | To Top
« | »