Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court

[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

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

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

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

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.