Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...LA Times: Gay marriage question put to Sotomayor
07.16.2009 12:40pm EDT
The Los Angeles Times nots that Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) asked Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor about a court ruling that said Minnesota could deny a marriage license to two men.
From the Times:“Did she agree, he asked, that the case, Baker vs. Nelson, reserved the question of marriage to the states?
“In Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that two men could be denied a marriage license because Minnesota law limited marriage to men and women.
“As she has with other topics, Sotomayor said she couldn’t comment because questions about marriage are pending in many courts and might reach the Supreme Court.
“Grassley challenged her on that point. He wondered aloud why she couldn’t comment on Baker because it’s legal precedent. He noted that on Tuesday she said that Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion, was an established legal precedent. If she could characterize the status of Roe, he asked, why not Baker?”
Sotomayor said that she would get back to him witth more analysis today.
Thankfully MN has Al Fraken as it’s junior senator.
Well, gay marriage is legal precedent in your state, Mr. Grassley, senator from IOWA. What’s your beef??
She can’t comment because if she does she may have to recuse herself from a marriage trial if it ever gets to the supreme court.
There’s also the point that Roe v. Wade is an established supreme court precedent. Same-sex marriage, for or against, has never been considered in the SCOTUS before.
“Wonder Said:Well, gay marriage is legal precedent in your state, Mr. Grassley, senator from IOWA. What’s your beef??”
I think his “beef” was that she was dodging the question. By claiming the cases could come before the court she could get away with not giving a straight answer, but she’d commented on Roe previously because stating that it was already legal precedent & therefore established law. Since same-sex marriage is also an established precedent she should therefore be able to discuss it just as she did Roe v. Wade, but she was trying to get out of answering the question. She should have stated what the law has established due to those precedents just as she did about abortion in her previous testimony.
She also said (hinted at in this article) that she hadn’t had time to study Baker, and would read up on it then get back to him.
I’m sorry, I just dont trust her.
The whole fire figher case.
Her whole “wise Latina” bs.
I think she brings WAY too much baggage to the SC.
We dont even know if she’ll be gay friendly.
We already know she’s not exactly fond of “old whitey”.
There are a lot of judges out there that are non white (not that that should matter in appointing a judge in the FIRST PLACE)who dont have the baggage that she has.
I think Dodomayor will do and say whatever it takes to further her own career.
Hmmmm…..maybe she should just be a politican instead.
And her ties to La Raza are NOT what I would consider comforting.
Why not just nominate David Duke while you’re at it.
With all the drama she’s bringing, why not elect Perez Hilton?
You want drama?
I’m still in favor or Judge Judy.
She’d get in there and kick everyone’s a$$.
BrianMN: Would you say that a [unwise] “white man” would rule better than a “wise Latina”?
Diversity is good because it improves the quality of decision making. Of the eight people on the SCOTUS right now, seven are men, seven are white, five are Catholics. Five are Catholic men. Four are white Catholic men.
It’s not a very diverse group.
A “wise Latina” never would have made such a statement.
Her remarks show just how arrogant she really is.
That, and based on the fire figher case she’s a snivelling racist.
You want diversity.
Put a gay person on the supreme court.
Put a Native American (who have NEVER had a seat) on the court.
Better yet, put a Gay, Native American, Satanist on the court.
Is that diverse enough for you?
Kari – It’s interesting that you inserted something in your statement that Sotomayor never did. She never made the comparison between herself being a “wise Latina” and an “unwise” white man. She made no reference to anyone being “unwise” at all. So you are making a contrast that she herself did not make. The intent of her repeated “wise Latina” remark is quite clear – she believed that simply because she is a Latina woman, that by sheer vitue of that life experience, she could more often that not come to a better judgment that a white man. This is ignorant, arrogant and quite laughably WRONG – for the same reasons that simpy because a man who is white with his life experiences would not “more often than not” come to a better conclusion than a Latina woman. Their ethnicity and life experiences do not imply better judgment. Her excuses are well rehearsed but no intelligent person is actually believing her new take on the remarks.
Thank you Mr. Sullivan.
Well said.
I think white gays need to take a good hard look at where their loyalties really lie.
I’m not about to turn my back on my own race just to elect some arrogant cow who may or more likely MAY NOT side with gays at all.
Be wary of Sotomayor she’s a racist, opportunist and not to be trusted based on her ties with the KKK (sorry, La Raza)
I’ve observed that often, not exclusively, conservative presidents often nominate liberal justices and liberal presidents nominate conservative justices. GWB, I honestly believed he had requirements of his nominees. time will be the judge of that. I believe Sotomayor is a contemlative person. I don’t know that she brings any bias to any decision she makes. I believe she deserves and will be confirmed. Time will decide how she rules.
I believe that she dropped from the appointment process. She is a little too spooky, and not upfront. Not to be trusted.
I’m more curious about Baker which I don’t know much about, and I’m not a lawyer. If the MN supreme court ruled solely on the law, what about MN’s constitution?
Can a constitution be ignored because the case narrowly refers to an existing law?
I wish I understood it better…prop 8 was more clear, if not uttlerly dissapointing.
First the constitution says you must give equal protection, so the marriage ban is struck. Then there is a vote changing the constitution, undermining the original decsision.
Why in the MN case is the law not unconstitutional? Do they already have one of those hated ammendments?
I have listened to her endlessly. And I feel that she is having to explain away previous faux-pas and likely has stuff to hide. But at least she is answering every last very difficult question with grace, calmness and poise and she is very able to answeer in detail the laws and reasonings behind just about every case she is grilled about. Shumer asked her about a pile of cases dealing with immigrants etc but ruled against them because the law required the results she came with. This is not an activist judge (as the republicans keep labeling her) whose empathy and sympathy gets in the way of ruling the way the current law of the time required her to.
And the “wise Latina” remark she said was a rhetorical turn of phrase that went flat in her own words but was at the time addressed to some Latino students to motivate them to do their best and to succeed.
She was constrasted by one senator to US Supreme Court candidate Estrada who wouldn’t answer questionsfrom the senators interviewing him for the position.
We will see. My gut feeling is that she is not entirely to be trusted and she may be a good actress so to speak talling the senators what might favorably influence them. One kept saying that she sounds like a good candidate for the job but what is troubling him is that her past speeches and what she is saying these days do not project the same image as she projected in the past. He had good regard for her but he wasn’t trusting her because she was being inconsistent between then and now. Another senator said that if she was being given a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, the Senate and the American people had a right to know just what they were getting, etc.
BrianMN. The ass Judy would kick is yours