Is it not odd that Obama never asked Sotomayor about Roe v Wade?

[Bluebear]

I love her story and she seems like a lovely person, but I find it odd that Roe v Wade never even came up. Is Obama relying on her to make a prayerful decision about choice?

====

The officials also say she was not asked about privacy rights or Roe v.Wade. They say the fact that she is not on record on these issues was not a factor in her selection.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/05/behind-the-scenes-of-the-sotomayor-selection.html

[snowdays]

1. Perhaps he is.

[rwheeler31]

2. It will be ok.

[tan guera]

3. What about her views

on preventive detention?

Gibbs said twice yesterday, that she goes along with Obama's judicial policies. I don't like the sound of that. Other than that and RoeVWade, she sounds OK. But those 2 things are biggies.

[elleng]

5. 'goes along with'

means NOTHING.

[elleng]

9. Important:

They say Obama and Sotomayor had "a pretty dense talk about legal theory and the law and the Constitution."

[rocktivity]

4. I'm not going to take the word of officials who dare not speak their names.

:eyes:
rocktivity

[Bluebear]

6. So your contention is the reporter is lying about the interview?

[rocktivity]

10. My contention is that the officials might be lying to the reporter about the interview.

which we can't confirm because we don't know who they are.

For all we know, those officials were under orders not to "leak" any info about Roe vs Wade. Which is why the whole concept of "leaking" is such a crock.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Bluebear]

11. pssst Roe v Wade, not Rove v Wade :)

[rocktivity]

12. LOL! A Freudian slip--or a Rovian one?

I admit I've had his "I know lots of stupid people who went to Ivy League schools" remark on my subconscious mind...

:rofl:
rocktivity

[polmaven]

23. Exactly...

How do we know if they were even in the room? The thing that jumps out at me is the stuff about the New Haven case. They are saying she wasn't asked about it because it is coming before the SCOTUS, and she should not be asked what her opinion would be as a member.

Well, if she is a member of SCOTUS when it is heard, she would have to, in my opinion, recuse herself, anyway, so what difference would it make for the president to ask her about it?

I find it difficult to believe that this president is not very, very sure of her credentials and thoughts regarding the typical liberal issues.

[CTyankee]

27. The New Haven case has been argued by SCOTUS already.

How would it come before her?

[polmaven]

39. Has it been argued?

I'm sorry. I was under the impression that it has been accepted but may not be argued until the next term. I guess I was a little behind on that.


On edit...looked it up....oral arguments were scheduled in April, 2009.....Ooops! Sorry about that.

[EFerrari]

7. If Obama doesn't ask her about Roe, then he can throw up his hands

when she supports choice. Which she will.

[Bluebear]

8. Ah...

makes sense :)

[snowdays]

13. does she have to pray also? or just the pregnant women?

[EFerrari]

16. I didn't hear a lot of god talk from her at the announcement.

And certainly not of the type we hear from the RW nuttery who have to broadcast their hypocrisy 24/7. :)

[snowdays]

32. good.

[bvar22]

43. I would like to KNOW.

Some Catholics can be pretty rigorous in their commitment to the Dogma of the Catholic Church.
If she is a practicing Catholic, and votes in favor of Roe, there WILL be calls for her "Excommunication".

I'm not "casting asparagus".
Her Catholic background and current status is a legitimate concern.
(I have a Catholic background as well).

I really don't care about all the hype and window dressing (Woman, Hispanic, pulled up by bootstraps, etc). I'm waiting for some REAL data on how she sees the relationship between Government VS. Citizens, and the relationship between Corporations VS. Consumers.

I fear the appointment of a Social Moderate, but an authoritarian Corporatist.
Again, I'm NOT accusing, but am waiting for the data before making my decision.

[WeDidIt]

45. I think that would be suicide for the Catholic Church

I think Sotomayor is going to neutralise ANY talk of excommunicaiton by the Catholic Church over Roe v. Wade in the future.

Hispanics are the single largest demographic they have in the US and their only demographic in Central and South America. No way does the Catholic Church alienate that demogaphic.

[EFerrari]

48. Of course!

[pnwmom]

14. No, it's not odd. The Rethugs are likely to specifically ask her if Obama or his people

questioned her about her abortion views.

Justices are not supposed to be prejudging issues before they come to their Courts.

[devilgrrl]

15. If the question comes up, she should play like Clarence Thomas and claim she discussed the issue...

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

17. I just realized that I don't have a single memory of Thomas after those

hearings. He was so repulsive, he just gets filtered out. lol

[old mark]

18. Roe is already the law- the SC does not go back and re-try

cases it has already decidced. They may interpret it, or explain it, as the recent Heller on the 2nd ammendment, but they will NOT overturn it - it is not the way they operate.

mark

[Lasher]

19. Wrong.

They did such a thing just yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5733772

[old mark]

25. WRONG, back at ya - read the decision not the right wing bullshit

aT RAW.

It is not what people are saying it is - this is merely another anti-Obama lie campaign.

mark

[Lasher]

41. Right wing bullshit at Raw Story? LOL!

In a 5-to-4 ruling, the court overturned its 1986 opinion in a Michigan case, which forbade the police from interrogating a defendant once he invoked his right to counsel at an arraignment or a similar proceeding.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html?ref=global-home

This was only the latest case where the SCOTUS has overturned one of its own previous rulings in an contradiction with the principle of stare decisis. And there will be more to come.

[Bluebear]

20. Oh, my.

[AndyfromNC]

26. Old Mark

The SC does occasional overturn their own decisions. They have a policy against it, called stare decisis, but it does happen.

[stray cat]

21. I think its common practice to ask but not really directly ask.

[solstice]

22. Maybe he already knows she doesn't. I mean, she supported the gag rule.

And I'm VERY uneasy about her, I don't trust her, and given Obama's history of truly lousy nominees, why should I?

[eyesroll]

34. She affirmed the legality of the gag rule. There's a big difference between that and support.

Kind of like the ACLU going to bat for the Klan.

[solstice]

35. What a lame strawman. The ACLU does not make or uphold censorship laws affecting women's health &

lives.

The government and the courts do. If they don't protect women, who will?

[eyesroll]

37. Oy. Look up the definition of "strawman" and get back to me.

The ACLU worked in favor of the Klan rally not because they support the Klan, but because their rally was legal.

Sotomayor ruled in favor of the gag rule not because she supported the gag rule, but because it was legal.

If a Sotomayor court ruled in favor of the Klan rally, would she then be supporting the Klan?

I am making an analogy. It is imperfect. It is not, however, a strawman. Your "if don't protect women, who will?" question gets perilously close to strawman territory, though.

My point being: Judges are in a difficult position. They are asked to rule on something's legality, under the existing Constitution and existing legal structure we have. Many crappy things are still constitutional, and judges are duty-bound to uphold their legality. They're not allowed to overturn a law simply because it's stupid or counter-productive. In the gag rule case, Sotomayor was relying, in part, on Supreme Court precedent--something an appellate judge is also duty-bound to do.

(This is why some LGBT groups are wary of a Supreme Court battle over marriage right now, and would prefer to wait for a more sympathetic Court--if the Court says it is perfectly constitutional and not violative of Equal Protection or Due Process for states to ban same-sex marriage--that gay and lesbian people aren't barred from marriage because they're free to marry members of the opposite sex, and no there's no parallel between this and interracial marriage-- then that's that, and the federal courts are bound by that precedent.)

**The devil, as always, is in the details, and that's where experience and, yes, empathy, and, yes, politics come in. (For instance: Murder is illegal, period, and nobody argues otherwise. The details, however, complicate things--is abortion murder? Is the death penalty? For that matter...is there a parallel between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage? Is sexual orientation a protected class, like race? If we had easy, consensus answers to those questions, we'd have clear policy, but we don't.)

[Richardo]

38. Look up 'non sequitur' while you're at it.

[HamdenRice]

24. Maybe because it's a no-brainer?

New York City, liberal Democratic, Second Circuit judge from the Bronx? What are the chances she's anti-abortion?

[ruggerson]

31. So you'd leave it up to chance, eh?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. i am going to trust obama on this one, largely because unlike his stances on gay people he doesnt

really equivocate on his stance on choice. i would find it VERY hard to believe that he would not pick a prochoice candidate

i think they are avoiding the choice question, so as not to play into the republicans hands but i believe he knows her position on abortion rights.

[Liberal In Texas]

29. My take is that they didn't want it to come up during the confirmation hearings that she was

appointed because she was pro-Roe v. Wade. If she wasn't asked, the repukes don't have that bit of ammunition against her.

[babylonsister]

30. I'd find it odd if she wasn't asked.

I wonder if the unnamed official was there throughout the interview.

[deaniac21]

33. Minority women and democrat....he didn't have to ask.

[bvar22]

49. Not the slam dunk you would suppose.

Some Latin Catholics ARE rigorously devoted to the Dogma of the Catholic Church and are generally comfortable with Authoritarian systems.
This is a valid concern.



I am waiting for a look behind the Hype and Window Dressing...(Minority, Woman, Bootstraps, etc.)

I would like to see some hard data on how she sees Government vs. Citizen, and Corporation vs. Consumer before I make up my mind.

[cbdo2007]

36. Why would he ask her about Roe v Wade? She wasn't on that case.

[Bluebear]

47. ha ha ha ha I get it

:eyes:

[unblock]

40. obama knows enough to let a staffer ask that question.

[Boomerang Diddle]

42. No.

n/t

[Stargazer09]

44. If you think about it

He was smart not to ask her opinion on Roe v Wade. If her views on abortion are not on record anywhere, then it will be harder for the howling idiots to condemn her based on that one opinion.

With that said, I certainly hope that she will support women's rights.

[MzNov]

46. Somebody had better ask her in the confirmation hearings.

Or all hell should break loose.