Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on May 26, 2009, 10:41:13 AM
-
Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic
By BEN FELLER and DAVID ESPO, Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama chose federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor to become the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice on Tuesday, praising her as "an inspiring woman" with both the intellect and compassion to interpret the Constitution wisely.
Obama said Sotomayor has more experience as a judge than any current member of the high court had when nominated, adding she has earned the "respect of colleagues on the bench, the admiration of many lawyers who argue cases in her court and the adoration of her clerks, who look to her as a mentor."
Standing next to Obama at the White House, Sotomayor recalled a childhood spent in a housing project in the Bronx as well as her upper-echelon legal career: "I strive never to forget the real world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses and government."
Barring the unexpected, Senate confirmation seems likely, given the large Democratic majority. If approved, she would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the current court, the third in history. She would succeed retiring Justice David Souter.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., issued a statement saying he looked forward "to working with both Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to confirm Judge Sotomayor as the first Hispanic and the third woman to sit on the court."
Senate Republicans pledged to give her a fair hearing, and some questioned whether she would base decisions on her personal feelings, rather than constitutional principles. Given her background, any effort to filibuster her nomination could carry political risks, since Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the population and an increasingly important one politically.
Sotomayor would be unlikely to alter the ideological balance of the court, since Souter generally sides with the liberals on key 5-4 rulings. But at 54, she is a generation younger that Souter, and liberal outside groups hope she will provide a counterpoint to some of the sharply worded conservative rulings.
Introducing his choice, Obama said, "Along the way, she's faced down barriers, overcome the odds and lived out the American dream that brought her parents here so long ago."
The president called on the Senate to confirm Sotomayor before the court begins its new term in October, and noted pointedly that she has already won Senate approval twice in her career. Seven of the Senate's current Republicans voted to confirm her for the appeals court in 1998.
She was nominated a federal judge by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, then elevated to the appeals court by a Democrat, Bill Clinton. Senate Republicans slow-walked her confirmation more than a decade ago, in part because she was viewed even then as a potential pick for the Supreme Court.
The White House announcement ceremony was a picture of diversity, the first black president, appointing the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, joined by Vice President Joe Biden, who is white.
Sotomayor's nomination opens a new phase in the drive to replace Souter, as liberal and conservative groups alike scour the record she has compiled in 17 years on the federal bench.
In one of her most notable decisions, as an appellate judge she sided last year with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters. The city threw out results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough. Coincidentally, that case is now before the Supreme Court.
That ruling has already drawn criticism from conservatives, and is likely to play a role in her confirmation hearing.
In one of her most memorable rulings as federal district judge, in 1995, Sotomayor ruled with Major League Baseball players over owners in a labor strike that had led to the cancellation of the World Series.
Obama referred to that in his remarks, then joked he hoped her support for the Yankees would not unduly influence New Englanders to oppose her in the Senate.
Among them is Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who said, "The American people will want the Senate to carry out its constitutional duty with conscientiousness and civility."
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, issued a statement saying it will be up to the Senate to determine "if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law, calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one's own personal preferences or political views." That harked back the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, who likened the job of a judge to that of a baseball umpire.
In his remarks, Obama made no mention of his earlier statement that he wanted a justice with empathy, although his remark that compassion was needed came close.
Sotomayor grew up in New York after her parents moved from Puerto Rico. She has dealt with diabetes since age 8 and lost her father at age 9, growing up under the care of her mother in humble surroundings. As a girl, inspired by the Perry Mason television show, she knew she wanted to be a judge. She is divorced with no children.
A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, a former prosecutor and private attorney, Sotomayor became a federal judge for the Southern District of New York in 1992. She became an appeals judge in 1998 for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers New York, Vermont and Connecticut.
At her Senate confirmation hearing more than a decade ago, she said, "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."
Obama's nomination is the first by a Democratic president in 15 years.
One conservative group did not wait for the formal announcement. Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network, issued a statement calling Sotomayor a "liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written."
Abortion rights have been a flashpoint in several recent Supreme Court confirmations, although Sotomayor has not written any controversial rulings on the subject.
As a federal appeals court judge in 2002, she ruled against an abortion rights group that had challenged a government policy prohibiting foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds from performing or supporting abortions.
In her opinion, Sotomayor wrote that the government was free to favor the anti-abortion position over a pro-choice position when public funds were involved.
Sotomayor has spoken about her pride in her ethnic background and has said that personal experiences "affect the facts that judges choose to see."
"I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging," she said in a speech in 2001. "But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
From the moment Souter announced his resignation, it was widely assumed Obama would select a woman to replace him, and perhaps a Hispanic as well.
Obama came to office at a time when several potential vacancies loomed on the high court. Justice John Paul Stevens at is 89, and Ginsburg recently underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer.
-
Not this SHIT again..the last Hispanic in america was worst than the whites...can you say Alberto Gonzalez...Ay Yi Yi and if Obama picked her expect: hasn't paid taxes in decades, pathalogical LIAR, clueless to constitution etc etc...
-
She is an anti-white racist.Not surprising a an anti-white racist picked her.
-
Obama does not play the race cards, he deals it.
Who cares what color she is??? Let her succeed on her mertis, not her color.
-
She is an anti-white racist.Not surprising a an anti-white racist picked her.
Provide PROOF of Sotomayor's "anti-white" history, otherwise this is a paranoid delusion.
Obama is anti-white? How so, "BILLY MINIMUM?"
Were these "anti-white" feelings something we can gather from Obama's childhood, when he was raised by his white mom and white grandparents?
-
Not this SHIT again..the last Hispanic in america was worst than the whites...can you say Alberto Gonzalez...Ay Yi Yi and if Obama picked her expect: hasn't paid taxes in decades, pathalogical LIAR, clueless to constitution etc etc...
You got a problem with Hispanics?
-
Back to the subject, minus the nonsense. ::)
May 27, 2009
Woman in the News
‘Kid From the Bronx’ With Hopes and Doubts
By NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON — Sonia Sotomayor, who would be the Supreme Court’s first Hispanic justice, brings to the confirmation experience the kind of rich personal story that has always been deeply gratifying to Americans, the journey from humble beginnings to a respected position of great influence.
As she was presented by President Obama at the White House on Tuesday morning, she referred to herself as “a kid from the Bronx.” But it was Mr. Obama who provided many details of her history as a child of a city housing project who lost her father at an early age and saw her mother work two jobs to put her and her brother through professional schools.
Mr. Obama said that he had wanted to select a person who had “a common touch and a sense of compassion.”
He also noted the case which brought Judge Sotomayor her greatest acclaim and fame, when in 1995 she ruled crisply against the baseball team owners and in favor of the ballplayers, a decision that ended a lengthy strike and resumed play.
The owners were trying to subvert the labor system, she said, and the strike had “placed the entire concept of collective bargaining on trial.”
Judge Sotomayor, 54, grew up in the Bronxdale Houses, the child of parents who moved to New York City from Puerto Rico during World War II.
Her father, who worked as a welder, died when she was 9, leaving her mother to raise her and her brother. In speeches to Latino groups over the years, Judge Sotomayor has spoken of how her mother worked six days a week as a nurse to send her and her brother to Catholic school, purchased the only set of encyclopedias in the neighborhood and kept a warm pot of rice and beans on the stove every day for their friends.
The young Sonia loved Nancy Drew mysteries, she once recalled, and yearned to be a police detective. But a doctor who diagnosed her childhood diabetes suggested that would be difficult. She converted her literary adoration of Nancy for an allegiance to television’s Perry Mason, she said, and decided to become a lawyer.
She has described going to Princeton University, where she graduated summa cum laude in 1976, as a life-changing experience. When she arrived on campus from the Bronx, she said it was like “a visitor landing in an alien country.” She never raised her hand in her first year there. “I was too embarrassed and too intimidated to ask questions,” Judge Sotomayor once said.
In one speech, she sounded some themes similar to Mr. Obama’s description of his social uncertainties as a biracial youth in a largely white society.
“I have spent my years since Princeton, while at law school and in my various professional jobs, not feeling completely a part of the worlds I inhabit,” she said, adding that despite her accomplishments, “I am always looking over my shoulder wondering if I measure up.”
She went to Yale Law School, worked for Robert M. Morgenthau in the Manhattan district attorney’s office and spent time in private practice before being named to the bench.
Although President Obama noted that she had first been nominated to the district court in 1992 by the first President Bush, she was actually chosen for the seat by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, who had an arrangement with his Republican counterpart, Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato, to share district court judge selections in New York. President Bush did little more than ratify the agreement.
In 1997, Republican senators held up her nomination by President Bill Clinton to the appeals court for more than a year, foreseeing that as a Hispanic appellate judge she would be a formidable candidate for the Supreme Court.
On the Circuit Court, she has been involved in few controversial issues like abortion. Some of her most notable decisions came in child custody and complex business cases. Her most high-profile case involved New Haven’s decision to toss out tests used to evaluate candidates for promotion in the fire department because there were no minority candidates at the top of the list.
She was part of a panel that rejected the challenge brought by white firefighters who scored high but were denied promotion. Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff, argued that it was unfair that he was denied promotion after he had studied intensively for the exam and even paid for special coaching to overcome his dyslexia. The three-judge opinion she joined noted that despite ruling against him, the judges had sympathy for Mr. Ricci and noted his extraordinary efforts to better himself. But the case produced a heated split in the Circuit Court, with her onetime mentor, Judge Jose Cabranes, sharply criticizing her view. The case is now before the Supreme Court and may well be a target for Republican critics during the confirmation process.
Judge Sotomayor married before she graduated from college and divorced a few years later. Her diabetes, for which she takes insulin daily, has not proved to be a problem, but some have speculated as to whether her illness could or should be an issue in terms of her projected longevity on the court, because of the potential for complications.
Some lawyers have described her courtroom manner as abrupt, but several others said in interviews that it represents nothing more than her direct, New York style. Judge Martin Glenn, who as a veteran appeals lawyer had appeared before her frequently, said that she was widely regarded as an excellent judge.
Judge Glenn, now a federal bankruptcy judge, said that Judge Sotomayor always asked “questions that were penetrating but fair.”
“She was always respectful,” he said.
Judge Glenn said lawyers generally regard her as representative of what he said is called “a hot bench,” meaning that questions come fast and furious and lawyers have to be fully prepared.
In addition to ending the baseball strike while on the trial court, Judge Sotomayor ruled in another case that homeless people working for the Grand Central Partnership, a business consortium, had to be paid the minimum wage. In May 1994, she ordered New York State prison officials to allow inmates to wear beads of the Santeria religion under their belts. And in December 1993, she struck down as unconstitutional a White Plains law that prohibited the displaying of a menorah in a city park.
After her ruling ended the baseball strike, the Yankees briefly considered having her throw out the first pitch when play resumed, but the idea was dropped after she suggested she had no interest because it would be unseemly.
-
You got a problem with Hispanics?
YES...when the U.S. picks them for government positions and they become TYRRANTS instead of working to correct the problems that exist. COndolezza and Powell are Black and DID NOTHING BUT AMPLIFY THE PROBLEMS OF AMERICA. Alberto was Hispanic and was WORST then them... he lasted what?? five minutes, before getting the boot. Obama's "choices" have been extremely poor and since he chose her it only means one thing.... (fill in the blank)
-
YES...when the U.S. picks them for government positions and they become TYRRANTS instead of working to correct the problems that exist. COndolezza and Powell are Black and DID NOTHING BUT AMPLIFY THE PROBLEMS OF AMERICA. Alberto was Hispanic and was WORST then them... he lasted what?? five minutes, before getting the boot. Obama's "choices" have been extremely poor and since he chose her it only means one thing.... (fill in the blank)
are your posts meant to be some sort of joke or weird performance art?
-
YES...when the U.S. picks them for government positions and they become TYRRANTS instead of working to correct the problems that exist. COndolezza and Powell are Black and DID NOTHING BUT AMPLIFY THE PROBLEMS OF AMERICA. Alberto was Hispanic and was WORST then them... he lasted what?? five minutes, before getting the boot. Obama's "choices" have been extremely poor and since he chose her it only means one thing.... (fill in the blank)
And the above has caused you to have a problem with Hispanics? What does this have to do with race?
-
And the above has caused you to have a problem with Hispanics? What does this have to do with race?
This is the problem when any politician plays the race card of any sense.
This pick should be done because of her judicial record, not her racial background.
-
This is the problem when any politician plays the race card of any sense.
This pick should be done because of her judicial record, not her racial background.
If the problem is that she got picked based on her race, then Samson, and anybody else for that matter, should have a problem with the person who picked her, not with her and not with Hispanics.
-
benny she wanted the case in conn. with the white firefighters who scored higher then colored firefighters but still didnt get promoted b/c the city felt it wouldnt look right with no minority promotions case dismissed...Im not saying she is racist but this case had merit.
Also obama sat in a racist church for what 20 yrs? i think thats a pretty good case to say he might have anti white feelings and ideals.
-
And the above has caused you to have a problem with Hispanics? What does this have to do with race?
You got a problem with Hispanics?
What are you a ONE TRICK PONY with this same line???
333 picked up on the obvious. Be it Hispanic or Black or Chinese or whatever...people are being picked on race as opposed to record. america has had a sordid history of choosing WHITES ONLY for government since its so called founding fathers (I wonder if whites have a problem with Hispanics Loco?? Duh). Now people of Color are being chosen in order to say "see we are not racist", sadly these choices have the same barbaric mindset that shows and reflects no difference in their mindset as opposed to the white mindset that has always been in Washington government. Powell, Condoleeza, Clarence Thomas, Eric Holder etc etc bring NOTHING TO THE TABLE that is different and as a matter of fact they are used to further the geopolitical aspirations of Kissiger, Rockefeller, the elite etc.
Obama was picked for what reason..One, it was to change the face of american leadership, two, make it appear america has dropped it racist ways, three, allow Obama to deal with Middle Eastern and African countries fouly without the negetivety that white presidents presented over history (remember how the whole world cheered when Obama won..the world thought it was getting a different mindset/person in Washington...the world knows better now), and most importantly TO PACIFY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC...whites can not complain for fear of being called racist...Blacks can not complain without hearing "well, you wanted a Black president so deal with it".
Obama comes bearing the SAME VILE MINDSET SET AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA AND THE WORLD JUST AS FORMER U.S. PRESIDENTS HAVE. He is like a TROJAN HORSE...appearing safe/nice but filled with trouble...and likewise his choices reflect the same.
-
What are you a ONE TRICK PONY with this same line???
333 picked up on the obvious. Be it Hispanic or Black or Chinese or whatever...people are being picked on race as opposed to record. america has had a sordid history of choosing WHITES ONLY for government since its so called founding fathers (I wonder if whites have a problem with Hispanics Loco?? Duh). Now people of Color are being chosen in order to say "see we are not racist", sadly these choices have the same barbaric mindset that shows and reflects no difference in their mindset as opposed to the white mindset that has always been in Washington government. Powell, Condoleeza, Clarence Thomas, Eric Holder etc etc bring NOTHING TO THE TABLE that is different and as a matter of fact they are used to further the geopolitical aspirations of Kissiger, Rockefeller, the elite etc.
Obama was picked for what reason..One, it was to change the face of american leadership, two, make it appear america has dropped it racist ways, three, allow Obama to deal with Middle Eastern and African countries fouly without the negetivety that white presidents presented over history (remember how the whole world cheered when Obama won..the world thought it was getting a different mindset/person in Washington...the world knows better now), and most importantly TO PACIFY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC...whites can not complain for fear of being called racist...Blacks can not complain without hearing "well, you wanted a Black president so deal with it".
Obama comes bearing the SAME VILE MINDSET SET AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA AND THE WORLD JUST AS FORMER U.S. PRESIDENTS HAVE. He is like a TROJAN HORSE...appearing safe/nice but filled with trouble...and likewise his choices reflect the same.
I asked you and you said Yes.
What are you a racist? You hate Hispanics, whites, Jews, blacks and anybody who doesn't look exactly like you?
-
I asked you and you said Yes.
What are you a racist? You hate Hispanics, whites, Jews, blacks and anybody who doesn't look exactly like you?
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH..tr y reading my original answer again...and please don't pull the SNIPPET crap again
-
Who cares what color she is??? Let her succeed on her mertis, not her color.
+1
-
Who cares what color she is??? Let her succeed on her mertis, not her color.
++
-
benny she wanted the case in conn. with the white firefighters who scored higher then colored firefighters but still didnt get promoted b/c the city felt it wouldnt look right with no minority promotions case dismissed...Im not saying she is racist but this case had merit.
Judge Sotomayor upheld previous judicial precedent in that case. As a right wing nutjob, you cannot have it both ways when you state you do not want "activist judges" yet knock a judge for maintaining an existing ruling.
Also obama sat in a racist church for what 20 yrs? i think thats a pretty good case to say he might have anti white feelings and ideals.
This was discussed ad nauseum in last years' election and the majority of Americans concluded otherwise many months prior to the election. ;) Were you sleeping, Tony McNuts? :-\
However, feel free to believe anyone who is not white and believes in a progressive political agenda is "anti-white" if it suits you. It's going to be a rough four years for ya.
-
Judge Sotomayor upheld previous judicial precedent in that case. As a right wing nutjob, you cannot have it both ways when you state you do not want "activist judges" yet knock a judge for maintaining an existing ruling.
This was discussed ad nauseum in last years' election and the majority of Americans concluded otherwise many months prior to the election. ;) Were you sleeping, Tony McNuts? :-\
However, feel free to believe anyone who is not white and believes in a progressive political agenda is "anti-white" if it suits you. It's going to be a rough four years for ya.
what existing ruling was that?
so you think that a pastor blaming white america and the government for creating aids to target the black community is progressive? hahahahahahah
-
It will be humorous to see the repubes spend the summer bashing a woman who happens to be part of the nation's fastest growing ethnic voting bloc. :D
Introducing Judge Sonia Sotomayor:
Judge Sotomayor has made the American dream her own.
Born and raised in a South Bronx public housing project to Puerto Rican parents, Sotomayor has distinguished herself in academia, as a big-city prosecutor, and as a leading figure on the federal bench. If confirmed, Judge Sotomayor would start with more federal judicial experience than any new Justice in 100 years.
First appointed to the Federal District Court by President George H.W. Bush, and then elevated to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by President Bill Clinton, Judge Sotomayor is widely admired as one the finest legal minds in America today. As a trail-blazing Latina whose career has spanned nearly every aspect of the law, Judge Sotomayor will show fidelity to the Constitution while bringing to the Court a common sense understanding of how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives.
-
what existing ruling was that?
so you think that a pastor blaming white america and the government for creating aids to target the black community is progressive? hahahahahahah
bump for a response...
-
Provide PROOF of Sotomayor's "anti-white" history, otherwise this is a paranoid delusion.
Obama is anti-white? How so, "BILLY MINIMUM?"
Were these "anti-white" feelings something we can gather from Obama's childhood, when he was raised by his white mom and white grandparents?
Didn't she affirm a fire department throwing out a promotion test because the black candidates did not do well on it and the whites did? That's discrimination against whites if I ever heard it.
Her ethnicity might become an issue based on her comments that she would be a better judge than a white man because of her experiences as a Latino woman. Does that mean her jaded life of growing up rough will make her more likely to feel for the douchebags in society? I think she has a chip on her shoulder, but I don't know much about her yet.
It's true Barry was raised by his grandparents, who were white, so I don't know if he outright hates white people but his association with black radicals makes me think he has some prejudicial leanings. His wife has confirmed her hatred for America until hubby Barry won the presidency and she also has made negative comments about whites, something a white president could never do about blacks.
Buuuuttttt, back to this judge. She is more liberal than Souter and she will piss businesses off, and likely make piss poor decisions on social issues.
-
what existing ruling was that?
Do your homework kid, or don't waste my time. >:(
so you think that a pastor blaming white america and the government for creating aids to target the black community is progressive? hahahahahahah
The progressive I was referring to was Obama, dummy. I keep asking you to make reading comprehension your friend, yet you continue to wallow in stupidity. :(
Your laughter rings hollow in light of the fact that Obama is your president, and nobody gives a shit about your prattle about Obama's former church. Keep regurgitating lines that have already failed, "Tony." It's quite amusing. ;D
Don't worry too much though, kid. You'll have several years to cry yourself to sleep over Obama's presidency, and a good 25 years or so to complain about soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor and her "anti-whiteness." ;D
-
“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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/
-
“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.
-
I thought justice was supposed to be blind.
-
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.
-
I thought justice was supposed to be blind.
Only to people like you and me. People like Benny are the biggest racists out there.
-
You are a complete moron.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1WaO1OGuwzI/SKlR0ILH2pI/AAAAAAAADlo/k7RE411W_Qg/s400/pot-kettle-black.jpg)
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?
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. ;)
-
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.
-
LOL im just gonna leave it at benny your a dip shit ;)
-
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.
-
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.
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]
-
Your comment is a disgrace. Why do you assume all white people think the same way on an issue??? Or black, latino, etc????
-
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!!!!!
-
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?
-
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."
-
HER STATEMENT WAS A RACIST RANT.IF A WHITE MAN HAD SAID THE EXACT SAME THING HIS CAREER WOULD BE OVER!!!!!
(http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/denial-and-the-coming-data-meltdown.jpg)
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!
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
I am not going to presume what or how people are going to think based upon their skin color.
-
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.
-
Can someone confirm the info that 33386 posted about Sotomayor being a member of La Raza?
-
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).
-
are your posts meant to be some sort of joke or weird performance art?
hahaha, I think so... Can can anyone take him serious? Albert G. was bad so all hispanics are bad... WTF lol...
-
hahaha, I think so... Can can anyone take him serious? Albert G. was bad so all hispanics are bad... WTF lol...
Just more focusing on minutia...
-
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).
Where did you go? I remember the CHSAA track meets at Iona and Randalls Island.
-
St. Francis- The first school in NYC where the swine flu epidemic hit
-
Didn't she affirm a fire department throwing out a promotion test because the black candidates did not do well on it and the whites did? That's discrimination against whites if I ever heard it.
Her ethnicity might become an issue based on her comments that she would be a better judge than a white man because of her experiences as a Latino woman. Does that mean her jaded life of growing up rough will make her more likely to feel for the douchebags in society? I think she has a chip on her shoulder, but I don't know much about her yet.
It's true Barry was raised by his grandparents, who were white, so I don't know if he outright hates white people but his association with black radicals makes me think he has some prejudicial leanings. His wife has confirmed her hatred for America until hubby Barry won the presidency and she also has made negative comments about whites, something a white president could never do about blacks.
Buuuuttttt, back to this judge. She is more liberal than Souter and she will piss businesses off, and likely make piss poor decisions on social issues.
How did her comments reveal hatred for America. Her comments seemed remarkably tame, ...especially when juxtaposed next to Jesse Ventura's recent statements. Using your scale, ...there's a man who truly HATES America, ...so much so, he can't wait to get the hell out and live in Mexico half the year. Why aren't you busting his balls?
-
I am not going to presume what or how people are going to think based upon their skin color.
Base it on their experience then. These experiences inform their opinions & perspectives.
Unfortunately, all too often in America, one's experience can be affected by both their colour, and their ethnicity.
-
How did her comments reveal hatred for America. Her comments seemed remarkably tame, ...especially when juxtaposed next to Jesse Ventura's recent statements. Using your scale, ...there's a man who truly HATES America, ...so much so, he can't wait to get the hell out and live in Mexico half the year. Why aren't you busting his balls?
He's a nutjob who most people don't take seriously. I don't agree with most of what he says and frankly he should keep his mouth shut about what the government does in some respects, especially with regards to the CIA. I don't like that Jesse Ventura needs to boast about being a SEAL all the time. SEALs do like to brag but not nearly as much as Ventura does.
The difference between the two is that he was a governor of a state people could care less about, a minstrel show at best. When you compare him to the first lady, her comments are a lot more scary and offensive.
-
He's a nutjob who most people don't take seriously.
Enough people took him seriously in Minnesota to enable him as an Independant to beat Dem & Repub candidates
I don't agree with most of what he says and frankly he should keep his mouth shut about what the government does in some respects, especially with regards to the CIA. I don't like that Jesse Ventura needs to boast about being a SEAL all the time. SEALs do like to brag but not nearly as much as Ventura does.
The difference between the two is that he was a governor of a state people could care less about, a minstrel show at best. When you compare him to the first lady, her comments are a lot more scary and offensive.
"For the 1st time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country" - Michelle Obama
-or-
"I'm ashamed of my country" - Jesse Ventura
Which comment sounds like it is expressing praise for a country, ...and which one expresses hatred & censure?
You have a woman praising Americans for recognizing & acknowledging how special her husband is,
...and you have a former Navy Seal publicly saying he wants to torture (waterboard) the former Vice President.... torture him until he confesses to the Tate murders, ...and you think HER comments are scarier? ???
You're such a little pinocchio face. :P {lol} I hope you're not sitting directly in front of your monitor right now.
-
Enough people took him seriously in Minnesota to enable him as an Independant to beat Dem & Repub candidates
"For the 1st time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country" - Michelle Obama
-or-
"I'm ashamed of my country" - Jesse Ventura
Which comment sounds like it is expressing praise for a country, ...and which one expresses hatred & censure?
You have a woman praising Americans for recognizing & acknowledging how special her husband is,
...and you have a former Navy Seal publicly saying he wants to torture (waterboard) the former Vice President.... torture him until he confesses to the Tate murders, ...and you think HER comments are scarier? ???
You're such a little pinocchio face. :P {lol} I hope you're not sitting directly in front of your monitor right now.
First lady or governor? I'd say First lady is more important. Due to the fact that Ventura is a cook who is known for saying stupid things, the waterboarding comment is laughable. I think the guy is an idiot and should keep his mouth shut about "SEAL this" and "SEAL that". He likes the spot light and likes attention. It's funny he makes comments about torture when the SOF force he belonged to committed thousands of murders in Vietnam.
Michelle is saying that prior to her mulatto husband being elected president she was not proud of her country because there was not a man with any "black blood" running through his veins sitting in the Oval Office. yes, I think those comments are stupid and offensive. As if to say this country wasn't good until Barry got into office.
By the way, the term "SEAL" should be all caps.
-
First lady or governor? I'd say First lady is more important. Due to the fact that Ventura is a cook who is known for saying stupid things, the waterboarding comment is laughable. I think the guy is an idiot and should keep his mouth shut about "SEAL this" and "SEAL that". He likes the spot light and likes attention. It's funny he makes comments about torture when the SOF force he belonged to committed thousands of murders in Vietnam.
Michelle is saying that prior to her mulatto husband being elected president she was not proud of her country because there was not a man with any "black blood" running through his veins sitting in the Oval Office. yes, I think those comments are stupid and offensive. As if to say this country wasn't good until Barry got into office.
By the way, the term "SEAL" should be all caps.
No, Michelle was saying this due to the nations long history of marginalyzing & overlooking qualified Blacks for no other reason than the color of their skin. When she observes her fellow country men putting aside their bigotry to do the right thing, ...she feels she has every reason to be proud. Don't you feel proud of your country when they do the right thing?
Jesse's statement on the other hand isn't one expressing pride, ...he's flat out stating he is ashamed.
Not only is he ashamed, ...but he wants to torture the former Vice President into extracting a murder confession.
With his heart condition, ...do you think Cheney would last an hour? Jesse Ventura wants to kill the former VP and you're fine with that? :o :o ...but it's not ok for the soon-to-be First Lady to feel proud of her country? :-\
-
Jaguar with yet another irrelevant detour to hijack a once vibrant thread.
Who gives a shit about Michelle Obama and a former WWF wrestler? This is a topic about a Supreme Court apointee.
Cap is 100% right in his assessment of Sodamayor
-
No, Michelle was saying this due to the nations long history of marginalyzing & overlooking qualified Blacks for no other reason than the color of their skin. When she observes her fellow country men putting aside their bigotry to do the right thing, ...she feels she has every reason to be proud. Don't you feel proud of your country when they do the right thing?
Jesse's statement on the other hand isn't one expressing pride, ...he's flat out stating he is ashamed.
Not only is he ashamed, ...but he wants to torture the former Vice President into extracting a murder confession.
With his heart condition, ...do you think Cheney would last an hour? Jesse Ventura wants to kill the former VP and you're fine with that? :o :o ...but it's not ok for the soon-to-be First Lady to feel proud of her country? :-\
To do the right thing? So you admit that Barry was is the token mulatto president? It was the right thing to vote in a mulatto just to prove a majority of the country is not bigoted? He was not the most qualified person with black genes that has run for the office. He ran at a time where people did not like Bush and he jumped in. If he didn't win despite the hatred for Bush then people would have looked like racists. I would have been more okay with Hilary than Barry, simply because shes more qualified and would have likely carried out the office like her husband.
The right thing? I really can't believe you made that statement. Even though he supported Barry recently, I would have voted for Powell if he ran on the Republican ticket in 2008. Why? Because he's qualified, intelligent and experienced. Barry has one of those three qualities.
-
obama is the same as bush
-
Ken Starr Backs Sotomayor
By Jerry Markon
Kenneth W. Starr – investigator of President Bill Clinton and longtime pillar of the conservative legal establishment – has endorsed President Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court.
During a question-and-answer session after a speech Thursday in Los Angeles, Starr said he “supported the nomination” of Sonia Sotomayor to the high court, according to a statement issued by Starr’s office at Pepperdine University Law School, where he is Dean.
Starr told the gathering at Loyola Law School that he “thinks very well” of Sotomayor, whose nomination has triggered strong opposition from conservative groups.
The statement added that Starr still wants “a variety of issues” explored at Sotomayor’s Senate confirmation hearings, including her controversial remark in 2001 that she hoped a “wise Latina woman” would tend to decide cases better than a white male.
Starr, the deeply religious son of a San Antonio minister, is a former Republican-appointed federal appeals court judge and U.S. solicitor general. He is best known, of course, for his role as independent counsel investigating Whitewater and Clinton’s relationship with White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky, which led to the president’s impeachment.
Starr’s affinity for Sotomayor may surprise his former colleagues on the political right, including former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who is a key organizer of the opposition to Sotomayor. Meese and Starr served together in the Reagan administration, where Starr was a top Justice Department official.
-
She is a liar and scam artist.
-
She is a liar and scam artist.
This is pretty disturbing. I'd like to know where she got the 100,000 number from.
-
-
-
Report: Sonia Sotomayor Still Working Remotely Because Neil Gorsuch Won’t Wear Mask in Court
Breitbart ^ | 01/18/2022 | Joel B Pollack
Posted on 1/18/2022, 2:06:30 PM by
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor will continue to work remotely instead of appearing in person at the U.S. Supreme Court because fellow Justice Neil Gorsuch refuses to wear a mask in court, according to a report by National Public Radio.
NPR reported Tuesday that the justices were like a “dysfunctional family”:
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
-
Report: Sonia Sotomayor Still Working Remotely Because Neil Gorsuch Won’t Wear Mask in Court
Breitbart ^ | 01/18/2022 | Joel B Pollack
Posted on 1/18/2022, 2:06:30 PM by
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor will continue to work remotely instead of appearing in person at the U.S. Supreme Court because fellow Justice Neil Gorsuch refuses to wear a mask in court, according to a report by National Public Radio.
NPR reported Tuesday that the justices were like a “dysfunctional family”:
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/04e1b29568232de853454e15b8c3bc5c/tenor.gif?itemid=14956105)
-
Report: Sonia Sotomayor Still Working Remotely Because Neil Gorsuch Won’t Wear Mask in Court
Breitbart ^ | 01/18/2022 | Joel B Pollack
Posted on 1/18/2022, 2:06:30 PM by
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor will continue to work remotely instead of appearing in person at the U.S. Supreme Court because fellow Justice Neil Gorsuch refuses to wear a mask in court, according to a report by National Public Radio.
NPR reported Tuesday that the justices were like a “dysfunctional family”:
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Obese and diabetic, she's doing what someone like her should be doing - allowing the rest of the world to function.
-
Obese and diabetic, she's doing what someone like her should be doing - allowing the rest of the world to function.
Eats too much Taco Bell.
-
Report: Sonia Sotomayor Still Working Remotely Because Neil Gorsuch Won’t Wear Mask in Court
Breitbart ^ | 01/18/2022 | Joel B Pollack
Posted on 1/18/2022, 2:06:30 PM by
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor will continue to work remotely instead of appearing in person at the U.S. Supreme Court because fellow Justice Neil Gorsuch refuses to wear a mask in court, according to a report by National Public Radio.
NPR reported Tuesday that the justices were like a “dysfunctional family”:
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
They are both fully vaccinated so he doesn't need to wear a mask, particularly if it's a cloth mask that doesn't work. But they are both acting like little kids.
-
LMFAO! Stop binging on taco bell you land whale!
Media Meltdown Over Justice Sotomayor's Failure to Cope with the Risk of Living with Covid
PJ Media ^ | 01/20/2022 | Megan Fox
Posted on 1/19/2022, 11:22:10 AM
The usual sources of outrage are all atwitter over the fact that Justice Sotomayor isn’t a queen with the authority to demand that other justices wear face gags at her behest. Apparently, the overweight and diabetic Sotomayor wants everyone around her to take extra precautions to care for her after she didn’t care for herself, which puts her in a higher risk category for COVID complications. While her Type 1 diabetes was not avoidable, Sotomayor’s weight problem is surely manageable through diet and exercise. She isn’t hiring a personal trainer or going on a diet; oh no, that would require personal responsibility. Instead, she is demanding that everyone around her wear masks or she will stay in her office and zoom into hearings.
What a perfect solution! That’s where she should stay.
Nina Totenberg reports that (1) the Chief Justice asked his colleagues to mask up out of respect for Sotomayor’s health concerns, (2) only Gorsuch refused, and (3) his refusal forced Sotomayor to participate in arguments and conference remotely.
https://t.co/DmsQV8j7Wz pic.twitter.com/7JG5hMN0q7
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) January 18, 2022
Anyone at this point, when there are vaccines and therapeutics available to deal with COVID, who is still demanding that you do something to keep them safe should be given a hard “no.” Justice Gorsuch has done just that and is refusing to wear a mask. Good. Let the hypochondriacs live a life confined inside, alone, separated from all society, and ordering from Grubhub. The rest of us have things to do.
Life is risk, your highness.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
-
He's a monster!
(https://www.picgifs.com/reaction-gifs/reaction-gifs/lol-laughing/lol066.gif)
-
Liberal SCOTUS Justice Took $3M From Book Publisher, Didn’t Recuse From Its Cases
The Daily Wire ^ | May 3, 2023 | Luke Rosiak
Posted on 5/5/2023, 9:49:01 AM by Twotone
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to recuse herself from multiple copyright infringement cases involving book publisher Penguin Random House despite having been paid millions by the firm for her books, making it by far her largest source of income, records show.
In 2010, she got a $1.2 million book advance from Knopf Doubleday Group, a part of the conglomerate. In 2012, she reported receiving two advance payments from the publisher totaling $1.9 million.
In 2013, Sotomayor voted in a decision for whether the court should hear a case against the publisher called Aaron Greenspan v. Random House. Greenspan was a Harvard classmate of Mark Zuckerberg’s who wrote a book about the founding of Facebook and contended that Random House rejected his book proposal and then awarded a deal to another author who copied his book and eventually turned it into the movie The Social Network.
In 2017, Sotomayor began receiving payments each year from Penguin Random House itself, which continued annually through at least 2021, the most recent disclosure available, and totaled more than $500,000. In all, she received $3.6 million from Penguin Random House or its subsidiaries, according to a Daily Wire tally of financial disclosures.
In October 2019, children’s author Jennie Nicassio petitioned the Supreme Court to hear her lawsuit against Penguin Random House alleging that the book publisher had copied her book by selling one that was nearly identical. On the same day that the petition was distributed to the justices, Sotomayor received a $10,586 check from the publisher.
On February 24, 2020, the Supreme Court voted not to hear the case, denying the “writ of certiorari” and meaning that the case would remain where it left off — with a circuit court having found in the publisher’s favor. Sotomayor’s next check, coming in May of that year, was her largest ever from the parent company, at $82,807.
The Supreme Court does not reveal how individual justices vote when it comes to “cert,” but it does note when they recuse, which Sotomayor did not.
Fellow then-justice Stephen Breyer, by contrast, did recuse from the 2013 and 2020 Penguin cases. His wife is related to the family that founded a company, Pearson, which owned a stake in the publisher, and the couple held stock in Pearson: $1 million to $5 million in 2013, shrinking to $100,000 to $250,000 by 2020. Breyer also wrote books for the publisher, though he earned a much smaller amount than Sotomayor.
Sotomayor’s Penguin Random House money dwarfed the pay that she received from the court and made up all of her reported outside earned income, with the exception of $6,000 in payments from groups — some of which related to her book — and a $5,000 “option fee,” which typically relates to books, according to the disclosures. The publisher also footed the bill for her to speak to various groups. Breyer, by contrast, would typically have those groups foot the bill.
Lawyers for Nicassio made a compelling argument that her case was worthy of being taken up by the Supreme Court. Nicassio wrote a book called “Rocky” which “tells the story of a little evergreen tree named Rocky who dreams of becoming the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree and embarks on an adventure toward that goal” against all adversity, getting advice from a mentor and facing attack by other plants, they wrote. Penguin Random House then published a book called “Albert” in which all of the same occurs, with the name of the Christmas tree changed. The lawyers said “Albert” even lifted key pieces of language from “Rocky,” and that the publisher had legally conceded that the work was copied.
The lawyers said that the Third Circuit found against Nicassio anyway because of a rule used in a handful of circuits in which a work is not considered wrongfully copied if similar elements would “naturally flow” from a “simplified version of the original plot.” In other words, taking for granted that there is a puny evergreen that wants to become the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree, it would not be surprising that multiple authors would each imagine the tree facing adversity — setting aside the obvious similarities of the premise itself.
The rule tightly construing what constitutes copyright infringement created a problem that was ripe for resolution by the Supreme Court, the lawyers argued, because the rule used by the Third Circuit was “radically different” from the one used by other circuits. “In the majority of the Circuits, the opposite outcome would have occurred,” they wrote. A Supreme Court ruling would serve to unify the understanding of the law.
Penguin Random House and Viacom — which was also sued by the author because “Albert” was also made into a movie, meaning others seemingly took Nicassio’s idea and then made far more money off of it than she did — did not file any motion in response to the petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case.
The case being heard by the high court would be of significant concern to publishers because it could set a precedent that could open the floodgates to many other copyright infringement suits against them.
The Supreme Court did not return a request for comment.
Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009, is a prolific author, pumping out the memoir “My Beloved World” and children’s books such as “Turning Pages: My Life Story;” “A Judge Grows In the Bronx;” “Just Ask! Be Different, Be Brave, Be You.” Her latest, “Just Help! How to Build a Better World,” was published in 2022, after the most recent financial disclosure, by a Penguin Books imprint.
The findings come amidst a seemingly coordinated push in the media accusing a slew of conservative justices of misconduct related to their financial disclosures, such as Justice Clarence Thomas taking trips financed by a wealthy conservative friend. Fix The Court, a nonpartisan group that has long watchdogged Supreme Court finances and which compiled some of the financial disclosures used in The Daily Wire’s analysis, pointed out that Sotomayor failed to disclose six trips in 2016 funded by outside groups, before later correcting her disclosures.
Fix The Court has criticized the conservative justices on financial disclosures more than anyone has, but even it said that media had overreacted with stories about right-leaning justices this month, calling an issue with Justice Neil Gorsuch selling a house misleading and saying breathless findings about Chief Justice John Roberts’ wife working as a legal recruiter “much ado about nothing.”
-
Liberal SCOTUS Justice Took $3M From Book Publisher, Didn’t Recuse From Its Cases
The Daily Wire ^ | May 3, 2023 | Luke Rosiak
Posted on 5/5/2023, 9:49:01 AM by Twotone
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to recuse herself from multiple copyright infringement cases involving book publisher Penguin Random House despite having been paid millions by the firm for her books, making it by far her largest source of income, records show.
In 2010, she got a $1.2 million book advance from Knopf Doubleday Group, a part of the conglomerate. In 2012, she reported receiving two advance payments from the publisher totaling $1.9 million.
In 2013, Sotomayor voted in a decision for whether the court should hear a case against the publisher called Aaron Greenspan v. Random House. Greenspan was a Harvard classmate of Mark Zuckerberg’s who wrote a book about the founding of Facebook and contended that Random House rejected his book proposal and then awarded a deal to another author who copied his book and eventually turned it into the movie The Social Network.
In 2017, Sotomayor began receiving payments each year from Penguin Random House itself, which continued annually through at least 2021, the most recent disclosure available, and totaled more than $500,000. In all, she received $3.6 million from Penguin Random House or its subsidiaries, according to a Daily Wire tally of financial disclosures.
In October 2019, children’s author Jennie Nicassio petitioned the Supreme Court to hear her lawsuit against Penguin Random House alleging that the book publisher had copied her book by selling one that was nearly identical. On the same day that the petition was distributed to the justices, Sotomayor received a $10,586 check from the publisher.
On February 24, 2020, the Supreme Court voted not to hear the case, denying the “writ of certiorari” and meaning that the case would remain where it left off — with a circuit court having found in the publisher’s favor. Sotomayor’s next check, coming in May of that year, was her largest ever from the parent company, at $82,807.
The Supreme Court does not reveal how individual justices vote when it comes to “cert,” but it does note when they recuse, which Sotomayor did not.
Fellow then-justice Stephen Breyer, by contrast, did recuse from the 2013 and 2020 Penguin cases. His wife is related to the family that founded a company, Pearson, which owned a stake in the publisher, and the couple held stock in Pearson: $1 million to $5 million in 2013, shrinking to $100,000 to $250,000 by 2020. Breyer also wrote books for the publisher, though he earned a much smaller amount than Sotomayor.
Sotomayor’s Penguin Random House money dwarfed the pay that she received from the court and made up all of her reported outside earned income, with the exception of $6,000 in payments from groups — some of which related to her book — and a $5,000 “option fee,” which typically relates to books, according to the disclosures. The publisher also footed the bill for her to speak to various groups. Breyer, by contrast, would typically have those groups foot the bill.
Lawyers for Nicassio made a compelling argument that her case was worthy of being taken up by the Supreme Court. Nicassio wrote a book called “Rocky” which “tells the story of a little evergreen tree named Rocky who dreams of becoming the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree and embarks on an adventure toward that goal” against all adversity, getting advice from a mentor and facing attack by other plants, they wrote. Penguin Random House then published a book called “Albert” in which all of the same occurs, with the name of the Christmas tree changed. The lawyers said “Albert” even lifted key pieces of language from “Rocky,” and that the publisher had legally conceded that the work was copied.
The lawyers said that the Third Circuit found against Nicassio anyway because of a rule used in a handful of circuits in which a work is not considered wrongfully copied if similar elements would “naturally flow” from a “simplified version of the original plot.” In other words, taking for granted that there is a puny evergreen that wants to become the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree, it would not be surprising that multiple authors would each imagine the tree facing adversity — setting aside the obvious similarities of the premise itself.
The rule tightly construing what constitutes copyright infringement created a problem that was ripe for resolution by the Supreme Court, the lawyers argued, because the rule used by the Third Circuit was “radically different” from the one used by other circuits. “In the majority of the Circuits, the opposite outcome would have occurred,” they wrote. A Supreme Court ruling would serve to unify the understanding of the law.
Penguin Random House and Viacom — which was also sued by the author because “Albert” was also made into a movie, meaning others seemingly took Nicassio’s idea and then made far more money off of it than she did — did not file any motion in response to the petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case.
The case being heard by the high court would be of significant concern to publishers because it could set a precedent that could open the floodgates to many other copyright infringement suits against them.
The Supreme Court did not return a request for comment.
Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009, is a prolific author, pumping out the memoir “My Beloved World” and children’s books such as “Turning Pages: My Life Story;” “A Judge Grows In the Bronx;” “Just Ask! Be Different, Be Brave, Be You.” Her latest, “Just Help! How to Build a Better World,” was published in 2022, after the most recent financial disclosure, by a Penguin Books imprint.
The findings come amidst a seemingly coordinated push in the media accusing a slew of conservative justices of misconduct related to their financial disclosures, such as Justice Clarence Thomas taking trips financed by a wealthy conservative friend. Fix The Court, a nonpartisan group that has long watchdogged Supreme Court finances and which compiled some of the financial disclosures used in The Daily Wire’s analysis, pointed out that Sotomayor failed to disclose six trips in 2016 funded by outside groups, before later correcting her disclosures.
Fix The Court has criticized the conservative justices on financial disclosures more than anyone has, but even it said that media had overreacted with stories about right-leaning justices this month, calling an issue with Justice Neil Gorsuch selling a house misleading and saying breathless findings about Chief Justice John Roberts’ wife working as a legal recruiter “much ado about nothing.”
I'm sure the media and members of Congress will be all over this.
-
I'm sure the media and members of Congress will be all over this.
Sure, and violent protesters will be outside her house day and night.
-
Smells fishy.