This will be a setback for gun owners:

[BgMc31]

its not about comparing.. i merely think that in the federal court system a judge should not have extreme outspoken views against the bill of rights.. her choices should not be sexually or racially driven. nor should her thought process going into a case be driven by putting her will into people.. a federal court judges job is to decided if ruling, law or action violates the constitution. It is not her job to deside what should or shouldn't be in the constitution.

true you are entitled to your own opinion. but if your opinion becomes how u do your job which is openly says that it is.. then in that case your out spoken opinions against the bill of rights and what it stands for now becomes part of your resume.

so there for she is not qualified.


off topic, but I voted for Obama, but this past 60days has made me realize I voted for the wrong person, I should have voted for Ron Paul even if he wouldn't have won.. today is offically the day people can start to tell me, "they told me so"

In reviewing her record, I'm hard pressed to find a ruling that is racially or gender biased. But I'm sure there may be an instance someone can point to. With that being said, Justice Allito (sp?) has made many rulings based on his conservative opinion, not necessarily on the bill of rights...where's the outrage? I think we'd all be hardpressed to find any justice, past or present, who hasn't been swayed, at least partially, by his/her own beliefs. But when it comes to Sotomayor, it seems, the outrage arises because her beliefs aren't inline with your's.

[quarry206]

In reviewing her record, I'm hard pressed to find a ruling that is racially or gender biased. But I'm sure there may be an instance someone can point to. With that being said, Justice Allito (sp?) has made many rulings based on his conservative opinion, not necessarily on the bill of rights...where's the outrage? I think we'd all be hardpressed to find any justice, past or present, who hasn't been swayed, at least partially, by his/her own beliefs. But when it comes to Sotomayor, it seems, the outrage arises because her beliefs aren't inline with your's.

well i think we agree its just we are going to different directions.. i agree no judge can no read into the law based on their own opinion.. we aren't robots, and everything u do in life is only put into play compared to how u see it... and yes how u have grown up and what people you have come in contact with will play a roll in how u read something and apply it to life.

my issue is though i agree everybody will to some degree use their own past to read into the law and apply it to the case.. at the same time a judge is only suppost to judge, not pick apart a case or try to prove or disprove the case. she is a judge not a lawyer. and she is known for picking apart a case and asking tons of questions to the side she agrees or disagrees with. which to me implies she is bringing too much of her own life into a case if she is quizing lawyers very one sided.. which she has been labeled as doing even by the ABA..

now about her race playing a part.. i just believe a judge should be like a doctor, above human feelings they have to make calls and choices based on what they have in front of them not what they think personally.. and since she has said that she has said "she thinks a wise latina women makes better choices" and that hispanic on hispanic crime is the worst type of crime.. .. umm crime is crime there is no difference. just because she is hispanic she shouldn't feel crimes within her race are the worst. if she is in the lefal system she should think of all crime as just that.. crime

when a prosecutor in NY she was relaxed on her asking for punishments on low income people. then as a judge she was known as very hard and serve on sentencing of white collar crimes. why should there be a difference? u either treat everybody the same or step down. IMO you don't decided what crimes you will be tough on and what ones not.. you do your job.

I was refering to her cases about the 1 and 4 amendments in which is has had cases where she showed more of a forgiving nature to minorities ... and i just don't think that is far. a judge should not see race, color or creed.

for the record, I will agree with you she is not the only bad judge nor not some major problem we have right now.. she is not even a major problem. but then again she is who the thread is about, so thats who we are talking about. but just because i feel she isn't a major problem doesn't mean i think she isn't wrong in how she has done her job

[BgMc31]

well i think we agree its just we are going to different directions.. i agree no judge can no read into the law based on their own opinion.. we aren't robots, and everything u do in life is only put into play compared to how u see it... and yes how u have grown up and what people you have come in contact with will play a roll in how u read something and apply it to life.

my issue is though i agree everybody will to some degree use their own past to read into the law and apply it to the case.. at the same time a judge is only suppost to judge, not pick apart a case or try to prove or disprove the case. she is a judge not a lawyer. and she is known for picking apart a case and asking tons of questions to the side she agrees or disagrees with. which to me implies she is bringing too much of her own life into a case if she is quizing lawyers very one sided.. which she has been labeled as doing even by the ABA..

now about her race playing a part.. i just believe a judge should be like a doctor, above human feelings they have to make calls and choices based on what they have in front of them not what they think personally.. and since she has said that she has said "she thinks a wise latina women makes better choices" and that hispanic on hispanic crime is the worst type of crime.. .. umm crime is crime there is no difference. just because she is hispanic she shouldn't feel crimes within her race are the worst. if she is in the lefal system she should think of all crime as just that.. crime

when a prosecutor in NY she was relaxed on her asking for punishments on low income people. then as a judge she was known as very hard and serve on sentencing of white collar crimes. why should there be a difference? u either treat everybody the same or step down. IMO you don't decided what crimes you will be tough on and what ones not.. you do your job.

You and I can both speculate as to why she was/wasn't leniant on certain issues. Could it be that her background dictates the impact white collar crimes versus blue collar crimes and the reasoning behind each? One major instance is the cocaine vs crack issue. Why does crack carry a more severe penalty than cocaine when the same amounts are found.

I was refering to her cases about the 1 and 4 amendments in which is has had cases where she showed more of a forgiving nature to minorities ... and i just don't think that is far. a judge should not see race, color or creed.

I totally agree with you here, Quarry. But let's face it, and you've said yourself, we make decisions based on past experiences. And the past experiences of minorities differ from those of whites, whether people want ot admit or not.

for the record, I will agree with you she is not the only bad judge nor not some major problem we have right now.. she is not even a major problem. but then again she is who the thread is about, so thats who we are talking about. but just because i feel she isn't a major problem doesn't mean i think she isn't wrong in how she has done her job

Again, in bold, brotha!! I appreciate the civility of the debate.