Reader comments
20 Utah law professors back Sotomayor

Anonymous | 2:05 p.m. July 9, 2009

So what! What does a law professor know that conservatives with a bias against Obama, democrats and Sotomayor don't know. Rush dropped out, never finishing a semester of Junior college.

Freedom70 | 2:13 p.m. July 9, 2009

Sotomayor shouldn't have any backing from any of us.

A) She's against the 2nd Amendment to such a degree that she believes anyone who currently owns a gun is breaking the law.

B) As a judge in a lower court, she ruled that white firefighters shouldn't receive a promotion because no non-white firefighters qualified. That case went to the Supreme Court two weeks ago and (thankfully) was overturned.

Sotomayor is a racist and gun control fanatic. And neither has a place on the Supreme Court.

@Freedom70 | 2:38 p.m. July 9, 2009

The greatest threat to freedom is ignorance.

Perhaps, instead of parroting others, you should actually read the source material.

Comments continue below

Really? | 2:44 p.m. July 9, 2009

@Freedom70 First, Sotomayor may not agree with your view on guns, but your rights are protected by that little amendment. A single judge will not and cannot take your precious guns away from you. Second, unlike the Supreme Court, she actually followed the LAW with the firefighters. You want to be mad at somebody about that, blame the state for making affirmative action laws apply to firefighters. I think its about time we have a Latina on the Supreme Court, since it is supposed to be a representation of the population. We're not there yet, but we're getting a little closer. I'm not even going to say anything about that stupid Rush comment above.

re-freedom70 | 2:44 p.m. July 9, 2009

She is wonderful and you are so radically conservative its just gross!

Wow | 3:09 p.m. July 9, 2009

She's a fantastic nominee to the the high court. Her lifetime accomplishments are incredible. She's a winner and she can provide some balance and diversity to the bench.

scorpy | 3:26 p.m. July 9, 2009

Great news for Utah-she is well respected-loved.

TIM PRESEAU | 3:36 p.m. July 9, 2009

Does this surprise anyone that 20 Law Professors back Sotomayor? Not me. Liberal Law Professors will always support a liberal prospect.

I am sure that theses Professors have lost touch with the man on the street ages ago.

Too bad for the common man.

bystander | 3:37 p.m. July 9, 2009

Jeez, all the imflammatory. We should all be able to agree that she probably will get confirmed, that she is liberal and an activist that might provide help to decisions that go beyond current constitution. We've got at least 3, perhaps 4 others on court that are the same way. Its hard to find an attorney that doesn't think he/she knows more than the founding fathers. Even Repub presidents have had trouble finding them.

Freedom70 | 3:56 p.m. July 9, 2009

"A single judge will not and cannot take your precious guns away from you."

Not true. The only reason the 2nd Amendment is still in tact is because of a SUPREME COURT DECISION from last year where it was upheld 5 to 4. That's right. 5 to 4. One judge made a world of difference.

And whoever it was claiming I was ignorant of "the facts," I love how you just threw that out there and ran for the hills without countering with any of YOUR "facts."

Wake up.

James B. | 4:31 p.m. July 9, 2009

Based on her rulings, as influenced by her personal philosophy, not the law, she is not qualified to be a supreme court justice.

Ruth in Texas | 4:35 p.m. July 9, 2009

Why are people so surprised about this? I am pretty sure there are at least 20 Liberal judges in Utah.

Get prepared our rights are going out the window. No guns for sure.

Disgusted.

Anonymous | 4:35 p.m. July 9, 2009

"The only reason the 2nd Amendment is still in tact is because of a SUPREME COURT DECISION from last year where it was upheld 5 to 4. That's right. 5 to 4. One judge made a world of difference."

The fallacy of statistics. It took 5 judges to uphold the decision, not 1. The difference was 1 judge, but it took all 5.

Or perhaps more simply put: Which judge was the difference?

Re.: Anon. @ 2:05pm | 4:37 p.m. July 9, 2009

Well, that settles that, anybody that drops-out of college can never be smart enough to think anything, they go along with the others that dare to question or voice an opinion ... ignorant peasant masses!

I will question anything & everything until I come to the conclusion I am comfortable with, because when you mix arrogance with ignorance you will have a volatile failure!

of course this is my uneducated opinion!

Keep this list | 4:44 p.m. July 9, 2009

Folks, hang onto this list and remember who supported this activist, racist, anti-RKBA nominee in case any of them are ever appointed to a position here in Utah.

Freedom70 | 4:46 p.m. July 9, 2009

RE: ANON

Fine, let's do the math your way. 5 judges preserved our rights. 4 judges trampled them. 5 minus 4 is still what?

I suppose basic math is a fallacy in your world too.

@Ruth in Texas | 5:01 p.m. July 9, 2009

Twenty liberal judges in Utah? I really don't think so.

@Freedom70 | 5:02 p.m. July 9, 2009

What is the name of the 2nd Amendment case from last term?

Anonymous | 5:05 p.m. July 9, 2009

I think she'll make a wonderful judge. She's smart, compassionate, and she has loads of experience. She's much more qualified than the last two pics on the High Court.

Nuttycomputer | 5:37 p.m. July 9, 2009

Sotomayor has had only 3 out 11 of her cases heard by the Supreme Court being upheld. 2 of which they unanimously rejected her reasoning, in other words she got the right answer by accident. So out of 11 cases she only correctly judged 1 right. That's a failure by my book.

80%... | 5:38 p.m. July 9, 2009

of her decisions that were appealed to the Supreme court were overturned.

Would you hire a Doctor, or any other professional, that got it wrong 80% of the time?

Nuttycomputer | 5:42 p.m. July 9, 2009

Correction with the recent overturning of the fireman case that puts Sotomayor 3/12 with again 2 of those where reasoning was rejected by SCOTUS. So 1 out of 12 correctly judged cases that have gone to supreme court.

Now we know.... | 6:07 p.m. July 9, 2009

Now we know the four BYU Law Professors who voted for Obama.

reformed repub..... | 6:17 p.m. July 9, 2009

Its good to see that integrity and honesty in TRUE GRIT form is shown by these Lawyers who have studied the life and works of a noble person who we hope will be nominated to her rightful place.
Bigotry will always hold fashion in some political circles and media evangelists.

bergstro | 6:17 p.m. July 9, 2009

Shocker.

This is about as newsworthy as a statement by the Democratic Party that they also support Sotomayor. I didn't go to law school in Utah, but if it's anything like the rest of the law schools in the country, then you'd be hard pressed to find a conservative in the mix.

Diversity in everything but opinion.

Anonymous | 6:19 p.m. July 9, 2009

You guys actually BELIEVE what Rush spouts off to you, don't you.

Go read the actual events that you are parroting here and come back, okay?

Meanwhile, I welcome such a schooled voice as Sotomayor. What a terrific choice for the highest court.

I have no small measure of schadenfreude watching the knee-jerkers jerk. It's sheer bliss.

rusby | 9:54 p.m. July 9, 2009

@Freedom70 at 5:02

The court case was District of Columbia v. Heller.

Sotomayor, won't really make a difference. She is replacing Souter (one of the four in the 5-4 decision).
However, conservatives need to worry if Kennedy, Alito, Roberts, Scalia, or Thomas decides to retire. We know Alito and Roberts are in it for the long haul. I am not sure how much longer ginsburg will be in there, since she is battling pancreatic cancer.

The BYU law professors who support Sotomayor is not really surprising. I do appreciate the differing viewpoint that they bring to the law school, especially Gedicks.

Lute | 10:19 p.m. July 9, 2009

Is it fair to say that law school professors would be among those knowing and understanding the laws best of the entire population? So where's the list of law professors OPPOSING Sotomayor?

my thoughts | 11:41 p.m. July 9, 2009

"reformed repub": "her rightful place?" Is this now an aristocracy where someone is born to hold a particular position? You could argue, if you wished, about her qualifications, or meeting some standard, but I don't really think that you want to be talking about someone's "rightful place".. the same argument could be made about gender or race and I thought we were trying to get past that type of thinking.

Don't be an idiot | 2:19 a.m. July 10, 2009

To: 80%...

"of her decisions that were appealed to the Supreme court were overturned.

Would you hire a Doctor, or any other professional, that got it wrong 80% of the time?"

Here are the average reversal rates for all cases that the Supreme Court accepts. In 2008 it reversed 85% of Circuit Court decisions; in 2007 it reversed 61%; in 2006 it reversed 72%; in 2005 it reversed 77%; in 2004 it reversed 73% and from 2004 to 2008 the total number of Circuit Court cases reversed was 73%.

The reason for this high number of cases that are reversed is that the Supreme Court determines what cases it takes based on the fact that it intends to take specific action which most often then not is to overturn it. Why would the Supreme Court take a case that was decided at the Circuit Court level if it intends to uphold it? The answer to that is if they intend to clarify the reasoning of a lower court Judge. This is why one of Sotomayor's decisions was upheld 8-0 while the Supreme Court explained its reasoning. It took the case because it agreed and had more to say

The real problem | 8:36 a.m. July 10, 2009

Like Obama, Sotomayor is a Critical Legal Theorist, meaning that they believe the law to be a tool of power. Since white males dominated from the inception of this great nation, most of the laws have a power bias that favors white males.
At least that is the premise they embrace.
So, changing the law through court rulings to favor minorities and women is their agenda.
That agenda overrides even the rule of law.
You'll see evidence of their work in affirmative action cases, criminal rights, limits on police powers, illegal alien rights, abortion rights, gun control...
THAT'S the real danger here.

Academia v.s. real world | 8:53 a.m. July 10, 2009

Have you ever noticed that those that have spent their lives in the world of academia have lost complete touch with the real world?

The real world consists of people who wake up every morning and go to work, contribute to society, and deal with the way the world is. The academic world consists of people who wake up go to the local campus, take a paycheck who from the taxes of those working in the real world, and discuss the way the world should theoretically work. It is no suprise that the academic world is mostly liberal.

I could care less what law professors think, and care much more about what law professionals think. Their is a big difference between the theory of law, and it's real application in the real world.

@Academia | 9:44 a.m. July 10, 2009

You obviously don't know those particular law professors, or you wouldn't assume they'd spent their whole lives in academia. Most of them have spent plenty of time in the "real world," too.

Robert | 10:06 a.m. July 10, 2009

The headline for this article reads, "20 Utah law profs back Sotomayor". But the real story behind the headline is that ONLY 20 law professors in Utah support Ms. Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme court.

Go to the websites for the two law schools and you will see that each law school has in the range of 60 professors -- including full-time, part time, adjunct, etc. (Some professors who signed the Sotomayor support letter are merely adjunct professors; hence the need to count all professors at the two schools, not just full-time professors).

So what about the other 100 professors at the two Utah schools? Evidently, they don't think enough of Sotomayor to even place their names on a letter that someone else wrote and asked them to sign.

Therefore, the headline should read, "Only 20 Utah Law Professors Back Sotomayor".

Anonymous | 10:19 a.m. July 10, 2009

The partisan hacks should realize that she is as qualified as any other person named to the court. They should, but they are not dealing in good faith. If she was from the GOP, they would love her and sing her praises from the rooftops.

Freedom70 | 10:48 a.m. July 10, 2009

Anonymous:

You wrote: "If she was from the GOP, they would love her and sing her praises from the rooftops."

Who's the partisan hack? Sounds to me like YOU'RE the one drawing political lines here.

John Potter | 2:09 a.m. July 11, 2009

She has no respect or intent of upholding the U.S. Constitution.

That is where the discussion is at for me.

When we have out of control branches of Federal Government, we will get what we deserve for not holding them accountable for not staying within the restraints of the Constitution.

Which I might add was intended to, "bind them..." to carry out no mischief.

Freedom Lover | 10:32 p.m. July 12, 2009

It shouldn't matter what your political flavor is. If you believe in the U.S. Constitution, you should dislike the nomination of Sotomayor. The Consitution is NOT a living document and is not to be amended by judicial activism. Also, our Consitutional laws are NOT to be intermingled with the laws of any other land or international laws.

Besides, for her to make the comment that an educated Hispanic woman is more qualified to be a judge than an equally educated white man makes her a bigoted racist!! No judge should go to the bench with personal agendas like hers. Her attitude will endanger the rights of all minorities.

You pro-Sotomayor people had better wake up to the real world!!!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.