Sotomayor nomination

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by dude1394

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

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.