05-26-09, 10:51 AM #1
Sonia Sotomayor Tapped For Hight CourtObama 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."
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.
05-26-09, 10:55 AM #2
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.
05-26-09, 10:57 AM #3
05-26-09, 11:07 AM #4
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.
05-26-09, 01:50 PM #5
It's too bad that race and gender are still major factors. Still, glad that a Dem majority will sail her through.
05-26-09, 03:38 PM #6
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.
Here's a video discussing the case:
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.
05-26-09, 04:40 PM #7
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.
05-26-09, 06:37 PM #8Even if Obama turns out to be the greatest president in the history of the country
05-26-09, 07:07 PM #9
05-26-09, 08:37 PM #10
05-26-09, 09:23 PM #11
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.
05-26-09, 10:30 PM #12
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.
05-26-09, 11:43 PM #13
05-27-09, 01:09 AM #14
Originally Posted by madanth
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.
05-27-09, 02:48 AM #15
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.
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.
05-27-09, 05:23 AM #16
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.
05-27-09, 05:34 AM #17
- 1976–1977 – Law clerk for Leonard I. Garth of the Third Circuit.
- 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.
Last edited by superstring01; 05-27-09 at 05:40 AM.
05-27-09, 08:57 AM #18
05-27-09, 02:33 PM #19
Originally Posted by string
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.
Originally Posted by acid
05-27-09, 03:01 PM #20
By rpenner in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 04-22-13, 08:51 PMReplies: 405
By madanthonywayne in forum PoliticsLast Post: 01-25-11, 08:18 PMReplies: 164
By S.A.M. in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 08-21-09, 09:39 PMReplies: 40
By Tiassa in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 12-19-08, 07:06 AMReplies: 1
By chuuush in forum PoliticsLast Post: 09-05-08, 01:20 AMReplies: 21