From the Propaganda Shed AP:
As a judge, she has a bipartisan pedigree. She was first appointed by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, then named an appeals judge by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

Of course Republicans do SUCH a good job selecting judges, so having Bush ’41’s imprimatur on Sotomayor makes me FEEL SO MUCH BETTER! I for one am ready to ROLL OVER and support this selection.

Horse Hockey! And I don’t even know the woman yet.

Affirmative action President selects affirmative action judge.

And the great lowering of standards continues apace.

By the way, isn’t a Supreme Court Justice supposed to interpret the Constitution properly and judge fairly regardless of who may stand before him or her? What’s this about “common touch,” or “empathy”? I’m totally lost on that one!

by yelling louder

…Sotomayor publicly admitting her beliefs in the role of the judiciary. Judge Sotomayor believes that “courts make policy…” I’m not kidding, watch the video… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-qUvI6WFo

Althouse is right, however. Save the big fight for the next pick when it matters and when we’re stronger. Make some statements right now on Sotomayor’s Guevarista tendencies and get some stuff on the record, marvel at Arlen’s retreat into Scottish Law, but don’t fall for Obama’s bear trap with Hispanic voters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q&feature=related

She claims that she’s not promoting it, but by even acknowledging it, she is endorsing it.

According to the AP:

Administration officials say Sotomayor would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice confirmed in the past 70 years.

Did we think the most historic President ever would not pick the best nominee ever?

. . . where I wouldn’t mind having Perez Hilton ask the questions.

Do we have to take the blindfold off the symbol of justice now?

“I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.”

This quote is from her Senate confirmation hearing upon her elevation to the Circuit Court of Appeals a decade ago. If this is her true and honest feeling, I would say she is the best nominee any of us could hope for from any President. However, given Obama’s track record of letting ideology drive any and every decision, I just can’t bring myself to believe that he would nominate someone who actually thinks that way. But hey, I could be wrong, she could very well end up being to Obama what Souter was to Bush 41.

From Domenico Montanaro at http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

“Two, would Republicans dare vote against the first Hispanic, especially after their rhetoric during the immigration debate of 2006-2007 clearly hurt them with this important voting bloc?”

The lib’s hypocrisy knows no bounds. Miguel Estrada

“The modern definition of ‘racist’ is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal.”

Peter Brimelow

During her confirmation hearing I would love for Republicans to bring up the torture issue and tie in to partial-birth abortion or botched birth abortion. Is torturing non-Americans only a crime, or could it be considered torture to leave an aborted born-alive baby to die in a trash can for 2 hours torture?

May I suggest that instead of leaving her description at that (”Intellectually shallow”) that we add…because she supports racial preferences in the Connecticut fireman case(which is a racially shallow positiion)…because she supports homosexual marriage (unless she wants to state in response to numerous questions regarding that issue that she does NOT support homosexual marriage and does not believe the Constitution mandates such). If we leave our criticism of her that she is “intellectually shallow” we play into Obama’s hands in terms of being -ist as “clearly” we believe any non-white male is not intellectually competent. Rather that we state that anyone who supports racial preferences and homosexual marriage is clearly intellectually shallow.

That she was a George HW Bush nominee? I am sure that will be the lead introduction on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN. HW delivers for us again, one HW nominee replaced by another lightweight HW nominee who supports racial preferences and homosexual marriage. Who needs enemies when we have the Bush legacy?

Do you remember that statue of the blindfolded judge holding the scales of justice in the balance? Fa -getta-bout-it!

This should be a fun intellectual confirmation process.

Obama picks a liberal activist judge whose own career aptly displays the failure of quotas. Sotomayer has an extraordinarily high rate of reversal and made several statements which reveal her extra-constitutional proclivities.

Republicans better get their act together for this confirmation hearing.

Hopefully, her abrasive poersonality will marginalize her influence.

Just one liberal replacing another.
And when Ginsburg goes same thing.
Vote will be still 5-4.
Curious on the timing of the announcement
to take Korea & Iran off the front pages.

The MSM is touting Sotomayor as a bipartisan pick but is she really? This is an interesting tidbit on Michelle Malkin’s site.

…The White House is sure to argue that Sotomayor is a “bipartisan pick” because Bush 41 appointed her to the district court: President George H.W. Bush nominated Sotomayor in 1991 only because the New York senators had forced on the White House a deal that enabled Senator Moynihan to name one of every four district court nominees in New York. In 1998, 29 Republican senators voted against President Clinton’s nomination of Sotomayor to the Second Circuit.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2FjY2I2ZTk5ZWVhMTgyYjI0ZTEzMzViM2EzOTk4YjA=

Perhaps it was a misprint and NRO meant DNC?

Way to rally the troops, Michael.

Well… I am not sure how the republicans should handle this. I can tell you though that as much crap as the democrats give republican nominees a fight is probably deserved. However; lets face it, republicans do not stoop as low as the democrats,and for whatever reason can not fight as nasty,probably to our credit. Part of me would like the republican leadership to say aloud that we will question fairly and speak out against all of the shinanigans the dem’s have pulled over the years in regard to previous nominations. I would also like them to bring up Obama’s decent in all previous nominees. Then approve the nomination with class. again, just my two cents.

The Republican tack should be to let her defend her words. Don’t line up against her, let the public see what they are getting, then allow the process to move wherever is should at that time. In the art of war timing is everything and by coming out to soon against her, without the voting public completely understanding what they have here, will make her an empathetic figure.

Allowing her to hurt herself, either in how she defends her statements or in her potentially shallow arguments, will allow the Republicans the oppurtunity to “take the high ground” if and when they oppose her.

Definition of catholic (adjective)
….free from provincial prejudices or attachments

in an effort to portray this transition as a victory for liberalism.

Indeed, the less-learned media will argue that this announcement is a potential swing on the Supreme Court. This pick, however, is really a non-starter from a Supreme Court jurisprudence standard. Replacing one liberal with another does nothing to change the direction of this Court.

Furthermore, this pick can hardly be called heavyweight. There is always the prospect that a new justice, even though most junior, assumes a latent, partisan leadership role on the Court, principally because of who the justice is, in stature, as much as in judicial philosophy. Based on what I have read, I don’t presume that this is such a pick.

…like Harriet Miers or Alberto Gonzales. In comparison to those potential disasters Obama did pretty good.

Republicans should hold their fire for the next nominee, who is bound to be a hell of a lot more liberal and activist. Attacking Sotomayor for no good reason will just further alienate the party to Hispanic voters and women, who will be needed in order to regain the status as a national party.

Keep your powder dry, boys!

They probably heard of Ricci. Explain to them Soto’s role and her callous dismissal of the claims. Her opinion alone sucked, but the rude and indifferent manner in which she dismissed valid claims is another story.

Firemen talk.

Obama messed up on this pick.

First, the time was ripe for him to pick as rabidly liberal a candidate as he could.

The GOP does not have the votes now to filibuster this pick. That will change in 2010 as we gain a seat or two. Wood was the pick I was sure he would make for this very reason, as I viewed her as the worst of the worst.

Second, Sotomayor may end up being the Democrats’ Souter.

She has no major opinions on abortion and two minor ones actually saw her supporting the side of abortion protesters. As a Hispanic Catholic, she may not be pro-abortion. It’s about time the Democrats got Soutered on a SCOTUS pick.

I was bracing for Obama to pick Wood and am grateful he did not. I think it behooves us to keep our powder dry on this pick in preparation for the next one, which undoubtedly will be more liberal.

Left having fits over it. Little do they realize that no one really cares. We admit Huck is a doofus.

But the author of this diary conveniently doe snot mention that, as if TNR represented the “left.”