Author Topic: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic  (Read 8832 times)

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19009
  • loco like a fox
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #25 on: May 27, 2009, 05:51:39 AM »
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” - Sonia Sotomayor

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html

I hate that shit.

I don't like it either.  She shouldn't say stuff like that.  Why bring race and skin color into this?  It should all be based on her knowledge of the law and on her ability to interpret it without personal agendas.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #26 on: May 27, 2009, 05:54:25 AM »
I don't like it either.  She shouldn't say stuff like that.  Why bring race and skin color into this?  It should all be based on her knowledge of the law and on her ability to interpret it without personal agendas.

That's my point, those who deal the race card are usually the first ones who cry about it. 

BM OUT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • Getbig!
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #27 on: May 27, 2009, 06:36:26 AM »
She is a white hating racist,but that shouldnt be a surprise.The guy who nominated her is a white hating racist!!!So is his tranny wife.

shootfighter1

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5681
  • Competitor- NABBA Nationals Overall Champ
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #28 on: May 27, 2009, 07:41:34 AM »
Please read this commentary...very well written from a libertarian foundation.

Editor's note: Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian public policy research foundation, and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Before joining Cato, he was special assistant/adviser to the Multi-National Force-Iraq and practiced law at Patton Boggs LLP and Cleary Gottlieb LLP. Earlier, Shapiro clerked for Judge E. Grady Jolly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.


Ilya Shapiro says the Sotomayor appointment is a case of identity politics rather than a choice on the merits.

 (CNN) -- In picking Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama has confirmed that identity politics matter to him more than merit. While Judge Sotomayor exemplifies the American Dream, she would not have even been on the short list if she were not Hispanic.

She is not one of the leading lights of the federal judiciary, and far less qualified for a seat on the Supreme Court than Judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland or Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

To be sure, Sotomayor has a compelling story: a daughter of working-class Puerto Ricans raised in Bronx public housing projects, diagnosed with diabetes at 8, losing her father at 9, accolades at Princeton and Yale Law, ending up on the federal bench.

Still, in over 10 years on the Second Circuit, she has not issued any important decisions or made a name for herself as a legal scholar or particularly respected jurist. In picking a case to highlight during his introduction of the nominee, President Obama had to go back to her days as a trial judge and a technical ruling that ended the 1994-95 baseball strike.

Moreover, Sotomayor has a mixed reputation among lawyers who have practiced before her, some questioning her abilities as a judicial craftsman, others her erratic temperament, according to a piece by Jeffrey Rosen in The New Republic, which itself has come in for criticism.

Such anecdotal criticism is to be taken with a grain of salt -- while Justice Antonin Scalia's bench-side manner is more vinegar than honey, even his detractors recognize his brilliance -- but it does need to be investigated. So, too, do certain statements she made in presentations at Berkeley and Duke, respectively, the former arguing that a Latina necessarily sees the law differently than a white man, the latter suggesting that, at least to some degree, judges make rather than interpret law.

Again, this does not mean that Sotomayor is unqualified to be a judge -- or less qualified to be a Supreme Court justice than, say, Harriet Miers. It also does not detract from the history she would make as the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee -- if you don't count Benjamin Cardozo, a descendant of Portuguese Jews. But a Supreme Court nomination is not a lifetime achievement award, and should not be treated as an opportunity to practice affirmative action.

Ironically, it is race-based employment practices of another kind that will likely get this nomination in hottest water. Sotomayor was on a panel that summarily affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by firefighters, including one Hispanic, whose promotions were denied because they would be based on a (race-neutral) exam whose results didn't yield the "right" racial mix. Curiously, the Ricci v. DeStefano appellate panel issued a cursory "unpublished" opinion that failed to grapple with the complex legal issues presented in the case.

Sotomayor's colleague José Cabranes, a liberal Democrat, excoriated the panel, without expressing a view on the merits of the case. Cabranes' dissent from the Second Circuit's decision not to rehear the case caught the Supreme Court's attention and, based on the oral argument, the court will probably reverse Sotomayor's panel when it rules on the case next month. iReport.com: Sotomayor 'the new face of America'

We are thus likely to have the unusual scenario of a Supreme Court decision having a direct personal effect on a nominee's confirmation process, which will not only force Sotomayor onto the defensive but cost the president significant political capital. It will also show that Obama's calls for "empathy," echoed by Sotomayor's citing her personal experiences as a Latina, ring hollow.

If Frank Ricci, a dyslexic fireman who sacrificed significant time and money and was denied promotion solely for his skin color, is not an empathetic figure, I'm not sure who is. And that is the larger point: A jurisprudence of empathy is the antithesis of the rule of law.

As then-Judge John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing: "If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution."

In any event, Senate Republicans will now have to decide what posture to take: combative or deferential, political or analytical. With the president still at the height of his popularity and solid Democratic control of the Senate (even without Arlen Specter and Al Franken), the GOP is unlikely to sustain a filibuster or even, unless outrage over the Ricci case grows, vote Sotomayor down. iReport.com: Sotomayor pick a 'gimmick'

What they should do instead is force a full public debate about constitutional interpretation, probing Sotomayor's judicial philosophy and refusing to accept nonresponsive answers that mouth platitudes or avoid taking firm legal positions.

Now is the time to show the American people the stark differences between the two parties on one of the few issues on which the stated Republican view continues to command strong and steady support. If the party is serious about constitutionalism and the rule of law, it should use this opportunity for education, not grandstanding.

And if Democrats insist on playing identity politics, I suggest a two-word response: Miguel Estrada, the Honduran immigrant with his own rags-to-riches story whose nomination to the D.C. Circuit Democrats successfully filibustered, effectively preventing George W. Bush from naming the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.


loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19009
  • loco like a fox
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #29 on: May 27, 2009, 07:46:14 AM »
Friday, September 5, 2003

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Miguel Estrada, nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, withdrew his name from consideration Thursday after spending more than two years in limbo amid partisan wrangling over President Bush's judicial nominations.

Estrada, 42, a Honduran immigrant, would have been the first Hispanic to sit on that court, which sometimes serves as a steppingstone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

He was nominated by Bush in May 2001, but Senate Democrats used a filibuster to block his approval
.

"I believe that the time has come to return my full attention to the practice of law and to regain the ability to make long-term plans for my family," Estrada said in a letter to Bush.

Estrada did not mention the opposition to his nomination. But Bush slammed Senate Democrats for what he described as their "disgraceful treatment" of Estrada, saying the nomination deserved an up-or-down vote.

"The treatment of this fine man is an unfortunate chapter in the Senate's history," Bush said in a written statement.

On Capitol Hill, reaction to Estrada's decision fell mostly on partisan lines.

Calling the demise of Estrada's nomination a "dark moment," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, predicted Democrats will reap a backlash from the American public for using a filibuster to kill an appeals court nomination for the first time in history.

Frist also said "all options are open" for Republicans battling two other filibusters of Bush's judicial nominees, including using parliamentary maneuvers and changing Senate rules to make breaking a filibuster easier.

But unapologetic Senate Democrats claimed victory and vowed to continue trying to block any Bush nominees who are, in the words of Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, "far beyond the mainstream."

Estrada's nomination had enough support to pass the Senate, which requires only a simple majority.

But Republicans, despite repeated tries, could not muster the 60 votes needed to block the filibuster by Democrats.

The other two other Bush nominees Senate Democrats are filibustering are Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, nominated for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, and Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, nominated for the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

One of the handful of Senate Democrats to break ranks and oppose the filibusters, Zell Miller of Georgia, said Estrada "has become the latest victim of Washington's partisan, obstructionist politics."

"All of the president's nominees to the judiciary should have an up or down vote on the Senate floor. It's that simple. Anything otherwise is un-American and un-democratic," Miller said in a statement.


Estrada, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and an assistant solicitor general during the Clinton administration, is a partner in a Washington law firm. He emigrated to the United States as a teenager.

Estrada's supporters charged that the Democrats were unfairly blocking a well-qualified candidate because of his conservative views and because they did not want to give Bush credit for nominating a Hispanic.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, accused Senate Democrats of "character assassination" and said their filibuster of the Estrada nomination amounted to a "political hate crime."

Kennedy praises 'victory'
But Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, said the withdrawal was a "a victory for the Constitution."

"It reflects a clear recognition by Miguel Estrada, and, hopefully this White House, that under the Constitution the Senate has shared power over judicial appointments," Kennedy said.

Bush had called the Democrats' action a "disgrace" and vowed to fight until Estrada won approval.

Estrada's Democratic critics said he had not answered questions about several key court cases, including some involving abortion and affirmative action.

They also objected to a decision by the White House not to provide access to documents Estrada prepared when he was assistant solicitor general.

All seven living former solicitors general, including three who served under Democratic presidents, had opposed release of the internal work documents, calling them "highly privileged."

The dispute over Estrada is part of a larger and increasingly bitter struggle over Bush's judicial nominations in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Democrats are under pressure from interest groups in their party's base to hold the line against Bush's conservative nominees.

When they controlled the Senate earlier in Bush's term, Senate Democrats could block nominations in committee. But once Republicans took control after the 2002 elections, Democrats had to resort to the filibuster, a parliamentary maneuver, to thwart Bush's nominations.

Republicans charged that tactic was an abuse of the Senate's "advice and consent" constitutional power on judicial nominations by, in effect, changing the requirement for approval to 60 votes rather than a simple majority.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/04/estrada.withdraws/

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12407
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #30 on: May 27, 2009, 08:45:04 AM »
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” - Sonia Sotomayor

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html

I hate that shit.


I love it.
!

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6366
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #31 on: May 27, 2009, 08:46:29 AM »
I thought justice was supposed to be blind.
Squishy face retard

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #32 on: May 27, 2009, 09:15:23 AM »
I love it.

You are a complete moron. 

Imagine if you are a litigant before her court and heard about these statements????

Every party before the court is entitled to a fair and impartial judge who will base the decision on the merits, not the color of the litigants.

This is a disgrace.  Of course you favor this nonsense, you think you are going to be the beneficiary of it.  But guess what, racism of this type always backfires when you find yourself on the other side of the coin.

   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #33 on: May 27, 2009, 09:18:44 AM »
I thought justice was supposed to be blind.

Only to people like you and me.  People like Benny are the biggest racists out there. 

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12407
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #34 on: May 27, 2009, 09:24:02 AM »
You are a complete moron. 



Quote
Imagine if you are a litigant before her court and heard about these statements????

Every party before the court is entitled to a fair and impartial judge who will base the decision on the merits, not the color of the litigants.
Where is the quote showing the next Supreme Court Judge would base a court decision on the color of the litigants, Archie?

Quote
This is a disgrace.  Of course you favor this nonsense, you think you are going to be the beneficiary of it.  But guess what, racism of this type always backfires when you find yourself on the other side of the coin.
You don't know what I "think I am going to be the benificiary of," shithead.  ::)
There is no judge in the history of the world that takes off their ethnicity and life experiences when they enter a courtroom.

Only to people like you and me.  People like Benny are the biggest racists out there. 
Coming from you and "Cap" I take this shit as a compliment.  ;)
!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #35 on: May 27, 2009, 09:30:20 AM »

What does any persons' life experience have to do with interpreting a law or contract?

What does her being a "latina" have anything to do with the copyright or patent case?

What does her growing up five minutes from me have to do with a bankruptcy or criminal law case? 

The law is the law.  Judges are not supposed to make decisions on their own personal views, but from what the law, precedent and former case law, the intent of the legislators, and facts present.

By the way, 60% of her decisions on the Appellate Term have been reversed by the SC.     

   

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #36 on: May 27, 2009, 09:34:54 AM »
LOL im just gonna leave it at benny your a dip shit ;)

Cap

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6366
  • Trueprotein.com 5% discount code= CSP111
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #37 on: May 27, 2009, 09:39:39 AM »
Benny, where did I call you a racist? 

I just think in an ideal world we would not have to have breaking headlines anytime some one is the first "insert category here" anything.  Until then, race will always be an issue.  I don't like what she did to the firefighters, I don't like her politics, and I don't like that she sides in the favor of ANY race rather than act in a fair just manner.  To me these factors make her a bad choice. 
Squishy face retard

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12407
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #38 on: May 27, 2009, 09:41:15 AM »
What does any persons' life experience have to do with interpreting a law or contract?

What does her being a "latina" have anything to do with the copyright or patent case?

What does her growing up five minutes from me have to do with a bankruptcy or criminal law case? 

The law is the law.  Judges are not supposed to make decisions on their own personal views, but from what the law, precedent and former case law, the intent of the legislators, and facts present.
Judges interpret the law, jackass. If you hadn't attempted to get a law degree from sending in cereal box tops you would know this.

If you don't think having nine white men did not effect the SC's opinions on slavery and Civil Rights, you have shit for brains.

If you don't think Thurgood Marshall's ethnicity did not change the perspective of the SC's views on Civil Rights, or Sandra Day O'Connor's gender did not affect issues regarding women, then you have shit for brains. Of course, that fact is pretty obvious.

Judge Sotomayor's comment, when placed in the proper context, is common sense.

Quote
By the way, 60% of her decisions on the Appellate Term have been reversed by the SC.
I don't know that your percentage is accurate. My understanding is it is 50%. Either way...nobody gives a shit. Once she is on the SC (and she will be easily confirmed), rest assured that there won't be and cannot be any reversals.  ;)

   
[/quote]
!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #39 on: May 27, 2009, 09:43:32 AM »
Your comment is a disgrace.   Why do you assume all white people think the same way on an issue???  Or black, latino, etc????

BM OUT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • Getbig!
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #40 on: May 27, 2009, 09:44:41 AM »
Judges interpret the law, jackass. If you hadn't attempted to get a law degree from sending in cereal box tops you would know this.

If you don't think having nine white men did not effect the SC's opinions on slavery and Civil Rights, you have shit for brains.

If you don't think Thurgood Marshall's ethnicity did not change the perspective of the SC's views on Civil Rights, or Sandra Day O'Connor's gender did not affect issues regarding women, then you have shit for brains. Of course, that fact is pretty obvious.

Judge Sotomayor's comment, when placed in the proper context, is common sense.
I don't know that your percentage is accurate. My understanding is it is 50%. Either way...nobody gives a shit. Once she is on the SC (and she will be easily confirmed), rest assured that there won't be and cannot be any reversals.  ;)

   


HER STATEMENT WAS A RACIST RANT.IF A WHITE MAN HAD SAID THE EXACT SAME THING HIS CAREER WOULD BE OVER!!!!!

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12407
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #41 on: May 27, 2009, 09:47:26 AM »
Your comment is a disgrace.   Why do you assume all white people think the same way on an issue???  Or black, latino, etc????
Where did I state that, dummy?
!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #42 on: May 27, 2009, 09:49:03 AM »
Where did I state that, dummy?


"If you don't think having nine white men did not effect the SC's opinions on slavery and Civil Rights, you have shit for brains."



Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12407
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #43 on: May 27, 2009, 09:49:22 AM »
HER STATEMENT WAS A RACIST RANT.IF A WHITE MAN HAD SAID THE EXACT SAME THING HIS CAREER WOULD BE OVER!!!!!


Are you listening to Rush right now to tell you how to think, "BILLY?" We all know you need your talking points straight from the fat man himself!
!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #44 on: May 27, 2009, 09:51:16 AM »
"If you don't think Thurgood Marshall's ethnicity did not change the perspective of the SC's views on Civil Rights, or Sandra Day O'Connor's gender did not affect issues regarding women, then you have shit for brains. Of course, that fact is pretty obvious."

Thats pure racial and gender stereotyping.

Benny B

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 12407
  • Ron = 'Princess L' & many other gimmicks - FACT!
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #45 on: May 27, 2009, 09:57:23 AM »
"If you don't think having nine white men did not effect the SC's opinions on slavery and Civil Rights, you have shit for brains."
You don't think having a couple of black men and women on the bench during the 1800's would have altered the perspective on the legitimacy of slavery and apartheid? You are incomprehensibly stupid.


"If you don't think Thurgood Marshall's ethnicity did not change the perspective of the SC's views on Civil Rights, or Sandra Day O'Connor's gender did not affect issues regarding women, then you have shit for brains. Of course, that fact is pretty obvious."

Thats pure racial and gender stereotyping.
No it is not. It is fact, and the court's rulings bear it out.
!

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39256
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #46 on: May 27, 2009, 09:58:25 AM »
I am not going to presume what or how people are going to think based upon their skin color. 

shootfighter1

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5681
  • Competitor- NABBA Nationals Overall Champ
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #47 on: May 27, 2009, 10:20:57 AM »
We have too much legislating from the bench and this has been a professional criticizm of Sotomayor from some collegues.

Benny, you really are a racist man...at least from your comments on this board.

shootfighter1

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5681
  • Competitor- NABBA Nationals Overall Champ
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #48 on: May 27, 2009, 10:21:35 AM »
Can someone confirm the info that 33386 posted about Sotomayor being a member of La Raza?

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7365
  • TND
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
« Reply #49 on: May 27, 2009, 05:39:47 PM »
Does anyone with even an inkling of a legal education ( which is probably a reach on getbig) have a slightly compelling argument as to why this blatantly political appointment to the bench, saddled with questionable intelligence and radical views should be nominated to the highest court in the land?

Gee- Lets appoint the most far left judge we can find- Make sure shes Spanish and a woman, so when the republicans rightly tear her to shreds, we can all call them racists and attempt to further alienate them from the young, braindead, brainwashed, minority and female voters.

The CT fire dept case holding was a poorly written and disgraceful joke of an opinion that flew in the face of more than 30 years of Supreme Court precedent. Lets also not forget, one of the firefighters who was wrongfully denied employment ( beyond the disabled white guy) was actually LATINO.

As the article above illustrates, her lone relevant ruling in the baseball strike case was the result of a technical gaffe committed by one of the litigants. Hardly compelling stuff to say the least. Do you think its an accident that 60% of her decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court?

Alberto Gonzalez was the dirt poor son of migrant workers ( yes, poorer than Sotomayor), joined the airforce, was admitted to the airforce academy where he graduated at the top of his class and went on to attend Harvard Law school. Where were the ticker tape parades and ass licking editorials when he was made AG? Another poster alluded to a Bush judicial nominee that was also of a modest Latino background that the democrats fillbusted into the ground.

Dont kid yourselves, this is a political move that has jack shit to do with picking a compatent jurist to sit atop the highest court of the land. 


 And Benny BTW- If you hadn't gotten your legal education from the back of an MC Hammer trading card, you would realize that this woman wants to MAKE law, not INTERPRET the law.

The only plus I can see in this appointment is that Sotomayor went to Cardinal Spellman in the Bx. With Scalia as an alumni from Xaiver high school in Manhattan, thats two Supreme Court justices that are alumni from NYC Catholic high schools- (I guess Im in pretty good company).