Sonia Sotomayor to be nominated
 

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.

Excluding the usual race, minority bait and starting with the positive aspect
 

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

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.

From what has been released so far
 

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

:agree::agree::coolsmiley::agree::agree:

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.

I am trying to remain positive, however, help me understand
 

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

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...ewanted=1&_r=2

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

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

Stevez, thanx for the link to the speech. It did lend
 

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

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

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.

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.

on the money!

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.

Sotomayor
 

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.

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

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

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

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

Amen!!!! Keedy

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:

Ditto.

Keedy

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.

Way To Go, Santiagobob
 

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.

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

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