Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court

[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

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.

[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.