ACLU Releases Report On Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor

The ACLU today released a report summarizing the civil liberties and civil rights record of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who was nominated by President Obama to replace retiring Justice David Souter as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. The report was prepared in accordance with ACLU policy, and will be made available to the public and members of the Senate.

The ACLU does not endorse or oppose candidates for elective or appointive office.

The full text of the report is online at:

Add a comment (4)
Read the Terms of Use


Question to Speaker Gingrich after reading his article and watching news.

My question how did The majority supreme court and Justice Ginsberg allow Secured Investor Contracts, Paid for Franchised Dealerships to be taken away and given to others for free to be trampled on by the Administration? Where is the ACLU on this one?? This is worse the Sinclairs's Tea-Pot dome!

The Unions Have Been Rewarded With
Ongoing Subsidization by the Taxpayers
It is a sign of the degree to which raw politics has dominated its handling of Chrysler and General Motors that the Obama Administration has a 31-year-old who has not yet graduated from law school determining the fate of two multi-billion dollar companies.

For their political support of the Democratic Party, the auto unions have been rewarded, not just with ownership stakes in two giant companies, but with ongoing protection and subsidization by the U.S. taxpayers.

The President has said repeatedly that he wants to get out of the auto business as soon as possible. But does anyone seriously believe that he would accept an arrangement in which GM becomes profitable at the expense of the union and its gold-plated benefits?

Having spent $50 billion to "save" GM and the UAW, does anyone really believe that the Obama Administration will now allow economics and not politics to dictate its future decisions?

In the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, the Obama Administration has trampled on the rule of law.

It is using the taxpayers' money to pay back a political group for its political contributions.

There was a time when we would have called that a scandal.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

Isidoro Rodrigu...


I am an old liberal Republican who knows we must stop the divisiveness of today’s politics. All citizens, irrespective of being either Liberal, Nonpartisan, Republican, or Democrat, want the Judicial Branch to assure impartial access to the courts/jury trials to protect a citizens’ rights by enforcing the limitation/prohibitions on the government under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Therefore, as a Republican, I support President Obama nomination of Judge Sotomayor based on her decision in John Malesko v. Correctional Services Corporation, 229 F.3rd. 374 (2000), rev’d 534 U.S. 61 (2001).

In Malesko, Sotomayor, writing for the court, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working as an instrumentality of federal government for violations of constitutional rights. She found that a "Bivens" action permits suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations. Her position is consistent with the holding in United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882), which states that,

[n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to Rehnquist lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. (Emphasis added).

Consistent with Lee supra, Sotomayor underscore that constant vigilance must be maintained to preserve our Constitution from undue government encroachment by the use of legal sophistry of lawyers and judges intentionally acting to circumvent the limitations on the powers granted the government by “the people” in the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

However, the Supreme Court reversed her ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens doctrine could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling. This holding increases the limitation on the people to have access to an impartial court and jury trial to challenge malfeasance, negligence and criminal acts of the government, its employees, and agents.

The Supremes holding causes me to recall Thomas Jefferson statement made more than 200 years ago, "[t]he germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

As an independent federal civil litigation sole practitioner for the past three decades I have litigated against the negligence and malfeasance of the government employees (See Martinez v. Lamagno and DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), and an on gong criminal conspiracy of present and former attorneys in DOJ and judges in the Judicial Branch to intentionally violate Congress’ delegations under the Rules Enabling Act and the Judicial Conference Act to deny access to an impartial court. The evidence is that have conspired declare themselves absolutely immune from suit for tortious and criminal acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1204, and 1523, by government attorneys and judges to cover-up and deny me access to an impartial jury trial under RICO for the criminal obstruction of my statutory rights as a father and for issuing and enforcing a void order to deprive me of my right of employment in retaliation seeking to enforce my federal statutory rights, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Ed.-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Ct. Of App. No. 07-5234 (Feldman, J.), and, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. and Isidoro Rodriguez-Hazbun v. NCMEC, et al., D.C. No. 03-0120 (Roberts, J.)(

Consequently, Sotomayor’s speedy confirmation would slow the transforming of our Republic into a legal tyranny permitting the legal profession to immunize the government, its employees, agents and judges from accountability for negligent, or criminal acts outside of their scope of authority, judicial capacity, or jurisdiction.


Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., Member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Ct App for 2nd and Fed. Cir., and U.S. Tax Court

William Toodle

WEll i guess my first message never got to you probly part of the continual scheme to keep there dirty lundary in house. other methods are bugging my home telephone services going to college where i attend school speaking bad of me plus contacting potenial empolyment and discourge them from hiring me. Arizona has its own laws different from the rest of the United States its like a bad movie thats has come to life. The court proceeding are unconstitutional at best atleast in my case. where the factal information was ignored my public pretender never showed to one court date and i was allowed to speak to the judge from the seats in the court they would not allow me to speak into the microphone like everyone before me.when i questioned it they became very angry i was also given the wrong court dates on a back of a card in hopes that i would miss the real court date thus make me FTA loseing by default. i ask myself is all this happening cause im black mybe or some bad people raised some bad kids who grew up tobe bad people that patrol our streets and oversee our court rooms. I know police write lies tell lies but judges that was knew to me. and they stand and point the finger at other people, not surprised anymore its the American way,or the white way no harm meant just calling like it is. You might think he's angry not really just wanna see justice work for me after all i'm american it's suppose to regardless of my stature or the poeple who committed the crime status. The people here in arizona are cruel to the bone,only awearness will change what takes place here. I contact the FBI on the West coast aleast no responces i heard on a documentary they use tobe part of the Klan i don't know but i do know this my story is the truth. i told the story to my classmates there was not one dry eye in the classroom my teacher even wrote at the top of the paper powerful strong, maybe so but inside of me i was crushed by the unconstitutional acts by people who were sworn in to do the right thing and never came close to doing the right thing. instead they continue there unscrupulous behavior i guess because they have nothing better to do or the infomation have could ruin many careers i think is not the might be saying what happen ? swat team police kicked my door down news in front of my house stateing man with guns and drugs holding girl friend and daughter hostage. no guns no drugs found my girl fiends made no call to the police what so ever she even gave a notarized affadavit stating this was a lie we were told don't care about the affadavit. guess what i was charged with?theft of my onw cell phone i paid 30 dollars for the phone. thats a dam shame. but it justice in Arizona or was it blackmans justice in Arizona makes you wonder. know this it was not leagal American justice. i recently 2dys ago sent a letter to the FBI informing that my home and phone was bugged also my computer Will see, you know the old boy system look out for me and i will look out for you and lets sweep the truth under the rug or kill the complaintent Well my story is in 4 out of 50 states somebody going to make sure justice is served i'am sure of that. reply i like to here from you email remember my computer is bugg.

Clark Smith

The ACLU goes to great lengths to "protect the rights" of ALL individuals - gay, lesbian, minority, women etc. etc. and making their position known loud and clear.
How is it then that they clearly do not take a stand one way or another when it comes to whether Sotomayor should or should'nt be confirmed?
If they are indeed "protecting" us all, their report should be very conclusive.
However, I believe they want someone like her who "believes" and "feels" in their agenda and definitely not one who reaches a "thinking" objective decision

Stay Informed