His reasoning sounded "too good." "There has to be a catch somewhere!" I thought.
So I went to Wikipedia to find out what else there is to know.
I was stunned at her decision on at least one "litmus test" case having to do with abortion:
In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush [304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002)] Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the Mexico City Policy which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as the government "is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds" (Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush).But I wonder: Will Democrats go for such a nominee?
ETA 5/27/09 6:40 AM: Interesting to discover she also served as a member of the board of the Maternity Center Association, rebranded in 2005 as Childbirth Connection, "Helping women and health professionals make informed maternity care decisions." --Is it possible we might have someone serve at one of the highest levels in the United States' judiciary who could be closely involved in issues related to reproductive rights, but/and who is not primarily focused on abortion (either pro or con)?
Childbirth Connection, does, however, seem to be somewhat interested in judicial activism. (I can't be sure. I'm not confident in my ability to make out the implications of Childbirth Connection's statement concerning The Rights of Childbearing Women. Whenever I see statements having to do with "entitlement," it makes me queasy. On the other hand, I read their Vision, Mission & Beliefs statement about the Cascade of Intervention in Childbirth, and I think, Yeah. Having a few clearly delineated legal rights in this area really wouldn't be a bad idea!)
I guess I'm saying, based on what little research I've done so far: I'm rather impressed with the nomination.
. . . But/and maybe, now, I'd better see what others have to say.
[On a relevant sidenote: Check out Stanley Fish's New York Times Opinion piece on Empathy and the law. And, as far as you can, the follow-up comments. Very interesting. (So far, I have read down to Comment #3.)]