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/

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

With Due Respect, Keedy
 

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.

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.ht...3-04e10199a085

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.''

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

I hope..
 

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

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

“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

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

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

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/previ...9.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_a...ts/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...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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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

OK, So What Do We really Know So Far?
 

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

What I find objectionable about the confirmation process
 

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.

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

Sotomayor and attack politics
 

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.

why is that so?
 

very good point, keedy...

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:

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??

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?

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.

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

"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?