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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I took too long as it was reviewing the Alito incident. I'm taking a break from that much research for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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

---

:rollin

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

An interesting take from The American Conservative:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Larison

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...-on-sotomayor/

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Nice rant.

What are your qualifications for a justice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

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.

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

:lmao

Quote:

---

Grandmother of World's 23rd Best Economist Posthumously Offended by Sonia Sotomayor's Spending Habits; Will Obama Withdraw Nomination?

---

:wow

Quote:

---

Conservative Whispers To Hill Reporter Of 'Concern' About The Impact Diet Will Have On Her Jurisprudence

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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. :)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

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.