Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 134

Thread: Sonia Sotomayor Tapped For Hight Court

  1. #1

    Sonia Sotomayor Tapped For Hight Court

    Obama Introduces Sotomayor as Court Pick
    By JONATHAN WEISMAN, WALL STREET JOURNAL



    WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama Tuesday introduced New York Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee to the Supreme Court, praising her "sterling" legal credentials and "distinguished career."
    Going into this process, I knew that Obama would pick a female, and was pretty sure he'd pick a Hispanic. I'm not aware of Sotomayor's career beyond the speculations I was reading on the net over the past several weeks (she was considered to be on the short list from day one).

    She's actually a good choice, from the Democratic perspective. Republican opposition to her can easily be spun as being anti Hispanic. That's a voting bloc that the Republicans are desperate to tap. I suspect we'll see little to no opposition to her.

    ~String

  2. #2
    Mean & Disagreeable Cowboy's Avatar
    Posts
    3,667
    She stands to increase Obama's support among Latinos, women, and anti-white bigots. I suppose she's a "smart choice" from a political perspective.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Acid Cowboy View Post
    She stands to increase Obama's support among Latinos, women, and anti-white bigots. I suppose she's a "smart choice" from a political perspective.
    Well it is politics! Even if Obama turns out to be the greatest president in the history of the country, he's still a politician and has powerful motivations that go well beyond just "getting the job done." On the surface this sounds like an insult, and while I hate politics as usual, I am not so foolish to believe that Obama will be all that different than every other politician on the face of the Earth.

    ~String

  4. #4
    Mean & Disagreeable Cowboy's Avatar
    Posts
    3,667
    I think Obama has already made it clear that he is the typical politician: saying one thing and doing another.

    He was supposedly the guy who would be "a president for all Americans", yet this was proved untrue before he even got elected with his two decade affiliation with a racist church. Now he nominates a SCOTUS justice whose most famous recent action was to throw her support behind anti-white discrimination.

  5. #5
    It's too bad that race and gender are still major factors. Still, glad that a Dem majority will sail her through.

  6. #6
    Mourning in America madanthonywayne's Avatar
    Posts
    12,399
    Quote Originally Posted by zanket View Post
    It's too bad that race and gender are still major factors. Still, glad that a Dem majority will sail her through.
    I am so sick of all these Supreme Court picks based on race or sex. Hurray, Obama nominated a hispanic female! The very idea of celebrating such a thing is racist, in my book. I really look forward to the day when a president will nominate someone with no discussion of their race or sex, just some comments on their qualifications.

    As to her chances, with a huge Democratic majority she's certainly in pretty good shape. Ironically, the one obstacle to her sailing thru the nomination process is her ruling in favor of policies that use race and sex to choose firemen rather than choosing the most qualified candidates! So a nominee picked because of her race and sex is in possible jeopardy for supporting the promotion of firemen based upon race and sex rather than merit. Delicious irony there.

    At issue is the action of New Haven, Conn., city officials who threw out a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results.

    Following their decision supporting the city, Sotomayor and her two fellow judges faced criticism from their conservative colleagues on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York for declining to issue a detailed ruling.

    The court "has failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance," the other judges wrote.

    The analysis of the case by Sotomayor and the other two judges — one of the most important cases remaining on the Supreme Court's calendar — runs to just six sentences.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30946676/
    Here's a video discussing the case:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...ayor_pick.html
    Interestingly, this case is due to be heard by the Supreme Court and will likely be overturned at just about the same time Somomayer comes before congress for confirmation. That will surely keep this issue at the forefront of the confirmation process.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by madanthonywayne View Post
    I am so sick of all these Supreme Court picks based on race or sex. Hurray, Obama nominated a hispanic female! The very idea of celebrating such a thing is racist, in my book. I really look forward to the day when a president will nominate someone with no discussion of their race or sex, just some comments on their qualifications.
    While I agree on the surface, it seems a bit self-serving, considering that you and I are from the race and gender that has utterly dominated politics for the past... oh... forever.

    I'm not saying that the day when race and gender won't matter will NOT be a good one, but consider if you were a hispanic female, for example, how can you look to a nation and say that you feel represented when the upper echelons of that government have nobody that looks like you. Surely a government of the people should, at the very least, look like the people.

    Am I saying that race and gender should be considered before skill? No. I think that skill should be considered first. But given that Obama has numerous highly qualified candidates (let's face it: The POTUS was going to choose a liberal, no matter their physical stripes!), why should he not make an effort to move the court to look a bit like the country it represents?

    This one always irritates two halves of my personality. Like you, it bugs the shit out of me that people make an issue of race, religion, and gender. The other half, however, fully understands why it is an issue.

    ~String

  8. #8
    Be kind to yourself always. cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Posts
    29,867
    Even if Obama turns out to be the greatest president in the history of the country
    I already thought that Kennedy had that distinction according to every news media I ever hear talk about him and Jackie .

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    I already thought that Kennedy had that distinction according to every news media I ever hear talk about him and Jackie .
    I was speaking hypothetically.

    ~String

  10. #10
    Mourning in America madanthonywayne's Avatar
    Posts
    12,399
    Quote Originally Posted by superstring01 View Post
    While I agree on the surface, it seems a bit self-serving, considering that you and I are from the race and gender that has utterly dominated politics for the past... oh... forever.

    This one always irritates two halves of my personality. Like you, it bugs the shit out of me that people make an issue of race, religion, and gender. The other half, however, fully understands why it is an issue.

    ~String
    Guess what? I am Hispanic, and I couldn't care less about "the first Hispanic justice". I'd be perfectly happy if no one of my specific ethnic background were ever nominated to the Supreme Court. Now as to their views on the issues, that I care about.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by madanthonywayne View Post
    Guess what? I am Hispanic, and I couldn't care less about "the first Hispanic justice". I'd be perfectly happy if no one of my specific ethnic background were ever nominated to the Supreme Court. Now as to their views on the issues, that I care about.
    Well, I stand corrected. But the point is still valid in that there are large groups of Americans who feel truly under-represented. Part of the fault is "their" own: In that they don't run enough and vote enough. Whites, it would appear, do. But, that doesn't negate presidential responsibility from choosing the best and then also making sure the government, at least on some level, looks like the country.

    Likewise, what if Obama had chosen all HIGHLY qualified black people for his posts, you can bet white people would be up in arms. That race should not be a concern is obvious, but that it is a concern, often times in choosing only white guys, is why the reverse must be considered in making these organizations somewhat diverse.

    ~String

  12. #12
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    What is more important, Ethnic Diversity or Constitutional Principles?

    the "'quality of empathy'" as a "'essential ingredient for arriving at just decision and outcomes.'"

    Or adherence to the Constitution?

    Empathy for who? The Victim or the Perpetrator?

    A Justice who thinks that "'Policy is made' at Appeals Court" or some one who understands that the Executive and the Legislative makes policy according to the Constitution, The Separation of Powers in the Constitution.

    Yes, Adherence to the Constitution or Political Correctness.

  13. #13
    I'm just going for a walk... ElectricFetus's Avatar
    Posts
    16,983
    Quote Originally Posted by madanthonywayne View Post
    I am so sick of all these Supreme Court picks based on race or sex. Hurray, Obama nominated a hispanic female! The very idea of celebrating such a thing is racist, in my book. I really look forward to the day when a president will nominate someone with no discussion of their race or sex, just some comments on their qualifications.
    I look forward to that day to, because then a president can pick a Hispanic women and no one would bat an eye, but today everyone like "Oh my god she Hispanic" and "she got a vaginia!" and "Obama has done a great thing choosing a Hispanic women" and "Well she just got in because she not white and does not have a penis", etc

  14. #14
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    16,196
    Quote Originally Posted by madanth
    I really look forward to the day when a president will nominate someone with no discussion of their race or sex, just some comments on their qualifications.
    You've already seen that: Harriet Miers, Samuel Alito.

    I'm looking forward to a nomination for which the major topic of discussion will be the political stuff, because the qualifications won't be a reeking pile of inadequate size.

  15. #15
    Valued Senior Member Pandaemoni's Avatar
    Posts
    3,630
    Politically, she's a brilliant choice, Virtually anything the GOP does can be spun as anti-Latino. Lord knows if she isn't "qualified" to be on the Supreme Court, then I am not sure any Latino will ever be qualified. The real reason for opposition is philosophical differences, not "qualification" in the abstract.

    So, will the GOP take the bait? Will they attack her ardently and run the risk of reversing inroads into the Latino demographic they are hoping for in the future? Or knuckle under and bow to the inevitable despite principled differences with her?

    Rush apparently already referred to her as the "affirmative action appointment," as if being summa cum laude at Princeton, a Yale Law grad, an ADA in New York, then in private practice, then a District Court judge for 5 years and Appellate judge for 12 = obviously needed affirmative action to get the nod.

    The hard row for her won't be the Mass affirmative action case, I think. There she seemed to apply the law in the circuit. *And* she followed the policy result that was set by the legislature to boot. Arguing that she should have ruled for the test takers seems like an argument that judicial activism would have been appreciated in this one case.

    The debate will be over her gaffes, like:

    [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.
    and even worse (than that curiously anti-white male statement):
    The Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, I know that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t make law. I know. Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm . . . you know.

  16. #16
    Be kind to yourself always. cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Posts
    29,867
    Two of her rulings....

    In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the Mexico City Policy which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations".


    Defenders of property rights have criticized Sotomayor for her position in Didden v. Village of Port Chester, which they claim was an even worse violation of property rights than that of the highly publicized Kelo v. City of New London.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    You've already seen that: Harriet Miers
    Indeed. While I expected Bush to appoint some non-jurist (there've been mutterings about getting someone from outside the court system on the bench for eons... though I was expecting someone with some sort of legal heft, i.e.: A US Senator, Governor or one of the many Attorneys General and not the head of the frakking lottery commission cum White House legal counsel)

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    ...Samuel Alito.
    Huh? How is Alito unqualified? You may not like his conservative stripes, which is all well and good, but:
    • 1976–1977 – Law clerk for Leonard I. Garth of the Third Circuit.[4]
    • 1977–1981 – Assistant United States Attorney, District of New Jersey.
    • 1981–1985 – Assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee.
    • 1985–1987 – Deputy Assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese.
    • 1987–1990 – United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
    • 1990–2006 – Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    • 1999–2004 – Adjunct Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey.
    • 2006–(current) – Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
    Looks pretty damned qualified to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    I'm looking forward to a nomination for which the major topic of discussion will be the political stuff, because the qualifications won't be a reeking pile of inadequate size.
    Well, it appears you were right on one nominee out of--what?--the last ten. Hardly seems that you've been suffering through having to see nominees of "inadequate size."

    ~String
    Last edited by superstring01; 05-27-09 at 05:40 AM.

  18. #18
    Mean & Disagreeable Cowboy's Avatar
    Posts
    3,667
    Quote Originally Posted by superstring01 View Post
    While I agree on the surface, it seems a bit self-serving, considering that you and I are from the race and gender that has utterly dominated politics for the past... oh... forever.
    I'm white and I'd be perfectly fine with nine Clarence Thomases on the bench.

    Quote Originally Posted by superstring01 View Post
    The POTUS was going to choose a liberal, no matter their physical stripes!), why should he not make an effort to move the court to look a bit like the country it represents?
    Was she the most qualified liberal?

  19. #19
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    16,196
    Quote Originally Posted by string
    Huh? How is Alito unqualified? You may not like his conservative stripes, which is all well and good, but:



    * 1976–1977 – Law clerk for Leonard I. Garth of the Third Circuit.[4]
    * 1977–1981 – Assistant United States Attorney, District of New Jersey.
    * 1981–1985 – Assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee.
    * 1985–1987 – Deputy Assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese.
    * 1987–1990 – United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
    * 1990–2006 – Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    * 1999–2004 – Adjunct Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey.
    * 2006–(current) – Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.



    Looks pretty damned qualified to me.
    And the confirmation debate was on his qualifications, as stated.

    Which, if you look at them instead of taking the paper certifications for granted, are definitely questionable. DA for one of the States best known for corruption and DA ineffectiveness, assistant to famous standing joke of Rep political appointment Edwin Meese, "adjunct" professor of law (a job often obtained via political association) at a school most famous for basketball, corporate connections, and Catholicism, back in New Jersey - indistinguishable, on its face, from the career of a somewhat above mediocre parasite on the US corporate political "intellectual" establishment. Add a weedy physical presence and his living with his mother into his thirties, and you have a man who needs some demonstration of courage and practical wisdom to round out the resume. He's a bit short, there - time on the appeals courts notwithstanding.

    I mean, he's not a C student from Yale, but he's not Thurgood Marshall either.
    Quote Originally Posted by acid
    I'm white and I'd be perfectly fine with nine Clarence Thomases on the bench.
    No you wouldn't. You'd need at least one Scalia, to do the thinking and writing and questioning of the lawyers during presentations.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Acid Cowboy View Post
    I'm white and I'd be perfectly fine with nine Clarence Thomases on the bench.
    Well I'm black and I would not like to see 9 black judges on the bench. If a black judge who had experienced Jim Crow laws, have been so eager to pass Plessy vs Ferguson? Of course someone who has no idea where victims or defendants are coming from can't bring any experience to the table. With the Latino population dramatically increasing, there will likely be more cases involving cultural aspects and shared cultural experiences. There is nothing wrong with mixing your salad. If you have several qualified applicants, one's personal experience can tip the scale in their favor. I mean that's how I got my job

Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. By rpenner in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 11-14-13, 07:35 PM
    Replies: 423
  2. By madanthonywayne in forum Politics
    Last Post: 01-25-11, 08:18 PM
    Replies: 164
  3. By S.A.M. in forum Ethics, Morality, & Justice
    Last Post: 08-21-09, 09:39 PM
    Replies: 40
  4. By Tiassa in forum Ethics, Morality, & Justice
    Last Post: 12-19-08, 07:06 AM
    Replies: 1
  5. By chuuush in forum Politics
    Last Post: 09-05-08, 01:20 AM
    Replies: 21

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •