Roe v. Wade is now 39 years old, with a host of subsequent rulings on the same topic. That’s long enough for even a conservative to consider Roe v. Wade, however bad a ruling it was originally, as settled law. Just as no one is seriously advocating overturning Griswold v. Connecticut–a MUCH worse ruling than Roe v. Wade–simply because Americans’ right to privacy is now settled law.

But in this day and age, when we’re fighting a War on Terror and when Obama’s liberals seem intent on growing the public sector at the expense of the private sector, Sotomayor’s views on the rights of Gitmo detainees and on the rights versus responsibilities of the private sector are FAR more important.

It is interesting that you claim that Estrada has a “appalling” record yet you provide no evidence to support your assertion nor do you have any US legal background to make that assertion.

…….He had an appalling record which is why he never got beyond first base while Roberts and Alito did. I expect these subtleties to escape you.

……Er where did I mention Roberts in this thread? As far as I’m concerned Roberts is conservative but mainstream just as Sotomayor is liberal but mainstream.

Democrats have been more active in opposing nominees because of liberal interest goups and because of certain Democrats on the judiciary: Schumer, Biden, and Leahy, have been far more strident than Hatch. Biden, a few years before the Bork nomination had indicated his support for Bork. He then decided since he was running for the Democratic nomination that he couldn’t do it and set about not only opposing Bork but trying to ruin his reputation.

Please read this article http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/26/obamas-justice/

Also, many people on both sides will raise more strenuous opposition depending on whether or not a nominee is likely to change the balance of the court.

I personally don’t have any problem with openly opposing a nominee on political grounds. I don’t mean to pick on social conservatives, but I believe a lot of this started when they began to focus on the SC as the sole way of reducing abortion. We can’t openly ask if a nominee will overturn Roe so we simply look at all of the person’s other cases to see if it’s likely s/he will overturn or uphold it, and then we hide behind a pretext of allegations that the person is not qualified depending on how we think s/he will rule on Roe.

Both sides are very political on this.

You act as if this notion of an “objective umpire” has been a mainstay of SC jurisprudence. If that was the really the case we would not be able to now look back at so many cases and see that they were wrongly decided. If it’s clear to us today that Dred Scott, Korematsu and others were bad law, why wasn’t it clear to the court at that time? Did the justices simply not understand the words in the Constitution, or were they more empathetic to the societal norms at that time. Based on those courts abilities to rule correctly on so many other cases, I think it’s clear that they were being empathetic.

As for the statement by Obama that you posted, it is not a value judgment. It’s a statement of fact, with which most reasonable people would agree. The Warren court did not take up many economic issues. Instead, it focused primarily on social and criminal issues.

You’re honest, in that you realize that liberal activists don’t want conservative judges. But AFAIK, conservatives have not wrecked any liberal’s nomination by filibuster since Fortas in the 1960s. It’s been mostly conservative nominees who have had to run a gauntlet of hysterical screeching feminists and environmental activists.