Tuesday June 9 | Supreme Court Nomination Process

June 8, 2009 at 10:53 am | Posted in Coming Up | 5 Comments

Join us for a conversation with area experts on the courts about the nomination by President Obama of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. We’ll talk about the nomination process, from the President’s narrowing down process to confirmation, and about how Sotomayor’s specific pick is significant, both historically and politically.
Dr. John Szmer – Asst. Professor, Political Science at UNC Charlotte
Dr. Mary Thornberry – Professor and Chair, Political Science at Davidson College
Dr. Adolphus Belk – Professor of Political Science, Winthrop University

Click here to add and read comments

Listen to Show



RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Cany your panel please comment on the use of the phrase “activist judge?” I find it laughable that only a liberal judge is activist; because if the law didn’t need to be interpreted we wouldn’t need higher courts. Roberts has not once voted against corporate interests, isn’t that being activst?

    From everything I’ve read, including Scotusblog, she appears pretty moderate.

  2. Why didn’t Obama pick someone more liberal–it seems like a perfect opportunity for him to do so?

  3. Thank you for asking my question regarding “empathy”. The concept of justice being blind has a completely different meaning to me than was expressed by the guest. One guest pointed out that judges shouldn’t “blindly” make a decision. I never heard anyone suggest that. To me, the concept was made clear by Justice Roberts:

    “I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.”

    I would liked to have heard a panel with more diversity of thought. The answers were quite predictable.

  4. So now we hear that Biden has told police that Sotomayor “has their back”. That’s certainly not blind justice. Of course, it’s just gaff machine Biden.

  5. The straw that broke the camel’s back was Nina Totenburg about a week ago. She was talking about the current Supreme Court nominee and her racist statement.

    In the tradition of the 2nd ammendment, leaving out the first clause almost every time it’s mentioned, she quoted the blantent sexist statement. EXCEPT, she left out the last part which made it sexist!

    “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion”

    I’ve enjoyed public radio for many years. Probably never again.

    I didn’t spell check this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: