Sonia Sotomayor to be nominated

[Guest]

Supreme Court nomination.:crap2:
Let the flaming begin.

[Guest]

Supreme Court nomination.:crap2:
Let the flaming begin.


Been trying to catch up on her. Thus far found that the first President Bush appointed her to a bench.....she believes that race and hertiage should be reflected in opinions....some on the left question her intellecual ability (which I dont get...graduate from Princeton and get a law degree from Yale)..they probably are speaking to her debating talents.

[Guest]

and based solely on released information she seems to have the qualifications.
Just like the fellow named last week to head up NASA...outstanding qualifications.
Not being privy to the list of candidates I would have one question...the same question I always asked when asked to approve hiring executives during my corporate America days.....is he/she the absolute BEST candidate for the job. I always insisted in seeing the paperwork on the final 5 candidates, plus an explanation why the hiring executive thought the candidate was the very best one for the job.

We will not get that opportunity with these nominations....unfortunately.
What we do know for sure is strictly based on the numbers there are more non minority candidates. We also know for sure thus far based on Obama's propensity to be on the perpetual campaign trail, that his choices are influenced according to future voting base. Just look at the union positioning for the disaster called automotive restructuring. As a result some (including me) are suspect of the motivation of his choices.

Now is the time as usual for REAL RESEARCH on the individuals to satisfy ones curiosity. However, that will have no bearing on the political mill these candidates will be subjected to undergo. Just the fact the process of confirmation is being allowed 4 months is an out right waste of time allowing the politicos and the media to churn and stir. A CHANGE Obama could bring to Washington and is not, to date, is to trim the time cycles for decision making. For ANY position, 30 days is more than ample time to dig and debate.

On the surface good candidates. In my opinion, reality demonstrates the appointments are more political than quantitative. A true statement for either party....UNFORTUNATELY!

BTK

[Guest]

Good pick!

She's a sharp jurist who doesn't take any BS from anybody. In many ways, she's the legal profession's version of Horatio Alger - she did it the American way, based on intellect and hard work.

[Guest]

I get the impression that she is not someone that I would chose.

In her own voice she stated that policy is made from the bench.

Her decisions have been quite often overturned.

I would guess that she will be seated, qualified or not. She should not be.

She has made statements that indicate that she is a racist, albeit the popular kind of racist.

In our society the laws are made by the elected, not the appointed.

I am not surprised by her nomination. What else should I have expected.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

I am not surprised by her nomination. What else should I have expected.
Yoda
A member of the loyal opposition

Yeah, she's no Harriet Miers.:1rotfl:

[Guest]

I get the impression that she is not someone that I would chose.

In her own voice she stated that policy is made from the bench.

Her decisions have been quite often overturned.

I would guess that she will be seated, qualified or not. She should not be.

She has made statements that indicate that she is a racist, albeit the popular kind of racist.

In our society the laws are made by the elected, not the appointed.

I am not surprised by her nomination. What else should I have expected.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Judge Sotomayor has spoken with brutal candor regarding what happens within a Court of Appeals action. It has been an unwritten rule that this fact of business not be recognized out loud, but it is how it is. She's no political dynasty blue-blood, and in that sense it is refreshing to see someone who does not come "from money" as a nominee. Being "street-wise" should not be a detriment.

As far as having decisions reversed, that happens. I know of several judges whose careers are speckled (some more brightly than others) with appellate reversals, and they are all honorable jurists who can be viewed as "conservative."

If this nomination is contested along party lines, that would be tragic. The question should be whether Judge Sotomayor is a jurist with the education and experience to handle cases within the SCOTUS jurisdiction.

The American Bar Association will be preparing its evaluation of her credentials, and that won't be party-biased. I'm looking forward to the ABA evaluation as it will be factual and blunt.

[Guest]

Judge Sotomayor has spoken with brutal candor regarding what happens within a Court of Appeals action. It has been an unwritten rule that this fact of business not be recognized out loud, but it is how it is. She's no political dynasty blue-blood, and in that sense it is refreshing to see someone who does not come "from money" as a nominee. Being "street-wise" should not be a detriment.

As far as having decisions reversed, that happens. I know of several judges whose careers are speckled (some more brightly than others) with appellate reversals, and they are all honorable jurists who can be viewed as "conservative."

If this nomination is contested along party lines, that would be tragic. The question should be whether Judge Sotomayor is a jurist with the education and experience to handle cases within the SCOTUS jurisdiction.

The American Bar Association will be preparing its evaluation of her credentials, and that won't be party-biased. I'm looking forward to the ABA evaluation as it will be factual and blunt.

Legislating from the bench is a violation of the constitution. Doesn't that bother you?

The numbers that I think I heard was 60% reversal. I think that's an indicator of a major judicial problem.

Judge Sotomayor, without a doubt has the education required. She has experience but I am not sure if she has the temperament. Justice is, as it should be, blind to race, color, creed, social standing and position. Judge Sotomayor is not. Therein lies my problem with her.

As for the ABA not being bias, I will leave that one alone.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

Legislating from the bench is a violation of the constitution. Doesn't that bother you?

Constitution? We don't use that anymore so she's a perfect pick.

[Guest]

Judge Sotomayor has spoken with brutal candor regarding what happens within a Court of Appeals action. It has been an unwritten rule that this fact of business not be recognized out loud, but it is how it is. She's no political dynasty blue-blood, and in that sense it is refreshing to see someone who does not come "from money" as a nominee. Being "street-wise" should not be a detriment.

As far as having decisions reversed, that happens. I know of several judges whose careers are speckled (some more brightly than others) with appellate reversals, and they are all honorable jurists who can be viewed as "conservative."

If this nomination is contested along party lines, that would be tragic. The question should be whether Judge Sotomayor is a jurist with the education and experience to handle cases within the SCOTUS jurisdiction.

The American Bar Association will be preparing its evaluation of her credentials, and that won't be party-biased. I'm looking forward to the ABA evaluation as it will be factual and blunt.
I like the way you look at something from all sides. Keep it up!! Time for all of us to look positively at our future. She might be great.

[Guest]

The last two pick for the court, Judge Alito and Chief Justice Roberts appear to be doing their work in a credible and honorable way. Supreme Court Judges over the years have held differing opinions on the various issues that come to the court. I see no reason why Judge Sotomayor will not be a valuable addition to the court. From what I have heard so far, she speaks her mind and is not necessarily bound to be politically correct. Something I greatly admire.

[Guest]

Legislating from the bench is a violation of the constitution. Doesn't that bother you?

The numbers that I think I heard was 60% reversal. I think that's an indicator of a major judicial problem.

Judge Sotomayor, without a doubt has the education required. She has experience but I am not sure if she has the temperament. Justice is, as it should be, blind to race, color, creed, social standing and position. Judge Sotomayor is not. Therein lies my problem with her.

As for the ABA not being bias, I will leave that one alone.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Of course "legislating" from the bench should not happen. But it does, in the sense that ambiguous legislation runs rampant, and courts have often provided their interpretation of verbal soup. Usually, those interpretations tick someone off, hopefully enough for the legislature to get off its duff and clean up the statutes so courts don't find themselves in having to make judicial silk purses from legislative sow's ears.

I don't know what her reversal rate is, and that will come up with the ABA evaluation. No matter what it is, the "why" is more important than the number.

I'm not sure what a Supreme Court justice's "termperament" should or should not be. As "one of nine," it would seem logical that any justice should be as independent as possible. If she's blunt and no-nonsense, so what?

And as far as the ABA is concerned, any organization which is comprised of persons from all political persuasions, and can't afford to offend any of them, probably is the best at evaluating judicial qualification. Attorneys who have appeared before Judge Sotomayor (as winners and losers) will be involved in the evaluation.

I doubt there is ANY nominee for a SCOTUS position who will please everyone, especially if there is more concern for an "us versus them" on political lines than there is for whether the nominee can indeed perform the duties and responsibilities of a SCOTUS associate justice.

The fact that a liberal President has nominated Judge Sotomayor does not make her a bad person or jurist. She is unique in that her federal judicial career was initiated by a Republican administration and expanded by a Democratic one, and was confirmed both times by a Republican-majority Congress.

[Guest]

:agree::agree::coolsmiley:Judge Sotomayor has spoken with brutal candor regarding what happens within a Court of Appeals action. It has been an unwritten rule that this fact of business not be recognized out loud, but it is how it is. She's no political dynasty blue-blood, and in that sense it is refreshing to see someone who does not come "from money" as a nominee. Being "street-wise" should not be a detriment.

As far as having decisions reversed, that happens. I know of several judges whose careers are speckled (some more brightly than others) with appellate reversals, and they are all honorable jurists who can be viewed as "conservative."

If this nomination is contested along party lines, that would be tragic. The question should be whether Judge Sotomayor is a jurist with the education and experience to handle cases within the SCOTUS jurisdiction.

The American Bar Association will be preparing its evaluation of her credentials, and that won't be party-biased. I'm looking forward to the ABA evaluation as it will be factual and blunt.

:agree::agree:

[Guest]

I didn't vote for Obama and have disagreed with nearly everything I've heard him read over the past few months. I really don't know anything about this nominee or whether she will/should be confirmed but I'll have to say that her story of achieving in spite of her humble beginnings was very inspiring to me
this morning.

[Guest]

why ANOTHER minority feels compelled to play the race card? Specifically her comment regarding that she or a black person can make a better decision than a white male.
The truly successful minorities I have dealt with in my life time DO NOT play the race card/game/etc.

It fans the flames and certainly ads no value.

If a white had said the same intended commentary they would not survive...reverse discrimination is rampant...but we the people, the apathetics, don't mind...they never do ...until it is them.

Anyway I tried to remain positive about this one....we'll see...I fear my suspicions are being fueled already.

BTK

[Guest]

After having read the entire speech which the "race" remark was claimed, I just can't find anything wrong. Judge Sotomayor portrayed herself as "human" and her explanations of several events in legal history were on the money. There was no "racist" remark at all, and the entire speech, as opposed to a selective sound bite, needs to be reviewed for full context.

If the confirmation hearings and ABA evaluation show here as "qualified," and that process is virtually no different than what occurred for her confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals, then she becomes "Nine of Nine." (Note: this is not to be construed that SCOTUS justices are Borg-like!)

If you care to review the speech in question, please go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

[Guest]

After having read the entire speech which the "race" remark was claimed, I just can't find anything wrong. Judge Sotomayor portrayed herself as "human" and her explanations of several events in legal history were on the money. There was no "racist" remark at all, and the entire speech, as opposed to a selective sound bite, needs to be reviewed for full context.

If the confirmation hearings and ABA evaluation show here as "qualified," and that process is virtually no different than what occurred for her confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals, then she becomes "Nine of Nine." (Note: this is not to be construed that SCOTUS justices are Borg-like!)

If you care to review the speech in question, please go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

Alright 2 in a row....:agree:

[Guest]

Constitution? We don't use that anymore so she's a perfect pick.


AHHHH LOVE your reply!! Sad, but true!!

[Guest]

clarity to the issue.
As I said earlier the credentials seem to fit. Now the way to lengthy time to "evaluate" is under way.

BTK

[Guest]

Legislating from the bench is a violation of the constitution. Doesn't that bother you?

T Justice is, as it should be, blind to race, color, creed, social standing and position.

A member of the loyal opposition

What wagon load of pumpkins did you just fall off of??

Do you honestly think that a bench full of 80 year old WASPS doesn't bring it's own social filter to the mix? If not, then we don't need human beings as judges, we can use computers.

[Guest]

What wagon load of pumpkins did you just fall off of??

Do you honestly think that a bench full of 80 year old WASPS doesn't bring it's own social filter to the mix? If not, then we don't need human beings as judges, we can use computers.

Perhaps my friend, if we had computers then.............

I do not want anyone's social filter to be used. I think you missed that point.

If you want our country to change every time the there is a new president, there will come the time when you will never get a new president.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

Perhaps my friend, if we had computers then.............

I do not want anyone's social filter to be used. I think you missed that point.


Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

You miss the point if you think any of those judges can truly judge without using their social filters. That is why some of them are considered "conservative" and some are considered "liberal." But above all, they are human beings, and that is how we operate.

In fact, most of them are pretty close to the middle, compared to the extremes, but they do have their leanings. And that is as it should be, to some degree, because they have a very powerful influence on how the law is applied, or even if it is to be applied. And they wield that influence over a lot of people. All of those people deserve to have some representation on that bench.

Something else very interesting is happening here BTW. While I agree her choice was a "political" one, in that Obama is very shrewdly throwing a bone to the Hispanic community, The GOP is being very cautious in how it wants to develop arguments against her appointment. They are scared to death of alienating further that demographic. So while they might want to yell "this is a politically driven appointment", the way they voice their dissension will in itself be very politically driven.

Of course, if your Rush, and you don't really care about the GOP, and you'll never have to actually run for office, and your real motivation is ratings, you can say whatever you want.

[Guest]

Any time a President nominates anyone for anything, someone will say that the nomination is politically influenced - and usually will be right.

If the President has a pool of several qualified individuals from which to pick a nominee for anything - and all nominees are equally qualified - odds are the political value of each potential selection is part of the equation. So, the political value of picking an individual of Hispanic background, ande female as well, could be expected to be touted.

The process is for the President to provide a single individual as a nominee, not a pool of two or more, and then letting Congress rank-order them via the Congressional interview method.

All that notwithstanding, and knowing that the selection process for Presidential nominees has been this process since Pres. Washington, the real issue should be whether Judge Sotomayor is indeed qualified to be in that select pool of individuals equally qualified for being a SCOTUS associate justice, and can she professionally do the job - yes or no.

No President is going to go to the other-party's leadership and seek advice on whom the other-party prefers - and nor should s/he do so.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of politicians (federal, state, or local) who are more concerned with fighting everything on party lines rather than being concerned with either: 1) the professional credentials of a nominee to do the job at hand; or 2) the law to be enacted (or repealed) will actually improve life within the jurisdiction. C-SPAN is beginning to look like a continuous rerun of "West Side Story."

Judge Sotomayor has already demonstrated in two prior evaluations of being professionally qualified to be a U.S, District Court Judge and a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge. The only question on the table should be whether she is professionally qualified to be employed at the next-higher judicial level. Any Senator who asks her any question on her position on anything other than knowledge of the law, or judicial practice and procedure should be looked at as a party hack and political bigot.

In today's world, every employer, or selection committee, is all too aware that the interview process for any new employee has its restrictions as to what can and can't be asked from any job candidate. It would be refreshing to see Congress practice what it levies on the rest of us to insure employees are picked based on professional qualifications, and that racial, ethnic, gender, appearance, political or any other bias or prejudice is absent in the selection process.

[Guest]

Any time a President nominates anyone for anything, someone will say that the nomination is politically influenced - and usually will be right.

If the President has a pool of several qualified individuals from which to pick a nominee for anything - and all nominees are equally qualified - odds are the political value of each potential selection is part of the equation. So, the political value of picking an individual of Hispanic background, ande female as well, could be expected to be touted.

The process is for the President to provide a single individual as a nominee, not a pool of two or more, and then letting Congress rank-order them via the Congressional interview method.

All that notwithstanding, and knowing that the selection process for Presidential nominees has been this process since Pres. Washington, the real issue should be whether Judge Sotomayor is indeed qualified to be in that select pool of individuals equally qualified for being a SCOTUS associate justice, and can she professionally do the job - yes or no.

No President is going to go to the other-party's leadership and seek advice on whom the other-party prefers - and nor should s/he do so.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of politicians (federal, state, or local) who are more concerned with fighting everything on party lines rather than being concerned with either: 1) the professional credentials of a nominee to do the job at hand; or 2) the law to be enacted (or repealed) will actually improve life within the jurisdiction. C-SPAN is beginning to look like a continuous rerun of "West Side Story."

Judge Sotomayor has already demonstrated in two prior evaluations of being professionally qualified to be a U.S, District Court Judge and a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge. The only question on the table should be whether she is professionally qualified to be employed at the next-higher judicial level. Any Senator who asks her any question on her position on anything other than knowledge of the law, or judicial practice and procedure should be looked at as a party hack and political bigot.

In today's world, every employer, or selection committee, is all too aware that the interview process for any new employee has its restrictions as to what can and can't be asked from any job candidate. It would be refreshing to see Congress practice what it levies on the rest of us to insure employees are picked based on professional qualifications, and that racial, ethnic, gender, appearance, political or any other bias or prejudice is absent in the selection process.

:agree:Good points.

[Guest]

Any time a President nominates anyone for anything, someone will say that the nomination is politically influenced - and usually will be right.

If the President has a pool of several qualified individuals from which to pick a nominee for anything - and all nominees are equally qualified - odds are the political value of each potential selection is part of the equation. So, the political value of picking an individual of Hispanic background, ande female as well, could be expected to be touted.

The process is for the President to provide a single individual as a nominee, not a pool of two or more, and then letting Congress rank-order them via the Congressional interview method.

All that notwithstanding, and knowing that the selection process for Presidential nominees has been this process since Pres. Washington, the real issue should be whether Judge Sotomayor is indeed qualified to be in that select pool of individuals equally qualified for being a SCOTUS associate justice, and can she professionally do the job - yes or no.

No President is going to go to the other-party's leadership and seek advice on whom the other-party prefers - and nor should s/he do so.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of politicians (federal, state, or local) who are more concerned with fighting everything on party lines rather than being concerned with either: 1) the professional credentials of a nominee to do the job at hand; or 2) the law to be enacted (or repealed) will actually improve life within the jurisdiction. C-SPAN is beginning to look like a continuous rerun of "West Side Story."

Judge Sotomayor has already demonstrated in two prior evaluations of being professionally qualified to be a U.S, District Court Judge and a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge. The only question on the table should be whether she is professionally qualified to be employed at the next-higher judicial level. Any Senator who asks her any question on her position on anything other than knowledge of the law, or judicial practice and procedure should be looked at as a party hack and political bigot.

In today's world, every employer, or selection committee, is all too aware that the interview process for any new employee has its restrictions as to what can and can't be asked from any job candidate. It would be refreshing to see Congress practice what it levies on the rest of us to insure employees are picked based on professional qualifications, and that racial, ethnic, gender, appearance, political or any other bias or prejudice is absent in the selection process.

on the money!

[Guest]

..."legislating" from the bench should not happen. But it does, in the sense that ambiguous legislation runs rampant, and courts have often provided their interpretation of verbal soup. Usually, those interpretations tick someone off, hopefully enough for the legislature to get off its duff and clean up the statutes so courts don't find themselves in having to make judicial silk purses from legislative sow's ears.

Well stated, Steve. Too many people fail to accurately assess what "legislating from the bench" really means. Maybe we should ask them what they think should happen when cases are presented for adjudication based on contradictory, unclear, poorly-written, confusing laws? Last time I checked, an answer of "I don't know--the law is too confusing" wasn't an option for a Supreme Court justice. It would be even worse if the Court refused to hear cases where the underlying laws were faulty, unclear and inconsistent. Would the purists be happy if the Supreme Court only accepted cases that were easily adjudicated, leaving those based on imperfect law unsettled?

By definition, ALL Supreme Court justices have to occasionally "make law" when the legislators empowered to do so fail in their responsibilities. That's completely consisent with the Constitution, I think.

[Guest]

By the way, shortly after Justice Souter announced his intention to retire, C-SPAN broadcast back-to-back speeches or recorded events featuring each of those people thought to be candidates to replace him. I watched each with interest, not knowing or having heard about any of them previously.

Judge Sotomayor was video'd serving as one of three justices ruling in an appeals court setting for a George Washington University law school moot court. The other two justices were also experienced federal appeals court judges. The other candidates were featured making speeches on one subject or another.

After watching all four of the prospective candidates featured, I came away impressed that Judge Sotomayor was clearly the best of the bunch. Her conduct from the bench exhibited deep knowledge of both statutory and case law, but most importantly her "judgelike" demeanor was impressive.

Now after reading more about her, I've concluded that her confirmation hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee probably will be TV programming not to be missed. My guess is that she will be aggressive in responding to questioning, particularly from those exhibiting partisan intent. Said in words we all understand, her friends and colleagues have said that she won't take any cr*p from any of the Senators. It's almost certain that none of the Senators doing the questioning will possess her intellectual capacity, and certainly not her legal experience. Her peers and colleagues say that she is not one to either accept unwarranted criticism or suffer fools quietly or politely. She will not be testifying with "hat in hand" so to speak, simply trying to get the confirmation of her nomination. It ought to be fun to watch.

[Guest]

I personally think alot of which has been said is alot of hooey! This is just more politics from a Chicago politician. The left wants a "live" constitution instead of interpreting what the founding father's wrote. If you twist, stretch, expand, dilute and keep changing the form of the constitution...it will become unrecognizable.

Keedy

[Guest]

You miss the point if you think any of those judges can truly judge without using their social filters. That is why some of them are considered "conservative" and some are considered "liberal." But above all, they are human beings, and that is how we operate.

In fact, most of them are pretty close to the middle, compared to the extremes, but they do have their leanings. And that is as it should be, to some degree, because they have a very powerful influence on how the law is applied, or even if it is to be applied. And they wield that influence over a lot of people. All of those people deserve to have some representation on that bench.

Something else very interesting is happening here BTW. While I agree her choice was a "political" one, in that Obama is very shrewdly throwing a bone to the Hispanic community, The GOP is being very cautious in how it wants to develop arguments against her appointment. They are scared to death of alienating further that demographic. So while they might want to yell "this is a politically driven appointment", the way they voice their dissension will in itself be very politically driven.

Of course, if your Rush, and you don't really care about the GOP, and you'll never have to actually run for office, and your real motivation is ratings, you can say whatever you want.

The "conservative" justices are called that because they tend interpret the law as the founders intended. By the constitution. The Liberal justices tend to went to bypass the constitution and create law rather than interpret it.

We only need the Republican party so that there will be 2 viable parties.

The McCain Republican party cant win. A conservative Republican party will win. Over 60% of Americans identify themselves as conservative. Although Obama was elected, in those states that had major ballot questions the conservative position won.

If the GOP couldn't win the Hispanic vote with an amnesty candidate they never will by sucking up to Hispanics. However, most Hispanic voters are conservative. They will support a conservative they always do.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

I think a real conservative could win the election in 2012. Bush was not a real conservative. His failure to use his veto pen , especially in his first term, was the beginning of the end for the Republican Party. The lack of fiscal responsibility and failure to protect our borders from illegal immigrants is the reason we have this situation in the White House.
I don't think Ronnie Reagan is looking down on us approvingly right now.
Rant over
I return you to your regulary scheduled posters:oops:

Keedy

[Guest]

I believe we need to recognize that any person’s experience will bring a different understanding of the words of the Constitution. The Supreme Court should not be of a single mind. We need to be as concerned about that as we are of legislating from the bench. There needs to be a diversity of backgrounds to ensure justice and common sense. If there is not then we risk the situation that Anatole France observed in his book, The Red Lily, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

Judge Sotomayor’s life story is inspiring, but no more so than Justices Alito and Thomas. This country needs to accept judges on the basis of their track record rather than on the concept of liberal and conservative judges. While Democrats have failed to do so in their attacks on Justices Thomas and Alito – that is no reason for the Republican Party to do the same. We desperately need to stop both extremes and work together. We need to stop listening to both Chris Mathews and Rush Limbaugh.

[Guest]

I believe we need to recognize that any person’s experience will bring a different understanding of the words of the Constitution. The Supreme Court should not be of a single mind. We need to be as concerned about that as we are of legislating from the bench. There needs to be a diversity of backgrounds to ensure justice and common sense. If there is not then we risk the situation that Anatole France observed in his book, The Red Lily, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

Judge Sotomayor’s life story is inspiring, but no more so than Justices Alito and Thomas. This country needs to accept judges on the basis of their track record rather than on the concept of liberal and conservative judges. While Democrats have failed to do so in their attacks on Justices Thomas and Alito – that is no reason for the Republican Party to do the same. We desperately need to stop both extremes and work together. We need to stop listening to both Chris Mathews and Rush Limbaugh.

Although I basically agree with what you are saying, why must the GOP play the adult role all the time? After 8 years of extreme hatefulness from the looney left, why should everybody get a case of maturity under their watch. I don't know about you but after 8 years of extreme Bush-bashing from the Lettermen, Leno and all of mainstream media. I need to vent some of my frustrations a little.
The Left's venom started immediately after Bush beat Gore and did not let up once in 8 long, long years. We have been beaten down, mocked, laughed at, scorned, ridiculed on a daily basis and now were expected to just lay down and let the Looney Left put any old radical they want on the Supreme Court?
We need to get our moxie up. We need to get our fighting spirit up. We need to let the Looney Left know that the Conservative Movement of President Reagan is not dead.

Keedy

[Guest]

Amen!!!! Keedy

[Guest]

Judge Sotomayor has spoken with brutal candor regarding what happens within a Court of Appeals action. It has been an unwritten rule that this fact of business not be recognized out loud, but it is how it is. She's no political dynasty blue-blood, and in that sense it is refreshing to see someone who does not come "from money" as a nominee. Being "street-wise" should not be a detriment.

As far as having decisions reversed, that happens. I know of several judges whose careers are speckled (some more brightly than others) with appellate reversals, and they are all honorable jurists who can be viewed as "conservative."

If this nomination is contested along party lines, that would be tragic. The question should be whether Judge Sotomayor is a jurist with the education and experience to handle cases within the SCOTUS jurisdiction.

The American Bar Association will be preparing its evaluation of her credentials, and that won't be party-biased. I'm looking forward to the ABA evaluation as it will be factual and blunt.

For the record, her decisions have been overturned 60% of the time on appeal. This demonstrates her attempts at making policy instead of upholding the rule of law.

[Guest]

For the record, her decisions have been overturned 60% of the time on appeal. This demonstrates her attempts at making policy instead of upholding the rule of law.

...Few words, serious content. :bowdown:

[Guest]

...Few words, serious content. :bowdown:

Ditto.

Keedy

[Guest]

Whoever said that 60% of judge Sotomayor's decisions were reversed must be a loyal listener of Rush Limbaugh. Fact check's data shows just 1% reversal, which is lower than most judges.
Chief Justice Roberts has said that judges make law when elected officials do not, nobody on the right had any problem because he was on their side and would rule in their favor.
As a man, I think most of the problems in the world are due to much macho thinking and I welcome a change to women in leadership positions.

[Guest]

When I read the allegation that 60% of Judge Sotomayor's decisions were overturned on appeal, I thought to myself that no judge with that kind of record would ever be nominated for the Supreme Court. Given the criticism that would occur in the nomination hearings, such a nomination would have been a lunatic move by any President. Such a record would surely result in the nomination being rejected.

I kind of thought that the 60% allegation fell into the same category as the claim that only Chrysler dealers who were Republicans were closed in the bankruptcy. It was posted here for the same reason as the claim of 60% overturned decisions. Obviously, both allegations were posted without even the faintest suggestion of a reliable source for the information. The car dealer thread has already been removed by the administrators.

This claim of 60% of the Judge's decisions being overturned on appeal is in the same category--an inflammatory claim by a political partisan intended to incite the loyalists. It should be treated the same way as the allegation regarding the car dealers--it should be removed from this thread as a statement that is patently false.

[Guest]

Whoever said that 60% of judge Sotomayor's decisions were reversed must be a loyal listener of Rush Limbaugh. Fact check's data shows just 1% reversal, which is lower than most judges.
Chief Justice Roberts has said that judges make law when elected officials do not, nobody on the right had any problem because he was on their side and would rule in their favor.
As a man, I think most of the problems in the world are due to much macho thinking and I welcome a change to women in leadership positions.
Now there is a loaded statement. I don't know whether to laugh or cite sexist. LOL
Anyways, gender does not play into my selection of the perfect leader. I'll take either Margaret Thatcher or Ronnie Reagan.

Keedy

[Guest]

When I read the allegation that 60% of Judge Sotomayor's decisions were overturned on appeal, I thought to myself that no judge with that kind of record would ever be nominated for the Supreme Court. Given the criticism that would occur in the nomination hearings, such a nomination would have been a lunatic move by any President. Such a record would surely result in the nomination being rejected.

I kind of thought that the 60% allegation fell into the same category as the claim that only Chrysler dealers who were Republicans were closed in the bankruptcy. It was posted here for the same reason as the claim of 60% overturned decisions. Obviously, both allegations were posted without even the faintest suggestion of a reliable source for the information. The car dealer thread has already been removed by the administrators.

This claim of 60% of the Judge's decisions being overturned on appeal is in the same category--an inflammatory claim by a political partisan intended to incite the loyalists. It should be treated the same way as the allegation regarding the car dealers--it should be removed from this thread as a statement that is patently false.

From what I understand, of the 5 decisions of Sotomayor reviewed by the Supreme Court, 3 have been overturned, which would explain the 60% figure.
In her defense, 60% is not a particularly large percent, according to the average of overturns.
Keedy

[Guest]

This claim of 60% of the Judge's decisions being overturned on appeal is in the same category--an inflammatory claim by a political partisan intended to incite the loyalists. It should be treated the same way as the allegation regarding the car dealers--it should be removed from this thread as a statement that is patently false.

Since well over 60% of the cases that went to the Supreme Court were overturned (75% in 2008), you might say she has done better than average.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/its-over/

[Guest]

I might be taken to the wood shed for saying this, and I can't stop my fingers from typing, but I'm going to say it anyways. I think she leans a little on the the side of being called a racist. Let me explain.
A bunch of firefighters took a promotion exam and something like 17 or 18 passed but were denied promotion. The reason is that Sotomayor said that because she didn't see any black people on the promotion list...it isn't right. Well, the reason there was no black people on the promotion list is because none acheived a score high enough to pass the test. ( I hope I'm explaining this correctly)
Now, let me say that I hope nobody reading this post ever gets in a situation where he would need rescueing from a dire situation. If you do need help, I bet you that you will not care about the color of the skin of the person helping you, right? All you will want is the best people for the job. You will want the most qualified person for the task at hand.
Now tell me how a judge would know who is the best is to do the job. He or she couldn't know as well as I couldn't know. That is why we have tests.
Martin King said he wanted to see a color-blind society. How is putting judges on the bench who go out of their way to look for color...going to help future generations in the quest for a color-blind world?
OK...Let the rocks fly!!!!::crap2:
Keedy

[Guest]

We need a lawyer, or someone knowledgeable, to read Judge Sotomayor's opinion in the New Haven Fire Department case. I would guess that her legal reasoning and the case law that she applied to reach her decision went a whole lot farther than the color of the skin of the applicants who passed the test. If her opinion reflects that her decision was based only the ethnicity of the test-takers, you or anyone else would be justified in calling her a racist. But if her opinion is reasoned and well-supported in both written and case law, then your allegation that she is a racist is not only premature, but inflammatory by it's very nature.

[Guest]

I might be taken to the wood shed for saying this, and I can't stop my fingers from typing, but I'm going to say it anyways. I think she leans a little on the the side of being called a racist. Let me explain.
A bunch of firefighters took a promotion exam and something like 17 or 18 passed but were denied promotion. The reason is that Sotomayor said that because she didn't see any black people on the promotion list...it isn't right. Well, the reason there was no black people on the promotion list is because none acheived a score high enough to pass the test. ( I hope I'm explaining this correctly)
Now, let me say that I hope nobody reading this post ever gets in a situation where he would need rescueing from a dire situation. If you do need help, I bet you that you will not care about the color of the skin of the person helping you, right? All you will want is the best people for the job. You will want the most qualified person for the task at hand.
Now tell me how a judge would know who is the best is to do the job. He or she couldn't know as well as I couldn't know. That is why we have tests.
Martin King said he wanted to see a color-blind society. How is putting judges on the bench who go out of their way to look for color...going to help future generations in the quest for a color-blind world?
OK...Let the rocks fly!!!!::crap2:
Keedy

From the New Republic (highlights are mine):
The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085

[Guest]

From the New Republic (highlights are mine):
The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085

She was a member of a 3 member panel which ruled against Ricci in what I have read was a very terse decision. She was as involved as any of the other two !

This summer about the time she is confirmed or shortly thereafter the Supreme Court will overrule her panels decision !

I dislike discussions on Supreme Court appointees simply because so much of what they do is narrow in relation to the decision they come to. In other words what the public construed as a "bad" decision or a "good" decision has to be tempered by how the question before the body was framed.

I make my decision based on the oath they take after listening to the hearings.....the oath for Supreme Court Justice is as follows....

"According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

[Guest]

We need a lawyer, or someone knowledgeable, to read Judge Sotomayor's opinion in the New Haven Fire Department case. I would guess that her legal reasoning and the case law that she applied to reach her decision went a whole lot farther than the color of the skin of the applicants who passed the test. If her opinion reflects that her decision was based only the ethnicity of the test-takers, you or anyone else would be justified in calling her a racist. But if her opinion is reasoned and well-supported in both written and case law, then your allegation that she is a racist is not only premature, but inflammatory by it's very nature.

Hey, calm down. I didn't come out and say she was a racist. I said it looks like she might lean that way. Please read my post again. You see how these things work? If someone repeats your last sentence, it could read "Keedy's racist allegations are inflammatory"
Inflammatory rumors and reputations can be ruined with just one sentence Mr.Kahuna. Please be careful of personal flaming.
But while on the subject, Ted Kennedy's allegations that putting Bork on the court will result in back alley abortions seems to be not inflamatory?????
Hmmmmm Keedy

[Guest]

that our senators look at her as closely as we are.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

Hum...

[Guest]

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

Hum...
Imagine the reaction if a candidate said " I would hope that a white guy could reach a better conclusion then a person of color because the writers of the constitution were white"

Keedy

[Guest]

Or,

"I would hope that a wise Caucasian woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic male who hasn’t lived that life."

Can you even imagine the backlash? Let a liberal say it and it gets swept under the carpet.

We're told now by BO's press secretary that we need to be careful. This after
the Democrats ripped limb from limb Estrada, Gonzalez and Thomas.

Remember?

[Guest]

Or,

"I would hope that a wise Caucasian woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic male who hasn’t lived that life."

Can you even imagine the backlash? Let a liberal say it and it gets swept under the carpet.

We're told now by BO's press secretary that we need to be careful. This after
the Democrats ripped limb from limb Estrada, Gonzalez and Thomas.

Remember?

:agree: I like your analogy better then mine. ;)

Keedy

[Guest]

I think that Limbaugh has to beat the GOP over the head with this one until they wake up.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

There's been a lot said about the "New Haven" case and the what and why of the decision Judge Sotomayor was a part of. For those who want to know more about it, other than the sound-bite version, so they can appreciate the litigated issues:

1. the briefs submitted to the Supreme Court can be found at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/april09.shtml#ricci1 and are quite extensive.

2. the transcript from the Oral Argument of the case before the Supreme Court on 22 April 2009 can be found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-1428.pdf and is typical on how oral argument before an appellate court occurs.

3. the decision of the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals (which Judge Sotomayor participated as a panel member) can be found by going to http://www.ca2,uscourts.gov/opinion and at the "search in" box select "Opinions and Summary Orders" and at the blank "find decisions that contain"box, type "06-4996-cv" and then hit the "Search" button.

While the plaintiff's viewpoint has been the one in the news, as it sounds like they were getting s****** by the City of New Haven, once you read the respondent's position, the issue is radically different. The city's position is that, in trying to comply with federal law, they found themselves in a position where they would be subject to lawsuit if they certified the promotion tests, and no matter what they did, they were in a "d***** if you do, d***** if you don't" situation. So the battleground is conflicting federal law on a publicly sensitive issue, and how that conflict needs to be resolved so that employers and employees don't have to play guessing games on what's the "legal" thing to do.

And again, the "Latina woman" comment came from a speech given 8 years ago, and the full transcript (so you can see the context and not just the sound bite) can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1

Contrary to what some may believe, judges cannot create decisions out of thin air. If there are existing precedent decisions in their jurisdiction (or higher) on the topic, the judges are bound by those decisions unless they can present a legal argument (with other precedents to back them) showing why the existing precedent decision(s) don't apply and the judge(s) reasoning is superior.

[Guest]

There's been a lot said about the "New Haven" case and the what and why of the decision Judge Sotomayor was a part of. For those who want to know more about it, other than the sound-bite version, so they can appreciate the litigated issues:



While the plaintiff's viewpoint has been the one in the news, as it sounds like they were getting s****** by the City of New Haven, once you read the respondent's position, the issue is radically different. The city's position is that, in trying to comply with federal law, they found themselves in a position where they would be subject to lawsuit if they certified the promotion tests, and no matter what they did, they were in a "d***** if you do, d***** if you don't" situation. So the battleground is conflicting federal law on a publicly sensitive issue, and how that conflict needs to be resolved so that employers and employees don't have to play guessing games on what's the "legal" thing to do.

And again, the "Latina woman" comment came from a speech given 8 years ago, and the full transcript (so you can see the context and not just the sound bite) can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1



The New Haven case sounds like the Nuremberg defense to me. We were just following orders. You can't do what is wrong just because it is convenient. The problem is that New Haven was going to be sued either way. The chose to go the PC way rather than the right way. The judge would not let the case be heard. New Haven was wrong. They shoulh have done what was right and let the federal government sort it out. Perhaps we would have ended up with a better law.

As far as her statement goes....... she said what she said. She said what she meant. Don't forget the other statements that she made like the one about making law.

She is what she is. We need to honest about things like this. We can't let people double-speak is into capitulation.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

It was said a few weeks ago that they were looking for a Latino woman. That being said, that means that no white people were even considered. The gall of these people is unbelievable.
On a side note...doesn't she look a little like Roseanne of the TV show from the 1990's ?

Keedy

[Guest]

Although I basically agree with what you are saying, why must the GOP play the adult role all the time? After 8 years of extreme hatefulness from the looney left, why should everybody get a case of maturity under their watch. I don't know about you but after 8 years of extreme Bush-bashing from the Lettermen, Leno and all of mainstream media. I need to vent some of my frustrations a little.
The Left's venom started immediately after Bush beat Gore and did not let up once in 8 long, long years. We have been beaten down, mocked, laughed at, scorned, ridiculed on a daily basis and now were expected to just lay down and let the Looney Left put any old radical they want on the Supreme Court?
We need to get our moxie up. We need to get our fighting spirit up. We need to let the Looney Left know that the Conservative Movement of President Reagan is not dead.

Keedy

I hear you, but I disagree. SOMEONE must play the role of the grownup. Both Democrats and Republicans have been acting childlike - my way! My special interest! Me being in the majority, etc.

I vaguely remember when both parties agreed that politics stops at the waters edge. A Republican, Arthur Vandenberg, said this during a Democratic Administration – Harry Truman’s.

Just as Senator Vanderburgh saw the need for a united policy, it is time again for the Republican Party to lead us back to sanity.

We need to work at the local and state level to elect truly conservative Republicans. At the same time, we need to distance ourselves from the Rush Limbaughs of this world. I was truly offended when my party invited Limbaugh to give a keynote address. As a regular contributor to the RNC, I have stopped all contributions and asked that I be taken off their mailing lists. The only exception if Marco Rubio, who has been endorsed by Jeb Bush in his caducity for the US Senate.

For all of you – both liberal and conservative – we need to learn to work together for the future of our country. I do not want us to wind up as another ‘banana republic’ where the first task of the new regime to to kill the members of the old regime whether physically or through the media.

[Guest]

The New Haven case sounds like the Nuremberg defense to me. We were just following orders. You can't do what is wrong just because it is convenient. The problem is that New Haven was going to be sued either way. The chose to go the PC way rather than the right way. The judge would not let the case be heard. New Haven was wrong. They shoulh have done what was right and let the federal government sort it out. Perhaps we would have ended up with a better law.

As far as her statement goes....... she said what she said. She said what she meant. Don't forget the other statements that she made like the one about making law.

She is what she is. We need to honest about things like this. We can't let people double-speak is into capitulation.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

The problem is, it doesn't work that way. When you have two (or more) conflicting laws -each basically nailing you to the same penalty - you try to find some way where you can avoid being nailed by one, and lessen the potential of being nailed by the other, so even if you end up in court, at least you can show you tried in good faith to work through an untenable situation.

"Letting the federal government sort it out" - Who? Congress with a <15% approval rating and moves at the pace of snail? The Courts? All on your dime, as legal fees just keep adding and adding no matter whathappens, as there's always another court after the one you just finished at?

What this really shows is that the <15% approval rate Congress - filled with folk with 15-20-30-40 years in office - just gets folk more at each other's throats than make things better. The comment that folk must work at the local level to get better representatives is dead on the money. Until Congress is flushed out of deadwood who are too lazy to read the legislation they vote on, the "New Haven" type cases keep a-coming at a greater and greater rate.

I don't care who the judge is, or what their personal leanings on issues are. I just want the judge to try as best as a human being can, to be impartial and apply the law when it's direct, and make some sense of the law when it is conflicting. I may not agree with how they tried to sort out legislative messes, but I can respect when they make a good faith effort.

[Guest]

I hear you, but I disagree. SOMEONE must play the role of the grownup. Both Democrats and Republicans have been acting childlike - my way! My special interest! Me being in the majority, etc.

I vaguely remember when both parties agreed that politics stops at the waters edge. A Republican, Arthur Vandenberg, said this during a Democratic Administration – Harry Truman’s.

Just as Senator Vanderburgh saw the need for a united policy, it is time again for the Republican Party to lead us back to sanity.

We need to work at the local and state level to elect truly conservative Republicans. At the same time, we need to distance ourselves from the Rush Limbaughs of this world. I was truly offended when my party invited Limbaugh to give a keynote address. As a regular contributor to the RNC, I have stopped all contributions and asked that I be taken off their mailing lists. The only exception if Marco Rubio, who has been endorsed by Jeb Bush in his caducity for the US Senate.

For all of you – both liberal and conservative – we need to learn to work together for the future of our country. I do not want us to wind up as another ‘banana republic’ where the first task of the new regime to to kill the members of the old regime whether physically or through the media.

Yea, Those words were spoken alot during the last 8 years...how did that work out for us? Problem with GOP is they let the media and democrats walk all over them. Bush never fought back...The best defense is an offense. The dems already got that figured out. They have been aggressive while while the GOP whines like a little school girl on the playground.
People, you need to get your head out of your collective asses. The GOP had at least 6 years of passive control. How did that work out for us? Look what the democrats have done the last 4 months. Wake up people. We need to get mad and fight aggressively. There was so many things the GOP could have done. The oppurtunities are all gone now.
We need more people like Rush...not people who vote and go alonng with the democrats like the traitor Powell.
I got some news for you all...maturity does not win wars...strength and strategy wins wars.
OK...Rant over...Back to the regularly scheduled poster.....

Keedy PS. If you don't think we are at war...you haven't been paying attention. The progressives have been at war with the fabric of our society. Religion, freedom of speech (conservatives get shouted down at major Universities) Big government, massive taxes, political correctness etc.,etc.

[Guest]

When I read the allegation that 60% of Judge Sotomayor's decisions were overturned on appeal, I thought to myself that no judge with that kind of record would ever be nominated for the Supreme Court. Given the criticism that would occur in the nomination hearings, such a nomination would have been a lunatic move by any President. Such a record would surely result in the nomination being rejected.

I kind of thought that the 60% allegation fell into the same category as the claim that only Chrysler dealers who were Republicans were closed in the bankruptcy. It was posted here for the same reason as the claim of 60% overturned decisions. Obviously, both allegations were posted without even the faintest suggestion of a reliable source for the information. The car dealer thread has already been removed by the administrators.

This claim of 60% of the Judge's decisions being overturned on appeal is in the same category--an inflammatory claim by a political partisan intended to incite the loyalists. It should be treated the same way as the allegation regarding the car dealers--it should be removed from this thread as a statement that is patently false.

Kahuna, it's all in the context. It was not an allegation but a fact that three of the five opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed. Ergo, the premise for your attack on those who you say made an "inflamatory" claim to "incite the loyalists" and calling for its removal is in fact false. It is uncharacteristically judgemental and unlike your usual articulate, "middle of the road" objectivity.

I know that under normal circumstances you appreciate factual input. Here is a fact that I believe, although you may respectfully disagree, has a serious implication on the other personal annoyance on your list and in your post.

Obama's car czar, Steven Rattner, started as a New York Times reporter. He was a personal friend of a Times owner. Those with a conservative leaning would understandably raise an eyebrow given the Times proclivity for extreme bias to the liberal left. For myself, I personally know a few good people who worked at the Times and would give him a cautious pass and the benefit of the doubt that he might not be political just because he had a track record with the icon of liberal journalism.

That cautious pass turned into reasonable suspicion when I learned that Mr. Rattner's wife, Maureen White Rattner was the National Finance Chair for the Democratic Party. In the hope that this comment on the "car dealership closing issue" passes muster, here is the link from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Rattner

I don't agree with your cavalier self serving declaration that allegations about Chrysler dealerships are patently false. I believe the bright light of public scrutiny needs to shine before your dismissive judgement precludes any discussion that conflicts with your opinion.

As Sgt. Friday would say, "Just the facts please, just the facts.

It's always a pleasure to disagree with you.

Sorry for the hijack Kayacker. I tried to follow the drift of you excellent thread and couldn't resist the diversion when the opportunity arose.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=BBQMan;206331]I hear you, but I disagree. SOMEONE must play the role of the grownup. Both Democrats and Republicans have been acting childlike - my way! My special interest! Me being in the majority, etc.

I vaguely remember when both parties agreed that politics stops at the waters edge. A Republican, Arthur Vandenberg, said this during a Democratic Administration – Harry Truman’s.

Just as Senator Vanderburgh saw the need for a united policy, it is time again for the Republican Party to lead us back to sanity.

We need to work at the local and state level to elect truly conservative Republicans. At the same time, we need to distance ourselves from the Rush Limbaughs of this world. I was truly offended when my party invited Limbaugh to give a keynote address. As a regular contributor to the RNC, I have stopped all contributions and asked that I be taken off their mailing lists. The only exception if Marco Rubio, who has been endorsed by Jeb Bush in his caducity for the US Senate.


I may be wrong but I don't believe it was "your party" that invited Limbaugh. It was the conservatives, not the RNC. Not the same, thank God.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

After six pages of postings on this subject, cutting out all the "personal" beliefs and partisanship, it seems to boil down to the following...

While Judge Sotomayor was only one of several judges in two courts who ruled on the New Haven case, it appears that the differences between the claimant and the respndent was more the result of poorly written and inconsistent law than anything else.
Judge Sotomayor made a really dumb statement 8-9 years ago for which she has apologized. There is no evidence that the statement has shaped or affected her judicial duties then or since.
The earlier allegation that the Chrysler dealerships that were closed were owned by Republicans remains unsupported by any evidence. I do stand by the process someone would have to follow to determine the political leanings of the owners of 1,100 dealerships throughout the country. I'll leave it to the readership here to decide whether the intent of the poster was informational or inflammatory.
Much of the print media seems to be liberal-leaning, just as several of the broadcast/cable media are conservative. That suggests that people truly interested in the facts regarding the nation's politics should probably seek a variety of information sources in order to form their personal opinions. Relying on a single source or even a few, will likely lead people to incomplete conclusions.
Are some of the people selected for appointed positions in this or any other political administration truly independent thinkers and free of political influence (the Rattner allegation)? Probably not. But what's new? Reagan had his "California Kitchen Cabinet", Clinton had a bunch from the South, Bush 41 riddled his administration with Texas loyalists. To expect otherwise is probably unrealistic.
Is Judge Sotomayor a racist? No evidence has been presented that supports that allegation.
Does Judge Sotomayor meet the test for confirmation of her appointment required by the Constitution of the U.S.? Almost without question she does. In fact, she has already been confirmed by both Democratic and Republican committees and Senates for various levels of federal judgeships.
So there we go. Is it almost time for another thread?

[Guest]

Why? ...when this one has been so much fun....

[Guest]

After six pages of postings on this subject, cutting out all the "personal" beliefs and partisanship, it seems to boil down to the following...

While Judge Sotomayor was only one of several judges in two courts who ruled on the New Haven case, it appears that the differences between the claimant and the respndent was more the result of poorly written and inconsistent law than anything else.
Judge Sotomayor made a really dumb statement 8-9 years ago for which she has apologized. There is no evidence that the statement has shaped or affected her judicial duties then or since.
The earlier allegation that the Chrysler dealerships that were closed were owned by Republicans remains unsupported by any evidence. I do stand by the process someone would have to follow to determine the political leanings of the owners of 1,100 dealerships throughout the country. I'll leave it to the readership here to decide whether the intent of the poster was informational or inflammatory.
Much of the print media seems to be liberal-leaning, just as several of the broadcast/cable media are conservative. That suggests that people truly interested in the facts regarding the nation's politics should probably seek a variety of information sources in order to form their personal opinions. Relying on a single source or even a few, will likely lead people to incomplete conclusions.
Are some of the people selected for appointed positions in this or any other political administration truly independent thinkers and free of political influence (the Rattner allegation)? Probably not. But what's new? Reagan had his "California Kitchen Cabinet", Clinton had a bunch from the South, Bush 41 riddled his administration with Texas loyalists. To expect otherwise is probably unrealistic.
Is Judge Sotomayor a racist? No evidence has been presented that supports that allegation.
Does Judge Sotomayor meet the test for confirmation of her appointment required by the Constitution of the U.S.? Almost without question she does. In fact, she has already been confirmed by both Democratic and Republican committees and Senates for various levels of federal judgeships.
So there we go. Is it almost time for another thread?

There is strong evidence that alot of the dealerships that were closed had right-leaning politics
It is very easy to know which ones by a quick scan of the contributions. It is all recorded which ones contributed to which party.
There will be hearings and alot of questions that this left-leaning appointment will have to answer. Who is kidding who? We know and Hussein Obama knows how she feels.
I just hope that they really Bork her. The GOP has nothing to lose by drilling this woman.
Have to go for awhile...I'll try to post later tonite....

Keedy

[Guest]

.[/LIST]
So there we go. Is it almost time for another thread?

While your tidy summary may satisfy the intellectual curiosity of some on this important topic, I'm not sure of the propriety of unilaterally recommending the topic and thread for extinction. But...that's just me.

I have also taken a look at the debate over this important Supreme Court appointment. My opinion comes from a slightly different perspective than the nuts and bolts Kahuna has thoughtfully mapped, summarized and condensed for us. The issue is much larger than that.

For decades, radicals, socialists and Communists in America have been in relentless pursuit of destroying capitalism and replacing it with a Marxist system that changes everything that made this country great. They have used violence to facilitate change. They have attacked religion. They have infiltrated our schools and college campuses cloaked as "progressives". They have to a significant extent controlled the media. In spite of all these efforts, in many cases they could not alter the will of a substantial component of the electorate and accordingly many of the legislators the people put in office. The old red state/blue state maps come to mind. With insidious and calculated cunning they turned to the courts to circumvent the will of the people on issues they could not achieve a majority consensus or legislative initiative on. Obama himself was looking for a candidate with empathy which is code for overriding law when it is inconvenient to the political agenda. Sotomayor fills that criteria.

I hate to use a liberal like Barbra Streisand to make a point but in the abstract she put it quite into perspective. I recall her stating in regards to a presidential election, "It's about the (Supreme) Court." In that brief comment, she nailed the progressive, liberal, Marxist strategy. She in effect was saying, when the left can't legislate their will, they must have a court that will circumvent the will of the majority of the people and create policy. I want my Courts to decide law...not policy.

I believe that the Supreme Court should decide matters of Constitutional Law without setting public policy. Judge Sotomayor clearly has stated she believes the Courts set public policy throwing our checks and balances system between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government askew. She will be a tool of the left in circumventing the will of the people and creating policy that cannot be obtained legislatively.

She will most likely be appointed.

Steve, it is a rare moment indeed when I disagree with you. This is one. I still respect and enjoy your thoughful input.

[Guest]

...The issue is much larger than that.

For decades, radicals, socialists and Communists in America have been in relentless pursuit of destroying capitalism and replacing it with a Marxist system that changes everything that made this country great. They have used violence to facilitate change. They have attacked religion. They have infiltrated our schools and college campuses cloaked as "progressives". They have to a significant extent controlled the media. In spite of all these efforts, in many cases they could not alter the will of a substantial component of the electorate and accordingly many of the legislators the people put in office. The old red state/blue state maps come to mind. With insidious and calculated cunning they turned to the courts to circumvent the will of the people on issues they could not achieve a majority consensus or legislative initiative on. Obama himself was looking for a candidate with empathy which is code for overriding law when it is inconvenient to the political agenda. Sotomayor fills that criteria...

I sure can't disagree that much of this has happened...an awfully sad and disturbing admission. The answer of how and why it has happened is equally clear. WE LET IT HAPPEN.

For whatever reason, our culture has changed. The core values that we so important to most of us--the older generation, I have to admit--seem to have been abandoned by those that are following. Whether it be because they're so busy making money, acquiring "things", entertaining themselves, even using a wide array of chemicals to induce good feelings...times have changed. Collectively, Americans have become careless...we seem to CARE LESS about all those things you mentioned.

Now the question before us is "do we have the collective will to change it back?"

Based on the daily cat fights we see from those we elect to govern us...the high-paid people that make outrageous statements that we permit to form our opinions...our willingness limit our effort to only taking a few minutes every now and then to argue back and forth among one another...it sure doesn't look promising that the people who call themselves Americans have the collective will, the energy, and the knowledge to begin to change our culture back to what we remember as "the good old days".

That's an even sadder statement that what you observed in your earlier post. I hope I'm not being too negative. I really want to see some light at the end of this tunnel. But so far, it's pretty dark in here.

[Guest]

...
... I want my Courts to decide law...not policy.

I believe that the Supreme Court should decide matters of Constitutional Law without setting public policy. Judge Sotomayor clearly has stated she believes the Courts set public policy throwing our checks and balances system between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government askew. She will be a tool of the left in circumventing the will of the people and creating policy that cannot be obtained legislatively.

She will most likely be appointed.

Steve, it is a rare moment indeed when I disagree with you. This is one. I still respect and enjoy your thoughful input.
When issues of federal law hit the Supreme Court, they have already gone through at least one of the U.S. Courts of Appeal. There are hundreds (if not more) situations where the same issue has been decided differently by various Courts of Appeal, and thus the "law of the land" is actually different from one jurisdiction to another. Only if someone pushes the issue for a SCOTUS decision, does the issue ever get resolved so that a uniform "national" law exists. And in making its decision, SCOTUS may take any of the lower court's position, or hybrid a decision of its own.

One of the ironies about SCOTUS is that it is staffed not so much liberal-versus-conservative, but Northeasterners versus all others - 5 justices from the Boston-Washington Megopolis, 2 Californians, 2 Midwesterners. This mix doesn't change with the replacement of a Northeasterner with another Northeasterner.

[Guest]

is the reporting by far too many that those who get to vote for/against are concerned what they may say could affect their re-election support by the minority groups involved...hence there will be rubber stamping.

DOing right for we the people....hardly. Do we the people care...obviously not!!!!

BTK

[Guest]

is the reporting by far too many that those who get to vote for/against are concerned what they may say could affect their re-election support by the minority groups involved...hence there will be rubber stamping.

DOing right for we the people....hardly. Do we the people care...obviously not!!!!

BTK

Not when we keep re-electing the same slugs who "earn" a <15% approval rating.

[Guest]

I'm not trying to stir things up but I'm a little tired of the hypocrisy. When women like Condoleeza Rice, Sarah Palin etc., etc., are introduced into the political spectrum, it is perfectly alright for the medium to dig and look under every rock for dirt but when it is a women that they disapprove of... certain information seems to only trickle out a little at a time.
Why is that so? :o
Keedy

[Guest]

Judge Clarence Thomas 2001 confirmation hearings:

He could “walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the court does.”

Judge Samuel Alito 2006 confirmation hearings:

“When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”

Those confirmation comments generated no criticism in spite of their obvious recognition of the value of ones experiences when evaluating information.

[Guest]

very good point, keedy...

[Guest]

Judge Samuel Alito 2006 confirmation hearings:

“When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”

Just to keep it real, he was answering a very specific question about his background and not judaical decisions.

You left out the part where he said right before that, "It's not my job to bend the law or to change the law to achieve any result."

Something that liberal activist judges do all the time.

[Guest]

Just to keep it real, he was answering a very specific question about his background and not judaical decisions.

You left out the part where he said right before that, "It's not my job to bend the law or to change the law to achieve any result."

Something that liberal activist judges do all the time.

dklassen, good pickup on the contrived sound bite..nicely done

kahuna, we agree...:beer3:

[Guest]

The "conservative" justices are called that because they tend interpret the law as the founders intended. By the constitution. The Liberal justices tend to went to bypass the constitution and create law rather than interpret it.

We only need the Republican party so that there will be 2 viable parties.

The McCain Republican party cant win. A conservative Republican party will win. Over 60% of Americans identify themselves as conservative. Although Obama was elected, in those states that had major ballot questions the conservative position won.

If the GOP couldn't win the Hispanic vote with an amnesty candidate they never will by sucking up to Hispanics. However, most Hispanic voters are conservative. They will support a conservative they always do.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

the conservative judges are called conservative because they tend to interpret the constitution in the way that conservatives would.

I am really befuddled by this argument I keep hearing from the right wingers that says essentially that the reason the McCain lost was because he wasn't conservative enough

Really?? So people voted for someone left of McCain because McCain wasn't far enough right. Does that really even make sense to you??

[Guest]

I personally think alot of which has been said is alot of hooey! This is just more politics from a Chicago politician. The left wants a "live" constitution instead of interpreting what the founding father's wrote. If you twist, stretch, expand, dilute and keep changing the form of the constitution...it will become unrecognizable.

Keedy

Well, I'll have to remind you of the same thing I reminded someone else, in another thread.

If we didn't have a "live" Constitution, one that could be amended with the times, we'd still have slavery as a protected institution, and women would not be able to vote. Neither would Native Americans nor African Americans.

So, I assume that you either want to be able to change it as people's awareness of the original document's social inequities develops, or, you think we should be stuck with the original document, as written , in which case you think those people shouldn't vote, and you think human slavery should continue to be protected in the Constitution.

So, which is it?

[Guest]

the conservative judges are called conservative because they tend to interpret the constitution in the way that conservatives would.

I am really befuddled by this argument I keep hearing from the right wingers that says essentially that the reason the McCain lost was because he wasn't conservative enough

Really?? So people voted for someone left of McCain because McCain wasn't far enough right. Does that really even make sense to you??

I think alot of people pinched their noses and voted for Mc Cain, but alot of people (me included) were really disgusted that he got the nomination. To me he was another Bob Dole.
I think the so-called independents voted AGAINST George Bush more then voting for Hussein Obama. Same with Kerry. People voted AGAINST Kerry more then voting for Bush. People couldn't really identify with Kerry. I am from Massachusetts and I can not stomach the guy.(Kerry)

Keedy

[Guest]

I think alot of people pinched their noses and voted for Mc Cain, but alot of people (me included) were really disgusted that he got the nomination. To me he was another Bob Dole.
I think the so-called independents voted AGAINST George Bush more then voting for Hussein Obama. Same with Kerry. People voted AGAINST Kerry more then voting for Bush. People couldn't really identify with Kerry. I am from Massachusetts and I can not stomach the guy.(Kerry)

Keedy
I agree. Unfortunately, these last dozen years the Presidential election has been a lot of vote-against rather than vote-for.

Now if we can channel that vote-against to be vote-against-Congressional-Incumbents with over 6 years on the Hill, we might get our country back.

[Guest]

I think alot of people pinched their noses and voted for Mc Cain, but alot of people (me included) were really disgusted that he got the nomination. To me he was another Bob Dole.
I think the so-called independents voted AGAINST George Bush more then voting for Hussein Obama. Same with Kerry. People voted AGAINST Kerry more then voting for Bush. People couldn't really identify with Kerry. I am from Massachusetts and I can not stomach the guy.(Kerry)

Keedy

I know it's impolite to ask for whom you voted. So I won't. But you yourself just said you were disgusted that McCain got the nomination. Don't answer to anyone but yourself, but did that disgust make you vote for the candidate even more to the left??

If the answer is "yes" you win the argument. If the answer is "no", I win.

[Guest]

I know it's impolite to ask for whom you voted. So I won't. But you yourself just said you were disgusted that McCain got the nomination. Don't answer to anyone but yourself, but did that disgust make you vote for the candidate even more to the left??

If the answer is "yes" you win the argument. If the answer is "no", I win.

What argument? I think the the "hate Bush" syndrome was real to an extent. I don't think people were really looking at the issues and where the candidates stood on said issues. For instance, the extreme left, which dominated the internet, spent the last 4 years spewing anti-Bush venom and demanding ultra-left policies from Hussein Obama for their votes.
Needleess to say...they are not happy with Comrade Obama. People were voting with emotion instead of their pocket book or rational policies.
Of course this is just my opinion...but I read alot of political blogs the last couple of years, so I think I have a fairly good handle on some issues.
Keedy

[Guest]

What argument? I think the the "hate Bush" syndrome was real to an extent. I don't think people were really looking at the issues and where the candidates stood on said issues. For instance, the extreme left, which dominated the internet, spent the last 4 years spewing anti-Bush venom and demanding ultra-left policies from Hussein Obama for their votes.
Needleess to say...they are not happy with Comrade Obama. People were voting with emotion instead of their pocket book or rational policies.
Of course this is just my opinion...but I read alot of political blogs the last couple of years, so I think I have a fairly good handle on some issues.
Keedy
"What argument?"
the argument you made that Obama got elected because McCain was too liberal. I say that makes no sense because people aren't going to vote for someone who is more liberal than McCain because they want someone more conservative.

Yet, you say that in order to get the Republicans elected they have to go more conservative.
Did I misunderstand you?

[Guest]

I agree. Unfortunately, these last dozen years the Presidential election has been a lot of vote-against rather than vote-for.

Now if we can channel that vote-against to be vote-against-Congressional-Incumbents with over 6 years on the Hill, we might get our country back.

:agree: Steve...I think that is the smartest thing I have heard in quite some time. Like my earlier post where I said maturity doesn't win elections but strength and strategy does.
We don't need moderates....we need hard-core strong ,smart, focused, determined Conservatives to take control of this great country.( While there is still time)
Keedy

[Guest]

It seems like the Republican party might be moving in this direction. Hopefully they'll find some strong credible voices. If not it's going to be a long 4-8 years.

[Guest]

:agree: Steve...I think that is the smartest thing I have heard in quite some time. Like my earlier post where I said maturity doesn't win elections but strength and strategy does.
We don't need moderates....we need hard-core strong ,smart, focused, determined Conservatives to take control of this great country.( While there is still time)
Keedy

Here's the problem I see:

Right now we have the "most leftist" President and Congress ever, as a result of a pendulum swing from the early days of the GW Bush Presidency and GOP control of both houses, which was seen by them as "mandate" from the people for a strongly conservative government.

We could very easily wind up with a big swing the other way, because the current powers are taking this as a mandate for their version of "social reform."

I think these big pendulum swings result in strong polarization, and alienation, and are detrimental to the country as these "extremists" engage in legislation that by virtue of its extremism alienates everyone who is not on the far right or the far left (depending upon which brand of extremism is currently at the wheel).

I think the GOP's best shot at the next election is to woo the moderates. They'll still get the conservative vote.

[Guest]

Here's the problem I see:

Right now we have the "most leftist" President and Congress ever, as a result of a pendulum swing from the early days of the GW Bush Presidency and GOP control of both houses, which was seen by them as "mandate" from the people for a strongly conservative government.

We could very easily wind up with a big swing the other way, because the current powers are taking this as a mandate for their version of "social reform."

I think these big pendulum swings result in strong polarization, and alienation, and are detrimental to the country as these "extremists" engage in legislation that by virtue of its extremism alienates everyone who is not on the far right or the far left (depending upon which brand of extremism is currently at the wheel).

I think the GOP's best shot at the next election is to woo the moderates. They'll still get the conservative vote.

Sorry to disagree but we missed out on one of the "big swings." Bush's terms were not extreme right. That is what the problem is. We haven't had a big swing to the right since Reagan. Bush had the chance with a republican congress but they did absolutely nothing. The huge swing we are seeing now has never happened before. The outragious spending and left-leaning policies coming down the last 4 months will turn this nation upside down.
You cannot spend your way out of dept. Printing money will only lead to inflation. You will need a wheelbarrow full of money to pay for a loaf of bread if the private sector keeps getting these hits.IMNSHO
Keedy

[Guest]

Where did GW fall short of the true conservative agenda?

[Guest]

Where do I start...fiscally,no-vetoes, immigration...

[Guest]

start wherever. I just want to know where he fell short of the conservative agenda.

Immigration, I agree with you.

Vetos: please explain.

Fiscally: please explain..

tell you what,,,I'll start a new thread.

[Guest]

I would rather concentrate on the NOW and the issues facing us today. George Bush is gone and Hussein Obama is in.
Keedy

[Guest]

Laker, what do you think McPain was, if not a moderate. I'm tired of voting for RINO's.

[Guest]

..............................

I think the GOP's best shot at the next election is to woo the moderates. They'll still get the conservative vote.

BINGO!!!

Boomer

[Guest]

Laker, what do you think McPain was, if not a moderate. I'm tired of voting for RINO's.

I agree he was a moderate. I'm not arguing against that idea.

I'm arguing against the statement that somehow the GOP lost the election because he was too moderate.

It doesn't make sense to me that someone who wanted a more conservative GOP candidate, and who would have voted for a more conservative GOP candidate, vented his/her frustration by voting for an ultra-liberal like Obama.

[Guest]

I would rather concentrate on the NOW and the issues facing us today. George Bush is gone and Hussein Obama is in.
Keedy

Rather than insult the President with your oh so (not very) clever nick-names, we could concentrate on the NOW, and the issues facing us today, by taking a realistic view of what just happened, and where we went wrong.

I'm trying to understand your statements that somehow the nation wanted a more conservative President, and yet voted for a more liberal choice than your "too liberal" McCain.

But instead you choose to insult, and change the subject rather than answer a simple question.

[Guest]

Rather than insult the President with your oh so (not very) clever nick-names, we could concentrate on the NOW, and the issues facing us today, by taking a realistic view of what just happened, and where we went wrong.

I'm trying to understand your statements that somehow the nation wanted a more conservative President, and yet voted for a more liberal choice than your "too liberal" McCain.

But instead you choose to insult, and change the subject rather than answer a simple question.

Hussein Obama is the name he used for swearing in for the presidency. Seems he uses it at his own convenience. (do you always wake-up nasty?)
AS far as changing the subject...seems to me hijacking is your forte.

[Guest]

It might be a good idea to save using Hussein too often until the next election. If people get too familiar with it, it won't be effective in scaring away uniformed voters.

[Guest]

Hussein Obama is the name he used for swearing in for the presidency. Seems he uses it at his own convenience. (do you always wake-up nasty?)
AS far as changing the subject...seems to me hijacking is your forte.
Actually, you are the one who hijacked this thread with your RL cut-and-paste talking points.
I started it as a discussion of Sonia Sotomayor's qualificatons as a Supreme Court nominee.:beer3:

[Guest]

Actually, you are the one who hijacked this thread with your RL cut-and-paste talking points.
I started it as a discussion of Sonia Sotomayor's qualificatons as a Supreme Court nominee.:beer3:

Yes, I re-read and my post #30 was a little off-topic but your own post #61 suggesting that we start another thread kind of changed the tone a little, you think? As for my "talking points"...are we not in a political forum? We can analyze this until the cows come home. Her qualifications aside, does anybody here really believe that we can appoint somebody to the Supreme Court and not ask the questions on which way she leans.
In a perfect world, it would be nice to have justices that just interpreted the law but, it is not going to happen. After all..were only human....
Keedy

[Guest]

Yes, I re-read and my post #30 was a little off-topic but your own post #61 suggesting that we start another thread kind of changed the tone a little, you think?

Post 61 was from VK.:read:

[Guest]

Post 61 was from VK.:read:

Sorry...As the original poster, kinda late for policing thread? :beer3:

[Guest]

In doing a bit of research I came across an organization called National Council of La Raza, an group of which the Supreme Court Nominee is an active member as I read.

Thus far all I can find is opinions from those I may consider too far left or too far right.

It appears the group has been controversial to some degree, and I am wondering if anybody here has any knowledge to share on the group !

Thanks

[Guest]

Admittely the link here is a right wing group but from what I can find...


...there is no doubt that the nominee was a member of this group until 2004

"This will certainly fuel some questions during the confirmation process. The NCLR has a number of critics for their open-borders and identity-politics positions, which would make Sotomayor’s “wise Latina woman better than a white male” comment seem right at home. In fact, they took so much heat during the immigration debate that they eventually added an entire section of their site disassociating themselves with concepts like reconquista, Aztlán, and other separatist notions. (Many of those criticisms apply more correctly to MeChA; La Raza did repudiate La Voz de Aztlán for its racism and bigotry.)"

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/04/sotomayor-member-of-la-raza-for-six-years/

She will get the appointment but it may be good to see what we are getting and this group seems to be on the opposite side of immigration from me anyway, as they seem to want lots of things for illegal immigrants !

[Guest]

In doing a bit of research I came across an organization called National Council of La Raza, an group of which the Supreme Court Nominee is an active member as I read.
Thus far all I can find is opinions from those I may consider too far left or too far right.
It appears the group has been controversial to some degree, and I am wondering if anybody here has any knowledge to share on the group !
Thanks

"The National Council of La Raza, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., welcomed the nomination of [Alberto] Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft.

"We are very encouraged by the Gonzales nomination," said the glowing endorsement by La Raza. "We previously criticized the Bush administration for not having an Hispanic in the cabinet since the departure of former HUD Secretary, now Senator-elect, Mel Martinez. We are pleased that one of the first acts since the president"s re-election both rectifies that situation and marks an historic milestone for the Latino community."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41628

[Guest]

"The National Council of La Raza, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., welcomed the nomination of [Alberto] Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft.

"We are very encouraged by the Gonzales nomination," said the glowing endorsement by La Raza. "We previously criticized the Bush administration for not having an Hispanic in the cabinet since the departure of former HUD Secretary, now Senator-elect, Mel Martinez. We are pleased that one of the first acts since the president"s re-election both rectifies that situation and marks an historic milestone for the Latino community."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41628

Not sure what your point is with this post on Gonzalez....this was not meant to be a "can you top this" kind of conversation nor was it meant to be a left versus right, but then again, this is what you do.....you seem to have to MUST have that party divide.

My point was to find out more about this organiation and if anyone knew anymore about them. As I said, she will be confirmed but we should know what we are in for especially in regards to immigration, and as I said also I didnt want to post far left or far right propaganda.

I think basic research on the group tells you that they will support latino nominees no matter the party...that is what they do and were founded to do..support latinos.

Geez...someday try the middle...it is nice here....that party stuff gets old !

[Guest]

Not sure what your point is with this post on Gonzalez....this was not meant to be a "can you top this" kind of conversation nor was it meant to be a left versus right, but then again, this is what you do.....you seem to have to MUST have that party divide.
My point was to find out more about this organiation and if anyone knew anymore about them. As I said, she will be confirmed but we should know what we are in for especially in regards to immigration, and as I said also I didnt want to post far left or far right propaganda.
I think basic research on the group tells you that they will support latino nominees no matter the party...that is what they do and were founded to do..support latinos.
Geez...someday try the middle...it is nice here....that party stuff gets old !

The point is that LaRaza has supported members of BOTH parties, which kind of makes them in the middle.
By the way, snide insinuations do not place you in the middle.

[Guest]

Not sure what your point is with this post on Gonzalez....this was not meant to be a "can you top this" kind of conversation nor was it meant to be a left versus right, but then again, this is what you do.....you seem to have to MUST have that party divide.

My point was to find out more about this organiation and if anyone knew anymore about them. As I said, she will be confirmed but we should know what we are in for especially in regards to immigration, and as I said also I didnt want to post far left or far right propaganda.

I think basic research on the group tells you that they will support latino nominees no matter the party...that is what they do and were founded to do..support latinos.

Geez...someday try the middle...it is nice here....that party stuff gets old !

:agree: There are some people here who give their opinions and there are just a few who only try to keep a running score.

[Guest]

The point is that LaRaza has supported members of BOTH parties, which kind of makes them in the middle.
By the way, snide insinuations do not place you in the middle.


Sorry if you felt I was being snide. I KNOW they will support any latino for any office which means I KNOW they will support both parties.

My question was about the organization...I said nothing negative about anybody or anyone....I wanted to know about the organization, NOT ITS POLITICS which after visiting their website became obvious. I even said I did not want to quote or go to any hard right or hard left site.

The post, in my opinion, said NOTHING negative about the candidate, nor was that the intent.

[Guest]

Let me make a prediction...

Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed by a landslide vote by the U.S. Senate.

Everyone knows that the 59 Democratic Senators will vote for her confirmation. All that is needed are a few GOP Senators to affirm her nomination and bring her nomination to the Senate floor for a quick up-or-down vote. Let's just look at three states--all of which have major concentrations of Latino residents and voters--Texas, Arizona and Nevada. Five of the six Senators from those three states are Republicans. So far, not a single one has said that they would not vote to support Sotomayor's nomination. Very liklely, none of them will vote against her. They'd be committing political suicide.

So the way I read the tea leaves, Sotomayor wins in a landslide and a quick landslide, at that.

So, are there any other major political questions to get us all frothing at the mouth theses days? Because Sotomayor's nomination certainly isn't an issue that holds much question as to the outcome.

[Guest]

Let me make a prediction...

Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed by a landslide vote by the U.S. Senate.

Everyone knows that the 59 Democratic Senators will vote for her confirmation. All that is needed are a few GOP Senators to affirm her nomination and bring her nomination to the Senate floor for a quick up-or-down vote. Let's just look at three states--all of which have major concentrations of Latino residents and voters--Texas, Arizona and Nevada. Five of the six Senators from those three states are Republicans. So far, not a single one has said that they would not vote to support Sotomayor's nomination. Very liklely, none of them will vote against her. They'd be committing political suicide.

So the way I read the tea leaves, Sotomayor wins in a landslide and a quick landslide, at that.

So, are there any other major political questions to get us all frothing at the mouth theses days? Because Sotomayor's nomination certainly isn't an issue that holds much question as to the outcome.

I don't know about the political suicide angle. Too many democrats are saying that. How come? I think the democrats are trying to use the bigot or race card again. I also think the RINO's should pick a side of the fence they want to fall on.

[Guest]

Let me make a prediction...

Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed by a landslide vote by the U.S. Senate.

Everyone knows that the 59 Democratic Senators will vote for her confirmation. All that is needed are a few GOP Senators to affirm her nomination and bring her nomination to the Senate floor for a quick up-or-down vote. Let's just look at three states--all of which have major concentrations of Latino residents and voters--Texas, Arizona and Nevada. Five of the six Senators from those three states are Republicans. So far, not a single one has said that they would not vote to support Sotomayor's nomination. Very liklely, none of them will vote against her. They'd be committing political suicide.

So the way I read the tea leaves, Sotomayor wins in a landslide and a quick landslide, at that.

So, are there any other major political questions to get us all frothing at the mouth theses days? Because Sotomayor's nomination certainly isn't an issue that holds much question as to the outcome.


There is no doubt she will be confirmed.

However, such an opportunity to have a discussion centered around this nomination on many many topics ! Immigration, race, etc.

[Guest]

Picked up from watching the Sunday news shows this morning...

-- David Brooks, appearing on Face The Nation, commented that Sotomayor adjudicated about 90-100 cases that were rooted in a question regarding the rights of immigrants or minorities. According to Brooks, she ruled against the minorities in almost all cases.

-- In the New Haven firefighter's case, as one of three appellate court judges, she upheld the ruling of the lower court. That's a far cry from trampling on the rights of non-minorities who were clearly mistreated in the promotion exam process. The lower court judge made his ruling documented with a 47-page brief. Apparently both the written as well as the case precedents gave neither the lower court judge or the appeals judges a clear standard for making a ruling. So apparently the appeals court simply upheld the ruling of the lower court. Many have opined that the decision was a clear signal to the appropriate legislative bodies that the applicable law needed to be re-written. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this case in a few months. They will have no more written or case law than the lower courts, so any decision to overturn the decisions of the lower courts could truly be criticized as SCOTUS "making law" from the bench.
-----------------------
I have the first-hand experience with how the courts work in anticipation of an appeal. The case I was involved with was a capital case, the murder of a relative. While the evidence proving the guilt of the accused was overwhelming, the case seemed to meander at a very slow pace thru the pre-trial hearings process--a total of almost four years from the date of the crime until the start of the trail.

When I complained to the assistant state attorneys who were prosecuting the case, they explained that the judge was being extremely careful in documenting each of his rulings during the hearing phase of the proceedings, documenting each of his decisions with written or case law, much of which was researched and provided to the judge by the prosecutors.

The prosecutors explained the appeals process in this way...They explained that if the judge actually made an error in the admission of evidence or the conduct of the trial, those could be grounds for a successful appeal. They noted, however, that if the decisions made by the judge in the process were in compliance with written and case law precedents, and even if the judge could have justifiably ruled either for or against the accused based on the law and precedents, they explained that the appeals court would never overturn a lower court decision based only on their belief that the lower court judge made an error in judgement. The prosecutors explained that an appeals court will NEVER overturn the judgement of a lower court judge, particularly when his decisions were documented with briefs indicating the written and case law he used in arriving at a decision. Appeals are only successful if errors in procedure or evidence or the application of incorrect law were made by the lower court--not his judgement in deciding based on those things.

I don't know whether criminal case appeals are any different than some of the cases heard by appeals judges or SCOTUS. Nor do I know whether the explanation provided to me applies anywhere outside the State of Illinois. But if the theory that an appeals court will never overturn a lower court decision based on the judgement of the judge, that may go a long way to explain what happened in the New Haven case, and provide some indication of what might happen when SCOTUS rules on thee case later this summer.

[Guest]

Alot of time usually goes into picking a judge that reflects the values of the sitting president. Obama is on record for being one of the most liberal voting senators. Push comes to shove...we all know how she is going to vote.

Keedy

[Guest]

I'm not so sure of how certain we can be, Keedy. There have been examples in previous appointments where the SCOTUS justice seemed to decide much differently than people were lead to believe prior to the confirmation of the appointment. Justice David Souter is a good example. He was appointed by President Bush 41 with the expectation that he would be a conservative justice. It turned out that his decisions and opinions leaned to the liberal side far more often than anticipated.

[Guest]

Picked up from watching the Sunday news shows this morning...

-- David Brooks, appearing on Face The Nation, commented that Sotomayor adjudicated about 90-100 cases that were rooted in a question regarding the rights of immigrants or minorities. According to Brooks, she ruled against the minorities in almost all cases.

-- In the New Haven firefighter's case, as one of three appellate court judges, she upheld the ruling of the lower court. That's a far cry from trampling on the rights of non-minorities who were clearly mistreated in the promotion exam process. The lower court judge made his ruling documented with a 47-page brief. Apparently both the written as well as the case precedents gave neither the lower court judge or the appeals judges a clear standard for making a ruling. So apparently the appeals court simply upheld the ruling of the lower court. Many have opined that the decision was a clear signal to the appropriate legislative bodies that the applicable law needed to be re-written. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this case in a few months. They will have no more written or case law than the lower courts, so any decision to overturn the decisions of the lower courts could truly be criticized as SCOTUS "making law" from the bench.
-----------------------
I have the first-hand experience with how the courts work in anticipation of an appeal. The case I was involved with was a capital case, the murder of a relative. While the evidence proving the guilt of the accused was overwhelming, the case seemed to meander at a very slow pace thru the pre-trial hearings process--a total of almost four years from the date of the crime until the start of the trail.

When I complained to the assistant state attorneys who were prosecuting the case, they explained that the judge was being extremely careful in documenting each of his rulings during the hearing phase of the proceedings, documenting each of his decisions with written or case law, much of which was researched and provided to the judge by the prosecutors.

The prosecutors explained the appeals process in this way...They explained that if the judge actually made an error in the admission of evidence or the conduct of the trial, those could be grounds for a successful appeal. They noted, however, that if the decisions made by the judge in the process were in compliance with written and case law precedents, and even if the judge could have justifiably ruled either for or against the accused based on the law and precedents, they explained that the appeals court would never overturn a lower court decision based only on their belief that the lower court judge made an error in judgement. The prosecutors explained that an appeals court will NEVER overturn the judgement of a lower court judge, particularly when his decisions were documented with briefs indicating the written and case law he used in arriving at a decision. Appeals are only successful if errors in procedure or evidence or the application of incorrect law were made by the lower court--not his judgement in deciding based on those things.

I don't know whether criminal case appeals are any different than some of the cases heard by appeals judges or SCOTUS. Nor do I know whether the explanation provided to me applies anywhere outside the State of Illinois. But if the theory that an appeals court will never overturn a lower court decision based on the judgement of the judge, that may go a long way to explain what happened in the New Haven case, and provide some indication of what might happen when SCOTUS rules on thee case later this summer.

There is judgment and there is discretion and there is application of the law. I agree that the first is left alone in principle, but the other two are "open season."

Cases get reversed all the time on "abuse of discretion," and attorneys routinely argue that in appellate briefs and oral argument. "Application of the law" is where the appeals courts question lower court rulings, claiming the lower court misapplied legal precedents.

When prosecutors "dotted all the i's and crosed all the t's," their concern was about evidence exclusion since evidence admission attack is routine in criminal (especially capital) cases where the decision standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" - a very high standard. Being able to eliminate any piece of evidence, especially when the elimination of one can lead to a chain of events which results in ghe elimination of a lot, is significant.

Civil/administrative cases rely on "clear and convincing" and the next lower "preponderance of the evidence" standards. Being able to eliminate a single piece of evidence can be highly dramatic.

So, when appellate judges hear appeals, they force respondents and petitioners to show why the lower court may have erred or was correct in rulings, depending on the basis of the appeal. They don't "re-hear" the case (unless the law allows de novo reviews, which is common in administrative cases, and the appeals court believes it is proper to do so).

In essence, appeals courts operate in the same manner as the "quality control reviews and inspections" done in almost every other industry. So, just because someone has a liberal or conservative or middle-road personal philosophy, how they do their jobs are not influenced to the degree people think by their personal philsophy.

[Guest]

I'm not so sure of how certain we can be, Keedy. There have been examples in previous appointments where the SCOTUS justice seemed to decide much differently than people were lead to believe prior to the confirmation of the appointment. Justice David Souter is a good example. He was appointed by President Bush 41 with the expectation that he would be a conservative justice. It turned out that his decisions and opinions leaned to the liberal side far more often than anticipated.
Good point Kahuna....the political climate at the time of the Souter appointment was still In shell-shock because of the Bork episode. Of the 4 candidates that the Bush administration put on their list....Souter had the least "paper trail". Remember, even though nobody knew his opinions on issues like abortions, around 10 senators voted against him including Kerry and Kennedy of Massachusetts. The head of NOW, I think, protested that his appointment would set back women's rights.
So, in this political world of tit for tat...the left should not protest too much for the scrutiny displayed towards this most recent appointment.

[Guest]

After the things that I heard her say in recordings in the news yesterday, I can say honestly that she should not become a justice on SCOTUS. She is a racist and believes in racial discrimination.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

Yes, she said she is a perfect example of affirmative action. I wonder how the person who didn't get in Princton, because she got their "slot" feels?

[Guest]

Her qualifications - academically and experientially - to do the job are fine. It seems that most of the complaint about her is that people don't "like" her.

One of the best management instructors I know used to describe organizations as having two types of people - the popular and the competent, and only very rarely do you find someone who is both. And she described that the most awkward point came when she asked students to honestlly categorize themselves as popular or competent.

As we examine the curent SCOTUS team, every one of them is indeed competent, yet each one ticks off some group of people big-time due to personal traits, heritage, attitude and opinions.

Judge Sotomayor rubs many people the wrong way, for a variety of reasons. However, she has shown herself as a highly competent jurist whose appellate rulings mirror the law. So, is the preference for an Associate Justice who is popular or would you rather one who is [I]competent[/I?

[Guest]

Competent sounds like one step up from mediocrity to me. A position on the Supreme Court should be exceptional. I personally think all of this is crap. There must be dozens of exceptional people out there that would put her to shame.

[Guest]

Competent sounds like one step up from mediocrity to me. A position on the Supreme Court should be exceptional. I personally think all of this is crap. There must be dozens of exceptional people out there that would put her to shame.
There are definitely degrees of competence.

[Guest]

There are definitely degrees of competence.

:agree:

[Guest]

As a person who finished first in her class at Princeton, had an exceptional academic record and was on Law Review at Yale Law School, followed by a notable career as a big city prosecutor, private practice, and then several increasingly responsible appointments to the bench by Presidents of different political persuasion, I'd have to say that Judge Sotomayor is pretty high up the steps on the competence scale.

Are there others that are equally smart and experienced? Probably so. So what? Judge Sotomayor was the one nominated by the President--not any of the others. The Senate's job is to determine whether she meets the Constitutional requirements to sit on SCOTUS. So far, there have been criticisms of how her ethnicity and gender might effect her decision-making. But no one that I've read so far has demonstrated how her background has had any influence on her judicial decisions whatsoever.

The Constitutionally required process for the nomination and confirmation of a SCOTUS justice is well established. What the process is not is a candidate search to be conducted by the Senate. That's the responsibility of the President. The President did his job, so at this point the Senate's job is to consent to the nomination--nothing more.

As I've said before, all this racism conversation is little more than political posturing. Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed in a landslide vote--because she more than meets the required qualifications. Period.

[Guest]

As a person who finished first in her class at Princeton, had an exceptional academic record and was on Law Review at Yale Law School, followed by a notable career as a big city prosecutor, private practice, and then several increasingly responsible appointments to the bench by Presidents of different political persuasion, I'd have to say that Judge Sotomayor is pretty high up the steps on the competence scale.

Are there others that are equally smart and experienced? Probably so. So what? Judge Sotomayor was the one nominated by the President--not any of the others. The Senate's job is to determine whether she meets the Constitutional requirements to sit on SCOTUS. So far, there have been criticisms of how her ethnicity and gender might effect her decision-making. But no one that I've read so far has demonstrated how her background has had any influence on her judicial decisions whatsoever.

The Constitutionally required process for the nomination and confirmation of a SCOTUS justice is well established. What the process is not is a candidate search to be conducted by the Senate. That's the responsibility of the President. The President did his job, so at this point the Senate's job is to consent to the nomination--nothing more.

As I've said before, all this racism conversation is little more than political posturing. Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed in a landslide vote--because she more than meets the required qualifications. Period.

So didn't Bork~~~~~~:shrug:chilout

[Guest]

Her qualifications - academically and experientially - to do the job are fine. It seems that most of the complaint about her is that people don't "like" her.

One of the best management instructors I know used to describe organizations as having two types of people - the popular and the competent, and only very rarely do you find someone who is both. And she described that the most awkward point came when she asked students to honestlly categorize themselves as popular or competent.

As we examine the curent SCOTUS team, every one of them is indeed competent, yet each one ticks off some group of people big-time due to personal traits, heritage, attitude and opinions.

Judge Sotomayor rubs many people the wrong way, for a variety of reasons. However, she has shown herself as a highly competent jurist whose appellate rulings mirror the law. So, is the preference for an Associate Justice who is popular or would you rather one who is [I]competent[/I?

Very clearly, she seems to be competent but in her own words, out of her own mouth it is very clear that she will try to make policy and law whether than just interpret it. She speaks clearly as not being a proponent of equal rights. She favors the poor and minorities.

It has nothing to do with her being "unpopular" other than the unpopularity of her qualifications. Demeanor and temperament are also qualifications for the job. When any candidate is clear about their actions in a given case and these actions are anti-constitutional, she is not qualified.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

[Guest]

I say dump her....is Bork still available? :beer3:

[Guest]

Judge Bork wasn't rejected because he was too conservative. Pretty much the same Senate confirmed Anthony Scalia not too long afterwards.

Bork's fatal flaw was not his ideology. Rather, two substantive drawbacks emerged in the confirmation process, both relevant to the arguments over Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination.

The first was Judge Bork's failure to apply any judicial philosophy consistently. His record of rulings as an appellate judge could largely be predicted by who the parties were. Judge Bork's record showed that he almost always ruled for the government in actions brought by consumer, environmental and civil rights groups. Yet in cases brought by business interests against federal agencies, he would often abandon his stated commitment to judicial restraint and rule against the government.

Bork's second drawback -- exemplified by his now famous statement that serving on the Supreme Court would be an "intellectual feast" -- was the notion created by his testimony that he thought that the justices' primary role is to wage a war of intellect and ideology divorced from very much concern for the law and the impact of their rulings. Those statements even turned off the conservatives considering his nomination.

We'll have to wait and see what falls out of Sonia Sotomayor's closet during the confirmation hearings. As I recall, Judge Bork was pretty highly thought of until he made those really dumb statements during his confirmation hearings that ultimately proved to be fatal to his nomination.

[Guest]

Judge Bork wasn't rejected because he was too conservative. Pretty much the same Senate confirmed Anthony Scalia not too long afterwards.

Bork's fatal flaw was not his ideology. Rather, two substantive drawbacks emerged in the confirmation process, both relevant to the arguments over Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination.

The first was Judge Bork's failure to apply any judicial philosophy consistently. His record of rulings as an appellate judge could largely be predicted by who the parties were. Judge Bork's record showed that he almost always ruled for the government in actions brought by consumer, environmental and civil rights groups. Yet in cases brought by business interests against federal agencies, he would often abandon his stated commitment to judicial restraint and rule against the government.

Bork's second drawback -- exemplified by his now famous statement that serving on the Supreme Court would be an "intellectual feast" -- was the notion created by his testimony that he thought that the justices' primary role is to wage a war of intellect and ideology divorced from very much concern for the law and the impact of their rulings. Those statements even turned off the conservatives considering his nomination.

We'll have to wait and see what falls out of Sonia Sotomayor's closet during the confirmation hearings. As I recall, Judge Bork was pretty highly thought of until he made those really dumb statements during his confirmation hearings that ultimately proved to be fatal to his nomination.

Of course, it depends who's ears are hearing what that determines what's dumb.;)

[Guest]

I say dump her....is Bork still available? :beer3:

I believe Harriet Miers is still available. "The Decider" nominated her for SCOTUS in 2005. Unfortunately, she is currently in an undisclosed location avoiding supboenas.

[Guest]

I believe Harriet Miers is still available. "The Decider" nominated her for SCOTUS in 2005. Unfortunately, she is currently in an undisclosed location avoiding supboenas.

At least she withdrew......Well..Maybe there's hope then, huh? Come-on Borky!!!:beer3: