Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Go Back   Dallas-Mavs.com Forums > Everything Else > Political Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-31-2009, 05:49 PM   #1
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default Sotomayor nomination

the first nomination by obama to the scotus, and it is causing a lot of talk. here's obama's statement when announcing the selection:
---------------------------------------------------

Of the many responsibilities granted to a president by our Constitution, few are more serious or more consequential than selecting a Supreme Court justice. The members of our highest court are granted life tenure, often serving long after the presidents who appointed them. And they are charged with the vital task of applying principles put to paper more than 20 centuries ago to some of the most difficult questions of our time.

So I don't take this decision lightly. I've made it only after deep reflection and careful deliberation.

And while there are many qualities that I admire in judges across the spectrum of judicial philosophy, and that I seek in my own nominee, there are a few that stand out that I just want to mention.

First and foremost is a rigorous intellect, a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.

Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge's job is to interpret, not make law, to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.

These two qualities are essential, I believe, for anyone who would sit on our nation's highest court. And yet these qualities alone are insufficient. We need something more.

For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, the life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience; experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion, an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.

And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court.

Now, the process of reviewing and selecting a successor to Justice Souter has been rigorous and comprehensive, not least because of the standard that Justice Souter himself has set with his ... formidable intellect and fair-mindedness and decency.


I've sought the advice of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, including every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My team has reached out to constitutional scholars, advocacy organizations and bar associations representing an array of interests and opinions.

And I want to thank members of my staff and the administration who have worked so hard and given so much of their time as part of this effort.

After completing this exhaustive process, I've decided to nominate an inspiring woman who I believe will make a great justice, Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the great state of New York.

Over a distinguished career that spans three decades, Judge Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our judicial system, providing her with a depth of experience and a breadth of perspective that will be invaluable as a Supreme Court justice.

It's a measure of her qualities and her qualifications that Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. District Court by a Republican president, George H.W. Bush, and promoted to the Federal Court of Appeals by a Democrat, Bill Clinton.

Walking in the door, she would bring more experience on the bench and more varied experience on the bench than anyone currently serving on the United States Supreme Court had when they were appointed.


Judge Sotomayor is a distinguished graduate of two of America's leading universities. She's been a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator. She spend six years as a trial judge on the U.S. District Court, and would replace Justice Souter as the only justice with experience as a trial judge — a perspective that would enrich the judgments of the court.

For the past 11 years, she has been a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of New York, one of the most demanding circuits in the country. There, she has handed down decisions on a range of constitutional and legal questions that are notable for their careful reasoning, earning the respect of colleagues on the bench, the admiration of many lawyers who argue cases in her court, and the adoration of her clerks, who look to her as a mentor.

During her tenure on the district court, she presided over roughly 450 cases. One case in particular involved a matter of enormous concern to many Americans, including me: the baseball strike of 1994 and '95.


In a decision that reportedly took her just 15 minutes to announce — a swiftness much appreciated by baseball fans everywhere she issued an injunction that helped end the strike. Some say that Judge Sotomayor saved baseball.

Justice Sotomayor came to the district court from a law firm where she was a partner focused on complex commercial litigation, gaining insight in the workings of a global economy.

Before that, she was a prosecutor in the Manhattan DA's office, serving under the legendary Robert Morgenthau, an early mentor of Sonia's who still sings her praises today. There, Sonia learned what crime can do to a family and a community, and what it takes to fight it.

It's a career that has given her not only a sweeping overview of the American judicial system, but a practical understanding of how the law works in the everyday lives of the American people.

But as impressive and meaningful as Judge Sotomayor's sterling credentials in the law is her own extraordinary journey. Born in the South Bronx, she was raised in a housing project not far from Yankee Stadium, making her a lifelong Yankees fan. I hope this will not disqualify her in the eyes of the New Englanders in the Senate.

Sonia's parents came to New York from Puerto Rico during Second World War. Her mother is part of the Women's Army Corps. And, in fact, her mother's here today, and I'd like us all to acknowledge Sonia's mom.

Sonia's mom has been a little choked up.

But she — Sonia's mother began a family tradition of giving back to this country.

Sonia's father was a factory worker with a third-grade education who didn't speak English.

But like Sonia's mother, he had a willingness to work hard, a strong sense of family, and a belief in the American dream.

When Sonia was 9, her father passed away, and her mother worked six days a week as a nurse to provide for Sonia and her brother — who's also here today, is a doctor, and a terrific success in his own right — but Sonia's mom bought the only set of encyclopedias in the neighborhood, sent her children to a Catholic school called Cardinal Spellman, out of the belief that with a good education here in America all things are possible.

With the support of family, friends and teachers, Sonia earned scholarships to Princeton, where she graduated at the top of her class, and Yale Law School, where she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal, stepping onto the path that led her here today.

Along the way, she's faced down barriers, overcome the odds, and lived out the American dream that brought her parents here so long ago. And even as she has accomplished so much in her life, she has never forgotten where she began, never lost touch with the community that supported her.

What Sonia will bring to the court, then, is not only the knowledge and experience acquired over a course of a brilliant legal career, but the wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life's journey.

It's my understanding that Judge Sotomayor's interest in the law was sparked as a young girl by reading the Nancy Drew series.

And that when she was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 8, she was informed that people with diabetes can't grow up to be police officers or private investigators like Nancy Drew. In essence she was told she'd have to scale back her dreams.

Well, Sonia, what you've shown in your life is that it doesn't matter where you come from, what you look like or what challenges life throws your way, no dream is beyond reach in the United States of America.

And when Sonia Sotomayor ascends those marble steps to assume her seat on the highest court in the land, America will have taken another important step toward realizing the ideal that is etched about its entrance: Equal justice under the law.

I hope the Senate acts in a bipartisan fashion, as it has in confirming Judge Sotomayor twice before, and as swiftly as possible, so that she can take her seat on the court in September and participate in deliberations as the court chooses which cases it will hear this coming year.

And with that, I'd like all of you to give a warm greeting, as I invite Judge Sotomayor to say a few words.
----------------------------------------------------------
I was just counseled not to be nervous.

That's almost impossible.

Thank you, Mr. President, for the most humbling honor of my life. You have nominated me to serve on the country's highest court, and I am deeply moved.

I could not, in the few minutes I have today, mention the names of the many friends and family who have guided and supported me throughout my life, and who have been instrumental in helping me realize my dreams.

I see many of those faces in this room. Each of you, whom I love deeply, will know that my heart today is bursting with gratitude for all you have done for me.

The president has said to you that I bring my family. In the audience is my brother, Juan Sotomayor — he's a physician in Syracuse, New York; my sister-in-law, Tracey; my niece, Kylie — she looks like me. My twin nephews, Conner and Corey.

I stand on the shoulders of countless people, yet there is one extraordinary person who is my life aspiration. That person is my mother, Celina Sotomayor.

My mother has devoted her life to my brother and me. And as the president mentioned, she worked often two jobs to help support us after dad died. I have often said that I am all I am because of her, and I am only half the woman she is.

Sitting next to her is Omar Lopez, my mom's husband and a man whom I have grown to adore. I thank you for all that you have given me and continue to give me. I love you.

I chose to be a lawyer and ultimately a judge because I find endless challenge in the complexities of the law. I firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights.

For as long as I can remember, I have been inspired by the achievement of our founding fathers. They set forth principles that have endured for than more two centuries. Those principles are as meaningful and relevant in each generation as the generation before.

It would be a profound privilege for me to play a role in applying those principles to the questions and controversies we face today.

Although I grew up in very modest and challenging circumstances, I consider my life to be immeasurably rich. I was raised in a Bronx public housing project, but studied at two of the nation's finest universities.

I did work as an assistant district attorney, prosecuting violent crimes that devastate our communities. But then I joined a private law firm and worked with international corporations doing business in the United States.

I have had the privilege of serving as a federal district court trial judge, and am now serving as a federal appellate circuit court judge.

This wealth of experiences, personal and professional, have helped me appreciate the variety of perspectives that present themselves in every case that I hear. It has helped me to understand, respect and respond to the concerns and arguments of all litigants who appear before me, as well as to the views of my colleagues on the bench.

I strive never to forget the real world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses and government.


It is a daunting feeling to be here. Eleven years ago, during my confirmation process for appointment to the Second Circuit, I was given a private tour of the White House. It was an overwhelming experience for a kid from the South Bronx.

Yet, never in my wildest childhood imaginings did I ever envision that moment, let alone did I ever dream that I would live this moment.

Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the honor you are giving me, and I look forward to working with the Senate in the confirmation process. I hope that as the Senate and American people learn more about me, they will see that I am an ordinary person who has been blessed with extraordinary opportunities and experiences. Today is one of those experiences.

Thank you again, sir.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 06-02-2009, 11:47 AM   #2
92bDad
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 2,505
92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future
Default

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u77BM...e=channel_page
92bDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 12:11 PM   #3
mary
Troll Hunter
 
mary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sports Heaven!
Posts: 9,898
mary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I think the Republicans will do themselves a huge service by distancing from Limbaugh's fluffy accusations. Don't get me wrong, I think SC nominees should be put through the gauntlet, but there's NO UPSIDE in pulling out the race card on this one. None. Besides that, her court decisions fly in the face of everything Limbaugh and Gingrich are accusing her of.

It was an unfortunate comment on her part, but I think she was just propping up her background, as many public officials will do.

I look forward to the confirmation hearings, and I think she'll do fine.
__________________

"I don't know what went wrong," said guard Thabo Sefolosha. "It's hard to talk about it."

Last edited by mary; 06-02-2009 at 01:25 PM.
mary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 12:16 PM   #4
mary
Troll Hunter
 
mary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sports Heaven!
Posts: 9,898
mary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 92bDad View Post

__________________

"I don't know what went wrong," said guard Thabo Sefolosha. "It's hard to talk about it."
mary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 12:38 PM   #5
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Legal Realism Informs Judge's Views
By JESS BRAVIN
WASHINGTON -- In a lecture at a Boston law school in 1996, Judge Sonia Sotomayor cited Judge Jerome Frank, the author of the 1930 book that turned American legal thinking upside down.

Judge Frank argued in "Law and the Modern Mind" that the law was less a science than people supposed -- that, in reality, it reflected the personal characteristics of those applying it. The idea he helped advance, still taught if not always endorsed in law schools today, was called legal realism.

Judge Sotomayor agreed -- and that perspective is riling conservatives opposed to her nomination.

"The law that lawyers practice and judges declare is not a definitive, capital 'L' law that many would like to think exists," Judge Sotomayor said in her 1996 lecture at Suffolk University Law School, summarizing Judge Frank's work.

Confidence in the legal system falters, she said, because the public "expects the law to be static and predictable" when in fact courts and lawyers are "constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions."

That view runs counter to the originalism propounded by conservatives such as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, which seeks to apply the Constitution the same way 18th-century Americans would have understood it.

Judge Frank, who served on the same federal appeals court in New York where Judge Sotomayor sits today, argued that the law changed along with the circumstances and concerns of the people applying it.

The idea of legal realism came back in the now-famous 2001 lecture Judge Sotomayor delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, titled "A Latina Judge's Voice." There she disputed the argument by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor that a "wise man" and a "wise woman" should necessarily reach the same verdict.

Judge Sotomayor said her belief in the need for diversity in the court is rooted in her view that a judge's experiences and background inevitably color how that judge rules. "There is a real and continuing need for Latino and Latina organizations and community groups" to promote "women and men of all colors in their pursuit of equality in the justice system," she said, according to a version of the lecture published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.

Judge Sotomayor contrasted her views with those of Judge Miriam Cedarbaum, a Reagan appointee to the federal bench. Judge Cedarbaum "sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender- or anything else-based," Judge Sotomayor said. "Judge Cedarbaum believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices."

Judge Sotomayor questioned whether that was possible, and added, "I wonder whether ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."

She cited a case in which a state supreme court voted 3-2 "to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child." Three female justices formed the majority, she said, while the two male justices dissented.

"Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions," Judge Sotomayor said. "The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."

In an interview Wednesday, Judge Cedarbaum declined to comment on the debate, but said: "I think that Judge Sotomayor will be a superb addition to the Supreme Court."

Brian Leiter, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said Judge Sotomayor had described the way judges really operate.

"The idea that appellate judges never make law, and only apply the law as written, is a fiction, as every American lawyer knows. The American legal realists made the case famously in the 1920s and 1930s," Prof. Leiter said, adding that judges ranging from the late Justice Benjamin Cardozo to Judge Richard Posner, an influential conservative on the federal appeals court in Chicago, have written persuasively on the topic.

Prof. Leiter said Judge Sotomayor could be the first legal realist to join the court since the late Justice William O. Douglas, who retired from the court in 1975.

However, Judge Sotomayor's critics on the right, including those in the originalist camp, fear that her approach may lead different parties in cases to get different results depending on the ethnic makeup of the court—which would contradict the idea that everyone is entitled to equal justice under the law.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 01:16 PM   #6
92bDad
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 2,505
92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future
Default

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?
92bDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 01:18 PM   #7
u2sarajevo
moderately impressed
 
u2sarajevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Home of the thirteenth colony
Posts: 17,705
u2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 92bDad View Post
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?
Could you provide a link supporting this claim?
__________________
u2sarajevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 01:21 PM   #8
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 92bDad View Post
Truth be known, I don't know this judge from any other judge.
Right here is where you should stop...
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 03:15 PM   #9
Kirobaito
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,012
Kirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 92bDad View Post
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.
__________________
Kirobaito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 04:16 PM   #10
92bDad
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 2,505
92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito View Post
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.
92bDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 05:02 PM   #11
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito View Post
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.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’

Last edited by dude1394; 06-02-2009 at 05:32 PM. Reason: clarify supremes overturning of rulings.
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 05:18 PM   #12
Kirobaito
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,012
Kirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 92bDad View Post
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.
__________________
Kirobaito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 05:27 PM   #13
Kirobaito
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,012
Kirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394 View Post
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
__________________
Kirobaito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 05:33 PM   #14
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito View Post
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..
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 05:41 PM   #15
mary
Troll Hunter
 
mary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sports Heaven!
Posts: 9,898
mary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond reputemary has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito View Post
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.
__________________

"I don't know what went wrong," said guard Thabo Sefolosha. "It's hard to talk about it."
mary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 05:56 PM   #16
Kirobaito
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,012
Kirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394 View Post
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.
__________________

Last edited by Kirobaito; 06-02-2009 at 05:59 PM.
Kirobaito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 06:00 PM   #17
92bDad
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 2,505
92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito View Post
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?
92bDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 06:10 PM   #18
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 92bDad View Post
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???
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.

Last edited by Underdog; 06-02-2009 at 06:16 PM. Reason: my hand hurts from slapping that guy over & over...
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 06:22 PM   #19
Kirobaito
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,012
Kirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 92bDad View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Is this another case of being Drunk with power?
Do you somehow think that I have power? I'm not even a Democrat.

Quote:
Is it possible that you might be wrong, just as you might be right?
Uh... yeah?

Quote:
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.
__________________

Last edited by Kirobaito; 06-02-2009 at 06:24 PM.
Kirobaito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 06:41 PM   #20
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394 View Post
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?

Quote:
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....
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 06:50 PM   #21
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito View Post
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.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 06:58 PM   #22
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
"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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’

Last edited by dude1394; 06-02-2009 at 06:59 PM.
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 07:28 PM   #23
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394 View Post
A numbers liberal is a liberal that likes to use numbers (quotas) to try and "fix" the country.
oh, gee, what a conjured description.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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....

Last edited by Mavdog; 06-02-2009 at 07:29 PM.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 07:48 PM   #24
Kirobaito
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,012
Kirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394 View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).
__________________
Kirobaito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 08:05 PM   #25
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito View Post
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).
A broad brush...but that's okay...I'm not talking for all conservatives just like I expect you are not talking for all of whatever.. I'm talking about my view of judicial activism.

Obviously our country has been in a civil rights battle (like much of the world) since it's inception...as you stated...but government sanctioned racism is still racism...If we are REALLY going to get beyond it, our government needs to.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 09:03 AM   #26
92bDad
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 2,505
92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future
Default

Following is a message from Newt Gingrich on the subject...certainly he has the experience to voice an opinion on the subject better than I, thus here are his thoughts on the subject of this thread.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor:
You Read, You Decide
by Newt Gingrich

Shortly after President Obama nominated her to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I read Judge Sonia Sotomayor's now famous words:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

My initial reaction was strong and direct - perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor's fitness to serve on the nation's highest court have been critical of my word choice.

With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word "racist" should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted).

So it is to her words - the ones quoted above and others - to which we should turn, for they show that the issue here is not racial identity politics. Sotomayor's words reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system - that everyone is equal before the law.
The Central Question: Is American Justice No Longer Blindfolded?
The fundamental issue at stake in the Sotomayor discussion or nomination is not her background or her gender but an issue that has implications far beyond this judge and this nomination: Is judicial impartiality no longer a quality we can and should demand from our Supreme Court Justices?

President Obama apparently thinks so. Other presidents, Republican and Democrat, have considered race and gender in making judicial appointments in the past. But none have explicitly advocated the notion that judges should substitute their personal experiences for impartiality in deciding cases. And certainly none have asserted that their ethnicity, race or gender would make them a better judge over a judge from a different background.

Here is how President Obama explained his criteria for appointing judges earlier this year:

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old - and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."
No Group Has Benefited More From Impartial Justice Than the Less Fortunate
With these words, President Obama is cleverly inviting his critics to come out swinging against empathy for the less fortunate among us. But Americans are smarter than this.

We understand that the job of a justice is to enforce the law, not the rule of empathy. And we understand that when a judge substitutes his or her personal experiences for the law, the law becomes what he or she wants it to be, not what the people, through their elected representatives, have decided it should be.

Most tragically, it is this principle of judicial impartiality - of justice, not just for the rich and the powerful, but for all - that has most benefited the vulnerable and the downtrodden in America.

No group has needed or continues to need justice - that can't be predetermined by wealth or privilege - as much as the less privileged. President Obama doesn't seem to grasp that, by weakening judges' adherence to the rule of law, he is also weakening the very foundation of equal justice for the less fortunate Americans he wants to help.
The "Court of Appeals is Where Policy Is Made"
How does Judge Sotomayor come down on the issue of a judge's fidelity to the law?

Here is what she told a Duke University Law School audience in 2005 (emphasis mine):
"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is - Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating."
Is Judge Sotomayor Being Quoted Out of Context? You Read, You Decide
If Judge Sotomayor, by her own words, believes the judge's bench is "where policy is made," what kind of law can we expect her to make as a Supreme Court Justice?

The Berkeley Law School speech in which Judge Sotomayor made the comments that I quoted at the outset of this newsletter - that a "wise Latina" would make a better judge than a white male - has been widely cited.

The White House is now claiming that critics are taking Judge Sotomayor's comments in that speech out of context. So in the spirit of "you read, you decide" I am linking here to Judge Sotomayor's speech in full.

As you read it, see if you agree with those respected legal scholars who have concluded that the speech as a whole isn't as damaging as the Judge's "wise Latina" comment - it's worse.
"Our Gender and National Origins May and
Will Make a Difference in Our Judging"
Here are some excerpts from the speech (emphasis mine):
"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that."

"Whether born from experience or inherent psychological or cultural differences...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

"Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases....I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Again, you read, you decide. Read Judge Sotomayor's speech in full here. Then let me know what you think at Newt.org.
"Equal Justice Under Law" Is Chiseled in Stone on the Supreme Court
The central principle of American justice - and perhaps the single, great idea of America - is equal justice before the law.

This idea is expressed in the words "all men (and today we would say all men and women) are created equal." It means that Americans stand before the law, not as members of groups, but as individuals.

"Equal justice under law" is in fact chiseled in stone on the front of the Supreme Court building - and for good reason.

When a judge disregards the rule of law and applies a different standard to certain groups - or, as the President would say, shows "empathy" - he or she violates this central American principle.
One Group's "Empathy" is Another Group's Injustice. Ask Frank Ricci.
When a judge views Americans as members of groups and not individuals, one group's "empathy" becomes another group's injustice.

Nowhere is the injustice that results from judging Americans as members of groups and not as individuals more evident than in Judge Sotomayor's ruling in the case involving Frank Ricci, a New Haven, Conn., firefighter.

Ricci quit his second job and studied 13 hours a day in 2003 for a civil service exam he hoped would earn him a promotion to lieutenant in the New Haven Fire Department. And when Ricci took the exam, all his hard work seemed to pay off. He got one of the highest scores. But because no African-Americans scored high enough on the exam to be promoted, the city of New Haven threw out the results of the test and promoted no one.

Frank Ricci, 16 other white firefighters, and one Hispanic firefighter sued the city, claiming they were denied promotions on the basis of their race. A district judge dismissed the case, and a three- judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. One of those judges was Judge Sotomayor.
An Opportunity to Have a Debate About
Equal Justice for Americans Like Frank Ricci
The Supreme Court is currently hearing the Ricci case, and a ruling is expected next month, likely in the midst of hearings on Judge Sotomayor's nomination.

Legal experts expect the Supreme Court to reverse Judge Sotomayor's ruling. But however the high court rules, this is a moment for America to have a full, honest and open debate, not just about the impartiality of our judges, but about equal justice before the law for Americans like Frank Ricci.
Which Judge Sotomayor Will Show Up on the Supreme Court?
In fairness to the judge, many of her rulings as a court of appeals judge do not match the radicalism of her speeches and statements. She has shown more caution and moderation in her rulings than in her words.

So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?

It's no small question. Judge Sotomayor is 54 years old. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is 89. Judge Sotomayor has the potential to spend more than 30 years on the Supreme Court. There, unlike on the court of appeals, she will have no reason to show caution. On the high court, Judge Sotomayor will not have to worry about a higher court overturning her rulings. As a Supreme Court Justice, she will do the overturning.

The stakes are very high with this nomination. Has President Obama nominated a conventionally liberal judge to a lifetime tenure on our highest court? Or a radical liberal activist who will cast aside the rule of law in favor of the narrow, divisive politics of race and gender identity?

Let me know what you think at Newt.org.

You read, you decide.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

Last edited by 92bDad; 06-03-2009 at 09:05 AM.
92bDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 04:17 PM   #27
92bDad
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 2,505
92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future
Default

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/..._supreme_court

I see no reason why this process should not take some time.

What is wrong with taking the year to do the proper research?

Why does the left seem to consistantly be pushing stuff through as quickly as possible...what are they trying to hide?

For the right to want to slow things down...this allows a thorough examination...it's not like their is shortimers clock where if they stall long enough the Right will be in charge to negate the appointment...that wont happen. So, taking the time to do the full research allows for wise reflection.

What's the rush?

She might be perfect, if so, then there is no worry with taking some time...if on the other hand she is not the proper selection and she is rushed through, then we are stuck.

Best wishes to Sotomayor and the Supreme Court, may the wise decision be taken by those in authority.
92bDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 04:28 PM   #28
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

what? is there other pressing issues in front of the committee that precludes their addressing the nomination? the answer is no.

roberts was nominated on september 6, and he was voted on and approved by the judiciary committee on september 22, confirmed by the senate on september 29. this was based on bush requesting the confirmation so roberts could be in place by the beginning of the court's session in october.

there certainly is no reason that sotomayor should take any longer to confirm.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 08:11 PM   #29
kg_veteran
Old School Balla
 
kg_veteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,097
kg_veteran has a reputation beyond reputekg_veteran has a reputation beyond reputekg_veteran has a reputation beyond reputekg_veteran has a reputation beyond reputekg_veteran has a reputation beyond reputekg_veteran has a reputation beyond reputekg_veteran has a reputation beyond reputekg_veteran has a reputation beyond reputekg_veteran has a reputation beyond reputekg_veteran has a reputation beyond reputekg_veteran has a reputation beyond repute
Default

The claim that Sotomayor is the "most qualified" in 100 years is somewhat hyperbolic, for sure, but I don't think I'd call her unqualified.

These sorts of discussions are always interesting to watch, though, in that they divide straight down party (or ideological) lines.
__________________
The Official KG Twitter Feed
kg_veteran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2009, 04:11 AM   #30
fluid.forty.one
Moderator
 
fluid.forty.one's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 19,413
fluid.forty.one has a reputation beyond reputefluid.forty.one has a reputation beyond reputefluid.forty.one has a reputation beyond reputefluid.forty.one has a reputation beyond reputefluid.forty.one has a reputation beyond reputefluid.forty.one has a reputation beyond reputefluid.forty.one has a reputation beyond reputefluid.forty.one has a reputation beyond reputefluid.forty.one has a reputation beyond reputefluid.forty.one has a reputation beyond reputefluid.forty.one has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 92bDad View Post
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.
Doesn't your view on abortion come from life experiences? Because, I've seen many republican (and democrat) judges rule on abortion situations based on their opinion.
fluid.forty.one is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2009, 08:21 AM   #31
mcsluggo
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
mcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kg_veteran View Post
The claim that Sotomayor is the "most qualified" in 100 years is somewhat hyperbolic, for sure, but I don't think I'd call her unqualified.

These sorts of discussions are always interesting to watch, though, in that they divide straight down party (or ideological) lines.
absolutely! it is humorous to see people's spines snapping from the whiplash of reversing their arguments from the last administration. The two parties should just hand each other their scripts from the Roberts "discussions" and be done with it.
mcsluggo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2009, 09:19 AM   #32
92bDad
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 2,505
92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one View Post
Doesn't your view on abortion come from life experiences? Because, I've seen many republican (and democrat) judges rule on abortion situations based on their opinion.
Perhaps the abortion issue stems from ones right to LIVE.

Has the child being aborted committed a crime? Have they gone through the courts and been found guilty of some crime that is punishable by death?
92bDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 10:46 AM   #33
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Cry me a river... who hasn't.

Quote:
Consider three examples. First, in a 2002 speech at Cardozo Law School, Sotomayor stated:
As accomplished as I have been in my professional settings, I am always looking over my shoulder wondering if I measure up and always concerned that I have to work harder to succeed. This is a pathology of successful Latinos and other accomplished individuals who come from economically deprived populations.


More race drivel.

Quote:
Second, in a speech to the National Puerto Rican Coalition in 1998, Sotomayor said:
We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shape we can and must function and live in a race and color blind way that ignores those very differences that in other contexts we laud.


And an example of a numbers liberal. Gotta get those lation numbers UP and get those Asian numbers DOWN...

Quote:
Third, Sotomayor's speeches show her to be an inveterate "bean counter." In her "Wise Latina" speech, she complained:
As of today we [Hispanics] have no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population.


__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 11:11 AM   #34
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

the most interesting fact from the post above is that in spite of your apparent rejection of sotomayor's statements, you are unable to show that anything she said is incorrect or inaccurate.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 01:22 PM   #35
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Judge Sotomayor’s Appellate Opinions in Civil Cases
Friday, May 15th, 2009 10:49 am | Tom Goldstein |
Judge Sonia Sotomayor is an obviously serious candidate to serve on the Supreme Court. We have been struck by how the amount of commentary about Judge Sotomayor has ignored the most accessible and valuable source of information: her opinions as an appellate judge. Last year, I directed a project in which a team of Akin Gump summer associates extensively reviewed Judge Sotomayor’s opinions. Amy Howe subsequently revised and expanded their work, with contributions by me.

Here, we make our first effort at summarizing what we regard as Judge Sotomayor’s principal opinions in civil cases. Our only goal is to identify and summarize the opinions, not evaluate them.

A summary of additional civil cases, as well as Judge Sotomayor’s leading criminal law opinions will follow.

CIVIL LITIGATION

Since joining the Second Circuit in 1998, Sotomayor has authored over 150 opinions, addressing a wide range of issues, in civil cases. To date, two of these decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court; a third is under review and likely to be reversed. In those two cases (and likely the third), Sotomayor’s opinion was rejected by the Supreme Court’s more conservative majority and adopted by its more liberal dissenters (including Justice Souter). Those outcomes suggest that Sotomayor’s views would in many respects be similar to those of Justice Souter.

Abortion Rights: Although Sotomayor has not had a case dealing directly with abortion rights, she wrote the opinion in Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002), a challenge to the “Mexico City Policy,” which prohibited foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds from performing or supporting abortions. An abortion rights group (along with its attorneys) brought claimed that the policy violated its First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights. Relying on the Second Circuit’s earlier decision in Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Agency for International Development, which dealt with a virtually identical claim, Sotomayor’s opinion rejected the group’s First Amendment claim on the merits. Turning to the plaintiffs’ due process claim, Sotomayor held that they lacked standing because they alleged only a harm to foreign organizations, rather than themselves. Sotomayor held that the plaintiffs did have standing with regard to their equal protection claim, but she ultimately held that the claim failed under rational basis review because the government “is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position” with public funds.

First Amendment - Speech: Sotomayor has considered First Amendment issues relatively infrequently. In addition to Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (just discussed), one of her more controversial cases was Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2002), involving an employee of the New York City Police Department who was terminated from his desk job because, when he received mailings requesting that he make charitable contributions, he responded by mailing back racist and bigoted materials. On appeal, the panel majority held that the NYPD could terminate Pappas for his behavior without violating his First Amendment right to free speech. Sotomayor dissented from the majority’s decision to award summary judgment to the police department. She acknowledged that the speech was “patently offensive, hateful, and insulting,” but cautioned the majority against “gloss[ing] over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives just because it is confronted with speech is does not like.” In her view, Supreme Court precedent required the court to consider not only the NYPD’s mission and community relations but also that Pappas was neither a policymaker nor a cop on the beat. Moreover, Pappas’s speech was anonymous, “occur[ring] away from the office on [his] own time.” She expressed sympathy for the NYPD’s “concerns about race relations in the community,” which she described as “especially poignant,” but at the same time emphasized that the NYPD had substantially contributed to the problem by disclosing the results of its investigation into the racist mailings to the public. In the end, she concluded, the NYPD’s race relations concerns “are so removed from the effective functioning of the public employer that they cannot prevail over the free speech rights of the public employee.”

More recently, in Kraham v. Lippman, 478 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 2007), she wrote an opinion holding that a rule prohibiting high-ranking political party officials from receiving court fiduciary appointments (such as appointments as guardians ad litem) in New York state courts did not violate the plaintiff’s right to freedom of political association. Sotomayor acknowledged that the rule required individuals to choose between holding a high-ranking party position and receiving court appointments, but she ultimately concluded that such an “incidental effect on individual decision-making, however, furthers the rational and legitimate goal of eliminating corrupt court appointments.”

First Amendment - Religion: In addition to her dissent in Hankins v. Lyght, 441 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006), discussed below, in Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2003), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that reversed a district court decision holding that a Muslim inmate’s First Amendment rights had not been violated because the holiday feast that he was denied was not a mandatory one in Islam. Sotomayor held that the inmate’s First Amendment’s rights were violated because the feast was subjectively important to the inmate’s practice of Islam. But in Duamutef v. Hollins, 297 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2002), Sotomayor wrote an opinion holding that an inmate’s First Amendment rights were not violated by prison officials’ monitoring of his mail - prompted by the inmate’s receipt of a book with the title “Blood in the Streets: Investment Profits in a World Gone Mad” - because the inmate had previously caused disturbances and the prison needed to forestall security problems.

Civil Rights: During her years on the Second Circuit, Sotomayor has decided cases involving race, sex, age and disability discrimination. In these cases, she has often - but not always - sided with the plaintiffs.

Sotomayor’s dissent in Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1999), is perhaps her most strongly worded opinion addressing discrimination. Plaintiff Ray Gant, who was transferred mid-year from first grade to kindergarten because of academic difficulties, alleged that the school was deliberately indifferent to racial hostility that he suffered and discriminated against him through the transfer. Sotomayor agreed with the majority’s decision to dismiss the racial harassment claim, but she rejected their conclusion that the transfer was not race discrimination. In her view, the transfer was “unprecedented and contrary to the school’s established policies”: white students having academic difficulties, she noted, received compensatory help, whereas Gant - the “lone black child” in his class - was not given an “equal chance” but was instead demoted to kindergarten just nine days after arriving at the school.

However, in Norville v. Staten Island University Hospital, 196 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 1999), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that dismissed claims brought by a disabled black woman, who alleged that her employer did not give her the same accommodations for her disabilities that it provided to white employees, on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove that she was similarly situated to the white employees. Similarly, in Williams v. R.H. Donnelly Co., 368 F.3d 123 (2004), she wrote an opinion holding that an employee alleging racial (as well as gender) discrimination had not proven she was the victim of discrimination when her employer declined to create a position for her when the employer had never created a position for any particular employee.

In two cases, Sotomayor has voted to sustain claims alleging a hostile work environment. In Cruz v. Coach Stores, 202 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2000), she wrote for the panel in a case brought by a Hispanic woman alleging, inter alia, claims arising from a hostile work environment, failure to promote, and retaliation. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the failure-to-promote and retaliation claims but reversed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim. Citing the allegations of racial slurs by the plaintiff’s supervisor and sexual harassment, as well as the plaintiff’s assertion that she was fired “under the pretext of fighting in the workplace after she was physically beaten and sexually assaulted,” the panel acknowledged that “Cruz might have stated her claim of hostile work environment harassment more artfully,” but emphasized that “the essential elements of the charge do appear in the complaint.” And, the panel continued, the “physically threatening nature of [the supervisor’s] behavior, which repeatedly ended with him backing Cruz into the wall . . . brings this case over the line separating merely offensive or boorish conduct from actionable sexual harassment.” Moreover the opinion noted, “a jury could find that [the supervisor’s] racial harassment exacerbated the effect of his sexually threatening behavior and vice versa.”

And in Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001), she was part of a panel that considered hostile work environment and retaliation claims by a female police officer who was allegedly denied desirable shifts, threatened with physical violence, and implicated as a “rat” in front of her male co-workers. The district court had granted the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law. In rejecting Raniola’s hostile work environment claim, it described the “camaraderie of a precinct house,” which lacks “some of the niceties of expression.” With Sotomayor writing, the Second Circuit reversed. In the panel’s view, Raniola had presented enough evidence to take both her hostile work environment and retaliation claims to a jury. With regard to the hostile work environment, it emphasized that during a two-and-a-half-year period, “Raniola was subjected to offensive sex-based remarks, disproportionately burdensome work assignments, workplace sabotage, and one serious public threat of physical harm.” And it rejected the district court’s “conclusion that ‘there is no evidence that plaintiff herself felt that the use of barnyard expletives directed to her or others made her work environment offensive.” Similarly, although all of the disciplinary actions at issue took place after Raniola transferred to another precinct, her former supervisor’s role “in prosecuting her charges, the timing of the prosecution, and the surrounding events all lend support to Raniola’s retaliation claim.”

Sotomayor has rarely written in age discrimination cases. However, she authored a forceful dissent in Hankins v. Lyght, 441 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006), a case involving a minister who filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after he was forced by his church to retire at the age of 70. The district court dismissed the claim; on appeal, the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which - subject to certain exceptions - prohibits the government from substantially burdening the exercise of religion, had effectively amended the ADEA by providing a defense for ADEA violations. In her dissent, Sotomayor complained that the majority had “violate[d] a cardinal principle of judicial restraint” when it - unnecessarily, in her view - held that the RFRA was constitutional. Moreover, she deemed the panel’s decision to remand the case to the district court for briefing on the RFRA issue “a wasteful expenditure of judicial resources and an unnecessary and uninvited burden on the parties.” Instead, she would have affirmed the district court’s dismissal and held that the ADEA does not apply to employment suits against religious institutions by their leaders.

Sotomayor has been perhaps most sympathetic to claims of discrimination arising from a disability. In Parker v. Columbia Pictures, 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000), she was the author of an opinion that followed decisions of other circuits applying Title VII’s “mixed motive” analysis to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), holding that the case should be remanded to the district court because the plaintiff satisfied the elements for a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability. And she has twice dissented from the majority’s decision to deny a discrimination claim. In EEOC v. J.B. Hunt Transportation, Inc., 321 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2003), she would have held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of disability discrimination because the defendants rejected all applicants for long-haul truck driving who took certain medications. See also Nielson v. Colgate-Palmolive, 199 F.3d 642 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing Goldberg v. Kelly for the proposition that “the opportunity to be heard must be tailored to the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard” and arguing that when “a party exhibits a limited ability to understand a proceeding affecting her rights, the court must undertake even more strenuous efforts to explain the process”)

Sotomayor has twice weighed in on retaliation claims: in Raniola (described above) and in Washington v. County of Rockland, 373 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 2004). In Raniola, Sotomayor wrote an opinion in which the panel agreed with the plaintiff that her suspension, probation, and termination occurred in retaliation for her discrimination complaints: one week after Raniola filed a complaint, her supervisor told her that he would give her a poor work evaluation, transfer her from her precinct, and charge her in administrative proceedings. This evidence, along with witness testimony, provided a reasonable basis to find that any legitimate reasons for her termination were pretext for retaliation. However, Sotomayor wrote an opinion rejecting retaliation claims in Washington, in which the plaintiffs - African-American correction officers - were subjected to administrative disciplinary proceedings after filing discrimination complaints. The panel agreed that the administrative proceedings had adverse employment consequences on the plaintiffs, but in her view those adverse consequences, standing alone, did not demonstrate retaliation.

In Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 229 F.3d 374 (2000), an inmate who served time in a halfway house operated on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons by a private corporation sought to sue the corporation (and its employees) for injuries that he suffered in the halfway house. In an opinion by Sotomayor, the court of appeals reversed the district court, holding that the inmate could bring a Bivens action against a private corporation acting under color of federal law. Such a result, she explained, “furthers Bivens’s overriding purpose: providing redress for constitutional rights.” Moreover, in the absence of any allegations that the government played a role in the “various policies or practices [that] led to” the inmate’s injury, the corporation was not shielded from liability under the government contractor defense. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed by a five-to-four vote. 534 U.S. 61 (2001). In an opinion by then-Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court held that Bivens was “concerned solely with deterring the unconstitutional acts of individual officers” and that there was “no reason for us to consider extending Bivens beyond this core premise here.” Justice Stevens - joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer - dissented. In their view, because the violation at issue “was committed by a federal agent - a private corporation employed by the Bureau of Prisons to perform functions that would otherwise be performed by individual employees of the Federal Government,” the question before the Court was merely “whether the Court should create an exception to the straightforward application of Bivens” and its progeny, “not whether it should extend our cases beyond their ‘core premise.’”

Perhaps the highest-profile discrimination case in which Sotomayor has participated (though she did not write a signed opinion) is Ricci v. DeStefano, a challenge by a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut to the city’s decision not to certify an employment test for use in promotions when the use of the test results would have made a disproportionate number of white applicants eligible for promotions than minority applicants. The city defended its conduct on the ground that it feared that certifying the results of the test would expose it to a discrimination suit by minority applicants. Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that initially affirmed the district court’s judgment in the city’s favor with a summary order that described the district court’s decision as a “thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion.” The order noted that the judges were “not unsympathetic to the plaintiff’s expression of frustration,” but it explained that “it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim.” The panel eventually replaced the summary order with a per curiam opinion that was otherwise virtually identical to the order. 530 F.3d 87 (2008). Sotomayor was one of seven judges of the Second Circuit to vote to deny rehearing en banc; six other judges dissented from the denial. In January 2009, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, and it heard oral argument in April 2009. A decision in the case is expected by late June, and it is likely that the Supreme Court will reverse.

Environmental Law: Sotomayor’s most notable environmental-law opinion is Riverkeeper v. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2007), a challenge to an EPA rule regulating cooling-water intake structures at power plants. To minimize the adverse impact on aquatic life (which could otherwise be trapped against the intake structure or, if small enough, sucked into the pipes themselves), the Clean Water Act requires the intake structures to use the “best technology available,” without specifying what factors the EPA should consider in determining what constitutes the “best technology available.” Sotomayor wrote and opinion holding that the EPA was not permitted to engage in a cost-benefit analysis to determine “best technology available”; instead, it could consider cost only to determine “what technology can be ‘reasonably borne’ by the industry” and whether the proposed technology was “cost-effective” - which, she concluded, requires the EPA in turn to determine whether the technology at issue is “a less expensive technology that achieves essentially the same results” as the best technology that the industry could reasonably bear. Thus, she explained, “assuming the EPA has determined that power plants governed by the Phase II Rule can reasonably bear the price of technology that saves between 100-105 fish, the EPA, given a choice between a technology that costs $100 to save 99-101 fish and one that costs $150 to save 100-103 fish . . . could appropriately choose the cheaper technology on cost-effectiveness grounds.” On this issue, Sotomayor remanded to the EPA, finding it “unclear” how the EPA had arrived at its conclusions and, in particular, whether the EPA had improperly weighed costs and benefits.

Sotomayor also held that the EPA could not consider restoration measures - such as restocking fish to compensate for fish killed by an intake system - when determining the best technology available for a particular power plant. Sotomayor wrote that “[r]estoration measures are not part of the location, design, construction, or capacity of cooling water intake structures, and a rule permitting compliance with the statute through restoration measures allows facilities to avoid adopting any cooling water intake structure technology at all, in contravention of the Act’s clear language as well as its technology-forcing principle.” Finally, Sotomayor also determined that, at a minimum, EPA’s determination that the CWA provision at issue applies to existing and new facilities was a reasonable interpretation of the statute.

The industry plaintiffs filed petitions for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted in April 2008 to review the cost-benefit issue. By a vote of 6-3, the Court reversed. In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the majority deemed “[i]t . . . eminently reasonable to conclude that” the CWA’s silence with regard to determining the best technology available “is meant to convey nothing more than a refusal to tie the agency’s hands as to whether cost-benefit analysis should be used, and if so to what degree.” Justice Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Souter and Ginsburg. In their view, because “Congress granted the EPA authority to use cost-benefit analysis in some contexts but not others” and intended “to control, not delegate, when cost-benefit analysis should be used,” Congress’s silence on this issue did not constitute “an invitation for the Agency to decide for itself which factors should govern its regulatory approach.”

Privacy and Information: Sotomayor has encountered a wide variety of privacy and access-to-information issues in her time on the Second Circuit, including cases involving the Freedom of Information Act and employer searches of employee workspaces.

In two cases involving requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that declined to order the release of the requested information, explaining that she did not want to “unreasonably hamper agencies in their decision-making.” Thus, in Tigue v. DOJ, 312 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2002), the panel denied a tax attorney’s request for a memorandum written by a Deputy U.S. Attorney outlining the office’s opinions and policies regarding tax investigations, notwithstanding that the memorandum had been cited in a publicly released report. And in Wood v. FBI, 432 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2005), while acknowledging that FOIA exemptions should be construed “narrowly, resolving all doubts in favor of disclosure,” her opinion denied a reporter’s request for an FBI memorandum regarding local FBI agents accused of lying. She reasoned that the “unwarranted invasion of privacy” for the individuals whose names would be released outweighed the public interest in disclosing a government employee’s identity.

In a case involving privacy issues, Leventhal v. Knapek, 266 F.3d 64 (2001), Sotomayor wrote an opinion that rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge to a public employer’s search of an employee’s computer after the employee was accused of being late, coming to the office infrequently, and spending his free time discussing personal computers with his coworkers. Although she agreed that the employee had a “reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his office computer,” Sotomayor also cautioned that “workplace conditions can be such that an employee’s expectation of privacy…is diminished.” Here, she explained, the search was permissible because it could have revealed employee misconduct.

Second Amendment: Sotomayor was also a member of the panel that issued a per curiam opinion in another controversial case that may be headed for the Court next year. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), the panel considered (as relevant here) a claim by a New York attorney that a state law prohibiting possession of a chuka stick (also known as nunchaku, a device used in martial arts consisting of two sticks joined by a rope or chain) violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court rejected the claim on the ground that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. On appeal, the panel affirmed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in Presser v. Illinois, it explained that it was “settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.” And while acknowledging the possibility that “Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,” the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it “directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Maloney’s lawyers intend to file a petition for certiorari in late June.

Voting Rights: In Hayden v. Pataki, 449 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2006), the en banc Second Circuit rejected a challenge under the Voting Rights Act to a New York law denying convicted felons the right to vote. The plaintiffs in the case had argued that in light of the long history of discrimination, both in society and in the New York criminal justice system specifically, the state’s disqualification of felons constituted disqualification based on race. The majority reasoned that Congress did not intend the VRA to apply to state felon disenfranchisement laws. Moreover, extending the VRA to the state statutes would “alter the constitutional balance” between states and the federal government, and the VRA lacked a clear statement by Congress that it intended to upset that balance.

Sotomayor joined the main dissent from the en banc court’s decision but also wrote a short dissenting opinion of her own in which she opined that the issue was actually much simpler than the majority and concurring opinions would suggest: the VRA “applies to all ‘voting qualifications,’” and - in her view - the state law “disqualifies a group of people from voting.” “These two propositions,” she concluded, “should constitute the entirety of our analysis.” Rejecting what she regarded as the majority’s failure to grapple with the plain text of the statute, she emphasized that “[t]he duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statutes it has created. . . . But even if Congress had doubts about the wisdom of subjecting felony disenfranchisement laws to the results test of § 2, I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it.”

International Law: Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion in Croll v. Croll, 229 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000), which considered whether a ne exeat clause - that is, a clause prohibiting one parent from removing a child from the country without the other parent’s consent - constitutes a “right of custody” for purposes of the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, thereby requiring the child’s return when the clause is violated. In holding that the ne exeat clause does not constitute a “right of custody,” the majority - among other things - declined to attribute any weight to contrary holdings by courts in other signatory nations, dismissing them as “few, scattered, [and] conflicting.” In her dissent, Judge Sotomayor concluded that the Convention’s drafters had in mind “a notably more expansive definition of custody rights” than the “parochial” definitions - from U.S. dictionaries - on which the majority relied. Moreover, she noted, “most foreign courts to consider the issue” had held, as she would have, that a ne exeat clause does indeed constitute a “right of custody.” Although certiorari was denied in the Croll case, the question is once again before the Supreme Court in No. 08-645, Abbott v. Abbott (disclosure: Howe & Russell and Akin Gump represent the petitioner in the case). In January 2009, the Court called for the views of the Solicitor General, who is expected to file her brief this month. In an interesting coincidence, one potential candidate for the Supreme Court (Solicitor General Elena Kagan) will have the opportunity to comment on the merits of the opinion of another (Judge Sotomayor).
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2009, 03:35 PM   #36
92bDad
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 2,505
92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future92bDad has a brilliant future
Default

http://www.onenewsnow.com/vidPlayer.aspx?videoId=13706

This is arguably not her fault, but nevertheless, gives yet another reason to doubt her credebility.
92bDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2009, 10:09 AM   #37
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Excellent. However once Sotomayor is confirmed this pathetic excuse of a judgment would have stood. Yuck...more quotas, more race-based decisions coming.

EDIT: Oopss...my bad I forgot she would be replacing Souter. So thank goodness her quota policies wouldn,t have prevailed.

Quote:
Court Rules for White Firefighters Over Promotions
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009 10:59 AM


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.



New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.



The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide and make it harder to prove discrimination when there is no evidence it was intentional.



"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Last edited by dude1394; 06-29-2009 at 10:18 AM.
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2009, 10:12 AM   #38
Flacolaco
Rooting for the laundry
 
Flacolaco's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 21,342
Flacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond reputeFlacolaco has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Only 5 of them have common sense?
__________________
Flacolaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2009, 10:26 AM   #39
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

This case reminds me of the power of the legal system and those "inside" of it. So this town did this to avoid a lawsuit, no matter whether it was valid or not. The suers use the costs of the legal system to get what they want. Without much repercussions except legal expenses. However when the legal expenses are negligible or just a cost of doing business, there is no cost to the suers.

Case in point. My next door neighbor has an adjoining neighbor for 9 years. When they bought the house the told those neighbors that they would fence it one day and not plant anything between them that might need to be moved. The neighbors ignored this and planted a stand of crepe mytles on their lot as per the official title deed and lot lines.

Well they did put up the fence and encompassed that stand of crepe mytles. The neighbor has gotten pissed and sued for 50K. The folks who put up the fence has had to hire a lawyer for 5K. The suing neighbors don't have the same problem as their son is a lawyer and is doing it pro-bono.

Hopefully they will recoup their legal fees but who knows. It's even worse if the free-lawyer wants to file some criminal stuff as they have access and insight into the workings of the court. Few legal fees will get re-imbursed on that one.

Last edited by dude1394; 06-29-2009 at 11:06 AM.
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2009, 11:54 PM   #40
Road Rage
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 114
Road Rage is on a distinguished road
Default

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../06/023928.php

WHAT WILL SHE DO FOR AN ENCORE?

Short of writing "get whitey," It's difficult to imagine how Judge Sotomayor could have fouled up the Ricci case any more than she did. Let's count the ways.

First, her panel issued a summary order in a case that ended up being heard by the Supreme Court and generating a 5-4 decision with nearly 100 pages worth of opinions.

Second, Sotomayor's panel was sharply criticized by her mentor, Judge Cabranes, for its "perfunctory disposition" of the case, in an opinion which suggests that Cabranes believed that Sotomayor and her fellow panel members were attempting to bury the matter.

Third, the Supreme Court reversed the panel.

Fourth, even the dissenting Justices blew off the reasoning of Sotomayor's panel in a footnote, and fashioned their own, different standard for deciding the case.

Fifth, the dissenting Justices made it clear they would have disposed of the case differently than the way Sotomayor's panel disposed of it. The panel affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of New Haven, which would have ended the matter. The dissenters, in the panel's position, would have remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings under the different standard for deciding the matter that it articulated.

The final point, regarding the disposition of the Ricci case, seems to have become a matter of confusion, but I think the dissenters were clear. Justice Ginsburg wrote that because the "lower courts," including Sotomayor's panel, applied an "intent" standard rather than considering whether the City of New Haven had "good cause" to act as it did (the dissent's standard), "ordinarily a remand would be in order." In other words, had the dissenters been sitting on the Second Circuit panel, they would have ordered a remand instead of affirming the district court, as Judge Sotomayor's panel summarily did.

Judge Ginsburg went on to say that because "the Court [i.e., the majority] has seen fit to preclude further proceedings. . .I therefore explain why, if final adjudication by this Court is appropriate, New Haven should be the prevailing party." Thus, it's only because of what the majority did that the dissent goes beyond merely urging a remard. But when Judge Sotomayor heard the case, of course, no Supreme Court majority had seen fit to preclude further proceedings.

Judge Sotomayor's work in Ricci should raise serious questions about either her competence or her capacity to handle difficult civil rights cases (essentially the only kind that make it to the Supreme Court) impartially.
Road Rage is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
fluffy poops on a thread, got a bit fluffy in here

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.