Obama to nominate far-left Sonia Sotomayor to SC

[Fingon]

Did not know the philosophy of the US judicial system was to judge people like they are simple objects with no background...

In fact i thought that the US judicial system like most anglo saxon tradition justices was much more based on the interpretation and the circonstances of the facts than on the strict application of the written law (as opposed to the latin tradition justices that love to have written laws for about everything)

Law does its best to not take into account empathy, sympathy, or social background. That is what our system is based upon.

[K-9]

You understand nothing of the US judicial system then.

 

I agree that 'justice is blind' is a fantastic ideal to live up to. But that's all it is in this country, an ideal. The reality is that justice IS NOT blind and those scales are often tilted to who has the most money to spend on a defense. That cannot be argued.

[olivier in france]

Law does its best to not take into account empathy, sympathy, or social background. That is what our system is based upon.

 

You've watched too many western movies when you were kid. Haven't you?!!

[UConn James]

Judges MAKE policy. Always did always will. Thankfully judges are humans not machines

 

Judges interpret policy. It is beyond their scope to make policy (or... it used to be back when people followed the Constitution in this country).

 

Sure, they have a big role in determining how policy is used by creating precedents from their rulings in individual cases. In this way, you could say they shape policy... to use a metaphor they give a fine sanding to rough-hewn wood. And then based on those rulings, oftentimes, legislatures often go back and make more policy with changes, additions or clarifications. And then those policies are interpreted.... ad infinitum.

[UConn James]

I agree that 'justive is blind' is a fantastic ideal to live up to. But that's all it is in this country, an ideal. The reality is that justice IS NOT blind and those scales are often tilted to who has the most money to spend on a defense place on the judge's desk. That cannot be argued.

 

Fixed.

[Lt. Dan's Revenge]

and you? are you dumb?

 

Can you imagine with what kind of social backgrounds a judge, daily, has to deal with? Don't you think it's important for a judge to know what kind of struggles, issues, lives the people he or she is judging may have? Does a typical white male judge from an Ivy school has any idea of what the people he judges everyday are dealing with?

 

Of course a latina who grew up in the Bronx has a lot more chances to understand what is really behind the cases she may have to judge than a middle class white male from a small town! It's not racism it's common sense!

 

Something tells me that as a United States Supreme Court Justice she is not going to have many cases in front of her involving lower-class minorities from the Bronx. What a ridiculous way to look at that. Wow.

[UConn James]

Really? Thanks for the heads up. I assumed everything on the interwebs was teh truf!

 

Sarcasm aside, if you have a problem with that source, rather than say "uh wiki sucks" perhaps you would care to refute any of those points? Perhaps a source citing her record as a judge that shows her to be decidedly not a centrist? Or maybe a link showing that G.H.W.B, never nominated her for anything?

 

Regarding the nomination from Bush I being a litmus test, when Souter was nominated he was considered to be quite the conservative.

 

That's the point to which I was alluding, given your zeal to prove that Ms. Sotomayor isn't this or that based on words on a screen.

 

I'm not paid to be your research assistant. But if you're going to come here and assert something, do better than Wikipedia and the faulty deductive logic of 'Bush I nominated her for federal court --- that means she's NOT far left, peoples!'

[olivier in france]

Something tells me that as a United States Supreme Court Justice she is not going to have many cases in front of her involving lower-class minorities from the Bronx. What a ridiculous way to look at that. Wow.

 

The famous quote we are talking about was not about the Supreme court but her job as a "regular" judge...

[yall]

That's the point to which I was alluding, given your zeal to prove that Ms. Sotomayor isn't this or that based on words on a screen.

 

I'm not paid to be your research assistant. But if you're going to come here and assert something, do better than Wikipedia and the faulty deductive logic of 'Bush I nominated her for federal court --- that means she's NOT far left, peoples!'

 

Actually, the onus is on you to refute my claim. Not just say "I don't care for your source".

 

And that isn't faulty deductive logic. A conservative president is unlikely to nominate a far left judge. It's quite simple and logical reasoning. Proof positive, no. Enough to silence some moron like OwensMania for 2 seconds? Maybe.

 

Aparently your zeal to hate on the current administration is clouding your judgement. (BTW - I'm a republican.)

[Kelly the Dog]

Put it this way -- if you're a white male -- and you were falsely accused of murder -- and for some reason had your choice of which judge would preside over your case -- a white male or a Latina woman (knowing nothing about either) -- would you just say "It doesn't matter, either one, they're all supposed to judge impartially."

 

No !@#$ing way. I'm as liberal and (hopefully) unprejudiced as they come, and as a white male I would take the white male every single time. Because chances are he is going to see my side from a different perspective. That's not even being gender biased or being prejudiced, it's only admitting that gender and race and background have a huge influence on judge's thinking and decision making no matter how impartial they want to be or aspire to be.

[UConn James]

Actually, the onus is on you to refute my claim. Not just say "I don't care for your source".

 

And that isn't faulty deductive logic. A conservative president is unlikely to nominate a far left judge. It's quite simple and logical reasoning. Proof positive, no. Enough to silince some moron like OwensMania for 2 seconds? Maybe.

 

Aparently your zeal to hate on the current administration is clouding your judgement. (BTW - I'm a republican.)

 

Well, I'm not going to try to sound all high and mighty by writing something and then trying to justify its degree of soundness by saying "I'm a Y." I don't hate the Current Occupant just as I didn't hate the Previous Occupant.

 

What I am against is shallow thought and outright stupidity. Your continued assertion in the second graf is the shallow thought. We don't know 'the half of much' about her at this point, and you're lofting her as a high ideal of centrism on weak evidence. Ms. Sotomayor's unanimous rebuke from the SCOTUS in her Knight ruling is some pretty hard evidence of the outright stupidity (and maybe something more than stupidity). See Section (a). As Tasini showed, her understanding of (and therefore, I conclude her opinions on) copyright law is shameful, especially as media is wholly converting to that digital archive format. Her long-range view on that, to put it plainly, sucked. Thankfully, Appeals and SCOTUS stepped in make sure freelancers get paid for their work.

 

Note: I'm not providing this as an indication of her spectrum leanings. To be honest, I don't really care what they are. I don't really care about the 'wedge issue' social politics. (Except that one where the govt can use 'eminent domain' to take possession of my house and give it to someone who wants to build a mall so they can rake in higher taxes. And even then, that wasn't really a social politics issue. That was a gross overreach and misinterpretation of what the 'eminent domain' clause was originally established for).

[DC Tom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

 

Widely considered a political centrist by the American Bar Association Journal and others Sotomayor was nominated on November 27, 1991, by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated by John M. Walker, Jr.

 

Cheese and Rice you are a fcking ret@rd.

 

Go spew your nonsense to the other people in your group home.

 

I just read about thirty of her opinions. She's not centrist. But neither is she a far-left communist. On the political spectrum, she's probably somewhere to the left of X. Benedict, but to the right of KTFABD. Bishop Hedd or PastaJoe would probably consider her conservative.

[yall]

Well, I'm not going to try to sound all high and mighty by writing something and then trying to justify its degree of soundness by saying "I'm a Y." I don't hate the Current Occupant just as I didn't hate the Previous Occupant.

 

Good for you. Your medal is in the mail.

 

What I am against is shallow thought and outright stupidity. Your continued assertion in the second graf is the shallow thought. We don't know 'the half of much' about her at this point, and you're lofting her as a high ideal of centrism on weak evidence. Ms. Sotomayor's unanimous rebuke from the SCOTUS in her Knight ruling is some pretty hard evidence of the outright stupidity (and maybe something more than stupidity). See Section (a). As Tasini showed, her understanding of (and therefore, I conclude her opinions on) copyright law is shameful, especially as media is wholly converting to that digital archive format. Her long-range view on that, to put it plainly, sucked. Thankfully, Appeals and SCOTUS stepped in make sure freelancers get paid for their work.

 

That bolded part is where you seem to be missing the point. I'm not making some high and mighty claim. I never stated she was some ideal centrist. I'm merely using some evidence (which I admitted before was weak - but it is evidence nonetheless) that she was not the most liberal SCOTUS nominee in history, as was originally claimed by the OP.

 

Regarding my claim to be a republican, that wasn't meant as evidence, but merely an attempt to stave off the inevitable "OMG you lib-tards defend everything Hussien does!!!!!". Obviously it has nothing to do with the validity of any of my arguments, but thanks again for pointing out the obvious.

 

Note: I'm not providing this as an indication of her spectrum leanings. To be honest, I don't really care what they are. I don't really care about the 'wedge issue' social politics. (Except that one where the govt can use 'eminent domain' to take possession of my house and give it to someone who wants to build a mall so they can rake in higher taxes. And in then, that wasn't a social politics issue. That was a gross overreach and misinterpretation of what the 'eminent domain' clause was originally established for).

 

I hated the recent eminent domain rulings, and what was maybe the most annoying is that some of the conservative justices leaned in favor of the obvious misinterpretation.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Sotomayor was nominated to federal bench by George H W Bush in 1991.

 

So I guess Bush Senior was a Liberal lover. Well. Its too bad the son turned out so different.

 

You people have to STOP believing Thrush Limbaugh's lies.

[blzrul]

Do you believe that judges should make law? Sotomayor does.

Well so do Stevens and Allito so she'll be in good company.

[blzrul]

Law does its best to not take into account empathy, sympathy, or social background. That is what our system is based upon.

Which country are YOU living in? Oz?

[PastaJoe]

I just read about thirty of her opinions. She's not centrist. But neither is she a far-left communist. On the political spectrum, she's probably somewhere to the left of X. Benedict, but to the right of KTFABD. Bishop Hedd or PastaJoe would probably consider her conservative.

 

I'd call her moderate-left. The important issue to me is that she view the Constitution as a living document, to be interpreted with consideration to the current culture and prevailing beliefs. To be consistent, a strict constructionist should argue the right to bear arms should only apply to the weapons of the time the Constitution was created, thus only single shot rifles and pistols should be allowed. But as we know they say they're strict, but are not. I'd rather have someone who backs up what they advocate with their decisions.

 

In the end the conservatives will use her nomination for some fundraising, but unless she is found to have bought Rush some Oxycoton in a parking lot. she will be approved by the Senate by a large majority.

[DC Tom]

I'd call her moderate-left. The important issue to me is that she view the Constitution as a living document, to be interpreted with consideration to the current culture and prevailing beliefs. To be consistent, a strict constructionist should argue the right to bear arms should only apply to the weapons of the time the Constitution was created, thus only single shot rifles and pistols should be allowed. But as we know they say they're strict, but are not. I'd rather have someone who backs up what they advocate with their decisions.

 

In the end the conservatives will use her nomination for some fundraising, but unless she is found to have bought Rush some Oxycoton in a parking lot. she will be approved by the Senate by a large majority.

 

Aside from your definition of "strict constructionist" (IMAO, a strict constructionist recognizes and supports at the broad level the founding principles behind the document regardless of the current culture and beliefs. You describe what I'd call a "literal constructionist"), I agree.

 

I believe this marks the first time we've agreed on something (other than trivial items like "OwensMania is a pill"). Try not to let it happen again.

[Magox]

I'd call her moderate-left. The important issue to me is that she view the Constitution as a living document, to be interpreted with consideration to the current culture and prevailing beliefs. To be consistent, a strict constructionist should argue the right to bear arms should only apply to the weapons of the time the Constitution was created, thus only single shot rifles and pistols should be allowed. But as we know they say they're strict, but are not. I'd rather have someone who backs up what they advocate with their decisions.

 

In the end the conservatives will use her nomination for some fundraising, but unless she is found to have bought Rush some Oxycoton in a parking lot. she will be approved by the Senate by a large majority.

She will go through without too many problems. Probably somewhere between 65-70 votes. Some of the conservative's will question some of her rulings like the Ricci affirmative action case where she ruled against the firefighters, or the dumb comment she made about how a latina may be better equipped to rule as opposed to a white man.

 

But all in all, she is somewhat of a centrist and I see this as a non issue, and as you mentioned the conservative base will probably be able to use this nomination for some fundraising.

[AlaskaDarin_Has_AIDS]

I just read about thirty of her opinions.

 

That's a lie

 

She's not centrist.

 

Aint that the truth

 

But neither is she a far-left communist.

 

Another lie