http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=217x6970
Oh my.
The primitives shouldn't worry; no way would Pa Kettle in the White House nominate anyone not enthusiastic about abortion.
groovedaddy (1000+ posts) Thu May-28-09 11:44 AM
Original message
On Sotomayor, Some Abortion Rights Backers Are Uneasy
WASHINGTON — In nearly 11 years as a federal appeals court judge, President Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, has never directly ruled on whether the Constitution protects a woman’s right to an abortion. But when she has written opinions that touched tangentially on abortion disputes, she has reached outcomes in some cases that were favorable to abortion opponents.
Now, some abortion rights advocates are quietly expressing unease that Judge Sotomayor may not be a reliable vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 abortion rights decision. In a letter, Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, urged supporters to press senators to demand that Judge Sotomayor reveal her views on privacy rights before any confirmation vote.
“Discussion about Roe v. Wade will — and must — be part of this nomination process,†Ms. Keenan wrote. “As you know, choice hangs in the balance on the Supreme Court as the last two major choice-related cases were decided by a 5-to-4 margin.â€
Because Judge Sotomayor is the choice of a president who supports abortion rights at a time when Democrats hold a substantial majority in the Senate, both sides in the debate have tended to assume she could be counted on to preserve the Roe decision.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortio...
tsuki (1000+ posts) Thu May-28-09 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. Do we really need another Catholic on the Supreme Court? It will give the court a 66.6% Catholic make-up. As a former Catholic, I don't trust that make-up.
SoCalNative (632 posts) Thu May-28-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. No
We need an Atheist or two for balance.
w4rma (1000+ posts) Thu May-28-09 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
3. Uh oh. Has she been vetted properly by our side?
katandmoon (1000+ posts) Thu May-28-09 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. How sad is it that we can't even trust Obama to nominate a pro-choicer to the Supreme Court?
It's just one more in a long line of the crushing disappointments I have come to expect since January 20, 2009, disappointments which make it impossible for me to give Obama any benefit of the doubt on this one.
Yeah, Pa Kettle in the White House has been a crushing disappointment to franksolich, too. It's now nearly impossible for franksolich to give Pa Kettle any benefit of the doubt.
DonCoquixote (296 posts) Thu May-28-09 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. Geezus!
Sotomayor has been vetted, even the Rachel maddows of the world seem to think she is NOT a hard right person, and she has made decisions that slap billionaires in the face (like where she ruled against the baseball owners in the baseball strike.) Of course, the fact she is Hispanic has NOTHING to do with criticism, right?
question everything (1000+ posts) Thu May-28-09 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. I trust her to have the problems facing women in front of her this, too, is what she meant when a Latina woman can have a better understanding than a white man. Which is why Newt is so angst.
While I can see why on this forum we would concentrate on the narrow issue of Roe v. Wade - we cannot expect any candidate for any office to be like that.
Ooops, the AdBot primitive messes up, big time.
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Fri May 29th 2009, 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
Protect Nebraska Jobes
Tell Senator Conrad to Support the
Employee Free Choice Act!
Uh, what's Senator Conrad, from North Dakota, have to do with Nebraska?