Sotomayor nomination

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Truth be known, I don't know this judge from any other judge.

However, there are some things that I find disturbing.

To me a judge should be 100% impartial, and a Judge should not be clouded by "Life Experiences" when interpreting the law.

A persons gender or race should have absolutely NO bearing on being qualified or not...however, how they use this aspect of their being will indicate one's character and it should be examined. If one's life experiences causes them to rule against or for some one due to Race or Gender, then they are in fact making a judicial decision as a racist.

It is fair to examine this point and that is all I believe the opposition is wanting to do.

What I don't understand is why we are seeing so much opposition from the left to having a fully open discussion about this or nearly any other issue?

So I suppose you vehemently opposed the nomination of Samuel Alito, who has said basically the same thing? Or perhaps you just read some Limbaugh-esque partisan rant and took it as gospel.

Sonia Sotomayor is the most qualified Supreme Court nominee in a hundred years. No one else has her combination of academic credentials and judicial experience. There is no reason for anybody to oppose her nomination.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

There is no reason for anybody to oppose her nomination.

That line of thinking is exactly what leads to the destruction of freedom.

That message implies that YOU are right and everyone else is wrong...it provides no opportunity to develop and grow. You could say it is an ELITISM mentality, which is exactly what so many people are opposing.

All that's being said is let's take a look at the nominee and determine if this person is above reproach with a history to serve as a Supreme Court Judge.

None of us has 100% hold on knowledge, none of us is perfect...we are all actually far from it, thus the clear reason that we need to have a strong level of research when it comes to appointing people to a lifelong position on the Supreme Court.

I'm not saying that she should or shouldn't be approved, but we hopefully are not so quick to judge without digging and finding out who she is.

We've already seen what knee jerk reactions have gotten us via the current President and his poor decisions over the first few months in office. I would hope that we as a people would learn a lesson, and be willing to at least dig a little deeper to understand a person's character before annointing them.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

That line of thinking is exactly what leads to the destruction of freedom.

That message implies that YOU are right and everyone else is wrong...it provides no opportunity to develop and grow. You could say it is an ELITISM mentality, which is exactly what so many people are opposing.

All that's being said is let's take a look at the nominee and determine if this person is above reproach with a history to serve as a Supreme Court Judge.

None of us has 100% hold on knowledge, none of us is perfect...we are all actually far from it, thus the clear reason that we need to have a strong level of research when it comes to appointing people to a lifelong position on the Supreme Court.

I'm not saying that she should or shouldn't be approved, but we hopefully are not so quick to judge without digging and finding out who she is.

We've already seen what knee jerk reactions have gotten us via the current President and his poor decisions over the first few months in office. I would hope that we as a people would learn a lesson, and be willing to at least dig a little deeper to understand a person's character before annointing them.

Right. Because it's me that refuses to understand other points of view.

I've done research. I knew who Sonia Sotomayor was before she was nominated. I know her credentials, and I've read her opinions. Considering the crap that's gone on during Supreme Court nominations over the last 20 years, she is as sure of a candidate as you'll really find. She's more than qualified, and is far from some kind of a left-winger. She's written opinions that supported the now-defunct "Mexico City Policy" with regards to abortion, as well as ones that have supported a white bigot, as well as gun rights. Do you know why? Because she does not use her political opinions to interpret the law.

I've taken a look at the Supreme Court nominee on my own terms, and I don't need Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (for those scoring at home, that's the rather racist ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee) or John Cornyn or Rush Limbaugh to tell me what to think. She is not new to the judicial scene, by any means. She's been approved by the Senate before. I'm not saying she should be confirmed tomorrow - but the only reason Republicans want to delay this process is because they're trying to figure out what the hell they can do to gain some kind of political advantage from all this. It has nothing to do with being afraid of her being on the Court, because we have not seen a candidate in a long time who, by any objective measure, is this qualified. This is not Sarah Palin being plucked out of the middle of Alaska to be the vice president. She is not an unknown.

I know that I can talk of my ass sometimes, on certain subjects more than others, but I usually think I know what I'm talking about. In this case, I'm sure that I do. Just because you (of your own admittance) really don't know what you're talking about, it doesn't mean that others don't have some clue.

[mary]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

Right. Because it's me that refuses to understand other points of view.

I've done research. I knew who Sonia Sotomayor was before she was nominated. I know her credentials, and I've read her opinions. Considering the crap that's gone on during Supreme Court nominations over the last 20 years, she is as sure of a candidate as you'll really find. She's more than qualified, and is far from some kind of a left-winger. She's written opinions that supported the now-defunct "Mexico City Policy" with regards to abortion, as well as ones that have supported a white bigot, as well as gun rights. Do you know why? Because she does not use her political opinions to interpret the law.

I've taken a look at the Supreme Court nominee on my own terms, and I don't need Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (for those scoring at home, that's the rather racist ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee) or John Cornyn or Rush Limbaugh to tell me what to think. She is not new to the judicial scene, by any means. She's been approved by the Senate before. I'm not saying she should be confirmed tomorrow - but the only reason Republicans want to delay this process is because they're trying to figure out what the hell they can do to gain some kind of political advantage from all this. It has nothing to do with being afraid of her being on the Court, because we have not seen a candidate in a long time who, by any objective measure, is this qualified. This is not Sarah Palin being plucked out of the middle of Alaska to be the vice president. She is not an unknown.

I know that I can talk of my ass sometimes, on certain subjects more than others, but I usually think I know what I'm talking about. In this case, I'm sure that I do. Just because you (of your own admittance) really don't know what you're talking about, it doesn't mean that others don't have some clue.

That's a damn fine post.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

Right. Because it's me that refuses to understand other points of view.

I've done research. I knew who Sonia Sotomayor was before she was nominated. I know her credentials, and I've read her opinions. Considering the crap that's gone on during Supreme Court nominations over the last 20 years, she is as sure of a candidate as you'll really find. She's more than qualified, and is far from some kind of a left-winger. She's written opinions that supported the now-defunct "Mexico City Policy" with regards to abortion, as well as ones that have supported a white bigot, as well as gun rights. Do you know why? Because she does not use her political opinions to interpret the law.

I've taken a look at the Supreme Court nominee on my own terms, and I don't need Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (for those scoring at home, that's the rather racist ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee) or John Cornyn or Rush Limbaugh to tell me what to think. She is not new to the judicial scene, by any means. She's been approved by the Senate before. I'm not saying she should be confirmed tomorrow - but the only reason Republicans want to delay this process is because they're trying to figure out what the hell they can do to gain some kind of political advantage from all this. It has nothing to do with being afraid of her being on the Court, because we have not seen a candidate in a long time who, by any objective measure, is this qualified. This is not Sarah Palin being plucked out of the middle of Alaska to be the vice president. She is not an unknown.

I know that I can talk of my ass sometimes, on certain subjects more than others, but I usually think I know what I'm talking about. In this case, I'm sure that I do. Just because you (of your own admittance) really don't know what you're talking about, it doesn't mean that others don't have some clue.

So your presumption that there is no reason to not support her is the way that we as a society should go...is that what you believe?

Your stating that we should NEVER challenge what those in government are feeding we the people?

It appears to me that you are traveling down a very dangerous road...many many many nations have been destroyed by this thinking, revolutions have been fought over this type of thought.

What if a Republican is in charge and they appoint someone, then its okay to dissent, but now that a Democrat is in charge and people want to explore to see if any dissent should take place, you think its wrong?

Sounds like a clear double standard.

Is this another case of being Drunk with power?

Is it possible that you might be wrong, just as you might be right?

I acknowledge that you might be right...but I'm willing to see if perhaps you might be wrong...are you willing to acknowledge or admit that this is possible?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

So your presumption that there is no reason to not support her is the way that we as a society should go...is that what you believe?

Your stating that we should NEVER challenge what those in government are feeding we the people?

It appears to me that you are traveling down a very dangerous road...many many many nations have been destroyed by this thinking, revolutions have been fought over this type of thought.

Could someone explain to me what 92bDad is talking about here?

Does he not realize that Supreme Court nominations have always been solely up to the President and that the People have NEVER had a say in the matter???

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

So your presumption that there is no reason to not support her is the way that we as a society should go...is that what you believe?

I have no idea what you're talking about. How does "society go" to support (or not support) a specific nominee to a specific judicial nomination? There is no trend to be established here. If Obama were to have picked some random judge from the boonies somewhere that no one had ever heard of, then we would have needed to have gone through a thorough investigation of that person's history. The information on Sonia Sotomayor is all available now, though. It has been for years. She's been manning a major appellate court spot for like 12 years. She is not an unknown. There isn't some archive of secret stuff on Sonia Sotomayor that wasn't already available. Let's get the process started. Do you think that me stating that I don't think there's any reason to oppose her, that that opinion actually holds sway in the judicial discourse of this country? I'm a 21-year-old history student who's taken a couple of political science classes.

Your stating that we should NEVER challenge what those in government are feeding we the people?

It appears to me that you are traveling down a very dangerous road...many many many nations have been destroyed by this thinking, revolutions have been fought over this type of thought.

I think you need to go back and actually read what I've written here. You're talking to someone that is not me.

On another note, a statement like this coming from you, who's shown to be the ultimate apologist for authority... that's really rather hilarious.

What if a Republican is in charge and they appoint someone, then its okay to dissent, but now that a Democrat is in charge and people want to explore to see if any dissent should take place, you think its wrong?

It depends entirely who they appoint. If they were to, say, choose some person from Alaska that nobody had ever heard of and knew anything about, then yes, I would say that an investigation would be needed. If they were to choose a very prominent judge on a very prominent circuit who had tons and tons of experience and had been in judicial mainstream for years, then no. You wouldn't need weeks and weeks to figure out what to do with him or her. You might oppose his or her nomination - but you shouldn't need weeks to figure that out.

Sonia Sotomayor is not going to be approved 100-0 (or 99-0, in the case of Norm "Sore Loser" Coleman"). Pat Roberts said he wasn't going to support her nomination. He didn't need weeks to figure that out.

I didn't actively oppose John Roberts or Samuel Alito at the time. I wish that I had opposed John Roberts now, because his lack of judicial experience failed to reveal just how much of a reactionary activist he really has turned out to be. Fortunately, with Sonia Sotomayor, we have much more judicial experience to draw upon to form an opinion.

Is this another case of being Drunk with power?

Do you somehow think that I have power? I'm not even a Democrat.

Is it possible that you might be wrong, just as you might be right?

Uh... yeah?

I acknowledge that you might be right...but I'm willing to see if perhaps you might be wrong...are you willing to acknowledge or admit that this is possible?

I find the possibility that something we didn't already know about Sonia Sotomayor popping up during a delay is extremely unlikely. But could something? Yeah. We could also find some kind of damning evidence in the memoirs of her cousin when he dies in thirty years. Should we go ahead and wait until all her family members die just to make sure?

There's plenty of information to draw an opinion of her from. As a judge, everything you do is public record, basically. For someone who's been in the judicial mainstream for as long as she has, Senate Republicans are absolutely ignorant if they need weeks to "review her record" or whatever. They're not absolutely ignorant, so I think that they have an ulterior motive.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

Sonia Sotomayor is the most qualified Supreme Court nominee in a hundred years. No one else has her combination of academic credentials and judicial experience. There is no reason for anybody to oppose her nomination.

Wow...that's some nominee...

Unfortunately she does seem to be a numbers liberal, unfortunate. We have enough numbers liberals already.

Also funny that her decisions appear to be overturned about what....60% of the time when reviewed by the Supremes?? Methinks someone is drinking the barry kool-aid.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Wow...that's some nominee...

Unfortunately she does seem to be a numbers liberal, unfortunate. We have enough numbers liberals already.

Also funny that her decisions appear to be overturned about what....60% of the time?? Methinks someone is drinking the barry kool-aid.

3 of her 5 decisions reviewed by the Court have been overturned, yes... but considering she's written over 150, that means that she's actually only had 2% reversed. The Court only rules on a few things a year, and it doesn't choose them randomly.

I don't think I'm the one who's drinking any kool-aid here.

Details on all this can be found at 538 - http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...es-uphold.html

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

3 of her 5 decisions reviewed by the Court have been overturned, yes... but considering she's written over 150, that means that she's actually only had 2% reversed. The Court only rules on a few things a year, and it doesn't choose them randomly.

I don't think I'm the one who's drinking any kool-aid here.

Details on all this can be found at 538 - http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...es-uphold.html

Hmm....so 60% of her rulings that have been reviewed by the supremes have been overturned. And probably another one because of the recent horrible ruling with respect to the cops.

Best candidate in 100 years.......right..

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Hmm....so 60% of her rulings that have been reviewed by the supremes have been overturned. And probably another one because of the recent horrible ruling with respect to the cops.

Best candidate in 100 years.......right..

60% is a better percentage than most. I know you won't like this, but furthermore, that's practically a badge of honor when you consider the conservative activist court we have now.

Furthermore, the case you reference (Ricci v. DeStefano) is not about cops, it's about firefighters. I probably know this because I've read about the case. You plainly haven't. And sure, the Supreme Court may overturn it. They probably will, considering the Court's current makeup. But, in the words of oh-so-many conservatives, wouldn't the opposite ruling be overturning the decision of a democratically-elected body, and constitute that accursed judicial activism? I don't expect you to be able to answer that question, because you plainly don't know anything about the case, because you don't even know who the plaintiffs are.

And lastly, I did not say "best." I said "most qualified." I think someone like Diane Pamela Wood would have been better (at any case, she would have fulfilled the necessary "female justice with three names" quota that's been in place ). Cass Sunstein, with his application of behavioral economics to law, would have been much more interesting (and much more of an unknown). Sotomayor has more actual judicial experience than anyone in a hundred years, and graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, and was an editor of the Law Journal at Yale. When I say "most qualified," this is what I mean. By comparison, our current Chief Justice, Mr. Roberts, had about two years of experience as a judge.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

60% is a better percentage than most. I know you won't like this, but furthermore, that's practically a badge of honor when you consider the conservative activist court we have now.

Sorry...Your agenda slip is showing, wonder why this conservative activist court hasn't struck down Roe or why they re-upped the latest racial quota case (should only be for 25 ...right???).

So she will now (hopefully) be at 4 of 6 or 67% against. What are the other percentages you are stating she's stacking up well against. For example what was roberts and the other judges on the court?

No, I haven't read the case just read a couple of synopsi's about it, but it sounds like the type of governmental racism that most should decry. But many of course will not.

If I have the gist of it correctly, a promotion test that had been designed to be racially equal is failed by all of the favored racial applicants and the folks who passed it are screwed out of their promotions(?) because of the threat of another racial lawsuit against the city, isn't that about it? Aggrieved folks sue, Sotomayor uses her superior Latina judgement and says f'em.

The country will be much better off when it's overthrown and her opinion is also discounted on this case as it should be.

And if putting her on the supreme court would cause it to NOT overturn that case then I surely hope she (and anyone else who would agree with that decision) is defeated.

With respect to most qualified versus best..it's semantics. I doubt she's either best or most qualified in 100 years. Lot's of folks in that list budda'.

I"m not sure you quite understand the conservative viewpoints on judicial activism. They sorta think the constitution trumps state laws... Not that the judiciary should make 'em up as they go along. So no...overturning this terrible decision would NOT be a case of judicial activism...no laws are being made up, the constitution is being enforced...against the "judicial activisim" of politically correct quotas that Sotomayor obviously supports.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Sorry...Your agenda slip is showing, wonder why this conservative activist court hasn't struck down Roe or why they re-upped the latest racial quota case (should only be for 25 ...right???).

They haven't done more because Kennedy is still there. But it took a hard turn to the right when O'Connor left and Alito came in.

So she will now (hopefully) be at 4 of 6 or 67% against. What are the other percentages you are stating she's stacking up well against. For example what was roberts and the other judges on the court?

Roberts was 0-for-1, I believe, but to be honest, I'm not sure. That "1" comes from Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a rather well-known case involving military tribunals. Considering he was only a judge for two years, there's not much to draw on, as I alluded to earlier. One of the reasons that he got so much support, in fact. He appeared to be much more moderate than he is.

No, I haven't read the case just read a couple of synopsi's about it, but it sounds like the type of governmental racism that most should decry. But many of course will not.

If I have the gist of it correctly, a promotion test that had been designed to be racially equal is failed by all of the favored racial applicants and the folks who passed it are screwed out of their promotions(?) because of the threat of another racial lawsuit against the city, isn't that about it? Aggrieved folks sue, Sotomayor uses her superior Latina judgement and says f'em.

The country will be much better off when it's overthrown and her opinion is also discounted on this case as it should be.

And if putting her on the supreme court would cause it to NOT overturn that case then I surely hope she (and anyone else who would agree with that decision) is defeated.

I think she would not be allowed to rule on it, anyway, because she was a part of the earlier decision-making process. If that's not a rule, it should be.

At any rate, it's questionable how much role she played in the circuit court's collective decision, anyway.

While there are still many details of the test itself that we are not privy to, the case is not merely "reverse discrimination." There is standing legal theory regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that, basically, the black firefighters would have had a case with, as well as significant other legal precedent (a 1984 case, if I remember the year correctly). And considering Sotomayor's many other opinions on race-related cases, this case is hardly indicative of her history on the subject.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they overturned it, nor would I be terribly distressed if they did. As stated before, there are still a lot of details that we don't know right now, for God knows what reason. But I think she, along with the other judges who also ruled on this case, was following legal precedent. If the Supreme Court chooses to overturn it, then they will.

I"m not sure you quite understand the conservative viewpoints on judicial activism. They sorta think the constitution trumps state laws... Not that the judiciary should make 'em up as they go along. So no...overturning this terrible decision would NOT be a case of judicial activism...no laws are being made up, the constitution is being enforced...against the "judicial activisim" of politically correct quotas that Sotomayor obviously supports.

My statement wasn't really supposed to mean anything. And uh... conservatives only think the constitution trumps state laws when they feel like it. Just like liberals do. Otherwise the ideological ancestors of people like, well, Jeff Sessions wouldn't have argued vehemently for the rights of states to segregate and such. Otherwise you'd see so-called conservative justices like Scalia and Thomas voting in favor of fourth amendment rights, or honoring the constitutional limits on executive power. Unfortunately, both sides pick and choose what parts of the Constitution to actually enforce and have for as long as such debates existed. I usually laugh at the whole debate regarding "judicial activism" on either side. Yes, I understand I referred to John Roberts as a "reactionary activist," which is I now realize isn't really accurate (more less "conservative activist" - he makes his rulings not on law, but rather preserving the status quo, as opposed to returning to a former state, as reactionary would entail).

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Wow...that's some nominee...

Unfortunately she does seem to be a numbers liberal, unfortunate. We have enough numbers liberals already.

"numbers liberal"??? just what the heck is this?

Also funny that her decisions appear to be overturned about what....60% of the time when reviewed by the Supremes?? Methinks someone is drinking the barry kool-aid.

well, the scotus typically takes cases that they see as needing to be reviewed (iow, if they feel the lower court is correct they won't review the decision and thus let it stand), with about 75% (from what I've read) of those appeals being heard ending with the scotus reversing.

so if she is at 60% (and bear in mind that's from about 8 opinions being heard by the scotus) she is doing much better than average.

methinks someone hasn't done any thinking about sotomayor's ability/credentials and is drinking the rush/newt kool-aid....

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

"numbers liberal"??? just what the heck is this?

A numbers liberal is a liberal that likes to use numbers (quotas) to try and "fix" the country.

well, the scotus typically takes cases that they see as needing to be reviewed (iow, if they feel the lower court is correct they won't review the decision and thus let it stand), with about 75% (from what I've read) of those appeals being heard ending with the scotus reversing.

so if she is at 60% (and bear in mind that's from about 8 opinions being heard by the scotus) she is doing much better than average.

methinks someone hasn't done any thinking about sotomayor's ability/credentials and is drinking the rush/newt kool-aid....

Thanks for the clarification on the numbers...That's kinda surprising to me to be honest..that the supremes reverse about 75% of their cases.

With respect to Sotomayor...I don't know enough about her to know all of her judicial "judgements". But if the facts of the firemen's case (don't really want to look it up) are true, then I'd not vote her in. Of course this is just on a cursory judgement (message board and all)...but that case should have been open and shut the other way imo. If she disagrees...I expect our opinions are a little crosswise.

The only reason I even jumped in here was what I believe is a ridiculous over-the-top assertion that she's the best(or most qualified) candidate in 100 years(or was it 60?). I haven't really taken a long look at her, except for the case mentioned.

Rush/Newt kool-aid, funny........You guys are obsessed with those dudes. I haven't listened to Rush more than a dozen times in years.

I must however admit it's quite funny(and not funny ha ha ) how the left is touting a hispanic nominee....all the while they were witch hunting Estrada...and they'll get away with it because of the media I expect.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

A numbers liberal is a liberal that likes to use numbers (quotas) to try and "fix" the country.

oh, gee, what a conjured description.

Thanks for the clarification on the numbers...That's kinda surprising to me to be honest..that the supremes reverse about 75% of their cases.

With respect to Sotomayor...I don't know enough about her to know all of her judicial "judgements". But if the facts of the firemen's case (don't really want to look it up) are true, then I'd not vote her in. Of course this is just on a cursory judgement (message board and all)...but that case should have been open and shut the other way imo. If she disagrees...I expect our opinions are a little crosswise.

the "facts" of the fireman's case? the fact is she, and the other two members of the appeals court, unanimously affirmed the judgement of the lower court opinion which applied a section of the civil rights act that has been used for over 40 years.

a was said in the oral arguments, the city was in a no win situation. the firemen who passed the test were not "denied a promotion", the city decided to have a do over. all the promotions were delayed.

The only reason I even jumped in here was what I believe is a ridiculous over-the-top assertion that she's the best(or most qualified) candidate in 100 years(or was it 60?). I haven't really taken a long look at her, except for the case mentioned.

Rush/Newt kool-aid, funny........You guys are obsessed with those dudes. I haven't listened to Rush more than a dozen times in years.

I must however admit it's quite funny(and not funny ha ha ) how the left is touting a hispanic nominee....all the while they were witch hunting Estrada...and they'll get away with it because of the media I expect.

not very funny, see it is simply looking at the person's work and deciding if they merit promotion, not being focused on their race or ethnicity. estrada had a very troubling trail of poor work, therefore he was not acceptable. being a latino had no bearing nor should it allow for a weak candidate to be affirmed.

apparently you are a "numbers conservative", looking at ethnicity as the factor rather than the person....