Supreme Court Nomination

Go down

Supreme Court Nomination

Post by PaulM on Fri May 29, 2009 3:31 pm

There hasn't been a lot of discussion anywhere... forums, media, etc... on the messiah's recent SC nomination.

IMO... he selected her for racial/social reasons rather than judicial/constitutional knowledge reasons.

Any opinions?

_________________
Paul
avatar
PaulM

Male
Aquarius Dragon
Number of posts : 577
Age : 66
Location : Kentucky
Humor : Yes
Registration date : 2009-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by Peregrine(Endangered) on Fri May 29, 2009 4:34 pm

He has been under alot of pressure to appoint more latinos to office so this may be the major reason he chose her. I think also he wants to see more women on the courts; its been mostly men for a long long time.
avatar
Peregrine(Endangered)

Female
Capricorn Snake
Number of posts : 1132
Age : 76
Location : Delaware
Job/hobbies : Gardening, Birding
Humor : lots
Registration date : 2009-01-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by PaulM on Fri May 29, 2009 4:56 pm

Peregrine(Endangered) wrote:He has been under alot of pressure to appoint more latinos to office so this may be the major reason he chose her. I think also he wants to see more women on the courts; its been mostly men for a long long time.

Not a very good reason, IMO anyway. The 'men/women' issue to me is not important since there are many well qualified women, but to buckle to racial pressures!!! What the hell kind of leader is that!

_________________
Paul
avatar
PaulM

Male
Aquarius Dragon
Number of posts : 577
Age : 66
Location : Kentucky
Humor : Yes
Registration date : 2009-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by Peregrine(Endangered) on Fri May 29, 2009 6:00 pm

what can I say; he is a politician after all. But in my opinion, more women are needed on the Supreme court. Gives balance, if you know what I mean.
avatar
Peregrine(Endangered)

Female
Capricorn Snake
Number of posts : 1132
Age : 76
Location : Delaware
Job/hobbies : Gardening, Birding
Humor : lots
Registration date : 2009-01-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by HotParadox on Fri May 29, 2009 6:25 pm

PaulM wrote:There hasn't been a lot of discussion anywhere... forums, media, etc... on the messiah's recent SC nomination.

IMO... he selected her for racial/social reasons rather than judicial/constitutional knowledge reasons.

Any opinions?
there has not been a lot of discussion anywhere; you're correct. it seems to me that americans are so afraid to be un-pc, so afraid to appear racist, that the true racists are getting away with it by appointing other racists to high offices. if a white man were to say what she said, his career would be over for being a sexist, racist pig.

_________________
"The preceding post is my personal opinion and may or may not be true, may or may not have been posted by me, and most likely contains nothing of interest to anyone."
~Kazza, a very smart man that covered all the angles with this one. I like it.
avatar
HotParadox

Female
Number of posts : 4051
Location : Boston
Registration date : 2009-01-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by PaulM on Fri May 29, 2009 6:55 pm

Peregrine(Endangered) wrote:what can I say; he is a politician after all. But in my opinion, more women are needed on the Supreme court. Gives balance, if you know what I mean.
Absolutely... I know exactly what you mean. As long as the qualifications are there I'm good Smile

_________________
Paul
avatar
PaulM

Male
Aquarius Dragon
Number of posts : 577
Age : 66
Location : Kentucky
Humor : Yes
Registration date : 2009-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by PaulM on Fri May 29, 2009 6:59 pm

HotParadox wrote:
PaulM wrote:There hasn't been a lot of discussion anywhere... forums, media, etc... on the messiah's recent SC nomination.

IMO... he selected her for racial/social reasons rather than judicial/constitutional knowledge reasons.

Any opinions?
there has not been a lot of discussion anywhere; you're correct. it seems to me that americans are so afraid to be un-pc, so afraid to appear racist, that the true racists are getting away with it by appointing other racists to high offices. if a white man were to say what she said, his career would be over for being a sexist, racist pig.

In a heart-beat... he'd be run out of town on a rail. HOPEFULLY... but I doubt it... the Senate will have picked up on that & call her to task on it.

_________________
Paul
avatar
PaulM

Male
Aquarius Dragon
Number of posts : 577
Age : 66
Location : Kentucky
Humor : Yes
Registration date : 2009-01-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by Peregrine(Endangered) on Fri May 29, 2009 7:19 pm

She acknowledged she used poor word choices for that speech in 2001...How many politicians have done the same thing...too many to keep count. Lets face it....we all harbor discrimination and racism to some degree..we like to think we don't but at some point it rears its ugly head...I don't think racism will ever be totally eradicated; at least not in my lifetime. I would hope she was chosen for her qualifications.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gybh1tAJNK3I6fP1gJUsFOhJe5AAD98G55BO0
avatar
Peregrine(Endangered)

Female
Capricorn Snake
Number of posts : 1132
Age : 76
Location : Delaware
Job/hobbies : Gardening, Birding
Humor : lots
Registration date : 2009-01-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by HotParadox on Fri May 29, 2009 7:31 pm

PaulM wrote:
HotParadox wrote:
PaulM wrote:There hasn't been a lot of discussion anywhere... forums, media, etc... on the messiah's recent SC nomination.

IMO... he selected her for racial/social reasons rather than judicial/constitutional knowledge reasons.

Any opinions?
there has not been a lot of discussion anywhere; you're correct. it seems to me that americans are so afraid to be un-pc, so afraid to appear racist, that the true racists are getting away with it by appointing other racists to high offices. if a white man were to say what she said, his career would be over for being a sexist, racist pig.

In a heart-beat... he'd be run out of town on a rail. HOPEFULLY... but I doubt it... the Senate will have picked up on that & call her to task on it.
i don't see it happening either.
here's the thing that bothers me. everyone here hears me talk about being italian. yes, that's my blood. BUT my nationality is 100% american and damn honored to be one. now if i were a public official, not a private citizen, the last thing i would talk about in public is my italian heritage. yet, you get someone from, just for instance, puerto rico talking about being latino. last time i checked, if you're born in puerto rico you are american. get over the latino/puerto rican crap and be an american since that is the country and her people who hired you for the job. you are the public servant of each and every american. ditto with black/african americans. a black american is as wrong to refer to himself in public as, just for instance, bill clinton would have been to harp on being a white american. as my elected official, as my employee, i want you to refer to yourself as an american-period-in public. in private with friends and family, knock yourself out and be black, brown, white or green. see what i'm saying?

_________________
"The preceding post is my personal opinion and may or may not be true, may or may not have been posted by me, and most likely contains nothing of interest to anyone."
~Kazza, a very smart man that covered all the angles with this one. I like it.
avatar
HotParadox

Female
Number of posts : 4051
Location : Boston
Registration date : 2009-01-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by Peregrine(Endangered) on Fri May 29, 2009 8:23 pm

I look at it differently...its nice to shove it under the rug but we need to talk about it and keep talking about it until some true headway is made...I remember as a child standing in line waiting for the bell to ring to go into school and having older kids from another school call me wop and daggo. Thats exactly how I became aware of it(didn't have a name for it) All I knew it hurt. I think you may be confused about an american being a nationality. Its an identity and we also have a ethnic identity. I agree racism should have no bearing on running for public life. Its so ingrained in the fabrics of our lives and I don't see it going away.
avatar
Peregrine(Endangered)

Female
Capricorn Snake
Number of posts : 1132
Age : 76
Location : Delaware
Job/hobbies : Gardening, Birding
Humor : lots
Registration date : 2009-01-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by DM007 on Fri May 29, 2009 9:28 pm

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging one's heritage, or even bragging about your struggle to succeed and the obstacles overcome.

However, a judge, any judge, who would publicly claim to base lawful (and Constitutional) decisions on one's race, heritage, life difficulties, and/or political alignment, is completely wrong. It is the polar opposite of the description of the position. The same applies to "legislation from the bench". She made statements. She may have used the "wrong" words, but the meanings were very clear. She is racially biased and sexist, regardless of the words she chose. Having a "Latino-female" SCOTUS is perfectly fine. But, find another one, please. One who will judge according to fact, law, and the Constitution, despite one's "personal strife" and/or political alignment.

DM007

Number of posts : 372
Registration date : 2009-01-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by Old Timer on Fri May 29, 2009 9:36 pm

DM007 wrote:There's nothing wrong with acknowledging one's heritage, or even bragging about your struggle to succeed and the obstacles overcome.

However, a judge, any judge, who would publicly claim to base lawful (and Constitutional) decisions on one's race, heritage, life difficulties, and/or political alignment, is completely wrong. It is the polar opposite of the description of the position. The same applies to "legislation from the bench". She made statements. She may have used the "wrong" words, but the meanings were very clear. She is racially biased and sexist, regardless of the words she chose. Having a "Latino-female" SCOTUS is perfectly fine. But, find another one, please. One who will judge according to fact, law, and the Constitution, despite one's "personal strife" and/or political alignment.

Well said and I do agree.

Old Timer

Male
Number of posts : 4718
Registration date : 2009-01-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by HotParadox on Fri May 29, 2009 10:03 pm

Peregrine(Endangered) wrote:I look at it differently...its nice to shove it under the rug but we need to talk about it and keep talking about it until some true headway is made...I remember as a child standing in line waiting for the bell to ring to go into school and having older kids from another school call me wop and daggo. Thats exactly how I became aware of it(didn't have a name for it) All I knew it hurt. I think you may be confused about an american being a nationality. Its an identity and we also have a ethnic identity. I agree racism should have no bearing on running for public life. Its so ingrained in the fabrics of our lives and I don't see it going away.
nationality refers to the nation in which you were born or of which you are a citizen. i was born in boston, MA USA of italian immigrants who came to this country when they were 5 and 8 years old. my nationality is american and my heritage is italian. my parents were us citizens. technically they gave up their nationality as italians and their blood/heritage remained italian.


Last edited by HotParadox on Fri May 29, 2009 10:07 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
"The preceding post is my personal opinion and may or may not be true, may or may not have been posted by me, and most likely contains nothing of interest to anyone."
~Kazza, a very smart man that covered all the angles with this one. I like it.
avatar
HotParadox

Female
Number of posts : 4051
Location : Boston
Registration date : 2009-01-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by Peregrine(Endangered) on Fri May 29, 2009 10:06 pm

DM007 wrote:There's nothing wrong with acknowledging one's heritage, or even bragging about your struggle to succeed and the obstacles overcome.

However, a judge, any judge, who would publicly claim to base lawful (and Constitutional) decisions on one's race, heritage, life difficulties, and/or political alignment, is completely wrong. It is the polar opposite of the description of the position. The same applies to "legislation from the bench". She made statements. She may have used the "wrong" words, but the meanings were very clear. She is racially biased and sexist, regardless of the words she chose. Having a "Latino-female" SCOTUS is perfectly fine. But, find another one, please. One who will judge according to fact, law, and the Constitution, despite one's "personal strife" and/or political alignment.

After reading the article I believe it is a problem...I don't believe she should be appointed but you know politics; its all push and shove.
avatar
Peregrine(Endangered)

Female
Capricorn Snake
Number of posts : 1132
Age : 76
Location : Delaware
Job/hobbies : Gardening, Birding
Humor : lots
Registration date : 2009-01-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by Peregrine(Endangered) on Fri May 29, 2009 10:08 pm

HotParadox wrote:
Peregrine(Endangered) wrote:I look at it differently...its nice to shove it under the rug but we need to talk about it and keep talking about it until some true headway is made...I remember as a child standing in line waiting for the bell to ring to go into school and having older kids from another school call me wop and daggo. Thats exactly how I became aware of it(didn't have a name for it) All I knew it hurt. I think you may be confused about an american being a nationality. Its an identity and we also have a ethnic identity. I agree racism should have no bearing on running for public life. Its so ingrained in the fabrics of our lives and I don't see it going away.
nationality refers to the nation in which you were born or of which you are a citizen. i was born in boston, MA USA of italian immigrants who came to this country when they were 5 and 8 years old. my nationality is american and my heritage is italian. my parents were us citizens. technically they gave up their nationality as italians and their blood/heritage remained italian.

Same thing, just different wording Smile Smile Smile
avatar
Peregrine(Endangered)

Female
Capricorn Snake
Number of posts : 1132
Age : 76
Location : Delaware
Job/hobbies : Gardening, Birding
Humor : lots
Registration date : 2009-01-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by HotParadox on Fri May 29, 2009 10:09 pm

DM007 wrote:There's nothing wrong with acknowledging one's heritage, or even bragging about your struggle to succeed and the obstacles overcome.

However, a judge, any judge, who would publicly claim to base lawful (and Constitutional) decisions on one's race, heritage, life difficulties, and/or political alignment, is completely wrong. It is the polar opposite of the description of the position. The same applies to "legislation from the bench". She made statements. She may have used the "wrong" words, but the meanings were very clear. She is racially biased and sexist, regardless of the words she chose. Having a "Latino-female" SCOTUS is perfectly fine. But, find another one, please. One who will judge according to fact, law, and the Constitution, despite one's "personal strife" and/or political alignment.
well put.

_________________
"The preceding post is my personal opinion and may or may not be true, may or may not have been posted by me, and most likely contains nothing of interest to anyone."
~Kazza, a very smart man that covered all the angles with this one. I like it.
avatar
HotParadox

Female
Number of posts : 4051
Location : Boston
Registration date : 2009-01-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by DM007 on Sat May 30, 2009 2:56 am

Peregrine(Endangered) wrote:
DM007 wrote:There's nothing wrong with acknowledging one's heritage, or even bragging about your struggle to succeed and the obstacles overcome.

However, a judge, any judge, who would publicly claim to base lawful (and Constitutional) decisions on one's race, heritage, life difficulties, and/or political alignment, is completely wrong. It is the polar opposite of the description of the position. The same applies to "legislation from the bench". She made statements. She may have used the "wrong" words, but the meanings were very clear. She is racially biased and sexist, regardless of the words she chose. Having a "Latino-female" SCOTUS is perfectly fine. But, find another one, please. One who will judge according to fact, law, and the Constitution, despite one's "personal strife" and/or political alignment.

After reading the article I believe it is a problem...I don't believe she should be appointed but you know politics; its all push and shove.

That's the problem. The politicians have the field, own the ball, and make the rules. The only thing we can do is send up better politicians. We can see how that's going.....

DM007

Number of posts : 372
Registration date : 2009-01-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by Put It Out There Baby on Sat May 30, 2009 2:47 pm

This is what should scare every citizen in this country:

While a judge, while a sitting judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Sotomayor said, "It is the job of appellate courts to make policy." WTF?????? Since when????

That is why Obama chose her. The Constitution doesn't do enough for him. "The Constitution is a charter of negative rights." It lays out all the things government can't do to you but it doesn't specify what government can do for you.

Meaning it doesn't talk about redistribution of wealth. The Constitution is full of things the government does for us, like protect us, provide for the general welfare, and on and on and on. Here's a woman who has admitted that her job as a judge is to make policy. That is just as good a reason to disqualify her, 'cause she's admitting that she's going to look for ways around the Constitution, and she says she can find them better than white people because of the rich life she's led as a Latina. Well, you can cringe when that is said, but somehow it's no big deal when SHE says it.

And there s more:

Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment
Thursday, May 28, 2009
By Matt Cover

CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.

“It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”

The Maloney v. Cuomo case involved James Maloney, who had been arrested for possessing a pair of nunchuks. New York law prohibits the possession of nunchuks, even though they are often used in martial arts training and demonstrations.

The meaning of the Second Amendment has rarely been addressed by the Supreme Court. But in the 2008 case of Heller v. District of Columbia, the high court said that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right of all Americans and that the Second Amendment guaranteed that right to everyone.

The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, “guarantee(s) the right of the individual to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’”

“There seems to us no doubt,” the Supreme Court said, “that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Sotomayor, however, said that even though the Heller decision held that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right--and therefore could not be justly denied to a law-abiding citizen by any government, federal, state or local--the Second Circuit was still bound by the 1886 case, because Heller only dealt indirectly with the issue before her court.

“And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we must follow Presser because where, as here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which [it] directly controls.”

In its 2008 case, the Supreme Court’s took a different view of its own 1886 case, saying that Presser had no bearing on anything beyond a state’s ability to outlaw private militia groups.

“Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment’s meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations,” the court ruled. “This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment.”

The Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not specifically extended to the states through a process known as incorporation, which involves interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to read that no state can deprive its citizens of federally guaranteed rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Sotomayor’s decision rejected the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation doctrine as far as Second Amendment was concerned, saying any legislation that could provide a “conceivable” reason would be upheld by her court.

“We will uphold legislation if we can identify some reasonably conceived state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the legislative action. Legislative acts that do not interfere with fundamental rights … carry with them a strong presumption of constitutionality,” the appeals court concluded. “The Fourteenth Amendment,” she wrote, “provides no relief.”

Sotomayor’s ruling ran to the left of even the reliably liberal San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in the April 2009 case Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment did, in fact, apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, heavily citing the Supreme Court in Heller.

“We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” said the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals. “We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.”

Gun Week Senior Editor Dave Workman told CNSNews.com that the Nordyke and Maloney decisions are at odds and the Supreme Court, possibly with a Justice Sotomayor, may soon sort them out.

“Whenever you have a conflict like this, you’re likely to have it end up before the Supreme Court so they can decide the issue. If the Second Amendment is incorporated into the states, it’s going to jeopardize thousands of local gun laws, and the people who supported those gun laws are just freaked about that.”

And:

The National Review:

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

White House and Schumer: Deceptions on Sotomayor [Wendy Long]

White House officials and Sen. Chuck Schumer are deliberately misleading the public, both with their absurd statement, as Ed Whelan has shown, that Judge Sotomayor was following Second Circuit precedent in throwing out the claims of the New Haven firefighters without even analyzing them. As Al Gore would say, there was "no controlling legal authority" and the cases cited were invoked by the district court, not Sotomayor. Judge Jose Cabranes correctly said the case raised "issues of first impression."

This is particularly rich, given the second deception underway by Schumer and the White House.

Comments yesterday by the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and today by Sen. Chuck Schumer, that statements made at Duke University by Judge Sotomayor in which she said appellate courts should "make policy" were taken out of context are purposely misleading and outright misinformation designed to walk back an obvious vetting problem this White House has become known for. They say her Duke comments really meant that district courts "deal with individual cases" and appellate courts "deal with complex legal issues and constitutional theory." But that's just what she did NOT do — and the district court tried to do — in the firefighters case.

Moreover, if Mr. Gibbs or Senator Schumer were to read other law review articles written by Judge Sotomayor, as well as reviewed her other speeches, it is clear and unequivocal that Judge Sotomayor has a long track record of advocating for using courts to make policy and laws. It is obvious that the reason the White House has churned up its spin machine on this is because countless polls consistently show that the American people to do not support judges making policy or law from the bench. The American people have spoken loudly and often on this subject, they want judges who interpret law as made through the people and their elected representatives, not through judges imposing their personal political views from the bench as Judge Sotomayor has consistently advocated.

We will be linking to some more of these resources on Judge Sotomayor at www.judicialnetwork.com and at www.aboutsoniasotomayor.com

and:

Friday, May 29, 2009

The Real Sotomayor Issue [Wendy Long]

The Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination got a quick start out of the gate, focusing debate about something very important: How are judges supposed to decide cases? Are they, as Judge Sotomayor says, supposed to rule based upon identity politics, using their own personal views and biases in making decisions? Or is it to put aside all personal experiences and policy desires and apply the Constitution and laws as written?

Somehow, this important debate is turning into an argument about race and identity politics.

Many of us in the conservative movement believe that Judge Sotomayor is intelligent, and that, at least on paper, she has professional qualifications that are certainly sufficient for occupying a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

But what needs deeper examination, because it is very troubling, is her overarching judicial philosophy – one that, judging from her public remarks and law review articles, she has thought about seriously and embraced only after much reflection. It’s the judicial philosophy shared by President Obama – a philosophy with which most Americans, who support judicial restraint, vehemently disagree.

It is only this – President Obama’s and Judge Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy – that drives us to raise serious concerns about Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court.

At its core, the thrust of most conservatives’ concerns from the past several days centered around three items—all of which, by the way, the White House press operation has tried mightily to brush aside: First, a video clip of Judge Sotomayor from a 2005 appearance at Duke Law School, where she stated that appellate courts make policy.

Second, a 2002 law review article in which Judge Sotomayor says that race, gender, and ethnicity necessarily affect the way judges decide cases – and that’s a good thing.

Third, a 1996 law review article challenging the belief that law needs to be knowable and predictable, in which she borrowed from the philosophy of early 20th century Legal Realists who rejected the idea that judging involves the impartial application of neutral principles. This body of work is not the product of stupidity, or reverse racism, or a bad temper. Rather, it appears to be a view of the courts as engines of social and political change—in short, wrought out of a devotion to judicial activism.

We need to move forward with a confirmation process that focuses on what really matters: Does Judge Sotomayor embrace a view of judging that is constrained by the text, history, and principles of the Constitution and our laws? Or does she favor an interpretive enterprise in which a judge’s personal feelings, views, background, and politics drive the outcome of cases?


Last edited by Put It Out There Baby on Sat May 30, 2009 3:17 pm; edited 3 times in total

Put It Out There Baby

Male
Number of posts : 585
Registration date : 2009-02-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by Put It Out There Baby on Sat May 30, 2009 3:02 pm

The "riches" part of Sotomayor's rags-to-riches story began when she left her low-paying job in that prosecutor's office and joined the Pavia & Harcourt law firm. Her clients included Fendi, maker of luxury purses that she was unlikely to have seen as a child in the Bronx.

Still, she kept her hand in the Puerto Rican community — possibly to the point of a conflict of interest.

She served simultaneously on New York's campaign finance board and the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, an advocacy group that took legal action in 1991 to fight what it considered discriminatory redistricting. Sotomayor didn't recuse herself from a finance board discussion of the redistricting battle, despite the involvement of her own advocacy group.

Also during this time, Sotomayor served on the state board that makes mortgages available to low- and middle-income New Yorkers. She missed nearly a third of the board's meetings during three of those years but apparently still left a mark. Cuomo said Sotomayor's respect for the law, her "life story" and her integrity were deciding factors in his decision to name her to the agency.

And when she left in 1992, the agency's board adopted a resolution praising her for defending "the rights and needs of the disadvantaged to attain, maintain, and secure affordable housing appropriate to their need." It went on: "Ms. Sotomayor also served as the conscience of the Board concerning the negative effects of gentrification which can harm communities and create hopelessness and homelessness if individuals and families are displaced."

Republicans are scrutinizing her full record and background, but carefully. The White House warned as much earlier this week.

"It is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

With Hispanics a growing voting bloc, and ethnic sensitivities high, few are willing to be as blunt as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said of her comment that a Latina woman would rule more wisely than a white man: "New racism is no better than old racism."

Sonia Sotomayor is a racist. She worships in the great international church of "get whitey", the very same place where you hear "goddam America" and pious lectures from the TelePrompter in Chief about how judges shouldn't apply the law, they should rely on what they "feel" should happen. Apparently, they all feel that the Constitution is just some scrap of paper that gets in the way of "remaking" America.

and from Investor's Business Daily:

Justice: Sonia Sotomayor fits the administration’s requirement for bringing empathy to the law. The problem is that it isn’t always for human beings and law-abiding citizens. Fish gotta swim and criminals gotta vote.

During his 2005 confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts said a judge should be like an umpire in baseball: Just call the balls and strikes and don't alter the rules of the game. And don't feel sorry for the first baseman.

As President Obama likes to say about the election, he won. He gets to pick judges who have "a little bit of a common touch and a practical sense of how the world works." He wants judges who he feels have compassion for the little guy, even if the little guy is a fish.

In a 2007 2nd Circuit decision, Sotomayor ruled the Clean Water Act required power companies that operate water-cooled power plants to use the "best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact" to prevent fish and other aquatic life from being sucked into vents and killed. Cost was not to be a deciding factor.

"This case is about fish and other aquatic organisms," wrote Sotomayor. It was not about the little guys working at these plants or their jobs or businesses or staying in business. It was about the fish. Fish outweigh people on her scales of justice.

Sotomayor sided with environmentalists who had sued the EPA because the agency permitted the use of cost-benefit analysis in determining the "best technology available." Had her decision stood, power companies would have had to spend billions more to comply, passing these costs on to their customers.

She ruled that "the EPA may consider cost as a factor to a limited degree, but only as to whether the cost of a given technology could be reasonably borne by the industry and not the relation between that technology's cost and the benefit it achieves."

In that decision we see activist judges who are ideologically motivated on the courts telling businesses not to make sound business decisions but, as Sotomayor has said, make decisions based on policies dictated by the courts.

The Supreme Court disagreed, and on April 1 it overruled her decision 6—3. Judge Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority that best technology may in fact "describe the technology that most effectively produces some good."

"We conclude that the EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in setting the national performance standards," Scalia wrote. "The Court of Appeals (and Judge Sotomayor)," Scalia ruled, "was therefore in error."

By the way, for those of you who are not familiar with this fact: The MAJORITY of her rulings in the past have been overturned by the Supreme Court because she "misinterpreted the law" and because "she put her own personal feelings and views into play". That is a fine pick by Obama then isn't it?

Supreme Court: The large Democratic majority in the Senate is said to make Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation inevitable. Maybe, but Senate Republicans have a responsibility to scrutinize her record.

In the summer of 1993, Republican senators let their party and their country down when they essentially played dead in the face of President Clinton's nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. The late Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina and two other staunch conservative Republicans ended up being the only senators to oppose Ginsburg.

That should not have been.

This is a woman who served as a general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, sat on its board and performed volunteer legal work for that radical outfit. Her confirmation hearings should have been a referendum on whether someone so wedded to the ACLU's extreme judicial philosophy could be allowed to sit on the nation's highest court.

Instead, Republicans did what a lot of observers are today predicting they will do in regard to Sotomayor — they declined to waste ammunition fighting a battle they were bound to lose.

But it would be no waste.

First, imagine if the Ginsburg approval really had focused on educating the American public on the ACLU and its crazed positions — such as opposing electronic weapons detectors in airports, helping criminals use technicalities to thwart law enforcement, and holding that while producing child pornography can be illegal, once made, its dissemination is "wholly protected by the First Amendment." Successfully tying Ginsburg to the fanaticism of a group she was deeply committed to might have stopped her.

Second, Americans deserve to know what even a shoo-in nominee really believes. They shouldn't be surprised after the fact.

Finally, considering Ginsburg's record as one of the high court's most liberal, activist members, Senate Republicans could have worn their attempts to keep her off the court as a badge of honor.

All this applies today in regard to Sonia Sotomayor. Her albatross isn't the ACLU, but could be the National Council of La Raza, of which Sotomayor is a member, according to the American Bar Association. La Raza's advocacy for extending the rights and privileges of illegal aliens could become an explosive focus in Sotomayor's confirmation.


Last edited by Put It Out There Baby on Sat May 30, 2009 3:21 pm; edited 2 times in total

Put It Out There Baby

Male
Number of posts : 585
Registration date : 2009-02-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by Put It Out There Baby on Sat May 30, 2009 3:12 pm

The Heritage Foundation:

May 27, 2009
Sotomayor Doesn't Live Up to Obama's Word
by Deborah O'Malley

President Obama wants Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill Justice David Souter's seat on the Supreme Court. But her nomination paints a grim picture of the Supreme Court's future for those who believe the law should be interpreted according to its original meaning.

Obama says that an important quality in a nominee is the recognition of the limits of the judicial role. Thus judges should "interpret, not make law" and approach decisions with a "commitment to impartial justice." With these words, it's curious he'd select a nominee who disagrees.

Judge Sotomayor has made several public statements denouncing -- and even lightly mocking -- the idea that courts should be impartial and shouldn't engage in policymaking. During a Duke University panel discussion in 2005, Sotomayor stated: "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made."

She flippantly brushed off this statement, to laughter from the audience. "And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know..." She did not go on to clarify what she apparently did mean, but the words speak for themselves.

This is not the first time she has publicly expressed bold views on a judge's role. In a 2001speech at Berkeley School of Law she advanced the idea legal interpretations are inevitably and unavoidably influenced by one's own experience and cultural background, and that "impartiality" is just an "aspiration." She ponders: "I wonder whether achieving that goal [of impartiality] is possible in all or even in most cases." So much for blind justice.

In the same speech, she was even so bold as to assert her "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." As Stuart Taylor has aptly noted, "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." During her hearings, senators should demand an explanation for her radical statements of ethnic superiority.

In addition to making statements about the importance of life experience, Obama has also repeatedly stated that "empathy" is a vital quality that he seeks in judicial nominees. Sotomayor's time on the Second Circuit has given her ample opportunity to demonstrate the role that "empathy" plays in her decision-making.

Most notable is the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, in which Sotomayor's three-judge panel sided with New Haven, Conn., officials who threw out the results of race-neutral fire department promotional exams because they did not yield enough high scores from African-American firefighters. When no promotions were given as a result, Frank Ricci, a dyslexic white firefighter who came in sixth in the competition for eight lieutenant spots, filed a lawsuit with 19 other firefighters alleging racial discrimination.

Some might feel "empathetic" toward a learning-disabled civil servant who overcame the disadvantage by spending every spare hour studying after he had a friend record his textbooks onto tapes. Better yet, a constitutionalist would find the city's race-conscious criteria to violate the requirements of Equal Protection. But Sotomayor wasn't moved.

Like other liberal activists who assert the importance of empathy, Sotomayor remarkably finds the need to reach into her "heart" only when the litigant's cause aligns with her own. In fact, as Clinton appointee Judge José Cabranes noted with some frustration, Sotomayor's "empathy" with New Haven's position was so relentless that she took unprecedented procedural steps to bury the claims of the firefighters.

In an attempt to prevent effective review, Sotomayor's three-judge panel originally issued a one paragraph summary order affirming the district court's ruling, then withdrew it and issued an unsigned opinion.

Neither the order nor the opinion made any attempt to seriously consider the firefighters' arguments. According to Cabranes, they did not even address the core issues in the case. Thanks to judges like Cabranes, this attempt at evasion failed, and the case is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Obama uses the rhetoric of one who believes that judges should be interpreters of the law and not policymakers, but his choice of Sonia Sotomayor proves that such statements are just rhetoric.

Both her public statements and her attempt to smother the arguments of litigants she disfavors (such as in Ricci) reveal that she is no defender of the rule of law, but an unabashed hard-Left judicial activist.

Put It Out There Baby

Male
Number of posts : 585
Registration date : 2009-02-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum