Finally, after the Bush farce of selecting Harriet Miers in 2005 as his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O’Conner, we now get the chance to have a woman once again claim a rightful seat to the high Court.  Bush and his advisers knew that selecting a less-than-qualified woman who would be bounced would allow Bush to argue that “see, I tried.”  And then he could go to his original plan of selecting a male to fill the seat emptied by Sandra Day O’Conner.

While women make up just a tad over 50% of the population, they have continuously been relegated to second-class status when it comes to seats on the Supreme Court. Currently, the Court has only one woman – Ruth Bader Ginsburg – for a whopping 11% of the Court’s composition.  Even when two women sat on the high court, the percentage remained at only 22% – far below the 50% of the population represented by women.

A number of  presidents have looked to good ‘ole males to fill Supreme Court seats despite the fact that many qualified candidates could have been found.  But now President Obama has selected a woman, Sonia Sotomayor, as his pick to replace retiring justice David Souter, ending the guessing game and the trash-talking about women’s weight and health as criteria to sit on the high bench.  Simply assanine.

What a dilema for Republicans.  On one hand, Sotomayor represents the “pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps” philosophy about which Republicans are so want to preen and crow.  She was born in the Bronx and grew up in a public housing project.  Her mother worked six days a week to raise her and her brother.

Sotomayor later graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University and went on to attend Yale law school, where she was editor of the Yale Law Journal – probably under one of those oh-so-dreaded affirmative action quotas about which Republicans nash their teeth.

Republicans will be forced to find something wrong with her even though she was appointed to the federal bench by George H.W. Bush – a Republican.  This could be interesting.  Yes, indeed, Republicans may just be forced to confront their “speak-with-forked-tongue” philosophy.


About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Federal Courts, Judicial System, President Obama, Supreme Court, Women in Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. p of v says:

    Judge Sotomayor is the most qualified nominee in a half a century. Her ethnicity and gender have been a hindrance to her career, and when those bigoted old white men in the republican party hiss that President Obama only picked her because she’s a Hispanic women, they do her a great disservice. She deserves this based on merit.

  2. Iceironman says:

    She is a racist and a sexist. She believes that policy is to made from the bench as an activist. That is in direct opposition to the oath she must take. How can gender and ethnicity be a hindrace she is going to be on the supreme court? Has Obamas race or gender been a hendrace? He is the president of the US. Im tired of this crap. I suppose having a black woman as secratary of state by Bush was a muse. And P of V dont be rediculous–your liberal media has created the monster that is her defining qualities, you know its true. Liberals always look at skin color and gender. And yes,CONSEVATIVES, love her story, too bad with the liberal philosophy taking hold these days, you know the one that says the govt provides for you dont worry about it, get knocked up, we will give you what you need. She grew up in a great time, when one could go as high as they wanted and not feel bad. Now Obama talks to people about not going into high paying jobs etc. Millions of woman who are just as smart and gifted as her will rot in the streets because of womans lib, because it is okay to get knocked up, because the govt will pay their bills. The lib movement will destroy many woman like her.

    The court should be blind, yet now it must have empathy. For whom? A woman because she got nocked up while she was drunk? For a lazy piece of crap drug addict whose parents were divorced. The court is for the equal treatment of people regardless of income, or at least it was!

    And I quote her racist,sexist attitude. “A wise Latina woman (white male)with the richness of her(his) experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a (Latina woman) white male who hasn’t lived that life,” Sotomayor said.

    A white man saying this would not see a local bench let alone the supreme court. But elections have concequences and Obama did say he wanted to redistibute wealth through the courts.

    Now if you will excuse me, I have to go do a job that most Latina are not smart enough or hard working enough to do because of their life experience. (Made me feel like crap just to type that) I also am waiting on the iceironman white male 5 foot 8, grew up on a farm, went to Purdue married with 4 children clause that enables me to my rightfull seat on the Supreme Court, because I am a minority!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. Judith says:


    You went to Purdue? Hard to believe someone so bigoted attended this fine land-grant college.

    Re: Judge Sotomayor

    What part of “summa cum laude” from Princeton and editor of the prestigious Yale Law Reivew during her years at Yale do you not understand? Perhaps you haven’t read of her years as law professor, District Attorney, private litigator and judge. As Appellate Judge only six of her rulings were advanced to the Supreme court, and only three were overturned. Quite a record compiled since her appointment to the District Court in 1992.

    Your disrespect for women in general is appalling. My family were farmers too, and I never heard your type of language in my neighborhood.

  4. Ice:

    And the point of those two clips was?

    Anyone who follows the law knows darn well that judges of all persuasions “make” law. I will tell you what I am sick and tired of – people pouting and stomping that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was written 222 years ago.

    While the Constitution is a great document – for God’s sake – it was written in 1787 by 55 white males who owned property and wanted to keep it that way. They were all well off. Many of them owned slaves. To even want to interpret the Constitution as if our society has not changed is pure lunacy. Slavery would still exist. Women wouldn’t have the vote and neither would minorities. Is that what you really want? A society locked in the mores and prejudices of 1787?

    And, like it or not – all justices are activists. Any decision a court makes that deviates from precedent in the slightest is judicial activism. The only way justices would not be activists is if they ruled the same way decade after decade and never changed the law.

    Activism led to desegregation, voting rights for excluded groups, protection for the mentally and physically handicapped, the opportunity for young women to compete in the sports arena, equal pay for equal work, and on and on.

    If you want your judicial restraintists – then by all means you can have them. But I honestly don’t understand why you would want to live in a world blinded by prejudice and hatred. Why would you want your daughters (assuming you have daughters) to be discriminated against simply because they are women? Why would you not want them to have the right to vote or to go to college?

  5. Iceironman says:

    Judith, I only repeated basicly what your fine judge said. I would never say the things she said.

    It was white males who died to end slavery. It was white males who gave African Americas and woman the right to vote.

    And womans lib was only for liberal women. Look at how you treat Sara Palin, or any other conservative woman. They are trash and stupid and oldfashion.

    I dont know where you guys come up with hate and bigoted and all of that crap. Because I want people to be judged as humans and not white or black or by gender I am the bigot or filled with hate? Clarence Thomas is a great man, oh no, hes black!!!!!! I respect Sara Palin as much as any to the highest degree.

    I dont mind CHANGING the constitution. It was set up that way. Activist Judges ruin the system by short circuiting the system. That horrible white male Roberts actual had the nerve to say he is not to make policy, just interpret the law. No matter what–you know Im right. And if Im to understand you two–you want 5 people in this country running rampant on our rights? No congress, No president? The supreme court is NOT for policy making.

    “I, Racist, sexist Sotomayor solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

    That sounds good but it isnt what Obama and Sotomayor are after. But it is not going to last. We are getting tired of the lines we are being fed from the moshia. I guess as soon as we can be honest with who we are dealing with we will be better off. I would not support a white male who said the things sotomayor said. But you do.

  6. Iceironman says:

    Oh the point of the clips—SHE IS A RACIST AND SEXIST and activist judge!!!!!!!!!!

  7. Judith says:

    I was referring to your comments regarding women’s lib and the role of women in society.

  8. Ice:

    Racism and sexism are based on the view that one’s race or sex is superior to others. I fail to see how your clips support that view of Justice Sotomayor.

    I can’t honestly believe that you think all those white male justices (and one black justice) who sat on the high court until a woman was included in 1982 ruled with neutrality and did not make policy. Please, please take off your blinders.

    Justices make law every time they “interpret” a rule or statute or court case. Interpret means to “provide the meaning of” or “explain.” If you don’t agree with a decision, then it appears that you call it “judicial activisim”, but if you agree then you call it “judicial restraint.”

    Didn’t the Supreme Court just get through interpreting the Second Amendment in a way that provided individual rights to bear arms? The justices could just have easily have interpreted the Second Amendment to hold that the right was a collective right.

    What about the Dred Scott case? The Supreme Court justices interpreted the law to hold that Africans imported into this country and descendants were not legal persons and could not be citizens.

    What about the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century? The Supreme Court, in 1927, once again “interpreted” a law – a Virginia law that made sterilization of mentally retarded individuals legal – as constitutional. Ah and that led to Justice Holmes infamous quote that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

    But flash forward to 1942 to Skinner v. Oklahoma and you will find the court now ruling that sterilization of those incarcerated for three crimes of “moral turpitude” as unconstitutional. Why? Because they didn’t want it to look like we were copying the methods being used in Nazi Germany.

    Do some research and you will find that history is replete with judicial activisim exercised by justices of all persuasions – right, left, Republican, Democrat – it simply is a matter of how you decide to interpret the “right to interpret.”

    As to men dying to free slaves – remember it was men who imprisoned slaves, tore families apart, lynched blacks because they were blacks. It was men who perpetrated the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, Darfur, and on and on and on. And, it is still men who battle, kill, rape, and maim in the name of religion and power and greed.

    Women were very active in the abolitionist movement, but since they had no vote, they had to work in other ways. Susan B. Anthony was arrested for voting in the 1872 presidential election.

    You are simply kidding youself if you actually believe Justice Roberts and his cohorts don’t make policy when the Court hands down decisions. I submit to you again that the distinction between activism and restraint is simply whether or not you agree with the decision.

  9. Iceironman says:

    Charlotte, one time more slowly..Sotomayor said “A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” Sotomayor said

    SHE THINKS SHE AND LATINA WOMAN ARE SUPERIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Funny you mention Holmes on the eugenics—Barack quoted him during the naming of Sotomayor. I would also argue that men were more active in the abolishen movement, you know Lincoln, and the hundreds of thousands that died. But you must be talking about the women who took slaves into their husbands homes on the underground railroad.

    There is also a difference in reading the constitution and or a law on the books and interpreting it. What did Barack mean when he told Soto to get up there and start administering some justice. What does that mean? That means, give this country to the poor.

    And Judith, Womans lib is only for LIBERAL woman who follow the heard. The National Organization for Woman NOW, will never stand up for Palin. They hater her. Why because she is conservative. Name one conservative woman who has been recognized by NOW. I guess NOW fights for a womans right to chose, just so long as it is the right along their ideals.

    And Charlotte, I do want to learn more, can you point out some cases where conservative judges have or can be shown to be acting in an activist fasion. It is the libs who want our guns, and our homes (personal property) for development for a tax base.

  10. Ice:

    So let me get this straight – you are basing your entire opinion of Justice Sotomayor on a statement made a number of years ago?

    Now on to cases for you to research:

    1. Brown v. Board (9-0) – 1954 – desegregation

    2. Buck v. Bell (8-1) – 1927 – upheld Eugenics

    3. Skinner v. Oklahoma (9-0) – 1942 – struck down eugenics

    4. Betts v. Brady (6-3) – 1942 – denied the right to counsel for indigents

    5. Gideon v. Wainwright (9-0) – 1963 – upheld the right to counsel for indigents

    6. Miranda v. Arizona (6-3) – 1966 – created the Miranda warnings to require that police ensure that defendants understand certain rights before a statement or confession is admissible

    7. Roe v. Wade (7-2) – 1973 – stuck down law criminalizing abortion

    8. Reed v. Reed (9-0) – 1973 – stuck down law mandating a male over female choice in estate administration

    9. Frontiero v. Richardson (8-1) – 1973 – stuck down a law that treated female military personnel and their dependents differently than male military personnel and their dependents

    10. Pleasant Grove, Utah v. Summum (9-0) 2009 – upheld a City’s right to accept private religious monuments for placement in a public park

    And I will say this to you again – slowly – what you are missing is that, like it or not, the Supreme Court makes policy as does any other court that makes a decision impacting the rights of those who come before the courts.

    You fail to understand the dynamics of the courts, in particular, the Supreme Court. The Court makes policy in every decision it hands down. Abolishing segregation was a policy decision, establishing the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion is a policy decision, providing equal pay for equal work is a policy decision, upholding the right to practice eugenics is a policy decision, the right of an indigent to have court-appointed counsel is a policy decision, and on and on.

    And as to Lincoln, Lincoln was a coward in his views on slavery. He did not care whether or not slavery was ended. His goal was to save the Union. Here are some of his statements and positions on slavery:

    1. He was not an admirer of the black man, did not believe blacks should be granted the rights of American citizens, and did not wish that they be a part of American society. He believed that all blacks should be removed from the United States and resettled in some other country.

    2. Lincoln on freed slaves: “My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible.” (Remind you of any positions taken by today’s anti-Hispanic crowd?)

    3. In his 1860 inaugural address, he said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

    4. In 1862, President Lincoln wrote: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862).”

    5. In 1858 Lincoln wrote: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

    Sorry, but it is time to open the eyes and recognize that Lincoln was just another president and had his faults. Continuing to hold him up as the savior of the black man is ludicrous. HE DIDN’T CARE. He wanted to save the Union and slavery just happened to be the issue that raised the issue between the two sides to the boiling point.

  11. Iceironman says:

    This is an example of why Washington is broke. I dont give a crap about D or R. I dont care about man or woman or race. This is the exact attitude that will screw every single one of us, If this B*&^%, call, me senator treats a General who has truely worked his ass off for this country this way, how do you think she and others think of you? Pompus sacks of crap!!!!!!!!

    She worked so hard to be called senator?????????????? Is maam disrespectful and not good enough for the womans movement now? If I see a lady at the store should I call her maam or cashier. Should I call my lawyer maam or esquire?

    Please view and try not to vomit on her smugness

  12. Ice:

    Wow, I think she was great. She made an excellent and perfectly valid point. Do you think the Senators called the Brigadier General “Mr?” I bet not. He has a title, and I bet they referred to him by his title out of respect.

    Why is it so hard for women to get respect for their positions? Why is it so hard for men to understand that respect belongs to both men and women and is shown by acknowledging them by the titles they have EARNED.

    She was and is entitled to be called Senator. The Brigadier General was and is entitled to be called Brigadier General.

    If we call the male senators “Senator” then that is what the female senators are entitled to be called also. They earned it, and they deserve it.

    Good for Senator Boxer.

  13. Ice:

    By the way, is the roaring rightwing so hard up for negative issues that it went ballistic over this? The entire snippet was all of what – 17 seconds and the right wingnuts are hyperventilating like there was no tomorrow.

    Personally, I think if she wants to be called Senator, then so be it.

  14. Iceironman says:

    Thats what I thought. She showed disrespect to a person who has offered up his life for this country. She got more votes than someone else. Ego is a bad trip to go down and that is where all of washington is. To actually interupt a general. Male senators are addressed as sir all of the time. I cant believe you actualy condone this. It is arrogance. I will look up her history and see what she has done to work so hard to earn more votes than the other guy.

    Maam is the opposite of Sir. It is respectful enough unless you are and egotisical liberal from california.

    That is the problem with the hippy generation.

  15. Iceironman says:

    Please also do not address me unless you include the title of Iceironman CPAg, CCA, TSP, ASA MEM. And I wasnt voted in on those accalades. I cant believe you find it great that she interupted him, rude, and on base for a lib dealing with the military. He should have called her B)(*&^

  16. Iceironman says:

    So here is what the lady did in her life to earn the title SENATOR.. I guess that fish did need the bike.

    Boxer was born Barbara Levy in Brooklyn, New York to Jewish parents Sophie Silvershein (born in Austria) and Ira Levy.[2] She attended public schools, and graduated from Wingate High School in 1958.

    In 1962, she married Stewart Boxer and graduated from Brooklyn College with a Bachelor’s Degree in Economics.

    Boxer worked as a stockbroker for the next three years, while her husband went to law school. Later, the couple moved to Greenbrae, Marin County, California, and had two children, Doug and Nicole. She first ran for political office in 1972, when she challenged incumbent Peter Arrigoni, a member of the Marin County Board of Supervisors, but lost a close election. Later during the 1970s, Boxer worked as a journalist for the Pacific Sun and as an aide to John Burton, then a member of Congress.[3] In 1976, Boxer was elected to the Marin County Board of Supervisors, serving for six years.[4] During this time she served as the first woman president of the board.[5]

    In 1994, her daughter Nicole married Tony Rodham, brother of then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a ceremony at the White House. The couple had one son, Zachary, and divorced in 2000.[6]

    Boxer’s husband, Stewart, is a prominent attorney in Oakland, who specializes in worker’s compensation cases (on the side of injured workers) and is known for keeping a very low profile when it comes to politics. Many cases are referred to him by labor unions, including the Teamsters. In 2006, the Boxers sold their house in Greenbrae, where they had lived for many years, and moved to Oakland – , near Stewart’s office. Their son, Douglas, a lawyer, practices with Stewart and is a member of the Oakland Planning Commission, having been appointed to that office by then-mayor Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown, Jr.

    According to one story, which Boxer has acknowledged, in 1972, Stewart had planned to run for the Marin County Board of Supervisors, but decided the campaign would interfere with his law practice in Oakland – . so Barbara ran instead. She was supported in that election by Marin Alternative, a broad-based, liberal political organization which she had helped found a few years before. A very active force in Marin County politics for a while, Marin Alternative dissolved in the late 1970s.

    Senator Boxer is physically diminutive, standing at 4’11”. Along with Barbara Mikulski,[7] Boxer is one of the two shortest United States Senators currently in office.[8] She uses a box (known as the Boxer Box) for height when speaking at a lectern.[9]

    Boxer’s first novel, A Time to Run, published in 2005 by San Francisco-based publishing company Chronicle Books, was released to mixed reception

    This is from Wikipedia

    So she lived off of a man and then the tax payer to earn the title SENATOR. What a piece of ……………

  17. Iceironman says:

    The general didnt lean on a woman or title for respect

    Brigadier General Michael Walsh:

    Both Boxer and Walsh were born in Brooklyn. Walsh went to school in New York, as well, though perhaps not as prestigious a school as Brooklyn College. He only managed to graduate from Polytechnic Institute of New York, gaining a degree in civil engineering. Walsh has also earned a master’s degree in construction management from the University of Florida, proving that he can succeed in places other than New York, California, and Washington. While in the military, he graduated from Engineer Officers Basic and Advanced Courses, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, and the U.S. Army War College.

    After a lengthy history of moves up the military ladder, Walsh was named Commander for the Army Engineer Corps’ Gulf Region Division in Iraq, moving back to the States when he was appointed Commander of the Mississippi Valley Division, Vicksburg, MS, by then-President George W. Bush in 2008. His current job puts him in charge of a $7.5 billion public works program. The boundaries of the Mississippi Valley Division extend from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, include portions of 12 states, and encompass 370,000 square miles.

    He also was named Commander of Task Force Hope.

  18. Ice:

    Sorry, but the other is just too long.

    And Boxer didn’t lean on any man for her respect either. Apparently, you chose to overlook this fact:

    Boxer worked as a stockbroker for the next three years, while her husband went to law school.

    So her husband lived off her for three years while he was in law school. I can’t believe you are so prejudiced against her that you totally refuse to recognize that men – yes, men – live off women while they accomplish their goals.

    As to Walsh – people interrupt the president and justices all the time. Does that mean you think that the Brigadier General should get more respect than the President of the United States or the justices of the Supreme Court?

    And where on earth are you coming up with her living off the taxpayers? I don’t see anywhere in the Wikipedia article that says she was on welfare or anything else.

  19. Iceironman says:

    PS here is a back and forth from military(McCain and Liberman) with a guy you might have heard of. I lack cant find where McCain or Liberman demands that a General call them sir. Even though McCain was tortured and almost died for his country. From NPR

    One of the best ways for a military commander to ingratiate himself with these senators is to admit mistakes in Iraq.

    So as the soon-to-be top ground commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, met Senators Tuesday, he told them the situation in Iraq is “dire.”

    The hearing — required as Petraeus is confirmed for a job that will give him a fourth star, making him one of the Army’s most senior officers — was really a sort of dance as various senators sought to make their own points about the conflict in Iraq.

    “General Petraeus, you have said serious mistakes were made in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003?” asked Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT).

    “That’s correct,” Petraeus said.

    Lieberman pressed on: “And you’ve said you understand and appreciate the disappoinment of the American people?”

    “That is correct, sir,” came the reply.

    Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), used his time to make some of his points in a round-about fashion.

    “Suppose we send you over to your new job, general, only we tell you you can’t have additional troops,” said McCain. “Can you get your job done?”

    “No sir,” Petraeus said.

    “Suppose that we send you additional troops and we tell those troops that we support you, but we are convinced you cannot accomplish your mission. What effect would that have on your troops?” asked McCain.

    “Well, it would not be a beneficial one, sir,” Petraeus said.

    And some senators weren’t interested in asking questions at all.

    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) used her eight minutes to rail against sending more troops to Iraq.

    “And I disapprove of the policy, I think it’s a dead end,” she said. “But if we’re gonna do it, let’s make sure we give these young men and women everything when we’re not doing the political equiation to match for their safety and success.”

    In the end, almost every senator indicated support for Petraeus, who does have a reputation for telling it like it is.

    “This is not about being beholden to anybody,” Petraeus said. “This is about giving my best professional military advice and if people don’t like it they can find someone else to give their best professional military advice.”

    President Bush is sending Petraeus off to save America in Iraq. The Senate wants him to save the military from the president. And Petraeus — ever the diplomat — knows how to walk between the drops of rain.

  20. Ice:

    Again, I will ask – are the Republicans and the rightwing so devoid of ideas and issues that it will make a crusade of a 17-second snippet?

    Most of us don’t care one way or the other if she interrupted him and asked for respect by requesting he call her Senator.

    It is a red herring which Republicans and rightwingers are getting good at because they have nothing else.

  21. Iceironman says:

    Once again, this is not D Vs R. This is a bunch of egotistical Know nothings who think we work for them, NO, they work for us, the people, you remember right?

    And yes, we have been talking about Obama owning GM, The Banks, Giving Chystler to the unions, putting us in horrible debt, print as you go, not pay as you go, skyrocketing energy costs because of his plans, cap and tax companies out of this country, etc.

    It is the ego of this woman on display in Obamas plans, he can solve all of your problems, he is great and mighty.

    How about that fishes bicycle, worked out for her pretty well.

Comments are closed.