It's still a shock that it's so blatant; even liberal Jon Stewart of the Daily Show made fun of this clip when it first came out.

Because millions of idiots worship the ground that Obama walks on, and probably don't even know what the Constitution is. And to get one thing straight... I am not saying that all Obama supporters are idiots, just that most of the idiots of America (and many other countries for that matter) support Obama. Here come the downrates from said idiots! ^_^

Both parties are guilty here. Don't conservative presidents typically appoint conservative judges and liberal presidents appoint liberals? This isn't some new thing with Obama. Alot of you need to understand that neither of our two major American political parties are any cleaner than the other. The old cliche' "two wings of the same bird" definitely has grounding in reality.

its where policy is made, not law

I believe the real issue here is why is Obama appointing this woman in the first place? What agenda is he trying to mandate through this appointment? Watch the following 7 minute video and then look at his appointees record; I believe you will see a pattern here. She may be well qualified, and she is of Mexican decent which is good but her record and Obama's speech tell the true story of this appointment. Please watch this and begin to understand what is happening here. http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/630.html

Because Obama has the Media in his pocket. I wonder how many so called Republicans are going to be "Nonpartisan" and vote "No" on Sotomayor-like he did with John Roberts. I have no faith in Obama, the Democrats, OR the Republicans.

Minority Racism is cool you didn't know that, wait til whites are the minority and see what happens.

Because, with all due respect, it's not really huge news. It's more like Sean Hannity's huge news, and as far as I'm aware, Hannity is not a legal scholar -- he's a conservative talk show host. From http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270037 "In their reporting of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's 2005 statement that the "court of appeals is where policy is made," several media figures and outlets have advanced the falsehood that her statement represented, in the words of Fox News' Sean Hannity, "the definition of judicial activism." In fact, numerous legal experts have stated that Sotomayor's comment was, in the words of Hofstra University law professor Eric Freedman, "the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning" and "thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue." In a May 26 article, PolitiFact.com concluded that it was "misleading" for the Republican National Committee to use Sotomayor's statement "to suggest it means she would be an activist judge on the Supreme Court." PolitiFact.com further reported: So keep in mind the audience and the question here, said Tom Goldstein, a partner at Washington law firm Akin Gump and the founder of ScotusBlog, a widely read blog on the Supreme Court. Goldstein watched the full video, and simply sees it as Sotomayor noting that in comparison to district court judges, "there's more policy involved" in the appeals courts. "The truth of the matter is, in the court of appeals, they are dealing with gaps and ambiguities in the law," Goldstein said. There's a lot for judges to interpret. Appeals court judges often have to make a call when a statute is unclear. In a sense, the policy is set by those calls made by the judges, even if they don't want to. To use that one line from Sotomayor to paint her as an activist judge is misleading, he said. "She's not a sweeping visionary ideologue in any way," Goldstein said. "Conservatives who are genuinely concerned about the direction of the Supreme Court, they are sort of grasping at straws here. That's an awful lot to put on one sentence." David Garrow, a historian who follows the Supreme Court, agrees. There has always been two schools of thought on the role of judges, Garrow said: those who see the law almost as an academic exercise, trying their best to mechanically apply the law; and the legal realists, who believe interpreting the law involves making choices, discretion. "What she (Sotomayor) said there is simply the honest version of what any judge knows and realizes," Garrow said. But "you're not really supposed to acknowledge it on the record." It's unfair to extrapolate that comment to suggest Sotomayor would mandate policy, he said. "To anyone who knows the intellectual history of judicial decision-making, she's just being honest, not activist," Garrow said. But for legal experts, there is nothing actually controversial to what Sotomayor said. Her political crime, if there were one in this case, was speaking the truth. "She's not wrong," said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. "Of course they make policy ... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy."

Because those who claim to hate judicial activism have a complete lack of memory of such when it's in their favor.

I would hope he is trying to create balance here. This is too broad an issue to speculate right or wrong. Sticking to the exact meaning of the constitution can cripple as well as its opposite.

Well, first of all because she's not and, as a consequence, the latter point that you make never even comes into play.

The liberal trolls are out, I've gotten a few downrates of -5. Yet they don't own up to the downrates...cowardly little sheep.