What about Sotomayor?

The early buzz among GLBT advocacy groups was that she was the best thing since little green apples.

http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=91669

Indeed ... she seems too good to be true. Yet, President Transformational seems full of surprises where GLBT issues are concerned and this , in combination with Sotomayor's earlier appt. (Federal Appeals Court?) by George Bush the first on the recommendation of super-phobe Senator Damato doesn't sit well, somehow. ( Somethin akin to Edward G Robinson's stomach in Double Indemnity?)

Plus she doesn't really have a track record of *ruling* on GLBT cases.... as far as I know, anyway.

Understand: I LIKE her. The judicial record seems more or less consistently progressive. Plus, she's a homie.... even lived in the same complex in the BX that I later lived in. She's exactly my age and except for a clerical error I would have been in her high school class. So Sonia... we meet at long last.

I love the IDEA of Sotomayor. But what about that early buzz? Has any of that worn off?

that a moderate President would actually nominate anything except a moderate to the Supreme Court.

Better than a McCain nominee, but not moving things progressively.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVHTZliZbao

>>>"From everything I know, Judge Sotomayor is an outstanding choice - fair and aware, open and judicious," said Evan Wolfson, head of the national Freedom to Marry organization. "I believe she has the demonstrated commitment to principles of equal protection and inclusion that defines a good nominee to the Supreme Court. In choosing Judge Sotomayor, the first Latino candidate for the Supreme Court, President Obama has made a strong and appealing nomination that should and will receive the support of those committed to equality for lesbians and gay men.">>>>

I concur with your skepticism. But why are such as Wolfson and Ettelbrick so wildly enthusiastic?

She's never so much as ruled on a GLBT-related case, as far as I can tell.

her favorable rulings for the pro-lifers suggests to me her Catholic religion is an influence in her rulings, which does not necessarily bode well for LGBTs. I soooo wish Obama had picked CA Supreme Court justice, Carlos Moreno. Of the seven CA justices, he is the only one to have a 100% positive record of voting to uphold and protect the civil rights of LGBTs.

on actually ruling on abortion itself but only on admin type stuff.

From NPR:

She has made only tangential rulings on abortion — decisions that, if anything, sided with the anti-abortion position, but cast in terms of following precedent. In one case, she upheld the Bush administration's ban on aid to international organizations that either promote or provide abortions.

"The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor an anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position," she wrote.

And in a case involving China's forced abortion policy, she severely criticized her colleagues on the court who said that only women, and not their husbands, were eligible for asylum.

"The termination of a wanted pregnancy under a coercive population control program can only be devastating to any couple, akin, no doubt, to the killing of a child," she wrote.

Catholic Faith

Sotomayor, raised a Roman Catholic, would be the sixth Catholic on the court if confirmed. Four of the Catholics currently on the court have voted consistently against abortion rights. One, Justice Anthony Kennedy, has been a swing vote on the issue, voting to uphold the core right, but approving of most regulations to curb the practice.

More--->http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104679046

and did so in the first case. The second was blatent sex discrimination.

but I couldn't figure out why / no details.

They're more pro-Democrat than pro-Gay.

I, on the other hand, am progressive and pro-person. When the Democrats screw up, even if their names rhyme with Carrack Cobama, I'm going to stand up and let people know. (Yes, I've written pointless letters to "the White House" and my congressthings. No, right now, I'm not voting for any of them in 2010. I'll be too busy having a dinner party on election night. I figure the Democrats are too busy to help me, then I'll be too busy to help them.)

You seem more interested in looking for things to criticize than in basing your opinions on realism.

I have a local rep to support , there is is a heavy Gay population here in one or two towns. Our candidate will probably be the Gay mayor of Palm Springs. So We will have a supportable candidat for both congress and assembly

I don't know what to do with Ritter. The Designated Beneficiary thing is pathetic. Some Democratic (big "D") apologists may want a death partner, but I prefer having a life partner.

HRC, NLRC etc all need new leadership in my opinion. They are stuck in the past and refuse to take input from GLBT persons that are not already part of the old system and old thought.

I don't think gay groups are immune to Obama cheerleading syndrome.

Ya think?

they refuse new voices and input. They praise anything that they think will earn them points with the system. They are anything but our friends or advocates sadly. There is a reason HRC has been losing active members and $ besides the economy (as is evident in the past 10 years of bad decisions and declining membership). Id much rather support Courage Campaign or any other progressive grassroots organization.

Aren't they just an arm of the Log Cabin Republicans?

I swear I see the same faces on the latest Atlantis cruise ads.

(Sadly a CIVIL rights issue like gay rights is a "social" issue...)

I am not particularly hopeful on that front regarding Sotomayor.

I can't prove it with rulings and such and cites and links, but she is.

Honestly, I'd like to know so we can have some confidence in how she will rule in the upcoming federal lawsuit to repeal prop 8. I very much want to believe she's pro-civil rights for ALL minorities, including LGBTs, but just because some dude or dudette on an Internet discussion board says she is, it 'tain't necessarily so. Her past abortion-related rulings favoring the pro-lifers, Roman Catholic upbringing and that she is described as a "moderate" -- all these red flags give me legitimate cause for concern. So until I see something other than lip-service on her LGBT rights position, I remain cautious and skeptical.

I understand people here want concrete examples, not just anonymous comments on a discussion board. I don't blame anyone at all for that. Sorry, I apologize if my comments seemed as if they were trying to squelch constructive discussion. Carry on - Peace. :hi:

:eyes:

that was a good one. didnt expect it from you. :rofl:

before I wrote it. That's why it took me so long. :) :rofl: