All Comments for: Few Red Flags Found in Sotomayor's Religion-Related Cases | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > May (Web-only)

Christianity Today, May (Web-only), 2009 |

SPEAKING OUT

Few Red Flags Found in Sotomayor's Religion-Related Cases

President Obama's Supreme Court pick generally sided with religious freedom.

Tobin Grant | posted 5/28/2009 11:00AM

As churches and religious groups eye President Obama's Supreme Court pick, U.S. Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, they will likely take keen interest in her religious freedom cases. During her career, Sotomayor ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

Anna	Posted: June 03, 2009 10:48 PM

Okay, please don't confuse me with the other Anna. Where did the "fact" that this woman is a lesbian come from? I haven't heard it on the media. I would think that Obama wouldn't dare try to get a lesbian on the Supreme Court with the "war" going on right now with the marriage definition change. Does anybody know for sure. I would just like to know. My main concern as always is the abortion issue. No where in the Constitution is killing the unborn a guaranteed right for women. So, I would really like to know where she stands here first because if she is for the murder of the innocent than she is not constitutional, she is anti-constitutional and all her decisions will end up coming from this viewpoint. Who knows the answer to these two questions, sexual orientation and abortion view.

Jane	Posted: June 02, 2009 12:14 PM

Anna--Where in the world do you get your information?!?! Adam S is right--you are doing no one, especially us in the Christian community--any favors by propagating false information and outright lies, not only about Judge Sotomajor, but also President Obama. You may want to do a bit more research before you state such mistruths and exagerations. From everything I've read about Judge Sotomayor, I would be thrilled to have her on our supreme court.

Redfox

Posted: June 02, 2009 9:35 AM

I am naturalized US citizen. I emigrated to the US for economic reasons, but also in the conviction that this country believes (at least in theory) in the principle of fairness. How someone with a favorite ‘cause’ (gender, race, sexual orientation, gun control) can be regarded as more capable than someone who is not emotionally biased is a rather disturbing idea. I have always imagined that the interpretation of law is the role of Judges – not making of laws. Sad that people migrate in droves to this country, congregate in ethnic networks, and then whine about the way it is and what laws should be made to support their viewpoints. A Supreme Court judge should have a little more depth than what is required to represent us in traffic court – a depth that includes something more than gender and minority status. We should be convinced that a nominee will continue the unbiased support of our rights (especially those that have been tested again and again) in the absence of emotive bias

Nana	Posted: May 29, 2009 10:39 PM


Hmmm, I'll bet kilty listens to certain commentators. It is good to have someone who believes the Constitution matters, as for her statement about making better decisions than White men in matters of abuse or sexism, almost any woman who has experienced either would make a better decision than any man, White or otherwise.

Adam S

Posted: May 29, 2009 4:21 PM


There is absolutely no evidence that Judge Sotomayor is a lesbian. She was married until 1983 but has not remarried (she is Catholic.) She does not have children. She does not live with another woman. We cannot repeat false claims as Christians and still expect to be taken seriously.

John	Posted: May 29, 2009 1:28 PM

anna miles smith, if you know any socialist, perhaps you should ask a socialist if Obama is a socialist. I think he is pretty interested in preserving the economic status quo. Look at the economic bailout, who does it benefit? It benefits his corporate capitalist cronies. I don't think the workers will be controling the means of production anytime soon, do you? So be happy, income inequality will continue to expand and American will continue to be a plutocracy ruled by the wealthy elites. God's will, right?

Bill	Posted: May 29, 2009 9:41 AM


As a Christian, and a Democrat, I have to chuckle to myself as the right pouts and whines. The right got Alito and Roberts. Now it is our turn. It will keep the republic balanced.

romans1

Posted: May 28, 2009 11:02 PM


Forget the religious angle. This lady has made it clear she has abandoned any pretense of impartiality. This judge has made public statements esstially saying that if you are the "little guy" in the case (minority, female, gay, employee vs big bad employer, name your underdog) she is on your side. This is not what we need in a Supreme Court Justice.

jcb	Posted: May 28, 2009 9:48 PM


What is the evidence for such a statement labeling this person as lesbian, please? To circulate this kind of comment unscreened is doing none any favors.

Julie Murphy

Posted: May 28, 2009 9:14 PM


Thank you for a reasoned and reasonable article. Can we hope that reasoned and reasonable would describe our reactions, even when we disagree? What does being unreasonable and unreasoning reveal? Lord, have mercy.

Christian Lawyer

Posted: May 28, 2009 9:10 PM

Although I agree with his conclusion that the case raises no red flags, Dr. Grant completely misstates both the holding of the majority and Judge Sotomayor's dissent in Hankins v. Lyght, the case he discusses first and at length. The majority did NOT hold "the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) gave religious groups an exemption from such [civil rights] laws." To the contrary, while the court noted the RFRA might give a limited exemption from civil rights laws, the majority refused to decide whether an exemption existed for the church there, expressly sending the case back to the trial court to make that determination first. Similarly, Judge Sotomayor did NOT analyze the age discrimation law using the Lemon test (the 3 questions). Rather, she found the age discrimination law not to apply to the case at all because Congress never meant that law to apply to employment disputes between a church and its spiritual leaders. If the law doesn't apply, there's no need to apply Lemon.

Fritz

Posted: May 28, 2009 8:59 PM

True to form, Satan locks the barn door after the building has been destroyed. We are not ignorant of his devises according to scripture yet know that God is in control of governments including the chaff that falls to the ground. not ignorant - 2Co 2:11 there is no power but of God -Rom 13:1 But do remember that we are obligated to vote in that that is the form of government that God has chosen for this country.

anna miles smith

Posted: May 28, 2009 8:06 PM


It is very sad that this socialist president who is taking America down and quickly so has appointed this lesbian judge. What a perversion of morality. No one but those with the highest morals should eve be seen on this court. This is just another of Obama's mistakes. She will never be a part of OUR Supreme Court.

kilty

Posted: May 28, 2009 6:58 PM


The red flags will be flying as soon as she introduces her 'wife'. Not on is she a lesbian she is against the second amendment and is pro abortion. We don't need another one like this on the most important judicial bench in this country. Another Harriet Miers...hope she withdrawers soon. Obama has done a bad enough job thus far the least he could do it promote real Americans for this seat.

Clarence Cossey

Posted: May 28, 2009 4:10 PM


Does anyone want a fair, just, and honest judge? Isn't it true that what we really want is a judge that will support our own beliefs and practices?

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment