Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court

[fryingdutchman]

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama tapped federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, making her the first Hispanic in history picked to wear the robes of a justice.

Obama made the formal announcement Tuesday morning in the East Room of the White House.

Calling her "inspiring," the president said, "Judge Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our judicial system."

"She has never forgotten where she began," added Obama, who praised Sotomayor for her "wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life's journey."

Sotomayor said she was "deeply moved" by her nomination. "My heart today is bursting with gratitude."

If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor, 54, would succeed retiring Justice David Souter.

Administration officials say Sotomayor would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice confirmed in the past 70 years.

Obama had said publicly he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy — the ability to understand the troubles of everyday Americans.

[fryingdutchman]

More on Sonia Sotomayor
A look at Sotomayor's life and legal career
First Read: It's Sotomayor
Vote: Is she a wise choice for the Supreme Court?

Democrats hold a large majority in the Senate, and barring the unexpected, Sotomayor's confirmation should be assured.

If approved, she would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the current court.

'Newyorkrican'
Sotomayor is a self-described "Newyorkrican" who grew up in a Bronx housing project after her parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico. She has dealt with diabetes since age 8 and lost her father at age 9, growing up under the care of her mother in humble surroundings. As a girl, inspired by the Perry Mason television show, she knew she wanted to be a judge.

Video

Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court
May 26: President Obama will nominate Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
NBC News


A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, a former prosecutor and private attorney, Sotomayor became a federal judge for the Southern District of New York in 1992. She became an appeals judge in 1998 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which covers New York, Vermont and Connecticut.

As a judge, she has a bipartisan pedigree. She was first appointed by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, then named an appeals judge by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

At her Senate confirmation hearing more than a decade ago, she said, "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."

Notable rulings
In one of her most memorable rulings as federal district judge, Sotomayor essentially salvaged baseball in 1995, ruling with players over owners in a labor strike that had led to the cancellation of the World Series.

As an appellate judge, she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters after the city threw out results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough. Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court.

Obama's nomination is the first by a Democratic president in 15 years.

His announcement also leaves the Senate four months — more than enough by traditional standards — to complete confirmation proceedings before the Court begins its next term in the fall.

Republican intentions
Republicans have issued conflicting signals about their intentions. While some have threatened filibusters if they deemed Obama's pick too liberal, others have said that is unlikely.

Sonia Sotomayor biography

Name: Sonia Sotomayor
Age-Birthdate-Location: 54; June 25, 1954; New York, N.Y.

Experience: Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1998-present; judge, U. S. District Court Southern District of New York, 1992-1998; private practice, New York City, 1984-1992; assistant district attorney, New York County, 1979-1984

Education: B.A., Princeton University, 1976; J.D., Yale Law School, 1979.

Quote: "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it." — during a 1997 nomination hearing.



• Print this

Given Sotomayor's selection, any decision to filibuster would presumably carry political risks — Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the population and an increasingly important one politically.

During the White House announcement, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement saying, "Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly. But we will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences."

The Republican National Committee also released a statement, adding, "Republicans will reserve judgment on Sonia Sotomayor until there has been a thorough and thoughtful examination of her legal views."

Abortion rights have been a flashpoint in several recent Supreme Court confirmations, although Sotomayor has not authored any controversial rulings on the subject.

Sotomayor's elevation to the appeals court was elayed by Republicans, in part out of concerns she might someday be selected for the Supreme Court. She was ultimately confirmed for the appeals court in 1998 on a 68-28 vote, gathering some Republican support.

Among those voting against her was Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, now the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee that will hold sway over her confirmation.

Now, more than a decade later, Sotomayor possesses credentials Sessions said he wanted in a pick for the high court — years of experience on the bench.

Obama had talked openly about the upside of choosing someone outside the judiciary — every single current justice is a former federal appeals court judge — but passed on at least two serious candidates who had never been judges.

Latina heritage
Sotomayor has spoken openly about her pride in being Latina, and that personal experiences "affect the facts that judges choose to see."

"I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging," she said in a speech in 2002. "But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

From the moment Souter announced his resignation, it was widely assumed Obama would select a woman to replace him, and perhaps a Hispanic as well.

[fryingdutchman]

More on Sonia Sotomayor
A look at Sotomayor's life and legal career
First Read: It's Sotomayor
Vote: Is she a wise choice for the Supreme Court?

Democrats hold a large majority in the Senate, and barring the unexpected, Sotomayor's confirmation should be assured.

If approved, she would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the current court.

'Newyorkrican'
Sotomayor is a self-described "Newyorkrican" who grew up in a Bronx housing project after her parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico. She has dealt with diabetes since age 8 and lost her father at age 9, growing up under the care of her mother in humble surroundings. As a girl, inspired by the Perry Mason television show, she knew she wanted to be a judge.

Video

Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court
May 26: President Obama will nominate Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
NBC News


A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, a former prosecutor and private attorney, Sotomayor became a federal judge for the Southern District of New York in 1992. She became an appeals judge in 1998 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which covers New York, Vermont and Connecticut.

As a judge, she has a bipartisan pedigree. She was first appointed by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, then named an appeals judge by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

At her Senate confirmation hearing more than a decade ago, she said, "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."

Notable rulings
In one of her most memorable rulings as federal district judge, Sotomayor essentially salvaged baseball in 1995, ruling with players over owners in a labor strike that had led to the cancellation of the World Series.

As an appellate judge, she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters after the city threw out results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough. Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court.

Obama's nomination is the first by a Democratic president in 15 years.

His announcement also leaves the Senate four months — more than enough by traditional standards — to complete confirmation proceedings before the Court begins its next term in the fall.

Republican intentions
Republicans have issued conflicting signals about their intentions. While some have threatened filibusters if they deemed Obama's pick too liberal, others have said that is unlikely.

Sonia Sotomayor biography

Name: Sonia Sotomayor
Age-Birthdate-Location: 54; June 25, 1954; New York, N.Y.

Experience: Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1998-present; judge, U. S. District Court Southern District of New York, 1992-1998; private practice, New York City, 1984-1992; assistant district attorney, New York County, 1979-1984

Education: B.A., Princeton University, 1976; J.D., Yale Law School, 1979.

Quote: "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it." — during a 1997 nomination hearing.



• Print this

Given Sotomayor's selection, any decision to filibuster would presumably carry political risks — Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the population and an increasingly important one politically.

During the White House announcement, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement saying, "Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly. But we will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences."

The Republican National Committee also released a statement, adding, "Republicans will reserve judgment on Sonia Sotomayor until there has been a thorough and thoughtful examination of her legal views."

Abortion rights have been a flashpoint in several recent Supreme Court confirmations, although Sotomayor has not authored any controversial rulings on the subject.

Sotomayor's elevation to the appeals court was elayed by Republicans, in part out of concerns she might someday be selected for the Supreme Court. She was ultimately confirmed for the appeals court in 1998 on a 68-28 vote, gathering some Republican support.

Among those voting against her was Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, now the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee that will hold sway over her confirmation.

Now, more than a decade later, Sotomayor possesses credentials Sessions said he wanted in a pick for the high court — years of experience on the bench.

Obama had talked openly about the upside of choosing someone outside the judiciary — every single current justice is a former federal appeals court judge — but passed on at least two serious candidates who had never been judges.

Latina heritage
Sotomayor has spoken openly about her pride in being Latina, and that personal experiences "affect the facts that judges choose to see."

"I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging," she said in a speech in 2002. "But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

From the moment Souter announced his resignation, it was widely assumed Obama would select a woman to replace him, and perhaps a Hispanic as well.

[fryingdutchman]

OK...not sure why that double posted....

[FORD]

Hard to believe the Repukes are already trying to label her as a "librul activist" when she is in reality a Poppy Bush appointee who was a corporate "intellectual property" litigator.

In other words, Obama took the "safe" choice this time. I suppose she's an adequate replacement for Souter, but I expect better than this when Ginsburg or Stevens retires.

[sadaist]

Obama had said publicly he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy — the ability to understand the troubles of everyday Americans.

Empathetic Supreme Court Justice? Aren't they to be blind without feeling, solely interpreting the Constitution as intended. If you start throwing in feelings, some may get preferential treatment.

[ZahZoo]

Tough call on this one... she's got some good qualities, but also has a fairly spotty record with a lot of her rulings over-turned. Somethings tells me there's better candidates... but I don't know... hard to come up with one.

[fryingdutchman]

It looks like the Ricci vs. DeStefano case up in Connecticut will be key in how people judge her.

[Big Train]

Hard to believe the Repukes are already trying to label her as a "librul activist" when she is in reality a Poppy Bush appointee who was a corporate "intellectual property" litigator.

In other words, Obama took the "safe" choice this time. I suppose she's an adequate replacement for Souter, but I expect better than this when Ginsburg or Stevens retires.

Well, they do have some pretty good tape to work with on her.

[kwame k]

Phew, gonna be tough for the Repukes to hit her hard. Being of Latino decent and the Repukes needing every voter they can get. As FORD said, she's a Bush appointee and I'm not thrilled with her but I do think it's a brilliant political move by Obama.....albeit a cautious one.

[jhale667]

Yeah, there's almost no way the Repukes can not come off like douchebags here...

[Nickdfresh]

Fucking Republican hypocrites. Activist judges? Spare me! They're the ones pissing themselves over Roe vs. Wade and trying to push judges in with a premeditated agenda of euthanizing the Supreme Court and abdicating its responsibility as the third branch of gov't based largely on corporate lobbying....

[Big Train]

I don't see why anyone should be afraid of her or her ethnicity. That is hypocrisy of the highest order. You cannot press her on the issues BECAUSE of her ethnicity? Come again? In a society where we put so much emphasis on keeping it gender and racially neutral (discrimination, profiling etc..), to have someone shielded from having to answer tough questions on the basis of gender or ethnicity is a double standard and it does a disservice to her, whether she wants that protection or not.

If the GOP had any balls, they would go after her. If there is a Latino vote, the masses already vote Democrat, so there is no real loss to fear. If anything you may gain the respect of some Latino voters who don't want to be lockstep with Democrats. Those who still think for themselves and aren't thought of merely as a "bloc".

She has a lot to answer for. I want to know why white men can't make the same level of informed decisions as a Latina woman with "richness" of experiences (which by the way made my wife, who is Latina and surely has the same level of "richness" in her upbringing, laugh out loud). That's a racist statement in any context, it cannot be denied. I'd like an answer for that.

She has had 3/5 of her decisions heard by the supreme court overturned. A pundit on MSNBC was saying last nite "Well you can't really judge her on that. The majority of her cases were not overturned". WTF? She is auditioning for a gig AT the Supreme Court, where they think her decisions are shit. That is the real point. Of the stuff of hers they have seen, they think she is wrong most of the time. That cannot be considered lightly.

[WACF]

I don't see why anyone should be afraid of her or her ethnicity. That is hypocrisy of the highest order. You cannot press her on the issues BECAUSE of her ethnicity? Come again? In a society where we put so much emphasis on keeping it gender and racially neutral (discrimination, profiling etc..), to have someone shielded from having to answer tough questions on the basis of gender or ethnicity is a double standard and it does a disservice to her, whether she wants that protection or not.

If the GOP had any balls, they would go after her. If there is a Latino vote, the masses already vote Democrat, so there is no real loss to fear. If anything you may gain the respect of some Latino voters who don't want to be lockstep with Democrats. Those who still think for themselves and aren't thought of merely as a "bloc".

She has a lot to answer for. I want to know why white men can't make the same level of informed decisions as a Latina woman with "richness" of experiences (which by the way made my wife, who is Latina and surely has the same level of "richness" in her upbringing, laugh out loud). That's a racist statement in any context, it cannot be denied. I'd like an answer for that.

She has had 3/5 of her decisions heard by the supreme court overturned. A pundit on MSNBC was saying last nite "Well you can't really judge her on that. The majority of her cases were not overturned". WTF? She is auditioning for a gig AT the Supreme Court, where they think her decisions are shit. That is the real point. Of the stuff of hers they have seen, they think she is wrong most of the time. That cannot be considered lightly.


Bingo...

[sadaist]

WTF? She is auditioning for a gig AT the Supreme Court, where they think her decisions are shit. That is the real point. Of the stuff of hers they have seen, they think she is wrong most of the time. That cannot be considered lightly.

And according to her own statement, a latina woman with her background should reach better conclusions more often than not compared to a white male. I wonder if Justice Roberts would have been confirmed had he said a white male should reach better conclusions than a (enter any ethnicity here). Double edged sword of hypocrisy strikes again.

[Big Train]

On top of all that, you have a White House that nominated her having the balls to say that the GOP should be "exceedingly careful" in their approach to her. Or what Gibbs? Fuck off..

That is as close as it can possibly be to a threat. Don't offend the Latinos or the Democrats by asking tough questions we will immediately brand as racist. Liberals, for all the things they rail against, they always end up as much if not much more guilty than those they accuse. This nomination is for the greater good of diversity, so what if we stomp on the idea of respecting diversities we don't agree with?

[Nickdfresh]

On top of all that, you have a White House that nominated her having the balls to say that the GOP should be "exceedingly careful" in their approach to her. Or what Gibbs? Fuck off..

That is as close as it can possibly be to a threat. Don't offend the Latinos or the Democrats by asking tough questions we will immediately brand as racist. Liberals, for all the things they rail against, they always end up as much if not much more guilty than those they accuse. This nomination is for the greater good of diversity, so what if we stomp on the idea of respecting diversities we don't agree with?

Is this really any more offensive than the GOP fuckwits essentially promising an auto-filibuster and obstructing gov't - no matter what?

[Big Train]

Uh yea it is. It the Chief Executives office using a blatant threat in the name of racism to repress actual duties (asking tough questions). More importantly, doing so publicly via his chosen spokesman.

[kwame k]

To an extant I agree with you, Train. However, when has any Supreme Court nominee not been marred in political bullshit. Obama needs a slam dunk here and to use a slant to get his nomination an edge, is good politics. Shitty for us but smart politics.

Every President who has ever appointed a Justice has done so with his party's agenda in mind, always. So really if her decisions have been overturned a majority of the time by the Supreme Court it is really a moot point. She's there to push forward the agenda of the President that appointed her.

Brining race into the mix is purely political and an angle to get what he wants. She would never be my first choice but I understand the game and realize why he picked her.

[Guitar Shark]

I don't see why anyone should be afraid of her or her ethnicity. That is hypocrisy of the highest order. You cannot press her on the issues BECAUSE of her ethnicity? Come again? In a society where we put so much emphasis on keeping it gender and racially neutral (discrimination, profiling etc..), to have someone shielded from having to answer tough questions on the basis of gender or ethnicity is a double standard and it does a disservice to her, whether she wants that protection or not.

If the GOP had any balls, they would go after her. If there is a Latino vote, the masses already vote Democrat, so there is no real loss to fear. If anything you may gain the respect of some Latino voters who don't want to be lockstep with Democrats. Those who still think for themselves and aren't thought of merely as a "bloc".

She has a lot to answer for. I want to know why white men can't make the same level of informed decisions as a Latina woman with "richness" of experiences (which by the way made my wife, who is Latina and surely has the same level of "richness" in her upbringing, laugh out loud). That's a racist statement in any context, it cannot be denied. I'd like an answer for that.

She has had 3/5 of her decisions heard by the supreme court overturned. A pundit on MSNBC was saying last nite "Well you can't really judge her on that. The majority of her cases were not overturned". WTF? She is auditioning for a gig AT the Supreme Court, where they think her decisions are shit. That is the real point. Of the stuff of hers they have seen, they think she is wrong most of the time. That cannot be considered lightly.

I don't think anyone is arguing that she shouldn't be questioned because she is Latino, or that her Latino heritage somehow protects her from having to answer tough quesions. There is a much bigger political issue at play here. Latino voters represent a huge portion of the overall voting bloc and they are only increasing their share of the electorate. Hispanics have also been swing voters in recent elections. Karl Rove targeted the hispanic vote specifically in his quest to achieve a "permanent Republican majority." A LOT of hispanic voters supported President Bush in recent elections. At least 40% of Latino voters chose Bush in the 2004 election. As close as recent elections have been, that's huge. HUGE.

Here is a link with more information:
Inside the Hispanic vote: Growing in numbers, growing in diversity - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/28/hispanic.vote/index.html)

This is why GOP senators have to be very cautious about going after Sotomayor - because they don't want to risk alienating the very critical hispanic vote.

Also, it is somewhat meaningless to say that 3/5ths of her opinions have been overturned. First of all, I haven't seen that story, so it is unclear to me whether they are talking about her opinions as a district court judge or as part of the court of appeals. Decisions by the court of appeals are issued by panels, meaning more than one judge. To call those "her" opinions is highly misleading. Regardless, even if 3/5ths of "her" opinions have been overturned, this does not necessarily mean that she is a bad judge or that she gets the law "wrong". The reality is that judges with different philosophical or political viewpoints can reach different results when presented with identical facts. Judges often pick the result they want, and then find the reasoning to support it. The Supreme Court has been dominated by a conservative majority for many years so it does not surprise me in the slightest that some of Sotomayor's opinions have been overturned.

Basically, it's a lot more complicated than your post suggests.

[Nickdfresh]

Uh yea it is. It the Chief Executives office using a blatant threat in the name of racism to repress actual duties (asking tough questions). More importantly, doing so publicly via his chosen spokesman.

This seems to be mostly just your largely unsupported opinion and conjecture...

[Big Train]

This seems to be mostly just your largely unsupported opinion and conjecture...

I suppose it is unsupported conjecture. It's not like the spokesperson for the administration said those exact worse to the national press corp. who where then retransmitting that to the entire nation.

[Big Train]

To an extant I agree with you, Train. However, when has any Supreme Court nominee not been marred in political bullshit. Obama needs a slam dunk here and to use a slant to get his nomination an edge, is good politics. Shitty for us but smart politics.

Every President who has ever appointed a Justice has done so with his party's agenda in mind, always. So really if her decisions have been overturned a majority of the time by the Supreme Court it is really a moot point. She's there to push forward the agenda of the President that appointed her.

Brining race into the mix is purely political and an angle to get what he wants. She would never be my first choice but I understand the game and realize why he picked her.

I get that she is a tool of Obama. However, I cannot get behind giving a known racist who has proven herself incorrect to the very court she seeks employment by a free pass regardless of who is pushing her.

[kwame k]

I get that she is a tool of Obama. However, I cannot get behind giving a known racist who has proven herself incorrect to the very court she seeks employment by a free pass regardless of who is pushing her.


Don't know enough about her yet. Can't really say plus or minus about her. I'll do my vetting of her and get back to ya.

[Big Train]

I don't think anyone is arguing that she shouldn't be questioned because she is Latino, or that her Latino heritage somehow protects her from having to answer tough quesions. There is a much bigger political issue at play here. Latino voters represent a huge portion of the overall voting bloc and they are only increasing their share of the electorate. Hispanics have also been swing voters in recent elections. Karl Rove targeted the hispanic vote specifically in his quest to achieve a "permanent Republican majority." A LOT of hispanic voters supported President Bush in recent elections. At least 40% of Latino voters chose Bush in the 2004 election. As close as recent elections have been, that's huge. HUGE.

Here is a link with more information:
Inside the Hispanic vote: Growing in numbers, growing in diversity - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/28/hispanic.vote/index.html)

This is why GOP senators have to be very cautious about going after Sotomayor - because they don't want to risk alienating the very critical hispanic vote.

Also, it is somewhat meaningless to say that 3/5ths of her opinions have been overturned. First of all, I haven't seen that story, so it is unclear to me whether they are talking about her opinions as a district court judge or as part of the court of appeals. Decisions by the court of appeals are issued by panels, meaning more than one judge. To call those "her" opinions is highly misleading. Regardless, even if 3/5ths of "her" opinions have been overturned, this does not necessarily mean that she is a bad judge or that she gets the law "wrong". The reality is that judges with different philosophical or political viewpoints can reach different results when presented with identical facts. Judges often pick the result they want, and then find the reasoning to support it. The Supreme Court has been dominated by a conservative majority for many years so it does not surprise me in the slightest that some of Sotomayor's opinions have been overturned.

Basically, it's a lot more complicated than your post suggests.

Only if you buy the theory your presenting. While I do feel there is some validity to the notion that Latinos might be upset by her being questioned harshly, I don't feel it's as big as anyone makes it out to be, as they already aren't much for the GOP and she is a lock to get in anyway due to the votes. The GOP's real risk is that by NOT pushing her on these questions, to upset the base further and see a bigger erosion to third parties. I made that switch a long time ago and I see more evidence of it everyday that a large number of conservative minded voters heading in that direction.

The fact that she is a fucking racist is not something to shy away from, no matter who is applying the pressure. If you wouldn't stand for that if Trent Lott ,Sen. Byrd or David Duke said the exact same thing, there is no excuse for it on the Supreme Court.

As for the 3/5, they were her opinions. Which means she was applying a bit to much "empathy" to her biases for the Supreme Courts taste. I'm not saying she is an idiot, but I am saying her judgement appears at the very least clouded by her empathy and her special belief in the "richness" of her experiences being the best way to judge things. When she is overturned, ti seems to be the majority. If that happens all the time, I guess so.

The cases were as follows:


FactCheck: How Many Sotomayor Opinions Were Overturned? | Newsweek Politics | Newsweek.com (http://www.newsweek.com/id/199955)

One was a 5-4 decision in 2001 in Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko, which involved an inmate who sought to sue a private contractor operating a halfway house on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons over injuries he sustained. Sotomayor said he could, but a majority of the justices disagreed.In another case, Sotomayor wrote that under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency could not use a cost-benefit analysis to determine the best technology available for drawing cooling water into power plants with minimal impact on aquatic life. By a vote of 6-3 this year, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Entergy v. Riverkeeper. The third reversal, in 2005, was a unanimous 8-0 decision in the case Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit.Sotomayor had written that a class action securities suit brought in state court by a broker/stockholder was not preempted by the 1998 Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. But the high court's opinion said it "would be odd, to say the least" if the law contained the exception that Sotomayor said it did.


The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June on the much-discussed Ricci v. DeStefano case in which Sotomayor took part. It's not publicly known whether she wrote the unsigned, one-paragraph order in the reverse discrimination case involving firefighters in New Haven, Conn., to which all three of the judges hearing the case agreed. (That order later became an official opinion with the same wording at the behest of other 2nd Circuit judges.) The decision, upholding the ruling of the lower-court judge who first heard the case, said the city was justified in not certifying the results of an exam required for firefighters to be promoted after no African Americans scored highly enough to be considered.

[Nitro Express]

Empathetic Supreme Court Justice? Aren't they to be blind without feeling, solely interpreting the Constitution as intended. If you start throwing in feelings, some may get preferential treatment.

Justice is blindfolded weighing the situation against the law. Exactly. If there is any hint that the judge or jury may be inflenced by their personal prejudices, you replace them with others who are less biased.

I'm tired of all this stupid politically correct showbiz bullshit. As far as her qualifications, her resume is impressive but is this lady going to be biased or is she going to be blind to her predudices and wiegh her decisions fairly against the law?

I don't give a damn if she's a woman, hispanic, and from the South Bronx. Sure she seems to be a success story that is inspiring but is this woman the right person for the job? Is she going to be unbiased in her decisions?

[jhale667]

Justice is blindfolded weighing the situation against the law. Exactly. If there is any hint that the judge or jury may be inflenced by their personal prejudices, you replace them with others who are less biased.

I'm tired of all this stupid politically correct showbiz bullshit. As far as her qualifications, her resume is impressive but is this lady going to be biased or is she going to be blind to her predudices and wiegh her decisions fairly against the law?

I don't give a damn if she's a woman, hispanic, and from the South Bronx. Sure she seems to be a success story that is inspiring but is this woman the right person for the job? Is she going to be unbiased in her decisions?

THAT is the fucking question. Everything else surrounding this is bullshit. As for the "known racist" crap... Please. GAyR is a "known racist". She is being criticized for one (by all accounts) tongue-in-cheek comment she made in 2001.

The 60% overturn ratio is the only thing that concerns me.

[GAR]

I will enjoy criticizing her for another comment she made: that "national policy is formed in the court of appeals."

She is a racist, overfed insulin-junkie that is being initiated as a race-pawn in a last ditch resort to deflect the Defocrats from the big Chitown money grab that's attempting to bankrupt this nation.

Will the Republicans have the balls to attack her for the right reasons, if they don't they lose support from their own party. If they do, they percieve lost support from the few Latinos who can legally vote and have to rethink their move carefully beforehand.

That's why Gibbs has his little chuckle at hand.. the next sword to unsheathe in this affair over the nominee is the countercharge of "Racist Republicans, see what they do they wanna put down the BEANERS!" He knows they get damage if they do, and damage if they don't refute the nomination.

[Big Train]

THAT is the fucking question. Everything else surrounding this is bullshit. As for the "known racist" crap... Please. GAyR is a "known racist". She is being criticized for one (by all accounts) tongue-in-cheek comment she made in 2001.

The 60% overturn ratio is the only thing that concerns me.

Is it possible to make a tongue in cheek racist comment? It seems to me to be either your all in or all out on that sort of thing.

[Guitar Shark]

The fact that she is a fucking racist is not something to shy away from, no matter who is applying the pressure.

When did it become a "fact" that Sotomayor is a "fucking racist"?



As for the 3/5, they were her opinions. Which means she was applying a bit to much "empathy" to her biases for the Supreme Courts taste. I'm not saying she is an idiot, but I am saying her judgement appears at the very least clouded by her empathy and her special belief in the "richness" of her experiences being the best way to judge things. When she is overturned, ti seems to be the majority. If that happens all the time, I guess so.

The cases were as follows:


FactCheck: How Many Sotomayor Opinions Were Overturned? | Newsweek Politics | Newsweek.com (http://www.newsweek.com/id/199955)


You need to reread the link you posted. Since the opinions in question where from the Court of Appeals, they are not "her opinions", they are the opinions of the majority of justices on her panel. She may be the author of the opinion, but that means very little. Majority opinions are written collectively and collaboratively by the justices in the majority (first drafts are written by judicial clerks, actually) so the extent of her personal involvement is probably a lot less than you think.

My point is that these were not Sotomayor's opinions, no matter how the media wants to characterize them. They were the opinions of the majority of justices on her panel (or of the Second Circuit as a whole). The worst that can be said is that Sotomayor and a majority of her fellow appellate judges were reversed.

And again, all of this assumes that the U.S. Supreme Court reversals were "correct" rather than politically motivated. It is a mistake to assume the former in all cases.

[FORD]

When did it become a "fact" that Sotomayor is a "fucking racist"?


Probably when Tom Tancredo and Mush Limpdick started referring to LaRaza as "the Mexican KKK" :rolleyes:

[GAR]

They ARE the Mexican KKK~!!

What rock have you been sleeping under..

[FORD]

right...... and I suppose they burn a pinata on your lawn? :lmao:

[kwame k]

right...... and I suppose they burn a pinata on your lawn? :lmao:


No, they just took his high paying White Collar Job;)

Do the uniforms from McDonald's have white collars?

[GAR]

Today Obama said that not allowing Sotomayer to restate what she had 8 years to reclarify wasn't going to work.

What a fucking DICK! She's out.. I'm emailing the 6 nearest senators on my list to say No including that dumbuck billionaire Feinstein

[GAR]

right...... and I suppose they burn a pinata on your lawn? :lmao:

Burning a Pinata might be considered the New Crossburn!

Glad you're thinking like David Duke again, it's been awhile..

[FORD]

No, they just took his high paying White Collar Job;)

Do the uniforms from McDonald's have white collars?

This is so fucking wrong, but I just got this mental picture of the "Mexican KKK" wearing sombreros on top of their white sheets, standing around a burning pinata, singing "La Bamba". :biggrin:

[GAR]

The nominee's biased, per her own words.

They need to nominate a new choice!

[FORD]

The nominee's biased, per her own words.

They need to nominate a new choice!


You want "biased" , bitch?

How about the literal son of a fascist who ruled that a complete count of the votes in Florida would " in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election." (Fat Tony Scalia, 12/12/2000)

Now THAT is biased judicial activism!

[jhale667]

Is it possible to make a tongue in cheek racist comment? It seems to me to be either your all in or all out on that sort of thing.

Only if you believe what the Repukes would have you believe, that only white men are capable of making "impartial" decisions.


What she said isn't so completely offensive in context.

She's highly qualified, plus GAyR hates her, so she must be cool! ;)

[kwame k]

This is so fucking wrong, but I just got this mental picture of the "Mexican KKK" wearing sombreros on top of their white sheets, standing around a burning pinata, singing "La Bamba". :biggrin:
:biggrin:

Oh shit, yes it is wrong but...............:lmao:

[Nickdfresh]

Burning a Pinata might be considered the New Crossburn!

Glad you're thinking like David Duke again, it's been awhile..

Save up your cabbage-picking money so you can afford one to burn...

[kwame k]

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 32 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Republicans are divided over how aggressively to go after Sonia Sotomayor, a family feud about the tone of the debate over confirming the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court.
There are concerns raised by an increasing number of GOP lawmakers and conservative leaders about the strident rhetoric that certain prominent Republicans have used to describe Sotomayor. Some are denouncing right-wing groups for their negative advertisements against the federal appeals judge.
A group of prominent conservatives, seeking to change the terms of the discussion, plans to call on Republicans this coming week to hold "a great debate" over President Barack Obama's nominee. The debate would focus on Sotomayor's potential effect on important high court decisions and on the differences between how Democrats and Republicans pick judges.
In a letter to be sent to GOP senators Monday, the Third Branch Conference admonishes Republicans for having "slumbered" during confirmation hearings for the last two Democratic nominees (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both by President Bill Clinton), and concludes by saying, "We expect more from you" this time.
The Associated Press obtained a draft of the letter, signed by conservative heavyweights including Richard Viguerie of ConservativeHQ.com, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, and Gary Bauer of American Values.
The letter acknowledges that blocking a vote to confirm Sotomayor is unrealistic. But it urges Republicans to use the debate as an "extraordinary educable moment" that makes it "crystal clear why Americans should believe that Republicans are intelligent defenders of the Constitution, or not."
Manuel Miranda, the chairman of the group and a former senior Senate aide, said he is concerned that GOP leaders, knowing they lack the votes to reject Sotomayor and worried about the political consequences of a prolonged opposition, will pass up the chance for a drawn-out debate about her record, and the parties' dueling philosophies on a judge's role.
Radio host Rush Limbaugh and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich have branded Sotomayor — the daughter of Puerto Rican parents who was born and raised in New York — a "racist" for past remarks about how her ethnicity affected her judging. On Friday, Limbaugh said picking Sotomayor was comparable to nominating former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke for the job.
Other leading Republicans, aware of the political risks of opposing the first Hispanic woman nominated to the court, are struggling to change the terms of the debate. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the head of his party's Senate campaign committee, lashed out at Limbaugh and Gingrich for their words.
"This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent," Cornyn told National Public Radio.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, GOP strategist Peggy Noonan dismissed as "idiots" those conservatives who were out to attack or brand Sotomayor.
Much criticism has been directed at a coalition of outside interest groups engaged in a public-relations offensive against Sotomayor. One group, the Judicial Confirmation Network, began an advertising campaign the day Obama named Sotomayor that bashes her record and concludes that "America deserves better."
"These things just taint the debate because it causes (people) to become callous toward our message. It becomes a 'cry wolf' situation," Miranda said.
Miranda resigned from his Senate job in 2004 amid an investigation over his role in inappropriately gaining computer access to Democratic memos — leaked to national newspapers — that laid out strategy for blocking President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. He admitted he was responsible for the breach and has said he did nothing wrong.
Miranda has since become a leading conservative critic of Republicans' approach to judicial nominations.
GOP leaders appear determined to insist on a thorough debate. They circulated a document late Friday, titled "It's Going To Take Time," that is filled with quotes from senior Democrats who said following the selections of the last two Supreme Court justices to be confirmed, GOP nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito, that the Senate should take its time considering the nominations.
For Republicans, opposing Sotomayor is important to their core supporters, including social conservatives who regard the courts as a battleground. But the party is struggling to reach beyond that base and draw more diversity — a goal that could be frustrated with a bitterly partisan fight, especially given Sotomayor's background.
Gary Marx, the executive director of the Judicial Confirmation Network, said the divisions were more about style and tone than substance. He said conservatives agree that Sotomayor is a "judicial activist" — someone who puts her own views above the law — regardless of how they express themselves.
"We can have a healthy debate when we focus on her own writings, her published writings and spoken words," Marx said.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090531/ap_on_go_co/us_sotomayor_gop_divisions;_ylt=AkUM6tuCgWVRfrOKKb tsjYSyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJ2bHY1NGlxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMD kwNTMxL3VzX3NvdG9tYXlvcl9nb3BfZGl2aXNpb25zBHBvcwMx BHNlYwN5bl9hcnRpY2xlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDZ29wZG l2aWRlZG92)

[kwame k]

The letter acknowledges that blocking a vote to confirm Sotomayor is unrealistic. But it urges Republicans to use the debate as an "extraordinary educable moment" that makes it "crystal clear why Americans should believe that Republicans are intelligent defenders of the Constitution, or not.":lmao:

[Big Train]

When did it become a "fact" that Sotomayor is a "fucking racist"?

When you make racist statements...it's a hand and glove kind of thing.

You need to reread the link you posted. Since the opinions in question where from the Court of Appeals, they are not "her opinions", they are the opinions of the majority of justices on her panel. She may be the author of the opinion, but that means very little. Majority opinions are written collectively and collaboratively by the justices in the majority (first drafts are written by judicial clerks, actually) so the extent of her personal involvement is probably a lot less than you think.

My point is that these were not Sotomayor's opinions, no matter how the media wants to characterize them. They were the opinions of the majority of justices on her panel (or of the Second Circuit as a whole). The worst that can be said is that Sotomayor and a majority of her fellow appellate judges were reversed.

And again, all of this assumes that the U.S. Supreme Court reversals were "correct" rather than politically motivated. It is a mistake to assume the former in all cases.

I'm no legal expert granted, but in these opinions is it possible to find out how she voted or this intentionally obscured? Why are they also saying things like "her writing and her opinion" are you saying that's just spin because all of her decisions were written by committee?

Which sounds even worse, that she and a team of people couldn't get it right.

[Guitar Shark]

I'm no legal expert granted, but in these opinions is it possible to find out how she voted or this intentionally obscured? Why are they also saying things like "her writing and her opinion" are you saying that's just spin because all of her decisions were written by committee?

Which sounds even worse, that she and a team of people couldn't get it right.

I am not sure I understand your question. The way it works is that somebody authors the majority opinion, and the other members of the majority join in that opinion. But in order to get them to join, there often is a great deal of collaboration on the drafting of the opinion. Sometimes other judges will write separate concurring opinions if they don't believe the majority opinion explains all of the issues in the way they prefer. The members of the minority write a dissenting opinion which may be joined. It is not unusual for there to be several concurring or dissenting opinions, particularly if it is an important topic.

If Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion, then she voted with the majority. If she wrote the dissenting opinion, then she voted against the majority. Nothing is intentionally obscured.

[Nitro Express]

Tough call on this one... she's got some good qualities, but also has a fairly spotty record with a lot of her rulings over-turned. Somethings tells me there's better candidates... but I don't know... hard to come up with one.

She's a go getter. You don't come from where she did and accomplish what she did by being stupid and lazy. My main question is she biased? It's politics. It's catering to the hispanic voters. I have no problem with anyone being a Supreme Court justice as long as they are qualified and unbiased when making decisions regarding the law of the land.

[GAR]

Now THAT is biased judicial activism!

That was appointed activism in action m'boy!

Alls' fair in love n' war. Hee hee hee~!!

:tongue0011:

[FORD]

That was appointed activism in action m'boy!

Alls' fair in love n' war. Hee hee hee~!!

:tongue0011:

Yes, and I'm sure every one of the hundreds of thousands dead in New York, New Orleans, Afghanistan, and Iraq because of Scalia's "appointed activism" is laughing right along with your pathetic insane Jizzy humping cowardly ass.

[Big Train]

I am not sure I understand your question. The way it works is that somebody authors the majority opinion, and the other members of the majority join in that opinion. But in order to get them to join, there often is a great deal of collaboration on the drafting of the opinion. Sometimes other judges will write separate concurring opinions if they don't believe the majority opinion explains all of the issues in the way they prefer. The members of the minority write a dissenting opinion which may be joined. It is not unusual for there to be several concurring or dissenting opinions, particularly if it is an important topic.

If Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion, then she voted with the majority. If she wrote the dissenting opinion, then she voted against the majority. Nothing is intentionally obscured.

Well, then that is my question shark (thanks for taking the time to explain it to me). Is there a way to find out which is which on these overturned decisions for what she wrote?

[Guitar Shark]

Yes. If you get copies of the decisions, it will tell you which justices wrote each opinion (majority, concurring, dissenting). My point was simply that while Sotomayor's name may be on the opinion, the writing process is usually collaborative.

[kwame k]

She's a go getter. You don't come from where she did and accomplish what she did by being stupid and lazy. My main question is she biased? It's politics. It's catering to the hispanic voters. I have no problem with anyone being a Supreme Court justice as long as they are qualified and unbiased when making decisions regarding the law of the land.


Every single judge on the Court is biased, to a certain degree. Conservative judge or Liberal judge, doesn't make a difference, they all give opinions based on their own ideology. The best you can hope for is a fair judge who rules by the spirit of the Constitution and not by some other agenda. That's why the appointment is for life. They never have to worry about their decisions coming back to haunt them during a reelection.

[Big Train]

Maybe that bit should be re examined. How about a 20 year term? This "for life" bullshit never works out for the consumer, only the tenured person.

[Big Train]

She sure does have "poor word choice" often it seems for an impartial nominee.

CQ Politics | Legal Beat - Sotomayor Repeatedly Referenced 'Wise Woman' in Speeches (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/legal_beat/2009/06/sotomayor-repeatedly-reference.html)

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivered multiple speeches between 1994 and 2003 in which she suggested "a wise Latina woman" or "wise woman" judge might "reach a better conclusion" than a male judge.

Those speeches, released Thursday as part of Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire, (to see Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee click here and here) suggest her widely quoted 2001 speech in which she indicated a "wise Latina" judge might make a better decision was far from a single isolated instance.

A draft version of a October 2003 speech Sotomayor delivered at Seton Hall University stated, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion." That is identical to her October 2001 remarks at the University of California, Berkeley that have become the subject of intense criticism by Republican senators and prompted conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh to label her "racist."

In addition, Sotomayor delivered a series of earlier speeches in which she said "a wise woman" would reach a better decision. She delivered the first of those speeches in Puerto Rico in 1994 and then before the Women's Bar Association of the State of New York in April 1999.

The summary descriptions of speeches Sotomayor provided indicated she delivered remarks similar to the 1994 speech on three other occasions in 1999 and 2000 during two addresses at Yale and one at the City University of New York School of Law.

Her repeated use of the phrases "wise Latina woman" and "wise woman" would appear to undermine the Obama administration's assertions that the statement was simply a poor choice of words. After details of the 1994 speech circulated before the questionnaire's release, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, emerged from his private meeting with Sotomayor and expressed new concerns about the nominee's "identity politics."

[GAR]

I'd be more concerned she'd be the 6th Catholic on the court, than being a white male in litigation before her bench.

She's biased, and you can't have that.

[jhale667]

She's biased, and you can't have that.

And since you are too, you should recuse yourself from the discussion. :fufu:

[GAR]

I won't be on the bench anytime soon.

Neither will this dwarf mugwump ogrette..

[FORD]

I'd be more concerned she'd be the 6th Catholic on the court, than being a white male in litigation before her bench.

She's biased, and you can't have that.

As much as I hate to agree with GAyR, it does somewhat concern me that Catholics make up 2/3 of the court. Not that Sotomayor is going to agree with Fat Tony Scalia on much of anything (I hope) simply because they belong to the same church, but it's not a very accurate proportional representation of the US population.

Having 2 Jews on the court is somewhat oversampled as well (since they are about 5% of the population), but I'm more willing to overlook that, as they're probably the only non-Christians likely to pass nomination with so many right wing tools in Congress. And the two current Jews are considered "liberals" (Ginsburg and Breyer) so better them than another Scalia or Opie Roberts even if they were Protestant Dominionazis rather than Opus Dei Catholic Dominionazis.

If Obama nominates a gay atheist or transgendered Buddhist when the next two justices retire though, I imagine all Hell would break loose.