Supreme Court nomination.
Let the flaming begin.

Originally Posted by KayakerNC

Supreme Court nomination.
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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Yoda

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.

Originally Posted by Yoda

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.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

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

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.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Yoda

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.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

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 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.

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