A Famous Alumna

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beau_Ouiville
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – "The Senate has begun its debate on the nomination of appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor, whom pro-abortion President Barack Obama picked for the Supreme Court. Leading pro-life groups say Sotomayor is pro-abortion and cite her involvement in a group that asked the court to keep abortions legal.

Sotomayor is Obama’s first selection for the high court and, should the Senate confirm her, she will replace retiring pro-abortion Justice David Souter.

Souter was one of the members of the group of five justices who support Roe v. Wade, the high court case that allowed virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason.

Some Republican senators have focused on comments Sotomayor has made about the courts being the place for judicial activism, like that found in Roe, and that has formed the basis for their opposition.

“The primary reason I will not support this nomination… is because I cannot support the so-called empathy standard upon which Judge Sotomayor was selected and to which she, herself, has subscribed in her writings and rulings,” pro-life Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor.

“A judge must be able to check his or her personal or political agenda at the courtroom door and do justice even-handedly, as the judicial oath requires. This is the most fundamental test. It’s a test Judge Sotomayor does not pass,” he explained.

“A number of us are very concerned about an activist court that’s trying to expand what the Constitution intends for the federal government to do,” pro-life Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina added.

“She’s been evasive on a number of questions,” DeMint said of the nominee. “I met with her privately. I asked her some fairly simple questions about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. She seems more founded in precedent than in upholding the Constitution.”

“She had some confirmation conversions,” he said, “and she came back to the point of view of a constructionist-type of judge. But she has not been consistent in her comments and seems very evasive with me in the individual meeting that I had with her.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who supports abortion, countered that Sotomayor has “developed a 17-year record as a moderate, mainstream judge.”

Last week, the National Right to Life Committee urged senators to oppose Sotomayor.

The group cited her position on the board of directors and as the director of litigation for a pro-abortion Hispanic group that filed several legal briefs with the Supreme Court arguing for unlimited abortions paid for at taxpayer expense.

Despite opposition from a majority of Republican lawmakers and pro-life groups, Sotomayor appears destined for confirmation. Combined with the 60 votes in the Democratic caucus and some Republicans who support her, she will likely receive as many as 65 votes from the Senate.

So far six Republicans have publicly supported Sotomayor.

The Senate Judiciary Committee previously approved Sotomayor’s nomination on a 13-6 vote.

Two weeks ago, leading pro-abortion group NARAL endorsed Sotomayor citing her comments during the confirmation hearings that she supports Roe v. Wade and that Obama promised pro-abortion judges during the presidential election.

Sotomayor has come under opposition from most pro-life groups because of all of the evidence showing she would likely support abortion on the high court.

They also point to her involvement in a pro-abortion group that repeatedly called on the Supreme Court to allow all abortions paid for at taxpayer expense.

Last month, Sotomayor made a comment during a meeting with one senator that also sent shockwaves throughout the pro-life community.

Senator Jim DeMint, a pro-life Republican from South Carolina, says he had a “good meeting” with the appeals court judge, but he came away with a telling comment.

“When I asked if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it,” he said. “This is not just a question about abortion, but about respect due to human life at all stages – and I hope this is cleared up in her hearings.”

Sotomayor has also come under fire for saying she regretted the adoption of a Congressional bill that prevented the Legal Services Corporation from spending taxpayer funds litigating in favor of abortion.

Two key pro-abortion senators have also said they think she will uphold unlimited abortions if confirmed to the high court.

Roe v. Wade, handed down in 1973 along with Doe v. Bolton, allowed abortions throughout pregnancy for virtually any reason and has resulted in more than 50 million abortions since then."🤷
 
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) --" Last week, White House officials submitted the official response to the Senate to a comprehensive judicial questionnaire given to Sonia Sotomayor by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The answers to the panel provide more circumstantial evidence that Sotomayor, the Supreme Court nominee, is pro-abortion.

Committee chairman Pat Leahy, a pro-abortion Democrat from Vermont, and Sen. Jeff Sessions, a pro-life Alabama Republican, crafted the questions.

The survey response contains quotes from a speech Sotomayor gave in June 2001 to the graduating class of Brooklyn Law School.

During the speech, Sotomayor complained that “In 1996, Congress prohibited lawyers receiving federal legal services monies from taking on class-action lawsuits or lawsuits involving abortion.”

She applauded the law school for having “redoubled their efforts to help address the need created by this legislation. These efforts, and the volunteer efforts of other law schools, bar groups and lawyers in private law firms, are not enough. The need is very great.”

Ed Whelan, a writer at the conservative publication National Review, points to this as an example of how Sotomayor is likely more pro-abortion than she has been given credit for from her rulings or in the media.

He said it is clear from the text of the speech that she is “commending” the ability of the Legal Services Corporation to engage in pro-abortion lawsuits using taxpayer funds.

Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, previously told LifeNews.com about the need for the legislation Sotomayor appeared to oppose.

“Back in the 1980s, some Legal Services Corporation grantees were deeply involved in pro-abortion litigation, until Congress told the LSC to stay out of either side of the abortion fight,” Johnson recalls.

Now, the administration of pro-abortion President Barack Obama is fighting to restore those funds.

Meanwhile, the questionnaire contained information from an interview Sotomayor gave to the New York Times in 1983 in which she responded to a question on an unrelated political issue and prefaced her response with, “No matter how liberal I am.”

Although it involves significant word parsing, Whelan says that is another indication that Sotomayor is likely pro-abortion because it has the high court pick essentially describing herself as very liberal.

“In stating ‘No matter how liberal I am,’ Sotomayor is describing herself as very liberal,” he says. “The clause is the semantic equivalent of “Even though I’m very liberal…’”

The questionnaire responses come after two pro-abortion senators, Diane Feinstein of California and Ron Wyden of Oregon, confirmed that they believe Sotomayor supports abortion and would uphold the Roe v. Wade case that ushered in an era of more than 50 million abortions."
 
Sotomayor ‘supported positions far more pro-abortion’ than even Roe v. Wade
by Dawn Eden on June 10, 2009

"An editorial in today’s Washington Times gives alarming evidence of Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s abortion advocacy, highlighting new details of her involvement with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund — which repeatedly “supported positions far more pro-abortion” than even the most extreme U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

From 1980 until October 1992, Judge Sotomayor was on the governing board of the PRLEDF, serving at various times as its vice president and as chairman of its litigation committee. It was during her tenure that the organization engaged in abortion advocacy of the most extreme variety, as the Washington Times editors state in “Sotomayor’s Abortion Ties”:

The New York Times in 1992 described her as “a top policy maker on the board.” During that time period, the fund filed briefs in not one, not two, but at least six prominent court cases in strong support of “abortion rights.”

The cases began with an abortion-funding case, Williams v. Zbaraz, just as she joined the board, and they continued through the landmark cases of Rust v. Sullivan, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Especially in the Webster case, in which all nine justices joined at least part of the decision saying that states need not provide public funds for abortions, the fund supported positions far more pro-abortion than the court itself did. Also, in the case Ohio v. Akron Center, the fund wrote that it “opposes any efforts to overturn or in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade.”

As the Washington Times adds, “No statement could be more categorical. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund thus presumably would oppose any restriction, including those on late-term abortions, partial-birth abortions, abortions for minors and the like.”

Judge Sotomayor takes her PRLEDF involvement as a point of pride, and the fund is now actively campaigning in support of her nomination. The fact that it filed pro-abortion briefs at least six times on her watch certainly indicates that Judge Sotomayor is unwilling to advocate for justice for the unborn. But the truth appears even harsher. The New York Times reported last month that Judge Sotomayor not only permitted the PRLDEF’s legal actions, but played a key role in shaping and backing them: “The board monitored all litigation undertaken by the fund’s lawyers, and a number of those lawyers said Ms. Sotomayor was an involved and ardent supporter of their various legal efforts.”

The Washington Times editorial has more on past actions and statements by the judge that point to her advocating abortion on demand. But, as the editors write, the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats need no such parsing of her record. They are convinced by their meetings with her, and by “her entire jurisprudential approach,” that she is firmly in the abortion-rights camp:

The most basic evidence of the judge’s support for Roe comes in the triple combination of White House assurances to that effect, of pro-choice senators declaring after meeting with her that they are sure she agrees with them, and of her entire jurisprudential approach of broadly construing anything characterized as “women’s rights.”"
 
Sometimes Catholic Education doesn’t quite “take”.😦
Making a lot of assumptions about a woamn who has never ruled on a cased involving abortion. it may very well she is pro-abortion-in fact it would not suprise me if she is BUT we dont know that. How about we see what she does before we start condemning her?
 
Making a lot of assumptions about a woamn who has never ruled on a cased involving abortion. it may very well she is pro-abortion-in fact it would not suprise me if she is BUT we dont know that. How about we see what she does before we start condemning her?
You know, this thread HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION. It’s about Catholic education and I’m sorry some have chosen to hijack it.

What folks also do not know about Sotomayor’s Bronx high school is that when she entered it, it did not have one minority employee. Not a janitor, nor a teacher, landscaper, administrator or lunch-room cook. Not one Hispanic like her, so it could not have been all that easy for her. And it was situated in an integrated neighborhood. The school reflects the neighborhood a lot more now.
 
She seems to be very intelligent and a very nice person.
I truly hope she is Obama’s David Souter, that would be wonderful.
I am praying.
 
You know, this thread HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION. It’s about Catholic education and I’m sorry some have chosen to hijack it.

What folks also do not know about Sotomayor’s Bronx high school is that when she entered it, it did not have one minority employee. Not a janitor, nor a teacher, landscaper, administrator or lunch-room cook. Not one Hispanic like her, so it could not have been all that easy for her. And it was situated in an integrated neighborhood. The school reflects the neighborhood a lot more now.
Nonsense, counselor. You opened this thread to praise Sotomayor and to suggest that somehow Catholics ought to join with you in this praise, just because she went to a Catholic school. The Supreme Court created abortion-on-demand in this country, and could end it if properly constituted. To Catholics who really are prolife, Sotomayor’s importance does not depend on whether her old high school likes her, or whether you think she’s neat because she went to a Catholic school, but on whether she will, like the president who appointed her, be pro-abortion.
 
Nonsense, counselor. You opened this thread to praise Sotomayor and to suggest that somehow Catholics ought to join with you in this praise, just because she went to a Catholic school.
Once again, I did not suggest a thing. People like to take inferences to support their own agendas.

This thread is about a family from humble circumstances which, through parochial education, was able to achieve professional success in America. The Catholic school which guided Justice Sotomayor and her brother takes pride in their achievements.

Nothing about this concerns abortion. Justice Sotomayor, her younger brother, her mother and her Catholic school deserve praise. God bless America.

And I can name about five other doctors and judges and at least ten lawyers who graduated from that school in the seventies – all of them minorities. Sequere deum.
 
Nonsense, counselor. You opened this thread to praise Sotomayor and to suggest that somehow Catholics ought to join with you in this praise, just because she went to a Catholic school. e SThupreme Court created abortion-on-demand in this country, and could end it if properly constituted. To Catholics who really are prolife, Sotomayor’s importance does not depend on whether her old high school likes her, or whether you think she’s neat because she went to a Catholic school, but on whether she will, like the president who appointed her, be pro-abortion.
Exactly.And where there’s smoke there usually IS fire.The Catholic High School that my son attends has 1,300 students and less than 3% attend mass,and receive the sacraments.Catholic Education is MUCH MORE than superior academic discipline…it’s about catechizing our kids and instilling Catholicity,something that CINO parents of the other 97% have failed to do.How Catholic is this woman?From what I’ve read American politions are anything BUT-Pelosi,Kennedy,Biden,and the other woman who was chastised by her Bishop and FORBIDDEN the Holy Eucharist.We have CINO polititions in Canada and can name several who have been forbidden Communion-particularly those of the NDP who are rabid supporters of abortion.

Don’t presume Mr.Weevil, to lecture ANYONE when you absolutely knew that that the abortion predliction or lack of would be discussed.
 
Don’t presume Mr.Weevil, to lecture ANYONE when you absolutely knew that that the abortion predliction or lack of would be discussed.
I don’t lecture and I don’t presume. And this thread has nothing to do with abortion. As a matter of fact, I know of three priests, a religious brother and two nuns who were in the same high school as Justice Sotomayor at the same time. It was a large school, however.
 
I don’t lecture and I don’t presume. And this thread has nothing to do with abortion. As a matter of fact, I know of three priests, a religious brother and two nuns who were in the same high school as Justice Sotomayor at the same time. It was a large school, however.
If this was a forum for students at the University of Virginia Law School, and the topic was whether Sotomayor accepted the ruling in some case about land use, you would have a point.

But this is a Catholic forum, and Sotomayor’s stand on abortion-on-demand is of vital interest to many, if not most, posters. Now, when one posts an article about how some newsworthy person went to a Catholic school in a Catholic forum, and if the article praises her, and particularly if the poster has also praised her and represented in the past that the person should somehow be regarded as prolife, one has invited comment concerning that issue. If one doesn’t want that issue commented upon, then one should not introduce threads praising that person, and particularly one should not, by doing so, suggest that somehow that person’s having attended a Catholic school should induce prolife Catholics to think better of her than her likely stand would justify.

I’ll grant, it was a good try, counselor.

As to whether any given number of priests or nuns attended the same school, borrowing a leaf from your profession, I’ll say:
Objection. Irrelevant.
Sustained.
 
Don’t presume Mr.Weevil, to lecture ANYONE when you absolutely knew that that the abortion predliction or lack of would be discussed.
“Weevil”. You know, I have wondered myself whether Mr. Ouville’s name is somehow meant to suggest “Boll Weevil”; perhaps after the southern Democrats who were given that moniker years back. Not trying to be smart alecky, here, but I really am curious. Mr. Ouiville has said he is from the South and he is a Democrat. So…🤷
 
When citing news articles, you must provide a link, put it in a quote box and only use two paragraphs for copywrite purposes.
Also, keep the discussion away from politics.
 
If this was a forum for students at the University of Virginia Law School, and the topic was whether Sotomayor accepted the ruling in some case about land use, you would have a point.
The judge went to Yale.
Now, when one posts an article about how some newsworthy person went to a Catholic school in a Catholic forum, and if the article praises her,
OK, stop right there.
and particularly if the poster has also praised her …
Please deal with the post and not the poster. Those are forum rules.
… and particularly one should not, by doing so, suggest that somehow that person’s having attended a Catholic school should induce prolife Catholics to think better of her than her likely stand would justify.
I think I’m on record as stating that I don’t suggest. Deal with the post.
Objection. Irrelevant.
Sustained.
No one rules on their own objections.
 
“Weevil”. You know, I have wondered myself whether Mr. Ouville’s name is somehow meant to suggest “Boll Weevil”; perhaps after the southern Democrats who were given that moniker years back. Not trying to be smart alecky, here, but I really am curious. Mr. Ouiville has said he is from the South and he is a Democrat.
The name is a joke. Technically a trompe l’oreille. About a triple entendre.

Now think: If Justice Sotomayor attended my high school, and it is not even in the south Bronx, the chances of me being from the south are slim.
 
The name is a joke. Technically a trompe l’oreille. About a triple entendre.

Now think: If Justice Sotomayor attended my high school, and it is not even in the south Bronx, the chances of me being from the south are slim.
I thought you said you were from the South. If not, fine.

But you have attempted to sell Sotomayor on here numeous times as being prolife or potentially prolife. Did you really expect posters who didn’t agree with you then on that and don’t agree with you now, to suddenly think better of Sotomayor just because you post an article about her saying her high school is proud of her?

Maybe I did step uninvited into your world, counselor, in “sustaining my own objection” to the irrelevance of being praised by a catholic high school to what is perhaps the most important thing about Sotomayor; whether she’s a pro-abortion ally of Obama’s or not. Just couldn’t pass it up.
 
I thought you said you were from the South. If not, fine.
Only one side of my folks.
But you have attempted to …
Deal with the post. Sotomayor attended the Red Mass in DC today.
[One should] suddenly think better of Sotomayor just because you post an article about her saying her high school is proud of her?
You can choose to or not. That’s what the post was about.
Just couldn’t pass it up.
Thread hijack? That’s contrary to forum rules.
 
Deal with the post. Sotomayor attended the Red Mass in DC today.
Aha! Red…iow, Communist Mass! 😉 😛
Beau Ouiville:
Thread hijack? That’s contrary to forum rules.
I don’t think that commenting about Sotomayor’s views is a hijack of the thread. The thread is about Sotomayor. The fact that she went to a Catholic school and is now a Supreme Court Judge invites discussion about her views on important Catholic issues. 🤷

I realize you would prefer to keep the thread discussion very narrow, but that doesn’t mean that anything you don’t want to discuss is off-topic.

All of that said, I hope Sotomayor is a fantastic justice who upholds the Constitution and judges as a properly formed, Catholic justice should.
 
Aha! Red…iow, Communist Mass!
“The name of the service, which dates to the 13th century and is conducted to ask for guidance for those who seek justice, comes from the red vestments worn by the celebrants.”

chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-us-supreme-court-mass,0,6617376.story
All of that said, I hope Sotomayor is a fantastic justice who upholds the Constitution and judges as a properly formed, Catholic justice should.
How should a Jewish justice judge?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top