Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is it not odd that Obama never asked Sotomayor about Roe v Wade?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 12:39 AM
Original message
Is it not odd that Obama never asked Sotomayor about Roe v Wade?
I love her story and she seems like a lovely person, but I find it odd that Roe v Wade never even came up. Is Obama relying on her to make a prayerful decision about choice?

====

The officials also say she was not asked about privacy rights or Roe v.Wade. They say the fact that she is not on record on these issues was not a factor in her selection.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/05/behind-the...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
snowdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. Perhaps he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwheeler31 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. It will be ok.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tan guera Donating Member (256 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. What about her views
on preventive detention?

Gibbs said twice yesterday, that she goes along with Obama's judicial policies. I don't like the sound of that. Other than that and RoeVWade, she sounds OK. But those 2 things are biggies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. 'goes along with'
means NOTHING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Important:
They say Obama and Sotomayor had "a pretty dense talk about legal theory and the law and the Constitution."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'm not going to take the word of officials who dare not speak their names.
:eyes:
rocktivity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. So your contention is the reporter is lying about the interview?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. My contention is that the officials might be lying to the reporter about the interview.
Edited on Thu May-28-09 01:13 AM by rocktivity
which we can't confirm because we don't know who they are.

For all we know, those officials were under orders not to "leak" any info about Roe vs Wade. Which is why the whole concept of "leaking" is such a crock.

:headbang:
rocktivity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. pssst Roe v Wade, not Rove v Wade :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. LOL! A Freudian slip--or a Rovian one?
Edited on Thu May-28-09 01:06 AM by rocktivity
I admit I've had his "I know lots of stupid people who went to Ivy League schools" remark on my subconscious mind...

:rofl:
rocktivity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #4
23. Exactly...
How do we know if they were even in the room? The thing that jumps out at me is the stuff about the New Haven case. They are saying she wasn't asked about it because it is coming before the SCOTUS, and she should not be asked what her opinion would be as a member.

Well, if she is a member of SCOTUS when it is heard, she would have to, in my opinion, recuse herself, anyway, so what difference would it make for the president to ask her about it?

I find it difficult to believe that this president is not very, very sure of her credentials and thoughts regarding the typical liberal issues.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. The New Haven case has been argued by SCOTUS already.
How would it come before her?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #27
39. Has it been argued?
Edited on Thu May-28-09 11:35 AM by polmaven
I'm sorry. I was under the impression that it has been accepted but may not be argued until the next term. I guess I was a little behind on that.


On edit...looked it up....oral arguments were scheduled in April, 2009.....Ooops! Sorry about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
7. If Obama doesn't ask her about Roe, then he can throw up his hands
when she supports choice. Which she will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Ah...
makes sense :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. does she have to pray also? or just the pregnant women?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. I didn't hear a lot of god talk from her at the announcement.
And certainly not of the type we hear from the RW nuttery who have to broadcast their hypocrisy 24/7. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #16
32. good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
43. I would like to KNOW.
Some Catholics can be pretty rigorous in their commitment to the Dogma of the Catholic Church.
If she is a practicing Catholic, and votes in favor of Roe, there WILL be calls for her "Excommunication".

I'm not "casting asparagus".
Her Catholic background and current status is a legitimate concern.
(I have a Catholic background as well).

I really don't care about all the hype and window dressing (Woman, Hispanic, pulled up by bootstraps, etc). I'm waiting for some REAL data on how she sees the relationship between Government VS. Citizens, and the relationship between Corporations VS. Consumers.

I fear the appointment of a Social Moderate, but an authoritarian Corporatist.
Again, I'm NOT accusing, but am waiting for the data before making my decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. I think that would be suicide for the Catholic Church
Edited on Thu May-28-09 12:13 PM by WeDidIt
I think Sotomayor is going to neutralise ANY talk of excommunicaiton by the Catholic Church over Roe v. Wade in the future.

Hispanics are the single largest demographic they have in the US and their only demographic in Central and South America. No way does the Catholic Church alienate that demogaphic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. Of course!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
14. No, it's not odd. The Rethugs are likely to specifically ask her if Obama or his people
questioned her about her abortion views.

Justices are not supposed to be prejudging issues before they come to their Courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
devilgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
15. If the question comes up, she should play like Clarence Thomas and claim she discussed the issue...
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. I just realized that I don't have a single memory of Thomas after those
hearings. He was so repulsive, he just gets filtered out. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 01:49 AM
Response to Original message
18. Roe is already the law- the SC does not go back and re-try
cases it has already decidced. They may interpret it, or explain it, as the recent Heller on the 2nd ammendment, but they will NOT overturn it - it is not the way they operate.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Wrong.
Edited on Thu May-28-09 02:16 AM by Lasher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 07:18 AM
Response to Reply #19
25. WRONG, back at ya - read the decision not the right wing bullshit
aT RAW.

It is not what people are saying it is - this is merely another anti-Obama lie campaign.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #25
41. Right wing bullshit at Raw Story? LOL!
In a 5-to-4 ruling, the court overturned its 1986 opinion in a Michigan case, which forbade the police from interrogating a defendant once he invoked his right to counsel at an arraignment or a similar proceeding.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortio...


This was only the latest case where the SCOTUS has overturned one of its own previous rulings in an contradiction with the principle of stare decisis. And there will be more to come.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Oh, my.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyfromNC Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. Old Mark
Edited on Thu May-28-09 07:47 AM by AndyfromNC
The SC does occasional overturn their own decisions. They have a policy against it, called stare decisis, but it does happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 06:29 AM
Response to Original message
21. I think its common practice to ask but not really directly ask.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
solstice Donating Member (278 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
22. Maybe he already knows she doesn't. I mean, she supported the gag rule.
And I'm VERY uneasy about her, I don't trust her, and given Obama's history of truly lousy nominees, why should I?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eyesroll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #22
34. She affirmed the legality of the gag rule. There's a big difference between that and support.
Kind of like the ACLU going to bat for the Klan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
solstice Donating Member (278 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. What a lame strawman. The ACLU does not make or uphold censorship laws affecting women's health &
lives.

The government and the courts do. If they don't protect women, who will?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eyesroll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. Oy. Look up the definition of "strawman" and get back to me.
The ACLU worked in favor of the Klan rally not because they support the Klan, but because their rally was legal.

Sotomayor ruled in favor of the gag rule not because she supported the gag rule, but because it was legal.

If a Sotomayor court ruled in favor of the Klan rally, would she then be supporting the Klan?

I am making an analogy. It is imperfect. It is not, however, a strawman. Your "if don't protect women, who will?" question gets perilously close to strawman territory, though.

My point being: Judges are in a difficult position. They are asked to rule on something's legality, under the existing Constitution and existing legal structure we have. Many crappy things are still constitutional, and judges are duty-bound to uphold their legality. They're not allowed to overturn a law simply because it's stupid or counter-productive. In the gag rule case, Sotomayor was relying, in part, on Supreme Court precedent--something an appellate judge is also duty-bound to do.

(This is why some LGBT groups are wary of a Supreme Court battle over marriage right now, and would prefer to wait for a more sympathetic Court--if the Court says it is perfectly constitutional and not violative of Equal Protection or Due Process for states to ban same-sex marriage--that gay and lesbian people aren't barred from marriage because they're free to marry members of the opposite sex, and no there's no parallel between this and interracial marriage-- then that's that, and the federal courts are bound by that precedent.)

**The devil, as always, is in the details, and that's where experience and, yes, empathy, and, yes, politics come in. (For instance: Murder is illegal, period, and nobody argues otherwise. The details, however, complicate things--is abortion murder? Is the death penalty? For that matter...is there a parallel between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage? Is sexual orientation a protected class, like race? If we had easy, consensus answers to those questions, we'd have clear policy, but we don't.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. Look up 'non sequitur' while you're at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
24. Maybe because it's a no-brainer?
Edited on Thu May-28-09 07:04 AM by HamdenRice
New York City, liberal Democratic, Second Circuit judge from the Bronx? What are the chances she's anti-abortion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #24
31. So you'd leave it up to chance, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
28. i am going to trust obama on this one, largely because unlike his stances on gay people he doesnt
Edited on Thu May-28-09 08:45 AM by La Lioness Priyanka
really equivocate on his stance on choice. i would find it VERY hard to believe that he would not pick a prochoice candidate

i think they are avoiding the choice question, so as not to play into the republicans hands but i believe he knows her position on abortion rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal In Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
29. My take is that they didn't want it to come up during the confirmation hearings that she was
appointed because she was pro-Roe v. Wade. If she wasn't asked, the repukes don't have that bit of ammunition against her.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
30. I'd find it odd if she wasn't asked.
I wonder if the unnamed official was there throughout the interview.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
33. Minority women and democrat....he didn't have to ask.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #33
49. Not the slam dunk you would suppose.
Some Latin Catholics ARE rigorously devoted to the Dogma of the Catholic Church and are generally comfortable with Authoritarian systems.
This is a valid concern.



I am waiting for a look behind the Hype and Window Dressing...(Minority, Woman, Bootstraps, etc.)

I would like to see some hard data on how she sees Government vs. Citizen, and Corporation vs. Consumer before I make up my mind.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbdo2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
36. Why would he ask her about Roe v Wade? She wasn't on that case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #36
47. ha ha ha ha I get it
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
40. obama knows enough to let a staffer ask that question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boomerang Diddle Donating Member (566 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
42. No.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stargazer09 Donating Member (625 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
44. If you think about it
He was smart not to ask her opinion on Roe v Wade. If her views on abortion are not on record anywhere, then it will be harder for the howling idiots to condemn her based on that one opinion.

With that said, I certainly hope that she will support women's rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MzNov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
46. Somebody had better ask her in the confirmation hearings.

Or all hell should break loose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 05:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC