After listening to the debate between Sotomayor and Cortman I am questioning Sotomayor's ability to make an unbiased judgement in this case. My understanding is that the Supreme Court Justices are suppose to make unbiased decisions about whether a case in unconstitutional or not. Where is the line? I believe that she was against him from the start, and aggressively argued against the church before the case was appropriately presented. When is a judge to opinionated to make a fair and informed decision? In a judicial system where this is the final court available when should a judge be considered 'too involved' and removed from vote for the sake of an unbiased vote? This question to me has a deeper meaning as it points to the constitutionality of party-loading the court when seats open during a particular party having a majority in office.

I believe, like Sotomayor, Ginsburg has made this personal and is no longer unbiased. She acknowledges that the school claims to have a nondiscriminatory admission policy, but then continues on to play a 'what if' game. By continuing to argue against something Cortman has already answered I believe she made it clear that she would dissent.

I feel like Kennedy here is making a devil's advocate argument, but actually supports Cortman. Listening to the recording while reading leads me to believe, due to Kennedy's tone of voice and inflection, that he is attempting to pose a question that gives Cortman a chance to greater defend his case. I especially focus on the last sentence "It's all -- it's for public safety," I specifically identify this sentence because the actual problem of the case is that the State of Missouri is not allowing the Learning Center to participate in a recycling program that will resurface a playground. This decision effects public safety in two ways: 1. By not allowing the recycling program the school will have to use manufactured and pollutant materials, and 2. The safety of the children using a worn-surface playground. Due to this nonchalant help and word choice I believe that he will vote in favor of Cortman and the Church.

Sotomayor is still arguing with Cortmayor. She is definitely going to dissent.

This entire statement by Sotomayor leads me to believe she will also dissent. Similar to Ginsberg, she poses a question against Cortman's argument, gives a personal belief, and then goes on to defend that personal belief. It is hard enough to argue a point to someone with no prior opinion, but to persuade someone who already has a grounded belief is much more difficult. I believe that she already decided to dissent before her made his re-butle to her question.

I believe this second argument against Cortman supports my earlier hypothesis that Sotomayor is well-grounded in her belief and no longer has an unbiased approach to this case. I continue to believe that she will dissent.

This appears to be a solid arguement by Justice Ginsburg against Cortman and the Trinity Church. I believe that this part of the transcription; cutting off Cortman, explaining her disagreement, and then adding the personal conclusion "And doesn't that fit this case?" , ultimately sets Ginsburg up to dissent against his case.

Mr. Cortman made a strong opening statement here. Without any prior context of this case I am immediately drawn towards a violation of 1st amendment right. freedom of religion, and the idea of separation of church and state. Cortman uses very strategic phrasing by saying that the State of Missouri's ONLY reason for excluding the The Learning Center is the fact that it is church operated. As a listener/reader I am already biased against the State of Missouri and I believe that the atmosphere this opening creates carries the rest of his argument.