Originalism is important not just because the Founders were the ones who wrote the Constitution and obviously knew what they intended, but also because it gives an unbiased starting point, external to the justices on the court.

In the interpretation of the Constitution, every judge must have a starting point from whence to interpret the document. If the judges feel the need to move beyond the plain language of the document, then it only makes sense to have one point of origin, instead of nine.

Five out of the six cases she ruled on resulted in the Supreme Court overturning her verdicts saying she was wrong in the interpretation of law.

That enough is grounds for disqualification to me.

Ms. Sotomayor has said that she is not an “original constructionist”, or in other words, she does not believe that one needs to decipher the intent of a passage of the Constitution AS THE FRAMERS INTENDED THE PASSAGE TO BE INTERPRETED. Getting away from a debate on loose vs strict interpretation, she is the first to ever admit this. I don’t like it.

I can’t argue with her breadth of experience. And despite the “big quote” she has often ruled against a minority person when race was not one of the factors of the suit (i.e. a hispanic person suing a company for securities fraud, where race has no bearing).

I also think that the criticism of her membership in an “women’s only” organization is off target since I think it reflects a generational gap. I know older people who I would consider racist/sexist (or at least biased), but I know VERY few people my own age that I could say the same for. Sure, I think its hypocritical the we have TV stations like BET, and it would be considered horrendous to have a WET. But the bigger issue is that I wouldn’t see the relevance… I mean, a TV station dedicated to bringing programming based on the lightness or darkness of someone’s skin???

In other words, I don’t think my generation sees the same issues in a biased/racist view as an older generation. I look at this Sonya debate and don’t necessarily “get it”. It’s like Jim Brown going off on Tiger Woods recently about not “sticking up for black issues” more often. Jim Brown grew up in an era where skin tone was a factor, Tiger Woods has grown up when it is not.

But the crux is that this older generation will be making laws based on their thinking patterns, not ours. And because of that we have to make sure we understand and agree with their philosophy. (Just did a big circle)

Regarding the firefighters case, I thought the most relevant fact was that part of the exam was an oral exam administered by current and former fire chiefs/marshalls/etc and this group was over 2/3 minority. So, if they thought the exam was fair for the white (and hispanic) guys…