Yahoo News: Obama to nominate Sotomayor for SCOTUS

[twa]

Actually, 30-40% of Supreme Court cases are decided unanimously ... they just might not make headlines.

Know how many Justices had that happen?...just curious(and lazy)

[Larry]

Actually, 30-40% of Supreme Court cases are decided unanimously ... they just might not make headlines.

So, if it happened to her once out of 8 reviews, then she's behind, statistically?

[Larry]

Don't know why, but I'm now imagining a scene where MNF pulls out some goofball stat like the number of completions for 20+ yards thrown by left-handed visiting QBs in outdoor stadiums on MNF.

[DjTj]

Know how many Justices had that happen?...just curious(and lazy)

I couldn't find a site that tabulated this very easily, but in the 2007 term, there were 14 unanimous decisions of the Supreme Court reversing or vacating the Circuit Court:

Sprint/United Mgmt v. Mendelsohn

Larue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates

CSX v. GA Board of Equalization

Watson v. United States

NY Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres

Boulware v. United States

United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining

Meadwestvaco v. Illinois Department of Revenue

Virginia v. Moore

Cuellar v. United States

Richlin Security Service v. Chertoff

Quanta Computer v. L.G. Electronics

Taylor v. Sturgell

Munaf v. Geren / Geren v. Omar

There has to be at least 2 judges at the Circuit Court, so that's at least 28 judges in the 2007 term alone.

Compiled statistics from here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/end-of-term-super-statpack/

[aREDSKIN]

1st is demonstrably true as long as you stack the deck to reach the result you want, and ignore reality.

Obama is not even close to as liberal as Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Dick Durbin... for goodness sakes, Bernie Sanders is a self-avowed socialist.

I mean come on is there really a need to distinguish between the DD's, BO's, PM's of the world?? At least Bernie is honest and calls it like it REALLY is. The FACADE is crystal clear.

[Seabee1973]

Sotomayer looks pretty damn moderate and qualified to me, from what I have read.

And that link posted by jrockster is going to be be blown way out of proportion. The judge was responding to a question about where law students should seek internships, and she said the Courts of Appeal because they are the workhorses of the system.

And the fact is, judges do make policy, all the time, because they have to apply ambiguous laws and common law principles in new ways all the time. It is totally dishonest for any judge to claim that they just apply the "plain language" of the statute, because the plain language of the statute usually is difficult to find, especially in close case. So the judges do their best, and in the process, policy is made. This is especially true at the Court of Appeals level.

Look at it this way. Every single close call lawsuit is one that "creates policy." No matter which way the court goes, it is making policy one way or another.

Now IF you can look at Sotomeyer's actual record and demonstrate that her decisions show that she is an out of control judicial activist, that is one thing. If Stephen Reinhardt was the nominee, for example, you could easily make that case.

But to take this COMPLETELY TRUE statement by Sotomeyer about making policy and twist it into advocacy of judicial activism, that is a buncha bull.

Congress authority is to make policy Judges are to uphold them if Judges are to make policy then lets do away with congress since we wont need them anymore.

[Predicto]

Congress authority is to make policy Judges are to uphold them if Judges are to make policy then lets do away with congress since we wont need them anymore.

Nice talking point, but totally useless to this discussion and not responsive to my comment that you quoted.

Let's assume that the law says "all children must wear seatbelts when riding in an automobile."

Case pops up, and the judge is required to decide if the law applies to a 17 year old riding in a pickup truck. Judge looks at the law, and the purposes of the law, and the legislative history, and how similar laws have been construed, and makes a decision.

Guess what. You just made "policy" - in the context that Sotomayer was talking about.

[Burgold]

Congress authority is to make policy Judges are to uphold them if Judges are to make policy then lets do away with congress since we wont need them anymore.

What if the Democratic Congress reaches 60 and decides to write a law outlawing civilian gun ownership. Should the courts uphold that policy even though one could argue that it is contrary to the Constitution?

[Seabee1973]

Fox is right-wing propaganda. Period. I don't consider it "news" at all. Unless and until verified by an actual news-reporting outfit that doesn't have such a clear slant to their "reporting," I think a heavy dose of skepticism is warranted.

The same thing can be said of CBS NBC ABC MSNBC CNN and all the sister stations of CNN. They are all left wing propaganda tools. It said but i find that Fox actually gives both sides of an argument way more than any of the other stations dont let the facts deride anything.

[Burgold]

It said but i find that Fox actually gives both sides of an argument way more than any of the other stations dont let the facts deride anything.

No, it can't. At least not with a straight face.

[Seabee1973]

What if the Democratic Congress reaches 60 and decides to write a law outlawing civilian gun ownership. Should the courts uphold that policy even though one could argue that it is contrary to the Constitution?

That law would be unconstitutional and the would be upholding the law the law by stricking it down.

[twa]

What if the Democratic Congress reaches 60 and decides to write a law outlawing civilian gun ownership. Should the courts uphold that policy even though one could argue that it is contrary to the Constitution?

That is possible if they get too far away from their responsibilities.

One could argue?

[Burgold]

And that's the gray area, Seabee. I gave an obvious example, but there are often laws generated by states and the Feds that rub up against other laws. So, figuring out how to uphold policy isn't a simple or clear cut thing.

Heck, if it was... we would only need courts for prosecuting criminals.

[ljs]

Am I the only one who read that George HW Bush appointed her to the US District court in the first place?

"Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H. W. Bush in 1991 and confirmed in 1992."

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

(read this first on AOL news this morning, but found this quicker)

The GOP is screwed. Hispanics are the fastest growing population in the US. Do they dare oppose Sotomayor and risk alienating this group any more?

Funny how all the Hispanics in my family are Republican. once again, media based propaganda....

Sotomayer looks pretty damn moderate and qualified to me, from what I have read.

But to take this COMPLETELY TRUE statement by Sotomeyer about making policy and twist it into advocacy of judicial activism, that is a buncha bull.

She laughed and even said she shouldn't have said that...and?

Fox is right-wing propaganda. Period. I don't consider it "news" at all. Unless and until verified by an actual news-reporting outfit that doesn't have such a clear slant to their "reporting," I think a heavy dose of skepticism is warranted.

only Hannity. and if Fox is for the Right, then MSNBC/NBC/ABC/CBS have fallen so far to the left, it fell off the edge of the earth:silly:

Don't have time to research, but posted a long time before- independent studies clearly show Fox is more center with the positive/negative reports on Dems and Repub's. The other media outlets are more like 70% pos Dem and 70% Negative Repub. So who is slanted? 24 hours of programming and you all want to say it's all Hannity. He is the Fox Version of MSNBC's Olberman.

Exactly. Celebrating your Italian or "Kiss me I'm Irish" heritage is fine, but celebrating your Latino roots is somehow divise and inappropriate (e.g., people get their panties in a twist when people fly Mexican flags in the U.S., but don't seem to take issue with those flying European flags).

.

Only when more important than US flag. Only when my company celebrates Cinco de go get drunk, but does jack **** for 4th of July. And maybe it's an east coast thing, but I have never seen a European flag. Puerto Rico and Cuba, but not Europe. And when the white person celebrates their heritage people call them racists.

[Larry]

Cinco de go get drunk

Reminding me of a favorite news story of mine.

[aREDSKIN]

It is one of the signs of our times that so many in the media are focusing on the life story of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States.

You might think that this was some kind of popularity contest, instead of a weighty decision about someone whose impact on the fundamental law of the nation will extend for decades after Barack Obama has come and gone.

Much is being made of the fact that Sonia Sotomayor had to struggle to rise in the world. But stop and think.

If you were going to have open heart surgery, would you want to be operated on by a surgeon who was chosen because he had to struggle to get where he is or by the best surgeon you could find-- even if he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had every advantage that money and social position could offer?

If it were you who was going to be lying on that operating table with his heart cut open, you wouldn't give a tinker's damn about somebody's struggle or somebody else's privileges.

The Supreme Court of the United States is in effect operating on the heart of our nation-- the Constitution and the statutes and government policies that all of us must live under.

Barack Obama's repeated claim that a Supreme Court justice should have "empathy" with various groups has raised red flags that we ignore at our peril-- and at the peril of our children and grandchildren.

"Empathy" for particular groups can be reconciled with "equal justice under law"-- the motto over the entrance to the Supreme Court-- only with smooth words. But not in reality. President Obama used those smooth words in introducing Judge Sotomayor but words do not change realities.

Nothing demonstrates the fatal dangers from judicial "empathy" more than Judge Sotomayor's decision in a 2008 case involving firemen who took an exam for promotion. After the racial mix of those who passed that test turned out to be predominantly white, with only a few blacks and Hispanics, the results were thrown out.

When this action by the local civil service authorities was taken to court and eventually reached the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Sotomayor did not give the case even the courtesy of a spelling out of the issues. She backed those who threw out the test results. Apparently she didn't have "empathy" with those predominantly white males who had been cheated out of promotions they had earned.

Fellow 2nd Circuit Court judge Jose Cabranes commented on the short shrift given to the serious issues in this case. It so happens that he too is Hispanic, but apparently he does not decide legal issues on the basis of "empathy" or lack thereof.

This was not an isolated matter for Judge Sotomayor. Speaking at the University of California at Berkeley in 2001, she said that the ethnicity and sex of a judge "may and will make a difference in our judging."

Moreover, this was not something she lamented. On the contrary, she added, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

No doubt the political spinmasters will try to spin this to mean something innocent. But the cold fact is that this is a poisonous doctrine for any judge, much less a justice of the Supreme Court.

That kind of empathy would for all practical purposes repeal the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws" to all Americans.

What would the political spinmasters say if some white man said that a white male would more often reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic female?

For those who believe in the rule of law, Barack Obama used the words "rule of law" in introducing his nominee. For those who take his words as gospel, even when his own actions are directly the opposite of his words, that may be enough to let him put this dangerous woman on the Supreme Court.

Even if her confirmation cannot be stopped, it is important for Senators to warn of the dangers, which will only get worse if such nominations sail through the Senate smoothly.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/05/27/sotomayor__empathy_in_action

[StillUnknown]

senate is set to vote in about an hour or so