Obama picks Sotomayor for high court
 

Called this one didn't I? I posted a while back that he would pick a Hispanic woman.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/..._supreme_court

Sounds like she's a qualified Hispanic women, but doubt she is the most qualified person for the job. Didn't agree with affirmative action and don't agree with this either.

An example of her judgement:
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 two few minorities scored high enough. Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court.

She's coast relatively easily through the confirmation process. Republicans are trying to gain some ground on the Dems in fostering support from the Latino voters. No Republican wants to be the one singled out for not supporting a Hispanic. Hispanics in the Southern US helped Obama win the election.

I realize that she will more than likely be confirmed as the next judge, but think people should know what they are getting, "a person that believes in reverse racism". If all the firemen take the damn advancement exam and not enough "minorities" scored high enough, and she agrees with the city in throwing out the results? "We have to test them later or in a different way to ensure a more diverse pool of people advanced".

There is no legal reason for throwing the test out, those guys that passed including the one Hispanic guy deserve to be advanced! I think by siding with the city she clearly identifies her as a proponent of reverse racism.

Being a white male, I've accepted the idea of reverse racism and reverse sexism as an unfortunate inevitability. An ethnic person or person of color could say anything they want to me about me being white without anyone thinking much about it, yet if in any public setting I say anything that could remotely be related to their color then I'm a racist.

The American, white, middle-class(or higher) male has to walk on eggshells and be careful with their words more so than any other demographic.

:o)
 

just so long as it ain't Judge JUDY

i'm cool with it as cold beans :hihi:

Yes, you and 3500 other people.

I think you've been listening to too much Limbaugh. State the obvious, cite examples and then declare brilliance :hihi:



You lost me at qualified.

And oddly enough, it looks like that case might not have had a sound legal basis. So was her decision based on a blind respect for the law, or on political bias? Perhaps this example isn't as good as it sounds...

-spence

I agree with affimative action.

sean

Well, when you put it that way... I see your point.

maybe you'll get all the advantages of an affirmative action brain surgeon some day
:jester:


since when does "qualified" matter to da dems, it's the story and the image projected, doesn't matter if there's anything between the ears...give her a teleprompter...look at the clown that we have posing as a president...she will be treated respectfully and confirmed as this is the presidents perrogative barring some bizarre circumstances...(like stating on tape that she thinks judges should "make" policy)..I though that was for the policy-makers...anyway

it's the dems that turn these hearing into a circus with personal attacks and mindless impuning of people of high achievement and exemplary records led by that fat puke Ted Kennedy, this was his specialty, engineering the destruction of nominees...imagine having that piece of crap attempting to taint your career and record, slobbering and mispronouncing your name....


Obama asked that the Senate "move quickly and in a bipartisan manner"...just as the dems have always done in the past...right????

Ginsburg 97-3
Breyer 87-9
Thomas 52-48
Roberts 78-22
Alito 58-42

any bets...I'll go with 98-1... there are a couple of illnesses and good ole' Rowland isn't looking like he's long for the job so I don't know if there will be 100 votes...we should have a pool.....

I dont agree with affirmative action at all. Its BS. If there is a test out to place 20 people take the 20 highest scoring people. If it is 20 whites, great, 20 blacks awesome, 20 purple martians, outstanding. The jobs should go to the highest scoring because that is what they are using as a standard.

Funny as her judicial record points to someone who has behaved nearly the opposite to what you've described.

It's almost like you're responding based on the image you'd like projected regardless as to what's between her ears.

And your comment is out of context...

-spence

Not to take anything from a written test as a way of assessing "aptitude" but I would be interested to know how well the test is at measuring valuable dispositions like judgement, commitment, good will, ethical reflection, effort, initiative and heart.

How does one fit such things in a standardized test?

A read a while back that if Brown University admitted students based upon merit only, the student body would be overwhelmingly comprised of Asian women.
There are more women in law school than men now, and women comprise of 40% of practicing lawyers, yet there is only one woman on the court.

you didn't listen, qualified doesn't matter either way to the dems..Obama himself said Roberts and Alito were qualified and then voted against in a swift and bipartisan way...jerk...now he wants it both ways....doesn't matter if she's qualified as long as she's got the right "makeup"...that's fine with me....like Obama will tell you..."he won"...it's his pick....just compare the treatment of the last several nominees and you'll see who the dirtbags are...I didn't say she had nothing between her ears, just that it didn't matter...

my comment is not out of context and her's is on tape...nice try...it was an Obama "clinging to their guns and bibles moment"..you have become very predictable...but I still love you:lm:

he record with supreme court appeals is outstanding! only overturned 60% of the time, doesn't matter, she'll be confirmed and we'll have another activist on the bench preaching the merits crap like of looking to foreign law and precendents to form her opinions ala Breyer...maybe have all property rights taken away...stuff like that...at least abortion will be safe....

Doesn't sound like it matters to you either...

So did you listen to the tape?

Here's her full comment in response to a student asking about the differences between circuit and district court experiences.

Quote:

The saw is that if you're going into academia, you're going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, 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. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating -- its interpretation, its application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you're on the district court, you're looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so you're always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, "I don't care about the next step," and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say, "We'll worry about that when we get to it" -- look at what the Supreme Court just did. But the point is that that's the differences -- the practical differences in the two experiences are the district court is controlled chaos and not so controlled most of the time.

If you take the time to read her full comment, think critically about what she was saying and then reflect on the meaning it should be clear to just about anyone that she was simply stating the obvious.

It looks like she authored 380 majority opinions in 11 years, 5 of which made it to the Supreme Court and 3 of which were overturned. That's your 60%? 3 of 5? :rtfm:

Considering that the Supreme Court only chooses to hear selective cases, to even use the 3 without understanding the circumstance and how the majority ruling differed from her's make the number pretty meaningless...

Unless of course you're trying to pedal misinformation.

Don't you have anything of substance today? So far you've provided no evidence to support the assertion this is an activist pick.

-spence

perfect, agree 100%
that was the critetria set for the promotions, and when the results were in, they were changed - based on race

As far as Brown and any other university, the expectations are set up front that a diverse well rounded student population adds to the quality of the education. A student with lower grades but raises doberman puppies may get accepted over a student with higher grades. you dont change the rules after the fact, based on race.

I did...
I'm worried about you buddy...you've gone way over to the Chris Matthews leg tingling land...

even her advocates are saying that the tape, her reversal record and the pending appeal could be problems...I don't know why...is it a shock to anyone that liberals want their liberal judges to legislate from the bench?...it's how they get things done in a democratic society...

yes 3 out of 5 =60%...might get a little worse with one pending, we'll see

again, i'm not saying anything that her defenders aren't saying in this regard...go to the New Republic...there's a great article on a far left site which is pretty funny because the whacko lefty's are savaging their own whacko lefty for daring to question the Justice-to-be and her record...absolutely LOVED that

for the third time...she will be confirmed...don't get your panties in such a bunch...it will be nothing like the disgreceful conduct that you see from democrats toward republican nominees :hihi:

still like to get a pool going on this one...

is she a lesbian? just asking because i was listening to a liberal radio show on the road the other day and they were panting breathlessly at the thought of a gay nominee...I heard her mention mom and brother and sister-in-law yesterday but no hubby or kids...it's an obvious question isn't it?...if so this pick isn't a home run but a grand slam....

Spence, that would be "peddle", not "pedal".:wavey:

I could be on my bike:laughs:

Sorry, I just bought a sweet new road bike and it's on my brain :hee:

-spence

If that's the worst they have on her then I don't see many problems.

You still have not presented anything that indicates she's an activist pick.

-spence

Congrats on the purchase! I hope it's not too much of an adjustment going from a high horse to a road bike.:tooth:

:wid:

Anything to help the local economy. I am a patriot...

-spence

we agree...she shouldn't have any problems...so what will the vote be?...keep in mind they're reporting that Blago got a check from Burris:laugha:

you haven't produced anything that indicates she's not an activist..so there!

Obama would not have selected her if she were not an activist Spence Alynski...are you freakin' kidding me !

I requested all of her files and she hasn't gotten back to me, maybe she'll listen to you since you are "in the loop"...if it eases your troubled mind to disregard what I've written over my failure to take the considerable time that you devote to this to list all of her "activist" rulings in the past including the one currently before the Supreme Court........then so be it...you would one way or another anyway......you remind me of Danny Devito in MATILDA...where he tells Matilda..."I'm big, you're little....I'm smart, you're dumb...I'm right , you're wrong"....you need some glue in your hat:bshake:

fond memories....

from WIKI
Reagan nominated Bork for the seat on July 1, 1987.

Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Edward Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."[10]

A brief was prepared for Joe Biden, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the Biden Report. Bork later said in his best-selling[11] book The Tempting of America that the report "so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility."[12] TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist. Kennedy's speech successfully fueled widespread public skepticism of Bork's nomination.

You're going in circles now.

-spence

not at all...we can both look at her rulings...one by one... and I will call them "activist" rulings and you will say they're not...then we will argue over the definition of activist judges and maybe after that is exhausted we can argue the merits of if in fact judges should be activists...clearly many think they should be, including this one...if you listened to the tape she was very clearly stating that courts should and do make policy and the joked because she was among "friends" that "oh, I probably shouldn't say that because I'm on tape"...in HER OWN WORDS" still doesn't matter...she'll be OK

there's a great article in THE HILL...looking at it pretty much from both perspectives "Is She an Activist" check it out...

oh, Spence, if you go there read the article detailing what attorneys have said about their experiences arguing before her and her general temprement and knowledge of the law...this might be better than I thought....

not in circles..going fishing...PEACE

I don't see how any thinking person could come to that conclusion. You still haven't actually read her words have you?

-spence

It doesn't matter......

Some of us see it one way, while others seem to look at the world as if they were slightly out of phase with reality. Sometimes it's hard to see you over there Spence. I know we are playing on the same team, but sometimes I can't see your position "left field" from my position "right field". Do you have a "smoke machine" on or something?

I am pretty sure we are talking about the same person, but I'm seeing a racist judge who legislates from the bench and you are seeing Saint Theresa.

Did you get hit in the head your last "at bat"?

:laugha: Go Sox!!!!

listened and read...several times...it's pretty clear that you are drowning in the kool aid...what I am seeing from Soto and Obama are people who have deluded themselves into thinking that they are morally and intellectually superior to others primarily and simply due to their background and they have clearly stated this (Oh, Michelle as well, does she ever talk anymore, she was so entertaining)...Soto's opinions are superior to any old white guys and Obama is the epitome of an elitist....they are a reflection of each other in attitude and arrogance which makes her the perfect pic for the ONE, hoisted on a pedestal and heavily promoted by the media through their touching life story rather than record and accomplishments, Clarence Thomas had a far more compelling life story but strangely the media handled things far differently and really had no interest in his struggles as a young black man growing up in America and ascending to the highest court in the land, strange...no, Uncle Tom had to be destroyed......you've got to read the descriptions of her courtroom antics by the lawyers that have suffered through them, sounds like a beast...I'd cut and paste but Johnny D gets mad when it not an "original" thought and you get mad when gobs of cut and pasted evidence are not produced...tough to decide which to do...

OBAMA...to redistribute the wealth
SOTO.....to redistribute the justice


oh, and Spence..."thinking people"? that's so very liberal elitist....eeeewwwwww

No, actually I don't know that much about her. I have looked into the key accusations against her and find them to be extremely misleading.

1) She's a racist
2) She believes the Judicial system makes policy
3) Her rulings have been overturned by the Supreme Court more times than not.

I've yet to see any substance to back up these claims, aside from ScottW's insistence that out of context statements are hard evidence :rolleyes:

So you think she's a racist, why? because Rush called her one?

It's funny how some think this is a Right vs Left debate. I've said it before but I don't think many of you would know a real Liberal if you saw one.

-spence

well, then there's always that little tax issue...not sayin' she has one... yet...but she...IS...an Obama nominee which means she's 80% likely to not have paid her taxes....:eek:

look, here's the deal...this is the Supreme Court, this nominee is, aside from her "compelling" life story fairly unremarkable, accumulated comments from lawyers that I have read describe her at best as average and fairly competent and at worst downright mean and nasty...they would know, I think that it's wonderful that she and Obama have ascended to their ranks in life, my problem is that in both cases these are people who have had unspectacular careers (still trying to locate anything that Obama wrote while at Harvard, got some new Joe Cool smoking pics though), have ascended with advantage through the IVY League in Obama's case with the advantage of being an exotic Halfrican American and in Soto's case a Latino neither being academic standouts or we would surely hear about it...are they burying her academic records too?, and I applaude them for using every advantage offered to the to get to their respective goals..... but to arrive at your destination having travelled a road of advantage after performing at an unspectacular level and then turn and suggest that you somehow carry a higher intellect, judgment, than others when this has never been demonstrated is very distasteful...Obama displays this attribute constantly and Soto had said it plain and simple...this is akin to taking a C student and making him class president to make you, him and perhaps others feel good and then having the kid walk to the head of the class and start lecturing about how smart he is...

again, she'll be confirmed...hope it's thorough but respectful

Spence Alynski, you are really execrised on this one...:shocked:

Yea, she's a lesbian tax cheat...nice.

I guess when you have to just make %$%$%$%$ up you don't really have much of a case do you?

-spence

One big thing that bothers me is her previous statements on gun control. In one case about a states right to ban weapons she stated the 2nd amendment only applies to what limitations the federal government may place on weapons control.

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."

But that Second Circuit ruling ran counter to a Ninth Circuit decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which upheld the Second Amendment as a deeply held right embodied in the Constitution that transcends state law.

“We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," the Ninth Circuit ruling said. “Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the ‘true palladium of liberty.’"

As for the racist part, she stated that her experience as a wise Latina woman she would make her a more impartial and fair judge than a typical white male.

Let's switch that around, I'll be the typical white male and I've been nominated and I say this "My experience as a white man makes me a more impartial and fair judge than a Latina woman"

What would be the response? from you? from the Latino community? from the black community? From the media?

I know for a fact I would have four different people or groups of people calling me a racist and I'd be forced to step down!

Saying that someone would decide a case differently... because she's a Latina, not a white male, that statement by definition is racist.

Not to mention the firefighters case. She ruled that it was ok for the city to throw out the exam, as too few minorities would be advanced. If you passed the advancement exam set up by the city to advance, the top scorers should advance. You can't change the rules after the fact to ensure a fair balance of races.

just going with the odds....:wave:

btw...you stated it...I just asked the question innocently...for democrats, I believe that would be "resume enhancement"

wish you demanded the same level of honesty and integrity from the Obama admin......

part of the liberal creed..."minorities cannont be racists", just ask Spence, he'll explain...

I thought a Liberal was any person who disagrees with a Republican??:huh:

"Its funny how some think this is a Right vs. Left debate"
-Spence

I'm curious as to why this insistence on judicial "activism" as a product of the liberal/left. Clarence Thomas has taken positions on hate crime that would without question be considered "activist" rulings. Its fair to say some judge's "activist" ruling or otherwise, is not necessarily anchored to their political orientation.

I would like to politely ask that those listening to Hannity put him on mute. A great book titled "Supreme Conflict" authored by Jan Greenburg goes into great detail about competing judicial philosophies and how they have shaped the court. Its also refreshingly objective. I recommend it to anyone who wants to compliment their understanding of the court.

Good luck with that.

I'll watch Hannity on occasion because it amuses me. Even funnier is when I hear him ranting about something and then see comments made on here that are almost word-for-word quotes of what was said earlier.

It's the same thing with Right-Wing radio. Some people drink the kool-ade then come on here and regurgitate it back out. Drones.

The firefighters lawsuit being dismissed showed how she would rule. When she said she would be better qualified than an old white guy, jeez... that really does say something. Like saying all white guys that are educated were sheltered their whole lives while they studied and did internships, choosing to spend their weekends at the yacht club amongst the elite. Yeah, its not what she said, I know. However you want to spin it, the firefighters, that should have gotten promoted for passing the test, didnt and it was because of discrimination. She sided with discrimination.

still cranky...must not have caught anything last weekend:wavey:


and Spence...gotta give you credit, I've been laughing all morning..."so she's a lesbian tax cheat"...that's the funniest thing you've said in a long time...