U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor Delays Obamacare's Birth Control Mandate

Newsmax.com:

Roman Catholic Church-affiliated organizations on Tuesday obtained last-minute court injunctions that give them temporary exemptions from a part of the Obamacare healthcare law that requires employers to provide insurance policies covering contraception.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted a temporary injunction to Baltimore-based Little Sisters of the Poor and Illinois-based Christian Brothers Services, plus related entities.
Sotomayor is giving the government until Friday morning to respond to her decision.
Two different appellate courts had granted stays in three other cases that were pending at the high court, filed by various organizations, including Catholic University of America and non-profits in Michigan and Tennessee, said a lawyer representing the groups. The lower-court actions meant the Supreme Court did not need to act in those cases.
The groups were all asking the courts to exempt them temporarily from the so-called contraception mandate while litigation continues. The mandate, which was to take effect for the organizations on Wednesday, is already in place for many women who have private health insurance.
The organizations accuse the federal government of forcing them to support contraception and sterilization in violation of their religious beliefs or face steep fines.
The 2010 Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, requires employers to provide health insurance policies that cover preventive services for women, including contraception and sterilization.
The law makes an exception for religious institutions such as houses of worship that mainly serve and employ members of their own faith, but not for schools, hospitals, and charitable organizations that employ people of all faiths.
As a compromise, the administration agreed to an accommodation for nonprofits affiliated with religious entities, which was finalized in July.

RELATED: Catholic Groups Ask Supreme Court to Block Healthcare Law

Sonia Sotomayor And Elena Kagan Vote The Same All The Time

I get the fact that the Anthony Weiner stuff is dominating current landscape, but the fact that Sotomayor and Kagan vote more alike than Scalia and Thomas (two justices liberals have told us for years are one and the same) do is something the conservative media needs to be concerned about:

They're in a New York state of mind.


The newest members of the nation's highest court -- local Obama appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan -- have agreed with each other in all 23 cases they've voted on, which is a supreme rarity, observers said.


Liberal critics who deride the Supreme Court's rightward shift over the past 10 years have cited conservative alliances like "Scalito," Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito.


But Scalia and Alito have agreed with each other in only 84 percent of cases in the current term, which winds up this month.


egal scholars find the Sotomayor-Kagan mind meld a bit unusual but hardly shocking.


"The pattern of agreement is typically based on ideology or a view of the law," said professor Barry Friedman of NYU Law School. "It's not that surprising that Barack Obama's two appointees showed agreement."


But the New York twins don't just agree in general terms. Justices can agree fully or partially in a case, depending on whether they write a separate concurring or dissenting opinion. Often two justices will come to the same general conclusion for very different reasons.


Sotomayor, who joined the court two years ago, and Kagan, who began serving last October, agreed fully 91 percent of the time.


Scalia and Alito were in full agreement only 59 percent of the time, according to statistics compiled by the Web site SCOTUSblog.


Only three other pairs of justices fully agreed more than 79 percent of the time.

Glenn Beck: Obama Should Pick A "Gay Handicapped Black Woman Who's An Immigrant" For SCOTUS

RawStory.com:

Popular conservative talk show host Glenn Beck made his predictions Saturday for the kind of judge President Obama will nominate to replace Supreme Court Justice Stevens, who announced Friday that he will retire.

Whoever the president chooses, Beck said on his radio show, Americans can be sure it will be someone hand-picked to stymie opposition through political correctness.

"It will allow the Democrats to say they just hate women, they just hate Hispanics, they just hate a black, they just hate whatever. That's what it will be," Beck said. "I mean if he's smart, he will find a gay, handicapped black woman who's an immigrant. She could be the devil. She could say 'I hate America. I want to destroy America,' and that way they'll only be able to say 'Why do you hate gay immigrant black handicapped women?'"

Stevens' announcement of retirement means Obama must choose a second Supreme Court justice within his first two years in office. His last selection, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, ignited a prolonged battle with Republicans. This time, Obama must get a nominee confirmed in the middle of an election season and with possibly even more opposition.

Beck was quick to claim Obama would appoint another "radical" like Justice Sotomayor.

Of course, when you think about the fact that Barry himself said he was looking for a judge with "empathy" before picked Sonia Sotomayor for the last SCOTUS vacancy, Beck makes a fair (and funny) point. But for the Left any chance of constructively debating Beck's creed on political correctness run amuck will get drowned out with cries of "RACIST!"...hey look! They've already started.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor Makes Her Debut Today

CSMonitor.com:

Transition is the word that perhaps best describes the US Supreme Court's 2009-10 term set to begin Monday.

The coming year offers an opportunity for court watchers to more clearly define the character of the emerging Roberts Court during Chief Justice John Roberts's fifth term on the bench. And it presents a chance far superior to the wishy-washy Senate confirmation hearings to finally learn something of the real Sonia Sotomayor, the high court's newest justice.

Will she be a liberal stalwart or a sometimes ally to the conservatives? If so, in which cases?

The term already includes potential blockbuster cases examining the applicability of Second Amendment gun rights to state and local governments, campaign-finance regulations, life sentences for juveniles, and whether Congress violated the separation of powers when it created an independent accounting oversight board.

The court's options will reveal more than just legal winners and losers. How these disputes are analyzed and decided by the justices will offer legal scholars important clues about the evolving dynamics within the nation's highest court.

In addition to the arrival of a new justice, Justice John Paul Stevens's decision to hire only one law clerk (instead of the usual four) for the 2010-11 term has sparked speculation that he intends to leave the court in June.

Among key trends to watch will be whether Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito decide to put an unabashedly conservative stamp on the high court by joining their conservative colleagues to boldly overturn liberal legal precedents despite earlier pledges of a preference for judicial minimalism.

Personally, I think that Sotomayor will play it down the line, 50/50, which will keep folks guessing while not leaning any particular way. Good chance that Obama will get at least more chances to make appointments to SCOTUS, what with Stevens likely retiring soon and Ginsburg being sick of late. But the key is Anthony Kennedy, he's the swing vote. If Barry gets to replace Kennedy, the court could then take on a dramatic shift that liberals would be drooling over.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 8/10/09

Not All Dealers Pleased With Obama's "Cash For Clunkers" Program

Are The Elderly Being Shut Out Of Obamacare?

Sotomayor's Confirmation Isn't A Win For The White House

Joy Behar: Dolls 'Programming' Tool For Young Girls

Some Major College Majors Strengthen Or Weaken Faith

SC First Lady, Sons Move Out Of State Residence

Congressman Took Exotic 'Climate Change' Junket

Town Hall Protests: Real Or Contrived?

Obama And The Politics Of Personal Destruction

Stephen A Smith: OK To Call Bush "Racist", Not Obama

Death Toll Up To 8 In California Police Chase

The Confusing Lives Of Marion Barry

Newt Gingrich Defends Sarah Palin's Obama "Death Panel" Claim"

Senate Confirms Sonia Sotomayor To The Supreme Court

YahooNews.com:

The Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor Thursday as the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court. The vote was 68-31 for Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's first high court nominee. She becomes the 111th justice and just the third woman to serve.

Democrats praised the 55-year-old Sotomayor as a mainstream moderate. But most Republicans voted against her, saying she'd bring personal bias and a liberal agenda to the bench.

Senators took the rare step of assembling at their desks on the Senate floor for the historic occasion, rising from their seats to cast their votes.

She replaces retiring Justice David Souter, a liberal named by a Republican president, and she is not expected to alter the court's ideological split.

Still, Republicans and Democrats were deeply at odds over confirming Sotomayor, and the battle over her nomination highlighted profound philosophical disagreements that will shape future battles over the court's makeup as Obama looks to another likely vacancy — perhaps more than one_ while he's in the White House.

The GOP decried Obama's call for "empathy" in a justice, painting Sotomayor as the embodiment of an inappropriate standard that would let a judge bring her personal whims and prejudices to the bench.

Congrats to Ms. Sotomayor. She deserves to be on the Supreme Court. And Republicans and conservatives in general still opposed to Sotomayor need to get over it, because even if it does turn out that Sotomayor's decisions are based on any liberal impartiality, it won't make a difference when you consider that she's replacing a liberal ideologue, David Souter, on the bench. My guess still says that Sotomayor will still be impartial--her overall record gives me hope.

NRA Opposition Fails To Sway Senators On Sotomayor

YahooNews.com:

The National Rifle Association's threat to punish senators who vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has been met with a shrug by Democrats from conservative-leaning states and some Republicans who are breaking with their party to support her.

The gun rights group is used to getting its way by spooking lawmakers about the political consequences of defying its wishes. But it never before has weighed in on a Supreme Court confirmation battle. It was cautious about breaking that pattern, and it looks like a losing a fight to defeat President Barack Obama's first pick for the court.

Sotomayor is expected to easily win confirmation in a vote this coming week that could deflate the long-accepted truism in Washington that you don't cross the NRA.

Voting "yes" will include A-plus-rated and NRA-endorsed Democratic Sen. Max Baucus and his fellow Montanan, A-rated Sen. Jon Tester, as well as A-rated and NRA-endorsed Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, the only GOP leader to break with the rest of this party to back Sotomayor.

That's not to say that the NRA's late decision to wade in hasn't had an impact.

Many Republicans who were considered possible "yes" votes for Sotomayor — including Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, Georgia Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, and Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison — have come out against her after the NRA's announcement, citing gun rights concerns as an important reason.

With a Democrat majority in Congress Sonia Sotomayor was guaranteed a seat on the Supreme Court the minute Barry named her as his nominee. But this isn't about politics or partisanship. It's her record alone that warrants her right to be on SCOTUS, so people need to give up the fight and just let her get the robe already.

Rachel Maddow Pwnes Pat Buchanan

This one is too easy. But what's even funnier is that for all the GOP hysteria over Sotomayor, the woman may actually end up benefiting conservatives moreso than the Left. I mean, just look at her record.

Olympia Snowe Says That She'll Vote To Confirm Sonia Sotomayor

BangorDailyNews.com:

U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine, today announced her support for the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.

"I was impressed with Judge Sotomayor’s comportment and obvious mastery of the law during this week’s nomination hearings," Snowe said in a statement. "She appears neither rigid nor dogmatic in her approach to the essential task of constitutional interpretation."

"Barring any unforeseen developments, I expect to join the majority of my Senate colleagues in confirming Judge Sotomayor to a seat on the highest Court in the land before the August recess," she said.

In May, Senator Snowe said she urged President Obama to nominate a woman during a private meeting in the Oval Office and then followed up on the suggestion with a letter jointly signed by Senator Barbara Boxer.

Ha! No doubt this move won't help Snowe's crippled standing within the GOP. But anyway, on qualifications alone Sonia Sotomayor belongs on the Supreme Court, so people need to quit with the partisan bickering and give up the robe already.

"Jane Roe" aka Norma McCorvey Shouts For Roe v. Wade To Be Overturned At Sotomayor Hearing

It's something liberals dare not speak out loud about: Norma McCorvey, better known as “Jane Roe” in the infamous Roe v. Wade case that made abortion legal, is now a stringent anti-abortion activist.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 7/13/09

Dems Push For Investigations Into Bush-Era Anti-Terrorism Policies

North Korea's Kim Has 'Life-Threatening' Cancer

Emails Indicate EPA Supressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

Sonia Sotomayor's Confirmation Hearing Starts Monday

The Pope Meets Obama: God's Law Trumps Harvard Law

Pornographers Get Huge Break

WaPo: 'Bruno' A Commentary On America's Fear Of Sex
House Democrats Will Seek Massive $540 Billion Tax Increase

John McCain Says He Respects Sarah Palin's Decision To Quit

Obama Science Czar Holdren Called For Forced Abortions

Kids Recant Abuse Claims After Dad Jailed 20 Years

Ray Burris Says "No Mas"; Shan't Run In 2010

Politiks As Usual: In The News 7/6/09

Sarah Palin Threatens To Sue Leftist HuffPo Blogger

Ousted President's Plane Circles Honduran Runway, Can't Land

Attorney General Holder Picks Homosexuals Over Priests

4th of July Holiday Marked By Anti-Tax Tea Parties

When Color Trumps Christianity

Save Pat Buchanan!

Gates Looking For 'Flexibility In Law Banning Homosexuals From Military Service

New Documents Connect Sotomayor To Leftist Agenda

Biden Gives Green Light For Israeli Iran Attack, Officials Backtrack

General Electric To Use Embryonic Stem Cells For Testing, Phase Out Lab Rats

Charles Rangel Criticizes Obama For Butting Into NY Primary

Supreme Court Sides With White Firefighters

Politico.com:

The Supreme Court handed a victory Monday to a group of white firefighters charging racial discrimination, while also giving some fodder to critics of President Barack Obama’s pending nominee for the high court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a court split 5-4 along ideological lines, reversed an appeals court ruling Sotomayor joined last year that rejected a claim that the City of New Haven, Conn., discriminated against white firefighters by throwing out a promotional exam after all the African-American firefighters who took it scored too poorly to be promoted.

“Whatever the City’s ultimate aim — however well intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed — the City made its employment decision because of race. The City rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white,” Kennedy wrote on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Kennedy said that allowing the city’s conduct would establish “a de facto quota system” where test results could be discarded whenever a particular racial group didn’t achieve the average score.

The case stems from a lieutenants’ promotion exam administered to New Haven, Conn., firefighters in 2003. After no African-American firefighters ranked highly, the city’s Civil Service Board threw out the results and decided not to make any immediate promotions.

Eighteen white firefighters, including one Hispanic, sued, claiming racial discrimination. The city countered that it was simply trying to avoid being sued by black firefighters argued that the test was unfairly skewed.

A district court judge sided with the city and tossed the suit out before trial. Last year, a three-judge Second Circuit panel, including Sotomayor, backed that decision.

As much as conservatives are literally jumping for joy over this decision, I really don't see what the big deal is, much less why this case should make any difference on whether or not Sonia Sotomayor gets on the Supreme Court. Sotomayor belongs on SCOTUS because she's more than qualified and David Souter siding with the minority here proves once again that Sotomayor's placement on SCOTUS will more than likely have little impact on the ideological balance on there. Considering too that most Americans feel that Sotomayor belongs on SCOTUS, the GOP needs to thread carefully about making this firefighters case an issue during confirmation proceedings for Sotomayor, as it could very well come back to haunt them.

Former President George H.W. Bush Stands Up For Sonia Sotomayor

CNN.com:

Former President George H.W. Bush stood up for his former judicial nominee Sonia Sotomayor Friday, telling HLN Anchor Robin Meade that GOP critics who called President Obama's Supreme Court pick a racist were off-base, and unfair.

"I don't know her that well but I think she's had a distinguished record on the bench and she should be entitled to fair hearings. Not – [it's] like the senator John Cornyn said it," he told CNN. "He may vote for it, he may not. But he's been backing away from these…backing off from those radical statements to describe her, to attribute things to her that may or may not be true.

"And she was called by somebody a racist once. That's not right. I mean that's not fair. It doesn't help the process. You're out there name-calling. So let them decide who they want to vote for and get on with it."

High-profile Republican voices like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh had both accused the judge of racism for her past comment that a "wise Latina" might make more informed judicial decisions than a white male. Gingrich later backed away from that assessment.

Cornyn had urged Republicans to avoid labeling Sotomayor a racist, calling that brand of criticism unhelpful to the process.

Good for Daddy Bush. Sonia Sotomayor deserves to be on the Supreme Court.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 6/8/09

Saudis Pushing Obama To Force Israel Into Palestinian Deal

2 U.S. Reporters Face 12 Years In N. Korean Prison

Vermont Program Helps Students Explore 'Gender Identity'

Global Warming Alarmist Warns Of Planet Being Destroyed By Advertising

Next Frontier? Polygamists Demand Multi-Sex Marriage

Graduating Students Defy ACLU, Stand And Recite Lord's Prayer

The Civil Rights Challenge Of Our Time

Sex-Crazed Cosmo Highlights Women Who Don't Have Sex

A Swing To Conservatism In Europe?

2 Former Drug Dealers Tied To Murtha-Backed Firm

Three Senators Now Say Sotomayor Will Uphold Roe v. Wade

GOP Senator Grassley Scolds Obama On Twitter

Rush Limbaugh Now Supporting Sonia Sotomayor

CNN.com:

A week after calling Sonia Sotomayor a "racist" in reference to her 2001 "wise Latina" remarks, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday he's now open to supporting President Obama's Supreme Court nominee.

"I can see a possibility of supporting this nomination if I can be convinced that she does have a sensibility toward life in a legal sense," Limbaugh said on his radio program.

Limbaugh's statement comes the same day former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who himself derided Sotomayor as a "racist" last week, wrote in an op-ed that he regretted his choice of words.

On his show Wednesday, Limbaugh said his potential support of Sotomayor stems from the nominee's unclear stance on abortion coupled with the fact that she is a Catholic.

"I don't know that it will ever happen, but if you know, the opportunity to get somebody like her, she's a Catholic, she's a devout Catholic, she's a Hispanic Catholic, Puerto Rican, they tend to be devout, she hasn't got a record on this. Normally liberals do have a record," Limbaugh said.

Good for Rush on changing his mind and supporting Sotomayor. Now's a bad time for the GOP to risk pissing off their Hispanic base and the feeling here is that Sotomayor will not be an activist judge like Ruth Ginsburg--indeed, even liberals are scared at what type of Justice she'll be on the bench. And Rush still needs to quit with the "racist" stuff, because while she's may've made some silly comments (that were similar to Justice Alito IMO), there's just nothing in Sotomayor's legal record that proves it.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 6/1/09

GOP Senators Sidestep Harsh Criticism Of Sotomayor

Nadya Suleman Signs TV Show Deal

Guantanamo Detainees To Get Laptops, Virtual Computer Lab

Obama Promises Arabs Jerusalem Will Be Theirs

GOP Opposes Democrats For Climate Proposal

If Obama Cares About The Poor, He Should Endorse English

Jon And Kate Plus The Media

Atheists Lose Lawsuit Over Detroit's Downtown Aid

Pennsylvania Newspaper Runs Ad Calling For Obama Assassination

Huckabee, Jindal Begin GOP Forays Into Iowa

Racist, Leftist Cartoonist Ted Rall Calls Obama A "Monster"

Rob Thomas: Another Liberal Celebrity And Idiot

Obama The Hypocrite: Filibustered Samuel Alito, Now Wants No Partisanship On Sotomayor

ABCNewsBlog:

President Obama's expressed hope today in his weekly address "that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this (Supreme Court nomination) process, and Congress, in the past" runs against another historical first for the 44th president: his unique role in history as the first US President to have ever voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.

So while there is little indication Republicans intend to filibuster President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the GOP will likely invoke the President's unique history whenever he calls their tactics into question.

In January 2006, then-Sen. Obama joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito.

On January 29, 2006, Mr. Obama told George Stephanopulos on "This Week" that he would "be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly."

Mr. Obama did seem to express some reserve about using the filibuster process, which in common parlance refers to a procedural Senate maneuver requiring 60 votes to end debate and proceed to a vote.

"I think that the Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues," then-Sen. Obama said. "These last-minute efforts using procedural maneuvers inside the Beltway, I think, has been the wrong way of going about it, and we need to recognize because Judge Alito will be confirmed that if we're going to oppose a nominee that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake and frankly I'm not sure that we've successfully done that."

He added that "there is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers and mechanisms to block the president instead of proactively going out to the American people and talking about the values that we care about. And, you know, there's one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values and that's to win elections."

The more I read about Sonia Sotomayor, the more I feel that she's qualified to be on the Supreme Court--her resume reflects both experience and competency. Plus, judging from some of her past rulings, it's really hard to categorize Sotomayor as being an "activist" judge. But Barry's playing a dangerous game warning the GOP about any filibusters when he himself got with sorry-ass John Kerry in attempting to impede Justice Alito's nomination without any credible reason only 3 years ago. Best bet for Barry now is to lie low and let this thing play out. But it might too be late as the Limbaugh-Right will certainly jump on Obama's hypocrisy soon and often if they're smart enough.

Message To White Conservatives: Dump The "Racist" Talk On Sonia Sotomayor

CNN.com:

The White House says Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor acknowledges she made a poor word choice in a 2001 speech in which she said that a Latina judge would often reach a better conclusion than a white male judge who hasn't lived the same life.

That's according to presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs. He says he has not talked directly to Sotomayor about it but has spoken to people who have.

Critics have singled out the 2001 comment by Sotomayor for criticism. She was describing how personal experiences can affect judging. She said a "wise Latina woman" with her experiences would more often than not reach a "better conclusion" than a white male.

Fine. Sotomayor's admitted that she made a mistake with the 'Latina judge' vs. 'White Male Judge' spiel 8 years ago. It was a dumb comment, but was it racist? Far from it. Funny too that white conservatives going after Sotomayor for supposedly being racist (like both Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich did recently) fail to mention the case of Giuliani vs. Pappas, in which Sotomayor dissented from a majoring opinion and spoke up on the side of a white cop who was fired by the NYPD for distributing racist/anti-Semitic literature in his off hours. Sotomayor said the white cop’s first amendment rights should not be taken away simply because his speech may be distasteful to the majority--yeah, that sounds like a "racist" to me.

And listen, I understand that it was Barry who first played up the race card when he introduced Sotomayor as his SCOTUS nominee. And the liberal media has surely done their part to highlight Sotomayor's Latina roots and the fact that she overcame a poor environment growing up (the same yahoos that ignored Clarance Thomas' "great story" when he was nominated for SCOTUS, btw). But race and upbring shouldn't have anything to do with whether Sotomayor can aptly serve on the highest court in the land.

Yet, whether it's a dumb comment by a sitting minority judge, fireman exams that seem to favor blacks or the use of quotas in the workplace, these days white people have gotten real comfortable using the "R" word when they feel that they're victims of racism. But what some in the white world don't get is that a few wrongs will never overcome 400 years of physical, mental, economic and social oppression. Never. I'm not saying that white people should be quiet when they feel wronged due to their race, just be extra careful how you use the R-word. Sonia Sotomayor may be a lot of things conservatives don't like, but there's nothing in her file that indicates that she's racist. And Limbaugh and Gingrich look extra stupid now for going there.

Sonia Sotomayor: Government Can Be Pro-Life

Hmmm....maybe she's not as liberal as some would like to think:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is sparking fears among pro-abortion advocates on the left who fear that she may be a closeted pro-life advocate, according to The Los Angeles Times.

They have seen no evidence that she supports upholding Roe Vs. Wade, and Sotomayor has never ruled on abortion or taken a public position in favor of pro-abortion rights.

In her only abortion-related decision, according to the Times, she did not come down the way abortion-rights groups would have liked. In 2002, Sotomayor, raised a Catholic, rejected a challenge to President Bush's "Mexico City policy," which required foreign groups receiving U.S. funds to pledge that they did not support or promote abortion. Republican presidents have adopted the policy in executive orders, while Democrats, including President Obama, have repealed it.

Sotomayor spoke for a three-judge panel that upheld the policy as constitutional. The government "is free to favor the antiabortion position over the pro-choice position and can do so with public funds," she said.

"I simply don't know Judge Sotomayor's view on Roe vs. Wade. I will be very concerned if the question is not asked and answered during the Senate hearings," Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the Times.

Despite efforts to get clarification, Northup said, "So far, no one has been able to give us an assurance of her views."

Meanwhile, the White House is stressing that Obama doesn’t have a litmus test on abortion despite frequent campaign promises by the president to uphold abortion rights.

Of course, with a small paper trail on abortion--not to mention her being raised a Catholic, liberals are already demanding that Sotomayor be asked about Roe vs. Wade during the upcoming conformation hearings. But issues, or a litmus test shouldn't come into play here, Sotomayor's experience, competency and qualifications is what matters most. Then too maybe it ends up that Sotomayor's relatively slim record on abortion played a huge part in her getting picked for SCOTUS--in other words Barry's way of saying that in this case, he won't be bullied by the fearmongers in the angry Left.