FemiSex has doubts about you. We are thrilled to see another woman on the Court, but….we still have doubts about you and your commitment to women’s freedom. We are hopeful now that you've been seated.

In the past, You’ve ruled in favor of the awful Global Gag Rule (GGR), which we found distressing; you’ve ruled in favor of abortion protesters, which we found distressing.

In the past you have said:
“The Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”.
The Court of Appeals is where “the law is percolating” and “developing.”

But when you sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, you declared yourself unable to set policy, when it came to the Global Gag Rule.

Sotomayor wrote the Court of Appeals decision on the GGR.
From the Center of Reproductive Rights, who brought the court challenge:

“The opinion focused on the application of legal
precedent and did not express a view on or discuss
the impact of the Global Gag Rule on abortion law
reform efforts around the world. Judge Sotomayor
did not resolve the issue of whether the Center
had standing to raise its free speech claims brought
under the First Amendment. Rather, she found that
the Center’s free speech claim was ruled out by
an earlier opinion of the Second Circuit, Planned
Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Agency
for International Development, 915 F.2d 59 (2d.
Cir. 1990), which upheld a previous version of the
GGR.”

Gone is Sotomayor’s (see above U Tube link) prior comments that in the Court of Appeals, “the law is percolating” and “developing.”
Sotomayor then said this "development" of the law by the Court of Appeals is needed “so that will then be applied to a broad class of cases.” On the Court of Appeals “you’re always thinking about the ramifications of THIS ruling on the next step in the development of the law.”
“You can make a choice and say I don’t care about the next step, and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say we'll worry about that when we get to it.”

So, while I am not a lawyer, it seems pretty clear that Sotomayor understands that the Court of Appeals is for more than upholding “earlier opinions” of the Second Circuit. It seems pretty clear Sotomayor made a choice in the GGR case, a choice that said: "I don't care about the next step."

This worries me. Perhaps Sotomayor did not want a record on abortion that could be used against her, but that is troubling as well. It is one thing to have ambition---amen to that Ladies!-- another to allow unjust governmental fiats against women to stand so you have a shot at the Bench.

I also worry that because Sotomayor has made what can easily be considered racist comments against white males, she will be a negative force for getting an equality bench—50% women.

I am thrilled down to my socks that we have an Hispanic on the Bench, and more thrilled it is a woman. But one has to think down the pike. Sotomayor’s comment about a wise Latina woman will settle like curdled milk in the minds of many for some time to come.

Lastly I leave you with extracts of Sotomayor’s comments on abortion during the confirmation process. The first exchange btw Sotomayor and Hatch is disturbing/
The second, btw, her and Feinstein is less so.

In the end we will have to hope for the best from this elusive woman. Our next battle is to be SURE, SURE, SURE, that Obama appoints a no-Doubt-ABOUT-IT pro-choice women to The Bench. We were virtually guaranteed a woman this go-round. Money bets on the O’s next pick? Female?????

Sotomayor’s abortion comments (culled from a policy report) re abortion:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) asked Sotomayor if she considered the 2007 ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart an example of settled law. In the case, the court voted 5-4 to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The ruling was the first time since Roe that the court upheld an abortion restriction that made no exception for the health of the woman, the Times reports.
In her response, Sotomayor said that "[a]ll precedent of the Supreme Court I consider settled law, subject to the deference the doctrine of stare decisis would counsel," although she did not address the health exception component of the Gonzales case.

FemiSex: uh-oh! Soto-Fail
-----------------------------------------------

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) later pressed Sotomayor to elaborate on her views on Gonzales.

Feinstein noted that at least seven Supreme Court rulings prior to the 2007 case stated that abortion laws "cannot put a woman's health at risk."
She added that Gonzales "essentially removed this basic constitutional right for women." Feinstein asked Sotomayor, "When there are multiple precedents and a question arises, are all the previous decisions discarded, or should the court re-examine all the cases on point?"

Sotomayor replied that she does not consider Gonzales to be a precedent making it settled law that health exceptions for abortion laws are constitutionally unnecessary.

She said, "That was, I don't believe, a rejection of its prior precedents," which are "still precedents of the court." Sotomayor added that the "health and welfare of a woman must be -- must be a compelling consideration."

Feinstein pressed Sotomayor to clarify that she meant that it is still settled that abortion restrictions must have health exceptions. Sotomayor said, "It has been a part of the court's jurisprudence and a part of its precedents. Those precedents must be given deference in any situation that arises before the court" (New York Times, 7/15).

FemiSex: hwooo! Sotomayor Pass.

Keep your fingers crossed!