President Obama to announce Supreme Court pick at 9:15am

[boutons_deux]

BoniVore parroting the RL/NG attack line. What a benighted tool.

The entire Repug party's influence is now condemned to the racist South because the have been playing to southern racists since that scumbag Nixon.

[Yonivore]

The lie is saying that is what she believes.

I can't cure your stupidity.
She fucking said it. I didn't make up the words.

Even in your characterization of the word "hope," it is a statement that confers superiority to one race over another. That's racism.


Show me which ones were disciplined in any way solely for being a member of La Raza.

I'm still waiting.
Quit changing the subject.

La Raza is racist. She's a member. That's inappropriate.

[ChumpDumper]

Neither of them claimed their jurisprudence would be guided or influence by their background.Of course they did.


And you supported them.

[ChumpDumper]

She fucking said it. I didn't make up the words.

Even in your characterization of the word "hope," it is a statement that confers superiority to one race over another. That's racism.It doesn't confer belief in that superiority. You're getting nowhere with this.



Quit changing the subject.

La Raza is racist. She's a member. That's inappropriate.So it must be open to discipline by the bar.

Show me the list of people who were disciplined for being members of La Raza. This is what you believe -- so back it up. Don't run away like a pussy from this one.

[Yonivore]

Of course they did.
No, they didn't.



And you supported them.
Yes, I did.

[ChumpDumper]

No, they didn't.Sure they did. in Thomas' case, GHW Bush appointed him specifically for that empathy -- so you should have opposed any of his nominees.

Alito pimped his empathy himself -- so you must still be calling for his impeachment.

[Yonivore]

It doesn't confer belief in that superiority.
The word "better" confers superiority.


So it must be open to discipline by the bar.

Show me the list of people who were disciplined for being members of La Raza. This is what you believe -- so back it up. Don't run away like a pussy from this one.
Look, it was on the questionnaire. I didn't even know the rule existed until today.

If the rule is accurate. And, if La Raza is a racist organization. And, if Sotomayor is a member. It would seem she's counter to this rule. No?

Why aren't you arguing one of those points?

Does the rule exist?

Is La Raza a racist organization as defined in that rule?

Is Sotomayor a member?

I can't help that organizations don't enforce their own rules and I'm not sure where I'd go to find out if the rule were applied in any instanced involving La Raza. But, I do know that other nominees for various offices -- maybe even the Supreme Court (I don't recall) -- have failed confirmation due to their associations with historically racist organizations.

Only when you're a Democrat is this overlooked.

[Yonivore]

Sure they did. in Thomas' case, GHW Bush appointed him specifically for that empathy -- so you should have opposed any of his nominees.
No, he didn't


Alito pimped his empathy himself -- so you must still be calling for his impeachment.
Again, no he didn't.

[Yonivore]

And more :corn:

Sotomayor's Disparate Impact (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayors-disparate-impact.html)


The New York Times has an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/us/politics/29puerto.html?hp) today about Sonia Sotomayor's board membership at the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEP) starting in the 1980s until she joined the federal judiciary in 1992. According to the article, Sotomayor was far from a passive board member, and took an active interest in supervising and planning legal strategy.

The most interesting part of the article comes at the end, when the article notes that Sotomayor was involved in supervising a lawsuit brought by PRLDEP challenging test scores on the New York City Police exam, on the ground that too few minorities passed the test. Challenging employer conduct on the basis that test scores or other hiring criteria have a racially negative result is known as a "disparate impact" theory.

The PRLDEP case, as described by the Times, has a striking similarity to the Ricci v. DeStefano (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-1428) case in which white New Haven firefighters claimed that they were the victims of discrimination. In the Ricci case, the City of New Haven utilized a racially-neutral officer qualifying exam, specifically designed to avoid inherent or implicit biases which might discriminate against minorities. I'm not sure how a test on firefighting skills could be racially non-neutral, but out of an abundance of caution, New Haven had the test prepared by a third-party vendor which specialized in preparing fire-fighting tests.

New Haven had no intent to discriminate in administering the test, and had an actual intent not to discriminate. To the extent there was a fear of discrimination lawsuits, that fear was sufficient to result in a racially-neutral qualifying exam.

The result (http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02CTXC/06-03903.PDF) of the test, however, was that no blacks would be promoted (using New Haven's criteria for appointment in which test scores played an important part), but 17 whites and 1 Hispanic would get promoted. New Haven, fearing a lawsuit claiming racial discrimination under a "disparate impact" theory, similar to the types of lawsuits brought by PRLDEP, nullified the results. The case now is before the U.S. Supreme Court and may be decided prior to Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. More to come on Ricci, for sure.

The significance of the NY Times article and the Ricci case is not that Sotomayor had a hidden agenda in deciding Ricci. That may or may not have been true given her prior advocacy role at PRLDEP, but would be extremely difficult to prove. What is significant is how legal interest groups, such as PRLDEP, can shape conduct merely by creating a climate of fear of lawsuits focused not on intentional discrimination but on "disparate impact" theories of discrimination, and how Sotomayor was part and parcel of that strategy.

In some cases, the threat of a lawsuit claiming racial discrimination may shape conduct in a positive way, for example, when there is intentional discrimination. Intentional conduct can be deterred. Lawsuits focused merely on results, however, serve little social utility because there is no means of deterring unintentional conduct. Remember, in Ricci there was no evidence that the test itself was inherently biased or that New Haven intended to discriminate.

As the Ricci case shows, the threat of a lawsuit claiming disparate impact can go too far, causing employers to bend so far over backwards as to create absurd, and discriminatory, results. It would be as if the results of a running race, using the racially-neutral test of the time clock, were nullified based on the race of the winners.

Whether Sotomayor's position in Ricci was shaped by her history of using lawsuits as a social tool, or a dispassionate review of the law as applied to the facts of Ricci, is fair game for analysis as part of the confirmation process. Sotomayor's involvement at PRLDEP deserves more scrutiny, and the NY Times should be credited with starting that scrutiny.

Regardless, the failure of Sotomayor and some of her two colleagues to recognize the absurdity of the City of New Haven's conduct in the Ricci case shows a profound lack of judgment, which hopefully will be remedied by the U.S. Supreme Court. And Ricci needs to be explored at the confirmation hearings even though two other appeals court judges voted with Sotomayor, since a collective lack of judgment does not excuse a lack of judgment.

[Yonivore]

are you saying she is less qualified than thomas who has skated by by doing nothing for ....how many years is it?
The Truth About Clarence Thomas (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009590)


He's an independent voice, not a Scalia lackey.

by JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG
Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:01 A.M. EST

Clarence Thomas has borne some of the most vitriolic personal attacks in Supreme Court history. But the persistent stereotypes about his views on the law and subordinate role on the court are equally offensive--and demonstrably false. An extensive documentary record shows that Justice Thomas has been a significant force in shaping the direction and decisions of the court for the past 15 years.

That's not the standard storyline. Immediately upon his arrival at the court, Justice Thomas was savaged by court-watchers as Antonin Scalia's dutiful apprentice, blindly following his mentor's lead. It's a grossly inaccurate portrayal, imbued with politically incorrect innuendo, as documents and notes from Justice Thomas's very first days on the court conclusively show. Far from being a Scalia lackey, the rookie jurist made clear to the other justices that he was willing to be the solo dissenter, sending a strong signal that he would not moderate his opinions for the sake of comity. By his second week on the bench, he was staking out bold positions in the private conferences where justices vote on cases. If either justice changed his mind to side with the other that year, it was Justice Scalia joining Justice Thomas, not the other way around.

Much of the documentary evidence for this comes from the papers of Justice Harry Blackmun, who recorded the justices' votes and took detailed notes explaining their views. I came across vivid proof while reading the papers as part of my research for a book about how the Rehnquist Court--a court with seven justices appointed by Republican presidents--evolved into an ideological and legal disappointment for conservatives.

Justice Thomas's first term was especially interesting. He replaced legendary liberal icon Thurgood Marshall, and joined the court just a year after David Souter took William Brennan's seat. There appeared to be a solid conservative majority, with the court poised to finally dismember the liberal legacy of the Warren Court. But that year it instead lurched inexplicably to the left--even putting Roe v. Wade on more solid ground.

Justice Thomas's first year on the job brought to life the adage that a new justice makes a new court. His entry didn't merely change the vote of the liberal justice he replaced. It turned the chessboard around entirely, rearranging ideological alliances. Justice Thomas acted as a catalyst in different ways, shoring up conservative positions in some cases and spurring others--the moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in particular--to realign themselves into new voting blocs.

Consider a criminal case argued during Justice Thomas's first week. It concerned a thief's effort to get out of a Louisiana mental institution and the state's desire to keep him there. Eight justices voted to side with the thief. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that although it "may make eminent sense as a policy matter" to let the criminal out of the mental institution, nothing in the Constitution required "the states to conform to the policy preferences of federal judges."

After he sent his dissenting opinion to the other justices, as is custom, Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy changed their votes. The case ended up 5-4.

Justice Thomas's dissents persuaded Justice Scalia to change his mind several times that year. Even in Hudson v. McMillan, the case that prompted the New York Times to infamously label Justice Thomas the "youngest, cruelest justice," he was again, initially, the lone dissenter. Justice Scalia changed his vote after he read Justice Thomas's dissent, which said a prison inmate beaten by guards had several options for redress--but not under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment."

From the beginning, Justice Thomas was an independent voice. His brutal confirmation hearings only enforced his autonomy, making him impervious to criticism from the media and liberal law professors. He'd told his story, and no one listened. From then on, he did not care what they said about him.

Clarence Thomas, for example, is the only justice who rarely asks questions at oral arguments. One reason is that he thinks his colleagues talk too much from the bench, and he prefers to let the lawyers explain their case with fewer interruptions. But his silence is sometimes interpreted as a lack of interest, and friends have begged him to ask a few questions to dispel those suggestions. He refuses to do it. "They have no credibility," he says of critics. "I am free to live up to my oath."

But the forcefulness and clarity of Justice Thomas's views, coupled with wrongheaded depictions of him doing Justice Scalia's bidding, created an internal dynamic that caused the court to make an unexpected turn in his first year. Justice O'Connor--who sought ideological balance--moved to the left. With the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, the court now is poised to finally fulfill the hopes of the conservative movement. As George W. Bush told his legal advisers early in his presidency, he wanted justices in "the mold of Thomas and Scalia." Interestingly, on President Bush's marquee, Justice Thomas got top billing.

Ms. Crawford Greenburg, legal correspondent for ABC News, is the author of "Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story for Control of the United States Supreme Court" (Penguin Press, 2007).

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[George Gervin's Afro]

yoni better get on the phone because cornyn and sessions have admitted she's not a racist and that they do not prescribe to the tone or accusations. oni, how does it feel to be totally fucked?

Yoni's premise is that she's a racist. It's been proved she's not, by other conservtaives, so his argument is proven false.. keep up the fruitless fight yoni...:lmao

[Yonivore]

yoni better get on the phone because cornyn and sessions have admitted she's not a racist and that they do not prescribe to the tone or accusations. oni, how does it feel to be totally fucked?

Yoni's premise is that she's a racist. It's been proved she's not, by other conservtaives, so his argument is proven false.. keep up the fruitless fight yoni...:lmao
How does what Cornyn and Sessions say prove she's not racist?

[MannyIsGod]

Reading statements within context with a shred of intellectual dignity proves she's not a racist, but I couldn't have imagined how well the administration played their hand here. I love how fractured the GOP is right now. Everytime I think they've hit rock bottom something else comes out.

To be fair, GOP candidates can't really say shit about her even if they hate her because they already lost the hispanic vote but if they decide to block a the first female hispanic supreme court justice they might as well kiss any hispanic votes goodbye.

Anyway, any brown people who don't register as GOP are automatically considered racist by Republicans. Yoni's just scared of the brown folk, thats all. We're running this shit now. :lol

[TheProfessor]

Reading statements within context with a shred of intellectual dignity proves she's not a racist, but I couldn't have imagined how well the administration played their hand here.
It's sad how easily they baited these talking heads into making fools of themselves and revealing their true colors.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Reading statements within context with a shred of intellectual dignity proves she's not a racist, but I couldn't have imagined how well the administration played their hand here. I love how fractured the GOP is right now. Everytime I think they've hit rock bottom something else comes out.

To be fair, GOP candidates can't really say shit about her even if they hate her because they already lost the hispanic vote but if they decide to block a the first female hispanic supreme court justice they might as well kiss any hispanic votes goodbye.

Anyway, any brown people who don't register as GOP are automatically considered racist by Republicans. Yoni's just scared of the brown folk, thats all. We're running this shit now. :lol

Intellectual honesty/integrity is what is lacking from the jack's and the yoni's of the world..

[Marcus Bryant]

Pandering to a block of voters on the basis of their race, religious beliefs, etc...seems rather insulting, but hey, ___________ (insert your group here, multiple entries welcome) deserve it.

[MannyIsGod]

Pandering to a block of voters on the basis of their race, religious beliefs, etc...seems rather insulting, but hey, ___________ (insert your group here, multiple entries welcome) deserve it.

Except she's qualified for the position and there is absolutely no doubt about it. Outside of being qualified for the position how else are political selections made? The fact that she can serve as an uplifting symbol for hispanics and women alike while being a qualified candidate makes pandering a cop out of a word to use here.

I'm not going to sit here and say the administration made this move with no regard to obvious political benefits on so many fronts and how difficult it would be for the GOP to oppose the appointment but those considerations are there for EVERY single appointment we see so I'm also not going to act as though they mean more than they do. There is definitely an element of affirmative action here but we're not elevating an unqualified candidate to an important position we're elevating a qualified candidate to an important position which carries a great deal of symbolism.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yet what is symbolized? That a decision to nominate an individual to a court allegedly in the pursuit of unbiased justice will be made on the basis of racial, class, or religious divisions?

[Yonivore]

Reading statements within context with a shred of intellectual dignity proves she's not a racist,
How?

Putting that quote back in context only demostrates how racist it is. The whole speech was about how race and ethnicity colors her judicial philosophy.

That's racist.


Anyway, any brown people who don't register as GOP are automatically considered racist by Republicans.
No, but people who make racist statements, join racist organizations, and make rulings based race are automatically considered racist by me.


Yoni's just scared of the brown folk, thats all. We're running this shit now. :lol
Yeah, that's why I supported Miguel Estrada's and Alberto Gonzales's appointment. It's also why I have an hispanic wife and a child who is half-hispanic.

It's the left that are knee-jerk racists. Automatically assuming (which I know is not true -- it just happens to be the rhetoric of convenience) opponenents to minority democrat appointments are racists.

I oppose Sotomayor because she has demonstrated a racial bias in her associations and in her rulings. It's demonstrable. Yet, your only response is to call me a racist for even mentioning it?

[SnakeBoy]

You've yet to explain, in the context of that speech, why her statement isn't racist. It either expects or hopes that a Latina woman would make better decisions than a white man.


She was talking about wisdom. You're changing what she said. She said a wise Latina woman would make a better decision than a [not wise] white male.

She could've said it alot better but that doesn't make her a racist. You should be happy. She's a far less liberal pick than I was expecting. She might end up being less liberal than Souter.


That the statement isn't racist is obviously apparent to anyone who is intelligent enough to know that "hope" and "expect" are two different words.


Ah, now I get it. Expect and Change.

[Wild Cobra]

Those of you who like Sotomayor should listen to this clip. Think about what the three men in it say.


BssHWJcx4B4

[Wild Cobra]

Here is a take from the Michael Savage radio program:

oZ05NHuk19o

[SnakeBoy]

Those of you who like Sotomayor should listen to this clip. Think about what the three men in it say.


They are taking a couple of statements out of context.


Here is a take from the Michael Savage radio program:


On autistic children, Savage said...
"In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is."

So his take isn't going to hold much weight. What else ya got?

It's not that I like her, Obama gets to pick the nominee. As long as she is qualified and not overly radical then she'll be confirmed. She's qualified and I haven't seen anything to show she is crazy leftist radical.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's the Michael Savage show for 5/26. He covers Sotomayor, North Korea, and Prop 8 on this show. Part 1 of several:

OqIw8z8MiDY

[Wild Cobra]

They are taking a couple of statements out of context.

They are stating what they think it means, and I agree.


On autistic children, Savage said...
"In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is."

Could that statement be out of context? Could he have meant ADD? Even if you are right, it's rather ignorant to dismiss all remarks based one one, or a few. No one is always right. He's as human as the rest of us and makes mistakes.

Why do liberals give liberal a bye on such statements, and call whites and males racist for making any similar statement? Stop advocating the double standard please. What would your opinion be is the same statement was made by Robersts, saying he would hop a white male could make better decisions that a [insert race] female?

[SnakeBoy]

Could that statement be out of context? Could he have meant ADD? Even if you are right, it's rather ignorant to dismiss all remarks based one one, or a few. No one is always right. He's as human as the rest of us and makes mistakes.


So making one statement in a less than perfect way shouldn't be held against someone.

[PixelPusher]

Could that statement be out of context?

What the hell did irony ever do to you guys that you must continuously butcher it, over and over and over...

[Wild Cobra]

So making one statement in a less than perfect way shouldn't be held against someone.
Except Savage is not an expert of what you attack his words for. Sotomayor is suppose to be a legal expert.

Is she? Then there's the ruling about this recent Fireman case. I think Savage has a clip on that in part 2. I marked down a time of 6:01, think that's it. I decided not to listen to clips 3, onward. I don't like the guy. I have found him to give good evidence of most the the things he speaks of though.

Again, why the double standard?

[Yonivore]

Jake Tapper: First President in US History to Have Voted to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/first-president-in-us-history-to-have-voted-to-filibuster-a-supreme-court-nominee-now-hopes-for-clea.html)
Now that's Kharma. Karma? Whatever...

[Yonivore]

She was talking about wisdom. You're changing what she said. She said a wise Latina woman would make a better decision than a [not wise] white male.
I don't believe you're correct and, besides, that doesn't make the statement any less racist.

Latina has no place in the sentence. Period. Distinguishing between female and male, is bad enough itself. If the distinction she was making was between wise and unwise people, race and sex qualifiers are unnecessary.

Why not just say a wise person would make a better decision than an unwise one. Well, duh; I would HOPE so to, Ms. Sotomayor.


She could've said it alot better but that doesn't make her a racist.
Okay, you say it better...and put it in the context of a speech about how ethnicity and race influence judicial philosophy and make it non-racist.

You can't. The whole premise of the speech was about how the law is colored by her race and ethnicity.


You should be happy. She's a far less liberal pick than I was expecting. She might end up being less liberal than Souter.
I'm not unhappy. At then end of the day, she's either confirmed or not and we'll have to live with it. By itself, her presence on the court doesn't change the make-up. But, that doesn't mean one shouldn't raise concerns based on her public speeches, court decisions, associations, and temperament.

After all, the person who nominated her voted against both Justices Alito and Roberts when Bush appointed them. In fact, he joined 29 other Senators in an attempt to filibuster the Alito nomination. Both of whom are imminently qualified and, as far as I can tell (and, I'm sure we would have heard) never made a decision based on their ethnicity or race...but, instead, fairly applied the law to all parties.

He can't come back now and say his nominee should get a free ride.


Ah, now I get it. Expect and Change.
Out to make yourself look as stupid as ChumpDumper? Well, have fun with that.

[Yonivore]

And, one more thing. If she's wise, (Latina woman or not), would she have misspoke as is now being asserted?

Wisdom and such agregious errors, in public, don't seem to go hand-in-hand.

I mean, no one's accusing Joe Biden of being wise.

[Yonivore]

This is pretty rich.

When White House spokesperson, Gibbs, was trying to respond to a question about Sotomayor's racist remark, he -- as has become his ritual -- ran for cover behind Rush Limbaugh...


“She brings a form of bigotry and racism to the court. How can a president nominate such a candidate? And how can a party get behind such a candidate? That’s what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive.”
Gibbs jumped on that.


“I don’t think you have to be the nominee to find what was said today offensive. I think maybe the best example of that… is to look at any number of conservative and Republican leaders who over the last 24 hours have specifically addressed the comments of people like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh… to quantify the outrage anybody would feel that you’re being compared to somebody who used to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan.”
I'm guessing Robert "Sheets" Byrd wasn't in the room.

But, it's a good point. If her statement raised latina women above white males...it's not better than Byrd, or Duke, raising white men over everyone else. Racism is racism.

Judge Sotomayor is just like Byrd was. Sotomomayor was 46 when she made her statement. Byrd was 46 when he filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Not the same impact, of course, but the same racial superiority nonsense. All Latinas are the same is like saying all the white males are the same.

She has a problem with her mouth. It is not very judicial outside the courtroom, and perhaps within.

[ChumpDumper]

If her statement raised latina women above white males.Too bad for you it didn't.

[Yonivore]

Too bad for you it didn't.
If denying something made it go away, you'd be an expert.

I'm not even close to being alone on the assessment her statement is racist.

[ChumpDumper]

If denying something made it go away, you'd be an expert.If repeating a lie made it true, you'd be powerlineblog.


I'm not even close to being alone on the assessment her statement is racist.There are millions of idiots in this country. You are one of them.

[Yonivore]

If repeating a lie made it true, you'd be powerlineblog.

There are millions of idiots in this country. You are one of them.
If the White House is now saying she "misspoke" there must be something wrong with the statement.

Something like -- oh, I don't know -- that it's a racist statement that can't be defended other than to say, she didn't say what she meant to.

You're saying it's not racist. And, you've yet to explain how that statement -- in context, out of context, where hope means hope or where hope means expect -- is not racist.

The White House is smart enough not to try. You just keep insisting it isn't, without any explanation.

That's stupidity.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, it was just a throwaway sentence that could be trumped up by idiots who think they can score political points with it.

It needs no further explanation.

[Yonivore]

Nah, it was just a throwaway sentence that could be trumped up by idiots who think they can score political points with it.

It needs no further explanation.
It wasn't a throw away sentence. Now you're just making shit up.

And, besides, being a throw away sentence doesn't make it any less racist.

[Bender]

Interesting commentary on the sotomayer thing (article is longer, I only pasted the last half):

http://www.takimag.com/article/big_man_obama_and_his_diversity_princess/


(George Will) “The … administration’s agenda of … political favoritism cloaked in the raiment of ‘economic planning’ and ‘social justice’ … is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption. The Obama administration is … careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness,” Will warned.

Will waffles a lot about “constitutional values.” I don’t like it one bit—especially since Obama does it too. In support of federal appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, the White House issued some Talking Points (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/white-house-armed-with-talking-points-for-sotomayor-fight--evoke-her-empathy.php).
Emphasized twice therein is the paramountcy of selecting “someone who will uphold”─wait for this─“the … Constitutional values on which this nation was founded.”

Now, the president uses words cautiously and cleverly. He means what he says when he talks of “upholding constitutional values,” as opposed to upholding the Constitution! And it is to the spirit of the law, as he divines it, and not the letter of the law, that the president is committed.
For their part, the liberal media’s judicial jiu-jitsu has been unconscionable. Are the legal writings and judicial rulings of Judge Sotomayor being scrutinized? Not on your life. Right away, the usual moron menagerie began to construct a meta-argument (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g422717jx2x57u3q/) invalidating the GOP’s yet-to-be-made case against Sotomayor, if you get my drift.
An argument against an argument!
From NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell to the lowliest Democratic strategist: all are advising viewers, first, that to oppose Sotomayor is to risk Hispanic ire. And second, that in order to dodge death by demographics, Republicans must continue to court Latinos slavishly.

For example, making too much of Sotomayor’s Wise Latina Woman (http://www.takimag.com/site/article/americas_wise_latina_lady/) cretinous comment is unwise for Republicans, the talking twits tell us. Judge Sotomayor suggested in 2001, “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.”

The consensus among the commentariat is that this is no time for the GOP to come to the defense of paleface (http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2009/05/sotomayor-may-be-a-tough-pick.php): white judges or white firefighters (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/090419_ricci.htm). (Sotomayor washed her hands of the white, New Haven firefighters, and upheld racial discrimination against them.) The so-called incontrovertible truth at which the Obama media minions are getting is this:
The GOP’s powerbase hangs on Hispanics.
Dogged demographer Steve Sailer has been dispelling (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/pew.htm) this manufactured dogma convincingly for close to a decade:
“Hispanics are no more socially conservative than blacks,” who identify with Democrats. The Hispanic electorate cares primarily “about bread and butter issues,” and most have figured out on “which side their bread is buttered,” says Sailer.
“Among Latinos 55 and up, the Democrats lead 64 percent to 17 percent.” As for Hispanic Republicans, they “aren’t terribly Republican. On the question of more taxing and spending, Hispanic Republicans are slightly more liberal than white Democrats.”

Sen. John McCain, who would wrestle a crocodile for any Hispanic, legal or illegal, received just 31 percent to Obama’s 67 percent of the national Hispanic vote.

The GOP needs Hispanics to sustain a worthwhile political life like an anaerobic (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anaerobic) organism needs oxygen.
Come to think of it, a GOP that accommodates the demands of this demographic is better off dead.

Expect Republicans to be doing an energetic “diversity” trot. The dance will be designed to appease Hispanics and dilute any substantive critique of Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy.

Mission accomplished.

[Yonivore]

Bruce Ackerman, a prominent constitutional law professor at Yale Law School, has stepped up and warned against the tactic of "stealth" Supreme Court nominations, where the ideologically driven President seeks to change the direction of the Supreme Court by nominating a relatively undistinguished appeals court judge whose lack of distinction and sparse ideological record conceals a secret agenda:


The job of the Senate is to make it clear to the American people which path the President is taking. Under the Constitution, the president’s judicial nominations are subject to the Senate’s ‘advice and consent’, and it deliberates under rules that give the minority party a special say. Unless 60 of the 100 senators agree to terminate debate, a minority can block a final vote by refusing to end discussion of the nominee on the floor.

The stakes are very high and the ... minority should be careful. In the first instance it should determine whether the president has nominated a ... radical.... Above all else, it must oppose any ‘stealth’ candidate whose record is so undistinguished that his judicial philosophy remains secret. Perhaps after hearing a ... nominee present his arguments before the Senate judiciary committee most Americans will support the case for radical change; perhaps not. But one thing should be clear: the Senate should not give its ‘advice and consent’ to a stealth revolution in constitutional law.
Ackerman's students at Yale Law School were urged to send a letter to Senators against the appointment of any nominee whose judicial philosophy was out of the mainstream. Suggested language:


As a Senator, you have the constitutional obligation to stand as a bulwark against the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice whose views represent only a narrow segment of our nation. Your Advise and Consent power means that you can and should ensure that American jurisprudence continues to be characterized by justice and freedom for all, rather than advancing the political agenda of a few.

[SnakeBoy]

Out to make yourself look as stupid as ChumpDumper? Well, have fun with that.

Ummm, no. Chumpdumper has been saying "expect and change" to you on every thread. I hadn't read much of this thread so I didn't know why the hell he was saying that. It's stupid but now I get it, that's all.

[ChumpDumper]

The consensus among the commentariat is that this is no time for the GOP to come to the defense of paleface: white judges or white firefighters. (Sotomayor washed her hands of the white, New Haven firefighters, and upheld racial discrimination against them.)One of the firefighters who qualified for the promotion based on that test was Hispanic.

[Yonivore]

One of the firefighters who qualified for the promotion based on that test was Hispanic.
The decision to not certify the tests and deny the firefighters a promotion was race-based.

No one has claimed the exam or promotional process was racially biased. In fact, the City of New Have took pains to insure a fair process by hiring a third-party firm, specializing in crafting such exams, to craft and administer their promotional exam.

When the results became known, a local chapter of the NAACP became a fixture at subsequent city council meetings and intimidated the City Council by making threats to sue.

The city of New Haven admitted they refused to certify the exam results because of racism. They said they were afraid of being sued because no blacks were able to promote because none passed the exam. That's a race-based employment decision.

The District Court allowed ignored the discrimination and allowed the City of New Haven to perpetrate the discriminatory action. That's a race-based finding.

The three-judge panel, led by Sonia Sotomayor, ignored the clear statutory and constitutional issues raised by the case and issued a summary order upholding the city of New Haven and the District Court's racism.

It's really that simple Chump.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The decision to not certify the tests and deny the firefighters a promotion was race-based.

No one has claimed the exam or promotional process was racially biased. In fact, the City of New Have took pains to insure a fair process by hiring a third-party firm, specializing in crafting such exams, to craft and administer their promotional exam.

When the results became known, a local chapter of the NAACP became a fixture at subsequent city council meetings and intimidated the City Council by making threats to sue.

The city of New Haven admitted they refused to certify the exam results because of racism. They said they were afraid of being sued because no blacks were able to promote because none passed the exam. That's a race-based employment decision.

The District Court allowed ignored the discrimination and allowed the City of New Haven to perpetrate the discriminatory action. That's a race-based finding.

The three-judge panel, led by Sonia Sotomayor, ignored the clear statutory and constitutional issues raised by the case and issued a summary order upholding the city of New Haven and the District Court's racism.


It's really that simple Chump.



... the 2nd Circuit ruled -- in an opinion written by one of Sotomayor's colleagues -- that precedent in interpreting an employment discrimination statute compelled the decision. ...

it's that simple yoni.

Isn't your issue with Title VII's employment discrimination prohibitions?

[boutons_deux]

"not certify the tests and deny the firefighters a promotion was race-based"

a fucking lie, as usual from wrongies.

The ruling was whether the fire dept had the right to cancel the tests.

The appeals court did, as wrongies are always whining about how they want the courts to act, called only "balls and strikes" (no "activism", aka for wrongies as "calling them against wrongies' biases") and said strictly that the fire dept did have the right. end of case, end of story.

The wrongies are so desperate to Bork Sotomayor that they are grasping at straws, eg, calling Sotomayor and Magik Negro racists, and calling out Sotomayor as an menstruating unstable woman (G. Gordon Liddy).

The bias towards institutions over individuals in the SC right-wing radicals could easily be based, for Scalia and Roberts, on the backgrounds as members of a institutionally authoritarian organization, the Catholic Church.

Of course, the wrongies here parrot dumbly the RL/NG/Repug/Fox talking points.

The menstruating/activist racist bullshit is nothing but a distraction, since they have no case against Sotomayor.

[George Gervin's Afro]

"not certify the tests and deny the firefighters a promotion was race-based"

a fucking lie, as usual from wrongies.

The ruling was whether the fire dept had the right to cancel the tests.

The appeals court did, as wrongies are always whining about how they want the courts to act, called only "balls and strikes" (no "activism", aka for wrongies as "calling them against wrongies' biases") and said strictly that the fire dept did have the right. end of case, end of story.

The wrongies are so desperate to Bork Sotomayor that they are grasping at straws, eg, calling Sotomayor and Magik Negro racists, and calling out Sotomayor as an menstruating unstable woman (G. Gordon Liddy).

The bias towards institutions over individuals in the SC right-wing radicals could easily be based, for Scalia and Roberts, on the backgrounds as members of a institutionally authoritarian organization, the Catholic Church.

Of course, the wrongies here parrot dumbly the RL/NG/Repug/Fox talking points.

The menstruating/activist racist bullshit is nothing but a distraction, since they have no case against Sotomayor.

It's a winning political issue for them with Hispanics..:lmao

[Marcus Bryant]

Bruce Ackerman, a prominent constitutional law professor at Yale Law School....

Why didn't you post the link to the blog from which you copied that material?

Further, you didn't even fully copy the post from that blog (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/).

Here's the rest:


The year was 2005. Ackerman's admonition in February 2005 against the Senate confirming stealth nominees was directed at the prospective nominees of then President George W. Bush. The law student group was "Law Students Against Alito" and the letter was in opposition to Samuel Alito upon his nomination in October 2005. Ackerman would go on to warn that "the confirmation of Samuel Alito carries a clear and present danger of a constitutional revolution on a very broad front" and that Alito was "a judicial radical."

Do the same standards apply to nominees of President Barack Obama?

link (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/prominent-constitutional-scholar-warns.html?showComment=1243728178538)

[Wild Cobra]

It's one thing to have questions about decisions that are tough ones to make. Obama's pick is a bad one, simply because there is no excuse for the overt abuse of her power.

It's plain as day she is an activist judge. Justice is suppose to be blind to emotion, and be based on facts. Anyone who thinks she is a good pick placed agenda above integrity.

How do you live with yourselves?

[FromWayDowntown]

It's plain as day she is an activist judge. Justice is suppose to be blind to emotion, and be based on facts. Anyone who thinks she is a good pick placed agenda above integrity.

So following precedent amounts to activism?

You guys who scream about judicial activism can't seem to get your definition straight. In some instances, activism is a refusal to follow precedent; in other cases, apparently, activism is the refusal to stray from precedent.

At the end of the day, it certainly appears that activism really means "didn't decide the case the way I would have liked." It's become a largely unprincipled criticism that is, ironically, entirely results-centered.

[Wild Cobra]

So following precedent amounts to activism?

You guys who scream about judicial activism can't seem to get your definition straight. In some instances, activism is a refusal to follow precedent; in other cases, apparently, activism is the refusal to stray from precedent.

At the end of the day, it certainly appears that activism really means "didn't decide the case the way I would have liked." It's become a largely unprincipled criticism that is, ironically, entirely results-centered.
I have heard too many clear instances against this judge. I'm not going to bother explaining today, maybe later. I have better things to do. the sun has graced us here in the NW, and I'll be out in it soon. I suggest you listen to 'the other side' more often than you do, and maybe you'll receive some enlightenment.

[FromWayDowntown]

I have heard too many clear instances against this judge. I'm not going to bother explaining today, maybe later. I have better things to do. the sun has graced us here in the NW, and I'll be out in it soon. I suggest you listen to 'the other side' more often than you do, and maybe you'll receive some enlightenment.

I listen to you guys all the time.

When you start talking about "judicial activism," however, it seems like a political code word for "she decides cases in a way that I don't like." Seriously, with Judge Sotomayor, you guys are ripping her for Ricci, but that opinion, whether you like it or not, comports with existing precedent. So, if you're defining activism to be the act of ignoring precedent to reach a result, that's not a particularly good case to rely upon. In fact, it seems a pretty fine example of judicial restraint. That you don't happen to like the outcome doesn't make it "activist." It makes it a case in which you think she should have been an activist.

I don't have any particular problems with an unprincipled view of what constitutes judicial activism, but just admit that your view of judicial activism has everything to do with whether the result is one that you like or not.

[boutons_deux]

"I have better things to do"

Like your hero dickhead, with 5 deferments to evade military service during VN? because he "had better things to do". dubya evaded service, also.

[ChumpDumper]

blah blah blahThe statutes are pretty clear about what New Haven had to do to avoid running afoul of the law in their testing procedures. They did what they had to do according to the law, and so far the courts have agreed. You just demand the courts ignore the law as written and previously decided or change it according to their own whims, which is hilariously hypocritical.

But we've come to expect that from you.

You are that simple.

Now you are saying she's a racist because she concurred with a decision not to give a Hispanic a promotion based on a flawed testing method.

[Wild Cobra]

Coming back inside, I was able to quickly find this:

— In one case reversed by the Supreme Court, Sotomayor and the majority on the appeals court ruled that an inmate could sue a private corporation for injuries he suffered in a halfway house run by that company. Though the company operated the house on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons, Sotomayor argued that the company was not shielded from liability. The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court decision in 2001.

— In another case, Sotomayor dissented in a 2006 opinion that rejected a challenge to a New York law denying convicted felons the right to vote. She argued in her own dissenting opinion that the state law "disqualifies a group of people from voting."

— Sotomayor, in 2003, also wrote an opinion that reversed a district court decision that a Muslim inmate's rights were not violated when he was denied a holiday feast. Sotomayor argued that the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the feast was important to his religion.

— In 1999, Sotomayor dissented in a decision to dismiss a case in which a black student claimed his school discriminated against him by transferring him mid-year from first grade to kindergarten. Sotomayor argued that the "lone black child" in the class was not given an "equal chance."

— In 2007, Sotomayor wrote an opinion holding that the Environmental Protection Agency could not perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine the "best technology available." She wrote it could only consider cost as a factor in more limited ways. This decision, too, was overturned by the Supreme Court.

— In 1993, Sotomayor threw out evidence obtained by police in a drug case, because a detective lied to obtain the search warrant — prosecutors agreed to a plea bargain. However, during sentencing Sotomayor made controversial statements by criticizing the five-year mandatory sentence, calling it an "abomination" that the defendant did not deserve.

Too many wrong decisions. Not gray, but flat out wrong.

Link: Inside Sotomayor's Judicial Record (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523077,00.html?sPage=fnc/us/supremecourt); Friday, May 29, 2009

[ChumpDumper]

Wrong in what ways, counselor?

[PixelPusher]

— In 1993, Sotomayor threw out evidence obtained by police in a drug case, because a detective lied to obtain the search warrant — prosecutors agreed to a plea bargain. However, during sentencing Sotomayor made controversial statements by criticizing the five-year mandatory sentence, calling it an "abomination" that the defendant did not deserve.

Too many wrong decisions. Not gray, but flat out wrong.


Explain what is so "right" about lying to obtain warrants and mandatory drug sentences.

[Yonivore]

Why didn't you post the link to the blog from which you copied that material?

Further, you didn't even fully copy the post from that blog (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/).

Here's the rest:



link (http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/prominent-constitutional-scholar-warns.html?showComment=1243728178538)
I was baiting. But, now that you've ruined it, I wonder if this same professor has issued a similar edict for his current students...

[Yonivore]

So following precedent amounts to activism?

You guys who scream about judicial activism can't seem to get your definition straight. In some instances, activism is a refusal to follow precedent; in other cases, apparently, activism is the refusal to stray from precedent.

At the end of the day, it certainly appears that activism really means "didn't decide the case the way I would have liked." It's become a largely unprincipled criticism that is, ironically, entirely results-centered.
The precedents followed by the 2nd Circuit did not answer -- or even address -- the key constitutional question raised by this case or answer the question of whether or not Title VII had been applied appropriately. Those precedents dealt with minority plaintiffs who had allegedly been discriminated against.

As Cabranes pointed out, this was a novel treatment of Title VII in that the plaintiffs' were discriminated against in an effort, by the city, to avoid being sued by unpromoted black firefighters.

That is the key constitutional question to which Cabranes referred and over which the District Court and the Appellate Court didn't even consider. There is no precedent because the point had never been considered before in the courts. Was it unlawful discrimination to not certify an unbiased exam, fairly administered -- and thus not promote the firefighters -- because no blacks would promote. That's the question neither the District Court or 2nd Circuit considered.

But, as has already been pointed out, this was the whole purpose of the case. To settle that question.

And, as I said before, The City of New Haven admitted they did not certify the exam because of a fear of a lawsuit. There has never been a claim the test was flawed or that the process was unfairly administered. The only reason it was not certified is because of the race of those who passed and those who failed. Those who would be promoted and those who wouldn't.

The question that was to be determined is if that was a violation of Title VII and neither the District Court nor the 2nd Circuit was concerned enough about the rights of the firefighter denied a promotion to even consider the question. And, the reason they weren't concerned is because the firefighters weren't black. That's a race-based decision.

[ChumpDumper]

Was it an unbiased exam, fairly administered?

Was the full testing procedure fair and unbiased?

So now Sotomayor is racist against Hispanics in favor of blacks.

And a bad judge because she is not activist enough.

:lmao

[Yonivore]

Was it an unbiased exam, fairly administered?

Was the full testing procedure fair and unbiased?
According to the Amicus Brief filed by Obama's DOJ in February, yep. They're claiming what Cabranes claims. That the District Court and 2nd Circuit failed to even consider the constitutional or statutory questions raised by the suit.


So now Sotomayor is racist against Hispanics in favor of blacks. :lmao
Apparently so. Maybe it was worth throwing an hermano under the bus to deprive all those gringos their just rewards. I can't tell you.

But, the decision of the District Court was a race based decision. Therefore, so was the 2nd Circuits concurrence.

Read the Amicus Brief filed by President Obama's DOJ. They too disagree with Sotomayor. They've asked the case to be reversed and remanded so that the original court can do it right.

[ChumpDumper]

According to the Amicus Brief filed by Obama's DOJ in February, yep.Where does it say the test and full qualification procedure was fair and unbiased?


Apparently so. Maybe it was worth throwing an hermano under the bus to deprive all those gringos their just rewards. I can't tell you.You can't tell a lot of things.


But, the decision of the District Court was a race based decision. Therefore, so was the 2nd Circuits concurrence.Well, the law is about race, so any decision concerning it coming out of any court will be race based.

[ChumpDumper]

Good to know you like your Supreme Court justices to be activists, Yoni.

[Yonivore]

Where does it say the test and full qualification procedure was fair and unbiased?
Read Cabranes dissention and the Amicus Brief.


You can't tell a lot of things.
I'm not a mind-reader.


Well, the law is about race, so any decision concerning it coming out of any court will be race based.
But, not necessarily discriminatory.

It's just as much a violation of Title VII to deny a promotion because not enough blacks were promoted, even though the process was non-discriminatory, as it is to craft as test that would attempt to prevent blacks from promoting.

That's the question the courts ignored and why Cabranes dissented and the DOJ, Obama's DOJ, has taken sides with the firefighters who passed but were not promoted.

[Yonivore]

Here, let me help you...


"a straight-forward question: May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination, which was carefully constructed to ensure race neutrality, on the ground that the results of that examination yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another."

[Marcus Bryant]

So following precedent amounts to activism?

You guys who scream about judicial activism can't seem to get your definition straight. In some instances, activism is a refusal to follow precedent; in other cases, apparently, activism is the refusal to stray from precedent.

At the end of the day, it certainly appears that activism really means "didn't decide the case the way I would have liked." It's become a largely unprincipled criticism that is, ironically, entirely results-centered.

They want the Constitution to apply except when they don't want it to apply. At least when people bitch about the Constitution I know it's still not dead, yet.

[Marcus Bryant]

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

link (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml)



http://roguejew.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/bush_africa-thumb.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

even though the process was non-discriminatoryWas the process nondiscriminatory? Did it meet all the criteria set forth by Title VII and other laws?
which was carefully constructed to ensure race neutralityHow careful was it? Can that be quantified somehow or can anyone just say we carefully crafted it, trust us?

[Winehole23]

Judge Sotomayor and Race — Results from the Full Data Set (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/)

Friday, May 29th, 2009 10:27 pm | Tom Goldstein |
(http://digg.com/politics/Judge_Sotomayor_and_Race_m_Results_from_the_Full_D ata_Set)
I’ve now completed the study of every one of Judge Sotomayor’s race-related cases that I mention in the post below. I’ll write more in the morning about particular cases, but here is what the data shows in sum:
Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.



Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous. (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.) Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. In the one divided panel opinion, the dissent’s point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case. So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.


Of the roughly 75 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor dissented 2 times. In Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 199 F.3d 642 (1999), she dissented from the affirmance of the district court’s order appointing a guardian for the plaintiff, an issue unrelated to race. In Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of Educ., 195 F.3d 134 (1999), she would have allowed a black kindergartner to proceed with the claim that he was discriminated against in a school transfer. A third dissent did not relate to race discrimination: In Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2002), she dissented from the majority’s holding that the NYPD could fire a white employee for distributing racist materials.


As noted in the post below, Judge Sotomayor was twice on panels reversing district court decisions agreeing with race-related claims - i.e., reversing a finding of impermissible race-based decisions. Both were criminal cases involving jury selection.


The numbers relating to unpublished opinions continued to hold as well. In the roughly 55 cases in which the panel affirmed district court decisions rejecting a claim of employment discrimination or retaliation, the panel published its opinion or order only 5 times.

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She participated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.

[PixelPusher]

You're wasting your time, Winehole. This thead isn't about a comprehensive review of Sotomayor's judicial philosophy and record over the past two decades, this is about cherry-picking a data point so they can sustain their 5 and a half month rage-on.

[ChumpDumper]

She said hope!

HOPE!

Don't you get it?

hope=expect=honky=Satan

[MannyIsGod]

You're wasting your time, Winehole. This thead isn't about a comprehensive review of Sotomayor's judicial philosophy and record over the past two decades, this is about cherry-picking a data point so they can sustain their 5 and a half month rage-on.

[FromWayDowntown]

She said hope!

HOPE!

Don't you get it?

hope=expect=honky=Satan

I thought it was more like

Hope=Expect=Entitlement=Handout=Socialism=Discrimi nation Against Whites=Obama=Satan

[Blake]

Judge Sotomayor and Race — Results from the Full Data Set (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/)

Friday, May 29th, 2009 10:27 pm | Tom Goldstein |
(http://digg.com/politics/Judge_Sotomayor_and_Race_m_Results_from_the_Full_D ata_Set)
I’ve now completed the study of every one of Judge Sotomayor’s race-related cases that I mention in the post below. I’ll write more in the morning about particular cases, but here is what the data shows in sum:
Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.



Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous. (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.) Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. In the one divided panel opinion, the dissent’s point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case. So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.


Of the roughly 75 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor dissented 2 times. In Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 199 F.3d 642 (1999), she dissented from the affirmance of the district court’s order appointing a guardian for the plaintiff, an issue unrelated to race. In Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of Educ., 195 F.3d 134 (1999), she would have allowed a black kindergartner to proceed with the claim that he was discriminated against in a school transfer. A third dissent did not relate to race discrimination: In Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2002), she dissented from the majority’s holding that the NYPD could fire a white employee for distributing racist materials.


As noted in the post below, Judge Sotomayor was twice on panels reversing district court decisions agreeing with race-related claims - i.e., reversing a finding of impermissible race-based decisions. Both were criminal cases involving jury selection.


The numbers relating to unpublished opinions continued to hold as well. In the roughly 55 cases in which the panel affirmed district court decisions rejecting a claim of employment discrimination or retaliation, the panel published its opinion or order only 5 times.

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She participated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.

solid info

wonder how yoni, wc and the rush honks will try to spin this

[ChumpDumper]

It proves she's racist against all races!

[Winehole23]

solid info

wonder how yoni, wc and the rush honks will try to spin thisThey'll just ignore it and keep griping about Ricci.

[Bender]

my complaint is mostly regarding obama. His picking of a hispanic was a good move for him... makes himself look good to a huge base, and the repubs look bad to that same huge base... when they bitch about his pick.

regarding the judge herself, she seems middle of the road in terms of some things I care about, so... could be worse.

[Blake]

my complaint is mostly regarding obama. His picking of a hispanic was a good move for him...

McCain's picking of Palin was a good move for America......right?

[MannyIsGod]

So your beef is that the pick helped Obama even though you have no problems with the pick itself?

:lmao

[Yonivore]

link (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml)



http://roguejew.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/bush_africa-thumb.jpg
I can't find a credible source to confirm this story.

Even the great cesspool of BDS sufferers, DemocratUnderground.com, says Capitol Hill Blue isn't to be believed...even though many of the posters really, really, really, wanted to believe it was.

[Winehole23]

So your beef is that the pick helped Obama even though you have no problems with the pick itself? I thought it was more of an observation. Obama makes a politically astute choice, and the principled opposition makes itself look bad with its criticism of the candidate.

If you're for the principled opposition, this is a disappointing turn of events

[Bender]

So your beef is that the pick helped Obama even though you have no problems with the pick itself?


yep. not sure about sotomayer yet, since I'm not an expert in the field (like others here :rolleyes). It looks like (at least for gun rights and stuff) "could be better, could be worse...").

I'm just not entrenched in the obama camp. the rest of you can sing his praises until the end of time... won't change my opinion.

of course, I haven't liked any president for quite a while... :bang

edit:


I thought it was more of an observation. Obama makes a politically astute choice, and the principled opposition makes itself look bad with its criticism of the candidate.

bingo. (didn't see WH's post before I typed mine).

[PixelPusher]

Obama makes a politically astute choice, and the principled opposition makes itself look bad with its criticism of the candidate.

principled opposition != she's dumb, she's racist, she's an affirmative action puppet, she doesn't save enough money in her bank savings account, she likes puerto rican food...

[Winehole23]

principled opposition != she's dumb, she's racist, she's an affirmative action puppet, she doesn't save enough money in her bank savings account, she likes puerto rican food...Intended as cliche, not analysis. Sessions and Cornyn managed to strike appropriately Senatorial poses, not that they will be much emulated.

[Marcus Bryant]

I can't find a credible source to confirm this story.

Even the great cesspool of BDS sufferers, DemocratUnderground.com, says Capitol Hill Blue isn't to be believed...even though many of the posters really, really, really, wanted to believe it was.

That's rather amusing, considering how you treat the penny ante blogs you plagiarize as the Gospel Truth.

[Yonivore]

That's rather amusing, considering how you treat the penny ante blogs you plagiarize as the Gospel Truth.
Really? Give me an example of when I've done that.

[Marcus Bryant]

Really? Give me an example of when I've done that.

Post #291. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3433654&postcount=291)

[Yonivore]

Post #291. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3433654&postcount=291)
Ackarman did those things.

[LnGrrrR]

It's one thing to have questions about decisions that are tough ones to make. Obama's pick is a bad one, simply because there is no excuse for the overt abuse of her power.

It's plain as day she is an activist judge. Justice is suppose to be blind to emotion, and be based on facts. Anyone who thinks she is a good pick placed agenda above integrity.

How do you live with yourselves?

How is she an activist judge? You saw her case record... in how many cases is she advocating for overturning a law?

[LnGrrrR]

Coming back inside, I was able to quickly find this:


Too many wrong decisions. Not gray, but flat out wrong.

Link: Inside Sotomayor's Judicial Record (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523077,00.html?sPage=fnc/us/supremecourt); Friday, May 29, 2009

You're a putz. FWDT already noted in another thread that the average SCOTUS turnover was around 75% IIRC.

So what, you expect a nominee who's never had a case overturned by SCOTUS? What are you LOOKING for?

Let's see your criteria for a judge. You already tried to make the fact that she got overturned unanimously a criteria against her and got owned all over the thread.

Cmon, give us the criteria.

[LnGrrrR]

Yoni, what about the Pappas case?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/01/sotomayor/

[Yonivore]

Yoni, what about the Pappas case?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/01/sotomayor/
I've never accused her of "disregarding the law" in favor of racism. She'd be an imbecile -- certainly unworthy of nomination -- if that were true.

What I'm accusing her of, as is the dissenting judge Cabranes, and the Obama DOJ with their amicus brief, is not considering the clear and present constitutional issue that had never been taken up by the court; and of failing to view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.

I think she did this because of a mindset that whites cannot be discriminated against. I think this is wrong and I think it belies racist thinking.

In short, it never occurred to her -- and she either ignored or resisted the Cabranes dissent -- that by failing to certify the unbiased, race-neutral firefighter's exam, resulting in the failure to promote a mostly white group of men who passed the test (in deference to a group of black men, none of whom passed the test), is racist.

It was Cabranes opinion, and the Obama DOJ's, that a core constitutional question was present and that certain statutory questions were not answered. It was also Cabranes opinion that by summarily finding for the defense and, completely incorporating the lower court's ruling, the 2nd Circuit had introduced some pretty shoddy jurisprudence into case law.

Yeah, I think she was either lazy or let her prejudices rule the day...that day.

[ChumpDumper]

So she's not activist enough for you. We get it.

[LnGrrrR]

I've never accused her of "disregarding the law" in favor of racism. She'd be an imbecile -- certainly unworthy of nomination -- if that were true.

What I'm accusing her of, as is the dissenting judge Cabranes, and the Obama DOJ with their amicus brief, is not considering the clear and present constitutional issue that had never been taken up by the court; and of failing to view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.

I think she did this because of a mindset that whites cannot be discriminated against. I think this is wrong and I think it belies racist thinking.

In short, it never occurred to her -- and she either ignored or resisted the Cabranes dissent -- that by failing to certify the unbiased, race-neutral firefighter's exam, resulting in the failure to promote a mostly white group of men who passed the test (in deference to a group of black men, none of whom passed the test), is racist.

It was Cabranes opinion, and the Obama DOJ's, that a core constitutional question was present and that certain statutory questions were not answered. It was also Cabranes opinion that by summarily finding for the defense and, completely incorporating the lower court's ruling, the 2nd Circuit had introduced some pretty shoddy jurisprudence into case law.

Yeah, I think she was either lazy or let her prejudices rule the day...that day.

Ok, I can see your point now. I respectfully disagree but at least you clearly spelled it out. :tu

[Yonivore]

Ok, I can see your point now. I respectfully disagree but at least you clearly spelled it out. :tu
No problem. Reasonable people do, on occasion, disagree.