Sonia Sotomayor Gives No Hints On Health Care Decision

WASHINGTON -- Justice Sonia Sotomayor is giving no hints on what the Supreme Court is going to do on the question of whether President Barack Obama's signature health care overhaul law is constitutional.

Sotomayor was the featured speaker Monday night at a lecture hosted by the University of the District of Columbia.

The court recently heard arguments on the health care law and is expected to make a decision before the end of June. But Sotomayor made no comment on the widely followed case.

The justice used most of her conversation with Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, to explain how the Supreme Court works and how she decided to become a lawyer and a prosecutor.

Sotomayor also said she's a fan of Jeremy Lin, whose NBA career with the New York Knicks has spawned "Linsanity." Sotomayor, a New York native, says "New York loves him" but decried some of the racist comments the Asian-American basketball player has faced as "ugly."

"It's a sad statement people that people still say those words," said Sotomayor, who is Hispanic.

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[righteousindignation]

12:02 AM on 04/05/2012

"Sotomayor Gives No Hints on Healthcare Decision"

*
I hope Sotomayor told that to Sebelius when they dined in the same restaurant after the vote.

[Chi Man Sam]

07:17 PM on 04/04/2012

I believe in the Death Panels charge that was made
agaisnt ObamaCare, yes, because the Supreme Court
just might kill it.

[OregonCHG]

08:08 PM on 04/03/2012

That's because this isn't pop-culture, justices aren't trying to send out shocking tweets, or play coy about pregnancy to land a magazine cover. As Justice Marshall plainly stated "It is our job to say what the law is." Think about the gravity of that responsibility, and then think about whether it would be wise to discuss a case in front of the court before a consensus opinion has been reached. Whoever, wrote this article should be relegated to the JV team covering the next Hollywood award ceremony.

[JacksonHts]

09:23 AM on 04/04/2012

They shouldn't discuss a case pending in front of the court before the Opinion is issued. And as you point out, it is totally naive to expect a Supreme Court justice to be so unprofessional as to talk about a pending case.

[righteousindignation]

12:04 AM on 04/05/2012

or did their research - that Sotomayor dined in the same restaurant with Sebelieus - after the vote = same time, same place.

*
Or, maybe that is why this article was written - with its catchy title = "Sotomayor gives no Hints on Healthcare Decision".

[OregonCHG]

02:16 AM on 04/10/2012

So, based on conjecture you have determined that she will vote to uphold healthcare because of a dinner with Sebelieus rather than the nearly six hours of testimony over three days? That is a pretty serious charge, with evidence as solid as yours though I wouldn't be worried.

[SBinF]

06:11 PM on 04/03/2012

Their opinions notwithstanding, it is simply fascinating to have audio of Court proceedings. All of these folks show that they know their stuff, and are clearly among the most brilliant jurists in the country. I'm not a lawyer, so much of what they say is over my head, but it's quite interesting.

[OregonCHG]

08:11 PM on 04/03/2012

As a lawyer I can say, yes, it is, but to be fair that is true of many people who graduate from law school as well, particularly the more extrapolated theories of constitutional law.

[Hacim Obmed]

10:18 AM on 04/04/2012

I think the release of the Audio tape has been very negative. Consider the way the argument of the solicitor general was denigrated because he stumbled over some of his words and hesitated a bit before answering some questions. This is irrelevant and would never have been seen in a written transcript. The man is supposed to be a learned professional and not a news anchor. And the way the "atmosphere" of the courtroom and the demeanor of the different justices has been scrutinized and interpreted to try and guess their thinking. It has turned the court hearings into a publicity circus and should never have been allowed. It is ok to make recordings for the historical record but they should not be released to the public until long after things are decided.

[Soc3947]

05:58 PM on 04/03/2012

this story is a sure sign she leaked to obama..

[righteousindignation]

12:06 AM on 04/05/2012

Exactly - Sotomayor and Sebelius just happened to dine in the same restaurant.

[OneInEveryFamily]

05:57 PM on 04/03/2012

She also did not defecate on stage but that is not newsworthy either.

[righteousindignation]

12:07 AM on 04/05/2012

She defecated on the bench - when she coached DOJ's Kneedler - from the bench.

[David Wertheimer]

05:14 PM on 04/03/2012

if Sonya Sotomayor votes no on healthcare low then the New your times and the main stream media will have to reclassify her as a "White Hispanic"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/why-did-new-york-times-call-george-zimmerman-white-hispanic/2012/03/28/gIQAW6fngS_blog.html

[GranE]

05:09 PM on 04/03/2012

Printing stories without a byline is not journalism. The person who cobbled this so called story together was not paying attention to the proceedings. Justice Sotomayor definitely had something to say on the very first day and it was the best thought since the opening bell. Do your homework HP and assign someone to find her quote and print it in large letters. Thanks, we'll appreciate it.

[righteousindignation]

12:23 AM on 04/05/2012

From GranE:

"Justice Sotomayor definitely had something to say on the very first day and it was the best thought since the opening bell".

***

Can you post what Sotomayor stated - since you know it so well? I am curious - and do not want to wait for HP to do it. Why not you?

[ajp49]

04:59 PM on 04/03/2012

E.J. Dionne’s article, on the “Stup(id)reme” Activist Justices on Trial, does an excellent job to bring focus to core issue of current Affordable Health Care law. It called politics not constitutional law! As Justice Cardoza wrote, “Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the nation” in its 7-2 Court opinion to hold Social Security." What is critical or urgent changes with the times.... The purge of nationwide calamity that began in 1929 has taught us many lessons. Not the least is the solidarity of interests that may once have seemed to be divided."

Unfortunately, this Robert's Stup(id)reme Court has turned into nothing more than a disrespected, non-elected group of Political legal interest representatives that now serves as a rubber stamp for their own political views in the Congress! This institution has destroyed its own creditability and integrity in its failure to make decisions based upon the constitution and now functions as activists with little respect or regard for established laws! This judicial body is no longer relevant and has dishonored itself as an independent branch of U.S. govt! Roberts and his activist Court needs to be publically shamed to be reminded that we’re a democracy, not a judicial dictatorship to buy broccoli ( in Affordable Health Act) to quote by Scalia!

[FuriaRoja]

04:04 PM on 04/03/2012

She'll do the right thing;)

[Philimanjaro]

03:45 PM on 04/03/2012

Breaking News!!!!

Nothing happened.

[ccjmfk]

03:12 PM on 04/03/2012

It was, however, leaked out that the SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that President Obama is indeed a Muslim.

[opinioned1]

03:40 PM on 04/03/2012

Ahh another Fox junkie heard from...

[ccjmfk]

11:09 PM on 04/03/2012

Not really, but thanks for the laugh.

[William Harris]

05:05 PM on 04/03/2012

I almost responded by discussing how your statement reiterates that you must be an idiot for believing this lie, but I caught myself. The right response to your charge that he is a Muslim is SO WHAT? I'm sure you freedom loving, Constitution waving Conservatives appreciate the fact that the Founders declared that there shall be no religious test/requirement to serve as President. He's not a Muslim. But even if he was it would not make him any less qualified or suitable for office than any other American citizen (but I'm sure you will now just move to the "he's not a citizen" argument).

[ccjmfk]

10:50 PM on 04/03/2012

I didn't say the President is a Muslim, not at all, it was the SCOTUS in one of their many infamous 5-4 rulings. O.K. do try to lighten up a bit, and reconize levity when you read it, by the way this joke isn't original. However the SCOTUS did rule 5-4 that the police have the right to strip search you, even if hauled in for the most frivoious charge, like jay-walking.

[righteousindignation]

12:27 AM on 04/05/2012

William:
Nope, but it would only enhance why he would give The Muslim Brotherhood = $1 BILLION of our US taxpayer money - when The Muslim Brotherhood has been burning down Christian Churches in Egypt - and everywhere else.

[amandamandy85]

02:58 PM on 04/03/2012

She's not supposed to talk about the vote. This is news?

[righteousindignation]

12:27 AM on 04/05/2012

Neither is Obama.

[mjclear]

02:40 PM on 04/03/2012

Win or lose, the Health Care Act will be viewed in 50 years as landmark legislation. Eventually, the US will have to adopt a more proactive solution to the health care crisis, and this law will be seen as the ground work for the legislation that will eventually prevail.

[Slagfish]

05:40 PM on 04/03/2012

The Republican majority on this court was carefully assembled based on their ideological purity. They were put on the court for the specific purpose of stripping away all rights and freedoms and rendering the Constitution moot. There's no way they will vote to uphold a democratic healthcare bill.

[righteousindignation]

12:36 AM on 04/05/2012

if it were groundwork, would not have been done in the DARK of Night, closed door meetings, excluding our elected members of Congress = Republicans - in the writing of the policies for Obamacare - and included UNION BOSSES = Andy Stern of SEIU and Richard Trumka of AFL-CIO - proponents of Communism and Socialism - to be involved in the writing of the policies for Obamacare - and then demanding for UNIONS to be EXEMPT.

The only thing "landmark" about this legislation - is how much wasted time was spent, the costs of the Townhall meetings - abuse of our US taxpayer money - when NO ONE had read the legislation - and could not respond to any questions about it - having to witness US Congresswoman - Shirely Jackson Lee - a Democrat loon - repeatedly introducing one of Obama's campaign workers - as a "doctor" in agreement with Obamacare, and taking notice of the UNION THUGGERY - when the unions were stacking the townhalls with ACORN and SEIU goons being bused into the Townhall meetings, as paid endorsers, to give the false impression they were people in the community in agreement with Obamacare - along with Pelosi blowing the lid off - how the Obama Myth was created - devising a False sense of Popularity for him - with Manufactured Crowds and their Manufactured Signs being bused into the different cities, following him around to hear the great Telepromptor orator speak his Election Propoganda.

[M3Man]

08:11 PM on 04/05/2012

Politifact rates the "unions are exempt" as a Pants on Fire lie.

The exemptions are only to the life time caps, allowing their plans to cap payments at$750,000 until 2014. They must obey every other part of the law. And 75% of those exemptions went to corporations...25% to unions.

But that's ok. We realize you have to lie to get an issue, since the facts are not on your side.

Indignant? sure. Righteous? I'm still waiting for you to be right. About anything.

[lemmyk73]

02:35 PM on 04/03/2012

Jeremy Lin is horrible.

[FuriaRoja]

04:04 PM on 04/03/2012

Like your character.

[lemmyk73]

04:49 PM on 04/03/2012

More insults.

And Lin is not a good BBall player. The media ruined his career already.