U.s. Supreme Court Nomination

[CaneBrain 95]

from yahoo:Sotomayor’s history suggests the very sort of judicial restraint that conservatives clamor for in a nominee.Whatever her personal ideology, she ruled against an abortion-rights group challenging Bush’s policy of banning overseas groups that take federal funds from conducting abortions. In another case, she ruled in favor of abortion protesters.“She applied the law even-handedly and come out with the right decision,” said Bruce Hausknecht, a judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, a large and influential voice on conservative social issues.Sotomayor’s rulings on religious liberty issues also have pleased the conservative community.“It would have been a lot easier to communicate to the base why Judge Wood would not have made a good nominee,” said Hausknecht. “With Sotomayor, we have to take a wait-and-see attitude.”

[slink 1]

We'll have to see how this goes, but early reports are that she's a bit of a leftist flake. I don't think the Republicans have the guts to stand up to her -- they won't want to be seen opposing a hispanic woman.

Well they might considering that it is so early in the election cycle and the public has a relative short memory.

[CaneBrain 95]

Well they might considering that it is so early in the election cycle and the public has a relative short memory.

most of the hispanics down here still vote one way because of the Bay of Pigs. the latino vote will not have a short memory on this....

[brvheart 1,752]

EXTREMELY INTERESTING NY TIMES ARTICLE FROM 1998

[JustDoIt 10]

EXTREMELY INTERESTING NY TIMES ARTICLE FROM 1998

It is wrong that this happens. But you missed two biggies.......This historic filibuster........and of course we had the Crucifixion of Judge Bork......look it up.

[CaneBrain 95]

It is wrong that this happens. But you missed two biggies.......This historic filibuster........and of course we had the Crucifixion of Judge Bork......look it up.

as long as presidents get to appoint judges.....this stuff will continue. At the end of the day, presidents usually get their way. Bush II wanted conservative justices and Alito and Roberts certainly fit that bill. Obama will want a liberal judge and he will get that in Sotomayor. I think Sotomayor's personal comments outside her duties as a judge seem much more controversial than her actual rulings. Her actual rulings seem left-leaning but moderate.....from brvheart's article:Gerald Walpin, a former Federal prosecutor who is widely known in New York legal circles as a staunch conservative, took issue with the Journal's criticism.''If they had read the case they would see that she said she personally approved of the homeless program but that as a judge she was required to apply the law as it exists,'' he said. ''She wrote that the law does not permit an exception in this case. That's exactly what conservatives want: a nonactivist judge who does not apply her own views but is bound by the law.'' Mr. Bush nominated Judge Sotomayor in 1992 after a recommendation from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York's Democratic Senator.

[hblask 1]

as long as presidents get to appoint judges.....this stuff will continue. At the end of the day, presidents usually get their way. Bush II wanted conservative justices and Alito and Roberts certainly fit that bill. Obama will want a liberal judge and he will get that in Sotomayor. I think Sotomayor's personal comments outside her duties as a judge seem much more controversial than her actual rulings. Her actual rulings seem left-leaning but moderate.....from brvheart's article:Gerald Walpin, a former Federal prosecutor who is widely known in New York legal circles as a staunch conservative, took issue with the Journal's criticism.''If they had read the case they would see that she said she personally approved of the homeless program but that as a judge she was required to apply the law as it exists,'' he said. ''She wrote that the law does not permit an exception in this case. That's exactly what conservatives want: a nonactivist judge who does not apply her own views but is bound by the law.'' Mr. Bush nominated Judge Sotomayor in 1992 after a recommendation from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York's Democratic Senator.

This is what I'm seeing, too -- that her rulings seem reasonably separate from her out-of-court ramblings. I would consider this a very good thing. I don't care if a SC Justice thinks he/she talks to aliens in his bedroom, as long as it doesn't affect the content of their rulings.Of course, we could just be seeing some cherry-picking from supporters who want to make her look moderate. Certainly she's had a few questionable calls, such as the reverse discrimination case that is pending a decision by the SC right now.

[CaneBrain 95]

This is what I'm seeing, too -- that her rulings seem reasonably separate from her out-of-court ramblings. I would consider this a very good thing. I don't care if a SC Justice thinks he/she talks to aliens in his bedroom, as long as it doesn't affect the content of their rulings.Of course, we could just be seeing some cherry-picking from supporters who want to make her look moderate. Certainly she's had a few questionable calls, such as the reverse discrimination case that is pending a decision by the SC right now.

Obviously, she is a liberal. But most of what I have seen so far indicates that her actual court rulings are pretty fair all things considered (though obviously left leaning). What she says at a fund-raiser or awards dinner or whatever (perhaps pandering?) is a separate issue from what she does on the bench.This is a good summary of the challenge facing the GOP (from a yahoo politico article):The nomination of Sotomayor comes at a bad time for the GOP. Republicans have only just begun the long process of wooing Latinos burned by the 2005-06 immigration battles. Obama won 67% of Latino votes compared to John McCain's 31% - enough to help Obama win Florida, New Mexico and Colorado. Hispanics had actually been somewhat disappointed in Obama's Latino-lite Cabinet and his unwillingness to take on immigration reform as a top issue in his first 100 days, but that will probably be forgotten now. The Hispanic community was "thrilled" by Obama's pick of Sotomayor, as David C. LizÁrraga, chairman of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce's board said. "She is a role model of strength, focus and discipline and exemplifies the American ethos, proving that anyone in this nation can fulfill their dreams, matching their potential with opportunity," LizÁrraga said.Walking this careful line between pleasing the base and not offending Hispanics will be Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who became the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee when Arlen Specter switched parties last month. Sessions himself was once a Reagan nominee to the federal bench who was rejected by this same committee - at the time controlled by Republicans - after reports surfaced that he had called the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People "un-American" and had once told a colleague that they "forced civil rights down the throats of people."Given that history, Sessions is surely aware that he cannot afford to become the story if he says anything indelicate. And his statement Tuesday reflected just how careful he has to be. "The Senate Judiciary Committee's role is to act on behalf of the American people to carefully scrutinize Ms. Sotomayor's qualifications, experience and record," he said, striking a neutral tone. "Of primary importance, we must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law, calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one's own personal preferences or political views."

[hblask 1]

Interesting pro/con of six cases she judged:http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/so...052709?src=diggBased on this, I'd give her a thumbs down.

[JustDoIt 10]

Interesting pro/con of six cases she judged:http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/so...052709?src=diggBased on this, I'd give her a thumbs down.

And she is a intellectual light weight according to this Liberal.http://www.wikio.com/video/1183163And what about Guns?http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/27/po...ry5044428.shtml

[El Guapo 8]

And what about Guns?http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/27/po...ry5044428.shtml

This is what frightens me the most that I have heard about her, and the fact that the judge she is replacing was actually one of the 5 that voted for the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment.If this were to change, and guns were banned in the U.S., I could see it becoming an anarchists wet dream.

[CaneBrain 95]

from a professor at Univ. of Maryland Law School:When Don Imus denigrated in clearly racist terms the championship women's basketball team from Rutgers University; when actor Michael Richards screamed at black guests in a comedy club, calling them the "n-word" and invoking the threat of lynching; when Trent Lott said that things would have been better if a southern segregationist had been elected president a half-century earlier, responsible white people from across the ideological spectrum stepped forward to explain that these individuals were not racist.The "R" word has become the taboo of the white world. By this I mean that calling someone racist is a taboo, not racism itself.So when Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich and several other conservative commentators call a sitting federal appeals court judge and Supreme Court nominee who happens to be Latina, a racist, it's time to push back. Real hard.The evidence offered in support of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's alleged racism is a speech she gave in Berkeley, California, in honor of Judge Mario G. Olmos, a former judge, community leader and graduate of Boalt Hall Law School who died an untimely death at the age of 43.The offending section of the speech is this: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." This passage inspired Gingrich, former speaker of the House of Representatives and potential 2012 presidential candidate, to call Judge Sotomayor "a Latina racist."To lift one statement out of Judge Sotomayor's eight-page speech without examining the context and substance of her remarks, is an example of the kind of shoddy character assassination that I suspect will dominate this judicial confirmation process.Judge Sotomayor's speech is, in fact, an excellent meditation on how the experiences of judges might affect how they approach aspects of judicial decision-making. It explores the important, and too-little examined reality that judicial deliberations can be affected by a judge's background, perspective and experience.In the next sentence immediately following the passage above, Judge Sotomayor says, "Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice [benjamin] Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society."Could she have been referring to Buck v. Bell, the 1927 case in which Justice Holmes -- widely regarded as perhaps the most brilliant justice in the Supreme Court's history -- upheld the state's plan to sterilize Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old white woman, who was accused of being congenitally retarded. Buck's main crime seems to have been the fact that she'd had a child out of wedlock.In any case, Justice Holmes upheld the sterilization order, emphatically and coldly stating, "three generations of imbeciles is enough." Does anyone seriously believe that a woman, and especially a woman of color "with the richness of her experiences" would not have "reach[ed] a better conclusion " than that adopted by Justice Holmes in 1927?In fact Buck v. Bell is the perfect example of how a "wise old [white] man" got it wrong in a way that a woman judge or a racial minority most likely would not.It's worth pointing out that in that same speech Judge Sotomayor cautioned, "we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group." But she acknowledges that "there may be some [difference in her judging] based on my gender and my Latina heritage."What Gingrich and others decry in Judge Sotomayor should be applauded. Judge Sotomayor has the humility to recognize the difficulty of achieving true and pure impartiality. Instead, as she pointed out in her speech, "[t]he aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."Unlike so many judges who by virtue of being white and male simply assume their impartiality, Judge Sotomayor recognizes that all judges are affected by their background and their life experiences.Ironically, it was Justice Cardozo who recognized this when he said, "[t]he great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men, do not turn aside in their course, and pass the judge by." Justice Cardozo concluded that "[n]o effort or revolution of the mind will overthrow utterly and at all times the empire of ... [a judge's] subconscious loyalties.These are the realities of judicial decision-making evoked by Judge Sotomayor's speech. It's perhaps easier to say as [then-Supreme Court nominee] Clarence Thomas so famously did, that a judge can simply, "strip down like a runner," and become utterly impartial simply by putting on a black robe. But it is more honest to acknowledge that regardless of race, gender, ideology or professional background, impartiality is always a work-in-progress for judges.Even Judge Richard Posner, a conservative stalwart on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals once observed that, "Litigation commonly involves persons at different social distances form the judge, and the more proximate will garner the more sympathetic response regardless of actual desert."Justice Thomas is the perfect example of how hard it can be for a judge to lay aside the personal experiences that shape his worldview. His views about the affirmative action cases that come before him are shaped quite clearly by what he regards as the self-sufficient dignity of his hard-working grandfather and the humiliation he says he felt when others believed his scholarly accomplishments were the result of affirmative action.White judges are also shaped by their background and experiences. They needn't ever speak of it, simply because their whiteness and gender insulates them from the presumption of partiality and bias that is regularly attached to women judges and judges of color when it comes to matters of race and gender.Only a judge who is conscious and fully engaged with the reality of how her experiences may bear on her approach to the facts of a case, or sense of social justice, or vision of constitutional interpretation, should be entrusted to sit on the most influential and powerful court in our nation.Too often we have allowed ourselves to be placated and charmed by fantasies about umpire judges calling "balls and strikes," without ever asking which league the game is being played in or whether the umpire was standing in the best position to see the play. We forget that when deciding whether a batter checked his swing, the homeplate umpire will routinely ask for the alternative perspective from the first or third base umpire before calling a "swing and a miss" a strike.Judge Sotomayor rightly suggests that these things matter. She notes in her speech that "personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see." She should know this. She's been a trial judge. None of the other justices who will serve with Judge Sotomayor will have had that experience.Judge Sotomayor's speech is one of the most honest and compelling statements about judicial impartiality we're likely to hear from a judge of her stature.It ends with this humble observation:"Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I re-evaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences, but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."It's entirely appropriate to question Judge Sotomayor about this speech at her confirmation hearings. She is evidently more than capable of explaining in compelling, clear language what precisely she wanted to convey in this speech. But Judge Sotomayor is not a racist.It is an insult of unimaginable proportion to unleash this charge on her, based on one sentence from her Berkeley, California, speech. It is not just irresponsible to make this charge against a sitting federal appeals court judge based on this flimsy record; it is -- and here I'll break the taboo -- racist to do so.

[hblask 1]

I saw that article, and LOL'd. It's the most ridiculous article written yet on the subject.Let me get this straight: a potential SC justice says that a female Hispanic will make a better decision than a white male, and anyone who points out the racism of that is racist? Seriously, that's stretching it by even the most ludicrous standards of internet discourse, much less to be published on CNN. And the MSM wonders why it is losing credibility.It's very simple: reverse the races of the speaker and the subject in any statement. If it's racist that way, it's racist every way.For this case:Dick Cheney makes a speech and says "If you take a white male and a female Hispanic judge, and give them the same information, it seems obvious the white male will make a better decision."Media uproar or "anyone who says that's racist is racist themselves"? Would CNN be publishing articles defending Cheney, or be at the front of the mob with pitchforks and torches?

[irishguy 14]

I never saw it is a racist at all especially with the added point of "white male without the same experiences...". To take one sentence without any context out of an eight page speech and say that it makes somebody a racist is pretty dumb to me regardless of colour, sex, party etc. Even if the point can be made that the comment in context is racist I think it's a little small minded to say that this proves she is a racist.

[hblask 1]

I never saw it is a racist at all especially with the added point of "white male without the same experiences...". To take one sentence without any context out of an eight page speech and say that it makes somebody a racist is pretty dumb to me regardless of colour, sex, party etc. Even if the point can be made that the comment in context is racist I think it's a little small minded to say that this proves she is a racist.

Really? So if Bush or Cheney or McCain said it the other way, you don't think we'd be hearing about how racist the Republican party is for the next decade?It's an obviously, flagrantly racist statement. That's a fact. Does that make her a racist, or is she a careless writer/speaker? Will she be held to the same standards that a white male would be in this situation?

[Nimue1995 1]

A friend of mine was speaking about President Obama in this piece he wrote but I think some of it applies here as well:

Why would anyone be surprised that black folks identify with other black folks, P----y? I'll agree it's racism. But, I think you are tilting at windmills, or strawmen yet again. At least, on this forum, I seldom hear folks on the left side of the aisle ever deny they are racist. That lie, for whatever reason, seems to be the exclusive province of YOUR side. Call me a racist, and I'll nod, and say "yeah, a little, kinda". But, lay it on one of our conservative stalwarts, here, and be prepared for at least a few sentences of bullshit, while they deny that they received the same biological programming as every other member of their species. It's become a term rife with judgment and negative stereotypes, yet describes an almost universal feature of humans to identify in groups or tribes. So, psychologists or anthropologists give us a less invasive name, like "group identification". That sounds better.... "Hell, I'm no racist, it's just that science tells me I have a natural propensity to identify with other members of my family or tribe". I'm not saying it's good, or anything, it just IS.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

A friend of mine was speaking about President Obama in this piece he wrote but I think some of it applies here as well:

Your friend misses the point by about a million miles. Conservative stalwarts dont' disagree with all of his points here, but when ever they speak their mind on any subject they are accused of racism, and their argument, no matter how supported, is dismissed because of this fact. I really don't understand how anyone not living in fantasy land could make such a ridiculous statement.

[irishguy 14]

Really? So if Bush or Cheney or McCain said it the other way, you don't think we'd be hearing about how racist the Republican party is for the next decade?It's an obviously, flagrantly racist statement. That's a fact. Does that make her a racist, or is she a careless writer/speaker? Will she be held to the same standards that a white male would be in this situation?

I think if any white male said it the media/world would've reacted differently. It's not just a party thing it's a society thing. I honestly didn't view it as racist certainly not flagrantly so, intitially without even seeing the context of the comment I thought of it as more of a reponse to whether on not she would be able to good as good a job as a white male judge and again the "who hasn't lived that life" part stood out to me more.But in all honesty if a white male did say it I'd likely have seen it differently.

[gobears 0]

Glenn Greenwald posted an article on the Alito confirmation - link is below.Greenwald LinkHe makes a point that using empathy and identity politics to smear her is unjustified and he uses what Aliso said in his confirmation hearing as a comparison. Greenwald specificaly highlighted the following Alito responses. "Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position."But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. His point is that if you are targeting Sotomayor on identity politics and empathy, you should have been making the same arguments about Alito.

[Sheiky 0]

I think it's worrying not because she's 'racist', but because she's dumb enough to say so to the media.I don't think it's a particularly racist comment or implies that she is, I think its on the level as saying 'black guys play basketball' or 'white men can't jump' in that in her context she was playing on a common stereotype of different races. I don't consider that racist because I don't think it should be offensive to point out that basketball/athletics is dominated by black guys because it's just a fact. However, it's so ****ing stupid to say and makes absolutely no sense. If she was intending her comment as I think/hope she was, then the race part is just totally unnecessary. Her point that old dudes make different decisions that young guys is perfectly valid and pretty much agreed. I'm not sure how it is in America, but it's a consensus view that English judges are heavily influenced by their demographic and hence the judiciary is more conservative.

[CaneBrain 95]

I think it's worrying not because she's 'racist', but because she's dumb enough to say so to the media..

saying that she "said it to the media" is a stretch. It was one line in a long speech from 2001 at a fundraiser or something.

[Sheiky 0]

saying that she "said it to the media" is a stretch. It was one line in a long speech from 2001 at a fundraiser or something.

yeah i know, i was just trying to make a point that saying stuff about race in that context in a public setting is pretty silly

[vbnautilus 48]

Racism is not "recognizing differences among races".

[hblask 1]

Racism is not "recognizing differences among races".

That's correct. It's believing that, by virtue of your race, you are better at (X), despite any evidence of such. Or alternatively, that someone else is worse at that due to their race.

[Balloon guy 158]

During her 80% overturned decisions career she said this:

SOTOMAYOR: All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. (laughing) Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it and I'm not advocating it. I'm -- you know. (laughing)

So at least we will have shorter election ballots what with her desire to allow judges to make policy.But ulitmately what does this say about Obama. He lacked so much experience that his supporteres ( you know who you are ) were stuck having to point to his Harvard legal mind and his great knowledge of the constitution.When deciding who should be on the SC he goes 100% political.Guess his motives trump his intergrity....again