And Daily Kos diarists are even launching a jihad against the nominee, "Sonia Sotomayor is a Stealth ANTI-CHOICE Supreme Court Pick."
An activist from the Faith and Action, an anti-abortion religious group, takes part in a prayer for Judge Sonia Sotomayor in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on May 26, 2009. US President Barack Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, to take the place of Justice David Souter on the US Supreme Court. If confirmed, Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice in the nation's history.
But this is really a leftist smokescreen. There's no political "bind" here, and Sotomayor's hardly "anti-choice."
Check out Jill Stanek's post, "Plot Thickens Re: Sotomayor's Abortion Stance":
Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick, Sonia Sotomayor, spent 7 hours at the White House last Thursday and before that was vetted thoroughly by Obama's pro-abortion staff. Even if Obama did not ask Sotomayor directly about her opinion re: Roe v. Wade when they met, he knows. The key to Obama's statement when naming Sotomayor (interestingly while attempting to make her sound conservative) is highlighted below ...
"Precedent" is code for belief that Roe v. Wade should stand simply under the legal principle ofstare decisis, a Latin phrase you'll be hearing a lot in the coming months, meaning "settled law."Stanek also has the statements on Sotomayor endorsement at Planned Parenthoold and Emily's List. NARAL is taking a "wait-and-see" approach, but Stanek links to this essay from Terence Jeffrrey:
Sonia Sotomayor should be asked in her confirmation hearing whether she believes the Constitution guarantees a right to kill an unborn child.Actually, even if Sotomayor agreed with the constitutional right to an abortion - and hence the right to kill an unborn child - she's not likely to comment truthfully in the question. She'll say what nominees always say, that "it wouldn't be appropriate for me to prejudge an issue before I become a member of the court," blah, blah.
If she says it does, it means she believes Supreme Court justices have the power to change the meaning of the Constitution itself, even to the point of depriving a whole class of human beings of their most fundamental right.
There can be no better reason for denying confirmation to a would-be justice.
The fact that President Infanticide appointed her and has trumpeted her "respect for precedent" is enough to give me the creeps.
See also, Hot Air: "Would Sotomayor Overturn Roe?"
Photo Credit: Getty Images.