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

[JoeChalupa]

Will it be a woman? I think it very well could be.

A moderate or a more progressive pick? I'm going with Fed Judges Sonia Sotomayor or Diane Wood.

[JoeChalupa]

Looks like Sonia Sotomayor will be the pick as it is being reported by AP and I just heard it on Morning Joe.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

:corn:
this should be fun.
ug-qUvI6WFo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-qUvI6WFo

[LnGrrrR]

No matter who it is, the person is going to get ripped by the Republicans who will make a big show of it, and then the Dems will get him/her passed anyways.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

hispanic? :nope
latino. yes

ZmHACG6LdM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZmHACG6LdM

[JoeChalupa]

No matter who it is, the person is going to get ripped by the Republicans who will make a big show of it, and then the Dems will get him/her passed anyways.

I think if Republicans want to make any gains with Hispanics they won't attack so harshly but we'll have to wait and see.

[JoeChalupa]

hispanic? :nope
latino. yes

ZmHACG6LdM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZmHACG6LdM

:lmao

[Rogue]

I wish the nominee would be Halle Berry, though that seems a little bit far from realism considering Obama's prejudice on the black people, even though Halle Berry is only half black just like Obama himself.

[FaithInOne]

I think if Republicans want to make any gains with Hispanics they won't attack so harshly but we'll have to wait and see.

I remember how eloquently C. Thomas was treated by the left :toast

Too bad republicans haven't attempted to make an entire race dependent on the government :depressed

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's a good day when Fox News and the resident conservatives are in a tizzy..! Great job President Obama!

[JoeChalupa]

I remember how eloquently C. Thomas was treated by the left :toast

Too bad republicans haven't attempted to make an entire race dependent on the government :depressed

They didn't have the votes to block Clarence Thomas just as republicans don't have them to block this one.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Clarence Thomas liked pubic hair in his coke cans, what can you say to that?

[doobs]

No matter who it is, the person is going to get ripped by the Republicans who will make a big show of it, and then the Dems will get him/her passed anyways.

Have the Republicans ever done that to a Supreme Court nominee?

[Extra Stout]

She was a frontrunner for the pick, yet Republicans don't seem to have a lot of attacks ready. It's as if they were more concerned about the other candidates, which makes me think she was the safe pick for Obama.

In a day or two she of course will have been thoroughly vilified as an extremist, but based upon the initial response, my guess is that she gets confirmed fairly easily.

[George Gervin's Afro]

She was a frontrunner for the pick, yet Republicans don't seem to have a lot of attacks ready. It's as if they were more concerned about the other candidates, which makes me think she was the safe pick for Obama.

In a day or two she of course will have been thoroughly vilified as an extremist, but based upon the initial response, my guess is that she gets confirmed fairly easily.

I have a prediction folks..the right wing will call her a radical.. mark my words folks..

[Extra Stout]

I have a prediction folks..the right wing will call her a radical.. mark my words folks..
It is the job of the opposition to oppose...

[Wild Cobra]

No matter who it is, the person is going to get ripped by the Republicans who will make a big show of it, and then the Dems will get him/her passed anyways.
probably so, because President Obama will likeliy pick someone who wants to make policy...

Funny, didn't she acknowledge that is what happens? See the first YOUTUBE clip?

Yes, the republicans will rip her, for that reason, if not others.

I think if Republicans want to make any gains with Hispanics they won't attack so harshly but we'll have to wait and see.
Why are you making this an issue of racism? You a racist?

[JoeChalupa]

probably so, because President Obama will likeliy pick someone who wants to make policy...

Funny, didn't she acknowledge that is what happens? See the first YOUTUBE clip?

Yes, the republicans will rip her, for that reason, if not others.

Why are you making this an issue of racism? You a racist?

Racism? My point is that republicans lost some of the gains they had made under Bush with the Hispanic vote during the last election. It is politics is what I'm saying. She'll be confirmed.

[LnGrrrR]

Have the Republicans ever done that to a Supreme Court nominee?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any to be honest. Most of the examples are of Democratic obstruction. It's probably happened.

My opinion/assessment is based on the fact that Republicans have tended to obstruct Dems over the past two years when they held Congress, and that the Right-Wing was up in arms about blocking any slightly liberal candidate before he/she was even picked.

[LnGrrrR]

probably so, because President Obama will likeliy pick someone who wants to make policy...

Funny, didn't she acknowledge that is what happens? See the first YOUTUBE clip?

Yes, the republicans will rip her, for that reason, if not others.

Were you aware of the context behind the statement?

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/05/more-republican-judicial-clowning.html

Please read/skim and then tell me if you think she was in the wrong. :)

[George Gervin's Afro]

were you aware of the context behind the statement?

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/05/more-republican-judicial-clowning.html

please read/skim and then tell me if you think she was in the wrong. :)

+1

[Wild Cobra]

Were you aware of the context behind the statement?

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/05/more-republican-judicial-clowning.html

Please read/skim and then tell me if you think she was in the wrong. :)
I say she's wrong. It should not be a lower courts job to make a decision based differently than the supreme court will base it on.

[ChumpDumper]

I say she's wrong. It should not be a lower courts job to make a decision based differently than the supreme court will base it on.Until the higher courts actually make a decision, that is a distinct possibility since the scope of the lower courts decisions is much more narrow.

[Wild Cobra]

Until the higher courts actually make a decision, that is a distinct possibility since the scope of the lower courts decisions is much more narrow.
It should still be based on law. Not activism.

[ChumpDumper]

It should still be based on law. Not activism.Buzzword!

Seriously, you just want your kind of activism in the court.

If you are really serious about that kind of crap, you would be calling for a different system of law.

[LnGrrrR]

It should still be based on law. Not activism.

The very point of those courts is that the LAW is not clear. Therefore, the courts job is to MAKE the laws clear. They MAKE the laws clear through ruling one way or another, setting precedent.

Their decisions are based on law. They are ACTIVELY determining the law in these cases, because the LAW can not be specific enough to determine every case that might arise from its execution.

Did I explain it clearly enough?

[Bender]

my Representative isn't crazy about the choice.


Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, in a written statement, said Tuesday he's concerned Sotomayor has shown "personal bias based on ethnicity and gender."

"Judge Sotomayor will need to reassure the country that she will set aside her biases, uphold the rule of law and interpret the Constitution as written, not as she believes it should have been written," said Smith, who will have no vote in the matter, as the confirmation is a Senate matter.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/26/sotomayors-judicial-record-battlefield-critics-advocates/

Like we really need someone with an agenda sitting on the SC...

[ChumpDumper]

That was the Republibot response. He's probably never heard of her.

[DarrinS]

That was the Republibot response. He's probably never heard of her.


I never heard of her, but she was obviously the MOST qualified person for the job.

[ChumpDumper]

So who is?

Someone else you've never heard of, to be sure.

[DarrinS]

So who is?

Someone else you've never heard of, to be sure.


No, I'm serious. 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.

[Wild Cobra]

She believes in reverse discrimination.

Fireman case anyone?

[ChumpDumper]

No, I'm serious. 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.No, I'm serious. What the hell does that mean?

She believes in reverse discrimination.

Fireman case anyone?Buzzword!

But a horrible example.

[clambake]

She believes in reverse discrimination.

Fireman case anyone?

prove it dickhead

[TheProfessor]

I never heard of her, but she was obviously the MOST qualified person for the job.
How many sitting federal appellate judges are you familiar with? She has excellent credentials. As far as politics go, Republicans weren't going to do much better. She'll be confirmed easily.

[ChumpDumper]

Ivy League undergrad and law, Manhattan prosecutor, corporate litigator, appellate judge for a decade -- that's a pretty substantial CV. I mean she's no Harriet Miers, but I think she'll be able to do the job well.

[ploto]

I remember how eloquently C. Thomas was treated by the left

The woman making claims against Thomas was African American

[ploto]

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.

Do you even know the context of that statement?

[gtownspur]

The woman making claims against Thomas was African American

and paula white was white.

[Yonivore]

She's a judicial lightweight who's had roughly 80% of the decisions, appealed out of her court, reversed.

She thinks the court makes "policy" (or law) to achieve social justice.

She's a judicial activist in favor of racial discrimination...for the right races, that is.

She'll be confirmed...

[Yonivore]

The woman making claims against Thomas was African American
The woman who made allegations against Justice Thomas has been well compensated for her hit job.

[Yonivore]

Sotomayor: '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'...

Okay, let's try this on someone else...

Roberts: 'I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female'...

Yeah...sounds just as bad.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Sotomayor: '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'...

Okay, let's try this on someone else...

Roberts: 'I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female'...

Yeah...sounds just as bad.

why don't you post her whole speech?

[Yonivore]

why don't you post her whole speech?
In what possible context does that statement make sense?

[George Gervin's Afro]

In what possible context does that statement make sense?

Why don't you post the whole speech and let others decide? Are you scared?

[Yonivore]

Why don't you post the whole speech and let others decide? Are you scared?
No. Are your cut and paste skills absent? You post it.

Personally, I think the statement stands alone and, is unchanged, in any context -- particularly where a color-blind jurist should be concerned.

[Yonivore]

Why don't you post the whole speech and let others decide? Are you scared?
This also presumes I'm the sole repository for the speech... Inquiring minds can go read the damn thing for themselves.

[George Gervin's Afro]

This also presumes I'm the sole repository for the speech... Inquiring minds can go read the damn thing for themselves.

So if out of proper context it doesn't sound as good.

:rolleyes

[Yonivore]

So if out of proper context it doesn't sound as good.

:rolleyes
It doesn't sound good in any context. Go ahead, put it back in the context of her speech about how ethnicity and sex, in her words, "...may and will make a difference in our judging."

I thought justice wore a blindfold for a reason.

According to the article from where I pulled the quote, Sotomayor was speaking about the impact of ethnicity and sex on judging and was, by way of the quote, trying to dispel a notion forwarded by both Justices Ginsberg and O'Connor "...that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases."

So, go ahead, explain why her statement isn't racist.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It doesn't sound good in any context. Go ahead, put it back in the context of her speech about how ethnicity and sex, in her words, "...may and will make a difference in our judging."

I thought justice wore a blindfold for a reason.

According to the article from where I pulled the quote, Sotomayor was speaking about the impact of ethnicity and sex on judging and was, by way of the quote, trying to dispel a notion forwarded by both Justices Ginsberg and O'Connor "...that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases."

So, go ahead, explain why her statement isn't racist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1


Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’
May 14, 2009


The following is the text of the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001, delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, by appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor. It was published in the Spring 2002 issue of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, a symposium issue entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation," and it is reproduced here with permission from the journal.

BY the way Yoni should tell everyone that this was s speech about the Latino presence in the Judiciary. This is page 5 of the speech..


In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.




More Politics News Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, 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 am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

So is she a racist?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.

I am delighted to have been here tonight and extend once again my deepest gratitude to all of you for listening and letting me share my reflections on being a Latina voice on the bench. Thank you.

The speech continued and concluded..

[Yonivore]

So is she a racist?
yes.

Ricci v. DeStefano proves it. Well, that's she's a racist or is incompetent.

You choose.

[George Gervin's Afro]

yes.

Ricci v. DeStefano proves it. Well, that's she's a racist or is incompetent.

You choose.


Care to expound on the case Yoni? Os is that what some right wing blog stated?

Considering the source I say neither. Why don't you refute the whole speech yoni?

[Yonivore]

Considering the source I say neither. Why don't you refute the whole speech yoni?
Because, I have no interest in refuting the speech. I'm interested in how you square her racist statement with the color-blind position of a Supreme Court Justice.

And, actually, it was Judge that overturned her ruling that left the question of competence or racism open. Frankly, he found her one paragraph decision a little lacking, to say the least.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Because, I have no interest in refuting the speech. I'm interested in how you square her racist statement with the color-blind position of a Supreme Court Justice.

And, actually, it was Judge that overturned her ruling that left the question of competence or racism open. Frankly, he found her one paragraph decision a little lacking, to say the least.

You have no interest in having an honest and open debate? Shocking..

[Yonivore]

You have no interest in having an honest and open debate? Shocking..
The speech doesn't change my impression of the quote. Why do you want to talk about the speech -- those are just words without any authority?

Let's talk about her judicial racism (http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzI4ODU1MjIxMThiNGQzODUwYTFlYzNlNWNlOWMzOTc=).. .


A striking opinion this past June by highly regarded Second Circuit judge (and Clinton appointee) José Cabranes exposes some remarkable and disturbing shenanigans by Sotomayor. Cabranes’s opinion, joined by five of his colleagues (including Chief Judge Jacobs), dissented from his court’s narrow 7-6 denial of en banc rehearing in Ricci v. DeStefano. (Cabranes’s opinion begins on the ninth page of this Second Circuit order (http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTQ5OTYtY3Zfb3BuMi5wZGY=/06-4996-cv_opn2.pdf).)

In Ricci, 19 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter charged that New Haven city officials engaged in racially discriminatory practices by throwing out the results of two promotional exams. As Cabranes puts it, “this case presents 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?”

The district judge, Janet Bond Arterton, issued a 48-page summary-judgment order ruling against the firefighters. Summarizing Arterton’s opinion, Cabranes clearly finds highly unusual that Arterton could grant summary judgment for the city officials notwithstanding her acknowledgement that the evidence was sufficient to enable a jury to find that the city officials “were motivated by a concern that too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted.” Further, Cabranes finds it remarkable that such a “path-breaking opinion” was “nevertheless unpublished.”

On appeal, Cabranes’s account indicates, the judicial effort to bury the firefighters’ claims got worse. In a case in which the parties “submitted briefs of eighty-six pages each and a six-volume joint appendix of over 1,800 pages,” in which two amicus briefs were filed, and in which oral argument “lasted over an hour (an unusually long argument in the practice of our Circuit),” the panel, consisting of Sotomayor and fellow Clinton appointees Rosemary Pooler and Robert Sack, “affirmed the District Court’s ruling in a summary order containing a single substantive paragraph”—which Cabranes quotes in full and which gives the reader virtually no sense of what the case is about. Four months later, just three days before Cabranes issued his opinion—and after the panel evidently knew that it had evaded en banc review—“the panel withdrew its summary order and published a per curiam opinion that contained the same operative text as the summary order, with the addition of a citation to the District Court’s opinion in the Westlaw and LexisNexis databases.” As Cabranes sums it up:


This per curiam opinion adopted in toto the reasoning of the District Court, without further elaboration or substantive comment, and thereby converted a lengthy, unpublished district court opinion, grappling with significant constitutional and statutory claims of first impression, into the law of this Circuit. It did so, moreover, in an opinion that lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal. Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at he core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination.
And then this killer understatement:


This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.
Cabranes and his five colleagues clearly believe that Sotomayor and her panel colleagues acted as they did in order to bury the firefighters’ claims and to prevent en banc and Supreme Court review of them. Cabranes’s opinion expresses his “hope that the Supreme Court will resolve the issues of great significance raised by this case” and his judgment that plaintiffs’ claims are “worthy of [Supreme Court] review.”

Quite an indictment—by a fellow Clinton appointee, no less—of Sotomayor’s unwillingness to give a fair shake to parties whose claims she evidently dislikes. Hardly the mark of a jurist worth serious consideration for the nation’s highest court.
R-A-C-I-S-T

[George Gervin's Afro]

the speech doesn't change my impression of the quote. Why do you want to talk about the speech -- those are just words without any authority?

Let's talk about her judicial racism (http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=nzi4odu1mjixmthingqzoduwytflyznlnwnlowmzotc=).. .


R-a-c-i-s-t

n-a-t-i-o-n-a-l
r-e-v-i-e-w

[Yonivore]

'He Is Latino'
Why Dems borked Estrada, in their own words. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004305)


Saturday, November 15, 2003 12:01 A.M. EST

Now that the Senate has concluded its 30-hour talkathon on judicial filibusters, we thought readers might like to peer inside the filibustering Democratic mind, such as it is.

This plunge into the murky deep comes from staff strategy memos we've obtained from the days when Democrats ran the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2001-02. Or, rather, appeared to run the committee. Their real bosses are the liberal interest groups that more or less tell the Senators when to sit, speak and roll over--and which Bush judges to confirm or not. Here are some excerpts:

November 6, 2001/To: Senator Dick Durbin

"You are scheduled to meet with leaders of several civil rights organizations to discuss their serious concerns with the judicial nomination process. The leaders will likely include: Ralph Neas (People For the American Way), Kate Michelman (NARAL), Nan Aron (Alliance for Justice), Wade Henderson (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights), Leslie Proll (NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund), Nancy Zirkin (American Association of University Women), Marcia Greenberger (National Women's Law Center), and Judy Lichtman (National Partnership). . . .

". . . The primary focus will be on identifying the most controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees. The groups would like to postpone action on these nominees until next year, when (presumably) the public will be more tolerant of partisan dissent."

November 7, 2001/To: Senator Durbin

"The groups singled out three--Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)--as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."

February 28, 2002/To: SENATOR [Kennedy]

"Ralph Neas called to let us know that he had lunch with Andy Stern of SEIU. Andy wants to be helpful as we move forward on judges, and he has great contacts with Latino media outlets . . ."

April 17, 2002/To: SENATOR [Kennedy]

"Elaine Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund tried to call you today. . . . Elaine would like the Committee to hold off on any 6th Circuit nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education is decided by the en banc 6th Circuit. . . . The thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program, but if a new judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able, under 6th Circuit rules, to review the case and vote on it."

June 12, 2002/To: SENATOR (Kennedy)

"...Ultimately, if [Chairman Pat] Leahy insists on having an August hearing, it appears that the groups are willing to let [Timothy] Tymkovich [10th Circuit] go through (the core of the coalition made that decision last night, but they are checking with the gay rights groups)."

Mr. Tymkovich apparently got the gay OK.
Don't worry, I don't think Republicans would stoop to such racist tactics.

But, in other news -- rumors abound that there may be up to 9 Democrats ready to vote no on Sotomayor...

Robert "Sheets" Byrd, paragon of racial equality, is among them.

SonOfDeepThroat (http://twitter.com/SonOfDeepThroat)

Only a rumor, mind you...but, heh, would that it be true... First, you have Democrats squabbling over whether or not the CIA lies and now, they'll be squabbling over whether or not "latinos" are allowed in the Supreme Court.

I can see Byrd now, "Goddamnit, I thought we decided no Latinos when we fought the Estrada nomination..."

[Yonivore]

n-a-t-i-o-n-a-l
r-e-v-i-e-w
The order and Judge Cabranes are quoted. The article contains the Court Record, you imbecile.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The order and Judge Cabranes are quoted. The article contains the Court Record, you imbecile.


I didn't read anywhere that she was racist? Did I miss that?

Wall Street Journal opinion piece.. Let me go run and get a NY Times opinion piece to back my position...:rolleyes

[Yonivore]

I didn't read anywhere that she was racist? Did I miss that?

Wall Street Journal opinion piece.. Let me go run and get a NY Times opinion piece to back my position...:rolleyes
Yes, you did. But, I did allow, the decision that clearly upheld a racist finding by the District Court (that the city could disallow an exam because not enough minorities would be promoted) could have been due to incompetence.

[Yonivore]

Wall Street Journal opinion piece.. Let me go run and get a NY Times opinion piece to back my position...:rolleyes
Please do. I think you'll find, as I did, that the New York Times opinion piece calls the Ricci case "Sotomayor's Mystery" case; and, is very vague on the substance of the case...much as Cabranes accused Sotomayor of being in her decision.

[Yonivore]

I'm sorry, that was Slate. The New York Times Editorial opinion doesn't mention Ricci.

[hope4dopes]

The speech doesn't change my impression of the quote. Why do you want to talk about the speech -- those are just words without any authority?

Let's talk about her judicial racism (http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzI4ODU1MjIxMThiNGQzODUwYTFlYzNlNWNlOWMzOTc=).. .


R-A-C-I-S-T



O.K. Yoni sit down I thought we went through this already..... Jerimiah Wright is not an anti-semetic racist asshole.Bill ayers is not a self admitted terrorist he's a kindigarten teacher.Rashid Khalidi was not a spokesman for the PLO,The sky isn't blue and bears don't shit in the woods. Wow a 20 year old disciple of Rev. Wright appoints a racist to the supreme court what a surprise.:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

The left just doesn't get it, or they do and they approve of a judge that will make bad ruling.

[Marcus Bryant]

Within 12 hours we have all kinds of sound bite experts on her jurisprudence.

[Marcus Bryant]

I have a prediction folks..the right wing will call her a radical.. mark my words folks..

That's standard for the right and left.

[Marcus Bryant]

She's a judicial lightweight who's had roughly 80% of the decisions, appealed out of her court, reversed.

She thinks the court makes "policy" (or law) to achieve social justice.

She's a judicial activist in favor of racial discrimination...for the right races, that is.

She'll be confirmed...

So now we worry about "activist" interpretations of the Constitution.

[FromWayDowntown]

"She's unqualified!" screams a chorus that thought Harriet Miers would have made a fine Supreme Court justice.

Personally, I don't have an opinion on Sotomayor yet. I'll say, however, that I think the Slate blurb referenced above strikes me as a bit misleading about Sotomayor, if only because (from what I can tell), there's no indication that she was anything other than on the panel in that case. I don't take from the piece that Sotomayor was identified as the author of the opinion -- and so indicating would be strange because a per curiam opinion is generally an anonymous opinion for the entire panel -- and if she wasn't the actual author of the opinion, then attributing the procedural criticisms of that opinion to her would be inaccurate, I think.

Moreover, at worst, she's agreed with the majority of a court that split 7-6 in a case that is likely to divide the United States Supreme Court 5-4. It's not as if the conclusion that Judge Sotomayor ultimately voted for (regardless of who authored the underlying opinion) is obviously contrary to some settled standard of law -- at least it's not well-settled among some of the great legal minds in this country. In fact, as I just heard Walter Dellinger note, her conclusion is actually an act of judicial restraint insofar as it upholds the decision of a lower court, which upholds the decision of a local policy-making body.

[FromWayDowntown]

So now we worry about "activist" interpretations of the Constitution.

Only liberally-oriented activism, though.

Conservative activism is always welcome.

[SnakeBoy]

I didn't read anywhere that she was racist? Did I miss that?


That's what Rush said today on his show so that's why they are repeating it.

Republicans are looking stupid today by instantly opposing her nomination. She's clearly a hell of alot more qualified Harriet Myers so they ought to at least keep their mouth shut and learn more details about her judicial record before getting up in arms. Especially since this doesn't change the balance of the court.

[Obstructed_View]

I actually like her, but I'd definitely like to hear her explanation for her quote in California and for throwing that case out. Judges are going to make mistakes from time to time, or to have a point of view that might not be immediately obvious to those of us that don't know all the nuances of the case. I've only heard one side of that case so far, and it's the losing side, so naturally they're going to have a beef and be vocal. I can certainly understand how those two things taken at face value can be seen as racist if there's not something more to it as the details emerge. I wouldn't accept someone believing that their opinion was somehow more important than everyone else's simply because of their background, their gender or their race. I'd be damn frightened to have someone that thought that way applying the constitution to legal issues for 400 million people.

As far as the "making policy" quote, it's not nearly as incendiary as one would think once you hear it. When an appeals court makes a decision, it sets a precedent and becomes policy. I think that's all she was saying. She knew it had the potential to be taken out of context when she said it, and she made a joke about it.

[LnGrrrR]

It doesn't sound good in any context. Go ahead, put it back in the context of her speech about how ethnicity and sex, in her words, "...may and will make a difference in our judging."

I thought justice wore a blindfold for a reason.

According to the article from where I pulled the quote, Sotomayor was speaking about the impact of ethnicity and sex on judging and was, by way of the quote, trying to dispel a notion forwarded by both Justices Ginsberg and O'Connor "...that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases."

So, go ahead, explain why her statement isn't racist.

Well, for instance, I'm sure if blacks were on the court back in the day, they might have disagreed with Dred Scott. But I guess you'd call those blacks 'racist'. :lol

[DarrinS]

Liberals care more about women and minorities.


As long as they're liberal women and minorities.

[Wild Cobra]

I would really like to see someone who hasn't made so many bad rulings.

How many cases has the supreme court reversed of hers, and President Obama wants to put here there?

This is absolutely ridiculous.

[clambake]

please shut up

[ChumpDumper]

I would really like to see someone who hasn't made so many bad rulings.

How many cases has the supreme court reversed of hers, and President Obama wants to put here there?

This is absolutely ridiculous.What is the average reversal rate for CoA decisions?

Give us a baseline, counselor.

[FromWayDowntown]

I would really like to see someone who hasn't made so many bad rulings.

How many cases has the supreme court reversed of hers, and President Obama wants to put here there?

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Of hers? Of the cases in which she's actually written the opinion that's been subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court?

That number would be 3. Three reversals in 6 cases that the Supreme Court has taken. She's 50% in being affirmed by the Supreme Court on opinions that she's written and that they've actually considered on something other than a summary basis.

For what it's worth, the Court's reversal rate for the last 3 terms hovers around 75% and since the end of World War II, that reversal rate is generally in the high 60's or low 70's. Statistically, she's decidedly on the good side of that number.

I'm not sure how it's "absolutely ridiculous" to appoint a judge whose reversal rate is strikingly below the Supreme Court average over the handful of almost 400 written opinions that the Court even thinks should be reviewed.

[LnGrrrR]

I would really like to see someone who hasn't made so many bad rulings.

How many cases has the supreme court reversed of hers, and President Obama wants to put here there?

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Do you KNOW how many cases the Supreme Court has reversed? Could you please provide proof?

And if you REALLY wanted to do your homework, pick one or two other SCOTUS Judges before they were nominated, and see what the number of their reversed cases were.

[LnGrrrR]

Ha! Nevermind. FWDT did your homework for you. Let's see how big this football field gets with the next goalpost movement.

[George Gervin's Afro]

WASHINGTON – The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday he doesn't foresee a filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, even though he thinks her legal philosophy should be closely examined.

"The nominee has serious problems," Sen. Jeff Sessions said in a nationally broadcast interview. "But I would think that we would all have a good hearing, take our time, and do it right. And then the senators cast their vote up or down based on whether or not they think this is the kind of judge that should be on the court."

"I don't sense a filibuster in the works," the Alabama Republican said, after President Barack Obama's call for the Senate to install his history-making choice of the 54-year-old Sotomayor to succeed Justice David Souter on the high court. She would be the first Hispanic justice to serve there.

But.but,but she's a racist Jeff!

sincerely,

yonivore

[Wild Cobra]

For what it's worth, the Court's reversal rate for the last 3 terms hovers around 75% and since the end of World War II, that reversal rate is generally in the high 60's or low 70's. Statistically, she's decidedly on the good side of that number.

The reversal rate is so high because they pick which cases to take. They don't take all that are requested.

3 in 6 is statistically insignificant. Not enough data points. If she understands the law rather than applying personal opinion, her reversal shouldn't be that high. This will soon be 4 reversals in 7 anyway.

Besides, do you want a supreme court that has members who only get it right half the time? They are suppose to be the cream of the crop. Not a choice for political reasons.

[ChumpDumper]

The reversal rate is so high because they pick which cases to take. They don't take all that are requested.

3 in 6 is statistically insignificant. Not enough data points. If she understands the law rather than applying personal opinion, her reversal shouldn't be that high. This will soon be 4 reversals in 7 anyway.

Besides, do you want a supreme court that has members who only get it right half the time? They are suppose to be the cream of the crop. Not a choice for political reasons.So what is the reversal rate of all the other SCOTUS justices?

Surely you have already made the comparisons and aren't just making shit up, so give us the data.

[JoeChalupa]

She'll be confirmed.

[JoeChalupa]

Conservatives or yonivorians want things their way and no other way.

[FromWayDowntown]

The reversal rate is so high because they pick which cases to take. They don't take all that are requested.

3 in 6 is statistically insignificant. Not enough data points. If she understands the law rather than applying personal opinion, her reversal shouldn't be that high. This will soon be 4 reversals in 7 anyway.

Besides, do you want a supreme court that has members who only get it right half the time? They are suppose to be the cream of the crop. Not a choice for political reasons.

And of course the Supreme Court generally grants review to reverse -- hence the high reversal rate. What's statistically significant, though, is that of the 400 or so cases that she's written, only 6 have even warranted review (though, by way of disclosure, I'm not sure yet in how many of those certiorari was actually sought) and only 3 of those have resulted in reversals. You're right that 3 in 6 is statistically insignificant; but 3 in almost 400 is rather statistically significant, one would think.

Moreover, it's not as if she's been reversed unanimously in the cases that the Court has reviewed (although there appears to have been one case that met that fate). If her opinions are being reversed 5-4 or 6-3 it sure sounds as though there are reasonable grounds for disagreement on difficult questions of law (the Supreme Court doesn't review facts and rarely takes easy legal questions) where there is substantial disagreement about what the law is and support for her conclusion.

I'm still looking for the reversal rates of Justices Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts when each of them sat on the courts of appeals, if only to have a point of comparison.

[Wild Cobra]

And of course the Supreme Court generally grants review to reverse -- hence the high reversal rate. What's statistically significant, though, is that of the 400 or so cases that she's written, only 6 have even warranted review (though, by way of disclosure, I'm not sure yet in how many of those certiorari was actually sought) and only 3 of those have resulted in reversals. You're right that 3 in 6 is statistically insignificant; but 3 in almost 400 is rather statistically significant, one would think.

Moreover, it's not as if she's been reversed unanimously in the cases that the Court has reviewed (although there appears to have been one case that met that fate). If her opinions are being reversed 5-4 or 6-3 it sure sounds as though there are reasonable grounds for disagreement on difficult questions of law (the Supreme Court doesn't review facts and rarely takes easy legal questions) where there is substantial disagreement about what the law is and support for her conclusion.

I'm still looking for the reversal rates of Justices Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts when each of them sat on the courts of appeals, if only to have a point of comparison.
First off, your response is not quite in line with my intent. Now I assume your numbers are right about the high 60's to 70's percents. I'm saying that is a meaningless comparison as well, because not all cases are reviewed.

As for the cases reviewed, at least one of them was unanimous. That should be significant when even all the lefties reverse a ruling.

Would you agree that 50% is a poor track record to be appointed to the highest court? Any of those 60% to 70% people been nominated even?

Why does President Obama want to make himself appear even more of a joke than people already see him as?

[ChumpDumper]

First off, your response is not quite in line with my intent. Now I assume your numbers are right about the high 60's to 70's percents. I'm saying that is a meaningless comparison as well, because not all cases are reviewed.

As for the cases revered, at least one of them as unanimous. That should be significant when even all the lefties reverse a ruling.

Would you agree that 50% is a poor track record to be appointed to the highest court? Any of those 60% to 70% people been nominated even?

Why does President Obama want to make himself appear even more of a joke than people already see him as?Why do you keep spouting off stats for one person with no comparison at all to make them relevant?

Why do you want to make yourself appear even more of a joke than people already see you as?

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you keep spouting off stats for one person with no comparison at all to make them relevant?

If you have relative stats, let's see them.

[ChumpDumper]

If you have relative stats, let's see them.I already asked you for them, stat boy.

You don't understand how this works, do you?

[Wild Cobra]

I already asked you for them, stat boy.

You don't understand how this works, do you?
Yes, I do understand how a slimball like you works.

Guess what. I haven't looked them up. I am more concerned about the latest case about to be unanimously reversed (yes my opinion) because it is reverse racism, and the fact she has had at least one other opinion unanomously reversed. Not a 5-4 decision.

You see, she has to be legally incompetent, to have such a reversal. Because of that, I really don't care about the other statistical facts.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

Changing the subject is probably a good idea at this point.

Why did you argue your unsupported position so strongly just to run away from it like a pussy?

[ChumpDumper]

You see, she has to be legally incompetent, to have such a reversal.Nah. There are many reasons a decision can be unanimously reversed. If one of those reversals called her legally incompetent in writing, then you might have something.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

Changing the subject is probably a good idea at this point.

Why did you argue your unsupported position so strongly just to run away from it like a pussy?
There you go, being an ass again.

I told you. I don't care about the stats. I care about how complete her decision was overturned.

Why do you keep spouting off stats for one person with no comparison at all to make them relevant?I responded to FWD's stats. I don't care about comparisons. I think 50% is simply too high. Especially when any of the reversals are unanimous.

Show me where I said the relative stats are important? I'm not comparing her to anyone. Just the fact she's not qualified in my opinion. I must state that, because there are few legal qualifications.

[Wild Cobra]

Nah. There are many reasons a decision can be unanimously reversed. If one of those reversals called her legally incompetent in writing, then you might have something.
Believe as you wish. I do not want a court appointee who's peers have unanimously overturned one of her opinions.

[ChumpDumper]

There you go, being an ass again.

I told you. I don't care about the stats. I care about how complete her decision was overturned.
I responded to FWD's stats. I don't care about comparisons. I think 50% is simply too high. Especially when any of the reversals are unanimous.

Show me where I said the relative stats are important? I'm not comparing her to anyone. Just the fact she's not qualified in my opinion. I must state that, because there are few legal qualifications.:lol

So what are your qualifications and how many justices have met them?

Or did you just start making up the qualifications yesterday?

[ChumpDumper]

Believe as you wish. I do not want a court appointee who's peers have unanimously overturned one of her opinions.So you did this research on all the appointees since you've been voting right?

You've checked all their stats, right?

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

So what are your qualifications and how many justices have met them?

Or did you just start making up the qualifications yesterday?
In my opinion, we clearly have others that shouldn't be there.

That is not my point, nor am I about to entertain you. Give it up.

I am simply saying she should not be chosen because of her poor track record and prejudice. Again, others probably shouldn't be there either under my criteria. Unlikely since what gets me the most is the unanimous nature.

Just because there might be one rotton apple, should we add more?

[FromWayDowntown]

Yes, I do understand how a slimball like you works.

Guess what. I haven't looked them up. I am more concerned about the latest case about to be unanimously reversed (yes my opinion) because it is reverse racism, and the fact she has had at least one other opinion unanomously reversed. Not a 5-4 decision.

You see, she has to be legally incompetent, to have such a reversal. Because of that, I really don't care about the other statistical facts.

That's nonsense - all of it.

First of all, I'm almost 100% sure you're wrong about the pending case; listening last night to a lawyer who regularly advocates before the Supreme Court and knows far more about its justices than either you or I do, I'm convinced that the most likely result is a 5-4 or 6-3 split, either to affirm or reverse on a question that Mr. Dellinger forthrightly called novel and difficult. I'd be curious what -- other than your own hopes -- should make me believe your hunch over Walter Dellinger's.

Second, a judge who is reversed 9-0 isn't incompetent, particularly when the case at hand involves a novel and difficult question of law for which there is no precedent. Intermediate court judges frequently make guesses -- educated guesses based on existing case law (frequently case law that is itself splintered and in conflict) about how a particular issue should be resolved. It's not uncommon for the guesses in such cases to be deemed incorrect or for the Supreme Court to consider other policies in construing the laws at issue in those cases. Was the judge who maintained separate but equal in Brown v. Board of Education before that case was reversed unanimously by the Supreme Court incompetent? I doubt it; he did his best to follow the law as it existed at that time but the Supreme Court disagreed with him, unanimously.

Finally, while we're hung up on 3/6 as a reversal rate, in real terms, that rate is much more like 3/390 -- it's a verifiable fact that she's been reversed in substantially less than 1% of the cases in which she's authored a controlling opinion.

[ChumpDumper]

In my opinion, we clearly have others that shouldn't be there.

That is not my point, nor am I about to entertain you. Give it up.

I am simply saying she should not be chosen because of her poor track record and prejudice. Again, others probably shouldn't be there either under my criteria. Unlikely since what gets me the most is the unanimous nature.

Just because there might be one rotton apple, should we add more?So you just started making up your qualifications yesterday.

Understood.

[FromWayDowntown]

While sitting on the Third Circuit, Samuel Alito was unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (2003).

Clearly, Justice Alito is legally incompetent and should have never been confirmed.

[FromWayDowntown]

When John Roberts was a deputy solicitor general, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected his argument that a Title IX claim cannot properly be one that seeks damages against a discriminatory school.

Clearly, Chief Justice Roberts is legally incompetent and should have never been confirmed.

[DarrinS]

When John Roberts was a deputy solicitor general, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected his argument that a Title IX claim cannot properly be one that seeks damages against a discriminatory school.

Clearly, Chief Justice Roberts is legally incompetent and should have never been confirmed.



Well, Roberts just doesn't have the heart or enough empathy -- well, according to Obama.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGM1Y2U0NTAzMjhkM2NlMGEyNDg2NTQwNzFiNzYxYWQ=





Empathy vs. Impartiality

When they conflict, the Supreme Court must choose the latter.

By Jonah Goldberg

Why make this complicated?

President Obama prefers Supreme Court justices who will violate their oath of office. And he hopes Sonia Sotomayor is the right Hispanic woman for the job. Here’s the oath Supreme Court justices must take:

“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Contrast that with Obama’s insistence that the “quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles” is the key qualification for a Supreme Court justice. According to White House talking points, Judge Sotomayor’s “American story” of humble origins — she was raised in the South Bronx — best prepares her for the high court because it shows “she understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts.”

Obama says law and precedent should determine rulings in “95 percent of the cases,” but in the really hard and important cases, justices should go with their heart. “In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”

Now, keep in mind that 5 percent of Supreme Court cases isn’t everything, but it’s nearly 100 percent of what we argue about as a country. For the hard cases Americans care most about, Obama says empathy should rule.

So, what’s wrong with empathy?

Well, nothing. Empathy is a fine thing, and all decent people should employ it, including Supreme Court justices.

But Obama has something specific in mind when he talks about empathy. He wants the justice’s oath to in effect be rewritten. Judges must administer justice with respect to persons, they must be partial to the poor, and so on.

I don’t think this is open to much debate. When Obama voted against Chief Justice John Roberts’s confirmation, he said that Roberts didn’t have the “heart” to vote the right way in those 5 percent of cases. Rather than Roberts the Cruel, Obama explained, “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 criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges.” Cue Sotomayor the Empathic.

The reasoning here is a riot of dubious assumptions. Obama and Sotomayor both assume that a firsthand understanding of the plight of the poor or the African-American or the gay or the old will automatically result in justices voting a certain (liberal) way. “I would hope,” Sotomayor said in 2001, “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.” This is not only deeply offensive, it is also nonsense on stilts. Clarence Thomas understands what it is like to be poor and black better than any justice who has ever sat on the bench. How’s that working out for liberals?

Of course, liberals say that if you don’t agree with their policy prescriptions on, say, racial quotas or abortion, it’s because you don’t care as much as they do about minorities or women. Which is why they’ve demonized Thomas as a villainous race-traitor. This, too, is aggressively stupid. But even if it were true, why are we talking about policy preferences and the courts? Judges aren’t supposed to have policy preferences, despite Ms. Sotomayor’s insistence that the courts are “where policy is made.”

More important, who says conservatives are against judicial empathy? I, for one, am all for it. I’m for empathy for the party most deserving of justice before the Supreme Court, within the bounds of the law and Constitution. If that means siding with a poor black man, great. If that means siding with a rich white one, that’s great too. The same holds for gays and gun owners, single mothers and media conglomerates. We should all rejoice when justices fulfill their oaths and give everyone a fair hearing, even if that’s now out of fashion in the age of Obama.

[Wild Cobra]

While sitting on the Third Circuit, Samuel Alito was unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (2003).

Clearly, Justice Alito is legally incompetent and should have never been confirmed.
OK, I will backtrack a little here. These cases can get real complicated, especially when dealing with bloated SS regulations. Reading the opinions of both cases was intriguing. I did forget that the judge reviews evidence presented, and seldom finds their own evidence. Changing evidence changes the decision. It would appear we had some incompetent lawyers arguing the case in 2001 (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/294/294.F3d.568.00-3506.html).

Now what you didn't point out is that Alito also wrote the opinion!

Now I'm curious how cut and dry Justice Sotomayor's case was. It appears the facts themselves were properly argued. All I found pertinent so far in Merrill Lynch v. Dabit was a lack of higher court guidance on an issue. Cannot think for herself?

[Wild Cobra]

When John Roberts was a deputy solicitor general, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected his argument that a Title IX claim cannot properly be one that seeks damages against a discriminatory school.

Clearly, Chief Justice Roberts is legally incompetent and should have never been confirmed.
I took too long as it was reviewing the Alito incident. I'm taking a break from that much research for now.

[ChumpDumper]

OK, I will backtrack a little here. These cases can get real complicated:rollin


Now what you didn't point out is that Alito also wrote the opinion!How does that change anything? That fact actually helps his argument.


Now I'm curious how cut and dry Justice Sotomayor's case was. It appears the facts themselves were properly argued. All I found pertinent so far in Merrill Lynch v. Dabit was a lack of higher court guidance on an issue.That means that a higher court had not dealt with that particular issue, so its appearance in her court is quite logical.
Cannot think for herself?In the absence of clear precedent, that is precisely what appellate judges do and precisely what she did in making her decision.

Your misunderstanding of the legal system is always a treat to behold.

[FromWayDowntown]

OK, I will backtrack a little here. These cases can get real complicated, especially when dealing with bloated SS regulations.

So a unanimous reversal in a complicated case is no evidence of incompetence, but a unanimous reversal in a case that you know nothing about legally or factually is clear evidence of incompetence?

Methinks you'd be a results-oriented judge.


Reading the opinions of both cases was intriguing. I did forget that the judge reviews evidence presented, and seldom finds their own evidence. Changing evidence changes the decision. It would appear we had some incompetent lawyers arguing the case in 2001 (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/294/294.F3d.568.00-3506.html).

The Supreme Court didn't change the evidence either. What it concluded was that Alito got the law wrong in applying it to the facts. But since it was a complicated case, I suppose that the unanimous reversal for his failure to properly apply the law is somehow excusable for you.


Now what you didn't point out is that Alito also wrote the opinion!

Of course I pointed that out. In fact, that's precisely what I meant in saying that Alito had been unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court. Saying a judge was reversed means that an opinion that the particular judge authored was overturned.


Now I'm curious how cut and dry Justice Sotomayor's case was. It appears the facts themselves were properly argued. All I found pertinent so far in Merrill Lynch v. Dabit was a lack of higher court guidance on an issue. Cannot think for herself?

Or she made an educated guess, based on what law existed on the issue, and the Supreme Court disagreed when given an opportunity to consider the competing views of the law on the main issues.

Of course, one wonders why getting it wrong when there's a lack of higher court guidance suggests incompetence while getting it wrong when that problem doesn't apparently exist is simply the consequence of dealing with a case burdened by complex law. Again, had Sotomayor written the court of appeals opinion in Thomas and had Alito written the court of appeals opinion that you're hanging Sotomayor with, I suspect your view of those cases would be flipped. Whatever it takes to say that your guy is great and my guy sucks -- principles be damned.

[ChumpDumper]

An interesting take from The American Conservative:

Thoughts On Sotomayor

I haven’t said anything yet on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, and one reason has been that I did not know much about her outside of the Greenwald-Rosen clash a few weeks ago. I’m not sure that I know that much more about her now, but I can say something about the responses to her nomination. It seems somewhat telling that even Rosen, who wrote what Greenwald reasonably regarded as a shabby smear job, presently supports her confirmation. As Noah Millman has observed, the main thing that is regularly included in the charges against her is her position on the Ricci case. Also looming large in the arguments against her are the remarks she made in a speech eight years ago, including this quote:

I would hope [bold mine-DL] that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Apparently, in the same speech, according to National Journal’s Stuart Taylor, “she suggested that “inherent physiological or cultural differences” may help explain why “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” ”

There is a great deal of teeth-gnashing about double standards going on right now. Taylor sums up this complaint:

Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.

What goes unsaid here is that this would be the wrong thing to do, which makes it unclear why Sotomayor should be punished for saying something that does not seem in itself all that objectionable. I agree that a double standard exists, which tells me that we should not apply an unreasonable standard equally, but instead should try to police and stigmatize expression less obsessively. Note also that the supposed “claim of ethnic and gender superiority,” as Taylor puts it, is exceedingly weak, if it is there at all. The first quote can just barely be read this way if you really want to read it that way, and the second does not refer to superiority, but only to difference. Since when have people on the right denied or complained about recognition of the importance of real physiological and cultural differences?

Of course, the first quote expresses at most an aspiration or desire that her kind of experience would make her a better judge. Suppose for a moment that a conservative Catholic man in a similar position said that he hoped that the richness of his religious tradition would inform and shape his judgments that would more often than not help him to make better judgments than someone without that background. Such a person might reasonably and legitimately claim this. No doubt there would be a comparable freak-out in certain circles on the left that theocracy was on the march, while conservatives would declare it outrageous (indeed, the imposition of a religious test!) that anyone would object to a statement about the importance of the man’s faith to his formation and thinking. She is not asserting that Latinas are naturally superior judges, nor is she even saying that they are necessarily better on account of their experiences, but that she hopes that they would be. One might almost think that her recognition that impartiality is something to be pursued, but that it is never fully achievable, would be considered a refreshingly honest admission that judges have biases and are shaped by their past experiences. For a moment, imagine a pious Christian who expressed a similar hope that his faith would make him a better judge than an unbeliever. No doubt this would raise the hackles of all kinds of people, but it would no more make him a religious fanatic than Sotomayor’s rather mild comments make her a “racialist.”

On her vote in the Ricci case, it is fair to conclude that she and her colleagues came to the wrong conclusion as far as doing right by the plaintiff was concerned, but it also seems fair to say that federal law pushed them in the direction of reaching the wrong conclusion. An important point about the case that has been left out in many accounts is this:

In part, the city’s reaction was defensive. Because of the magnitude of the racial disparity on the exams, which would have ensured that white firefighters received the great majority of the promotions, an attorney for the city concluded that there was a strong likelihood of a lawsuit by African American and Latino firefighters if the promotion list generated by the test were used. Since Title VII was signed into law in 1964, it has been illegal for employers to use tests that have an unjustified racially “discriminatory effect.”

What this means is that the appeals court ruled against Ricci because it recognized that New Haven had tried to avoid a lawsuit that would have been possible and likely successful because of current law. In other words, the city tried to avoid falling afoul of the law, and the court did not penalize it for doing so. What is to blame in all of this is the law, rather than the judges who seem to have done what they were supposed to do. Indeed, what some people seem to have wanted to see Sotomayor do is to punish New Haven for trying to stay within the limits of the law, and for failing to do so she is declared to be an enemy of the rule of law. I submit that this doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Perhaps I have missed something, but the injustice done to Ricci seems in no small part to be a product of the law as it exists. However, under current law, even granting that the city of New Haven seems to have bungled the handling of the promotion test for its firefighters, it does not necessarily follow that throwing out the test results from the apparently flawed test was a violation of anyone’s legal rights. Presumably had Sotomayor found for the plaintiff, we would now be hearing about how all that infamous “empathy” caused her to side with the dyslexic man against a municipality–oh, the judicial activism!–and to open the latter up to long and costly litigation (which would, of course, demonstrate her abiding love of greedy trial lawyers, her desire to enrich fellow minorities and her hatred of patriotic firefighters, as so many people would be only too happy to tell us).

P.S. Also note that cheering “when justices fulfill their oaths and give everyone a fair hearing” is basically incompatible with complaining about what Sotomayor and the court did in the Ricci case. We keep hearing about how she thinks judges make policy–but instead, the court she sat on refused to make policy in this instance. Arguably, Ricci is one of those hard cases in which empathy is supposed to be crucial, but instead the result ended up looking a lot more like giving both sides a fair hearing and coming down on the politically incorrect (in the conservative view) side. We keep hearing about the dangers of empathy, but what was the denial of Ricci’s suit except an example of siding with the relatively more powerful (the city government) against the relatively weak (a dyslexic employee)? It seems to me that you can object to her position on Ricci’s suit, but if you do you can’t then say that she is guided by bleeding-heart sentimentality.http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/05/26/thoughts-on-sotomayor/

There will be the usual partisan fussiness, but she'll be approved rather easily barring some kind of personal-life revelation.

[SnakeBoy]

An interesting take from The American Conservative:


Good article. This is why I said those republicans (oops I mean "independent conservatives") that are feigning outrage over her selection just look stupid. She'll be confirmed easily unless something truely devestating turns up on her. I've heard a number of people say that she may end up being considered a moderate or even somewhat conservative justice. Supposedly some on the far left really aren't happy with her.

She seems like a good pick from all I have heard/read so far.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, Roberts just doesn't have the heart or enough empathy -- well, according to Obama.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGM1Y2U0NTAzMjhkM2NlMGEyNDg2NTQwNzFiNzYxYWQ=

Darrin, I know this may be confusing for you, so I'll spell it out.

We are posting evidence that contradicts what WC is saying. FWDT is not saying that is the criteria HE uses to evaluate judges.

WC specifically said that judges who are unanimously overturned are not fit to be SCOTUS Judges. FWDT pointed out that other SCOTUS judges have been unanimously overturned.

[LnGrrrR]

OK, I will backtrack a little here. These cases can get real complicated, especially when dealing with bloated SS regulations. Reading the opinions of both cases was intriguing. I did forget that the judge reviews evidence presented, and seldom finds their own evidence. Changing evidence changes the decision. It would appear we had some incompetent lawyers arguing the case in 2001 (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/294/294.F3d.568.00-3506.html).

Now what you didn't point out is that Alito also wrote the opinion!

Now I'm curious how cut and dry Justice Sotomayor's case was. It appears the facts themselves were properly argued. All I found pertinent so far in Merrill Lynch v. Dabit was a lack of higher court guidance on an issue. Cannot think for herself?

Cmon now, let's not spin the issue!

You said, point blank, you don't want someone who was unanimously reversed. Are you taking that back? Are you flip-flopping?

If so, why should we trust YOUR judgement? You can't even keep your QUALIFICATIONS straight!

[hope4dopes]

Cmon now, let's not spin the issue!

You said, point blank, you don't want someone who was unanimously reversed. Are you taking that back? Are you flip-flopping?

If so, why should we trust YOUR judgement? You can't even keep your QUALIFICATIONS straight!

How ironic, you're the one that's spinning the issue.You're trying to pretend we're discussing the qualifications of a serious constitutional scholar or passionate jurists. What we're discussing is the political appointment of one racist asshole by another racist asshole, to try and legitamize their racisim and build a political base among hispanics and illegal aliens, who they hope they will get amnesty for, and thus ensure a voting block of undereducated, underemployed desprate dolts who they will pander to at the cost of others.ETHNIC politics is one of the planks of the democrat party and it goes all the way back to tammany hall in new york and also to chicago it is how obama got elected by balkanizing people, and calling it diversity or some other such orwellian horseshit.The fact this neanderthal can publicly say that she is more qualified as a judge because she has more melatonin in her skin and has an inny instead of an outy just illustrates how a big enough lie told loud enough and often enough can become the truth.ONCE AGIAN CLASS THIS ISN'T HATE THIS IS DIVERSITY...LOUDER NOW CHILDREN......JIMMY I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR PASSION COME SEE ME AFTER CLASS.

[ChumpDumper]

Nice rant.

What are your qualifications for a justice?

[ploto]

What we're discussing is the political appointment of one racist asshole by another racist asshole

Did you also believe this when George H. W. Bush appointed her to the District Court?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

lol @ republican organizations collecting and spending money to look racist against the biggest minority swing vote bloc in the country

:lmao

Republicans would rather Obama pick a long time crony in late middle age that has absolutely no experience in law, no law degree, no judge experience, then have the republicans expose the candidate for being the biggest slap in the face to the intelligence of the American People in the history of modern SC nominations.

[LnGrrrR]

How ironic, you're the one that's spinning the issue.You're trying to pretend we're discussing the qualifications of a serious constitutional scholar or passionate jurists. What we're discussing is the political appointment of one racist asshole by another racist asshole, to try and legitamize their racisim and build a political base among hispanics and illegal aliens, who they hope they will get amnesty for, and thus ensure a voting block of undereducated, underemployed desprate dolts who they will pander to at the cost of others.ETHNIC politics is one of the planks of the democrat party and it goes all the way back to tammany hall in new york and also to chicago it is how obama got elected by balkanizing people, and calling it diversity or some other such orwellian horseshit.The fact this neanderthal can publicly say that she is more qualified as a judge because she has more melatonin in her skin and has an inny instead of an outy just illustrates how a big enough lie told loud enough and often enough can become the truth.ONCE AGIAN CLASS THIS ISN'T HATE THIS IS DIVERSITY...LOUDER NOW CHILDREN......JIMMY I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR PASSION COME SEE ME AFTER CLASS.

Dumbass, read what WC said was his disqualifying reason for not liking the Sotomayer pick. He said it was that she was unanimously reversed. Other judges have been too. Thanks for playing.

She did not say she was more qualified to judge any case. She said her experience would give her a better insight into a specific case. Alito said the same thing about experience, as I pointed out in another thread.

Does it not make sense that judges who have been through life experiences similar to plaintiffs would be more uniquely qualified to understand the plaintiff or defendant?

Also, if you're going to sling the word neanderthal around as a slur, it might help to type properly with a semblance of proper grammar.

[jman3000]

Damn.. the people trying to shit on Sotomayor in this thread are getting their ass handed to them.

[PixelPusher]

:lmao



Grandmother of World's 23rd Best Economist Posthumously Offended by Sonia Sotomayor's Spending Habits; Will Obama Withdraw Nomination? (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/grandmother-of-worlds-23rd-best.html)


:wow


Conservative Whispers To Hill Reporter Of 'Concern' About The Impact Diet Will Have On Her Jurisprudence (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/conservative-whispers-to-hill-reporter-concern-about-the-impact-diet-will-have-on-her-jurisprude.php)

[Wild Cobra]

Cmon now, let's not spin the issue!

You said, point blank, you don't want someone who was unanimously reversed. Are you taking that back? Are you flip-flopping?

If so, why should we trust YOUR judgement? You can't even keep your QUALIFICATIONS straight!
After the evidence presented, I changed my mind. I don't understand the two cases well enough to make a solid decision, but I did state that the lawyers in the Alito ruling did not present a good case to begin with, and the only fault I say was there was no precedent for the Sotomayor ruling. Yes, I'll let Alito off the hook on that one, and maybe Sotomayor, but she had all the facts, and got it wrong. Alito did not have all the facts.

I am uncertain if Sotomayor should be given a pass on it. I'm open to the ruling now, but still think she should have got it right.

[hope4dopes]

Dumbass, read what WC said was his disqualifying reason for not liking the Sotomayer pick. He said it was that she was unanimously reversed. Other judges have been too. Thanks for playing.

She did not say she was more qualified to judge any case. She said her experience would give her a better insight into a specific case. Alito said the same thing about experience, as I pointed out in another thread.

Does it not make sense that judges who have been through life experiences similar to plaintiffs would be more uniquely qualified to understand the plaintiff or defendant?

Also, if you're going to sling the word neanderthal around as a slur, it might help to type properly with a semblance of proper grammar.

Hey dumbshit, the kind of mind that can spout the kind of nonsense she does is not capable of something like an insight.Her life experinces are pedestrian at best despite the media's biased SPIN for everything this dumbcluck obama does.You are mouthing the spin the Media's spewing out right now you are parroting the consent the media is manufacturing right now.Ignore her racist attitudes, ignore she is a bullying dolt on the bench ignore she a mediocre mind, just listen to her STORY her life story,I've heard more interesting life stories at bus stops. Your grammar is wonderfull now attempt thinking.

[Rogue]

...

[ChumpDumper]

You are mouthing the spin the Media's spewing out right now you are parroting the consent the media is manufacturing right now.You are mouthing the spin the right wing media's spewing out right now you are parroting the bullshit the right wing media is manufacturing right now.[sic]

Seriously, you never heard of this woman before Souter's announcement. Don't pretend you aren't working off someone else's talking points.

[LnGrrrR]

After the evidence presented, I changed my mind. I don't understand the two cases well enough to make a solid decision, but I did state that the lawyers in the Alito ruling did not present a good case to begin with, and the only fault I say was there was no precedent for the Sotomayor ruling. Yes, I'll let Alito off the hook on that one, and maybe Sotomayor, but she had all the facts, and got it wrong. Alito did not have all the facts.

I am uncertain if Sotomayor should be given a pass on it. I'm open to the ruling now, but still think she should have got it right.

I'll give you credit for changing your mind after reviewing the facts. It'd be nice if you did that BEFOREHAND, but better late than never. :)

[JoeChalupa]

Nothing wrong with changing your mind after reviewing the facts on any subject. The whole flip-flopping argument is lame when one changes due to facts and information.

[LnGrrrR]

Hey dumbshit, the kind of mind that can spout the kind of nonsense she does is not capable of something like an insight.Her life experinces are pedestrian at best despite the media's biased SPIN for everything this dumbcluck obama does.You are mouthing the spin the Media's spewing out right now you are parroting the consent the media is manufacturing right now.Ignore her racist attitudes, ignore she is a bullying dolt on the bench ignore she a mediocre mind, just listen to her STORY her life story,I've heard more interesting life stories at bus stops. Your grammar is wonderfull now attempt thinking.


Pedestrian? Her life experiences are pedestrian?

Hm... let's see... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

Her father died when she was young, and she was raised by her mother in the projects in the Bronx. With hard work, she went to Princeton, and then Yale, and then got selected as an Appeals judge.

But hey, who doesn't grow up in the project, end up graduating from Yale, then be considered a highly regarded Judge? Oh she's BULLYING... what, judges can't assert themselves? Is everyone in the courtroom a pussy besides her?

Get the fuck out of here, you loser douchebag.

[FromWayDowntown]

Nothing wrong with changing your mind after reviewing the facts on any subject. The whole flip-flopping argument is lame when one changes due to facts and information.

I'd actually be more afraid of someone who was unwilling to change his or her mind upon being confronted with additional facts that make an earlier choice seem to have been clearly incorrect.

Steadfastness to a wrong choice sure doesn't strike me as bespeaking great analytical thought or even particularly significant wisdom.

I'd much rather be right after changing my mind than be wrong and never have waivered on my position.

[clambake]

I'd actually be more afraid of someone who was unwilling to change his or her mind upon being confronted with additional facts that make an earlier choice seem to have been clearly incorrect.

Steadfastness to a wrong choice sure doesn't strike me as bespeaking great analytical thought or even particularly significant wisdom.

I'd much rather be right after changing my mind than be wrong and never have waivered on my position.

:tu nice. i see what you did there.

[Homeland Security]

Bitch should be cleaning houses.

[DarrinS]

What does Chuck Shumer look for in a Supreme Court nominee?

x-qyO5aeYfg

[Bender]

her gun rights & 2nd Amendment opinions may be a problem now...

obama picks someone who would be bad for gun owners... who would have thought !?

[ChumpDumper]

her gun rights & 2nd Amendment opinions may be a problem now...

obama picks someone who would be bad for gun owners... who would have thought !?You mean nunchuk owners.

[Bender]

doesn't she believe that the 2nd amendment does NOT apply to the states...? IOW, cities and town can do whatever they want in terms of gun laws.


As gun rights scholar and Independence Institute Research Director Dave Kopel told me via email, Sotomayor's opinions "demonstrate a profound hostility to Second Amendment rights. If we follow Senator Obama's principle that Senators should vote against judges whose views on legal issues are harmful, then it is hard to see how someone who supports Second Amendment rights could vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor."

full Reason article:

http://reason.com/news/show/133722.html

[JoeChalupa]

She'll be confirmed.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm assuming you are referring to the Fox News attempt at making this an issue.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/28/sotomayors-gun-control-positions-prompt-conservative-backlash/


Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.This case was about a local ban on nunchuks.


A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."It certainly is precedent -- from a 1984 appellate court case (United States v. Toner) which itself cited a precedent from 1939 (United States v. Miller). If people really had their panties in a wad over this legal reasoning, they have had seventy years to change the law.

Really, if this disingenuous article, the out of context quote about Latinas and demands for her to change the pronounciation of her name (it's true) are all the right has, this nomination is a sure thing.

[ChumpDumper]

OMG!!!!

Antonin Scalia cited US v. Miller in two separate opinions for the Supreme Court!

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1117/panicyj81uh9.gif

Impeach!

[PixelPusher]

Really, if this disingenuous article, the out of context quote about Latinas and demands for her to change the pronounciation of her name (it's true) are all the right has, this nomination is a sure thing.
Don't forget her love of South American cuisine, which will affect her jurisprudence.

[Bender]

I quickly skimmed thru some of the Fox articles, but I didn't post anything from them.

I thought posting a Reason article would be better... :lol

[Yonivore]

She'll be confirmed.
I said that too, the other day...now, I'm not so sure.

She's got some 'splainin' to do.

Questions are beginning to be raised from the left about her stance on abortion...which, is unknown. And, she being a Catholic, is giving the single-issue Pro-Abortion camp more than a little concern.

And, it doesn't help she's a racist that believes her ethnicity should have any bearing on interpreting the law. It's one thing to be proud of your heritage, quite another to let that be a factor in coloring your decision-making.

If you want to look up to someone that overcame a background full of "rich experiences," look no further than Justice Clarence Thomas. He rose from abject poverty, during a time of hateful and abusive racism -- perpetrated by the likes of Robert "Sheets" Byrd, to become the first Black Justice on the Court.

Was that celebrated by the diversity crowd in the Democratic Party? I don't think so. So, let's get past this identity politics nonsense and really look at her judicial history. And, right now, she's on thin ice with most of the Right and many of the Left.

Her position on the 2nd Amendment has the NRA "gunning" for her, as well.

I wouldn't expect any concerted effort until the confirmation process begins but, I'm sure there'll be plenty leaked from her one-on-ones the Senators in the interim.

[ChumpDumper]

I said that too, the other day...now, I'm not so sure.

She's got some 'splainin' to do.

Questions are beginning to be raised from the left about her stance on abortion...which, is unknown. And, she being a Catholic, is giving the single-issue Pro-Abortion camp more than a little concern.Yeah, demanding to know how a judge will rule in advance always works out.


And, it doesn't help she's a racist that believes her ethnicity should have any bearing on interpreting the law. It's one thing to be proud of your heritage, quite another to let that be a factor in coloring your decision-making.So you still never read the full text of that. Choosing to remain ignorant doesn't help your case.


If you want to look up to someone that overcame a background full of "rich experiences," look no further than Justice Clarence Thomas. He rose from abject poverty, during a time of hateful and abusive racism -- perpetrated by the likes of Robert "Sheets" Byrd, to become the first Black Justice on the Court.Seriously, read the full text.


Was that celebrated by the diversity crowd in the Democratic Party? I don't think so. So, let's get past this identity politics nonsense and really look at her judicial history. And, right now, she's on thin ice with most of the Right and many of the Left.Text. Read.


Her position on the 2nd Amendment has the NRA "gunning" for her, as well.What position? Be specific.


I wouldn't expect any concerted effort until the confirmation process begins but, I'm sure there'll be plenty leaked from her one-on-ones the Senators in the interim.The concerted effort has already begun, doofus -- you are regurgitating them all.

[DarkReign]

Havent read the thread, I know nothing about her.

I care only about the 2nd Amendment.

CD, is she pro- or anti- as the amendment is currently interpreted?

[ChumpDumper]

Havent read the thread, I know nothing about her.

I care only about the 2nd Amendment.

CD, is she pro- or anti- as the amendment is currently interpreted?I haven't seen anything from her that would really change the court one way or another.

The nunchuks case was a loser even in light of the Heller decision since they aren't common self-defense weapons. The ability of the state to regulate with its own laws is fairly well established, but could be more clearly constrained by future court decisions.

[Yonivore]

Havent read the thread, I know nothing about her.

I care only about the 2nd Amendment.

CD, is she pro- or anti- as the amendment is currently interpreted?
I believe her position is that states have the right to statutorily infringe on the 2nd amendment.

From what I understand, the ruling in which she concurred, relied on an 1889 Supreme Court decision that excluded the 2nd amendment from an "incorporation" ruling of an earlier court. But, that the finding completely ignored Heller.

She apparently has no problem with the incorporation of the First amendment -- even those it specifically says "Congress shall make no law...," which to the lawyers I've been reading is more dubious than the wording of the 2nd amendment which pointed states the "right...shall not be abridged..."

Apparently the argument hasn't come up before the court very often but, in light of the Heller case and that the 1889 ruling is probably faulty, and would be decided differently today (especially in light of Heller), the general feeling is that the 2nd Amendment would, in fact, be re-established as being part of the "incorporation" finding.

I'm paraphrasing several different sources but, that's the gist of it.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, demanding to know how a judge will rule in advance always works out.

So you still never read the full text of that. Choosing to remain ignorant doesn't help your case.

Seriously, read the full text.

Text. Read.

What position? Be specific.

The concerted effort has already begun, doofus -- you are regurgitating them all.
I've read the speech and I've read the ruling on Ricci. I'm not persuaded she's not a racist.

I don't think you've seen a concerted effort.

[ChumpDumper]

I believe her position is that states have the right to statutorily infringe on the 2nd amendment.Which is accurate, since they already do and the Supreme Court has affirmed this right as recently as the Heller decision.

[ChumpDumper]

I've read the speech and I've read the ruling on Ricci. I'm not persuaded she's not a racist.That's because your an idiot.


I don't think you've seen a concerted effort.I've seen a bunch of weak shit that won't keep her from being confirmed. Apparently the concerted effort will consist of repeating the weak shit louder.

You're use of capital letters in your other post confirmed that.

[Yonivore]

Which is accurate, since they already do and the Supreme Court has affirmed this right as recently as the Heller decision.
Like I said, it won't help her with Montanans, Democrat Senators in strong gun-rights states, and the NRA is a powerful lobby.

[ChumpDumper]

Like I said, it won't help her with Montanans, Democrat Senators in strong gun-rights states, and the NRA is a powerful lobby.So those people are for the mentally ill and convicted felons possessing assault rifles?

[Bender]

the gun forums I'm a member of are, so far, ambivalent towards her. Many think that she will be "middle of the road" and would not be as bad as the other contenders for the seat. Others think she will be bad for gun owners.

So I am undecided until I know more facts about the whole matter.

I recuse myself from this thread...

[LnGrrrR]

I've read the speech and I've read the ruling on Ricci. I'm not persuaded she's not a racist.

I don't think you've seen a concerted effort.

So, and just to be fair, you're basing this racism on the "better" comment and the Ricci case? You think that's going to convince the Senate she's a racist and not worthy of a pick on the SC?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I've read the speech and I've read the ruling on Ricci. I'm not persuaded she's not a racist.

I don't think you've seen a concerted effort.

Unfortunately Jeff Sessions disagrees with you. you're an idiot.

[Marcus Bryant]

Seven of the nine sitting justices on the Supreme Court were nominated by Republican presidents.

So Obama picks more or less a justice with the ideological background which we would expect. Yet another part of the great Bush 'legacy.'

[Yonivore]

So, and just to be fair, you're basing this racism on the "better" comment and the Ricci case? You think that's going to convince the Senate she's a racist and not worthy of a pick on the SC?


“Every day that goes by that they don’t say she misspoke and she used the wrong words… they just feed it and give it life and give Rush and Hannity more airtime unnecessarily.”
There really is no way to parse this as a judicial statement from Judge Sonia Sotomayor: “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.”

Democrat Davis is asking for a retraction, as is Democrat Chris Lehane: “In this day and age, six or seven or eight weeks is a long time to go without addressing an issue that can potentially take on a life of its own and evolve and grow.”

Conservative Larry Sabato: “Judge Sotomayor would be wise not to tap dance around this. Don’t just ‘clarify’ the statement, take it back.”

The quotes are via Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23053.html).

[ChumpDumper]

So you didn't read the whole statement.

Ignorant.

[Yonivore]

So you didn't read the whole statement.

Ignorant.
I've read the entire speech, the quote is still racist.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah. If it was you would post the entire passage every time -- but lying is what you do.


In our private conversations, Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] 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 am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice [Benjamin] Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

[Marcus Bryant]

As much an identity politics pick as selecting a pro-life Italian-American Catholic for the high court.

[Yonivore]

Nah. If it was you would post the entire passage every time -- but lying is what you do.
Okay, now I've read it again and the quote...


Second, 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.
...is still a racist statement.

[ChumpDumper]

You're still an ignorant liar.

[Yonivore]

You're still an ignorant liar.
So, why don't you enlighten me as to how, even in the context of the entire speech, saying you "hope," (and, in that context the word hope and expect are interchangeable), "a wise latina would make better decisions than a white male," isn't a racist statement.

[ChumpDumper]

So, why don't you enlighten me as to how, even in the context of the entire speech, saying you "hope," (and, in that context the word hope and expect are interchangeable), "a wise latina would make better decisions than a white male," isn't a racist statement.No, "hope" and "expect" are not the same word.

You are lying about that too -- but you are an ignorant liar. It's your thing.

[Yonivore]

No, "hope" and "expect" are not the same word.

You are lying about that too -- but you are an ignorant liar. It's your thing.

Okay, if I said that Tim Duncan could probably skunk me in a pickup game of basketball, would it be fair to say that if you replied, as is possible, "Well, I would hope so!" would be the same as say, "Well, I would expect so!"

That's the context in which I see her using the word "hope"


Second, 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.
And, if you don't agree with my characterization, why would she "hope" this by any other meaning of the word?

[ChumpDumper]

One could certainly hope Tim Duncan would lose to one in a pickup game while not expecting it to happen.

There's your difference.

[Yonivore]

One could certainly hope Tim Duncan would lose to one in a pickup game while not expecting it to happen.

There's your difference.
That doesn't match the context in which she used the word hope. Sorry.

But, let's go with that...why, exactly, would she hope but, not expect, a wise latina woman would render better decisions than a while male? On what is she basing that hope?

[ChumpDumper]

That doesn't match the context in which she used the word hope. Sorry.Sure it did. Sorry you got fucked by your own stupid example.

[Yonivore]

I find it interesting that you continue to argue (and, rather poorly, I might add) the semantics of the particular quote than to explain to me how, in the context of the speech, it's not racist.

Which of her other statements puts the quote in the non-discriminatory light in which you view it? Or, how, in the totality of the speech, does she counter or, better yet, make what she said not mean that she "would hope 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?"

[ChumpDumper]

I find it interesting that you continue to argue (and, rather poorly, I might add) the semantics of the particular quote than to explain to me how, in the context of the speech, it's not racist.All I had to do was post the rest of the passage.

Which I already did.

I find it interesting that you are too stupid to understand.

[Yonivore]

Sure it did. Sorry you got fucked by your own stupid example.
No, it doesn't.

Your example proposes the one hoping is the one playing against Duncan. Her quote proposes that any wise Latina woman would render better decisions than a white male.

Are you suggesting she's self-describing as "wise Latina woman" and hoping, that as such, she'd be able to render better decisions than a white male? And, even if so, how is that not a racist statement?

Ascribing a hope or expectation on the outcome of something that should be void of ethnic or racial influence, such as the law, is -- by definition -- racist. And, I don't care if it is a hope (in your use of the word) or an expectation (in the use I believe she intended it).

[ChumpDumper]

No, it doesn't.Sure it does.

Sorry you don't get it. I can't wave a wand and make you less of an idiot.

[Yonivore]

All I had to do was post the rest of the passage.

Which I already did.

I find it interesting that you are too stupid to understand.
Nothing in the rest of her speech exculpates her.

[ChumpDumper]

Nothing in the rest of her speech exculpates her.There's nothing to exculpate, counselor. There's just you being an idiot.

She'll be confirmed, and you'll keep stealing and lying.

She's better than you.

And you're a white guy.

That's gotta sting.

[Yonivore]

There's nothing to exculpate, counselor. There's just you being an idiot.

She'll be confirmed, and you'll keep stealing and lying.

She's better than you.

And you're a white guy.

That's gotta sting.
I never said she wouldn't be confirmed. But, it's far from certain anymore.

And, just because you dance around and avoid explaining exactly how her statement isn't racist, doesn't mean you successfully argues your point. Calling me an idiot isn't a winner either.

[ChumpDumper]

See ya, Yoni.

I'm going to read a chapter of Great Hopetations.

Keep expect alive!

[DarkReign]

I haven't seen anything from her that would really change the court one way or another.

The nunchuks case was a loser even in light of the Heller decision since they aren't common self-defense weapons. The ability of the state to regulate with its own laws is fairly well established, but could be more clearly constrained by future court decisions.


I believe her position is that states have the right to statutorily infringe on the 2nd amendment.

From what I understand, the ruling in which she concurred, relied on an 1889 Supreme Court decision that excluded the 2nd amendment from an "incorporation" ruling of an earlier court. But, that the finding completely ignored Heller.

She apparently has no problem with the incorporation of the First amendment -- even those it specifically says "Congress shall make no law...," which to the lawyers I've been reading is more dubious than the wording of the 2nd amendment which pointed states the "right...shall not be abridged..."

Apparently the argument hasn't come up before the court very often but, in light of the Heller case and that the 1889 ruling is probably faulty, and would be decided differently today (especially in light of Heller), the general feeling is that the 2nd Amendment would, in fact, be re-established as being part of the "incorporation" finding.

I'm paraphrasing several different sources but, that's the gist of it.


the gun forums I'm a member of are, so far, ambivalent towards her. Many think that she will be "middle of the road" and would not be as bad as the other contenders for the seat. Others think she will be bad for gun owners.

So I am undecided until I know more facts about the whole matter.

I recuse myself from this thread...

Thank you, thank you and thank you.

[FaithInOne]

The gun market can't get any worse. At this point they could outright say they are banning guns in 10 days and the demand for ammo would not even increase :lmao It can't.

:depressed

[Bender]

the republicans are worried about how to attack her now...

they don't want to hurt themselves with the Hispanic vote in the future...

I know I recused myself from this thread, but I meant the gun discussion part of this thread. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

the republicans are worried about how to attack her now...Denigrating Puerto Rican cuisine and demanding she change the pronounciation of her name are clearly winning strategies.

You should really have something more than Fox on your RSS feed.

[Bender]

no RSS stuff for me. I just browse the news on google news occasionally... where ever it may be from.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol ok, it was just funny that the two stories you cited were the first Fox stories on google.

[Bender]

yeah, ha, I just went back and checked where the Republicans worried about alienating the hispanic voter base story came from... yep, fox

[FaithInOne]

No one else finds it pathetic that everyone keeps saying the Reps have to worry about the Hispanic Vote while no one warns the Dems when they bash African and Hispanic SCN's?

Why care about the Hispanic vote when the other side is trying to legalize them all for it.

[ChumpDumper]

No one else finds it pathetic that everyone keeps saying the Reps have to worry about the Hispanic Vote while no one warns the Dems when they bash African and Hispanic SCN's?Which Hispanic SCN did the Democrats bash?

Why care about the Hispanic vote when the other side is trying to legalize them all for it.Huh?

[FaithInOne]

Who was warning the Dems about losing the "moderate" vote when they were bashing Palin in a sexist way about taking on so much responsibility w/ so many kids???

People eat this media driven bullshit hype up so easily. Double standards and hypocrites. Damn it all.

[Oh, Gee!!]

omg--she thinks a woman should be able to reach a better (more equitable?) decision than a man on questions of gender inequality, and that a minority (latina in this case) should be able to reach a better decision than a non-minority on quesions of racial inequality!!! witch!!! witch!!!

maybe she feels that way because somewhere along the way she's been personally affected by both forms of inequality, and because of that she has a strong sense of justice when it comes to those issues. maybe.

[Bender]

that's a dumb statement...

her job is to pass down the letter of the law... not what "she" thinks it should be just because she's a 'minority' and maybe went through stuff that 'normal' people did not have to. Since when is Justice what some minority woman "thinks" it should be.


maybe she feels that way because somewhere along the way she's been personally affected by both forms of inequality, and because of that she has a strong sense of justice when it comes to those issues.
don't they disqualify potential Jurors who might have "personal opinions" on the matter at hand?

[ChumpDumper]

her job is to pass down the letter of the law... not what "she" thinks it should be just because she's a 'minority' and maybe went through stuff that 'normal' people did not have to.Well great, because that's exactly what she said in the rest of that passage that everyone leaves out.

[ChumpDumper]

No one else finds it pathetic that everyone keeps saying the Reps have to worry about the Hispanic Vote while no one warns the Dems when they bash African and Hispanic SCN's?You never said which Hispanic SCN the Democrats bashed.

And you never clarified this:
Why care about the Hispanic vote when the other side is trying to legalize them all for it.

[FaithInOne]

My badz, not SCN

Miguel Estrada
Alberto Gonzales

Clarify what Chumpsta?
Legalizing Illegals to have countless Hispanic generations loyal to the dems.

[Bender]

Well great, because that's exactly what she said in the rest of that passage that everyone leaves out.
that would be good then if true.
I was replying to the post above (which left that part out :lol)

[ChumpDumper]

My badz, not SCN

Miguel Estrada
Alberto GonzalesDid they call them racists?

If Sotomayor had not judicial experience like Estrada, that might be an actual legitimate concern, but I don't remember anyone calling him a racist. I agree they were probably more concerned about the possibility of a future Supreme Court nomination for him

Any opposition to Gonzo has turned out to be completely justified.


Clarify what Chumpsta?
Legalizing Illegals to have countless Hispanic generations loyal to the dems.Eh, if they work and pay taxes, I'm not against immigration. No one else is going to pick cherries and the like.

[DarrinS]

Racism is defined as a white person saying something negative about some oppressed group (whether the oppression is real or just perceived).

It's not racist for a Hispanic, Black, Asian etc. to say something about white people. At least this is what I've been told and seems to hold true based on the mainstream response.

As long as there's no reason to believe his nominee is incompetent, there's no reason why he shouldn't be able pick the nominee of his choice and have that person confirmed.

I just try to point out the hypocrisy of the left, which is abundant.

[FaithInOne]

Eh, if they work and pay taxes, and vote for the party that will constantly remind them who let them in, I'm not against immigration. No one else is going to pick cherries and the like.

:downspin:

[ChumpDumper]

I don't care for whom they vote. Bush and McCain wanted to let them become legal too.

[Yonivore]

Well great, because that's exactly what she said in the rest of that passage that everyone leaves out.
Actually, that's not true. The whole fucking speech is about how one's ethnicity influences their jurisprudence. And, the quote confirms she believes her ethnicity makes her a superior decision-maker.

[Yonivore]

Did they call them racists?
Actually, no. The put their own racism on display for the occasion.


If Sotomayor had not judicial experience like Estrada, that might be an actual legitimate concern, but I don't remember anyone calling him a racist. I agree they were probably more concerned about the possibility of a future Supreme Court nomination for him

Any opposition to Gonzo has turned out to be completely justified.

Eh, if they work and pay taxes, I'm not against immigration. No one else is going to pick cherries and the like.
I notice you don't mention the unjustified attacks on Justice Alito...your idiocy -- albeit left-wing articles of faith -- about Gonzales and Estrada, notwithstanding.

[clambake]

will she be confirmed, yoni?

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, no.Cool.


I notice you don't mention the unjustified attacks on Justice Alito...your idiocy -- albeit left-wing articles of faith -- about Gonzales and Estrada, notwithstanding.There are plenty of unsubstantiated attacks from Democrats -- just as your attacks on Sotomayor are unjustified and unsubstantiated.

[Yonivore]

will she be confirmed, yoni?
It's less certain today than yesterday.

Obama tries to deflect criticism from Sotomayor (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_sotomayor)

It doesn't help that her concurrence and possible authorship on the Ricci case and her membership in an organization called "The Race" also demonstrate her racist bent.

Add to that her hostility to the 2nd Amendment, poor temperment, Catholicism combined with unknown position on abortion, and mediocre rating by her peers and, well...I'm thinking this could be troublesome for Obama.

[Yonivore]

Cool.
Now, that's taking a statement out of context.


There are plenty of unsubstantiated attacks from Democrats -- just as your attacks on Sotomayor are unjustified and unsubstantiated.
Why are they unjustified?

She said that she "would hope a wise Latina" would make better decisions than a white man.

She belongs to "La Raza," a racist organization.

She concurred with a ruling upholding a lower courts decision that discriminated against a group of firefighters because of their race.

I think the attacks are more than justified.

[clambake]

who instructed you to say all that? was it your party leader?

[Yonivore]

who instructed you to say all that? was it your party leader?
See, this is to what you and ChumpDumper resort when you don't have an argument.

Neither of you have yet made the case for why her statement isn't racist.

[clambake]

See, this is to what you and ChumpDumper resort when you don't have an argument.

Neither of you have yet made the case for why her statement isn't racist.

see....this is what you do when i ask a simple question.

you adopt someone else's opinions and end up wrong and out on so many issues.

will she be confirmed......yes or no?

[Yonivore]

see....this is what you do when i ask a simple question.

you adopt someone else's opinions and end up wrong and out on so many issues.

will she be confirmed......yes or no?
That's unknowable at this point.

Was her statement racist...yes or no?

[ChumpDumper]

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.

We can't make you less stupid, Yoni.

Or less racist.

[Yonivore]

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.

We can't make you less stupid, Yoni.

Or less racist.
Well, Gibbs says she regrets using the word. Why?

And, other than posting the entire racist speech, you've just contended it's not racist. Why isn't it? How is it self-evident? Even if the word "hope" is used as you suggest?

Now, you have to explain why I'm racist.

[clambake]

man, don't you ever tire of going for the reach?

[Yonivore]

man, don't you ever tire of going for the reach?
Why is it a reach?

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.

Hell, it's sexist too.

So, tell me, in what context is that not a discriminatory racial and/or gender preference statement?

[clambake]

you're gonna look silly when she gets confirmed.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, Gibbs says she regrets using the word. Why?Because idiots would try to call it racist.


And, other than posting the entire racist speech, you've just contended it's not racist. Why isn't it? How is it self-evident? Even if the word "hope" is used as you suggest?Now you don't know what self-evident means.


Now, you have to explain why I'm racist.Did Sotomayor yell at you at a gas station?

[Yonivore]

you're gonna look silly when she gets confirmed.
Why? I think, right now, the odds are in her favor. I've never said otherwise.

But, confirmation hearings are a bit down the road...

:corn: Another crack...

SPIN METER: Sotomayor has conflicting images (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gybh1tAJNK3I6fP1gJUsFOhJe5AAD98G55BO0)

So, now, it's being suggested her image is a bit embellished.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, you are trying to destroy this woman on one throwaway three second sound bite and two court decisions that did nothing but follow the law as written.

It's not working.

[ChumpDumper]

Why? I think, right now, the odds are in her favor. I've never said otherwise.

But, confirmation hearings are a bit down the road...

:corn: Another crack...

SPIN METER: Sotomayor has conflicting images (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gybh1tAJNK3I6fP1gJUsFOhJe5AAD98G55BO0)

So, now, it's being suggested her image is a bit embellished.
:lmao

Now you are trying to attack her for being successful!

Class warfare!

God, this is hilarious.

[Yonivore]

:lmao

Now you are trying to attack her for being successful!

Class warfare!

God, this is hilarious.
“Sotomayor did not live her entire childhood in a housing project in the South Bronx — she spent most of her teenage years in a middle-class neighborhood, attending private school and winning scholarships to Princeton and then Yale. And Sotomayor’s life and lifestyle after law school largely resemble the background of many lawyers who rise to powerful positions in Washington.” But there’s also this: “Her ethnic consciousness was apparent in the earliest days of her career, in the New York City prosecutor’s office.”

Her formative years -- "most of her teenage years" -- were spent in a middle-class neighborhood; meaning, unlike what the President said, she wasn't "raised" in the projects.

[clambake]

teenage years are not considered to be childhood.

ask any teenager.

[Yonivore]

teenage years are not considered to be childhood.

ask any teenager.
No, but they are considered to be formative years, those during which you are raised...

Look, you guys head off in another semantics rant, if you want, the fact remains, unlike Clarence Thomas who probably identifies with abject poverty on a level Sotomayor could never imagine, she spent her early years in the projects and then, moved up to the middle-class and private schools.

[ChumpDumper]

God damn her for winning scholarships and being successful.Sorry her family was more upwardly mobile than yours is.

[clambake]

are you saying she is less qualified than thomas who has skated by by doing nothing for ....how many years is it?

[FromWayDowntown]

Would it be bothersome if a nominee had an ethnic consciousness that favored whites?

Would it be bothersome if a nominee had a religious consciousness that affected his or her views on issues that might come before a court?

Frankly, it seems a pretty thin reed to question Judge Sotomayor if all you have is a single phrase lifted from an obviously neutral speech and a single decision as to which (a) she is not demonstrably the author; and (b) the conclusion is in keeping with principles of judicial restraint and adherence to the law.

For crissakes, Judge Sotomayor is clearly unqualified because, as Ricci shows, she's simply not enough of a judicial activist!!!!

[Yonivore]

Would it be bothersome if a nominee had an ethnic consciousness that favored whites?

Would it be bothersome if a nominee had a religious consciousness that affected his or her views on issues that might come before a court?

Frankly, it seems a pretty thin reed to question Judge Sotomayor if all you have is a single phrase lifted from an obviously neutral speech and a single decision as to which (a) she is not demonstrably the author; and (b) the conclusion is in keeping with principles of judicial restraint and adherence to the law.

For crissakes, Judge Sotomayor is clearly unqualified because, as Ricci shows, she's simply not enough of a judicial activist!!!!
Why be activist on a decision with which you agree with the discriminatory outcome?

[FromWayDowntown]

Why be activist on a decision with which you agree with the discriminatory outcome?

Huh?

I thought the thing you guys wanted was judges who follow the law.

Here's a judge who followed the law and now you don't like her because doing so created a result that you disagree with. Which is it? Do you want judges who follow the law? Or do you want judges who make policy from the bench by disregarding the law?

[ChumpDumper]

Why be activist on a decision with which you agree with the discriminatory outcome?Why follow the law at all if you disagree with it?

[Yonivore]

Why follow the law at all if you disagree with it?
That would seem to be her position...well, except it would be more accurate to say, "why follow the law at all if you disagree with its effect on those with whom you empathize?"

[Yonivore]

Huh?

I thought the thing you guys wanted was judges who follow the law.

Here's a judge who followed the law and now you don't like her because doing so created a result that you disagree with. Which is it? Do you want judges who follow the law? Or do you want judges who make policy from the bench by disregarding the law?
According to Cobranes, she followed only the law that supported her position. She completely ignored how Title VII might "most favorably" treat the plaintiffs.

In his estimation, the concurring opinion, by incorporating the District Court's decision, uncritically, ignored key statutory question and didn't address what he viewed were legitimate constitutional issues.

That's not following the law.

And, by the way, Obama's Justice Department filed an Amicus Brief that says basically the same thing. Neither the District Court nor the Appellate Court exhausted Title VII remedies or answer key constitutional questions raised by the plaintiffs.

[ChumpDumper]

That would seem to be her position.No, that's your position. You are criticizing her for not being activist and legislating from the bench, and you are disparaging her class and income level.

Congratulations.

Without realizing it, you reaffirmed your status as the biggest hypocrite on the board.

[Yonivore]

Ricci will be decided by the current court before her confirmation process begins. It'll be stuffed back down her throat by the very justices with whom she hopes to sit.

[ChumpDumper]

According to Cobranes, she followed only the law that supported her position. She completely ignored how Title VII might "most favorably" treat the plaintiffs.

In his estimation, the concurring opinion, by incorporating the District Court's decision, uncritically, ignored key statutory question and didn't address what he viewed were legitimate constitutional issues.

That's not following the law.Who is Cobranes?

Six judges agreed with her on Ricci and six did not. Close vote. It happens.

[Yonivore]

No, that's your position. You are criticizing her for not being activist and legislating from the bench, and you are disparaging her class and income level.

Congratulations.

Without realizing it, you reaffirmed your status as the biggest hypocrite on the board.
Giving a plaintiff the most favorable interpretation of a law isn't activism. Ignoring her obligation to do so, is.

[ChumpDumper]

Ricci will be decided by the current court before her confirmation process begins. It'll be stuffed back down her throat by the very justices with whom she hopes to sit.Nah, Alito and Roberts got their hats handed to them by the Supreme Court too. Didn't hurt them at all.

[ChumpDumper]

Giving a plaintiff the most favorable interpretation of a law isn't activism. Ignoring her obligation to do so, is.:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:roll in

[Yonivore]

Who is Cobranes?

Six judges agreed with her on Ricci and six did not. Close vote. It happens.
The vote was on whether or not to sit in banc and hear the case. Cobranes wrote the dissenting opinion and blasted the three just summary decision as being a piece of judicial malpractice.

Obama's Justice Department filed an Amicus Brief, in February, agreeing with Cobranes.

It's pretty much a given the Supremes are going to reverse and remand.

[ChumpDumper]

You mean Cabranes, counselor.

It was a 7-6 vote.

[Yonivore]

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin
Don't laugh at me. Laugh at Clinton appointee Cobranes and the Obama Justice Department who both claim the decision of both the District Court and the Appellate Court failed to view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

If you do a search on the term, it seems to be a "term of art" used in such cases.

I'm not a lawyer but, other lawyers and judges, (on her court and in the administration trying to appoint her) seem to think this is an important omission made by the District Court and, by virtue of her summary decision incorporating the sloppy work, made by her, as well.

[Yonivore]

You mean Cabranes, counselor.

It was a 7-6 vote.
Yeah, him. And, I know what the vote was but, you misunderstand the purpose of the vote. It wasn't a vote affirming the 3 judge panel's decision but denying an en banc review.

[ChumpDumper]

Don't laugh at me.:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:roll in


I'm not a lawyer butHell, I'm not convinced you made it out of middle school.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, him. And, I know what the vote was but, you misunderstand the purpose of the vote. It wasn't a vote affirming the 3 judge panel's decision but denying an en banc review.I know exactly what the vote was for. You misunderstand the US legal system in its entirety.

[Yonivore]

Six judges agreed with her on Ricci and six did not. Close vote. It happens.
This doesn't indicate an understanding of what the vote was for. Six judges didn't agree with her on Ricci. They agreed to not hear the case en banc.

[ChumpDumper]

This doesn't indicate an understanding of what the vote was for. Six judges didn't agree with her on Ricci. They agreed to not hear the case en banc.That doesn't indicate an understanding of what a vote is on your part. She didn't think it needed to be heard en banc, as did the majority of the court.

You really have trouble with the language. You should have paid more attention in school. That might have stopped you from your class warfare and hatred of those so much more successful than yourself.

[Yonivore]

Forget Whether She Qualifies as a "Racist." Would Judge Sotomayor Qualifiy as a Juror? (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRkYThkNDUzN2ZhOTUwOTEyMjIyZGQ2MjcxMzBmMDY=)
:lmao


In every trial — every single trial — judges solemnly instruct American citizens who are compelled to perform jury duty that they will have a sworn obligation to decide cases objectively — without fear or favor. If a person is unwilling or unable to do that, if the person believes he or she has a bias or prejudice, especially one based on a belief that people are inferior or superior due to such factors as race, ethnicity, or sex, the person is not qualified to be a juror. Indeed, prospective jurors are told that they are not qualified if they harbor even the slightest doubt about their ability to put such considerations aside and render an impartial verdict. If the judge or the lawyer for either side senses bias, the juror is excused "for cause" — the parties are not even required to use their discretionary (or "peremptory") jury challenges to strike such a juror; rather the judge makes a finding that the juror is not fit to serve.

And the stress on impartiality does not end once the prospective jurors, after being carefully vetted for any hint of bias or prejudice during voir dire (the selection process), are finally selected to sit as trial jurors. Instead, the admonition to consider the case fairly, impartially, and without bias of any kind is often repeated many times throughout the trial. And even after that, it is standard procedure to drum the obligation into the jurors again right before they retire to deliberate on a verdict. Here is the standard instruction (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/pjury.pdf):


You have two duties as a jury. Your first duty is to decide the facts from the evidence in the case. This is your job, and yours alone. Your second duty is to apply the law that I give you to the facts. You must follow these instructions, even if you disagree with them…. Perform these duties fairly and impartially. Do not allow sympathy, prejudice, fear, or public opinion to influence you. You should not be influenced by any person's race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex.
Now let's forget labels like "racist" for a moment. In our society, "racist" is a radioactive term, whether or not it's applied accurately. I want instead to home in on the premium our law places on impartiality — how noxious it regards the very notion that any important decision might be "influenced by any person's race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex." No one is saying that those attitudes don't exist, or even that someone is necessarily a bad person for having such attitudes — sometimes such attitudes are fostered by bitter life experiences that people find themselves unable to get over. But we strive to keep those attitudes out of our law — even to the point of expecting prospective jurors to tell us honestly whether they have such biases so we can make certain they don't get on a jury. Non-biased decision-making, we tell every ordinary citizen called for jury duty, is the most basic obligation of service in the legal system.

Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let's say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to "transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law"; and that there are "basic differences" in the way people "of color" exercise "logic and reasoning." If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request?

Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?
I agree. If she's not qualified to serve on a jury, why would we want her on the bench? Much less, the U. S. Supreme Court.

Then, one has to wonder how she truthfully answered the following question on the Supreme Court Questionnaire, used to vet her and still was able to get the nod:


11. Memberships
...
b. The American Bar Association's Commentary to its Code of Judicial Conduct states that it is inappropriate for a judge to hold membership in any organization that invidiously discriminates on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin. Indicate whether any of these organizations listed in response to 11a above currently discriminates or formerly discriminated on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin either through formal membership requirements or the practical implementation of membership policies. If so, describe any action you have taken to change these policies and practices.
La Raza is such an organization.

[ChumpDumper]

Let's say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white maleShe would have to believe that to explain it. Good job lying about that, McCarthy!

La Raza is such an organization.So all judges that have been members were disbarred, right?

[Yonivore]

That doesn't indicate an understanding of what a vote is on your part. She didn't think it needed to be heard en banc, as did the majority of the court.
But, the votes doesn't indicate agreement with her on Ricci, as you stated.


You really have trouble with the language. You should have paid more attention in school. That might have stopped you from your class warfare and hatred of those so much more successful than yourself.
You're completely incapable of even admitting you made an error here.

You specifically said six judged agreed with her on Ricci and they didn't.

If you had read majority opinion denying the en banc review, it was based on their reluctance to break with a tradition and had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they agreed with the three judge panel on Ricci.

[ChumpDumper]

But, the votes doesn't indicate agreement with her on Ricci, as you stated.It's an agreement about whether they should hear the case.


You're completely incapable of even admitting you made an error here.

You specifically said six judged agreed with her on Ricci and they didn't.They agreed about whether they should all hear it or not.


If you had read majority opinion denying the en banc review, it was based on their reluctance to break with a tradition and had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they agreed with the three judge panel on Ricci.So they agreed with the other judges not to hear the case en banc and review the panel's decision.

Again, close vote.

[Yonivore]

She would have to believe that to explain it. Good job lying about that, McCarthy!
That's precisely what she said. Are you suggesting she doesn't believe her own words?


So all judges that have been members were disbarred, right?
Well, if you're disbarred for inappropriate behavior, sure. But, I never suggested she be disbarred but that her ignorance or defiance of this admonishment should be cause for concern about putting her on the SCOTUS.

Combine that with the statement about wise Latinas and her disdain for the firefighters on racial grounds and, I think you have a pretty good argument against confirmation.

[Yonivore]

It's an agreement about whether they should hear the case.

They agreed about whether they should all hear it or not.

So they agreed with the other judges not to hear the case en banc and review the panel's decision.

Again, close vote.


Six judges agreed with her on Ricci and six did not. Close vote. It happens.
Hey, your words.

[Yonivore]

Do you not agree that if the SCOTUS reverses and remands and if, as has happened, the administration's Justice Department filed an Amicus Brief recommending reversal, it would pretty embarrassing for her and Obama?

[ChumpDumper]

That's precisely what she said. Are you suggesting she doesn't believe her own words?That is not precisely what she said. i know your entire argument hinges upon lying about it, but that won't change the fact you and he are lying.



Well, if you're disbarred for inappropriate behavior, sure.You just said it was inappropriate behavior for a judge to be a member of La Raza. So show me all the judges that were disbarred for precisely that inappropriate behavior.

I'm waiting.

[ChumpDumper]

Do you not agree that if the SCOTUS reverses and remands and if, as has happened, the administration's Justice Department filed an Amicus Brief recommending reversal, it would pretty embarrassing for her and Obama?Not really. Standing conservative members of the court have been unanimously reversed and overruled by the Supreme Court in the past and look at them now.

Seriously, just admit you are only frothing at the mouth because it's an appointment by a Democrat.

[Yonivore]

Not really. Standing conservative members of the court have been unanimously reversed and overruled by the Supreme Court in the past and look at them now.

Seriously, just admit you are only frothing at the mouth because it's an appointment by a Democrat.
Frankly, I'm disturbed by the whole "empathy" thing.

Should she have empathy for just those with whom she identifies? Who, on the court will have empathy for the unborn child? Is her empathy with the unpromoted minority firemen and her lack of empathy with those who were not promoted because New Haven did not certify the exam results coloring her judgement in Ricci vs. DeStefano?

Empathy has no place in interpreting the law. The law should be impartially applied to the facts.

That I -- and others -- believe her reliance on her latina heritage, in applying this "empathy," is racist and completely counter to the "color-blind" expectation place on the fair adjudication of the law is pretty bothersome, too.

[Yonivore]

That is not precisely what she said. i know your entire argument hinges upon lying about it, but that won't change the fact you and he are lying.
Where's the lie? I've quoted the statement numerous times and asked you to show me where and how, in any context, it's not racist.

You simply post the entire speech, which I've also read numerous times and also find offensive to the idea of a color-blind application of the law, as if that answers the question. Well, that and repeatedly calling me stupid.


You just said it was inappropriate behavior for a judge to be a member of La Raza. So show me all the judges that were disbarred for precisely that inappropriate behavior.

I'm waiting.
Are judges summarily disbarred for inappropriate behavior?

[ChumpDumper]

Frankly, I'm disturbed by the whole "empathy" thing.
So you opposed the Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito nominations for the same reason, right?

Because you are completely consistent and not a partisan hypocrite, right?

[ChumpDumper]

Where's the lie? I've quoted the statement numerous times and asked you to show me where and how, in any context, it's not racist.The lie is saying that is what she believes.

I can't cure your stupidity.


Are judges summarily disbarred for inappropriate behavior?Show me which ones were disciplined in any way solely for being a member of La Raza.

I'm still waiting.

[Yonivore]

So you opposed the Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito nominations for the same reason, right?

Because you are completely consistent and not a partisan hypocrite, right?
Neither of them claimed their jurisprudence would be guided or influence by their background.

In fact, Clarence Thomas is routinely criticized by the left for abandoning his roots.

And, as we quoted Alito earlier, he's bound to apply the law.

Do cases evoke memories of their backgrounds? Sure. Does that color their judgement? Only Sotomayor claims it should.