Reply With Quote
Nah, Alito and Roberts got their hats handed to them by the Supreme Court too. Didn't hurt them at all.
Giving a plaintiff the most favorable interpretation of a law isn't activism. Ignoring her obligation to do so, is.
Nah, Alito and Roberts got their hats handed to them by the Supreme Court too. Didn't hurt them at all.
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.
You mean Cabranes, counselor.
It was a 7-6 vote.
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.
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'm not convinced you made it out of middle school.I'm not a lawyer but
I know exactly what the vote was for. You misunderstand the US legal system in its entirety.
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.
Forget Whether She Qualifies as a "Racist." Would Judge Sotomayor Qualifiy as a Juror?
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.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:
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 at udes don't exist, or even that someone is necessarily a bad person for having such at udes sometimes such at udes are fostered by bitter life experiences that people find themselves unable to get over. But we strive to keep those at udes 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 in bent 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?
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:
La Raza is such an organization.
She would have to believe that to explain it. Good job lying about that, McCarthy!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
So all judges that have been members were disbarred, right?La Raza is such an organization.
But, the votes doesn't indicate agreement with her on Ricci, as you stated.
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.
It's an agreement about whether they should hear the case.
They agreed about whether they should all hear it or not.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.
So they agreed with the other judges not to hear the case en banc and review the panel's decision.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.
Again, close vote.
That's precisely what she said. Are you suggesting she doesn't believe her own words?
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.
Hey, your words.
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?
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.
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.Well, if you're disbarred for inappropriate behavior, sure.
I'm waiting.
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.
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.
Are judges summarily disbarred for inappropriate behavior?
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?
The lie is saying that is what she believes.
I can't cure your stupidity.
Show me which ones were disciplined in any way solely for being a member of La Raza.Are judges summarily disbarred for inappropriate behavior?
I'm still waiting.
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.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
