DC Tom Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Who'd you do: Ashcroft or Reno? A blender, thank you very much.
Magox Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 That's one of the things that truly bugs me about the news coverage: she's prety obviously a qualified candidate...but everyone seems to be boiling her nomination down to "She's the first Hispanic woman to be nominated!" SO WHAT???? Nobody cared this much when Colin Powell was the first black Secretary of State, or John Ashcroft the first mentally ill person to be Attorney General... Elena Kagan and Diane Wood were two candidates for the position that many academics thought were qualafied than Sotomayor. If you believe that her being a latina had very little to do with the decision, then I don't know what more to tell you. It's obvious that it was part of the decision, all you have to do is look back at Obama's decisions to see that he is very conscience in making decisions that are politically popular.
Max Fischer Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Elena Kagan and Diane Wood were two candidates for the position that many academics thought were qualafied than Sotomayor. If you believe that her being a latina had very little to do with the decision, then I don't know what more to tell you. It's obvious that it was part of the decision, all you have to do is look back at Obama's decisions to see that he is very conscience in making decisions that are politically popular. Just as many academics thought Sotomayor was as qualified or more qualified. But that's like fighting about who's a better painter: Van Gough, Monet or Rembrandt? If picking a name out of a hat made no difference, why not have ethnicity play a part in the decision making process? You have a low shock threshold to think Obama, or any president, is "very conscience" of their decision making isn't the norm. I'm sure Reagan picked O'Conner and Bush I picked Thomas because they were far and away the most "qualified."
erynthered Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/26/the-ju...omayor-sampler/ Read up boys and girls........
IDBillzFan Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/26/the-ju...omayor-sampler/ Read up boys and girls........ Y'know, the more I read about the firefighters' case, and the idea that they decided to take it to the Supreme Court, only to have Sotomayor end up on the Supreme Court after giving them reason to TAKE it to the Supreme Court in the first place, I see John Cusack in Grosse Pointe Blank looking at a contract to kill Minnie Driver's father, saying to himself, "Dumb !@#$ing luck." These poor bastards.
VABills Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Y'know, the more I read about the firefighters' case, and the idea that they decided to take it to the Supreme Court, only to have Sotomayor end up on the Supreme Court after giving them reason to TAKE it to the Supreme Court in the first place, I see John Cusack in Grosse Pointe Blank looking at a contract to kill Minnie Driver's father, saying to himself, "Dumb !@#$ing luck." These poor bastards. She'd have to recuse herself.
IDBillzFan Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 She'd have to recuse herself. I'm sure that will make them feel better.
Max Fischer Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/26/the-ju...omayor-sampler/ Read up boys and girls........ So . . . what the WSJ is saying is that Sotomayor is a judicial moderate. Interesting.
John Adams Posted May 27, 2009 Author Posted May 27, 2009 http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/26/the-ju...omayor-sampler/ Read up boys and girls........ Here's a less biased view from the WSJ paper, not the blog. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1243382609...ogle_wsj_gadgv1
Max Fischer Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Y'know, the more I read about the firefighters' case, and the idea that they decided to take it to the Supreme Court, only to have Sotomayor end up on the Supreme Court after giving them reason to TAKE it to the Supreme Court in the first place, I see John Cusack in Grosse Pointe Blank looking at a contract to kill Minnie Driver's father, saying to himself, "Dumb !@#$ing luck." These poor bastards. You poor bastard, you must be severely conflicted on this case. Or do you even realize that? Judicially speaking, "real" conservatives would praise the court for not legislating from the bench.
UBinVA Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Elections has consequences and the GOP lost. During the election, the questions of Judicial appointees and philosophies were few and far between. In past presidential elections, this topic was covered extensively and each candidate had to explain their views and judicial prudence to the electorate. Well, we now have the most liberal President and congress ever to run these United States with a super majority. She will be confirmed and the GOP will put up little resistance as it has done for the past 40 years. As bad as she will be in following the constitution and the rule of law, we conservatives are stuck. I believe Obama will have the opportunity to appoint two more to the bench before the next election. Hopefully by then, the GOP will have gained more seats in the Senate to provide some push back on his agenda to push the court towards the left. BTW: Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed. A 60% rejection rate of her opinions that reached the Supreme Court.
Max Fischer Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 BTW: Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed. A 60% rejection rate of her opinions that reached the Supreme Court. So? Can you tell if that's good or bad? Why?
erynthered Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Here's a less biased view from the WSJ paper, not the blog. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1243382609...ogle_wsj_gadgv1 Good read, and its just as I thought. She'll be in the Souter mold. As I said yesterday, she'll get her seat with not much bitching from the other side. The libs will have their "empathy" on the bench.
RkFast Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 That's one of the things that truly bugs me about the news coverage: she's prety obviously a qualified candidate...but everyone seems to be boiling her nomination down to "She's the first Hispanic woman to be nominated!" SO WHAT???? Nobody cared this much when Colin Powell was the first black Secretary of State, or John Ashcroft the first mentally ill person to be Attorney General... Thats becuase to the media and elites, they are liberal and therefore, "real". To the elites and the left, Powell, Rice and Clarence Thomas were nothing more than a buncha sellout House Niggas.
Kelly the Dog Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 So? Can you tell if that's good or bad? Why? Actually, it's two of four, with the third of five expected. Plus, it's completely expected since it's undeniable that she leans a little left, and in the rulings the conservative leaning judges overruled and the liberal leaning ones including Souter agreed with her. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomay...in-civil-cases/ FWIW, I think the right should be all over her and grill her as hard as possible. That's what you would want, to make her defend her positions and stand up to the heat. I wouldn't want any nominee of either side to get a free ride just because they have good credentials.
UBinVA Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Interesting article about the SCOTUS and the perceived influence of background/life experiences and how they rule on the court. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/sup...ontortions.html
Kelly the Dog Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Interesting article about the SCOTUS and the perceived influence of background/life experiences and how they rule on the court. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/sup...ontortions.html You mean except that the author completely disregarded the obvious point Obama was making with the empathy statement, that he wants judges who do take into consideration how their decisions affect everyday people? And no, that doesn't in any way mean ignore the rule of law, or judge unjustly, just so the everyday people get the right ruling, morons.
Max Fischer Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 Interesting article about the SCOTUS and the perceived influence of background/life experiences and how they rule on the court. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/sup...ontortions.html A right-wing conservative trashing Obama and his SCOTUS pick. Enlightening. Queston: do you truly believe that ajudge's background and life experiences play NO part in how they rule? Tha's insane, ignorant or at least disingenuous. Then why do justices disagree? Why aren't all opinons unananimous? I find one of the most facinating things about the SCOTUS is the human side. The history is littered with great stories of what influences judicial thinking and how one's life story can explain a viewpoint. The best example (off the top of my head) is Justice Black.
UBinVA Posted May 27, 2009 Posted May 27, 2009 A right-wing conservative trashing Obama and his SCOTUS pick. Enlightening. Queston: do you truly believe that ajudge's background and life experiences play NO part in how they rule? Tha's insane, ignorant or at least disingenuous. Then why do justices disagree? Why aren't all opinons unananimous? I find one of the most facinating things about the SCOTUS is the human side. The history is littered with great stories of what influences judicial thinking and how one's life story can explain a viewpoint. The best example (off the top of my head) is Justice Black. Did you not read the article? Of course ones life influences their perspective with respect to the law but the most interesting point of the article was the comparison of Thomas vs. Stevens and their respective view of the constitution and law. One would think that Judge Thomas would be the liberal and Stevens the conservative based on their repsective backgrounds. But that is not the case. The fact is not how they we're raised or their background per say, but how they view the constitution. Conservative judges view it as it is written and are considered constructionists, liberal judges view it a a means to a justifiable end in their own sense of right and wrong. The oath for the Justices is this: "I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." Now, do your really think Judge Sotomayor will put the poor and rich on the same playing field when judging or will she "be sympathetic and compassionate" as Obama stated that that's what he wants on the court. Come on people. He wants activists judges that will find "justice" in the constitution that do not exist in the constitution. He wants judges that will create laws and policies without having to go through the legislative process.
John Adams Posted May 27, 2009 Author Posted May 27, 2009 Come on people. He wants activists judges that will find "justice" in the constitution that do not exist in the constitution. He wants judges that will create laws and policies without having to go through the legislative process. Think rationally for a moment. You know about the Dred Scott decision where the Supreme Court held that people imported into the US as slaves--and their descendants whether they were slaves or not--were not legal persons and could not be US citizens and thus could not sue in court? Don't you think that decision would be decided differently if black justices had been on the bench? Isn't it extremely likely that only a group of honkey judges with honkey biases would reach that conclusion? Judges endeavor to be blind and fair, and they all fail in some way in this attempt. The law may be immutable--some ideal immovable rock--but real-life fart-and-pick-their-nose folk interpret and apply it. The introduction of this human element means that all of our laws (including the Constitution) live, breathe, and change. Also, consider that for the majority of the cases before the Supreme Court, the law is not crystal clear with respect to the facts of the case. (If it was, the case wouldn't make it to the Supreme Court.) This forces the Court to interpret the (immutable) law to the best of its ability, and that's where a lot of bias comes into play. Strict constructionists have a nice rhetorical place they go where they say they only do what the constitution says. But that doesn't always work. The Constitution is short. It's words don't always cover the facts before it. That whole due process thing. Does it extends to suspected terrorists? Or not? These questions are clearly not black and white: Scalia and Thomas (both constructionists) split on this issue.
Recommended Posts