Reply With Quote
according to limbaugh she's lying.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/...ing/index.html
Later in the article, she also admits she chose her words poorly."I want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," Sotomayor said on the second day of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on her nomination by President Obama to be the first Hispanic justice on the the nation's highest court.
So, given this statement, I'm guessing most board Republicans will still dislike her due to her ruling on Ricci? I know WC still will disagree with her confirmation due to her not being against affirmative action.
according to limbaugh she's lying.
Whatev.... that comment was taken out of context from the word go.
Just proof as to how sound bites and snippets drive the news.
Republicans put on their mandatory charade of calling her out on it. Sotomayor put on her mandatory charade of context/backtracking/poor choice of words. With all the actors now having read their scripts we can move on.
Some nut job just had a rant.
@ Grassley's comment after that nut job interrupted.
That was great.
Democrats are just using this as a stage to bash Bush policies and Republicans are using it as a stage to ask questions they have no ability to comprehend the answers to.
Or in other words, the whole event is just a choreographed circus put on for the sole purpose of creating soundbites to be used in future elections.
I am absolutely appalled by her ruling. I saw part of the testimony this morning. I was looked up some specific quotes. I saw some or must of senator Session's questioning. I would think he effectively showed she was not qualified as an unbiased jurist. He specifically pointed out what she failed to consider, what precident mandated. Here are two parts that are now transcripted to the web:
Part 1 Some quotes from part 1:
Six times. This is scary because it is a repeating theme.SESSIONS:
And I would suggest that the quotation he gave was not exactly right of the wise Latina comment that you made. You've said, I think six different times, quote, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion." So that's a matter that I think we'll talk about as we go forward.
SESSIONS: Judge...
SOTOMAYOR: I do not permit my sympathies, personal views, or prejudices to influence the outcome of my cases.
SESSIONS: Well, you -- you -- you said something similar to that yesterday, that in each case I applied the law to the facts at hand, but you've repeatedly made this statement: Quote, I "accept the proposition" -- I "accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench, and that my experiences affect the facts I choose to see as a judge."
First, that's troubling to me as a lawyer. When I present evidence, I expect the judge to hear and see all the evidence that gets presented. How is it appropriate for a judge ever to say that they will choose to see some facts and not others?This was after he earlier raised a concern that the opinion provided very little supporting reason for their decisions that were recently overturned. I suggest everyone read the entire exchange. Take off the blinders. Anyone who isn't making a partisan choice would never vote for her.SESSIONS:
In 1997 when you came before the Senate and I was a new senator, I asked you this. In a suit challenging a government racial preference in quota or set-aside, will you follow the Supreme Court decision in Adarand and subject racial preferences to the strictest judicial scrutiny," close quote. In other words, I asked you would you follow the Supreme Court's binding decision in Adarand v. Pena.
In Adarand, the Supreme Court held that all governmental discrimination, including Affirmative Action programs, that discriminated by race of an applicant must face strict scrutiny in the courts. In other words, this is not a light thing to do. When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it, or it's not acceptable.
After Adarand, the government agencies must prove there is a compelling state interest in support of any decision to treat people differently by race. This is what you answered: "In my view, the Adarand court correctly determined that the same level of scrutiny -- strict scrutiny applies for the purpose of evaluating the cons utionality of all government classifications, whether at the state or federal level, based on race," close quote. So that was your answer, and it deals with government being the City of New Haven.
You made a commitment to this committee to follow Adarand. In view of this commitment you gave me 12 years ago, why are the words "Adarand," "Equal protection" and "Strict scrutiny" are completely missing from any of your panel's discussion of this decision?
Part 2
Here is yesterday's opening statement, just because I came across it:
LOL...
There's a part 3 indexed on their server. It currently just opens a blank page:
Part 3
she says she'll be open minded about gun rights...
However, the vehemently anti-gun Brady group endorses her....
so gun owners are probably in trouble.
i think i can work up a morning dump with more integrity than this "hearing".
I'm not sure Sessions should be leading the charge on being 'open-minded' as it were.
However, to try and argue that everyone will see things in the same light is ridiculous. Do experts agree on the 'right' economic plan? How about philosophy? Or religion? Maybe politics?
Of course not. That doesn't mean one person is WRONG, necessarily. Or that two people are seeing different facts. It's a matter of interpreting them differently.
Do you think that a poor black person would look at a situation and immediately come to the same judicial decision as a white person raised in affluence? The cases that come before the SCOTUS are not black and white decisions.
And the idea that she's some far-out activist is a bit strained. Was she not on a panel? Was that panel not unanimous? Was not the SCOTUS decision 5-4?
She already stated how she felt the city might be sued for disparate impact, and so ruled for the city. Are you saying that there's no possibility the city might have been sued for disparate impact in that case?
Does that matter? Does it invalidate the very good points he made?
He specifically pointed out a case that he asked her in the prior confirmation hearing that she said she would uphold, and she obviously disregarded.
It seems the law was already very clear to me. Precedent was clear.
No. However, when the facts are carefully scrutinized, shouldn't the law and established precedent be followed?
Remember how the decision was worded? They were 9-0 on parts, just not the whole.
Do you buy that? No way with existing law. There was no case because of the precautions they took. They used that as an excuse because the outcome of the test was not what they wanted. That is clearly obvious to me.
Accept the fact that she is going to be confirmed. Stop ing like a little girl.
And it seems clear to me that Chrono Trigger was the best Role Playing Game ever created. However, some people disagree. Should I automatically assume I am correct?
[You make it seem as if the law is clear in all cases. It is not. And personal experience can shade how one sees things.
Established precedent CAN be useful, but there are times when the morals of society have changed, such as Brown v Board of Education. Do you think that was a bad court decision?
So, it's your opinion that you, WC, with your vast judicial knowledge and experience, are able to clearly answer that question, over the opinion of both the lower court and the 3 judges that were on Sotomayor's panel that upheld it?
Humility, thy name is not WC.
Oh, and that 9-0 thing is a poor reading. Here's what they were arguing about...
http://washingtonindependent.com/490...inst-sotomayorHuh? Today’s ruling, as I noted before, was 5-4. Five justices voted to require the city to present more evidence — what the Supreme Court calls “a strong basis in evidence” — that if the city had not thrown out the results of a promotional exam that had a disparate impact on minorities, then it would have been legally liable to any racial minorities denied promotions who sued under the civil rights law.
Setting aside, for a moment, whether that evidentiary burden makes sense, there’s no question that only five of the nine justices supported it. The other four were just fine with the law the way it was, and believed that the city had presented sufficient evidence to satisfy its decision.
Or maybe you'd prefer this explanation?
Didn't you guys like justices that follow precedent? Would you rather rule for the firefighters and be an activist judge?
Whether you agree with Justice Kennedy or the Second Circuit/District Court on this issue (we think the lower courts had the better of this argument), it is very difficult to criticize the District Court or Judge Sotomayor on appeal for following prior rulings of her circuit. And we note that Justice Kennedy was far more pointed in his criticism of the Pe ioners in Ricci, who proposed a standard that Kennedy called "broad and inflexible" and threatened to render the disparate impact standard of le VII a dead letter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-k..._b_222606.html
Feel free to provide your non-biased source to support your 9-0 contention.
You're the one that is always acting like a little girl.
Actually, I think she will confirmed. Not because I think she's an acceptable pick, but because I think if she isn't picked, a worse one will be! I'll bet the republicans realize this too, and won't give much of a fight. They should still point out the problems.
I do fear her less than other potential activist judges. At least racial issues do not go to the SC very often.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-14-2009 at 04:24 PM.
I was thinking of something else. An earlier summary judgment that went 5-4, and all nine said the firefighters deserved to be heard in the higher court.
Yes, the court did say that the court should have looked at it closer. I don't see the point of the court doing that though, as they would've originally came up with the same answer: that precedent would seem to rule with New Haven.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...-part-two.html
SOTOMAYOR: Again, regardless of what the challenge is about, what test is at issue, the core holding of that precedent was that, if an employee could show a disparate impact from a particular practice or test or activity by a employer, then that employee had a prima facie case of liability under le VII.
So the question is, was the city subject to potential liability because the employees -- the city of New Haven -- because the employees could bring a suit under established law challenging that the city of New Haven had violated le VII?And for some context:SOTOMAYOR: Well, the district court noted that it was a different scenario, but it evaluated its decision -- it evaluated the case in a 78-page decision and gave a full explanation, one which the panel agreed with by adopting the opinion of the district court.
Those questions, as I indicated, are always whether -- given the risk the city was facing, the fact that it could face a law school -- lawsuit and its conclusion that perhaps a better test could be devised, that would not have a disparate impact, whether it was liable for discrimination -- disparate -- not disparate -- different treatment under the law, the Supreme Court came back and said "New standard."
SOTOMAYOR: As I understood the dissenters in that case, what they were saying is, to the majority, if you're going to apply a new standard, then give the Second Circuit a chance to look at the record and apply that standard. It wasn't disagreeing that the circuit wasn't applying the law as it was understood at the time. If the circuit -- the dissenters, as I read what they were doing, was saying send it back to the circuit and let them look at this in the first instance.
LEAHY: Senator Hatch, thank you. I would also put in record because race-related cases come up, an independent study Supreme Court expert, Tom Goldstein, found of the 97 race-related cases which Judge Sotomayor participated in the Second Circuit, she and the rest of her panel rejected discrimination claims (inaudible) 80 times, agreed them 10 times, rejecting discrimination claims by a margin of 8 to 1.
Mr. Goldstein found that in 10 cases favoring discrimination, nine of those were unanimous. And of those, nine in seven, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. And he said is seems absurd to say Judge Sotomayor allows race to affect her decision making. And without objection, that report will be part of the record. I yield now to Senator Feinstein, the chair of the U.S. Senate...
More context:
FEINSTEIN: Now, it was just said that all nine justices disagreed with you in the Ricci case, but I want to point out that Justice Ginsburg and three other justices stated in the dissent that the Second Circuit decision should have been affirmed. Is that correct?
SOTOMAYOR: Yes.
FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much. Also, a senator made a comment about the Second Circuit not being bound in the Ricci case that I wanted to follow up on, because I think what he said was not correct. You made the point that the unanimous Ricci panel was bound by Second Circuit precedent, as we've said. The senator said that you easily could have overruled that precedent by voting for the case to be heard en banc. First, my understanding is that a majority of the Second Circuit voted not to re-hear the case. Is that correct?
SOTOMAYOR: That's correct.
FEINSTEIN: Secondly, it took a significant change in disparate law -- in disparate impact law to change the result of the Second Circuit reached in this case. And the Supreme Court itself in Ricci recognized that it was creating a new standard. Is my understanding correct?
SOTOMAYOR: Yes, Senator.
LnGrrrR, the lawsuit argument just doesn't fly in this case. The facts were clearly on the firefighters side, except in the eyes of liberal activists.
Did you read all the precautions they took in designing the test? They invalidated the test because they didn't like the outcome!
Let's put it this way. Wild Cobra would hope that he comes of on the board as something other than a creepy dullard on the internets, just as Yoni would hope to be considered an intelligent, original thinker who isn't a thief and a liar -- but reality is much different.SESSIONS:
And I would suggest that the quotation he gave was not exactly right of the wise Latina comment that you made. You've said, I think six different times, quote, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion." So that's a matter that I think we'll talk about as we go forward.
Sotomayor has accepted reality -- have the others?
God you are a drama queen!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
