What David Brooks said.

For those who don't know him, David Brooks is a slightly conservative commentator for the New York Times. He is a frequent source of insightful, unbiased analysis. I'd recommend sticking his rss in your google reader.

I'm skeptical about everything. That's automatic.

When I saw her speaking to the Senate today, I was laughing so hard at her attempt to spin. I'll give her a C+, because there were just so many of them, that the Senate couldn't gig her on ALL of them.

She gave some good answers, but it seemed that all she did was talk about her humble beginnings. And so did half of the Senators.

I did like how SOME of them pointed out her outrageous record along with her entitlement speeches. That's when I started rooting them on.

But most of it was pretty boring.

I don't like her. Yeah, she's a liberal, but not where it counts. She's just an ideologue. I did like how one of the Senators was able to get her to admit that Obama was wrong (about the importance of a Judge with empathy).

This whole thing is really just a variety hour to me.

Jessald is correct, and thank you for providing that article.

While she is no doubt a liberal in her personal life, there literally is nothing in her record to indicate she does anything while in a robe accept interpret law.

In fact, about the worst real criticism one can have about her as far as doing her job is concerned, is that she is incredibly boring.

She literally has more experience as a judge than anyone currently on the supreme court, and in all of that time she has been deciding cases, it is not a single judgement in itself which the naysayers could find fault with, it is only two or three comments away from the bench which they have focused on.

The other complaint seems to be a case where the Supreme Court rejected the appellet court's ruling.

But this is common, you cannot find an appellet judge likely who has not had a ruling rejected. It is the appelet court's job to find the precedence, and go with that precedence, regardless of their personal opinion. The Supreme Court will usually only take a case if that precedence for some reason is in question.

So it is natural that a case would likely go through the appelet court, and if picked up by the Supreme Court, likely be overturned.

It's part of the checks and balances of the judicial branch, and actually works very well. To fault her for it is kind of silly.

At any rate, I understand anytime there is a lifetime appointment, one side or the other is not gonna just play dead no matter how qualified the candidate is.

But race, gender, and personal political affiliation aside, one would be very hard pressed to find anyone more qualified for the position.

In the Supreme Court, boring = good.

I'll give her some credit, to come from a life of poverty to being the Summa Cum Laude from Princeton is a task that I doubt anyone here could achieve and her resume is outstanding. However, is it really necessary to make these accomplishments the focus of just about every news report on her? Other then her poor upbringing and her controversial comments there has been little to no reports on her voting record in mainstream media, so she is still quite unknown to the public when it comes to to the things that matter like voting records.

I support her pro-life stance but disapprove of her views on affirmative action. Do I think she will agree with Obama and his pathetic congress if their plans are challenged in the Supreme Court? Yes. However, that aside she is a qualified judge and fit to be a Supreme Court Judge.

Sonia Sotomayor has the record and the back ground to prove that she can handle the job.

It is now 2015 and I am very pleased with the decisions this wonderful lady has made on the Supreme Court.