"Because judicial power is limited by Article III of the Constitution, judges should seek only to resolve the specific grievance, ripe for resolution, of the parties before the court and within the law as written and interpreted in precedents," she said. "Intrusion by a judge upon the functions of the other branches of government should only be done as a last resort and limitedly."
During her first confirmation hearing before Congress in 1991 Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, gave this interesting answer to Republican concerns that she would be an "activist" judge. At that time it appears that Ms. Sotomayor said, what she knew, her questioners on the right, wanted to hear, that if nominated, she would follow the Constitution.
Later During a during a visit to the Duke university School of Law, Ms. Sotomayor made the following comment.
"The U.S. Court of Appeals “makes policy” http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/01/sonia-sotomayor-and-making-policy/
Is it just me, or is there a glaring discrepancy, between these two statements? On the one hand, when before Congress, she attempted to reassure conservatives, that she was not an "activist" judge. On the other hand, when she thought, no one would find out, she revealed her true feelings about 'Judicial" activism.
Apparently ,she is comfortable, not only usurping the power of the legislative branch, which makes law, but also the executive branch, which formulates policy. It seems to me she has a problem of integrity.
Do we really want a Supreme Court Justice -that say's what is politically expedient - not to mention - may be led more by emotion than by law - or one that say's what she really believes. If there is one place integrity is of paramount importance, I would think, it would be in any judicial nominee, not to mention a Supreme Court Nominee.
My hope is that the Republicans will have the guts to challenge her on this point and, perhaps just perhaps , derail this nominee before she makes it to the highest court in the land.