Sotomayor's Views on Abortion, Gun Rights Come Under the Microscope

[BlueJessamine]

By Ben Pershing

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/28/sotomayors_views_on_abortion_g.html

The main storyline of Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination -- whether she'll be confirmed -- seems hardly in doubt, but her candidacy has already become the vehicle for other interesting subplots. On gun rights, abortion and even immigration reform, Sotomayor has provided the platform for advocates on both sides of the aisle to battle it out.

Sotomayor's abortion views are the focus of multiple front-pagers today. The New York Times says "some abortion rights advocates are quietly expressing unease that Judge Sotomayor may not be a reliable vote to uphold Roe v. Wade." As was the case with the man she would replace, David Souter, Sotomayor's paper trail on the issue is relatively thin. With Souter, conservatives made assumptions about his views that later came back to haunt them, and liberals hope to avoid making the same mistake today. The Los Angeles Times notes that "in her only abortion-related decision, she did not come down the way would have liked," referencing Sotomayor's role in upholding the constitutionality of the so-called Mexico City Policy in 2002. Per tradition, Sotomayor surely won't give a clear answer on her abortion views when she appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, so will the White House find some other way to reassure its allies on this issue?

Gun rights groups also have a problem with Sotomayor's views, and in this case it's because of her substantive record, not her lack thereof. In particular, they cite a 2004 ruling in which Sotomayor joined two other judges to declare that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." You can expect conservative groups to put red-state Democratic Senators on the spot on this issue, pushing them to agree or disagree with Sotomayor. "These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court," writes Ken Blackwell, warning that "you should never underestimate the political power of American gun owners."

[galaxy21]

1. A lot of presidents dont know what they're getting

I remember there was that old story about Reagan appointing Sandra O'Day, and obviously everyone was expecting him to choose someone pro life. He phoned her, asked what she thought of abortion, and she said she found it "personally appalling". So, he immediately thought "she's pro life" and that was that. Except we know now she wasn't, and while she personally felt one way, that wasn't how she ruled.


Although I seriously doubt Obama would misinterpret ambiguity in a similar manner.

[JI7]

2. Obama is a lot more smarter than Reagan was

we know he is smart politically and has a law background himself. i just can't see him being fooled so easily as in the Reagan example. or not even in the example of Souter and the first Bush.

maybe Obama didn't ask her personally himself but others who work for him did. or maybe Obama was able to ask her in a way where he could figure out where she stood without asking her directly her views.

[joeybee12]

3. A person who understands that the owning a gun is NOT a constituional right is NOT

an anti-gun radical, it's a person who understand history, the constitution and the founders' intent...the radical is the fool who thinks otherwise.