• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Sotomayor............

Mike

Well-known member
I certainly hope not with her statements about activist judges legislating from the bench.

This particular SCOTUS pick won't change the makeup of the court, but the next one or two sure will.

People are always using the 2nd amendment of the indicator of individual rights with good reason. The last decision by SCOTUS on the D.C. gun ban should have been unanimous...........................
 

Mike

Well-known member
Kinda bothers me that she sided with the city in the Connecticut Firemen's case on reverse discrimination.

It's a pretty clear-cut case that the white firemen who passed the test were discriminated against.

I think this ol' gal is a lot more liberal and activist than Zer0 would have you believe.

Why can't he just pick a good judge that has experience and leave the activist crap at the door?

And what is all this crap about "Life Experiences" from the left? Do they think you must be liberal to have them? :roll:

Possible Obama Supreme Court Pick Slapped Down Reverse Discrimination Case in One-Paragraph Opinion
Friday, May 08, 2009
By Matt Cover




Judge Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. (AP photo)(CNSNews.com) – U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, voted to deny a racial discrimination claim in a 2008 decision. She dismissed the case in a one-paragraph statement that, in the opinion of one dissenting judge, ignored the evidence and did not even address the constitutional issues raised by the case.

The case, Ricci v. DeStefano, involved a group of 19 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who filed suit in 2003 claiming that the city of New Haven, Conn., engaged in racial discrimination when it threw out the results of two promotion tests because none of the city’s black applicants had passed the tests.

Each of the plaintiffs had passed the exam. The case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The city threw out the results because it feared potential lawsuits from activist groups if few or no minority candidates were promoted. The city also claimed that in addition to potential lawsuits, promotions based on the test results would undermine their goal of diversity in the Fire Department.

The firefighters sued, arguing that New Haven was discriminating against them by deciding that the tests would promote too many white candidates and too few minorities.

Federal Judge Janet Bond Arterton rejected the firefighters’ appeal, siding with the city and saying that no racial discrimination had occurred because the city didn’t promote anyone at all.

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sotomayor issued an order that affirmed Arterton’s decision, issuing a one-paragraph judgment that called Arterton’s ruling “thorough, thoughtful, and well reasoned,”

But according to dissenting Judge Jose Cabranes, the single-paragraph order issued by Sotomayor and her colleagues ignored over 1,800 pages of testimony and more than an hour of argument--ignoring the facts of the case.

“(T)he parties submitted briefs of 86 pages each and a six-volume joint appendix of over 1,800 pages; plaintiffs’ reply brief was over thirty pages long," Cabranes wrote.

"(O)ral argument, on December 10, 2007, lasted over an hour,” Cabranes explained, adding that more than two months after oral arguments, Sotomayor and the majority panel upheld the lower court in a summary order “containing a single substantive paragraph.”

Cabranes criticized Sotomayor and the majority for not explaining why they had sided with the city in their new opinion.

“This per curiam opinion adopted in toto the reasoning of the District Court, without further elaboration or substantive comment, and thereby converted a lengthy, unpublished district court opinion, grappling with significant constitutional and statutory claims of first impression, into the law of this Circuit,” Cabranes wrote in his dissent.

Judge Cabranes also said that Sotomayor’s opinion failed to address the constitutional issues of the case, saying the majority had ignored the facts of the case as well.

“It did so, moreover, in an opinion that lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal. Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case,” the judge criticized.

“This Court has failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal,” Judge Cabranes concluded. “If the Ricci plaintiffs are to receive such an opinion from a reviewing court they must now look to the Supreme Court. Their claims are worthy of that review.”

The opinion, or lack thereof, in the Ricci case is the last in a series of strange opinions issued by Sotomayor.

In another recent decision, U.S.A. v. Marcus, Sotomayor sent the case of a convicted violent sex trafficker back to a lower court because a lower court judge had not specifically told the jury that some, though not all, of the sex trafficking had taken place before it was specifically outlawed.

In another unusual case, then-district Judge Sotomayor ruled that a prospective lawyer must be given special consideration in taking the New York state bar exam because her dyslexia qualified as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, despite the fact that she had failed the exam five times.

As a district court judge, Sotomayor also allowed a racial discrimination claim to continue when the plaintiff, a black nurse, sued Bellevue Hospital Corp because other nurses spoke mainly in Filipino, their native tongue, which she claimed made her feel harassed and isolated.

In 1994, Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of two prisoners who claimed to practice Santeria, a Caribbean religion that involves animal sacrifice and voodoo, saying that “distinctions between ‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional’ religions” are “intolerable.”
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Mike said:
Why can't he just pick a good judge that has experience and leave the activist crap at the door?


Depends on your defn of " activism".


Some here see you as a activist against people of color as that's the way you portray yourself.

It depends on who is measuring
 

Mike

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Mike said:
Why can't he just pick a good judge that has experience and leave the activist crap at the door?


Depends on your defn of " activism".


Some here see you as a activist against people of color as that's the way you portray yourself.

It depends on who is measuring

Big diff. I probably won't be making any decisions/rulings concerning Constitutional issues of discrimination as a matter of law in the next few years. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mike said:
kolanuraven said:
Mike said:
Why can't he just pick a good judge that has experience and leave the activist crap at the door?


Depends on your defn of " activism".


Some here see you as a activist against people of color as that's the way you portray yourself.

It depends on who is measuring

I say we start a write in campaign and get you nominated.

Big diff. I probably won't be making any decisions/rulings concerning Constitutional issues of discrimination as a matter of law in the next few years. :roll:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Here's a little of what Glenn Beck has to say about her:

Empathy trumps legality

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is Obama's nominee for Supreme Court Justice. Get ready for some sweet bench legislation coming our way, as she did in the New Haven Firefighter case where she was on a panel that tossed out a case based on empathy rather than legality. But that shouldn't be surprising from someone who says stuff like: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life” -Sonia Sotomayor. She's also smooth. After her comments on legislating from the bench she says "This is on tape, I probably shouldn't be saying this." Obama sure knows how to pick em' eh?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kolanuraven said:
Mike said:
Why can't he just pick a good judge that has experience and leave the activist crap at the door?


Depends on your defn of " activism".


Some here see you as a activist against people of color as that's the way you portray yourself.

It depends on who is measuring

Yep there is not a Judge in the country that doesn't put his/her pants on the same way as everyone else in the country does every day...

And to tell them to throw out personal/life experiences and everyday knowledge and common sense is assinine....Our forefathers 200+ years ago set down a very rough "basic" guideline- which has to be interpreted by each judge through those lifetime experiences- and that has evolved thru 200+ years of decisions....
And automatically discrediting a judge because of their drag themselves up from their bootstraps background -- and aren't a corporate bootlicker born with a silver spoon or are of a minority are wrong...

Too bad our forefathers couldn't see the 200+ years into the future and describe everything out in black and white- but lots of Constitutional Law is now in a grey area....If not GW would be in Marion prison....

And from the seccessionist/racists posts of the southern new Republicanism "boys" I can see we will never please them- but we definitely need some Justices that take us past that and make decisions that fit the majority of the country- and not just the Confederacy.....
 

garn

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
Here's a little of what Glenn Beck has to say about her:

Empathy trumps legality

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is Obama's nominee for Supreme Court Justice. Get ready for some sweet bench legislation coming our way, as she did in the New Haven Firefighter case where she was on a panel that tossed out a case based on empathy rather than legality. But that shouldn't be surprising from someone who says stuff like: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life” -Sonia Sotomayor. She's also smooth. After her comments on legislating from the bench she says "This is on tape, I probably shouldn't be saying this." Obama sure knows how to pick em' eh?

Sweet Mother of God. Imagine the outrage if a white man said that of a minorty :shock:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
" but lots of Constitutional Law is now in a grey area....If not GW would be in Marion prison.... "

And Maobama would of been disquaified as not being eligible.
 

cowman52

Well-known member
I bet some idea of activist changes when she decides your cow farts are offensive to the global warming folks, and decides your cow is worth say 200 bucks which should be handed over to the clean air people to pay for damages. HOW LOUD YOU GONNA HOLLAR THEN????? :?
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Mike said:
As a district court judge, Sotomayor also allowed a racial discrimination claim to continue when the plaintiff, a black nurse, sued Bellevue Hospital Corp because other nurses spoke mainly in Filipino, their native tongue, which she claimed made her feel harassed and isolated.
[/quote]

If that's the case, I've been harassed and isolated anyplace I've ever taken my wife in the last 19 years! However, if the plaintiff had told the Bingettes "Puki mo mabaho!", she probably would have ended up with an icepick in one of her kidneys! :wink:
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
cowman52 said:
I bet some idea of activist changes when she decides your cow farts are offensive to the global warming folks, and decides your cow is worth say 200 bucks which should be handed over to the clean air people to pay for damages. HOW LOUD YOU GONNA HOLLAR THEN????? :?

Anal Tourette's would cheerfully comply and wonder where he could deliver them, along with a nice check for reparations....... :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
From what I have read- Sotomayor is much more centrist than many of the other named possible nominees....She is considered that by the American Bar Association.....

She is an appropriate pick to bring balance to the courts since the majority of the US population is now women- and hispanics make up 15% of the population...She fills the gap of both those groups which are underrepresented....

I do like the fact she has experience in Criminal Law and was a Prosecuting Attorney- she prosecuted robberies, assaults, murders, police brutality, and child pornography cases and is considered strong on criminals...
She has shown she has followed the law as written on abortion (even upholding Bush's rule which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations").
Her second amendment rulings have held up states rights- and she has even overturned a case involving a city that took property by imminent domain....

She has been high on both the Repubs and Dems lists as a potential nominee...She was first nominated to the Federal Courts by GHW Bush-confirmed by the Senate- and then nominated to the high position she holds today on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by Clinton and confirmed by a Republican dominated Senate in 1998, in a 67-29 vote....

Its going to be pretty difficult for the Repubs to block her- since they already approved her twice - and some are speculating that the only ones that will try are the right wing extremists- the "NO" group as they're known today- who say no to everything and wouldn't even confirm their own mother unless she promised them a free machine gun for every holiday, seccession from the union, repeal of womens sufferage (keep them barefoot and pregnant- in the kitchen or bedroom is a womans place), and a return to slavery... :roll: :wink:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Plus..........................she can make a better decision than a white man. :roll:

From your endorsement, now I know DAMN WELL she should be opposed.

60% of her rulings have been overturned? Hell, I could flip a coin and beat that record! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Plus..........................she can make a better decision than a white man. :roll:

From your endorsement, now I know DAMN WELL she should be opposed.

60% of her rulings have been overturned? Hell, I could flip a coin and beat that record! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

and some are speculating that the only ones that will try are the right wing extremists- the "NO" group as they're known today- who say no to everything and wouldn't even confirm their own mother unless she promised them a free machine gun for every holiday, seccession from the union, repeal of womens sufferage (keep them barefoot and pregnant- in the kitchen or bedroom is a womans place), and a return to slavery... :roll: :wink:

Why does this not surprise me :???:
 

Ben H

Well-known member
I don't understand why some of you bother arguing with some of these "progressives", it's a waste of time, they're too far gone.
 

Mike

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Mike said:
Plus..........................she can make a better decision than a white man. :roll:


I'd bet my money on her against you, white man, any day!!! :wink:

A moot and asinine argument.....As always................ :roll: :roll:
 
Top