When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
81 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Aleric
14 years ago
A major knee jerk Liberal woman who feels that the Supreme Courts job is to interpret the laws with feelings and emotion and make policy…….go figure.
Now who in the republican party will step up and stand against this joke of a nomination.
The supreme court IS where policy is made. Remember Brown Vs. Board when Congress wasn’t brave enough to demand the end of segregation? Whenever laws break the constitution the court is there to strike them down. The result is a new policy. No surprise. She was speaking the truth. It doesn’t even mean she agrees with it; thats just the way its been since John Marshall.
Also, its pretty obvious that our different backgrounds result in different points of view. Otherwise we wouldn’t be a national of unique individuals. Do you believe an all white male court would be representative of our nation?
WJD
pollabear.com
Leah
14 years ago
@Joe: Technically, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court only overturned Plessy v. Ferguson’s “separate but equal” principle because separation had a negative psychological effect on African-American children in schools. It did lead to desegregation, but that’s not my point. I want to point out that your argument that Supreme Court creates policy is invalid. Supreme Court’s role in government is to merely warn the government (Congress) when a law it has created conflicts with the laws in the Constitution – it has no means of enforcing its rulings, because the Supreme Court has no way of enforcing its rulings. Congress can ignore it if it wants to, or undercut its funding if it wants to.
Mike’s America did not say that he prefers an all-white male panel of judges on the Supreme Court. He’s pointing out her sexism and racism by noting what she says about Hispanic women. Do you honestly think it’s fair, or even ethical, for her to be saying that?
Our forefathers designed the Supreme Court the way it is for a reason – so that it stays far away from politics of society and so that it can render unbiased, unswayed judgments. I hardly think this is what they intended.
I get Brown v. Board. My point was that the effect of decisions by that body always affects policy. We can argue the semantics but the Supreme Court can tell the people a law it wanted doesn’t pass the test, specifically, because it is there to protect the minority from mob rule. With that in mind (for the sake of argument) maybe a minority would make better decisions. If its the majority making decisions that the minority feels violates their rights would it be fair to only have members of that same majority ruling on its merits?
We’ll see today if the California Supreme Court will in “effect” legalize gay marriage. If they do, the court will have essentially legalized a practice the people of California voted to prohibit by the ballot initiative Prop 8. Its the members of the court vs. the people of California and the justices opinion reigns supreme. To me its quite clear that body has a strong hand in setting policy. They can obviously only do so when a law is challenged, but once it is its left to their discretion.
So its much more than a warning. If it weren’t, a legislative body could continue with its practice against the judgement of the court. But as we both know, it cannot. Of Course as in the case of Brown vs. Board it goes back to the supreme court for them to change their minds.
herman
14 years ago
RNC mistakingly releases their soto talking points:
…or RNC “plays” talking points in media echo chamber
Lynn Green
14 years ago
I find it curious that the nomination of a female Hispanic plays a “race” and “sex” card. Why is this not true if the nomination is a white male? There one has both race and sex. In fact, this is true when anyone is nominated. Really, if the conservative movement wishes to escape the ordor of racism, they should restrict their criticism to the realm of ideas. If you dislike Sotomayer’s judicial philosophy, then you have a viable reason to criticize her, but not her gender or ethnicity.
Neither do you have reason to criticize Pres. Obama’s decision to nominate her unless you wish to criticize every woman or minority Bush nominated to the federal courts.
Old Trooper
14 years ago
The SCOTUS is highly politicized, hence the term “Legislating from the Bench”
Appointments are highly politicized as are confirmations. Activist Judges do not follow the Constitution, they amend it at whim without a Constitutional Convention or the votes of elected representatives. That is why I consider an Activist, Racist, Sexist Judge like Sotomayer to be a very poor choice. Can You say Class Warfare?
Maybe you can explain Sotomayor’s opinion 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.”
Activist judge? Maybe, maybe not. Liberal? Probably but whatever. To suggest that gender and race “more often than not” are the key to reaching “a better conclusion” than that arrived at by another person is patently racist. Or tell me why it is not racist.
Seriously, if someone came to you for a job and during the interview you asked them why they would perform their duties better than other applicants and the response is “Because I’m not that color or that sex, I’m the other”, would you hire that person?
If she had said a “different conclusion” there would be no reason to deny the rationality of the statement and no reason to suggest a prejudice on her part but to say “a better conclusion” is entirely another matter. I don’t know enough about Sonia Sotomayor, at this point, to have made up my mind about her but a comment as disturbing as that demands a full explanation.
pdill
14 years ago
I knew Elizabeth Scalia would have something interesting to say. Since she is so much better at it then moi, here’s the link and an excerpt:
Moreover I find the posy-bearing “compelling life story” idea to be gag-inducing. Aside from making news reporters sound like they’re narrating programming for the LifeStyle network (“…in a moment, a very special story…”) it seems manipulative and dishonest, to me. Good heavens, if anyone on the Supreme Court has a “compelling life story” it is Clarence Thomas, but the press didn’t feel the need to gush over his rise from dirt-poverty. And if a “compelling life story” is all it takes to be a Justice, then let’s just haul Susan Boyle over here and be done with it!
With Sotomayor’s nomination we’ll see both race and gender card be played. If you don’t like her, you’re a racist misogynist.
If seated, Sonya Sotomayor will be the 6th Catholic on the Supreme Court, but it is very doubtful that you will see the press or Democrats wring their hands about “imbalance” or “too many Catholics” should she be seated. In the upside-down world of misnamed liberalism, “bad” Catholics like Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas are harmful to the world and little children, while Catholics in the mold of John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi are “the good ones.” And if that reminds you of Archie Bunker suggesting that the black guy at work was “you know, one of the good ones,” well, there you go. The liberalism of my youth has morphed into all that it hated. I somehow doubt the left would be amused to know that St. Paul could identify with them, as he wrote “all that I hate, I am become…”
John ryan
14 years ago
Until today Republican Presidents had appointed 7 of the 9 justices.
Real American Patriot
14 years ago
Old Trooper:
Can you give us examples of decisions Sotomayer has made that makes you say you consider her a consider an Activist, Racist, Sexist Judge??? Or is this just more spew from you??
JCN Statement on nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court
May 26, 2009
Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, on nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court:
“Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.
“She reads racial preferences and quotas into the Constitution, even to the point of dishonoring those who preserve our public safety. On September 11, America saw firsthand the vital role of America’s firefighters in protecting our citizens. They put their lives on the line for her and the other citizens of New York and the nation. But Judge Sotomayor would sacrifice their claims to fair treatment in employment promotions to racial preferences and quotas. The Supreme Court is now reviewing that decision.
“She has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed, indicating that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court.”
JCN Open Memo
RE: Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor
May 26, 2009
TO: JCN Members and Interested Parties
FROM: Wendy Long, Counsel to Judicial Confirmation Network
RE: Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor
* President Obama has threatened to nominate liberal judicial activists who will indulge their left-wing policy preferences instead of neutrally applying the law. In selecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his threat.
* Judge Sotomayor will allow her feelings and personal politics to stand in the way of basic fairness. In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor sided with a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. The percuriam opinion Sotomayor joined went so far out of its way to bury the firefighters’ important claims of unfair treatment that her colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her.
* According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at he core of this case” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.” Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed disappointment with the case, stating, “Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.”
* Sotomayor’s terrible decision in Ricci is under review by the Supreme Court and an opinion is expected by the end of June.
* Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She reiterated her commitment to that lawless judicial philosophy at Duke Law School in 2005 when
she stated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”
* The poor quality of Sotomayor’s decisions is reflected in her terrible record of reversals by the Supreme Court.
* Sotomayor is a favorite of far left special interest groups. In addition to her record as a hard left judicial activist, Sotomayor has been recommended for the Supreme Court by Nan Aron of the very liberal Alliance for Justice, who stated in a 2004 memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Sotomayor had “been through an initial vetting and fit into the criteria that we believe should be the standard for any Supreme Court justice.”
* The White House is sure to argue that Sotomayor is a “bipartisan pick” because Bush 41 appointed her to the district court: President George H.W. Bush nominated Sotomayor in 1991 only because the New York senators had forced on the White House a deal that enabled Senator Moynihan to name one of every four district court nominees in New York. In 1998, 29 Republican senators voted against President Clinton’s nomination of Sotomayor to the Second Circuit.
Non partisan, non biased, non racist, non sexist, non activist, impartial?
Not rated so by her peers. Far from it but “politically correct” for Team Obama and their agenda.
On spew, come armed with some facts of Your Own. Who did Your Homework in School?
SCOTUS Rulings should be made from the Constitutional Law, not prejudice or a personal
agenda. According to her Peers, she clearly has an agenda.
Is that clear enough?
Leah
14 years ago
Point of OldTrooper’s post: Sotomayor’s everything that the Supreme Court should not be. The law is supposed to be blind, hence our blind-folded Lady Justice. They drill us in law school and even before that you’re supposed to be completely unbiased and objective in viewing a case, and that you’re not supposed to bring in your race, class, gender, or anything of the sort into the decision that you make. As someone whose passion is law, I cannot accept her views, nor would I be able to accept her as a Supreme Court justice. Sotomayor, and Obama, it seems to me, are trying to peel away the blindfold.
Old Trooper
14 years ago
Leah, Fairly administered, impartial and non biased adjudication of issues is the standard.
Adherence to the Laws “as written and within the full intent” of the Law is what sets Our American Justice System as superior to those found in the Middle East, Russia, China and third world nations.
Thanks for confirming that. Subjectivity and bias appear to be firmly entrenched on Sotomayor’s record and resume which clearly makes her unfit for the bench at any level, especially SCOTUS.
It would be a waste of an appointment on her as if she had any integrity as she would have to recuse herself from 90% of the casework.
URI
14 years ago
I think that her upbringing is a very important point to consider. She has being born with no money or status, poor with limited future. And yes, because of the Civil Rights Act, she has been able to go to some of the best universities in the USA. However, if she was not intelligent or a hard worker, she could not have made it all the way. Yes, she is a woman and Hispanic but she must have brains too.
Moreover, given the choices, Sotomayor is someone in the middle of the road.
The little that we know about her is that she was appointed by Presidend Bush Sr. At least she is Catholic born, so some ideology is there, hopefully pro-life but doubtful she is going to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Then, she was shortly married and divorced which is like 50% of the Americans in that regard.
She is a 2nd generation American, which means that she has a lot of traditional and cultural influences from Puerto Rico. This aspect of her could be a plus for Inmigration reform.
She could make a good Supreme Court Judge. It could be a lot worst and sadly, the Republicans would not be able to do a thing to stop it. Obama has made the conservatives a favor with her nomination.
Republicans don’t have the votes to defeat Sotomayor — and should be extremely cautious even in considering a filibuster. There is so much at stake right now that it’s going to be important to “prioritize” properly. But what the GOP will have is an opportunity through the hearings to show what liberal judging is all about — and they need to take that moment.
They have confused the policy-making that elected representatives do with the decision-making and consitutional interpretation that judges are supposed to do. Sure, they give lip service to “interpretting, not making” the law — but then go right on and do just that. They make law in accordance with their own policy preferences. Judge Sotomayor has even said that the court is “where policy is made.” (ht: Drudge Report)
Presumably, one’s in good shape if one is a Latina before Judge Sotomayor. Perhaps not as much if one is a white male. And that’s the problem. Where does it end if white men can only get a fair shake before white male judges, and Latinas can only get a fair shake before Latina judges?
By trashing the idea of judicial impartiality — and discounting the importance of aspiring to it — Judge Sotomayor engages in a thought (and judicial) process that is not only unjust, but is deeply inimical to the success of a diverse country like ours.
Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.
Ruled that a federal law allowing lawsuits against individual federal government officers and agents for constitutional rights violations also extends to private corporations working on behalf of the federal government. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductable. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor’s decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach “flies in the face of the statutory language.” Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)
Although SCOTUS upheld her ruling, this one is troubling. She’s supposed to be this great intellect, yet she got spanked by the Supremes over basic law?
In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch’s argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor’s ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to “wasteful, duplicative litigation.”
Just a few examples. You can read more here It’s CNBC, not a rightwing hate site.
Fit fit
14 years ago
It might be easier for you guys to just assume the position and not get all worked up over what will be an inevitable conclusion…
Old Trooper
14 years ago
Fit fit
“It might be easier for you guys to just assume the position and not get all worked up over what will be an inevitable conclusion…”
A loss of Fair and Objective due process should work Every American up. A rework of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should get You worked up. A loss of Rights to Private Property, Individual Freedoms and further Government intrusion into Your Life should get You worked up. The possibility of Reverse Discrimination should get You worked up.
I have never assumed any position without it being an individual choice based upon a thought process, not intimidation. In two days I will send my Daughter off to the US Air Force Academy to continue her education by her choice, hard work in school and a fair and impartial selection process. Not through influence or an affirmative action quota despite the fact that I am 1/4 Lakota Sioux and know all about Government programs that hold Native Americans hostage to the dole.
I was an Army OCS Grad, have two degrees all through my efforts, reached field grade rank, despite frequent deployments and several undeclared wars. I was never entitled to anything but recognition for My Own performance. I served as legal counsel, despite the lack of a law degree for Soldiers up for Courts Martial by their choice because they were my responsibility and they did not trust SJA to work hard enough on that duty.
I am knowledgeable in the UCMJ, Geneva Conventions, Treaties, SOFA agreements, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, US Code and Foreign Law. I am just an old Airborne Trooper that have served in Command, Staff and worked with Federal Agencies. Am I qualified for SCOTUS appointment?
Nope.
* I always paid my taxes on time
* Never allowed my opinions to get in the way of my sworn duties
* Attended UNC Chapel Hill and University of Maryland and was not an Affirmative Action Ivy League Club Member
* Raised on a Cattle Ranch in Montana, not a big city street corner
* Was never political until now that I am Retired and see someone pulling a fast on on My Nation
* Voted Absentee and encouraged My Soldiers to do so regardless of IF the Ballots would be counted
* Deployed to anywhere in less than 72 hours regardless of the Mission in My Personal Views
* Refused to be intimidated by Punks, Thugs or Career Politicians or compromised my values
* Earned several berets and Foreign decorations
* Am an NRA Life Member and stalk and take game on my Property and taught My Daughter to do same and make a damn fine meal of it.
* Attended Chaplain Services and a Church when Home where no politics or Hate was a part of the Sermon.
* Have read the Bible, the Koran and found some common ground
* Own Conservative values from practice, not rhetoric from folks wanting my vote
* Am an Independent and do not worry about Caucuses, Primaries or read Polls
* Have been sent on Fools errands globally but deployed and did the Missions
* Learned several Languages and embraced many Cultures other than mine
* Can quote Shakespeare or Mark Twain or Churchill or Kipling from memory
But not qualified for appointment or willing to see unqualified folks be confirmed if they can harm the Nation that I defended, without reservation for the majority of mt adult life without saying NOPE.
My views and experiences are not Yours. I never walked a mile in Your boots but know danger from allowing anyone an easy path to SCOTUS by ethnicity, acceptable PC bias, ethnic preference or political gain from the most unqualified or Corrupt Congress President ever.
My conscience will not allow Me to buy into that. Now off to grill up the Last Supper of beef steaks and baked potatoes for my only begotten and let you all question Politics, Torture and SCOTUS appointments to Team Obama biased and compromised candidates supported by the soon over taxed majority.
Take Care!
* Old Trooper. org is coming when I get back from France. FA authors are welcome.
But be patient. I am not tech savvy.
Any of You that want to piss on my boots will just have to stand in line. I have beaches to see, Respect to pay and will not be playing golf or handing out IPODS with my Ego boosting BS on them. One travel day on each end, 5 visit days to look at the War that Liberated Europe and pay respects to those that loved Freedom and Duty more than their mortal being.
suek
14 years ago
>>She has being born with no money or status, poor with limited future. And yes, because of the Civil Rights Act, she has been able to go to some of the best universities in the USA.>>
Oh yeah. Right. Like Clarence Thomas? Somehow, it didn’t seem to work like that for him.
suek
14 years ago
And…by the way…
are you saying that if you have the “misfortune” to be born with money, status, an unlimited future (that you seem to feel _needs_ to be limited), and go the the best universities through your own efforts and the good connections of your family, you are somehow unworthy of the office of Supreme Court Justice?
Is there some automatic qualification handicap you’d like to impose?
uri
14 years ago
@ Aqua:
I am not a trained lawyer and I don’t doubt you a bit and the cases. However, qualifications is no longer the prevaling issue here. Sotomayor is a political compromise with the Hispanic constituency that voted for Obama and she will be confirmed. Now, she has a little bit of a ” temper” and that could be her weak point. She is better than Kathleen Sullivan.
Politico just had an article about Laura Bush and the point of the article was that Mrs. Bush wanted a woman for the Supreme Court and that is how Mrs. Myers was nominated by President Bush. It didn’t happen but there are a lot of conservative and liberal women waiting to see a more balanced court in terms of gender.
So, it is going to be a slum dunk for Obama regardless of her qualifications or rulings. We should focus in North Korea and Proposition 8 in California.
… assume the position. LOL Well, Fit, I might want to say that just because you already have doesn’t mean the rest of us need to go quietly into Obama’s “remaking of America” nightmare.
We’re just hoping that after you’ve been bending over for so long, the blood will rush to your head and you may have to come up for air… then figure out that being shafted ain’t all it’s cracked up to be. ala, it sounds so much better in “just words” than deeds.
DanO
14 years ago
I like that she so fervently differentiates between genders.
In acknowledging that difference, one wonders what her views would be on the subject of gay marriage – where proponents (when pushed) tow the line that there is NO difference between genders. Here we might see yet another instance where the left is bit in the ass by embracing those who have risen from poverty, but the core values that helped them do so are just what the left has such rabid hatred for.
Lynn Green
14 years ago
I do not think anyone should stop speaking her/his mind. I just ask that we have a rational discussion. I think there is a world of difference between bringing one’s perspective and life experiences to the interpretation of the law and Constitution and “playing the race card.” Law is a human institution and must be viewed from a human perspective. I think having someone like Sotomeyer on the bench will be to the nation’s benefit.
@DanO: Good point. Libs are all for gender equality yet they celebrate people who proudly represent ONE gender or ethnic identification.
@Lynn Green: If you don’t think there is a racial component here that’s your opinion. But your opinion is contradicted by Sotomayer’s own statements.
Old Trooper
14 years ago
suek
And…by the way… are you saying that if you have the “misfortune” to be born with money, status, an unlimited future (that you seem to feel _needs_ to be limited), and go the the best universities through your own ( affirmative action and Government Grant) efforts and the good connections of your family to the NAACP or ACLU, you are somehow unworthy of the office of Supreme Court Justice?
Is there some automatic qualification handicap you’d like to impose?
**************************************************************
Nope but gender, ethnicity, PC bias acknowledged and a piss poor record after a Politically Correct appointment as a Judge with exhibited bias, racism, sexist outcomes is fine with You?
**************************************************************
If you were born with huge money that You were “present” but worked for, you would be a Kennedy or a Rockefeller and leverage cash for power or be a Clinton that stole it for redistribution to power brokers or be be an Obama that promised everything and does not give a rats rump about Your America but His America …I will not accept that. Socialist America will resemble Kenya or Somalia.
Ready accept that?
You must be smarter than that?
Or Not.
Lynn Green
14 years ago
All those who sit on the bench and make judgements do so from a human perspective. If Judge Sotomayor brings her human experience to the bench, then so does Chief Justice Roberts. I believe this is inevitable. I think that we are enriched having someone from her background.
And I do believe the fact that she came up from a working class background makes her story admirable. We all admire the stories of Abe Lincoln, Thomas Edison, Booker T. Washington and so on for their ability to rise above their situations.
I do not automatically condemn the rich, but I do note that Jesus spoke far more about the sins of the rich than he did about those of the common people. Jesus said more about wealth and the abuses of the rich than he did about sinners.
alan carrier
14 years ago
Old Trooper, I was going to take my dad to Normandy , He went in 6/6/1944 Utah beach . U.S. Army, 531st infantry engineers . first wave. He has elected to have Open heart surgery to correct a valve issue . He called me today and called the trip off. He is one tough old soldier and I am confident he will come through it fine. We will go another time though. I wish you the best on your trip there. He spent Memorial day on the USS Intrepid in NYC and had a good day.
Regards.
Is that last paragraph a “What Would Jesus Do?” approach to class warfare? Go wherever you like with that thinking but I’m still perplexed by your apparent lack of concern over Sotomayor’s belief 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.”
If Chief Justice Roberts’ confirmation hearing had yielded anything approaching a comment that suggested superiority of one race over another for adjudicating complex legal issues he would never have been confirmed and rightfully so.
We’re not at the hearings yet but don’t you want an explanation from Sotomayor about that remark? If not, why not?!
uri
14 years ago
These are the issues that divide the conservatives. This nomination will create a bigger reef and split in our country.
If the conservatives go against a Hispanic woman being nominated for the USSC, how are we going to get women to support us? and what about the Hispanic voters?.
@Lynn Green: @tfhr beat me to it. I look forward to your response.
You can rattle off the girl made good talking points provided by the Obama White House all day long and it doesn’t change the facts.
@uri: Do you think that all women and hispanic voters want is a candidate or party that will pander to them with identity politics and reverse racism?
I hope not. I give women and minorities more credit than that and I hope I am not wrong.
Obama has given conservatives a chance at another teachable moment. We can educate the ill-informed who pulled the lever in the voting booth for hope and change and ask them if this is what they had in mind?
Hard Right
14 years ago
Boy, this thread sure brought out the moonbats and the DNC talking points.
She’s a moderate, it’s racist to oppose her, you can’t win so just give up, blah, blah, blah.
Frankly, all this chatter about Sotomayor’s remark at Duke comes in a far second from her decisions. And I disagree with Mike on two aspects here. First, there is much we know about Sotomayor. And second, Obama’s not playing the race and gender card by her nomination, but he dang sure has it up his sleeve to play if there is any dissent.
I could care less about her gender, her nationality or her childhood as wealthy or poor. That’s the typical liberal/progressive class warfare game, and I don’t play by such rules meant to divide. I base my opinions on actions, not “just words”. And in that, there is much to support Sotomayor’s pride (or would that be ego) in being an activist judge.
First there is Ricci v. DeStefano now being heard in SCOTUS, after she threw out firefighters examinations for promotions because there were no minorities eligible for advancement in the results. That may be overturned… as have other of her decisions.
Opposition to her decision INRE an inmate suing a corporation doing government services, instead of individuals brought the comment she was “…”willing to expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution.”Makesko v Correctional Services Organization Overturned 5-4
In Riverkeeper v EPA 2007 she supported the enviros on whether to require power plants to make changes that could preserve aquatic organisms… saying that (per the NYTs article on her cases) “weighing the costs of the changes against the value of the organisms in dollars was not permitted by the law. Instead, the EPA could consider only what cost “may reasonably be borne” by the power plants”. SCOTUS overturned.
When’s the last time you saw a united SCOTUS? Per CNN, she supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Unanimously overturned by the High Court.
Again per the NYTs article linked above:
In one case, Judge Sotomayor ruled that a law school graduate with a reading and learning disability was entitled to extra time in taking the bar exams. After the Supreme Court decided that people are not protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act if they can function normally by wearing glasses, taking medication or otherwise compensating for their disabilities, it told the Second Court to reconsider its decision in this case. Judge Sotomayor again found that the woman was disabled, and must be given accommodations, writing that test scores alone were not enough to diagnose a disability.
Then there is Gant v Wallingford Board of Education 1999 where she decided that Ray Gant was transferred mid term from 1st grade to kindergarten for academic difficulty because the the school was deliberately indifferent to racial hostility that he suffered. She dismissed the racial claim, but rejected the court’s opinion that it wasn’t race discrimination. From SCOTUSblog:
In her view, the transfer was “unprecedented and contrary to the school’s established policies”: white students having academic difficulties, she noted, received compensatory help, whereas Gant – the “lone black child” in his class – was not given an “equal chance” but was instead demoted to kindergarten just nine days after arriving at the school.
The student was initially placed in a first-grade class after transferring to his new school. Two weeks later, he was transferred to a kindergarten class. The student was African-American, and the school was 1-2% African-American. The student was also subjected to racial name calling by other students. The student’s father complained, and the school superintendent investigated the racial insults as well as the kindergarten transfer.
The superintendent found that there was no “persuasive evidence” that the student had been subjected to constant abuse of a racial nature, and that the transfer was appropriate.
A lawsuit was commenced, naming the school district and various school officials and teachers as defendants. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that the response to the racial incidents did not amount to deliberate indifference. The transfer was also found to be justified based on the records, reports, and assessments performed by school officials prior to the transfer. The appeals court affirmed the judgment, borrowing the Davis court’s reasoning on deliberate indifference.
Despite the records, reports and assessments, Ms. Sotomayor may have dismissed the claim, but still claimed there was racial discrimination.
I didn’t expect anything less from Obama than an activist judge that would fit all the PC qualities that would make his first appointment as “historic” as he believes himself to be. And he found it all in Sonia Sotomayor.
There is little that can be done to stop this as, in the end, Obama will be given exactly what he wants. And if not Sotomayor, it will be another Sotomayor with a different name.
Meanwhile you have Lynn – a self-described “yellow dog democrat” (translation=blind partisan) – literally drooling with emotions and feelings about this judge that have nothing to do with her judicial record. To boot, he’s got the sheer chutzpah to say:
I do not automatically condemn the rich, but I do note that Jesus spoke far more about the sins of the rich than he did about those of the common people. Jesus said more about wealth and the abuses of the rich than he did about sinners.
This, of course, comes from a man who’s blog subtitle is “…to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” And what would JC say of that attitude, Lynn? You’re so interested in making up biblical facts. Square that one.
Between the two, it’s obvious Lynn is a man who lies when he says he does not “automatically condemn the rich”. He not only condemns them, but considers it his duty to “afflict” those that are “comfortable”…. unless they are his rich hero, Obama. Or that most “comfortable” woman he “admires”, Sotomayor.
Heaven spare me from humans. You just cannot condone stupid in these times.
Lynn Green
14 years ago
Actually Mike, I think that this nominee is precisely the reason that we who voted for Pres. Obama “pulled the lever” for him. (Of course, in my case, it was take the pen and make my mark.)
I think that Sotomayor will bring a much needed perspective to the court. We judge according to our perspectives. That is why it is important to gain many different ones.
And if you want to accuse Jesus of class warfare, then be my guest. I am the son of a preacher, and one thing my papa taught me was “never fight on the side of Goliath.” That is why my fight is for social and economic justice just like Dr. King and Senor Chavez.
Of course, Warren Buffet remarked, “If there is class warfare going on in this country, my class is winning.”
@MataHarley: If you don’t think Obama’s playing the race card here that puts you smack in the Lynne Green camp. Not where I would want to be.
@Lynn Green: I am sure there are many like yourself who knew you were voting for socialism in disguise. But it’s a safe bet to suggest that many who drank the Hope and Change Kool Aid did NOT realize this is what it meant.
That’s why an aggressive opposition to Sotomayor is called for. Another fine opportunity to educate the public about who and what Obama really is.
Did you want to respond to the other comments regarding Sotomayor’s statements or did you want to head to the tall grass on that one?
Lynn Green
14 years ago
@Mike: “safe bet” that many who voted for Obama did not realize it meant nominating someone like Sotomayor??? I am curious what your evidence is. Our president’s approval ratings remain quite high. Consumer confidence levels in the economy just took a very large and very unexpected jump. Pres. Obama campaigned on change, and Judge Sotomayor represents change if she represents anything. I think that the people of this nation will be okay with her and okay with the man who put forward her nomination.
Perhaps you can answer this for me. Did Clarence Thomas nomination represent a playing of the race card? Or do you just wish to claim that he was nominated for his fine intellect alone?
Mike, insult me all you like. But Obama didn’t play a race card by nominating a candidate that supports his affirmative action slant on governing. He merely followed his agenda. Wouldn’t have mattered if the nominee were male, asian, white, or gay as long as their bench record matched his desires in a robed one. Her judicial record matches what he admires.
The race card comes when anyone dissents, and Obama is not dumb enough to put himself on the front line of fire. He will send his minions, like Lynn Green, out into cyberspace to practice their peculiar brand of class warfare which they label as Christianity, and they will play the race card for him.
Obama has never, and will never, be caught holding the smoking gun.
If the conservatives go against a Hispanic woman being nominated for the USSC, how are we going to get women to support us? and what about the Hispanic voters?.
Conservatives are going against Sotomayor as we went against Obama; has nothing to do with her being a “Hispanic” nor a “woman” anymore than voting against Obama’s election had to do with the color of his skin. Why is it liberal multiculturalists are so obsessed about skin color?
I think that Sotomayor will bring a much needed perspective to the court. We judge according to our perspectives. That is why it is important to gain many different ones.
Just how many more perspectives should we need to achieve social justice? An Asian one? A Native-American one? A Persian one? An Arabic one?
Ain’t enough slots to fill; and I disagree about the importance of “many different” perspectives; how about the one that most accurately interprets the Constitution?
Lynn Green
14 years ago
@MataHarley: So, I’m a “minion”. Used to be I was a “stooge” (Moe, I think). I do prefer being either a minion or a stooge to being a dittohead. And you’re right, I am a Christian Minion “marching off to war./ With the Christ of Class Warfare/Going on before.” (thank you Arthur Sullivan)
That’s funny, Mike. But I’ll hold with Curt’s opinion on this…. she was chosen for her affirmative action activist record. Not the “race card”… which you probably should more accurately label “the gender card” in your opinion.
Lynn Green, you may proudly consider yourself part of those that give Christianity a bad rap. Your idea of Christianity is to tear down others. Here I thought it was supposed to be the radical Christian right… and here you are, the radical Christian left.
Keep your illusion of piety to yourself. I’m certainly not impressed.
Lynn Green
14 years ago
@Mike: Yes, in fact, Thomas did play the race card. Played it well in fact. He did so most openly when he called the accusations Anita Hill brought against him as a “high tech lynching.” He knew the term was racially loaded, and he used it to deflect criticism away from his actions.
BTW, Mike, my first name is Robert. Don’t worry. Many people make that mistake. Heck, Mike Huckabee called Sonia Sotomayor, “Maria.”
@Lynn Green: I’ll repeat this since you obviously missed it: “Did Clarence Thomas ever suggest that his judicial opinions were superior because of his race or gender????”
And thanks for filling me in on your personal gender. Never mind about that sisterhood with Mata. Although…..
I’ve asked twice and you’ve asked at least that many times but Lynn/Robert Green is forced to evade the questions because he recognizes that an opinion like the one expressed by Sonia Sotomayor is racist but is willing to accept that because he believes that her political perspective is more important. It is an integrity issue for Lynn/Robert Green and worst of all, the promotion of such prejudice and bigotry reverses the progress of Civil Rights in this country for EVERYONE.
He adds insult to injury by claiming to seek social justice as prescribed by Martin Luther King, Jr. But Lynn/Robert Green, what do you think King meant when he said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”?
When you have a judge, in 2009, that believes that one skin color is superior to another, then I would suggest that the dream has become a nightmare when people such as Lynn/Robert Green have so little character themselves that they accept blatant racism for the sake of political expediency.
@MataHarley: Don’t overlook the racial aspect of all of this. This woman was chosen precisely because of her race, sex and ideology. To me, that’s playing the race card. Affirmative action isn’t really that much different.
@tfhr: I did notice that Lynn kind of avoided the issue. If I were him I’d be ashamed to admit I supported a blatantly racist nominee too.
Uri, if it was Obama’s intent to nominate a Hispanic to placate the Hispanic vote and the ever growing Hispanic population, he made a huge mistake. My lovely bride of almost 20 years is originally from Mexico. She’s always been here legally, so call of the IP tracing dogs. 😉
There is no love loss between other Hispanic groups and Puerto Ricans.
On another point, I believe you are right. The Republicans need to do their due dilligence on the nominee, get all their points out and then allow an up or down vote.
A major knee jerk Liberal woman who feels that the Supreme Courts job is to interpret the laws with feelings and emotion and make policy…….go figure.
Now who in the republican party will step up and stand against this joke of a nomination.
The supreme court IS where policy is made. Remember Brown Vs. Board when Congress wasn’t brave enough to demand the end of segregation? Whenever laws break the constitution the court is there to strike them down. The result is a new policy. No surprise. She was speaking the truth. It doesn’t even mean she agrees with it; thats just the way its been since John Marshall.
Also, its pretty obvious that our different backgrounds result in different points of view. Otherwise we wouldn’t be a national of unique individuals. Do you believe an all white male court would be representative of our nation?
WJD
pollabear.com
@Joe: Technically, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court only overturned Plessy v. Ferguson’s “separate but equal” principle because separation had a negative psychological effect on African-American children in schools. It did lead to desegregation, but that’s not my point. I want to point out that your argument that Supreme Court creates policy is invalid. Supreme Court’s role in government is to merely warn the government (Congress) when a law it has created conflicts with the laws in the Constitution – it has no means of enforcing its rulings, because the Supreme Court has no way of enforcing its rulings. Congress can ignore it if it wants to, or undercut its funding if it wants to.
Mike’s America did not say that he prefers an all-white male panel of judges on the Supreme Court. He’s pointing out her sexism and racism by noting what she says about Hispanic women. Do you honestly think it’s fair, or even ethical, for her to be saying that?
Our forefathers designed the Supreme Court the way it is for a reason – so that it stays far away from politics of society and so that it can render unbiased, unswayed judgments. I hardly think this is what they intended.
I get Brown v. Board. My point was that the effect of decisions by that body always affects policy. We can argue the semantics but the Supreme Court can tell the people a law it wanted doesn’t pass the test, specifically, because it is there to protect the minority from mob rule. With that in mind (for the sake of argument) maybe a minority would make better decisions. If its the majority making decisions that the minority feels violates their rights would it be fair to only have members of that same majority ruling on its merits?
We’ll see today if the California Supreme Court will in “effect” legalize gay marriage. If they do, the court will have essentially legalized a practice the people of California voted to prohibit by the ballot initiative Prop 8. Its the members of the court vs. the people of California and the justices opinion reigns supreme. To me its quite clear that body has a strong hand in setting policy. They can obviously only do so when a law is challenged, but once it is its left to their discretion.
So its much more than a warning. If it weren’t, a legislative body could continue with its practice against the judgement of the court. But as we both know, it cannot. Of Course as in the case of Brown vs. Board it goes back to the supreme court for them to change their minds.
RNC mistakingly releases their soto talking points:
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/26/rnc-fumbles-sotomayor-talking-points/
…or RNC “plays” talking points in media echo chamber
I find it curious that the nomination of a female Hispanic plays a “race” and “sex” card. Why is this not true if the nomination is a white male? There one has both race and sex. In fact, this is true when anyone is nominated. Really, if the conservative movement wishes to escape the ordor of racism, they should restrict their criticism to the realm of ideas. If you dislike Sotomayer’s judicial philosophy, then you have a viable reason to criticize her, but not her gender or ethnicity.
Neither do you have reason to criticize Pres. Obama’s decision to nominate her unless you wish to criticize every woman or minority Bush nominated to the federal courts.
The SCOTUS is highly politicized, hence the term “Legislating from the Bench”
Appointments are highly politicized as are confirmations. Activist Judges do not follow the Constitution, they amend it at whim without a Constitutional Convention or the votes of elected representatives. That is why I consider an Activist, Racist, Sexist Judge like Sotomayer to be a very poor choice. Can You say Class Warfare?
@Lynn Green: Agreed!
@Lynn Green:
@Joe:
Maybe you can explain Sotomayor’s opinion 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.”
Activist judge? Maybe, maybe not. Liberal? Probably but whatever. To suggest that gender and race “more often than not” are the key to reaching “a better conclusion” than that arrived at by another person is patently racist. Or tell me why it is not racist.
Seriously, if someone came to you for a job and during the interview you asked them why they would perform their duties better than other applicants and the response is “Because I’m not that color or that sex, I’m the other”, would you hire that person?
If she had said a “different conclusion” there would be no reason to deny the rationality of the statement and no reason to suggest a prejudice on her part but to say “a better conclusion” is entirely another matter. I don’t know enough about Sonia Sotomayor, at this point, to have made up my mind about her but a comment as disturbing as that demands a full explanation.
I knew Elizabeth Scalia would have something interesting to say. Since she is so much better at it then moi, here’s the link and an excerpt:
Until today Republican Presidents had appointed 7 of the 9 justices.
Old Trooper:
Can you give us examples of decisions Sotomayer has made that makes you say you consider her a consider an Activist, Racist, Sexist Judge??? Or is this just more spew from you??
Real American Patriot:
http://judicialnetwork.com/cgi-data/press_releases/files/98.shtml
JCN Statement on nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court
May 26, 2009
Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, on nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court:
“Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.
“She reads racial preferences and quotas into the Constitution, even to the point of dishonoring those who preserve our public safety. On September 11, America saw firsthand the vital role of America’s firefighters in protecting our citizens. They put their lives on the line for her and the other citizens of New York and the nation. But Judge Sotomayor would sacrifice their claims to fair treatment in employment promotions to racial preferences and quotas. The Supreme Court is now reviewing that decision.
“She has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed, indicating that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court.”
JCN Open Memo
RE: Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor
May 26, 2009
TO: JCN Members and Interested Parties
FROM: Wendy Long, Counsel to Judicial Confirmation Network
RE: Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor
* President Obama has threatened to nominate liberal judicial activists who will indulge their left-wing policy preferences instead of neutrally applying the law. In selecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his threat.
* Judge Sotomayor will allow her feelings and personal politics to stand in the way of basic fairness. In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor sided with a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. The percuriam opinion Sotomayor joined went so far out of its way to bury the firefighters’ important claims of unfair treatment that her colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her.
* According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at he core of this case” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.” Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed disappointment with the case, stating, “Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.”
* Sotomayor’s terrible decision in Ricci is under review by the Supreme Court and an opinion is expected by the end of June.
* Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She reiterated her commitment to that lawless judicial philosophy at Duke Law School in 2005 when
she stated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”
* The poor quality of Sotomayor’s decisions is reflected in her terrible record of reversals by the Supreme Court.
* Sotomayor is a favorite of far left special interest groups. In addition to her record as a hard left judicial activist, Sotomayor has been recommended for the Supreme Court by Nan Aron of the very liberal Alliance for Justice, who stated in a 2004 memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Sotomayor had “been through an initial vetting and fit into the criteria that we believe should be the standard for any Supreme Court justice.”
* The White House is sure to argue that Sotomayor is a “bipartisan pick” because Bush 41 appointed her to the district court: President George H.W. Bush nominated Sotomayor in 1991 only because the New York senators had forced on the White House a deal that enabled Senator Moynihan to name one of every four district court nominees in New York. In 1998, 29 Republican senators voted against President Clinton’s nomination of Sotomayor to the Second Circuit.
http://www.judicialnetwork.com
******************************************************************
Non partisan, non biased, non racist, non sexist, non activist, impartial?
Not rated so by her peers. Far from it but “politically correct” for Team Obama and their agenda.
On spew, come armed with some facts of Your Own. Who did Your Homework in School?
SCOTUS Rulings should be made from the Constitutional Law, not prejudice or a personal
agenda. According to her Peers, she clearly has an agenda.
Is that clear enough?
Point of OldTrooper’s post: Sotomayor’s everything that the Supreme Court should not be. The law is supposed to be blind, hence our blind-folded Lady Justice. They drill us in law school and even before that you’re supposed to be completely unbiased and objective in viewing a case, and that you’re not supposed to bring in your race, class, gender, or anything of the sort into the decision that you make. As someone whose passion is law, I cannot accept her views, nor would I be able to accept her as a Supreme Court justice. Sotomayor, and Obama, it seems to me, are trying to peel away the blindfold.
Leah, Fairly administered, impartial and non biased adjudication of issues is the standard.
Adherence to the Laws “as written and within the full intent” of the Law is what sets Our American Justice System as superior to those found in the Middle East, Russia, China and third world nations.
Thanks for confirming that. Subjectivity and bias appear to be firmly entrenched on Sotomayor’s record and resume which clearly makes her unfit for the bench at any level, especially SCOTUS.
It would be a waste of an appointment on her as if she had any integrity as she would have to recuse herself from 90% of the casework.
I think that her upbringing is a very important point to consider. She has being born with no money or status, poor with limited future. And yes, because of the Civil Rights Act, she has been able to go to some of the best universities in the USA. However, if she was not intelligent or a hard worker, she could not have made it all the way. Yes, she is a woman and Hispanic but she must have brains too.
Moreover, given the choices, Sotomayor is someone in the middle of the road.
The little that we know about her is that she was appointed by Presidend Bush Sr. At least she is Catholic born, so some ideology is there, hopefully pro-life but doubtful she is going to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Then, she was shortly married and divorced which is like 50% of the Americans in that regard.
She is a 2nd generation American, which means that she has a lot of traditional and cultural influences from Puerto Rico. This aspect of her could be a plus for Inmigration reform.
She could make a good Supreme Court Judge. It could be a lot worst and sadly, the Republicans would not be able to do a thing to stop it. Obama has made the conservatives a favor with her nomination.
@URI:
Carol Platt Liebau:
@John ryan:
Psstt….. John ryan…..
Sotomayor was not appointed today.
What was your point again?
@ URI
Really?
Although SCOTUS upheld her ruling, this one is troubling. She’s supposed to be this great intellect, yet she got spanked by the Supremes over basic law?
Just a few examples. You can read more here It’s CNBC, not a rightwing hate site.
It might be easier for you guys to just assume the position and not get all worked up over what will be an inevitable conclusion…
Fit fit
“It might be easier for you guys to just assume the position and not get all worked up over what will be an inevitable conclusion…”
A loss of Fair and Objective due process should work Every American up. A rework of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should get You worked up. A loss of Rights to Private Property, Individual Freedoms and further Government intrusion into Your Life should get You worked up. The possibility of Reverse Discrimination should get You worked up.
I have never assumed any position without it being an individual choice based upon a thought process, not intimidation. In two days I will send my Daughter off to the US Air Force Academy to continue her education by her choice, hard work in school and a fair and impartial selection process. Not through influence or an affirmative action quota despite the fact that I am 1/4 Lakota Sioux and know all about Government programs that hold Native Americans hostage to the dole.
I was an Army OCS Grad, have two degrees all through my efforts, reached field grade rank, despite frequent deployments and several undeclared wars. I was never entitled to anything but recognition for My Own performance. I served as legal counsel, despite the lack of a law degree for Soldiers up for Courts Martial by their choice because they were my responsibility and they did not trust SJA to work hard enough on that duty.
I am knowledgeable in the UCMJ, Geneva Conventions, Treaties, SOFA agreements, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, US Code and Foreign Law. I am just an old Airborne Trooper that have served in Command, Staff and worked with Federal Agencies. Am I qualified for SCOTUS appointment?
Nope.
* I always paid my taxes on time
* Never allowed my opinions to get in the way of my sworn duties
* Attended UNC Chapel Hill and University of Maryland and was not an Affirmative Action Ivy League Club Member
* Raised on a Cattle Ranch in Montana, not a big city street corner
* Was never political until now that I am Retired and see someone pulling a fast on on My Nation
* Voted Absentee and encouraged My Soldiers to do so regardless of IF the Ballots would be counted
* Deployed to anywhere in less than 72 hours regardless of the Mission in My Personal Views
* Refused to be intimidated by Punks, Thugs or Career Politicians or compromised my values
* Earned several berets and Foreign decorations
* Am an NRA Life Member and stalk and take game on my Property and taught My Daughter to do same and make a damn fine meal of it.
* Attended Chaplain Services and a Church when Home where no politics or Hate was a part of the Sermon.
* Have read the Bible, the Koran and found some common ground
* Own Conservative values from practice, not rhetoric from folks wanting my vote
* Am an Independent and do not worry about Caucuses, Primaries or read Polls
* Have been sent on Fools errands globally but deployed and did the Missions
* Learned several Languages and embraced many Cultures other than mine
* Can quote Shakespeare or Mark Twain or Churchill or Kipling from memory
But not qualified for appointment or willing to see unqualified folks be confirmed if they can harm the Nation that I defended, without reservation for the majority of mt adult life without saying NOPE.
My views and experiences are not Yours. I never walked a mile in Your boots but know danger from allowing anyone an easy path to SCOTUS by ethnicity, acceptable PC bias, ethnic preference or political gain from the most unqualified or Corrupt Congress President ever.
My conscience will not allow Me to buy into that. Now off to grill up the Last Supper of beef steaks and baked potatoes for my only begotten and let you all question Politics, Torture and SCOTUS appointments to Team Obama biased and compromised candidates supported by the soon over taxed majority.
Take Care!
* Old Trooper. org is coming when I get back from France. FA authors are welcome.
But be patient. I am not tech savvy.
Any of You that want to piss on my boots will just have to stand in line. I have beaches to see, Respect to pay and will not be playing golf or handing out IPODS with my Ego boosting BS on them. One travel day on each end, 5 visit days to look at the War that Liberated Europe and pay respects to those that loved Freedom and Duty more than their mortal being.
>>She has being born with no money or status, poor with limited future. And yes, because of the Civil Rights Act, she has been able to go to some of the best universities in the USA.>>
Oh yeah. Right. Like Clarence Thomas? Somehow, it didn’t seem to work like that for him.
And…by the way…
are you saying that if you have the “misfortune” to be born with money, status, an unlimited future (that you seem to feel _needs_ to be limited), and go the the best universities through your own efforts and the good connections of your family, you are somehow unworthy of the office of Supreme Court Justice?
Is there some automatic qualification handicap you’d like to impose?
@ Aqua:
I am not a trained lawyer and I don’t doubt you a bit and the cases. However, qualifications is no longer the prevaling issue here. Sotomayor is a political compromise with the Hispanic constituency that voted for Obama and she will be confirmed. Now, she has a little bit of a ” temper” and that could be her weak point. She is better than Kathleen Sullivan.
Politico just had an article about Laura Bush and the point of the article was that Mrs. Bush wanted a woman for the Supreme Court and that is how Mrs. Myers was nominated by President Bush. It didn’t happen but there are a lot of conservative and liberal women waiting to see a more balanced court in terms of gender.
So, it is going to be a slum dunk for Obama regardless of her qualifications or rulings. We should focus in North Korea and Proposition 8 in California.
… assume the position. LOL Well, Fit, I might want to say that just because you already have doesn’t mean the rest of us need to go quietly into Obama’s “remaking of America” nightmare.
We’re just hoping that after you’ve been bending over for so long, the blood will rush to your head and you may have to come up for air… then figure out that being shafted ain’t all it’s cracked up to be. ala, it sounds so much better in “just words” than deeds.
I like that she so fervently differentiates between genders.
In acknowledging that difference, one wonders what her views would be on the subject of gay marriage – where proponents (when pushed) tow the line that there is NO difference between genders. Here we might see yet another instance where the left is bit in the ass by embracing those who have risen from poverty, but the core values that helped them do so are just what the left has such rabid hatred for.
I do not think anyone should stop speaking her/his mind. I just ask that we have a rational discussion. I think there is a world of difference between bringing one’s perspective and life experiences to the interpretation of the law and Constitution and “playing the race card.” Law is a human institution and must be viewed from a human perspective. I think having someone like Sotomeyer on the bench will be to the nation’s benefit.
@DanO: Good point. Libs are all for gender equality yet they celebrate people who proudly represent ONE gender or ethnic identification.
@Lynn Green: If you don’t think there is a racial component here that’s your opinion. But your opinion is contradicted by Sotomayer’s own statements.
suek
And…by the way… are you saying that if you have the “misfortune” to be born with money, status, an unlimited future (that you seem to feel _needs_ to be limited), and go the the best universities through your own ( affirmative action and Government Grant) efforts and the good connections of your family to the NAACP or ACLU, you are somehow unworthy of the office of Supreme Court Justice?
Is there some automatic qualification handicap you’d like to impose?
**************************************************************
Nope but gender, ethnicity, PC bias acknowledged and a piss poor record after a Politically Correct appointment as a Judge with exhibited bias, racism, sexist outcomes is fine with You?
**************************************************************
If you were born with huge money that You were “present” but worked for, you would be a Kennedy or a Rockefeller and leverage cash for power or be a Clinton that stole it for redistribution to power brokers or be be an Obama that promised everything and does not give a rats rump about Your America but His America …I will not accept that. Socialist America will resemble Kenya or Somalia.
Ready accept that?
You must be smarter than that?
Or Not.
All those who sit on the bench and make judgements do so from a human perspective. If Judge Sotomayor brings her human experience to the bench, then so does Chief Justice Roberts. I believe this is inevitable. I think that we are enriched having someone from her background.
And I do believe the fact that she came up from a working class background makes her story admirable. We all admire the stories of Abe Lincoln, Thomas Edison, Booker T. Washington and so on for their ability to rise above their situations.
I do not automatically condemn the rich, but I do note that Jesus spoke far more about the sins of the rich than he did about those of the common people. Jesus said more about wealth and the abuses of the rich than he did about sinners.
Old Trooper, I was going to take my dad to Normandy , He went in 6/6/1944 Utah beach . U.S. Army, 531st infantry engineers . first wave. He has elected to have Open heart surgery to correct a valve issue . He called me today and called the trip off. He is one tough old soldier and I am confident he will come through it fine. We will go another time though. I wish you the best on your trip there. He spent Memorial day on the USS Intrepid in NYC and had a good day.
Regards.
A veterans son.
@Lynn Green:
Is that last paragraph a “What Would Jesus Do?” approach to class warfare? Go wherever you like with that thinking but I’m still perplexed by your apparent lack of concern over Sotomayor’s belief 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.”
If Chief Justice Roberts’ confirmation hearing had yielded anything approaching a comment that suggested superiority of one race over another for adjudicating complex legal issues he would never have been confirmed and rightfully so.
We’re not at the hearings yet but don’t you want an explanation from Sotomayor about that remark? If not, why not?!
These are the issues that divide the conservatives. This nomination will create a bigger reef and split in our country.
If the conservatives go against a Hispanic woman being nominated for the USSC, how are we going to get women to support us? and what about the Hispanic voters?.
@Lynn Green: @tfhr beat me to it. I look forward to your response.
You can rattle off the girl made good talking points provided by the Obama White House all day long and it doesn’t change the facts.
@uri: Do you think that all women and hispanic voters want is a candidate or party that will pander to them with identity politics and reverse racism?
I hope not. I give women and minorities more credit than that and I hope I am not wrong.
Obama has given conservatives a chance at another teachable moment. We can educate the ill-informed who pulled the lever in the voting booth for hope and change and ask them if this is what they had in mind?
Boy, this thread sure brought out the moonbats and the DNC talking points.
She’s a moderate, it’s racist to oppose her, you can’t win so just give up, blah, blah, blah.
Frankly, all this chatter about Sotomayor’s remark at Duke comes in a far second from her decisions. And I disagree with Mike on two aspects here. First, there is much we know about Sotomayor. And second, Obama’s not playing the race and gender card by her nomination, but he dang sure has it up his sleeve to play if there is any dissent.
I could care less about her gender, her nationality or her childhood as wealthy or poor. That’s the typical liberal/progressive class warfare game, and I don’t play by such rules meant to divide. I base my opinions on actions, not “just words”. And in that, there is much to support Sotomayor’s pride (or would that be ego) in being an activist judge.
First there is Ricci v. DeStefano now being heard in SCOTUS, after she threw out firefighters examinations for promotions because there were no minorities eligible for advancement in the results. That may be overturned… as have other of her decisions.
Opposition to her decision INRE an inmate suing a corporation doing government services, instead of individuals brought the comment she was “…”willing to expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution.” Makesko v Correctional Services Organization Overturned 5-4
In Riverkeeper v EPA 2007 she supported the enviros on whether to require power plants to make changes that could preserve aquatic organisms… saying that (per the NYTs article on her cases) “weighing the costs of the changes against the value of the organisms in dollars was not permitted by the law. Instead, the EPA could consider only what cost “may reasonably be borne” by the power plants”. SCOTUS overturned.
When’s the last time you saw a united SCOTUS? Per CNN, she supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Unanimously overturned by the High Court.
Again per the NYTs article linked above:
Then there is Gant v Wallingford Board of Education 1999 where she decided that Ray Gant was transferred mid term from 1st grade to kindergarten for academic difficulty because the the school was deliberately indifferent to racial hostility that he suffered. She dismissed the racial claim, but rejected the court’s opinion that it wasn’t race discrimination. From SCOTUSblog:
INRE that case, from Ken Kozlowski in an excerpt from the Report on Campus Safety and Student Development
Despite the records, reports and assessments, Ms. Sotomayor may have dismissed the claim, but still claimed there was racial discrimination.
I didn’t expect anything less from Obama than an activist judge that would fit all the PC qualities that would make his first appointment as “historic” as he believes himself to be. And he found it all in Sonia Sotomayor.
There is little that can be done to stop this as, in the end, Obama will be given exactly what he wants. And if not Sotomayor, it will be another Sotomayor with a different name.
Meanwhile you have Lynn – a self-described “yellow dog democrat” (translation=blind partisan) – literally drooling with emotions and feelings about this judge that have nothing to do with her judicial record. To boot, he’s got the sheer chutzpah to say:
This, of course, comes from a man who’s blog subtitle is “…to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” And what would JC say of that attitude, Lynn? You’re so interested in making up biblical facts. Square that one.
Between the two, it’s obvious Lynn is a man who lies when he says he does not “automatically condemn the rich”. He not only condemns them, but considers it his duty to “afflict” those that are “comfortable”…. unless they are his rich hero, Obama. Or that most “comfortable” woman he “admires”, Sotomayor.
Heaven spare me from humans. You just cannot condone stupid in these times.
Actually Mike, I think that this nominee is precisely the reason that we who voted for Pres. Obama “pulled the lever” for him. (Of course, in my case, it was take the pen and make my mark.)
I think that Sotomayor will bring a much needed perspective to the court. We judge according to our perspectives. That is why it is important to gain many different ones.
And if you want to accuse Jesus of class warfare, then be my guest. I am the son of a preacher, and one thing my papa taught me was “never fight on the side of Goliath.” That is why my fight is for social and economic justice just like Dr. King and Senor Chavez.
Of course, Warren Buffet remarked, “If there is class warfare going on in this country, my class is winning.”
@MataHarley: If you don’t think Obama’s playing the race card here that puts you smack in the Lynne Green camp. Not where I would want to be.
@Lynn Green: I am sure there are many like yourself who knew you were voting for socialism in disguise. But it’s a safe bet to suggest that many who drank the Hope and Change Kool Aid did NOT realize this is what it meant.
That’s why an aggressive opposition to Sotomayor is called for. Another fine opportunity to educate the public about who and what Obama really is.
Did you want to respond to the other comments regarding Sotomayor’s statements or did you want to head to the tall grass on that one?
@Mike: “safe bet” that many who voted for Obama did not realize it meant nominating someone like Sotomayor??? I am curious what your evidence is. Our president’s approval ratings remain quite high. Consumer confidence levels in the economy just took a very large and very unexpected jump. Pres. Obama campaigned on change, and Judge Sotomayor represents change if she represents anything. I think that the people of this nation will be okay with her and okay with the man who put forward her nomination.
Perhaps you can answer this for me. Did Clarence Thomas nomination represent a playing of the race card? Or do you just wish to claim that he was nominated for his fine intellect alone?
Mike, insult me all you like. But Obama didn’t play a race card by nominating a candidate that supports his affirmative action slant on governing. He merely followed his agenda. Wouldn’t have mattered if the nominee were male, asian, white, or gay as long as their bench record matched his desires in a robed one. Her judicial record matches what he admires.
The race card comes when anyone dissents, and Obama is not dumb enough to put himself on the front line of fire. He will send his minions, like Lynn Green, out into cyberspace to practice their peculiar brand of class warfare which they label as Christianity, and they will play the race card for him.
Obama has never, and will never, be caught holding the smoking gun.
@uri:
Conservatives are going against Sotomayor as we went against Obama; has nothing to do with her being a “Hispanic” nor a “woman” anymore than voting against Obama’s election had to do with the color of his skin. Why is it liberal multiculturalists are so obsessed about skin color?
Just how many more perspectives should we need to achieve social justice? An Asian one? A Native-American one? A Persian one? An Arabic one?
Ain’t enough slots to fill; and I disagree about the importance of “many different” perspectives; how about the one that most accurately interprets the Constitution?
@MataHarley: So, I’m a “minion”. Used to be I was a “stooge” (Moe, I think). I do prefer being either a minion or a stooge to being a dittohead. And you’re right, I am a Christian Minion “marching off to war./ With the Christ of Class Warfare/Going on before.” (thank you Arthur Sullivan)
@Lynn Green: Did Clarence Thomas ever suggest that his judicial opinions were superior because of his race or gender????
@MataHarley: or should I call you Lynn? Don’t be insulted. Revel in your sisterhood with Lynn. Embrace it.
That’s funny, Mike. But I’ll hold with Curt’s opinion on this…. she was chosen for her affirmative action activist record. Not the “race card”… which you probably should more accurately label “the gender card” in your opinion.
Lynn Green, you may proudly consider yourself part of those that give Christianity a bad rap. Your idea of Christianity is to tear down others. Here I thought it was supposed to be the radical Christian right… and here you are, the radical Christian left.
Keep your illusion of piety to yourself. I’m certainly not impressed.
@Mike: Yes, in fact, Thomas did play the race card. Played it well in fact. He did so most openly when he called the accusations Anita Hill brought against him as a “high tech lynching.” He knew the term was racially loaded, and he used it to deflect criticism away from his actions.
BTW, Mike, my first name is Robert. Don’t worry. Many people make that mistake. Heck, Mike Huckabee called Sonia Sotomayor, “Maria.”
@Lynn Green: I’ll repeat this since you obviously missed it: “Did Clarence Thomas ever suggest that his judicial opinions were superior because of his race or gender????”
And thanks for filling me in on your personal gender. Never mind about that sisterhood with Mata. Although…..
@Mike’s America:
@Lynn Green:
Mike,
I’ve asked twice and you’ve asked at least that many times but Lynn/Robert Green is forced to evade the questions because he recognizes that an opinion like the one expressed by Sonia Sotomayor is racist but is willing to accept that because he believes that her political perspective is more important. It is an integrity issue for Lynn/Robert Green and worst of all, the promotion of such prejudice and bigotry reverses the progress of Civil Rights in this country for EVERYONE.
He adds insult to injury by claiming to seek social justice as prescribed by Martin Luther King, Jr. But Lynn/Robert Green, what do you think King meant when he said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”?
When you have a judge, in 2009, that believes that one skin color is superior to another, then I would suggest that the dream has become a nightmare when people such as Lynn/Robert Green have so little character themselves that they accept blatant racism for the sake of political expediency.
@MataHarley: Don’t overlook the racial aspect of all of this. This woman was chosen precisely because of her race, sex and ideology. To me, that’s playing the race card. Affirmative action isn’t really that much different.
@tfhr: I did notice that Lynn kind of avoided the issue. If I were him I’d be ashamed to admit I supported a blatantly racist nominee too.
Ding. Ding. Ding.
There you have it ladies and gentlemen.
There you have it.
I knew that given enough rope he would hang himself.
Lynn, the son of a preacher, is a fan of Hugo Chavez and he equates the actions of Hugo Chavez to the work of Dr. King.
Wow!
That speaks volumes Lynn.
It really does.
Here’s a clue for you Lynn: If you’re a fan of Hugo, you’re already fighting “on the side of Goliath.”
Could someone who knows for sure tell me whether Sotomayor is pro-choice or not? Thanx.
@ URI
Uri, if it was Obama’s intent to nominate a Hispanic to placate the Hispanic vote and the ever growing Hispanic population, he made a huge mistake. My lovely bride of almost 20 years is originally from Mexico. She’s always been here legally, so call of the IP tracing dogs. 😉
There is no love loss between other Hispanic groups and Puerto Ricans.
On another point, I believe you are right. The Republicans need to do their due dilligence on the nominee, get all their points out and then allow an up or down vote.