Utopia Talk / Politics / High Marks For Sotomayor

President Bush Member	Wed Jul 15 02:31:51 Poor HR. High marks for Sotomayor after tough questioning WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sonia Sotomayor faced tough questioning Tuesday on political issues and controversial statements from her past, with both Democrats and Republicans saying she responded well and appeared certain to win confirmation as the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice. Sonia Sotomayor speaks before the Senate Judiciary Committe on Tuesday, the second day of her hearings. more photos » The 55-year-old federal appeals judge conceded she made a bad play on words in saying in 2001 that a "wise Latina woman" could reach a better conclusion than a white man. Otherwise, her calm answers to questions by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a wide range of issues -- abortion, gun control, presidential powers, the death penalty -- displayed a command of legal concepts that impressed her harshest interrogators. "She's doing okay," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said during an afternoon break. Sotomayor was "very reasoned and measured and seems to have a good understanding of the law," he said. Democrats on the committee praised her performance, with Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont saying he expected her to win approval with support from members of both parties. In particular, they praised her temperament -- which Graham had questioned due to criticism by some lawyers that she was bullying on the appellate bench. Watch Sotomayor talk about the comment » "I don't think she showed the least difficulty with her temperament or with her capacity to remember and answer complex questions," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island. "I thought it was a bravura performance, both in her intellect and her temperament [which] showed somebody who I could very readily see sitting behind that high bench on the Supreme Court." Don't Miss Sotomayor was schoolgirl with focus, friends say Sotomayor pledges 'fidelity to the law' Poll: Nearly half support Sotomayor's confirmation Analysis: What effect would Sotomayor have? In Depth: The Sotomayor hearings Sotomayor faced direct questioning for the first time on the second day of the committee's hearing, Tuesday. If approved by the panel and confirmed by the full Senate, she would be the 111th person to sit on the nation's highest court and it's third female justice. She gave careful answers on two politically sensitive issues -- abortion and gun control -- saying the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion ruling was settled law, and that she supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Sotomayor also said it is up to Congress and not the courts to determine the need for affirmative action measures to protect minority rights. The only time she seemed ruffled was under persistent questioning by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who peppered her about her reasoning in a Second Amendment case in New York. Sotomayor leaned forward during the exchange and answered more quickly, a shift from her focused but calm demeanor with other responses. iReport.com: Share your thoughts on the Sotomayor hearings Leahy gave Sotomayor the opportunity to comment on criticism over her past statements that she hoped "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." "No words I have ever spoken or written have received so much attention," Sotomayor said of the statement from speeches to law students, particularly Hispanic students. "I want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," she said. Watch Sotomayor comment on the New Haven case » Pushed by Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the committee's ranking Republican, on what she meant, Sotomayor responded she did a bad job of trying to express a similar opinion as former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- the first woman on the nation's highest court -- that "both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges." Sotomayor said she knew that O'Connor wasn't commenting on the ability of men or women to make wiser decisions. Judges disagree all the time, she said, but that doesn't mean that one is necessarily wiser than another. "I was trying to play on her words," she said. "My play fell flat. It was bad." Sessions responded that he remained troubled that she repeated the statement several times in other speeches, while Graham later advised against her becoming a speechwriter "if this judge-thing doesn't work out here." See what a former Supreme Court nominee has to say about Sotomayor » On another controversial comment -- a 2005 remark at Duke University that the Court of Appeals is where "policy is made [and] where ... the law is percolating," Sotomayor said her words have been taken out of context. Shown in proper context, she argued Tuesday, her statement "made very clear that I wasn't talking about the policy reflected in the law that Congress makes." She was, she claimed, merely focusing on the fact that appellate judges establish precedent. They decide what the law means in certain circumstances, and those decisions "can be binding," she said. Sotomayor repeated several times that her record in 17 years as a federal judge shows she fully believes "that judges must apply the law and not make the law." Watch Sotomayor talk about fundamental rights » In every case, she said, "I have done what the law requires," adding that personal biases and prejudices of a judge should not impact a case. However, "life experiences have to influence you," she said. Judges have to recognize their feelings and then "set them aside," she said. Conservative Republicans asked Sotomayor about her stance on hot-button topics, expressing fears she would be an activist judge for liberal causes. "A lot of us are concerned that unelected judges are very quick to change society, and that's disturbing," Graham said. Watch a report on the role race can play in Supreme Court nominations » Asked about gun control, Sotomayor said she recognizes an individual right to bear arms as recently identified by the Supreme Court. "I have friends who hunt" and "understand fully" the Second Amendment right identified in the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, she said. The recent Supreme Court 5-4 ruling concluded that a sweeping handgun ban in the nation's capital violated Americans' constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." On abortion, Sotomayor called the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade a matter of settled law. While refusing to offer her personal view of the decision, she noted that the core holding in Roe was reaffirmed in the 1992 ruling Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Sotomayor also said the question of whether affirmative action is needed is "always first a legislative determination." Noting that the Constitution promotes and requires the equal protection of all citizens, she said she hoped that race would no longer be considered a factor 25 years from now. Sotomayor also broke with President Obama on the importance of empathy in judging. Obama, who nominated Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, has said that in a small number of tough cases, "the legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision" and that "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." Asked by Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona to reply to the president's remark, Sotomayor said she "wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does." The "job of a judge is to apply the law," she said. "And so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge." She said that, in every instance, she looks strictly "at the law that's being cited. I look at how precedent informs it. ... We apply law to facts. We don't apply feelings to facts." http://edi...4/sotomayor.hearing/index.html
Dukhat Member	Wed Jul 15 07:48:52 Wow CNN has high marks for sotomayor. This just in Al Queada still hates america and Germans love david hasselhoff.
licker Sports Mod	Wed Jul 15 09:58:50 I dunno, on NPR last night they were raking her pretty well. Seems the libs aren't happy that she's catering to the cons, and the cons aren't happy because she was nominated by a lib. fucking stupid either way you want to look at it.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 15 10:22:44 Sounds to me like she is trying to lie out of her misstatements.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 15 10:24:25 "Poor HR" has nothing to do with it. Obama had better liberal choices, but he ignored them.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Jul 15 10:28:28 If she is a lifelong lawyer then she isnt worthy of being a judge.
roland Member	Wed Jul 15 10:36:05 "Obama had better liberal choices, but he ignored them. " Such as?
Dukhat Member	Wed Jul 15 10:54:54 Almost everyone on the list is better than Sotomayor in terms of qualifications and stature. This woman was a lightweight on the federal bench and her opinions yo-yo'ed in tone and substance depending on who clerked for her: a clear sign of an intellectual pretender.
roland Member	Wed Jul 15 11:00:38 Such as? Dukrod
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 15 11:07:47 There was a short list they were talking about a few months ago. I don't recall the names, but there were a couple that impressed me. If you want to research that short list and check out their qualifications be my guest.
roland Member	Wed Jul 15 11:10:01 They are so impressive that you dont even remember them. LMAO. "If you want to research that short list and check out their qualifications be my guest. " I am asking you about your opinion.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 15 11:19:11 Jesus man, think. These were a couple of judges I had never heard of before or since, and you expect me to remember their names? Do you have a photographic memory that *NEVER* forgets a fact? I certainly don.t I offered my opinion based on what I heard at that time. I was not offering a fact, just an opinion. Were it a fact I would research it for you. But I am not going to research something I based an opinion on. Have a nice day.
Barack Hussein Obama Member	Wed Jul 15 11:21:57 I take offense at conservatives. I thought long and hard and decided upon many metrics: including empathy, hispanic-ness, and a vaginal opening. After careful consideration, sotomayor was a clear choice.
roland Member	Wed Jul 15 11:26:27 "These were a couple of judges I had never heard of before or since, and you expect me to remember their names? " I expected you to do better than providing generic response, and then too lazy to do your own homework when asked to provide more information.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 15 11:29:33 Are you really that stupid, or are you just a lame troll. Please go away and don't come back.
roland Member	Wed Jul 15 11:38:35 Are you really that much of an idealogue or are you that lazy to justify what you said? Please *GO AWAY* and don't *COME* back. -30-
Galaga Member	Wed Jul 15 14:15:34 YOU DONT HAVE A LIST OF NAMES? YOUR POINT IS MOOT, R-TARD. Rofl. What a crock of shit. And I'm still laughing that her "wise latina woman" comment is still getting more press than "laws are made in appeals courts" comment.
licker Sports Mod	Wed Jul 15 15:19:42 What's odd and or annoying (depending on your pov) is that in obamas opinion the most qualified person for the seat was a latina. The odds of that being the case are slim, which means that obama doesn't care about getting the best person on the court. Clearly this has been the case for more presidents than just obama, but it's still funny to me to see people believing that the supreme court should have the same diversity ratio as some state campus.
jergul Member	Wed Jul 15 17:00:16 t
NeverWoods Member	Wed Jul 15 17:25:33 "These were a couple of judges I had never heard of before or since" Then how do you know if they are better choices?
Hot Crock New Member	Wed Jul 15 17:47:39 Because they are, but I just can't remember why. If you can't see that, then you might as well go away and have a nice day.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 15 18:36:25 NeverWoods, because they listed a brief resume on them and, to me, they sounded more qualified. I was just expressing an opinion. That is all. If you think God shit Sotomayor and she is the best person for the job, then that is your opinion which you are certainly welcome to express.
NeverWoods Member	Wed Jul 15 19:37:00 Better qualified in what regarded? I know this is a openion of yours, but do tell in your own openion how they where better qualified.com
NeverWoods Member	Wed Jul 15 19:38:37 regards*
NeverWoods Member	Wed Jul 15 19:39:48 annoying smart phone
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 15 20:14:29 What is wrong with you people, ain't you got no brains. I heard something on TV several months ago, I listened carefully at the time and I recall that there were a couple of candidates on the short list that was better qualified than Sotomayor, IMHO. I do not remember the specific details, none of you would. But I do remember the impression I had that there were others better qualified than her. Now if it bothers you that much go research the short list and take a look at their qualifications. YOU ARE WASTING MY TIME.
corkie Member	Wed Jul 15 20:25:46 And time is slipping by. Seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks months and years never to be lived again.
roland Member	Wed Jul 15 21:34:34 "What is wrong with you people, ain't you got no brains. " It is not about us? We are asking your opinion. "Now if it bothers you that much go research the short list and take a look at their qualifications." I am researching now, by directly asking what your opinion is? No one can read your mind, so the only way is to ask you directly. Havent you figure this out yet? "YOU ARE WASTING MY TIME." No, YOU ARE WASTING MY TIME.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 15 22:14:21 "We are asking your opinion." I GAVE IT. "I am researching now, by directly asking what your opinion is?" I GAVE IT. "No one can read your mind, so the only way is to ask you directly." I RESPONDED WITH MY OPINION DIRECTLY. bye, bye.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Jul 15 22:36:52 "Sotomayor Shies Away From Hot-Button Issues From abortion and gun rights to gay marriage and assisted suicide, Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday repeatedly deflected questions on controversial issues from senators vetting her Supreme Court nomination."
Rugian Member	Wed Jul 15 22:38:46 Gee, that doesn't sound exactly like the Alito or Roberts hearings. Rod you fucking moron.
NeverWoods Member	Thu Jul 16 16:21:31 HR you have been saying that the others are more qualified for a while now, yet you don't have a clue on how they are better qualified? Here is a tip, don't open your idiotic mouth if you have no clue on the issue.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Jul 16 17:41:35 And you guys are saying I am an idiot when you have even less of a clue about the people I am talking about. Pot /Kettle anyone?
NeverWoods Member	Thu Jul 16 18:00:29 No it's not pot/kattle. You made a claim you where called on it, you tried to doge it and you showed to have no knowledge about the issue what so ever. All you did was repeat a TV pundits line.
Double Nigger New Member	Thu Jul 16 18:06:46 She only got where she is because of affirmative action. Period. End of story.
Dukhat Member	Thu Jul 16 18:36:45 Sotomayor has answered like a republican for the majority of her questions. There is something disingenous about her. I remember Gingsburg's hearing. She was quite clearly qualified if liberal and the republicans controlled the senate and she was still easily confirmed.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Jul 16 18:37:51 NeverWood - You made a claim you where called on it... Do you really not know the difference between "making a Claim" and expressing an opinion based on a TV story?
NeverWoods Member	Thu Jul 16 18:46:35 You don't have a freaking opinion, what you have is someone else's opinion. Having an opinion on something means at least you know something on the subject, witch you don't. You are such a freaking idiot.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Jul 16 18:58:42 Here you go, knock yourselves out. If you want more background on them, WIKI is your friend Diane Pamela Wood "Professional career Wood was an attorney-advisor for the Office of the Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State from 1977 to 1978. She was in private practice at Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C. from 1978 to 1980.[7][8] She was an assistant professor of law at Georgetown University from 1980 to 1981 and on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School from 1981 to 1995, serving as Associate Dean from 1989 to 1992. Wood continues to teach at the law school, along with fellow 7th Circuit judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.[9] Wood was a special assistant to the Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice from 1985 to 1987. Later she served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for international, appellate, and policy in the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division from 1993 to 1995. Wood holds memberships in the American Law Institute, the International Academy of Comparative Law, the American Society of International Law, and the American Bar Association. She has served on the governing councils of the ABAâ??s Section of Antitrust Law and its Section of International Law and Practice. Wood has pursued various law reform projects through the American Bar Association and the Brookings Institution Project on Civil Justice Reform. She was also instrumental in developing the University of Chicagoâ??s first policy on sexual harassment." Elena Kagen Dean of Harvard Law School "Lawrence Summers appointed Kaganthe first female dean of Harvard Law School in 2003.[4] She succeeded Robert C. Clark who had served as dean for over a decade. The focus of her tenure has been improving student satisfaction. Efforts include constructing new facilities and reforming the first year curriculum, as well as aesthetic changes and creature comforts, such as free morning coffee. She has been credited for employing a consensus-building leadership style which surmounted the school's previous ideological discord. She also inherited a $400 million capital campaign, "Setting the Standard," in 2003. It ended in 2008 with a record breaking $476 million raised, 19% more than the original goal.[5] Kagan is also credited with overcoming ideological disputes among the Law School faculty that had hindered new faculty appointments. She has made a number of prominent new hires, increasing the size of the faculty considerably.[citation needed] Her name was briefly mooted to replace Summers as president of Harvard.[4] During her deanship, Kagan supported a long-standing policy barring military recruiters from campus. [edit] Solicitor General nomination On January 5, 2009, President-elect Barack Obama announced he would nominate Kagan to be Solicitor General.[6] Before this appointment she had limited courtroom experience. She has never argued a case at trial,[7] and has not argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. This is not uncommon, however, as at least two previous Solicitors General, Robert Bork and Kenneth Starr had no previous appellate experience at the Supreme Court, though Starr served as a Circuit Court Judge prior to acting as Solicitor General and Bork briefly served as Attorney General prior to his appointment as Solicitor General.[8] Walter Dellinger, a top Supreme Court practitioner, stated Kagan's lack of experience would not be a hindrance. "She is a first-rate legal scholar, but she brings much more than that," Dellinger said. "She knows government, and she knows how to run institutions.[9] At her confirmation hearing, Kagan also drew criticism for arguing that battlefield law, including indefinite detention without a trial, could apply outside of traditional battlefields.[10] Kagan was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 19, 2009 by a vote of 61 to 31." Carlos Moreno Judicial Service "In 1986, Governor George Deukmejian appointed Moreno to the criminal court in Compton. In 1993, Governor Pete Wilson appointed him to the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. President Bill Clinton nominated him for a federal judgeship on the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a position for which he was confirmed in 1998. Moreno resigned from the Central District of California on October 18, 2001, when he was appointed to the Supreme Court of California following his nomination by Governor Gray Davis. In November 2002, California voters confirmed Justice Moreno for the remainder of the term of his deceased predecessor, Justice Stanley Mosk. This term will expire in 2010. [edit] Awards and honors Formerly the president of the Mexican American Bar Association, Justice Moreno serves the community in a variety of ways. He has been a member of the California Judges Association, the Presiding Judges Association and the Municipal Court Judges Association of Los Angeles County and was also the president of the Yale Club of Southern California, and a member of the Stanford University Law School Board of Visitors. He currently serves as a director of the Arroyo Vista Family Health Center and the Western Justice Center Foundation. Justice Moreno was honored with the Criminal Justice Superior Court Judge of the Year Award in 1997, from the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and was presented with the "For God, For Country, and For Yale" Award in 2001, recognizing him as a distinguished alumnus of Yale University. He also received an honorary degree from Southwestern University School of Law in May 2002 for his devotion to the justice system, young people and the community." Merrick B. Garland Federal judicial service "On September 6, 1995, President Bill Clinton nominated Garland to the D.C. Circuit seat vacated by Abner J. Mikva. Garland received a hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on December 1, 1995.[3] However, his nomination languished under the Republican-controlled Senate until after the 1996 election. At the time of his nomination, many Republican senators cited their reason for objecting to his nomination the fact that they did not believe that the D.C. Circuit needed an additional judge.[citation needed] After winning the 1996 presidential election, Clinton renominated Garland on January 7, 1997. [4] Garland was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 19, 1997 in a 76-23 vote and received his commission on March 20.[5] [edit] Judicial philosophy Considered a judicial moderate, Garland told senators during his U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1995 that the U.S. Supreme Court justice for whom he had the greatest admiration was Chief Justice John Marshall, and that he had personal affection for the justice for whom he clerked, Justice William Brennan. "Everybody, I think, who hopes to become a judge would aspire to be able to write as well as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes", Garland told the committee at that time. "None are going to be able to attain that. But I'll try at least â?? if confirmed - to be as brief and pithy as he is."" Ruben Castillo Professional career "From 1979 until 1984, Castillo worked in private law practice in Chicago as an associate attorney for the law firm Jenner & Block.[5] In 1984, he was named an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. He worked as an assistant U.S. Attorney until 1988, when he became a regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. In 1991, Castillo returned to private law practice, where he worked as a partner at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis until 1994.[6][7] [edit] Federal judicial service On January 27, 1994, President Clinton nominated Castillo to be a U.S. District judge. At his confirmation hearing before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on March 25, 1994, Castillo told senators that "...in my career I have had the privilege of serving various clients from all walks of life, from some of the corporate 100 organizations to individuals who had literally no assets, and I have always enjoyed the role of being the advocate for those clients, but I really came to a conclusion that I would like to have only one client from now on, and that client being justice, per se, and that is why I want to be a Federal district court judge." Castillo was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 6, 1994.[8] Upon his confirmation, Castillo became the first Latino federal judge in the state of Illinois."
NeverWoods Member	Thu Jul 16 19:02:26 Whats your point with this post? Did you do your research now? So tell us what makes her less qualified and them better qualified.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Jul 16 19:33:37 Fuck off. Make up your own mind, if you got one.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Jul 16 19:58:08 Hell with it, I will make it easy on your limited resources. I especially liked Pamela Wood and Ruben Castillo the other three were OK. I did not include two others because I consider them not qualified. Now, shall we move on or do you want to continue this childish pissing match you started.
Rugian Member	Thu Jul 16 19:58:27 Hot Rod, in all seriousness unless you have read several of her cases and have gotten a feel for her style of judgment, you don't have an opinion worth shit on Sotomayor. Arguing that she is horrible based solely on the firefighters' case is stupid because she never actually expressed an opinion either way and because she was arguably simply following judicial precedent. Which is what judges SHOULD do, regardless of how you feel about the law.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Jul 16 20:17:36 Rugian - Hot Rod, in all seriousness unless you have read several of her cases and have gotten a feel for her style of judgment, you don't have an opinion worth shit on Sotomayor. And you have? How much of the nomination hearings did you watch? I watched most of the first two days and she said nothing to impress me. I don't have to read the cases, The USSC did it for me. " Possible Controversial Positions and Statements â?¢ Wrote the 2008 opinion supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions. The Supreme Court heard the case in April 2009 and a final opinion is pending. Was overturned by the Supreme Court. â?¢ Sided with environmentalists in a 2007 case that would have allowed the EPA to consider the cost-effectiveness of protecting fish and aquatic life in rivers and lakes located near power plants. Was overturned by the Supreme Court. â?¢ Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court. â?¢ Ruled that a federal law allowing lawsuits against individual federal government officers and agents for constitutional rights violations also extends to private corporations working on behalf of the federal government. Was overturned by the Supreme Court. â?¢ Sotomayor was first appointed to the federal bench in 1991 by a Republican President, George Bush, but it was a Democrat, Sen. Patrick Moynihan, who recommended her to Bush. â?¢ In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She and other panelists had been asked by a student to describe the differences between clerking in the District Court versus in the Circuit Court of Appeals. Sotomayor said that traditionally, those interested in academia, policy, and public interest law tend to seek circuit court clerkships. She said, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application." [Duke University School of Law, 2/25/2005, 43:19, http://rea...05/lawschool/02252005clerk.rm] â?¢ At a 2001 U.C. Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court, Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making. From her speech: "I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.... "I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.... "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001] http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.resume/index.html
roland Member	Thu Jul 16 23:35:39 "I GAVE IT." Really, I still haven't heard anything from you about other liberal candidates that is better qualify than her in your opinion. You are just making excuses not to answer the question. And you are wasting my time.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Jul 16 23:40:53 roland, are you blind or have you been out drinking? Thu Jul 16 18:58:42
roland Member	Thu Jul 16 23:57:04 "roland, are you blind or have you been out drinking?" You wasted two more posts to not answer the question. Ok, now what factors make those candidates more qualify than Sotomayor?
Hot Rod Member	Fri Jul 17 06:28:12 Jesus Christ man, you get stupider every day. I posted their qualifications and I posted just some of Sotomayor's decisions that were overturned by The USSC. Obviously, IMHO, the ones I liked will make better decisions. That is the factor. What grade are you in at school? The 3rd.?
president bush Member	Fri Jul 17 07:01:06 How long will the old fart pretend to not understand the concept of "explain in *your own words*"? Until others weary of his dance and leave him twirling lonely in the moonlight...
roland Member	Fri Jul 17 07:17:09 "What grade are you in at school? The 3rd.?" I am not one of the kids you fixated on. Back to the topic, what grade do they teach to make comparison? You obviously looked at the controversial cases from the thousands of cases she handled in 17 years, and this is not a long list. Have you take the time to look at the controversial cases handled by the other judges on your list? If your comparison is fair, at least you should compare similar things. But you are not, you are comparing a paragraph intro of other judges which does not include their record. How do you know they made good decision in your view, is it because their decisions arent vigorously reported by the press since they arent nominated to the SC? Based on all the links you posted so far, you are trying to compare different things, and hence the comparison is invalid.
NeverWoods Member	Fri Jul 17 07:31:32 "Make up your own mind, if you got one." I got one thats for sure, but you seem to be lacking one.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Jul 17 10:24:03 It is an 'opinion.' Nothing more, nothing less. I am not going to conduct in depth studies of their careers in order to carry on this silly conversation. The others have not condemned themselves to being racist/sexist in their own statements to my knowledge. If they have, show me and I will reconsider my opinion. If Sotomayor will no longer make opinion that are of the desenting opinion, show me and I will reconsider my opinion. Show me that she is *NOT* a racist nor a sexist and I will reconsider my opinion.
NeverWoods Member	Fri Jul 17 22:03:39 Hot Rod: you are a dangerous man, i hope you are unique person, more of your kind would spell disaster in any country.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Jul 17 22:39:33 Why, because I have a different opinion that does not fit within the field of view of your political blinders? You are the dangerous one because you are a True Believer. You refuse to allow any opinion but your own. If someone expresses one you attack them. The fact is, I simply don't like Sotomayor for the job I think there were better choices available. No big deal, just a difference of opinion. But it makes little difference in the long run. There is a good chance we will have a liberal court before Obama is through and that will be the final nail in America's coffin. But that is what you liberal "intellectuals" want, to kill America.
President Bush Member	Sat Jul 18 01:57:24 "But that is what you liberal "intellectuals" want, to kill America." He's like something out of a joke comic book, a satire of far right rednecks...
Hot Rod Member	Sat Jul 18 03:16:21 If they don't want to kill America, then why are they doing it? And just to prove the limits of your "intellectualism" you label fiscal conservatives as "far right rednecks." One has nothing to do with the other, But you liberals have no way of knowing that because you are nothing but trailer trash dope adicts practicing your gluttony at the public trough. I bet you work for ACORN. :)
President Bush Member	Sat Jul 18 07:04:25 Are you actually going for the worst troll to ever exist record? Thought So.
NeverWoods Member	Sat Jul 18 14:21:36 "Why, because I have a different opinion that does not fit within the field of view of your political blinders?" You don't have opinion's, you never did, you just take w/e random pundits opinion that hates liberals and run with it. You said there are better choices available, yet you failed to say anything that showed any kind of thinking or even usage of your brain to explain the choices, having an openion also means you can back it up with some facts or some thing more solid then "it's an opinion" you showed a clear lack of both. You just took it from someone without even bothering to do any check up's and ran with it like it was your own opinion. You blind fallowing of GoP is dangerous, you don't question them nor do you give them any kind of criticism. If folks like you are the majority your country would be par with China. This is why you are a danger to your own nation.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Jul 18 17:45:01 You are a real dickhead. Did you know that?
Neverwood Member	Sat Jul 18 18:04:05 No you are a real fucking lying sack of shit. A real nasty piece of evil work. Filthy and decrepit you are, slimy and cruel.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Jul 18 18:25:47 What an idiot. By the time I heard about these other people I had already heard Sotomayor's cracks about Latino women making better decisions than a white man and I had heard about her decision concerning the firemen. Now I know that kind of racism is a part of the makeup of your philosophy. That you hate and despise white people, especially American white people. But it was enough to raise a red flag with me so when they were talking about the other options there was one that stood out especially in my mind. "Diane Pamela Wood "Professional career Wood was an attorney-advisor for the Office of the Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State from 1977 to 1978. She was in private practice at Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C. from 1978 to 1980.[7][8] She was an assistant professor of law at Georgetown University from 1980 to 1981 and on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School from 1981 to 1995, serving as Associate Dean from 1989 to 1992. Wood continues to teach at the law school, along with fellow 7th Circuit judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner.[9] Wood was a special assistant to the Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice from 1985 to 1987. Later she served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for international, appellate, and policy in the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division from 1993 to 1995. Wood holds memberships in the American Law Institute, the International Academy of Comparative Law, the American Society of International Law, and the American Bar Association. She has served on the governing councils of the ABAâ??s Section of Antitrust Law and its Section of International Law and Practice. Wood has pursued various law reform projects through the American Bar Association and the Brookings Institution Project on Civil Justice Reform. She was also instrumental in developing the University of Chicagoâ??s first policy on sexual harassment."" Now, as I said in an earlier post which you ignored as always, "The others have not condemned themselves to being racist/sexist in their own statements to my knowledge. If they have, show me and I will reconsider my opinion." One thing I do have against her is she has no experience on The Bench, but she has wide experience in government law. I'm not saying she is the best candidate, nor even that she should have been picked. I am saying I like what she has achieved in her carreer and I do not like the racist crap Sotomayor is spouting. Now will you please just shut the fuck up and go away.
roland Member	Sat Jul 18 22:53:49 "By the time I heard about these other people I had already heard Sotomayor's cracks about Latino women making better decisions than a white man " I heard Senator Session in the hearing said he is a drug pusher as well. Are you going to call the cop in any time soon? "I had heard about her decision concerning the firemen." You mean where she is bounded by follow the precedent in the court.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Jul 18 22:57:19 Fuck Off.
Rugian Member	Sat Jul 18 23:01:21 ^Hot Rod reacting to an example of judicial restraint For all his preaching, it looks like Rod prefers judicial activists sitting on the bench.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Jul 18 23:13:37 I don't care is Sessions eats green apples for breakfast her comment about the Latino women and white men is racist and sexist. As for following precedent from a lower court? That is absurd. She was in a higher court. It was her job to overturn decisions by lower courts that are wrong. Just as The USSC overturned that decision. She was just trying to get by with more of her racism. This is exactly why I did not want to bother explaining myself. You dick suckers just will not leave it alone. You keep twisting everything out of proportion because you a fucking nuttier than fruitcakes. Now print this post on a piece of paper, wad it up into a ball and shove it up your ass.
Rugian Member	Sat Jul 18 23:30:39 lol, Hot Rod is so outright insane these days. She wasn't following the "precedent" of the lower court you dumbass.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Jul 18 23:36:05 She was following the decision of the lower court by letting it stand. If you have a different version lets hear it and your let me see your link.
rOland Member	Sat Jul 18 23:39:35 "I don't care is Sessions eats green apples for breakfast her comment about the Latino women and white men is racist and sexist. " But he is in the commitee that vote on the SC nominee, you dont care his business dealings will influence his decision making on who sit on the SC? "As for following precedent from a lower court? That is absurd. She was in a higher court. It was her job to overturn decisions by lower courts that are wrong. " Mmmm... even she explained herself in the hearing that she decided the case "on the basis of a thorough, 78-page decision by the District Court and precedent from the second circuit court." And you said you have watch the hearig closely??? You just listen to what you want to hear, do you? Her job is to interpret the law, if there are established judicial precedents, her job is to interpret the law the same way as the previous case. As Rugian said, it seems you prefer an activist judge rather. "This is exactly why I did not want to bother explaining myself. You dick suckers just will not leave it alone. " Why are you calling yourself a "dick sucker". Clearly, you didnt leave it alone,. "You keep twisting everything out of proportion because you a fucking nuttier than fruitcakes. " No, you are twisting everything out of proportion, you are the one that claimed Sotomayor is a racist and sexist because a remark she made that is taken out of context, but the same standard, Sessions would be a drug dealer. "Now print this post on a piece of paper, wad it up into a ball and shove it up your ass. " I dont share your sexual fantasy, so I think you can save it and keep that to yourself.
Rugian Member	Sat Jul 18 23:39:45 That's not the definition of precedent you dumbshit.
Rugian Member	Sat Jul 18 23:39:58 ^directed at Rod
Hot Rod Member	Sun Jul 19 00:00:35 Here, I knew you would not bother to look up your own link because you do not have a link that supports you. "The district court judge who heard Ricci's case ruled against him and his fellow plaintiffs. They appealed to the 2nd Circuit, the court on which Judge Sotomayor sits. In an unusual short and unsigned opinion, a panel of three judges, including Sotomayor, adopted the district court judge's ruling without adding their own analysis. As Judge Jose Cabranes put it, in protesting this ruling later in the appeals process, "Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. â?¦ This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."" MORE: http://www.slate.com/id/2219037/ roland - You mean where she is bounded by follow the precedent in the court. She was not following precedent, she allowed the lower courts decision to stand without commenting on it's Constitutionality. The USSC struck it down. Rugian - She wasn't following the "precedent" of the lower court... That is what roland called it. I don't know if you could logically call lower court "precedent" or not, but the fact of the matter is she allowed the lower courts decision to stand and it turned out to be unconstitutional.
roland Member	Sun Jul 19 00:34:28 "She was not following precedent, she allowed the lower courts decision to stand without commenting on it's Constitutionality. " "That is what roland called it. I don't know if you could logically call lower court "precedent" logic certainly does not seems to be your strong suit, since you have completely disprepresented what I said. The ruling of the district court was draw on the precedents from other cases in the second circuit, and the appeal court's ruling are bounded by the same precedents.
Hot Rod Member	Sun Jul 19 05:33:13 She was a member of the 2nd Court of Appeals. The did nothing like what yuou are claiming. The allowed the lower court decision to stand *without comment.* Read the quote from Slate in my last post, it says nothing about precedents.
redblooded Member	Sun Jul 19 07:24:21 http://jta...el-trips-tie-sotomayor-to-jews The Jews approve of her.
roland Member	Sun Jul 19 08:19:49 "She was a member of the 2nd Court of Appeals. The did nothing like what you are claiming. The allowed the lower court decision to stand *without comment.*" They uphold the lower court decision because they are bounded by the same precedent how the lower court has drawn to make their judgement. Why would they have an different opinion as the lower court? "Read the quote from Slate in my last post, it says nothing about precedents. " The OP from Slate didnt say she is a racist too, does that stop you from calling her a racist?
licker Sports Mod	Sun Jul 19 10:11:59 yawn... shes in so stop whining
Hot Rod Member	Sun Jul 19 12:34:09 roland - They uphold the lower court decision because they are bounded by the same precedent how the lower court has drawn to make their judgement. Either post a link to the "precedent" that you are talking about or STFU. It does not exist.
roland Member	Mon Jul 20 00:21:16 p31 - 4x You will plenty of discussion on what the court regard as prima facie to the Ricci case. http://www...com/uploads/file/ricciusdc.pdf
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jul 20 03:34:21 roland, what you are giving me is the "lower court *decision.*" Judge Janet Bond used "precedents" that were not germane to the law suit. It was the job of The Appeals Court, Sotomayor et al, to throw out those precedents and follow The Constitution. Had they done their jobs properly they would have over thrown the lower court decision and found in favor of the Firefighters. They did not do their jobs properly. Instead the case moved on to the USSC which finally, and correctly, overturned the lower court decisions. District court grants motion for summary judgment Main article: Ricci v. DeStefano (district court) Judge Janet Bond Arterton in the federal district court ruled for the city, granting its motion for summary judgment.[14] [edit] Second Circuit panel and per curiam opinion On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Pooler, Sack and Sotomayor, C.JJ.) heard arguments in this case of discrimination.[15] Judge Sotomayor (who was subsequently nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court) vigorously questioned the attorneys in the case, and repeatedly discussed whether the city had a right to attempt to reformulate its test if it was afraid that the original test was discriminatory.[15] The three-judge panel then affirmed the district court's ruling in a summary order, without opinion, on February 15, 2008.[16] However, after a judge of the Second Circuit requested that the court hear the case en banc, the panel withdrew its summary order and on June 9, 2008 issued instead a unanimous per curiam opinion.[17] The panel's June 9, 2008 per curiam opinion was eight sentences long. It characterized the trial court's decision as "thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned" while also lamenting that there were "no good alternatives" in the case. The panel expressed sympathy to the plaintiffs' situation, particularly Ricci's, but ultimately concluded that the Civil Service Board was acting to "fulfill its obligations under Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act]". The panel concluded by adopting the trial court's opinion in its entirety.[17] [edit] En banc hearing denied Regarding a rehearing en banc, that was denied on June 12, 2008 by a vote of 7-6.[18] Judge José Cabranes and Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote opinions in dissent from the denial of rehearing, urging review by the Supreme Court.[19][20] [edit] Certiorari and oral arguments The Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard oral arguments on April 22, 2009.[21] [edit] Opinion of the court Justice Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority (Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito), concluded that the Cityâ??s action in discarding the tests was a violation of Title VII:[22] 1. In these circumstances, the standard for permissible race-based action under Title VII is that the employer must "demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute." 2. The respondents cannot meet that threshold standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano
roland Member	Mon Jul 20 04:25:00 "Judge Janet Bond used "precedents" that were not germane to the law suit. " Why? "It was the job of The Appeals Court, Sotomayor et al, to throw out those precedents and follow The Constitution. " Really? Have any appeals court overthrew Roe vs Wade yet? The precedent is a principle that ensure the court would interpret the law the same way consistently. The appeals court's role is to interpret the law in the same way they are defined in the precedent, and not to make any new laws as the SC has done. Good to know that you are advocating juridical activitism and have no interest about the following the consitution.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jul 20 04:28:55 roland, you know absolutely *NOTHING WHATSOEVER* about our judicial system. Go away, I am through wasting time on you.
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Jul 20 04:45:11 A usual, dignified surrender.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jul 20 04:50:20 ^-As usual, hasn't a clue.
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Jul 20 05:01:55 I said your surrender was dignified, WTF? What's with the sudden attack? It's not like I called you a pedo.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jul 20 05:04:55 I did not surrender. I walked away from shear stupidity. Are you going to align yourself with his beliefs about the courts? "Have any appeals court overthrew Roe vs Wade yet?"
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Jul 20 05:13:54 Time to elaborate, Rod.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jul 20 05:18:58 Just about every 13 year old American citizen knows that The United States Supreme Court is *The Highest Court* in the land. Their decisions are *The Law Of The Land.* There is no *Higher Appeals Court* to overturn their decisions. Do you agree?
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jul 20 05:24:53 The Court ruled that abortion is a fundamental right.
roland Member	Mon Jul 20 06:06:21 "I walked away from shear stupidity. Are you going to align yourself with his beliefs about the courts? " You mean your stupidity that you support judges to make law from their bench? "Just about every 13 year old American citizen knows that The United States Supreme Court is *The Highest Court* in the land. " I probably use a wrong example, but the main point I am making is court of appeal observe judicial precedent as an integral part of their decision making. As stated by Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: A judicial precedent attaches a specific legal consequence to a detailed set of facts in an adjudged case or judicial decision, which is then considered as furnishing the rule for the determination of a subsequent case involving identical or similar material facts and arising in the same court or a lower court in the judicial hierarchy. So, why are you support her to change the interpretation when she is not suppose to do that?
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jul 20 06:20:52 If it were the job of The Appeals Courts and The USSC to just rubber stamp the lowers courts opinions based on their interpretation of the "precedents" there would be no need to have The Appeals Courts and The USSC. The purpose of The Appeals Court is to study 'other' precedents and the lower courts decision for it's validity, according to their interpretation of the law and The Constitution, and correct the lower courts decision if necessary. If the decision stands the Plaintiff can then Appeal to The USSC. If it is overturned the Defendant can then appeal to The USSC. The USSC has the final say. Now, if you want to know anymore, go pick up a CIVICS 101 textbook. It is really a simple concept.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jul 20 06:24:21 roland - You mean your stupidity that you support judges to make law from their bench? That is so far off base it is incredulous. I am supporting the decision of The United States Supreme Court. It is their job to interpret The Constitution and either allow a law to stand or strike it down. That is what you are saying is, "making law from the bench."
roland Member	Mon Jul 20 06:57:52 "If it were the job of The Appeals Courts and The USSC to just rubber stamp the lowers courts opinions based on their interpretation of the "precedents" there would be no need to have The Appeals Courts and The USSC. " I didnt say that, you are confuse again. The appeal court is not the USSC, the USSC can overthrew the precedent set in the lower court, and change their interpretation of the law as happened in Ricci v. DeStefano. But precedents set in the court of appeal are observed for similar or identical cases in the court of appeal or lower court cases. The district court and the court of appeal use the precedent set in Bushey which is a decision by the court of appeal and many other similar cases to forumulate its judgement. Because it is a court of appeal decision, going back to my quote earlier. "A judicial precedent attaches a specific legal consequence to a detailed set of facts in an adjudged case or judicial decision, which is then considered as furnishing the rule for the determination of a subsequent case involving identical or similar material facts and arising in the SAME COURT or a LOWER COURT in the judicial hierarchy." This is not rubber stamp the lowers courts decision, the court of appeal is bounded by the precedents set in the court of appeal too. "If the decision stands the Plaintiff can then Appeal to The USSC. If it is overturned the Defendant can then appeal to The USSC. The USSC has the final say. " I am not sure what you are trying to argu, that's not in dispute. What is in dispute is the role of the court of appeal, and whether they are bounded by the judicial precedent set in the court of appeal. "That is so far off base it is incredulous. I am supporting the decision of The United States Supreme Court. It is their job to interpret The Constitution and either allow a law to stand or strike it down. " Ok, but you do realise we are not talking about the Supreme court here, we are talking about her decision in the court of appeal, where there are existing cases in the court of appeal that have set the precedent for the Ricci case. And as such, the court of appeal is bounded by these precedents from previous court of appeal cases where formulated the decision in the lower court judgement.
roland Member	Mon Jul 20 07:00:47 If there are no opinion from previous cases in the cases of appeal court or the SC to consider, then you are correct, she dont have to take that into consideration, but the case in the district court could be different again without the precedent.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jul 20 07:01:30 I'm not even going to bother reading that. I cannot make myself any clearer. You do not understand the system and, IMHO, you have no desire to learn. Have a nice day.
roland Member	Mon Jul 20 07:06:44 "I cannot make myself any clearer." But you dont seem to understand what you are arguging, because you misrepresent my position and outcome of that is you keep posting a lot of irrelevant stuff that I am not disagreeing with.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jul 20 07:12:14 Then you are nmot making yourself in the least bit clear and I do not have an interpreter. Bye
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Jul 20 07:54:23 A usual, graceful surrender
Hot Rod Member	Mon Jul 20 07:56:16 Fuck Off Andy.
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Jul 20 07:57:31 Temper, temper..
Nimatzo Member	Mon Jul 20 07:58:08 Judge Judy, now that is a judge I would love on the SC.
	show deleted posts