Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor

[BB73]

I caught part of the Franken questioning today and actually learned an important legal point.

Perry Mason once lost a case!

YouTube - Al Franken Jokes With Sonia Sotomayor...

[Best Buckeye]

You can take the comedian out of the comedy but.........

[CookyPuss]

Originally Posted by BigWoof31

Hot Air ? Blog Archive ? Sotomayor?s so-so reviews thus far


Rightly Blog posts a link dump of lefty journos and their thoughts on Judge Soto's performance thus far

**Does include thoughts from a G-Town Law professor who is apparently very distinguished.

The G-Town prof has some very good points:

Lawyers, Guns and Money: Law and ideology

Con law professor Louis Seidman:


Speaking only for myself (I guess that's obvious), I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor's testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts? First year law students understand within a month that many areas of the law are open textured and indeterminate?that the legal material frequently (actually, I would say always) must be supplemented by contestable presuppositions, empirical assumptions, and moral judgments. To claim otherwise?to claim that fidelity to uncontested legal principles dictates results?is to claim that whenever Justices disagree among themselves, someone is either a fool or acting in bad faith. What does it say about our legal system that in order to get confirmed Judge Sotomayor must tell the lies that she told today? That judges and justices must live these lies throughout their professional carers?

Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth. Legal academics who defend what she did today have no such excuse. They should be ashamed of themselves.


(This is from live blogging of the Sotomayor testimony. I don't know how to link to the quote itself).

The link includes some discussion and Mr. Seidman's follow up comments. I think he has some very valid points. Although, I of the school that we are all constantly influenced by our biases and prejudices and that unless we bring them into awareness we have no chance to avoid them.

[CookyPuss]

More lawyer reviews here:

The Sotomayor Hearings: A Waste of Time? - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com

Dershowitz is funny.

[BuckeyeMike80]

Scandalous Poll: Is Sonia Sotomayor Really Roseanne Barr in Disguise? Or a wise latina?

BTW even though I don't really agree with just about every one of the liberal judges on the bench, at least they were brilliant technicians of the law.

Sotomayor isn't either a technician of the law nor brilliant from what we have seen in this testimony. And while she's probably not nearly as liberal as someone the Messiah could have selected, I think the nomination of this individual has significantly lowered the standard by which Supreme Court justices are selected, at least this time around.

[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeMike80

... I think the nomination of this individual has significantly lowered the standard by which Supreme Court justices are selected, at least this time around.

Kind of like Clarence Thomas. And David Souter.

Too bad we have GHW Bush to thank for letting that particular cat out of the bag.

[BuckeyeMike80]

Originally Posted by MaxBuck

Kind of like Clarence Thomas. And David Souter.

Too bad we have GHW Bush to thank for letting that particular cat out of the bag.

eh too young to remember either one of them. either way both have, for the most part, worked out IMO.

[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeMike80

eh too young to remember either one of them. either way both have, for the most part, worked out IMO.

Neither one of them will have Court historians working feverishly to publish their biographies. But also they have not interfered with the effective functioning of the SCOTUS, and neither will Sotomayor.

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeMike80

Scandalous Poll: Is Sonia Sotomayor Really Roseanne Barr in Disguise? Or a wise latina?

BTW even though I don't really agree with just about every one of the liberal judges on the bench, at least they were brilliant technicians of the law.

Sotomayor isn't either a technician of the law nor brilliant from what we have seen in this testimony. And while she's probably not nearly as liberal as someone the Messiah could have selected, I think the nomination of this individual has significantly lowered the standard by which Supreme Court justices are selected, at least this time around.

i dont really agree with the "technician" part. 1-they have the ability to read, reread and slam every word choice, every comment. 2-she can more than carry her own with her legal prowess.
on the lowering the bar? its all relative no? i mean is she the most "academia' or "practice" or whichever standard you could pick, no. but shes far from a dense box of rocks. shes known as a workaholic, arrogant, pushy, hot tempered and certainly has some polarizing stuff but what person of power does not?
on her "liberalness" she wont end up the most leftist judge (though aligning judges politically typical is a fail rather its probably better to look at how the interpret the law [text, interp, dyn stat, etc, etc]).
i said it before and ill say it again shes within (or has ruled within the 95% standard). that is the typical norm. certainly if we applied the "obama standard" we could never nominate (anyone). that being said she knows what she is doing during these hearings, walking softly, cautiously knowing shes one dumb comment, or misspoken word away from ending up a fool back on her app bench.

[valentine]

Why are we to believe the Supremes are smart? These same stooges over time have believed a person has as much rights as a horse, that separate but equal could actually be equal, that states rights are paramount until a state court says a recount that could hurt the candidate you vote for should proceed.

The Supreme Court has nothing else to do than listen to a paucity of cases each year. If you had that much time per case, you could come up with something intelligent to explain your reasoning.

Sotomayor will fit right in.

[stxbuck]

Originally Posted by valentine

Why are we to believe the Supremes are smart? These same stooges over time have believed a person has as much rights as a horse, that separate but equal could actually be equal, that states rights are paramount until a state court says a recount that could hurt the candidate you vote for should proceed.

The Supreme Court has nothing else to do than listen to a paucity of cases each year. If you had that much time per case, you could come up with something intelligent to explain your reasoning.

Sotomayor will fit right in.

Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were both stupid decisons, but both were reflective of the times and people inhabiting said times. Dred Scott was an egregious case of judicial activism, the staus of Mr. Scott having been determined, the SC took it upon themselves to declare the missouri compromies unconstitutional. According to the logic of your post Objectionable position=stupid person. This is not necessarily so, brains and morality/virtue don't always run together.
I see nothing that should realitically prevent sotomayor from being confirmed, I just wonder if MoC will say anything on his blog.......

[MightbeaBuck]

I sent the following to my liberal Senator yesterday. i believe Sotomayor will be confirmed, but at the same time, I love the responses I get back from Sherrod. Stirring the pot with a U.S. Senator is fun. You may praise or damn what I say, but I did not say it to you Buckeye Planet, I said it to a guy I pay.



Senator Brown:

I hope that you will do the right thing by carrying out the will of the people of the state of Ohio by voting against Sonia Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court Justice. I say this for several reasons.

First, Ms. Sotomayor appears to be a little too conservative, especially in areas that concern me.
She achieved her current position after an appointment to U.S. district court judge by a Republican President, a very conservative George H. W. Bush.
She is pro-business, anti-labor. This is evidenced in many of her decisions, with the case involving Maurice Clarett vs. Professional Football as a prime example. She ruled in favor of the NFL, incidentally, a monopoly.
She is pro-life, anti-choice. This is also evidenced in many of her decisions, a crucial example being the case involving an abortion rights group in its challenge to the so-called "Mexico City Policy." She ruled against the abortion rights group.

Second, Ms. Sotomayor has had far more than the average number of case decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court, an indication that her verdicts were questionable.
Indeed, of the cases she has had reviewed, most of her decisions have been overturned.
Of six cases, four were overturned. In one of the two cases that the Supreme Court actually upheld, they unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach "flies in the face of the statutory language".
In addition, there may be a conflict of interest, as after her nomination, the Supreme Court was in the process of reviewing some of the other cases upon which she has ruled (again poorly.)

Finally, from her history, it would appear Ms. Sotomayor is not qualified to be a judge at any state or federal level, let alone the highest court in the land.
I believe that to be able to apply a life?s experience to a judgeship, it must include at least some experience in the private sector and familiarity with the general community. Her life history seems to run counter to this.
She starts early in life with a private education, avoiding familiarity with the general public. She went to an elite private grade school, an elite private high school, and an elite college, Princeton. Then she was accepted at Yale, an elite law school.
She has no real professional experience in life outside of the government. Almost every job she has ever held has been as a state or federal government lawyer or judge.

She has repeatedly publically stated that the appeals court is where policy is made. I believe that the Senate or the House, or possibly the President should make policy, but NOT a judge, and NOT in a courtroom.

I know you will do the right thing and help other fellow Democrats, all Ohio, and yourself, by rejecting Sonia Sotomayor's nomination.

[jimotis4heisman]

where is the response?

[Buckeye86]

Originally Posted by MightbeaBuck

I sent the following to my liberal Senator yesterday. i believe Sotomayor will be confirmed, but at the same time, I love the responses I get back from Sherrod. Stirring the pot with a U.S. Senator's intern who reads and responds to all of the letters he receives is fun. You may praise or damn what I say, but I did not say it to you Buckeye Planet, I said it to a guy I pay.

bolded

[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by MightbeaBuck

... I said it to a guy I pay.

Hate to break this to you, but your taxes probably don't pay for a paper clip that Brown uses.