Submitted by Kelly Thomas on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 8:41am.
Here's a good article about the pick from MSNBC. Personally, I am very pleased. My husband's family is Hispanic (from Mexico) but that has nothing to do with my approval. She is extremely qualified for this important seat. I find that her background (coming from modest roots) will be a true bonus. Not that someone born into riches can't be a good judge, but I often wonder if they really understand what many Americans face on a daily basis. Politically, I think it was a smart pick because:
1. She was tapped by GWBush and Clinton in the past which shows a bipartisan appeal.
2. This will be a tough one for Republicans to fight. Although I think a
big fight is what they clearly want (they may want to hammer the reverse discrimination case and her "empathy") but
can they afford that? They already have trouble with minorities. Do
they really want to "go there"? Do they want to fight against the first
Hispanic (and a woman too) on the Supreme Court? To me, it would
highlight the fact that the people fighting this are white men who see
diversity and empathy as negatives.
I posted this yesterday on the poll discussion (from ABC News) to show some pro's and con's.
Sonia Sotomayor: Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
BIO: Age: 54. Graduate of Yale Law School. Worked as
an assistant district attorney in New York and in private practice
(1984-92). Appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1991 to federal district
court in Southern District of New York. Nominated by President Bill
Clinton for the Second Circuit.
SUPPORTERS SAY:
-- She'd be an asset as the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.
-- It's a "pro" that she was first nominated to the federal bench by a Republican.
--
She has an inspiring life story, having grown up in housing projects
and going on to graduate from Princeton University and Yale Law School.
CRITICS SAY:
-- She was part of a panel on the 2nd
Circuit that declined to rule on the merits of a major reverse
discrimination case regarding firefighters in New Haven
that is currently in front of the Supreme Court. As National Journal's
Stuart Taylor has written: "The three-judge panel initially deep-sixed
the firefighters appeal in a cursory, unpublished order that disclosed
virtually nothing about the nature of the ideologically explosive case."
-- A so-far anonymous campaign has emerged that she's had less than a
cordial relationship with some colleagues on the bench and has an
abrasive personality.
A so-far anonymous campaign has emerged that she's had less than a
cordial relationship with some colleagues on the bench and has an
abrasive personality.
Great, maybe her abrasion will temper Scalia. I also read in another report that she "bullies" lawyers. I wonder if the same term is used for male judges who are tenacious in their questioning from the bench?
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC Vero Possumus
http://twitter.com/Golf11
Submitted by magus_melchior on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 11:55am.
Given how many lawyers feel they are entitled to favorable opinions and free rides from the bench, I wouldn't be surprised to hear a few of them (like from the Federalist Society or AEI) come up and say she was tough on them. Or maybe the motivation was ideological.
I believe the appropriate response is "Cry me a river."
----
It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Submitted by Kelly Thomas on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 12:08pm.
As many of us would argue that it would be insane for the GOP to go against a minority, I see many bloggers pointing out that Dem's voted against Clarence Thomas, an African American, and did not face backlash. How do you respond? Is there a double standard? I would say that there were many real "issues" with the Thomas nomination, so if the GOP can truly produce relevant issues, articulate them and justify not voting for her, technically they should be alright. But in the real world-I think they will suffer politically if they put up a huge fight on this.
I hear Pres. Obama was absolutely wowed by her. I think she will handle the confirmation process quite well (I doubt she will put up with much bullying) and we will all be impressed in the end when she is easily confirmed.
Submitted by TheCharp on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 3:17pm.
Basically, the Dems had legitimate issues with Thomas, the GOP will manufacture issues with Sotomayor.
In fact, Huckabee is already against "Maria" (per his FIRST release, which he then pulled back and re-released with "Sonia").
Sonia, Maria, same-same, right, Huckabee?
THIS is why it's "different" . . . .
Oh, and also because the Dems do not "Depend" on the "black vote" in any given year, where the GOP drastically needs at the very least the Hispanic vote in upcoming years to even make a try at a comeback. In that regard, I guess you could say it's a difference of degrees. . .
Submitted by magus_melchior on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 3:26pm.
Eh, Huck's gaffe was harmless-- he was angling for a West Side Story gig.
----
It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
TC, I definitely agree with you 100% on at least one thing: without making inroads into the Hispanic vote in the near future, the GOP doesn't have problems; it is dead! See Tom Tancredo for how NOT to make inroads with the Hispanic electorate.
That is one reason why the upcoming immigration reform debate is going to be make or break for the GOP: demonizing illegal (read Hispanic) immigrants will leave a bad taste in the mouths of Hispanic voters; backing away from their anti-immigrant stance will make them look like they caved just for political expediency. Looks to me like it is a lose-lose situation for Republicans. They'd better hope (through parliamentary maneuvers) that they can prevent any immigration reform legislation from coming up for a floor vote in Congress.
That sounds amazing xD Republicans have to support illegality to win elections. Amazing! Maybe there is a better choice: expel the illegals.
Of course the GOP will have no chance for a long time. They lost Nevada and New Mexico because of immigration and will lose more southern states, even if in 2004 Bush was the most popular republican candidate among hispanics (42%) and blacks (20%) in last four decades. But the massive immigration wave will eventually reach "blue" states and many liberals will start to change their minds. Massive immigration destroys communities. Is not an issue to handle with frivolity.
United States is becoming a more racially biased country. You can realize it reading electoral results: how whites and non whites vote in the most racially diverse districts and states. I remember a district in Alabama (don´t remember the number) where 95% of blacks voted for Obama and 90% of whites for McCain. Inside the same district!! McCain won because it was 60-40 white. That´s terrible
Submitted by Suzi LeVeaux on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 11:15am.
You understandably don't have a good grasp of the immigration problem here. AND since you don't live a racially diverse country, it could be hard for you to understand voting patterns. I'm not saying those patterns are right or wrong, just that they are a fact of life in a racially/culturally diverse nation. I'll take my diversity over any other way of life any day!
Submitted by ReaganFan on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 1:20pm.
First of all, She is not the first hispanic supreme court justice. Benjamin Cordozo was techinically the first. Appointed in 1932 by Herbert Hoover. Cordozo had portugese ancestry. Although he was considered to be jewish, he was actually the first hispanic to serve the supreme court.
History lesson aside, I feel this pick is more political (although Sotomayor is not a terrible justice) than anything. Picking an empathetic, hispanic woman is great, but I doubt that she is the best pick. Given the nature of our president, and his liberal voting history, I would have been elated with a moderate leaning pick like Wood. This hard left, empathetic justice almost seems to be a slap in the face of the GOP. I keep praying for Obama to be the bi-partisan, non polarizing president he sometimes seems to be, then he does things like this, and leaves me shaking my head.
And what about Sotomayors comments regarding policy from the bench? Now we have yet another justice who believes legislating from the bench is acceptable. When in fact, it is not. Here is what she said .... "All of the Legal Defense Funds out there — they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't "make law," I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm . . you know." [audience laughter] . (EDITED to add the quote I referenced) This doesn't scare anyone else? Mr President? Add that to her "quality" of empathy from the bench, and what are we gonna be dealing with?
As for the empathy argument, why do you suppose Lady Justice, the statue of justice, is blindfolded? Here is an interesting article........
Submitted by magus_melchior on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 1:45pm.
While your history lesson on "Hispanic" is based on its original definition (someone whose background is traced to the Iberian Peninsula-- which would include Portugal), it today denotes a relationship to Spain or a region once controlled by Spain (which would not include Portugal).
And what about Sotomayors comments regarding policy from the bench? Now we have yet another justice who believes legislating from the bench is acceptable. When in fact, it is not.
It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Submitted by ReaganFan on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 4:27pm.
Well magus. At first, that was exactlý what I thought she meant. I thought the conservative radio I listen to was putting its usual spin on things. Until I heard a clip of her confirming that statement. She said the lower level courts do a good job of judging based on the law, while appelate courts "make policy". And she feels its the appelate courts job to do this. When I am stopped for the nite, not posting from my blackberry, I will try to find her statements.
EDIT; I was under the impression that the "original" definition was the correct one. I apologize if I am wrong. But what was the definition in 1932 when Cordozo was appointed? Did he qualify as a hispanic then? Not taking anything away from Sotomayor and all her accomplishments, and rise from poverty. But I like to credit the right person. And, IMO, Cordozo was first.
But I do have a question. You said the new definition of hispanic is "a relationship to Spain or a region once controlled by Spain". Isn't the fact that Portugal shares a border with Spain considered a having a relationship with Spain? Aren't their languages very similar, if not exact in most instances? I read that another definition of hispanic is those from the contemporary nation of Spain. Either way, I thank you for your facts. They pushed me into my GOOGLE MACHINE to research more. Thanks!
Submitted by magus_melchior on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 5:04pm.
But I do have a question. You said the new definition of hispanic is "a relationship to Spain or a region once controlled by Spain". Isn't the fact that Portugal shares a border with Spain considered a having a relationship with Spain? Aren't their languages very similar, if not exact in most instances?
Well, there's an equivalent term relating to Portuguese people and culture: Lusitanic. And (at least in my understanding) Hispanic denotes "Spanish culture or ancestry"-- that's how the folks over here seem to use it, anyway. But it's probably an argument over semantics, so Cordozo would probably be more appropriately called the first Portuguese-American on the SCOTUS bench, while Sotomayor would be the first Puerto-Rican-American to serve there. According to the wiki article, Hispanic appears to be a moving target. ;)
----
It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
This hard left, empathetic justice almost seems to be a slap in the face of the GOP. I keep praying for Obama to be the bi-partisan, non polarizing president he sometimes seems to be, then he does things like this, and leaves me shaking my head.
RF, you're so right. There's no place for empathy on the SCOTUS. And empathy being such a human defect, I call for an empathy-free computerized SCOTUS. In that spirit, allow me to nominate my empathy-free pick: HAL 9000.
Submitted by ReaganFan on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 11:01am.
Finally someone gets it. See people? Alina knows why the justice statue is blindfolded. Alina agrees that justice should be blind. And Alina is right! SCOTUS is no place for empathy!
I think it was one of the 60's yippees--Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin or Mario Savio maybe who coined it. The U.S. was devouring its young by sending them to Vietnam, it had a kind of logic at the time. It probably doesn't apply now.
Submitted by ReaganFan on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 5:05pm.
Yea. Dont tell anybody else, but often times I hear things, and go get the Google Monster working. And I find more than one thing to change my view. Not always entirely, but most times at least a little. Example; Gay marriage. I was hard core against it. (being Christian, and believing the Bible above all) But after hearing several points of view, I think Civil unions is the answer, and remove the word "marriage" completely from Government control. That way the church can handle "marriage" and then the couple can go to the courthouse to join in a civil union. Whatever sex, race, or religion that couple is. And if the couple is not religious, then no "marriage" necessary. Go to the courthouse and join in a union. The "marriage" is the religious ceremony. The civil union is the Government ceremony. (both people present. Raise their hands, and swear upon oath, bla bla bla. Havent worked out the details in my head)
Anyway, Im rambling. I just wanted to point out how my mind was changed by listening to a different point of view.
Submitted by ReaganFan on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 8:58pm.
LOL!!!!!! I never said empathy was dangerous. In fact, I said it was important for a person in everyday life. I just dont think a Judge should interpret law, as a SCOTUS is supposed to do, with empathy.
By the way, I am in your neck of the woods. Sittin here in Fridley Minnesota. (Twin cities area) I love Minnesota summers. It was 57 here today. I was ready to break out the sunscreen. LOL!!!!
Submitted by ReaganFan on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 10:14pm.
Yea. This state definitely has the goofiest weather. And although I was being sarcastic about the lovely summers here, I was a little serious. I grew up coming to Minnesota for a week long fishing trip every year when I was a kid. It was the best time, never too hot, never too humid. And never a lack of mosquitos.
I do love to visit this state, but I am not so sure I would want to live here. Especially given the nature of politics up here. I mean you guys have politicians like Bachmann and Franken in the same state. How in the world does that happen? Loons from both sides. (even though I sometimes, and only sometimes, agree with Bachamnn. I still wish she would let a thought go when she gets it. And they call Joe B the Gaffe Master. Wow)
Submitted by ReaganFan on Fri, 05/29/2009 - 10:35am.
Suzi. Multiple posts on RFO are considered spamming. And therefore a violation of the TOS. I'm gonna have to ask you to refrain from this behavior as per our "little decider" and moderator. And believe me, you don't want to get on her bad side. ;)
Sotomayor academic record appears to be great, but she doesn't explain things well. I've seen a few of her interviews and she just doesn't stand out in any way. And she have loose lips. My vote was for Diane Wood.
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. -- Sonia Sotomayor
Submitted by ReaganFan on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 5:53pm.
Well, being a conservative, Christian male, I was not a real big fan of Wood. But given the current president, and knowing there are consequences to elections, I was hoping it would be Wood as well. I actually liked her.
As I read more and more about Sotomayor, I am finding many of her rulings on cases have been overturned by the Supreme Court. She appears to be far left, rules with emotion, And feels its ok for the Appellate court to "make policy" from the bench. These are red flags in my book. At least Wood had a record for ruling according to the law, and leaving empathy out of it (probably why she didnt get the nod)
Nothing against Sotomayor, and her richness of experiences. But what do her experiences in life, or the white mans, have to do with ruling on law? Isnt the job of the Supreme Court to uphold, and interpret law? How would her life experience help her in that? Ridiculous!
Submitted by magus_melchior on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 6:28pm.
Interesting that you don't mention this case which the right-wing punditry is going nuts over. (I'm guessing you think it's not a good example to harp on?)
Apparently said case prompted John Yoo to release an op-ed criticizing Sotomayor as a racist judge. Hmm.
----
It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Submitted by ReaganFan on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 8:04pm.
I was fully aware of the case. I just didnt feel it necessary to get down and dirty into all the details. I said I felt she was left leaning, too empathetic, and has a history of rulings being turned over by the supreme court. I am not happy with her as a pick, and thats my opinion. There are probably a thousand reasons I could name (and dig up) but it wont change anyones mind here, whether they agree with me or not, and it wont change Obamas mind. I guess Im just trying to state my opinion, post a few responses, and leave it at that. I have a tendency to argue a point too long, and as oyu know, I am trying to turn over a new leaf.
In regards to that case, I feel the firemen filing the suit have a case. The test was laid out there, and promotions are based on the test. To deny those qualified their due promotions because the test givers did not get the outcome they had hoped for is unfair, and wrong. If certain men could not pass the teat, they should have prepared better. Race should have nothing to do with it. Its a shame it does.
Given my bi-racial ethnicity, I try to keep comments on racial matters to a minimum. Kind of a darned if I do, darned if I dont situation for me.
Submitted by magus_melchior on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 8:17pm.
Fair enough, sir. I think the city was in the same rock & hard place situation, as anything they chose would have sparked a lawsuit, possibly a class-action.
If memory serves, all Sotomayor did was uphold the District Court decision to order the city to make a new test (my memory sucks, BTW). Since no one but the courts, city and plaintiffs can see the original test, I'm pretty much neutral on this one; but if the plaintiffs really have the chops for promotion, a new test will bear that out.
----
It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Submitted by ReaganFan on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 8:28pm.
I would have to disagree with the citys decision on that matter, but I cant say that I fault her. She just upheld the city's decision. That kinda shows me that she, like you and I, didnt want a whole lot to do with that one.
Well it makes it hard to claim he loaded up all the offices with far left liberal types. Clinton and his crew were moderates and Bush, well you know that story, unless you're talking about the Big Daddy Bush. No what I mean? ;)
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC Vero Possumus
http://twitter.com/Golf11
It's actually a good thing Misty, he takes a little from each as all goood government should and you listen, formulate and compromise. No one view holds all the cards and everyone gets to be heard and hopefully things look like a quilt instead of a blanket.
I like the approach.
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC Vero Possumus
http://twitter.com/Golf11
Submitted by magus_melchior on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 2:49pm.
Quickie note on SCOTUS overturning Sotomayor's rulings: They overturned 3 out of 5. Also, she's issued about 150 rulings, of which the SCOTUS has reviewed only 5-- the remaining 145 either was never appealed to the SCOTUS, or were never granted certoriari. That's an effective overturn rate of 2%, not 60%. I conclude that the right's talking point that "her decisions are frequently overturned by the Supreme Court" is a gross distortion of Sotomayor's record.
----
It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Here's a good article about the pick from MSNBC. Personally, I am very pleased. My husband's family is Hispanic (from Mexico) but that has nothing to do with my approval. She is extremely qualified for this important seat. I find that her background (coming from modest roots) will be a true bonus. Not that someone born into riches can't be a good judge, but I often wonder if they really understand what many Americans face on a daily basis. Politically, I think it was a smart pick because:
1. She was tapped by GWBush and Clinton in the past which shows a bipartisan appeal.
2. This will be a tough one for Republicans to fight. Although I think a big fight is what they clearly want (they may want to hammer the reverse discrimination case and her "empathy") but can they afford that? They already have trouble with minorities. Do they really want to "go there"? Do they want to fight against the first Hispanic (and a woman too) on the Supreme Court? To me, it would highlight the fact that the people fighting this are white men who see diversity and empathy as negatives.
I posted this yesterday on the poll discussion (from ABC News) to show some pro's and con's.
Sonia Sotomayor: Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
BIO: Age: 54. Graduate of Yale Law School. Worked as an assistant district attorney in New York and in private practice (1984-92). Appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1991 to federal district court in Southern District of New York. Nominated by President Bill Clinton for the Second Circuit.
SUPPORTERS SAY:
-- She'd be an asset as the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.
-- It's a "pro" that she was first nominated to the federal bench by a Republican.
-- She has an inspiring life story, having grown up in housing projects and going on to graduate from Princeton University and Yale Law School.
CRITICS SAY:
-- She was part of a panel on the 2nd Circuit that declined to rule on the merits of a major reverse discrimination case regarding firefighters in New Haven that is currently in front of the Supreme Court. As National Journal's Stuart Taylor has written: "The three-judge panel initially deep-sixed the firefighters appeal in a cursory, unpublished order that disclosed virtually nothing about the nature of the ideologically explosive case."
-- A so-far anonymous campaign has emerged that she's had less than a cordial relationship with some colleagues on the bench and has an abrasive personality.
A so-far anonymous campaign has emerged that she's had less than a cordial relationship with some colleagues on the bench and has an abrasive personality.
Great, maybe her abrasion will temper Scalia. I also read in another report that she "bullies" lawyers. I wonder if the same term is used for male judges who are tenacious in their questioning from the bench?
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
Vero Possumus
http://twitter.com/Golf11
I believe the appropriate response is "Cry me a river."
----It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Lewis Black
Thanks for the insight. Excellent analysis!
She is from New York, she is from the Bronx, she is Baseball fan and yes she is a woman.
what else can a woman from NY ask for.
I will not throw the first punch but I wil certainly throw the last.....President Barack Obama.
No! Wait! Scratch that-- tell them "Everything is fine. Nothing is ruined.". If they'll continue to put up straw men arguments, all the better, IMO.
----It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Lewis Black
As many of us would argue that it would be insane for the GOP to go against a minority, I see many bloggers pointing out that Dem's voted against Clarence Thomas, an African American, and did not face backlash. How do you respond? Is there a double standard? I would say that there were many real "issues" with the Thomas nomination, so if the GOP can truly produce relevant issues, articulate them and justify not voting for her, technically they should be alright. But in the real world-I think they will suffer politically if they put up a huge fight on this.
I hear Pres. Obama was absolutely wowed by her. I think she will handle the confirmation process quite well (I doubt she will put up with much bullying) and we will all be impressed in the end when she is easily confirmed.
Basically, the Dems had legitimate issues with Thomas, the GOP will manufacture issues with Sotomayor.
In fact, Huckabee is already against "Maria" (per his FIRST release, which he then pulled back and re-released with "Sonia").
Sonia, Maria, same-same, right, Huckabee?
THIS is why it's "different" . . . .
Oh, and also because the Dems do not "Depend" on the "black vote" in any given year, where the GOP drastically needs at the very least the Hispanic vote in upcoming years to even make a try at a comeback. In that regard, I guess you could say it's a difference of degrees. . .
----
It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Lewis Black
I know. But it was still funny!
"Maria, Sonia, Jose. . . whatever. . . "
TC, I definitely agree with you 100% on at least one thing: without making inroads into the Hispanic vote in the near future, the GOP doesn't have problems; it is dead! See Tom Tancredo for how NOT to make inroads with the Hispanic electorate.
That is one reason why the upcoming immigration reform debate is going to be make or break for the GOP: demonizing illegal (read Hispanic) immigrants will leave a bad taste in the mouths of Hispanic voters; backing away from their anti-immigrant stance will make them look like they caved just for political expediency. Looks to me like it is a lose-lose situation for Republicans. They'd better hope (through parliamentary maneuvers) that they can prevent any immigration reform legislation from coming up for a floor vote in Congress.
That sounds amazing xD Republicans have to support illegality to win elections. Amazing! Maybe there is a better choice: expel the illegals.
Of course the GOP will have no chance for a long time. They lost Nevada and New Mexico because of immigration and will lose more southern states, even if in 2004 Bush was the most popular republican candidate among hispanics (42%) and blacks (20%) in last four decades. But the massive immigration wave will eventually reach "blue" states and many liberals will start to change their minds. Massive immigration destroys communities. Is not an issue to handle with frivolity.
United States is becoming a more racially biased country. You can realize it reading electoral results: how whites and non whites vote in the most racially diverse districts and states. I remember a district in Alabama (don´t remember the number) where 95% of blacks voted for Obama and 90% of whites for McCain. Inside the same district!! McCain won because it was 60-40 white. That´s terrible
Here's a nice article from Slate on the choice.
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
Vero Possumus
http://twitter.com/Golf11
First of all, She is not the first hispanic supreme court justice. Benjamin Cordozo was techinically the first. Appointed in 1932 by Herbert Hoover. Cordozo had portugese ancestry. Although he was considered to be jewish, he was actually the first hispanic to serve the supreme court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Cardozo
History lesson aside, I feel this pick is more political (although Sotomayor is not a terrible justice) than anything. Picking an empathetic, hispanic woman is great, but I doubt that she is the best pick. Given the nature of our president, and his liberal voting history, I would have been elated with a moderate leaning pick like Wood. This hard left, empathetic justice almost seems to be a slap in the face of the GOP. I keep praying for Obama to be the bi-partisan, non polarizing president he sometimes seems to be, then he does things like this, and leaves me shaking my head.
And what about Sotomayors comments regarding policy from the bench? Now we have yet another justice who believes legislating from the bench is acceptable. When in fact, it is not. Here is what she said .... "All of the Legal Defense Funds out there — they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't "make law," I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm . . you know." [audience laughter] . (EDITED to add the quote I referenced) This doesn't scare anyone else? Mr President? Add that to her "quality" of empathy from the bench, and what are we gonna be dealing with?
As for the empathy argument, why do you suppose Lady Justice, the statue of justice, is blindfolded? Here is an interesting article........
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/07/empathy_versus_law_part_iii_96334.html
And what about Sotomayors comments regarding policy from the bench? Now we have yet another justice who believes legislating from the bench is acceptable. When in fact, it is not.
Regardless of your opinion on the matter, you are attributing an opinion on what is more likely a reflection on the reality of Court of Appeals rulings contrasted with District Court rulings. The most likely thing she's saying is that "this is how it is", and the Right is thinking "she's agreeing with it", when in fact such a conclusion is at best hearsay.
----It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Lewis Black
Well magus. At first, that was exactlý what I thought she meant. I thought the conservative radio I listen to was putting its usual spin on things. Until I heard a clip of her confirming that statement. She said the lower level courts do a good job of judging based on the law, while appelate courts "make policy". And she feels its the appelate courts job to do this. When I am stopped for the nite, not posting from my blackberry, I will try to find her statements.
EDIT; I was under the impression that the "original" definition was the correct one. I apologize if I am wrong. But what was the definition in 1932 when Cordozo was appointed? Did he qualify as a hispanic then? Not taking anything away from Sotomayor and all her accomplishments, and rise from poverty. But I like to credit the right person. And, IMO, Cordozo was first.
But I do have a question. You said the new definition of hispanic is "a relationship to Spain or a region once controlled by Spain". Isn't the fact that Portugal shares a border with Spain considered a having a relationship with Spain? Aren't their languages very similar, if not exact in most instances? I read that another definition of hispanic is those from the contemporary nation of Spain. Either way, I thank you for your facts. They pushed me into my GOOGLE MACHINE to research more. Thanks!
Well, there's an equivalent term relating to Portuguese people and culture: Lusitanic. And (at least in my understanding) Hispanic denotes "Spanish culture or ancestry"-- that's how the folks over here seem to use it, anyway. But it's probably an argument over semantics, so Cordozo would probably be more appropriately called the first Portuguese-American on the SCOTUS bench, while Sotomayor would be the first Puerto-Rican-American to serve there. According to the wiki article, Hispanic appears to be a moving target. ;)
----It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Lewis Black
This hard left, empathetic justice almost seems to be a slap in the face of the GOP. I keep praying for Obama to be the bi-partisan, non polarizing president he sometimes seems to be, then he does things like this, and leaves me shaking my head.
RF, you're so right. There's no place for empathy on the SCOTUS. And empathy being such a human defect, I call for an empathy-free computerized SCOTUS. In that spirit, allow me to nominate my empathy-free pick: HAL 9000.
Yes, justice is and should be blind, but it doesn't have to be deaf too. :)
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
Vero Possumus
http://twitter.com/Golf11
From MSNBC:
Legal conservative offers praise for Sotomayor pick (while at the same time slamming Pres. Obama as a liberal-hey, you can't expect miracles!)
I think it was one of the 60's yippees--Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin or Mario Savio maybe who coined it. The U.S. was devouring its young by sending them to Vietnam, it had a kind of logic at the time. It probably doesn't apply now.
Its all good Misty. I always enjoy reading your posts. Your a good person, for a leftie. LOL!!!!
I always enjoy yours post also. Seriously. I like to listen to another point of view. Sometimes I change my views of something I hear from a rightie.
Yea. Dont tell anybody else, but often times I hear things, and go get the Google Monster working. And I find more than one thing to change my view. Not always entirely, but most times at least a little. Example; Gay marriage. I was hard core against it. (being Christian, and believing the Bible above all) But after hearing several points of view, I think Civil unions is the answer, and remove the word "marriage" completely from Government control. That way the church can handle "marriage" and then the couple can go to the courthouse to join in a civil union. Whatever sex, race, or religion that couple is. And if the couple is not religious, then no "marriage" necessary. Go to the courthouse and join in a union. The "marriage" is the religious ceremony. The civil union is the Government ceremony. (both people present. Raise their hands, and swear upon oath, bla bla bla. Havent worked out the details in my head)
Anyway, Im rambling. I just wanted to point out how my mind was changed by listening to a different point of view.
/I just wanted to point out how my mind was changed by listening to a different point of view.
Watch out RF! That's dangerous empathy at work!:)
LOL!!!!!! I never said empathy was dangerous. In fact, I said it was important for a person in everyday life. I just dont think a Judge should interpret law, as a SCOTUS is supposed to do, with empathy.
By the way, I am in your neck of the woods. Sittin here in Fridley Minnesota. (Twin cities area) I love Minnesota summers. It was 57 here today. I was ready to break out the sunscreen. LOL!!!!
You should've been here last week when the high temp was 40 in Ely and 100 in Granite Falls, 60 degree range in one state!
Tomorrow should be nice, sunny with high around 77. I agree, I love our summers, usually not too hot or humid.
Yea. This state definitely has the goofiest weather. And although I was being sarcastic about the lovely summers here, I was a little serious. I grew up coming to Minnesota for a week long fishing trip every year when I was a kid. It was the best time, never too hot, never too humid. And never a lack of mosquitos.
I do love to visit this state, but I am not so sure I would want to live here. Especially given the nature of politics up here. I mean you guys have politicians like Bachmann and Franken in the same state. How in the world does that happen? Loons from both sides. (even though I sometimes, and only sometimes, agree with Bachamnn. I still wish she would let a thought go when she gets it. And they call Joe B the Gaffe Master. Wow)
I may be the only one here who got the "don't trust anyone over 30" reference. LOL
Peace; Make love not war; Flower power..etc etc etc..;-D
I may be the only one here who got the "don't trust anyone over 30" reference. LOL
Peace; Make love not war; Flower power..etc etc etc..;-D
I may be the only one here who got the "don't trust anyone over 30" reference. LOL
Peace; Make love not war; Flower power..etc etc etc..;-D
ROFLMAO.....Oops. Double post. I guess I thought I needed to make up for lost time. Don't tell the decider, ok? I hear she rules with an iron fist.
EDIT...triple post!! The computer is still limping along. ;-) The decider decided to leave it for comic effect....lol
Sotomayor academic record appears to be great, but she doesn't explain things well. I've seen a few of her interviews and she just doesn't stand out in any way. And she have loose lips. My vote was for Diane Wood.
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. -- Sonia Sotomayor
Well, being a conservative, Christian male, I was not a real big fan of Wood. But given the current president, and knowing there are consequences to elections, I was hoping it would be Wood as well. I actually liked her.
As I read more and more about Sotomayor, I am finding many of her rulings on cases have been overturned by the Supreme Court. She appears to be far left, rules with emotion, And feels its ok for the Appellate court to "make policy" from the bench. These are red flags in my book. At least Wood had a record for ruling according to the law, and leaving empathy out of it (probably why she didnt get the nod)
Nothing against Sotomayor, and her richness of experiences. But what do her experiences in life, or the white mans, have to do with ruling on law? Isnt the job of the Supreme Court to uphold, and interpret law? How would her life experience help her in that? Ridiculous!
I want a re-do.
Apparently said case prompted John Yoo to release an op-ed criticizing Sotomayor as a racist judge. Hmm.
----It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Lewis Black
I was fully aware of the case. I just didnt feel it necessary to get down and dirty into all the details. I said I felt she was left leaning, too empathetic, and has a history of rulings being turned over by the supreme court. I am not happy with her as a pick, and thats my opinion. There are probably a thousand reasons I could name (and dig up) but it wont change anyones mind here, whether they agree with me or not, and it wont change Obamas mind. I guess Im just trying to state my opinion, post a few responses, and leave it at that. I have a tendency to argue a point too long, and as oyu know, I am trying to turn over a new leaf.
In regards to that case, I feel the firemen filing the suit have a case. The test was laid out there, and promotions are based on the test. To deny those qualified their due promotions because the test givers did not get the outcome they had hoped for is unfair, and wrong. If certain men could not pass the teat, they should have prepared better. Race should have nothing to do with it. Its a shame it does.
Given my bi-racial ethnicity, I try to keep comments on racial matters to a minimum. Kind of a darned if I do, darned if I dont situation for me.
If memory serves, all Sotomayor did was uphold the District Court decision to order the city to make a new test (my memory sucks, BTW). Since no one but the courts, city and plaintiffs can see the original test, I'm pretty much neutral on this one; but if the plaintiffs really have the chops for promotion, a new test will bear that out.
----It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Lewis Black
Well it makes it hard to claim he loaded up all the offices with far left liberal types. Clinton and his crew were moderates and Bush, well you know that story, unless you're talking about the Big Daddy Bush. No what I mean? ;)
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
Vero Possumus
http://twitter.com/Golf11
It's actually a good thing Misty, he takes a little from each as all goood government should and you listen, formulate and compromise. No one view holds all the cards and everyone gets to be heard and hopefully things look like a quilt instead of a blanket.
I like the approach.
^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
Vero Possumus
http://twitter.com/Golf11
----
It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Lewis Black