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

[Wild Cobra]

So following precedent amounts to activism?

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

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

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

[FromWayDowntown]

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

I listen to you guys all the time.

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

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

[boutons_deux]

"I have better things to do"

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

[ChumpDumper]

blah blah blah

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

But we've come to expect that from you.

You are that simple.

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

[Wild Cobra]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link: Inside Sotomayor's Judicial Record; Friday, May 29, 2009

[ChumpDumper]

Wrong in what ways, counselor?

[PixelPusher]

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

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

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

[Yonivore]

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

Further, you didn't even fully copy the post from that blog.

Here's the rest:



link

I was baiting. But, now that you've ruined it, I wonder if this same professor has issued a similar edict for his current students...

[Yonivore]

So following precedent amounts to activism?

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

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

The precedents followed by the 2nd Circuit did not answer -- or even address -- the key cons utional question raised by this case or answer the question of whether or not le VII had been applied appropriately. Those precedents dealt with minority plaintiffs who had allegedly been discriminated against.

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

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

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

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

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

[ChumpDumper]

Was it an unbiased exam, fairly administered?

Was the full testing procedure fair and unbiased?

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

And a bad judge because she is not activist enough.

[Yonivore]

Was it an unbiased exam, fairly administered?

Was the full testing procedure fair and unbiased?

According to the Amicus Brief filed by Obama's DOJ in February, yep. They're claiming what Cabranes claims. That the District Court and 2nd Circuit failed to even consider the cons utional or statutory questions raised by the suit.

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

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

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

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

[ChumpDumper]

According to the Amicus Brief filed by Obama's DOJ in February, yep.

Where does it say the test and full qualification procedure was fair and unbiased?

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

You can't tell a lot of things.

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

Well, the law is about race, so any decision concerning it coming out of any court will be race based.

[ChumpDumper]

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

[Yonivore]

Where does it say the test and full qualification procedure was fair and unbiased?

Read Cabranes dissention and the Amicus Brief.

You can't tell a lot of things.

I'm not a mind-reader.

Well, the law is about race, so any decision concerning it coming out of any court will be race based.

But, not necessarily discriminatory.

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

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

[Yonivore]

Here, let me help you...

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

[Marcus Bryant]

So following precedent amounts to activism?

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

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

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

[Marcus Bryant]

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

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

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

link

[MannyIsGod]

[ChumpDumper]

even though the process was non-discriminatory

Was the process nondiscriminatory? Did it meet all the criteria set forth by le VII and other laws?

which was carefully constructed to ensure race neutrality

How careful was it? Can that be quantified somehow or can anyone just say we carefully crafted it, trust us?

[Winehole23]

Judge Sotomayor and Race — Results from the Full Data Set

Friday, May 29th, 2009 10:27 pm | Tom Goldstein |

I’ve now completed the study of every one of Judge Sotomayor’s race-related cases that I mention in the post below. I’ll write more in the morning about particular cases, but here is what the data shows in sum:
Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.



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


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


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


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

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

[PixelPusher]

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

[ChumpDumper]

She said hope!

HOPE!

Don't you get it?

hope=expect=honky=Satan

[MannyIsGod]

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

[FromWayDowntown]

She said hope!

HOPE!

Don't you get it?

hope=expect=honky=Satan

I thought it was more like

Hope=Expect=En lement=Handout=Socialism=Discrimi nation Against Whites=Obama=Satan

[Blake]

Judge Sotomayor and Race — Results from the Full Data Set

Friday, May 29th, 2009 10:27 pm | Tom Goldstein |

I’ve now completed the study of every one of Judge Sotomayor’s race-related cases that I mention in the post below. I’ll write more in the morning about particular cases, but here is what the data shows in sum:
Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.



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


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


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


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

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

solid info

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