1.  Who is Sonia Sotomayor? (What do you learn about her background from this article?) (See. para. 2, 13, 15-16)

2.  What is the main reason that conservatives do not approve of Judge Sotomayor's nomination?

3.  What examples do critics give for opposing Judge Sotomayor's nomination? (see paragraphs 6-7, 10)

4.  How did Clinton appointee Judge Jose Cabranes react to Judge Sotomayor's decision in the New Haven firefighters' case?

5.  From para. 9 "Groups like the Judicial Confirmation Network have argued that what [President] Obama has often called 'empathy' in his public remarks regarding his ideal justice flies in the face of the image of a blind judge impartially using the laws - not personal feelings - to hand down decisions."
Why is it important for judges to make decisions impartially, based solely on the law?

6.  What qualifications should a judge have, in your opinion?  Explain your answer.

7.  The judicial branch usually has the final say on such issues as religious liberties, abortion, gay marriage, gun laws, pornography, and the fate of suspected terrorists in the ongoing war on terror. What decisions might judges appointed by President Obama make on these types of issues?

8.  In order to form your own opinion on this issue, you must understand what the controversy over the nomination of Federal judges is all about.  Read the following three paragraphs that explain the difference in the opposing views on the role of a judge, as well as the "Background" below the questions:

Think about the role of a judge. Do you support the nomination of activist judges? Explain your answer.

• The term "judicial restraint" refers to the idea that the role of a judge is not to make policy or establish new legal rights, but to interpret the law as written in the United States Constitution or in statutes passed by the legislature. Because the will of the people is best expressed through legislative bodies, judges must strive to adhere to the law as written even if, at times, the law is insufficient to deal with certain circumstances or conflicts with the judge's personal political views.
• "Judicial activism," by contrast, refers to results-oriented judging, whereby a judge decides the outcome of a case based not on the law as written, but on his or her conception of what is just or fair. "Judicial activism" is often improperly confused with the power of "judicial review," which is the power of the judiciary to invalidate statutes that are in conflict with the United States Constitution.
• Although the term "judicial restraint" is often associated with political conservatism, and "judicial activism" often associated with political liberalism, they are not properly categorized as such. "Judicial restraint" and "judicial activism" refer to the process or method a judge uses to reach a particular decision, not to the political ramifications of that decision. Political liberals and political conservatives are, at least theoretically, equally capable of exercising restraint on the bench. By the same token, judicial activists may use their authority to achieve either conservative or liberal results. As such, the terms "judicial restraint" and "judicial activism" are neither inherently "conservative" nor inherently "liberal."
  From "A Primer on Judicial Restraint..." found at JudicialNetwork.com (in PDF format - must have Adobe Acrobat Reader to open) (from judicialnetwork.com/contents/readingroom/braceras_100102.pdf)