With so many years on the bench, why is it that Sotomayors views on major issues are not known?

[usregimechange]

After reading several of her opinions I believe it may be because she decides cases based more on the particular facts at bar than her judicial philosophy. That may make her a good judge but it may also move the court to the right, albeit only slightly but slightly is all that is needed to swing previous 5-4 decisions.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Why to the right? Is it your feeling the the facts have a rightwing bias?

[usregimechange]

2. If you believe the constitution grants a right to privacy or provides a wall between church & state

that would guide your decision making. If you believe it depends on this or that you might split hairs like Justice O'Connor.

[usregimechange]

3. In other words if she is a centrist on several issues she would more the court TOWARD the right

[Buzz Clik]

6. I hope we get a justice who considers the facts and Constitution first.

... and leaves their personal political bias at the door.

[old mark]

4. Deciding on the facts is what a judge is supposed to do....

The GOP always says they want people who strictly follow only the law, yet piss and moan when one of "their" judges ignores their presumed RW party line and actually does go by the law.

She has had a very good carreer and I am certain she will be a great justice. She has just lived a private life.

mark

[Buzz Clik]

7. Yep!

[Avalux]

5. Have you read her rulings overturned by the SC?

There aren't many but in all cases, conservative majority overturned while Ginsberg, et al dissented. Leads me to believe she'd lean left.

You're making an assumption on what you do not know.

[usregimechange]

8. That is 3 out of 150 cases so kindly don't preach to me about assumptions

[Avalux]

9. Preaching? 3 cases are fact. Your assumption is based on what she doesn't say.

Why don't you wait until Sotomayor has a chance to speak for herself before deciding she'll lean right?

[usregimechange]

10. I didn't say she would lean right, I said if she is a centrist in a few areas she would move the

court to the right overall. If she was replacing Thomas or Scalia that would be one thing but she is not.

[EquallyExhausted]

13. i think the point being made is that those particular cases

might indicate where she falls relative to the justices currently sitting on the court, since those are the only cases on which we have her opinions as well as those of the current court. if her opinions in those cases were supported by the liberal justices on the court, then it stands to reason that she'd fall on their end of the spectrum, rather than measurably to their right.

anyway, it seems to me that ruling based on the facts in front of her, is her "judicial philosophy," and what might be unknown is her personal political philosophy; i'm not sure that's a bad thing.

[usregimechange]

15. And I agree but we have a delicate balance on the current court

[Honeycombe8]

11. HA! You're thinking that deciding cases based on facts is a BAD thing?

That's beyond words. Just beyond words.

God help you if you ever end up in front of a judge who (illegally) rules on cases based on his/her philosophy rather than the facts at hand.

[usregimechange]

12. I said that would make her a good judge, did you miss that? I am talking about the overall

composition of the court and the impact of adding a centrist in place of Souter. If there were only 2 conservative ideologues and the rest centrists she would be great but that is not what we are faced with.

[usregimechange]

14. Graphic illustration: