Supreme Court

[Lemur]

Well, we have the Obama thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=112822) and the Senate thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=111154), why not dedicate one to the Supremes? Complete the trifecta.

Seems that Justie Souter has decided to retire. I like Wonkette's summary (http://wonkette.com/tag/pt-oh-yes-that-guy/) best:


Supreme Court Justice David Souter, the one George Bush Senior picked without knowing that he was secretly a French liberal queer, will retire at the end of the current session because he wants to climb mountains in New Hampshire or something before dying of old age cancer. Now Barack Obama can put Bill Ayers on the bench, as has been his plan since he was conceived in a Kenyan labratory ostrich egg in 1961.

Thoughts?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, hopefully the worst will be getting a leftist replaced by a leftist.

Of course, any chance of a true constitutionalist is astronomical.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am always very uneasy about the idea of a court with no accountability, secure in their jobs for their entire life to be able to bend the laws of the country to their will with a simple vote. I know Jefferson has quotes about this, but if this thread is to be about the future of the Supreme Court under the Obama Administration and not general discussion about it then I will leave this post with no further additions.

-ACIN

[Lemur]

ACIN, I see no reason why we have to restrict ourselves when discussing the Supremes. By all means, bring on your observations!

[a completely inoffensive name]

ACIN, I see no reason why we have to restrict ourselves when discussing the Supremes. By all means, bring on your observations!

Well it is very late for me, so I will just post the appropriate quotes from Thomas Jefferson and come back tomorrow with a more detailed and thought out post.

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
Letter to Abigail Adams (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abigail_Adams) (1804).

"You seem to consider the federal judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have with others the same passions for the party, for power and the privilege of the corps. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Letter to William Charles Jarvis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jarvis_%28merchant%29) (1820).

-ACIN

[Don Corleone]

I hope Souter retires to his nice house up in the White Mountains, gets comfortable, and then in the dead of winter, the town of North Conway, or whatever town his estate is in seizes it under emminent domain, to turn it into a Quickie Mart. When he gets beligerent and starts to cry as the bulldozers roar over the top of his home, I want to be the one to personally hand him a printed copy of Kelo v. New London.

Not because he is an anti-consitutionalist (politically, a liberal). Not because he tends to lean left on social issues. But because of the war he declared on private property, and the enshrinement of the principle that not only government, but local developers have more right to your home than you do... I utterly despise the man and I wish for him a biblical style plague.

In Exodus, the plagues were manifestations of the attirbutes of some Egyptian god. No truer form of justice could be served than for Justice Souter to suffer the lash of the platocracy he worshipped while on the bench.

[Don Corleone]

In general, I believe the judiciary is severely imbalanced with respect to the other two branches. This is true regardless of which party is in office. Both parties rail against it while they are the minority party, and then both change their tune, on the note, when the tide shifts and they now wield that power. Thus shall it always be. The most anti-democratic branch shall always be the most powerful, because the parties that annoint these gods among men cannot resist the temptation to choose advocates of their positions. Both parties are equally guilty of this in my opinion.

[rory_20_uk]

Why did he quit? At a mere 69 he's an infant. I could understand if Obama had been in power for say 3 years and he wanted to ensure that a strapping 40 year old pinko-commie-flag burning-socialist-liberal-baby killer took his place but I thought these guys just keep going for years: the pay is good, work is easy and as has been pointed out there's almost no reppeal against whatever they decide to do.

The only thing I can think of is he's got early signs of dementia / other illness and wants to leave before he votes the Wrong Way by mistake.

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Good Riddance, Souter is a scuz-bucket. My least favorite jurist. At least Breyer has a sense of humor and didn't learn how to smile by reading a 900 page book about it.

Sotomayor might be an ok replacement.

[rvg]

I fully expect Obama to appoint a flaming bleeding heart liberal to fill Souter's seat, and have no problem with it: the balance in the court will remain unchanged.

[Don Corleone]

My money is on Janet Reno, in a stealth run.

[KukriKhan]

I am always very uneasy about the idea of a court with no accountability, secure in their jobs for their entire life to be able to bend the laws of the country to their will with a simple vote. I know Jefferson has quotes about this, but if this thread is to be about the future of the Supreme Court under the Obama Administration and not general discussion about it then I will leave this post with no further additions.

-ACIN

I'm uncomfortable with the life-time appointments, too. But, looking at the bigger picture of the fed gov't as a whole, it makes sense that each branch gets 'picked' a different way, to counter mob-rule, States getting uppity, Fed getting too top-down, etc.

House of Reps: direct popular vote by district
Senators: (the original scheme) direct vote by State Legislators
President: indirect vote by State Legislator-picked 'electors', informed by (but not bound to) popular vote.
Judges (minus Supremes): appointed for terms by Prez w/Senate OK
Supremes: appointed for life, to avoid political influence. Limited charter of deciding if x law abides the Constitution.

That makes for a goulash of motivations, duties charged, and loyalties - in other words: built-in checks and balances.

[drone]

"Hey Souter, don't let the door hit you in the :daisy: on the way out!"

Good timing by Specter. ~:rolleyes:

[GeneralHankerchief]

Sotomayor has a few question marks. I would much prefer Elena Kagan, but I find that unlikely as she just settled into the position as Solicitor-General (I believe). I think if Obama doesn't want to tick anybody off, his best choice would be Merrick Garland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland). Left-leaning, but widely respected on both sides.

However, I don't see that happening. Sotomayor will most likely get the nod, meaning we'll have another showdown on our hands. Which Obama will win.

[Spino]

I hope Souter retires to his nice house up in the White Mountains, gets comfortable, and then in the dead of winter, the town of North Conway, or whatever town his estate is in seizes it under emminent domain, to turn it into a Quickie Mart. When he gets beligerent and starts to cry as the bulldozers roar over the top of his home, I want to be the one to personally hand him a printed copy of Kelo v. New London.

Not because he is an anti-consitutionalist (politically, a liberal). Not because he tends to lean left on social issues. But because of the war he declared on private property, and the enshrinement of the principle that not only government, but local developers have more right to your home than you do... I utterly despise the man and I wish for him a biblical style plague.

In Exodus, the plagues were manifestations of the attirbutes of some Egyptian god. No truer form of justice could be served than for Justice Souter to suffer the lash of the platocracy he worshipped while on the bench.

Amen!

Kelo versus City of New London is the worst SCOTUS decision in recent memory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I hope Souter retires to his nice house up in the White Mountains, gets comfortable, and then in the dead of winter, the town of North Conway, or whatever town his estate is in seizes it under emminent domain, to turn it into a Quickie Mart. When he gets beligerent and starts to cry as the bulldozers roar over the top of his home, I want to be the one to personally hand him a printed copy of Kelo v. New London.

Not because he is an anti-consitutionalist (politically, a liberal). Not because he tends to lean left on social issues. But because of the war he declared on private property, and the enshrinement of the principle that not only government, but local developers have more right to your home than you do... I utterly despise the man and I wish for him a biblical style plague.

In Exodus, the plagues were manifestations of the attirbutes of some Egyptian god. No truer form of justice could be served than for Justice Souter to suffer the lash of the platocracy he worshipped while on the bench.

Don Corleone for Supreme?

[drone]

Don Corleone for Supreme?

Don Corleone buys the judges, he doesn't become one himself. ~;)

[Lemur]

I'll bet that no matter who he picks, there will be outrage aplenty (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22006.html). Who wants to bet against me?

[KukriKhan]

We should start a "Next SCOTUS Appointee" pool.

I nominate (not because I favor her, but because I think she'd actively push for it, and Mr. O could eliminate 1 future opponent for 2012, whilst replacing a leftee with a leftee, (and a woman, to boot)) :

Hillary Clinton.

soto voce: Assuming Michelle O doesn't want the job

-edit-

Obama’s short list reportedly includes Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York, a Hispanic woman; Elena Kagan, Obama's solicitor general; Diane Wood, a federal judge with Reagan- and Clinton-era Justice Department experience; and Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Harvard Law grad who once served as a federal prosecutor.

Seriously: Please, not Granholm. We'd be in a whole mess'a trouble there, Son.

[GeneralHankerchief]

My money's on Sotomayor. Kagan will get the position sooner or later, but for now she's still being groomed to fill RBG's seat, most likely.

-edit- And Lemur, if it turns out Kagan is picked, I'll throw a side bet on the outrage being muted. Obviously there'll still be some from the far right, but they don't count.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'll bet that no matter who he picks, there will be outrage aplenty (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22006.html). Who wants to bet against me?

Is there something wrong with outrage over judicial nominations?

Lemur, this country is outraged at the prospect of massive changes while at the same time we are clammouring for them. I'm suprised that someone as old as you are lacks so much perspective. When has so much change been slated that people could reasonably be expected to fit smoothly into the new groove? These are big changes, most people want some, most people are also confused and afraid. I'd imagine that as the years go on, many (but not all) of the changes will look very bad in hindsight and they will cost the Democrats seats in Congress, probably the big seat as well.

Not all of us have developed the same "dear leader" complex as you have for this one.

I could have sworn that political opposition was a hallmark of our democracy. The people who fear that democratic elected leaders have too much power will most likely fear that Democratic unelected leaders for life will have too much power. Everyone understands when Dems go ballistic over Conservative nominees.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Amen!

Kelo versus City of New London is the worst SCOTUS decision in recent memory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

The summary here makes it sound like it was a legally correct decision, and the outrage is because people don't like the result.

Conservatives complaining about judges not being activist?? :driver:

I have read the summary on wikipedia, therefore I know all :sweatdrop:

[ICantSpellDawg]

The summary here makes it sound like it was a legally correct decision, and the outrage is because people don't like the result.

Conservatives complaining about judges not being activist?? :driver:

I have read the summary on wikipedia, therefore I know all :sweatdrop:


Of course you would say that. The idea was bad, it was rejected by every organization under the sun and it wrote law over the land in direct opposition to the will of the people and the spirit of the Constituion; stomping out the concept of middle and lower class private property. Of course I would say that.

ACLU and NAACP are conservatives, eh?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Seriously: Please, not Granholm. We'd be in a whole mess'a trouble there, Son.
What (beyond her being on a list of potential Obama picks ~;p) invalidates Granholm? I've never heard of her (though being Governor of Michigan probably isn't a good sign).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Of course you would say that. The idea was bad, it was rejected by every organization under the sun and it wrote law over the land in direct opposition to the will of the people and the spirit of the Constituion; stomping out the concept of middle and lower class private property. Of course I would say that.

ACLU and NAACP are conservatives, eh?

I agree the idea was bad. But what does "strict constitutionalist" mean?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm uncomfortable with the life-time appointments, too. But, looking at the bigger picture of the fed gov't as a whole, it makes sense that each branch gets 'picked' a different way, to counter mob-rule, States getting uppity, Fed getting too top-down, etc.

House of Reps: direct popular vote by district
Senators: (the original scheme) direct vote by State Legislators
President: indirect vote by State Legislator-picked 'electors', informed by (but not bound to) popular vote.
Judges (minus Supremes): appointed for terms by Prez w/Senate OK
Supremes: appointed for life, to avoid political influence. Limited charter of deciding if x law abides the Constitution.

That makes for a goulash of motivations, duties charged, and loyalties - in other words: built-in checks and balances.

The key thing to note here, is that the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the ability to decide whether or not a law is Constitutional. They gave themselves that ability in the case Marbury vs Madison in I believe 1804? If all they did was make the final decision on difficult cases according to the law, then it would be great, but that one case put power of such an immense size in their hands which was not planned by those who drafted the Constitution.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree the idea was bad. But what does "strict constitutionalist" mean?

It means that the Constitution means what it says. It means that, other than what is already listed, the electorate has to ammend in new constitutionally protected rights in order for those things to be constituitonal rights. They don't just come out of nowhere. In addition, constitutional rights and their original meaning should be preserved AT ALL COSTS by the courts, until the electorate rescinds the rights themselves by the appropriate majority.

The electorate did this with Black and Female emancipation. The Supreme Court exists to clear up where inconsistencies arise with regard to the original meaning of the Constitution verses the original meaning of the ammendments as they pertain to current law.

Eminent domain laws (and the constitutional protections) were created to protect people from having their land taken except under the most extreme circumstances. Kelo v. New London essentially cheapened that sentiment and endangered the personal property of everyone in the nation in spite of the clear guidelines and purpose of the protections. Further, the property that was "soooo important" was never developed after the eviction. How important could it have been?

Nobody is disputing the right of the government to take personal property under extreme circumstances using and convert it to public use, but to sell it to private developers in exchange for the potential tax revenue is absurd. There is little protection from private developers pushing local governments to simply take peoples property based on false promises and sheister business models. Your good buddies were the majority in that decision. Those evil conservatives were the degenerate nay-sayers. (and Sandra Day).

The Best Quotes:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." (O'Connor)

Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, suggested that a ruling in favor of the city would destroy "the distinction between private use and public use," asserting that a private use which provided merely incidental benefits to the state was "not enough to justify use of the condemnation power."


Are you sure that you read that Wiki article?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I agree the idea was bad. But what does "strict constitutionalist" mean?

The bill of rights:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

1) The court held that the govt taking land and giving it to a corporation to build on was public use, since it would improve the economy or something.

2) Public use meant for things the public used; roads, etc.

3) The use of the land was not public, but for a private company.

The most damning thing, of course, is that there was nothing built on the land seize; it sits vacant. Any judge nominated should be asked for their opinion on this case.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Are you sure that you read that Wiki article?

It indicated that the ruling followed a strict interpretation of the law, and that the problematic results of the ruling should be fixed via the legislature. Of course it's a wiki article so...

[ICantSpellDawg]

It indicated that the ruling followed a strict interpretation of the law, and that the problematic results of the ruling should be fixed via the legislature. Of course it's a wiki article so...

"strict interpretation" is not comically going aroud words as they read and are meant in order to completely make the words irrelevant.

The same justices find a god-given RIGHT to abortion in the Constitution, but can't find a reason to enforce eminent domain? Houston, we have a problem.

Public use is public use, private use is private use. Any company can now say "hey, I want to do something for the public. Take that guys land and sell it to me so that I use it to better the public." They can then do whatever they'd like with their private property, until a larger corporation comes along...

[KukriKhan]

What (beyond her being on a list of potential Obama picks ~;p) invalidates Granholm? I've never heard of her (though being Governor of Michigan probably isn't a good sign).

Her friends and family make out pretty well on 'no-bids' whenever she's won a position of influence, and she's shown she's not above a little backroom quid pro quo back-scratching. And she does not suffer anyone else looking over her shoulder (like independent investigators), preferring to review her own decisions herself, then absolve herself.

I don't see "judicial temperment" there; rather a penchant for political deal-making - which I think would be deleterious to the serious business of the court.

Plus: she's Canadian.*

*j/k. I don't hold that against her. Some of my best friends are... :laugh4:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

So Corzine in a dress? Right on.

[Strike For The South]

Insulating judges from public opinion is far more important than having an old coot on there. Life appts stay.

[HoreTore]

The bill of rights:


1) The court held that the govt taking land and giving it to a corporation to build on was public use, since it would improve the economy or something.

2) Public use meant for things the public used; roads, etc.

3) The use of the land was not public, but for a private company.

The most damning thing, of course, is that there was nothing built on the land seize; it sits vacant. Any judge nominated should be asked for their opinion on this case.

CR

Does that kind of behaviour sound very leftie to you, CR?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'll bet that no matter who he picks, there will be outrage aplenty (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22006.html). Who wants to bet against me?I'll put a tenner against you. The worst that can happen, is that one liberal judge will be replaced by another. Except for the foaming fringe, I think the right will hold its guns on this one.

Then again, the foaming fringe sometimes appears to be awfully large indeed...

[Louis VI the Fat]

My thoughts about Kelo v. New London.

'Eminent domain' itself is customary throughout democracies. The outrage over Kelo v. New London is that the distinction between expropriation for public use and private use has become blurred. However, I think this is inevitable in a country were the state has privatised most everything. If roads, hospitals, prisons, city redevelopment are private affairs, then inevitably the right to eminent domain will become useless. It will have to be expanded to mean expropriaton for private use.

To put it differently: the state has the right to seize property to build roads. If not the state, but private companies build roads, then inevitably at some point during its legal history, the state will decide that private companies can seize the property needed to build these roads. Else no roads will ever gt build anymore.

I say that Leno vs. New London is the result not of leftists or 'big government' impulses, but of the reverse, the result of rightist 'small state' impulses.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Blah blah blah neither "side" wants to take the blame for that terrible decision. Both sides should unite in turning that crap around.


the state has the right to seize property to build roads.
Well, it has the might to do so.

[Lemur]

It's Sotomayor (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/politics/27court.html?_r=2&hp).


President Obama announced on Tuesday that he will nominate the federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, choosing a daughter of Puerto Rican parents raised in Bronx public housing projects to become the nation’s first Hispanic justice.

Judge Sotomayor, who stood next to the president during the announcement, was described by Mr. Obama as “an inspiring woman who I am confident will make a great justice.”

-edit-

Here are the official talking points (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/its_sotomayor_1.php) being peddled by the Antichrist and his minions:


* Judge Sotomayor is widely admired as a judge with a sophisticated grasp of legal doctrine and a keen awareness of the law's impact on everyday life. She understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts.

* Known as a moderate on the court, Sotomayor often forges consensus and agreeing with her more conservative nominees far more frequently than she disagrees with them. In cases where Sotomayor and at least one judge appointed by a Republican president were on the three-judge panel, Sotomayor and the Republican appointee(s) agreed on the outcome 95% of the time

* Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit, said "Sonia is an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind. She brings a wealth of knowledge and hard work to all her endeavors on our court. It is both a pleasure and an honor to serve with her."

[Kralizec]

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Wouldn't a strict reading of this passage lead one to believe that the government can take away your land without just compensation, as long as it's not for public use? :juggle2:

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm happy with Sotomayor. It was the conventional pick and I don't think she'll hit a huge snag on confirmation. He could have hit us with a doozie and we would have just swallowed it. Her position on Abortion is that she is Pro-Choice, but that shouldn't disqualify people. You can be pro-choice and be sensible enough to view Roe as a steaming pile - we arn't sure which way she'll sway, but Souters seat was a huge loss anyway.

She is reasonable and isn't a bleeding heart, walking vag like Souter is.

6 out of 9 are Catholics now !!! Our plans are nearly complete.

[Lemur]

Analysis (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/First_shots_at_Sotomayor.html):


Obama has signaled that he plans a much more populist appeal, stressing the common touch, than the usual intellectual, legal and Beltway-centric defenses of Supreme Court nominees. And my view is that this nomination, barring surprises, carries far more risk for the Republican Party than for the White House. As I reported last week, the RNC commissioned a post-election review late last year and found that among the most urgent priorities was that the party not come across as anti-Hispanic during an immigration debate. Senate Republicans, led by Jeff Sessions, are likely to be painfully careful not even to be hinting at anything other than consuming respect for Sotomayor and her pioneering status. Talk radio is likely to be less careful and to be gleefully reposted by Media Matters and widely circulated in the Spanish-language media. Fierce opposition from the right could push Florida and the West out of reach. (Watch for what Charlie Crist says about her.) Less fierce opposition doesn't do the GOP much good either.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Does that kind of behaviour sound very leftie to you, CR?

It was the 'lefties' on the court who ruled in the city's favor, so yes, yes it is; taking private property for the 'public good'.


I say that Leno vs. New London is the result not of leftists or 'big government' impulses, but of the reverse, the result of rightist 'small state' impulses.

That's, frankly, absurd.

On to Sotomayor: (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html)

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing.

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

The video was of a panel discussion for law students interested in becoming clerks, and she was explaining the different experiences gained when working at district courts and appeals courts.

Oh, goody.

This article reviews her opinion (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47838) in the Ricci v. DeStefano case (and a couple other odd decisions):

The city threw out the results because it feared potential lawsuits from activist groups if few or no minority candidates were promoted. The city also claimed that in addition to potential lawsuits, promotions based on the test results would undermine their goal of diversity in the Fire Department.

The firefighters sued, arguing that New Haven was discriminating against them by deciding that the tests would promote too many white candidates and too few minorities.

Federal Judge Janet Bond Arterton rejected the firefighters’ appeal, siding with the city and saying that no racial discrimination had occurred because the city didn’t promote anyone at all.

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sotomayor issued an order that affirmed Arterton’s decision, issuing a one-paragraph judgment that called Arterton’s ruling “thorough, thoughtful, and well reasoned,”

But according to dissenting Judge Jose Cabranes, the single-paragraph order issued by Sotomayor and her colleagues ignored over 1,800 pages of testimony and more than an hour of argument--ignoring the facts of the case.
...
As a district court judge, Sotomayor also allowed a racial discrimination claim to continue when the plaintiff, a black nurse, sued Bellevue Hospital Corp because other nurses spoke mainly in Filipino, their native tongue, which she claimed made her feel harassed and isolated.

An article on Sotomayor (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085) at TNR:

But despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor. Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?") Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: "She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media."

Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.

Finally, she may not even be the first Hispanic justice. (http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2009/05/13_kaufman.html)

CR

[Crazed Rabbit]

Okay, here's the worst and most troubling thing about Sotomayor; her ruling with the majority in Didden v. Village of Port Chester on the Second Circuit Court in 2006. It was a property rights vs eminent domain ruling like Kelo v New London, but a far worse assault on individual rights: (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0324/040.html)


In 1999 Port Chester established a redevelopment area, in which new projects could be built only after getting approval from a village-designated private individual, Gregory Wasser, to whom the municipality inexplicably delegated its regulatory authority. In 2003 two owners of a plot within the redevelopment zone, Bart Didden and Domenick Bologna, asked Wasser for permission to build a CVS pharmacy. According to Didden and Bologna, Wasser responded: Either pay me $800,000 to build, give me a piece of the action, or I'll have the village take the property. The day after they spurned the offer, Port Chester did indeed start the takings process. Wasser then arranged for Walgreen (nyse: WAG - news - people ) to develop the site.

A more recent review with respect to Sotomayor (http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/26/supreme-court-nomination-obama-opinions-columnists-sonia-sotomayor_print.html):

I have written about Didden in Forbes. The case involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined. Bart Didden came up with an idea to build a pharmacy on land he owned in a redevelopment district in Port Chester over which the town of Port Chester had given Greg Wasser control. Wasser told Didden that he would approve the project only if Didden paid him $800,000 or gave him a partnership interest. The "or else" was that the land would be promptly condemned by the village, and Wasser would put up a pharmacy himself. Just that came to pass. But the Second Circuit panel on which Sotomayor sat did not raise an eyebrow. Its entire analysis reads as follows: "We agree with the district court that [Wasser's] voluntary attempt to resolve appellants' demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation."

Maybe I am missing something, but American business should shudder in its boots if Judge Sotomayor takes this attitude to the Supreme Court. Justice Stevens wrote that the public deliberations over a comprehensive land use plan is what saved the condemnation of Ms. Kelo's home from constitutional attack. Just that element was missing in the Village of Port Chester fiasco. Indeed, the threats that Wasser made look all too much like the "or else" diplomacy of the Obama administration in business matters.

Jurisprudentially, moreover, the sorry Didden episode reveals an important lesson about constitutional law. It is always possible to top one bad decision (Kelo) with another (Didden). This does not auger well for a Sotomayor appointment to the Supreme Court. The president should have done better, and the Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, should subject this dubious nomination to the intense scrutiny that it deserves.

Some legal opinions on that specific case can be found here (http://volokh.com/posts/1165625027.shtml), here (http://volokh.com/posts/1165894612.shtml), and here (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1243364120.shtml):

University of Chicago and NYU law professor Richard Epstein points out that Judge Sotomayor was on a Second Circuit panel that issued the unsigned opinion in one of the worst property rights decisions in recent years, in the case of Didden v. Village of Port Chester. This does not bode well for her likely future rulings on property rights issues that come before the Supreme Court. In a 2007 National Law Journal op ed on Didden (no longer available on line, but excerpted here), Epstein and I discussed the facts of this disturbing case:


The U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London generated a backlash on both sides of the political spectrum..... Many of the rear-guard defenders of this ill-conceived decision insisted that abusive condemnations are an aberration in an otherwise sound planning process. They, it turns out, were wrong. Didden v. Village of Port Chester, a most unfortunate decision out of the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, helps demonstrate the shortcomings of their optimistic view.

In 1999, the village of Port Chester, N.Y., established a "redevelopment area" and gave its designated developer, Gregg Wasser, a virtual blank check to condemn property within it. In 2003, property owners Bart Didden and Dominick Bologna approached Wasser for permission to build a CVS pharmacy on land they own inside the zone. His response: Either pay me $800,000 or give me a 50% partnership interest in the CVS project. Wasser threatened to have the local government condemn the land if his demands weren't met. When the owners refused to oblige, their property was condemned the next day.

Didden and Bologna challenged the condemnation in federal court, on the grounds that it was not for a "public use," as the Fifth Amendment requires. Their view, quite simply, was that out-and-out extortion does not qualify as a public use. Nonetheless, the 2d Circuit . . . upheld this flexing of political muscle.

In fairness to Sotomayor and the other judges on the panel, their ruling was in part based on the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which defined "public use" extremely broadly. However, the majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens also emphasized that "the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit," was not enough to count as a "public use." It is difficult to imagine a more clearly pretextual taking than this one, since Didden and Bologna's property would not have been condemned if it weren't for their refusal to pay Wasser the money he sought to extort from them. Wasser's plan for the property was to build a Walgreen's pharmacy on it, which is virtually identical to the previous owners' plan to build a CVS. There was no general public benefit that Wasser's plan would provide that would not have been equally well achieved by allowing Didden and Bologna to keep their property and carry out their plan to put a CVS there.

The Didden panel decided the case in part based on procedural grounds (claiming that Didden and Bologna filed their case too late). However, it also clearly rejected their public use argument on the merits (see pp. 3-4 of the Second Circuit's opinion, available in the appendix to the property owners' cert. petition). Sotomayor's endorsement of this ruling is a strong sign that she has little or interest in protecting constitutional property rights. Her appointment is likely to exacerbate the second-class status of property rights in the Court's jurisprudence.

The fact that the Supreme Court refused to take the case is not much of a point in the ruling's favor. The Court accepts only a tiny fraction of all the cert petitions that come before it and refuses to hear many important cases. Moreover, the panel further reduced the chance of appellate review by leaving this important decision unpublished.

For more details on Didden, see this amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review the case, which Epstein and I filed along with several other property scholars.

This woman and the rest involved with this decision have no respect for private property and she should not be on the court.

CR

[Tribesman]

Wouldn't a strict reading of this passage lead one to believe that the government can take away your land without just compensation, as long as it's not for public use?
Only if you are a strict constitutionist:2thumbsup:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Okay, here's the worst and most troubling thing about Sotomayor; her ruling with the majority in Didden v. Village of Port Chester on the Second Circuit Court in 2006. It was a property rights vs eminent domain ruling like Kelo v New London, but a far worse assault on individual rights: (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0324/040.html)



A more recent review with respect to Sotomayor (http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/26/supreme-court-nomination-obama-opinions-columnists-sonia-sotomayor_print.html):


Some legal opinions on that specific case can be found here (http://volokh.com/posts/1165625027.shtml), here (http://volokh.com/posts/1165894612.shtml), and here (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1243364120.shtml):


This woman and the rest involved with this decision have no respect for private property and she should not be on the court.

CR


I'm not sure that she is an enemy, CR. If Democrats think that people like Sotomayor are what the right is afraid of, keep them coming while you're in office. I'll give her a try - I won't attack out of hand.

Sotomayor did not come out of left field, either figuratively or literally. We need to save our energy for the battles that can or should be fought. People should bring up the fact that the Judiciary is not where laws are meant to be made, but be civil and recognize that this is a centrist gesture. Go with grace for this appointment (she is replacing the everlasting disappointment Souter afterall) and drop the hammer at the next one. All of the recent Presidents have had at least 2 nominations and Republicans have appointed half of the worst ones. We're our own worst enemies sometimes.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the GOP staged a brief filibuster just to force Specter to vote publicly with the Dems against his old party (to aid a challenger in PA). Doubt they'll vote seriously against her, though, unless somebody uncovers something surprising.

[Lemur]

Mr. Limbaugh is being reserved and thoughtful (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905260033), as always:


Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes. She'd be a disaster on the Court. Do I still want to Obama to fail as President? Yeah, -- AP, you getting this? He's gonna fail anyway, but the sooner the better here so that as little damage can be done to the country.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Like, did she pay all her taxes?


“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.


Justice is supposed to be blind. Sotomayer's own words seem to indicate that she will seek to promote policy from the bench, not the application of the law.

Imagine the uproar if at Chief Justice Roberts confirmation hearings he made a similar statement,
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman white man with the richness of her his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor Roberts, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s Bush's list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Smacks of racism to me. Don't know her honor at all, but I'd be interested in examining her judicial decisions. I wouldn't be surprised to find plenty of rebukes, appeals, and overturns. The Republicans will cave in in fear of alienating the Hispanic vote.

[CountArach]

Mr. Limbaugh is being reserved and thoughtful (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905260033), as always:


Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes. She'd be a disaster on the Court. Do I still want to Obama to fail as President? Yeah, -- AP, you getting this? He's gonna fail anyway, but the sooner the better here so that as little damage can be done to the country.
Also from Rush (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/26/limbaugh_obama_sotomayor_are_reverse_racists.html)...

"So, here you have a racist. You might want to soften that and you might wanna say a reverse racist. And the libs of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist and now he's appointed one."


And I'm just going to save the Conservative side of this site time and give them the official Republican talking points (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/26/rnc-fumbles-sotomayor-talking-points/)

And for those wo are interested current Senators (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/current-senators-voted-35-11-to-confirm.html) voted 35-11 in her favour during the vote to confirm her in 1998. That list includes several Republican names, such as Snowe, who are likely to side with the Dems.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Justice is supposed to be blind. Sotomayer's own words seem to indicate that she will seek to promote policy from the bench, not the application of the law.


Justice isn't blind. To say that people are biased and not impartial, and that someones background will have an effect on the rulings they make is common sense.


“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,” said Judge Sotomayor,

When the court was ruling on the slavery, would a wise black man with a rich experience have been able to reach a better conclusion than a white man who hadn't lived that live?


The reaction to this quote is way overblown and misses the point. Let's say you have two candidates for NFL commissioner. One claims he isn't a fan of any football team and will be completely impartial. The other says she is a fan of a football team and will be as impartial as she can. Who do you pick? One is lying and the other isn't...


One would need to make an extensive study of ms sotomayor to see to what degree she believes in ruling from the bench. To dismiss her without doing that is to show the very bias you would accuse her of...

[Xiahou]

Justice is supposed to be blind. Sotomayer's own words seem to indicate that she will seek to promote policy from the bench, not the application of the law.She clearly falls solidly in the pro-affirmative action column. I disagree with her on this- I think the government has no place granting anyone special treatment based on their race, no matter who well-meaning that you think it is. Sotomayer, and others, disagree with me and think that it's acceptable.....

I'm not wild about Sotomayer, but as other's have mentioned- she's replacing Souter, so she really can't be much worse. But I knew we were in for a treat when, during her introduction, Obama listed her "saving" of baseball as one of her major achievements. :wall:

[CountArach]

Norm Coleman chimes in. (http://colemanforsenate.com/blog-post/600/senator-norm-coleman%27s-statement-on-nomination-of-sonia-sotomayor----may-26%2C-2009-) He is truly a master comedian.

"When debating judges, I was firm that I would use the same standard to evaluate judges under a Democrat President as I would a Republican President. Are they intellectually competent, do they have a record of integrity, and most importantly, are they committed to following the Constitution rather than creating new law and policy. When I am re-elected, I intend to review Judge Sotomayor's record using this process. Certainly, the nomination of a Hispanic woman to the nation's highest court is something all American's should applaud."

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

When the court was ruling on the slavery, would a wise black man with a rich experience have been able to reach a better conclusion than a white man who hadn't lived that live?
I don't need to have experienced slavery to know it's wrong. No one does.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't need to have experienced slavery to know it's wrong. No one does.

Then how come it existed?

[Xiahou]

I don't need to have experienced slavery to know it's wrong. No one does.
Really, that shouldn't matter. Judges are supposed to rule on a matter's legality under the Constitution. They are not supposed to be moral arbiters, deciding rights from wrongs. That's a slippery slope that we shouldn't be on.

There's a reason that the statues of justice wear a blindfold- justice is supposed to be blind. Someone's race, social status or bank account should have no bearing on the applicability of the law.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Really, that shouldn't matter. Judges are supposed to rule on a matter's legality under the Constitution. They are not supposed to be moral arbiters, deciding rights from wrongs. That's a slippery slope that we shouldn't be on.

There's a reason that the statues of justice wear a blindfold- justice is supposed to be blind. Someone's race, social status or bank account should have no bearing on the applicability of the law.

They aren't blind. Someone who claims to be is lying. And the quote from sotomayor speaks more of knowledge and experience in certain situations. Would you approve of replacing the supreme court justices with an advanced AI that could strictly analyze the constitution? Or is human experience necessary?

I'm sure there are better criticisms of sotomayor than that.

[Xiahou]

And the quote from sotomayor speaks more of knowledge and experience in certain situations.Which situations would being a hispanic women make her a better judge than a black women, or a white man?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Which situations would being a hispanic women make her a better judge than a black women, or a white man?

I can't think of any. I doubt there are any of significance. Presumably that was in the context of her speech, which sounds like it was one of the silly uplifting speeches people give at those events.

So all in all, a big red herring :fishing:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Who cares if she said that.
Lets say that I believe white males should have a prominent role in governement because I am one. I think that they also tend to have a better understanding of what having money and power is like, so they might make more practiced decisions regarding the use of those things. There, I said it. Everybody wants to be in power and they project what they like about them selves onto people who remind them of themselves. People are biased and they say things that they don't mean 100%. Everyone thinks that they know what is right and that other people, particularly those who are very different from them, wont be as sensitive to close to home issues.

I get it. We arn't omniscient - we all bring unique insights to the table ESPECIALLY when those insights are honed after years and years of individual experiences. I'd make better decisions about repairing a mechanical watch than most everyone here.

People have different angles. Nothing that I have seen or read about would disqualify this woman from being a justice. I say lets just lay down for this one.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Then how come it existed?
For the same reasons that any injustice exists. I mean, there were abolitionists around at the time, and they could see it was wrong even though they never personally experienced it, either.

I don't see what your question proves, if anything.

@ Xiahou - you're right. The Constitution's never been about justice.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

For the same reasons that any injustice exists. I mean, there were abolitionists around at the time, and they could see it was wrong even though they never personally experienced it, either.

I don't see what your question proves, if anything.

Well you didn't answer the question here. How could slavery exist if slaveholders didn't think it was right, or at least not wrong, or maybe not wrong enough to warrant giving up the benefits of it, and thus basically right? Just because slavery is held to be a huge injustice today does not mean that everybody during the time of slavery in the US felt the same way, in fact abolitionists were often marginalized and prosecuted for publishing abolitionist materials. Without constantly examining our own behavior and policies for injustice we cannot hope to claim our society is a just one with any authority, and for that we do need diverse groups with a wide range of experiences to allow us to examine issues from their many angles.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

and for that we do need diverse groups with a wide range of experiences to allow us to examine issues from their many angles.
For starters, you don't need to be on the Supreme Court to examine issues from "many angles". However, I don't think personal experiences necessarily make you more qualified in doing so.

[Lemur]

Well, it's hard to argue that personal experience doesn't color your reasoning and judgment. An Iraqi war vet will have a different slant than a professor of philosophy, to pick random examples. I don't think life experience should be a primary filter, but it's there, and to deny it is silly.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ya, but she said she hoped someone like her would reach better conclusions than someone who was male and white.

But my main problem is the trashing of any restrictions on eminent domain. :wall::wall:

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ya, but she said she hoped someone like her would reach better conclusions than someone who was male and white.



What was the context?

[Crazed Rabbit]

The speech, (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html) with the parts near her quote extracted below:


In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

CR

[Hosakawa Tito]

Courts make Policy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q). Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Now she's going to be on The most powerful Appeals Court in the land....

[ICantSpellDawg]

The speech, (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html) with the parts near her quote extracted below:



CR


That is a pretty reasonable statement in that context. I think it means that a Puerto Rican woman will make better decisions on average in particular situations, usually those situations that would benefit from that experience. She probably also believes the inverse. It came off a bit sexit and racist, but to be honest isn't that to be expected? Anytime someone tells the truth it ends up seeming a bit sexist and racist. You know why? Because we are different and we are all better than someone else at something and those differences tend to rise to generalities and stereotypes.

Because we are living human beings and intellect and wisdom has different values in different situations. I don't but the idea that we are all equal, that we all bring the same stuff to the table or that some cultures have disparate levels of insight in general regarding particulars. The sum of out assets makes us all "philosophically equal", but in practical value that couldn't be further from the truth.


Say what you will about Sotomayor, but she does have a nasty case of man-voice.

[KukriKhan]

Looking at the composition of the court with Sotomayor in, Souter out: it looks nicely balanced to me, a blend of left-leaning centrists and right-leaning centrists, assembled to apply their understanding of the US Constitution to particular cases.

We'll be well-served, I think, and cases will be roundly scrutinized from the many perspectives of the individual judges.

I pronounce her a "Good pick". Let her in, sez li'l ol' me.

[Lemur]

You know, for all of the kerfluffle over her racial and "legislating from the bench" comments, I'd be far more interested to know where she stands on the real issue of the day: Executive power.

-edit-

Good essay (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-26/the-gops-suicide-mission/?cid=bs:featured1) about the bind for Repubs over this nomination. I really, truly never want to play chess with President 44. He's looking way too many moves ahead.


Memo to my party: Blasting targets like Sonia Sotomayor and Colin Powell is a surefire strategy to guarantee our extinction.

If the GOP is ever to be resurgent, it has to pick its fights carefully. The tendency is, unfortunately, to shoot at everything that moves.

Here are a couple of fights we don’t need: Colin Powell and Sonia Sotomayor.

Let’s face it, Sotomayor is a political trifecta. Woman. Hispanic. Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval from George H. W. Bush.

Yes, Mitch McConnell has to make his pro forma gestures about doing due diligence. And it is important to fully examine Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record. But, every day this confirmation battle gets unreasonably extended is a good day for Democrats and a bad day for Republicans.

Sotomayor is going to be confirmed. There is little doubt about it. So, going into weeks or months of paroxysms and hysterics about alleged “judicial activism” is just going to make the party look bitter, mean, tone deaf, and out of touch.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sotomayer is a virtual shoe-in for the seat being vacated by Souter. Her decisions reveal her to be something of an activist from the bench, and certainly not a strict constructionist in her interpretations. However, such an approach to jurisprudence, though I may disagree therewith, does NOT invalidate her as a nominee for the SCOTUS.

I'd like to see her opposed BECAUSE of that judicial stance, and I hope a few politely worded but very direct questions are aimed at her in confirmation hearings to make just that point. Though the GOP cannot block this nomination, they should oppose her simply because she reflects an attitude towards appelate jurisprudence with which they disagree. No attempt to filibuster or play games should be made, just a series of hard but polite questions in committee, a unanimous vote to bring her candidacy to the floor (she certainly has the credentials to merit an up/down vote), and then vote to oppose her because her political philosophy is not in line with yours. Then she'll be confirmed (with roughly 75 votes) by those Senators who agree with her approach and those who do not believe they have a right to vote against a nominee unless that nominee is morally unfit or impossibly underqualified.

There are a LOT of calls for the GOP to "fold" on this nomination and provide no opposition. This argument is based on the idea that the GOP will offend some group and further marginalize themselves in electoral politics.

Stuff and piffle.

The Dems won that media war AGES ago. To be a GOP candidate -- save for a few "mavericks" who vote Dem a lot -- is to wear the label racist/sexist/classist for a sizeable chunk of the electorate. This will not change no matter how often the GOP points to their being inclusive or what not. The GOP cannot stand for the "common" man because the Dems grabbed that label in the 1930s and have never let it go. The verdict has been made and minority groups who choose to view their "minority" status as a paramount issue will NOT vote for the GOP, since they know that only the Dems will truly open up the government trough to them.

SUPPORTING SOTOMAYER will not change this.

The GOP can try to be warm and fuzzy all it wants. Even if it is subsequently "successful" with this approach, "minority" voters and the like will note that they're doing the "right" thing AND STILL PULL THE LEVER FOR "THEIR" PARTY -- the Democrats. The GOP has NOTHING to gain from "going along to get along."


The Dems will be in power for a while, until the power itself produces enough disdain that the electorate starts looking around for something different (just like happened to the GOP). This is the cycle of politics.

It is time to start educating people, at every opportunity, about what should be the central message of the GOP: smaller less intrusive government, federalism and state's rights, fiscal responsibility, making the USA the land of opportunity for all and not entitlements granted by the latest president.

[/Diatribe]

[Kralizec]

I read about the firemen case, in wich Sotomayor was an appeal judge, in the newspaper today. If such a thing where to happen here, I'd be pretty pissed.

...scrap that, replace "if" with "when" :wall:

[KukriKhan]

What I most want to know about how Judge Sotomayer, is what she thinks about Executive Power at the federal level, the most important issue she will face in the next 2-20 years, IMO.

Should it be possible for POTUS and/or COTUS (Congress of the United States) to skirt the Constitution in declaring war? Does she think "authorizations for the use of force" meet the requirements of the Constitution? Can non-US law apply to the US? If so, in what way?

What are her thoughts about the separation of powers between POTUS, COTUS & SCOTUS?

What are her opinions about the ownership of property, and 'eminent domain'?

What is her thinking about 'emergency powers' granted to the executive? Martial Law?

=========================
Her tendancy to 'legislate from the bench' , if true, is bothersome, but checkable by thorough questioning by the right honourable senators, and ultimately, if missed, quashable by the other 8 members of the court. If she holds such a view (that Court is where policy is made), I bet she changes that outlook after a couple of years on the court - most of them 'grow into' the job after seated, historically; the gravity and implications of their decisions tending to bring them to center.

Screaming "RACISM!" from the rightist sidelines will be counter-productive, and further sideline the right as a buncha grousers. And it surely won't slow down the confirmation.

[Xiahou]

Sotomayer is a virtual shoe-in for the seat being vacated by Souter. Her decisions reveal her to be something of an activist from the bench, and certainly not a strict constructionist in her interpretations. However, such an approach to jurisprudence, though I may disagree therewith, does NOT invalidate her as a nominee for the SCOTUS.

I'd like to see her opposed BECAUSE of that judicial stance, and I hope a few politely worded but very direct questions are aimed at her in confirmation hearings to make just that point. Though the GOP cannot block this nomination, they should oppose her simply because she reflects an attitude towards appelate jurisprudence with which they disagree. No attempt to filibuster or play games should be made, just a series of hard but polite questions in committee, a unanimous vote to bring her candidacy to the floor (she certainly has the credentials to merit an up/down vote), and then vote to oppose her because her political philosophy is not in line with yours. Then she'll be confirmed (with roughly 75 votes) by those Senators who agree with her approach and those who do not believe they have a right to vote against a nominee unless that nominee is morally unfit or impossibly underqualified.

There are a LOT of calls for the GOP to "fold" on this nomination and provide no opposition. This argument is based on the idea that the GOP will offend some group and further marginalize themselves in electoral politics.

Stuff and piffle.

The Dems won that media war AGES ago. To be a GOP candidate -- save for a few "mavericks" who vote Dem a lot -- is to wear the label racist/sexist/classist for a sizeable chunk of the electorate. This will not change no matter how often the GOP points to their being inclusive or what not. The GOP cannot stand for the "common" man because the Dems grabbed that label in the 1930s and have never let it go. The verdict has been made and minority groups who choose to view their "minority" status as a paramount issue will NOT vote for the GOP, since they know that only the Dems will truly open up the government trough to them.

SUPPORTING SOTOMAYER will not change this.

The GOP can try to be warm and fuzzy all it wants. Even if it is subsequently "successful" with this approach, "minority" voters and the like will note that they're doing the "right" thing AND STILL PULL THE LEVER FOR "THEIR" PARTY -- the Democrats. The GOP has NOTHING to gain from "going along to get along."


The Dems will be in power for a while, until the power itself produces enough disdain that the electorate starts looking around for something different (just like happened to the GOP). This is the cycle of politics.

It is time to start educating people, at every opportunity, about what should be the central message of the GOP: smaller less intrusive government, federalism and state's rights, fiscal responsibility, making the USA the land of opportunity for all and not entitlements granted by the latest president.

[/Diatribe]

Great post Seamus- you've nailed it. The GOP can't stop her nomination and they shouldn't try to be obstructionist. However, they should ask her tough questions about her views on race, her judicial philosophy and press her on her public statements. They don't need to be personal or nasty, but they should stand on principle. :yes:

[Marshal Murat]

It seems that the Latinos can now unlock the "Supreme Court Judge" role for their children, because before then, Latinos couldn't possibly become Supreme Court Judges. Somewhat similar to the "Now that a black man has been elected President, any black child can be elected president." So very sad.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I read about the firemen case, in wich Sotomayor was an appeal judge, in the newspaper today. If such a thing where to happen here, I'd be pretty pissed.

...scrap that, replace "if" with "when" :wall:

It's likely to be overturned by the SCOTUS, making her overturned rate 66.7%.

CR

[Captain Blackadder]

It's likely to be overturned by the SCOTUS, making her overturned rate 66.7%.

CR

Not it doesn't she has made 380 decisions of which 3 have being overturned which makes the overturned rate 0.7% a very low rate.

[Xiahou]

Not it doesn't she has made 380 decisions of which 3 have being overturned which makes the overturned rate 0.7% a very low rate.I think he's talking about opinions that she herself has written- not ones that she's just sided with.

I think it's interesting that many of the criticisms lodged against Sotomayor were actually first voiced by the people at The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085)- a left leaning publication. Mind you, this was before she was actually nominated, since then they've moderated their coverage significantly. :juggle2:

Three of the five opinions she has authored have been overturned, possibly lending some credence to the charges leveled by TNR.
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?") Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: "She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media."

Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.

[CountArach]

It's likely to be overturned by the SCOTUS, making her overturned rate 66.7%.

CR
Which is in fact below the average (http://mediamatters.org/research/200511090012) for that court (75% being the rough average)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Not it doesn't she has made 380 decisions of which 3 have being overturned which makes the overturned rate 0.7% a very low rate.

Wow. :wall::wall:

No - that is wrong. Only six of her decisions were tried in the SCOTUS. Three have been overturned and one is likely to be soon.


Which is in fact below the average for that court (75% being the rough average)

Sorry, but you'll have to come up with a better source. If a certain group of people just covers their ears whenever they see the words "Fox News" I think you ought to come up with a better source than mediamatters.

CR

[Hosakawa Tito]

What I most want to know about how Judge Sotomayer, is what she thinks about Executive Power at the federal level, the most important issue she will face in the next 2-20 years, IMO.

Should it be possible for POTUS and/or COTUS (Congress of the United States) to skirt the Constitution in declaring war? Does she think "authorizations for the use of force" meet the requirements of the Constitution? Can non-US law apply to the US? If so, in what way?

What are her thoughts about the separation of powers between POTUS, COTUS & SCOTUS?

What are her opinions about the ownership of property, and 'eminent domain'?

What is her thinking about 'emergency powers' granted to the executive? Martial Law?

=========================
Her tendancy to 'legislate from the bench' , if true, is bothersome, but checkable by thorough questioning by the right honourable senators, and ultimately, if missed, quashable by the other 8 members of the court. If she holds such a view (that Court is where policy is made), I bet she changes that outlook after a couple of years on the court - most of them 'grow into' the job after seated, historically; the gravity and implications of their decisions tending to bring them to center.

Screaming "RACISM!" from the rightist sidelines will be counter-productive, and further sideline the right as a buncha grousers. And it surely won't slow down the confirmation.

Exactly! I want her judged on her judicial philosophy, not that she's a female Latino, that doesn't matter. Such as her stance on 2nd Amendment rights. (http://reason.com/news/show/133722.html)


As a respected jurist with an impressive legal resume, Sotomayor appears just as qualified to sit on the Supreme Court as any recent nominee. But from the standpoint of individual liberty and limited constitutional government, there are significant reasons to be wary of her nomination.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Exactly! I want her judged on her judicial philosophy, not that she's a female Latino, that doesn't matter. Such as her stance on 2nd Amendment rights. (http://reason.com/news/show/133722.html)

Heh. Not often that I love the 9th circuit. Oh, you valiant upholders of liberty!

CR

[Crazed Rabbit]

According to one compilation by Lawyers about the 2nd Circuit Court judges - Sotomayor is ranked worse, (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/lawyers-tag-sotomayor-as-terror-on-the-bench/) indeed, the only one negatively ranked of all her fellow judges.


Lawyers who have argued cases before Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor call her "nasty," "angry" and a "terror on the bench," according to the current Almanac of the Federal Judiciary -- a kind of Zagat's guide to federal judges.

The withering evaluation of Judge Sotomayor's temperament stands in stark contrast to reviews of her peers on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Of the 21 judges evaluated, the same lawyers gave 18 positive to glowing reviews and two judges received mixed reviews. Judge Sotomayor was the only one to receive decidedly negative comments.

Oh, and not only is she against property rights, gun rights, but also free speech. In this case, she decided school officials could punish a student for what she posted on her blog. (http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Critics-unhappy-with-Sotomayors-role-in-CT-free-speech-case.html)


Avery Doninger was disqualified from running for school government at Lewis S. Mills High School in Burlington after she posted something on her blog, referring to the superintendent and other officials as "douche bags" because they canceled a battle of the bands she had helped to organize.

The case went to court and in March 2008, Sotomayor was on a panel that heard Doninger’s mother’s appeal alleging her daughter’s free speech and other rights were violated. Her mother wanted to prevent the school from barring her daughter from running.

Sotomayor joined two other judges from the 2nd Circuit in ruling that the student’s off-campus blog remarks created a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption” at the student’s high school and that the teenager was not entitled to a preliminary injunction reversing a disciplinary action against her, Education Week reports.
...
The ruling in this case has come under heavy criticism from some civil libertarians. Some say this case presents a solid rationale for rejecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals to fill the seat of retiring Justice David Souter.

“The continual expansion of the authority of school officials over student speech teaches a foul lesson to these future citizens,” Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, told the New Britain Herald. “I would prefer some obnoxious speech [rather] than teaching students that they must please government officials if they want special benefits or opportunities.”

Is this what we want from the government?

CR

[Strike For The South]

Oh it's just her latin temper

[Lemur]

A useful look at Soto's record on race-related cases (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race/):


It seems to me that there is an infinitely simpler and more accurate way of figuring out whether Judge Sotomayor decides cases involving race fairly and dispassionately - read her decisions. So I did: I am in the midst of reviewing every single race-related case on which she sat on the Second Circuit.

There are roughly 100. They cover the gamut from employment discrimination to racial bias in jury selection. I decided that I would stop and write an interim report once I got through her 50 most recent race-related cases other than Ricci because the numbers are sufficiently striking and decisive. Here is what I found.

In those 50 cases, the panel accepted the claim of race discrimination only three times. In all three cases, the panel was unanimous; in all three, it included a Republican appointee. In roughly 45, the claim was rejected. (Two were procedural dispositions.)

On the other hand, she twice was on panels reversing district court decisions agreeing with race-related claims - i.e., reversing a finding of impermissible race-based decisions. Both were criminal cases involving jury selection.

In the 50 cases, the panel was unanimous in every one. There was a Republican appointee in 38, and these panels were all obviously unanimous as well. Thus, in the roughly 45 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor never dissented.

It seems to me that these numbers decisively disprove the claim that she decides cases with any sort of racial bias.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sotomayor also overturned the deliberations of a jury against a violent cop who made a false and malicious arrest: (http://www.slate.com/id/2219251)

Jocks v. Tavernier starts with the breakdown of a tractor-trailer on the Long Island Expressway in 1994. Thomas Jocks, a truck driver, tried to pull his truck off the highway when his engine failed. He made it onto the shoulder, but about 4 feet of the trailer were jutting out into the right-hand lane. Jocks put up flares behind the truck, as state law requires. But he was worried about causing an accident. Unable to flag down another car, he ran three-quarters of a mile to a gas station, which had an outdoor pay phone (1990s = the pre-cell-phone dark age). Augusto Tavernier was talking on the phone, actually from inside his car, because the phone had a cord designed to be used that way.

Jocks gave the following account of what happened next: He ran up and told Tavernier there was an emergency because his truck was jutting out onto the expressway. Tavernier told him to find another phone. Jocks repeated the emergency part of his story. Tavernier swore at him. Jocks knocked on his windshield and kept urging him to give him the phone. Finally, Jocks went into the phone stand and hung up on Tavernier's call. At that point, Jocks said, Tavernier threw the receiver at him, tried to get out of his car, couldn't because the phone stand was blocking his door, and drove forward. Jocks dialed 911. Tavernier charged him, yelling. Jocks yelled back. Tavernier said, "Why don't I blow your fucking brains out?" and drew his gun. He pressed the gun into the back of Jocks' head, and said, "Freeze, police"; and then an off-duty Nassau County police officer arrived, got the situation under control, and arrested Jocks.

Tavernier, too, proved to be an off-duty cop. After his arrest, Jocks was held for 24 hours and ended up having to make 28 court appearances before he was found not guilty of felony assault. He spent $20,000 on legal fees, lost his truck driving job, and had to give up full custody of his daughter, who went to live with her mother, his ex-wife. That dire, black moment on the LIE truly cost him.

Jocks sued Tavernier, and also the detective who booked him, for false arrest and malicious prosecution. At trial, Tavernier's story was that when Jocks asked for the phone, he didn't say anything about an emergency. He just hung up on Tavernier and started making a call, and then when Tavernier tried to hang up on him, Jocks swung the phone and hit him in the face. At that point, Tavernier said, he drew his gun and arrested Jocks.

The jury believed Jocks and awarded him more than $600,000 in damages. Tavernier and the detective appealed. The judges on the panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit were Sotomayor; Pierre Leval, a Clinton appointee; and John Walker Jr., appointed by President George Herbert Walker Bush, who is his cousin (Walker and Walker, same family). From the beginning, Sotomayor backed Tavernier. She saw his arrest of Jocks as reasonable. Leval and Walker were on the other side.

Tell me, liberals and leftists - is that what you want? Striking down the rulings of juries against bad cops? An even greater expansion of the power of the state to **** up your life for nothing?

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

I just don't see her as a seething leftist. I'd be careful to try to make her into an uber-liberal. It will hurt an individuals credit on these boards at least.

Perpetual Indignation is a hallmark of the left. Lets leave them to it.

[Lemur]

Perpetual Indignation is a hallmark of the left. Lets leave them to it.
I'll see your Ralph Nader and raise you a Glenn Beck and a Michael Savage.

I don't think any movement has a lock on Perpetual Indignation. It's an unhealthy symptom of ... something else. Don't know what, exactly. Look at the hardcore Islamists, they breathe a constant oxygen/nitrogen/outrage mix 24 hours a day. No, I don't believe any group has exclusive rights to Permanent Outrage.

Anyway, I look forward to Soto's Senate hearings. Should be interesting.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'll see your Ralph Nader and raise you a Glenn Beck and a Michael Savage.

I don't think any movement has a lock on Perpetual Indignation. It's an unhealthy symptom of ... something else. Don't know what, exactly. Look at the hardcore Islamists, they breathe a constant oxygen/nitrogen/outrage mix 24 hours a day. No, I don't believe any group has exclusive rights to Permanent Outrage.

Anyway, I look forward to Soto's Senate hearings. Should be interesting.


Glen Beck is an embarrassment. He is mentally unstable. I can't say that I have ever listened to a word michael savage has said. The Ralph Naders of the world arn't the people I'm talking about. He is the kind of person that capitalizes on the kind of people I am talking about.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yet another amazing article by Noonan. It's like she reads our minds and has common sense. It's like she's never been to Washington before.


Republicans, Let's Play Grown-Up

Sotomayor's hearings are an opportunity for serious debate.

By Peggy Noonan (http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html)


"Let's play grown-up." When I was a child, that's what we said when we ran out of things to do like playing potsie or throwing rocks in the vacant lot. You'd go in and take your father's hat and your mother's purse and walk around saying, "Would you like tea?" In retrospect we weren't imitating our parents but parents on TV, who wore pearls and suits. But the point is we amused ourselves trying to be little adults.

And that's what the GOP should do right now: play grown-up.
The Democrats in the White House have been doing it since January, operating with a certain decorum, a kind of assumption as to their natural stature. Obamaland is very different from the last Democratic administration, Bill Clinton's. The cliché is true: White House staffs reflect their presidents. Mr. Clinton's staff was human, colorful, messy, slightly mad. They had pent-up energy after 12 years of Republican rule, and they believed their own propaganda that Republicans were wicked. They were oafish: One dragooned a government helicopter to go play golf. President Obama's staff is far less entertaining. They're smooth, impeccable, sophisticated, like the boss. They don't hate Republicans but think they're missing a few chips (empathy, logic, How Things Really Work). It is true they don't know what they don't know, but what they do know (how to quietly seize and hold power, for instance—they now run the American auto industry), they know pretty well.

But back to Sonia Sotomayor, which is my subject.

She is of course a brilliant political pick—Hispanic when Republicans have trouble with Hispanics, a woman when they've had trouble with women. Her background (public housing, Nuyorican, Catholic school, Princeton, prominence) is as moving as Clarence Thomas's, and that is moving indeed. Politically she's like a beautiful doll containing a canister of poison gas: Break her and you die.

The New York Post's front page the day after her announcement said it all: "Suprema!" with a picture of the radiant nominee. New York is proud of her; I'm proud of our country and grateful at its insistence, in a time when some say the American dream is dead, that it most certainly is not. The dream is: You can come from any place or condition, any walk of life, and rise to the top, taking your people with you, in your heart and theirs. Maybe that's what they mean by empathy: Where you come from enters you, and you bring it with you as you rise. But if that's what they mean, then we're all empathetic. We're the most fluid society in human history, but no one ever leaves their zip code in America, we all take it with us. It's part of our pride. And it's not bad, it's good.

Some, and they are idiots, look at Judge Sotomayor and say: attack, attack, kill. A conservative activist told the New York Times, "We need to brand her." Another told me a fight is needed to excite the base.

Excite the base? How about excite a moderate, or interest an independent? How about gain the attention of people who aren't already on your side?

The base is plenty excited already, as you know if you've ever read a comment thread on a conservative blog. Comment-thread conservatives, like their mirror-image warriors on the left ("Worst person in the woooorrrlllddd!") are perpetually agitated, permanently enraged. They don't need to be revved, they're already revved. Newt Gingrich twitters that Judge Sotomayor is a racist. Does anyone believe that? He should rest his dancing thumbs, stop trying to position himself as the choice and voice of the base in 2012, and think.

A few—very few—agitate to go at Judge Sotomayor as the Democrats went after Robert Bork in 1987. The abuse suffered by that good man is a still suppurating wound within the GOP, but it is also a wound for the Democrats, the worst kind, a self-inflicted one. They damaged our national political culture and lowered their own standing with their assault, and their victory left them looking not strong and uncompromising but mean and ferocious. And on some level they know it. Ask Ted Kennedy, if he had it to do over again, if he would repeat all his intemperate and unjust words about "Bob Bork's America" and "back-alley abortions" and blacks turned away from lunch counters. He'd be a fool if he said yes. He damaged himself in that battle.

The choice for Republicans isn't between "attack" and "roll over." It's broader than that, and more interesting. There's a new and fresh opportunity here for Republicans in the Senate to be serious, and, in their seriousness, to be seen and understood in a new light.

Serious opposition to Judge Sotomayor is not only fair, it's necessary: It's your job to oppose if you oppose. But it should be serious, not merely partisan. Mr. Obama himself well knows he voted against John Roberts and Sam Alito only in essence because they were conservative. He was planning a presidential run and playing to a left-wing base. But that didn't enhance his reputation, did it? Not with anyone who wasn't part of his base.

Barring extraordinary revelations, Judge Sotomayor is going to be confirmed. She's going to win. She does not appear to be as liberal or left-wing as others who could have been picked. She seems reminiscent of the justice she will replace, David Souter. She will likely come across in hearings as smart, spirited, a middle-aged woman who's lived a life of grit, determination and American-dream proving.

Republicans can be liberated by the fact that they're outnumbered and likely about to lose. They can step back, breathe in, and use the Sotomayor confirmation hearings to perform a public service: Find out what the future justice thinks and why she thinks it, explain what they think and why they think it, look at the two different philosophies, if that's what they are. Don't make it sparring, make it thinking.

Don't grill and grandstand, summon and inform. Show the respect that expresses equality and the equality that is an expression of respect. Ask and listen, get the logic, explain where you think it wrong. Fill the airwaves with thoughtful exchanges.

Here are some areas: What is judicial activism? Is it sometimes more rightly called judicial presumption? Judge Sotomayor sided against the Connecticut firemen in the famous Ricci case—why? Was this empathy, or a very selective sympathy that resulted in the victimizing of human beings who were not members of a politically favored ethnic or racial group? What is affirmative action, when does it become quota making? How does she understand the Second Amendment? What did the Framers intend there? In what ways did her experience, upbringing and ethnicity contribute to her understanding of the law?

These are just a few fertile areas. There are more.

The odd thing Republican elected officials forget is that they often have the better argument. So used are they to the defensive crouch that they find it difficult to stand tall, expand, tell, hear. They should have more faith in the philosophical assumptions of their party, which so often reflect the wisdom of experience, of tradition, of Founders more brilliant than we.
This might be a good time for them to rediscover their faith in the American people, in their ability to listen, weigh and think. That thinking may not always show up immediately in polls, but it adds up in time and has its own weight, its own force, and future.

Trust them. They're grown-ups, even if they don't always dress the part

[Lemur]

This (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/69915.html) should not come as a surprise:


Republicans may have a window of opportunity to turn public opinion against President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, but a new poll finds that such a campaign could hurt their party's already weak standing with Americans, especially Hispanics, the nation's fastest-growing voter group. [...]

The poll revealed a danger for Republicans: 37 percent of the general population and 42 percent of Hispanics said they'd feel less favorably toward the Republican Party if Senate Republicans "overwhelmingly oppose" Sotomayor, 54, a Latina federal appellate judge from New York.

A much smaller number — 24 percent of the general population and 20 percent of Hispanics — said that organized GOP opposition would endear Republicans to them.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It is rare for the Supreme Court to find itself ruling on an opinion of someone waiting to join its ranks, and Justice Kennedy's opinion and the published dissent made almost no mention of the appeals-court decision involving Judge Sotomayor.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_firefighters_lawsuit

Yesterday the Supreme Court overturned a ruling by Sotomayor.

Will this have consequences for Sotomayor's nomination?

Need drama:
The court decided 5-4. The narrowist of margins. Will a SC with Sotomayor make racial discrimination legal again in America? :drama1:

[Xiahou]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_firefighters_lawsuit

Yesterday the Supreme Court overturned a ruling by Sotomayor.

Will this have consequences for Sotomayor's nomination?

Need drama:
The court decided 5-4. The narrowist of margins. Will a SC with Sotomayor make racial discrimination legal again in America? :drama1:Discrimination is still legal in the America- this ruling didn't stop it.... but Sotomayor's overturned ruling might indicate that she would like to expand it.