Obama picks Sotomayor for SC - Page 2

Thanks, Zhukov.

And I agree with you regarding both the predominent conservative opinion of 'activist judges' and with your take on Constitutional 'Originalism,' which has been Scalia's drum to beat forever now, and which represents a truly bass-ackward view of the law, in my opinion.

Good luck attempting to decide issues of Constitutionality as regards any 21st century topic if Scalia gets his way. If we rely solely on the Founders' intent, it excludes every development the Founders did not anticipate within the corners of the document (and related documents) - which is quite a lot.

Another good article on Sotomayor.

I think the article sort of addresses Zhukov's point. The reason why confirmation hearings are a "farce" is because senators want a straight answer where there is none. The law isn't about balls and strikes. If it was that easy, clients wouldn't pay lawyers through the nose to get results. Clients would know, coming in, whether they can win or lose.

The only thing that you can hope for, in a judge, is that the judge is smart, knows the law, and cares about the cases before the court. The rest is a series of intangibles. Judge Sotomayor seems to fit the bill in that respect.

Ricci is dyslexic. The $1000 was to pay a friend to read the textbooks onto audio tape so he could study from those instead of having to read them.

"Ricci, stop setting GOD DAMNED fires!"

Jake wins this one.

I nominate Jake to be the new Associate Justice for the Supreme Court of the United States. Forget this Sotomayor lady.

Another interesting article from Slate, this time regarding Sotomayor's ruling on Ricci. I quoted what I believe to be the relevant part. Seems like she applied the law correctly.

Urge to kill... rising...

Absolutely. Lets hope these hearings arent when any of the male judges didnt get some for 2 weeks.
How can someone like that hold ANY kind of position where they are allowed to talk to the public?

You know what's even dumber? This woman is 54 years old. More than likely she's gone through menopause. And even then, this guy is fucking retarded no matter how you look at it.

Welcome to America!

I was thinking the same thing. Has Liddy ever even spoken to a woman? Did he shut his eyes, cover his ears, and hide under his desk during Sex Ed class?

No no no, the further marginalization of the Republican party is a good thing. The stupidity and dishonesty was frustrating as hell when Americans lapped it up, but now that it doesn't successfully serve to drive odious policy this stuff is like strawberry fucking jam.

Yes, the republicans reaction to this might be their end as a national party.

I actually think being the party of the far-right nuts and morons is a surefire way to stay in the game no matter how many intelligent voters you lose... cause there just are so many damn morons in this world I mean, to a certain extent Jesus pretty much does their work for them in terms of recruiting.

Forgive my coarse love of needless auto-tune:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGhsbRb_pqE

That's a little overblown, imo, for pretty much the same reasons Khaunshar said. I know people who basically agree with the Republicans on this and give them credit for bringing it up.

....they're all fairly dumb white guys.

It's almost as if there's never been a woman on the Supreme Court before.

Yeah, but O'Connor's a perfectly normal white woman. Who knows what magical, mystical, unknowable properties a non-white woman might bring to the bench? She's still menstruating in her fifties, dammit! And she eats weird foreign food!

Bashing a SC nominee because of her ethnicity will lose the all of the Hispanic vote. They can't win a national election with just white guys. Of course, I'm assuming that the GOP stays as dumb as it is now.

Is this really all about nurturing the ig'nt part of their base? Because I can't see this ending really well for them. Sotomayor is going to perform just fine in the nomination process and the wingnut GOP base is going to piss off Hispanics in the process. This crass pandering doesn't bode well for them.

Honestly, I think this is a true expression of this Republican party's values right now.

The last election appears to have distilled them to their baser essence, and it's instructive. I encourage Liddy to keep voicing crazed, He-Man Woman Hater invective if only because, by identifying these whackos and publically exposing their virulent insanity to sunlight, actual conservatism might stand a chance of taking root. Imagine that - a Republican party that wants to keep the government OUT of the bedroom, and demands that the hard work of people like Sotomayor be rewarded over the empty demagogery of the Liddy's of this world.

Well said, Mr. Custer.

You have the fringed members that have nothing to lose make the statements, get their pound of flesh and then move on. There is nothing the Republicans can do to stop the appointment because they lack the seats to stop the vote. The real test will be if Ginsberg still retires before the 2010 elections, that will mean the court isn't too pleased with Obama's pick.

Sotomayor is pretty much a moot point, she's 54 with lifelong diabetes (and appears to be overweight), it is doubtful she'll be on the court for a prolonged period of time and she only makes up one vote, one already liberal vote. If anything the Democrats should be balking at this appointment and hoping to get someone who may not be retiring due to medical complications during a conservative administration in the future.

First and foremost, it's good to be engaging with you again, Snaike.

Fringe members? I'd hardly call Liddy, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Sessions and others 'fringe' members. They are, however unofficially, mouthpieces for the party. This is not to say that I don't agree with you that they hold 'fringe' beliefs (namely, virulent, unfounded racism and sexism in the place of intelligent criticism).

The Republicans have three realistic choices in this scenario, for precisely the reason you've identified. Those choices are: (1) Oppose the nomination on intelligent, reasonable grounds despite lacking the ability to stop the appointment, (2) oppose the nomination on racist and sexist grounds, (3) accept the nomination (given that, on the basis of the evidence so far, Sotomayor appears to have been intensely fastidious about applying the correct law, even at the expense of sympathetic plaintiffs, I'm honestly not sure what a 'rational' conservative would object to as regards her judicial philosophy on this point). They've chosen option two, which almost certainly ensures that they will be painted in a negative light. It further paints a picture, however unfair to 'traditional' conservatives, of the R party as an organization motivated by baseless rhetoric and smear-mongering. I am hard-pressed to understand the choice being made here. Option one, at the very least, allows the party to claim ideological differences and patriotic dissent on non-objectionable grounds, which they can then use to their advantage in the future.

On your second point, Ginsburg has been talking about retirement for some time. Should she retire before 2010, that could easily be interpreted as a desire on her part to ensure that Obama has the ability to nominate a second justice during his term, no?

By what metric do you count her vote as liberal? Her judicial record does not really support this designation.

Ginsburg has remained on the court despite battles with colon and pancreatic cancer. I'm not sure that having diabetes and being overweight guarantees Sotomayor a short tenure on the court.

If anything, one would think that the Democrats would push harder for a judge that appears more reliably liberal/democrat in their rulings. Re diabetes: Wilfred Brimley continues to shill on television. One assumes Sotomayor could continue to issue opinions.

All the points I've posed are meant to be taken non-confrontationally. Would enjoy hearing your thoughts in response.

The problem is that there's a Catch-22. Half of these guys spew this hate shit because it gets them ratings. They're disingenuous hucksters looking to make money off the ignorance of small-minded people. Some of them are true-believers. The masses who love this shit don't view it as merely "entertainment" to be questioned as reporting or facts. They see it as news. Regardless of whether they are phonies or true-believers, as long as you have the elite taking advantage of the ignorant masses (or are generally unconcerned with facts) and both sides are content to maintain the status quo, you will not see some truer, less malignant conservative platform take hold.

Your point here is, I think, dead-on.

Still, isn't it a point that could be made about any institution? The existence of elites influencing the masses is not a new phenomenon. Should the preponderance of disingenuous hucksters and small-minded people keep intelligent, well-meaning 'traditional' conservatives from pushing for change within their party? That's essentially what I'm advocating.

By fringe, I refer to those that no longer hold publicly elected seats and have the breathing room to test out messaging. They can say what they want or what the party feels without having to deal with the ramifications come election time.

It isn't racist to point out that a judge that is being sold more on identity rather then qualifications has made some rather questionable comments or rulings in the past. This is a lifelong appointment, not something that can be undone and the people who serve on this court can alter the very fabric of our country and the rules that govern us. It is paramount that we turn over every stone and leave no doubt in our mind about who we are putting in this lifelong seat.

This discussion will not destroy the Republican party and cost them the latino vote any more so then they already have from illegal immigration, drivers license, etc... As to racism, try looking up Miguel Estrada and how the Democrats acted with his lesser court appointment.

Ginsberg is planning on retiring and wanted to wait for a liberal President, Souter asked Ginsberg if he could retire first and she said she would hold off to prevent there being too many changes in one court year. It is expected that her departure will happen before the 2010 elections (November) however if she holds off until after those elections, it could be interpreted as a clear indication of her dissatisfaction with this appointment, either in the candidate or the level of control the Democrats have (fillibusterproof majority).


She sure won over enough liberals to get where she is, sometimes you have to look at the situation rather then the records but if she is more moderate than far left, that might play into the red hearing theory (see below)

Cancer is rough man, Ginsburg had the advantage of being a fighter and some of the best medical professionals available giving her lots of treatments. There is no cure for diabetes and no way to treat it into remission if things spiral out of control and with the advancing of years and being overweight, Sotomayor will be a ticking time bomb on that bench.

Here's a link
And there are a lot more possible medical complications that come with diabetes. Now, I'm sure she isn't sick now but as you advance in age with that illness, it only gets worse and especially being overweight (that is a sign that you aren't really doing what you are supposed to be doing to keep your diabetes in check; eating right, taking correct insolin, exorcise, etc...)

Well, it could be a red hearing. She could be out there to force the Republicans to put up a fight, a few Democrats cave (that are not up for reelection in 2010) and they don't appoint her and this plays into their 2010 strategy to win \ keep more seats. As to Wilfred Brimley, he got diabetes later in life. There is a difference between the juvenile diabetes and those developed later on in life, not to mention there are exceptions to the norm and people lasting longer inspite of various illness; see Ginsberg, Magic Johnson, etc.. Also, Brimley has admitted to having some neuropathy as a complication to diabetes after 25 years, Sotomayer has had it for 46 years.

G Gordon Liddy enjoyed some fame and maybe influence in the GOP in the 1990's. He used to have a syndicated radio show: now he's on XM and Internet radio.

Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reily really do seem to have influence in the party. But they are concerned first and foremost with cultivating their own "base" and driving ratings, not the good of the country and certainly not the good of the GOP.

I think the Republicans are in a Catch 22 here. If they let the Limbuagh contingent steamroller them, they lose any hope of support by Latinos or any minority in future elections. If they don't they risk losing the people who fund raise and (let's face it) form the core of the party.

Ah. Understood. That's certainly how I'd describe them as well, at least in part.

This assertion is specious, at very best.

Sotomayor is, from a judicial perspective, the most qualified nomination in a very long time. There is simply no disputing that. Her experience, her achievements, and her record bear this out. I invite you, in the spirit of dispassionate debate, to provide to us evidence on her lack of qualifications.

I also invite you to provide evidence of questionable comments and/or rulings. This second invitation is not meant to imply that there are no questionable comments or rulings to be found - I would be shocked were it otherwise. I simply wish for factually-sound, verifiable evidence to be produced regarding questionable comments/rulings. For instance: her remark regarding her ability to better judge a case because of her ethnic and socio-economic background is questionable when taken out of context. When placed within the context of the speech in question, it becomes clear that Sotomayor was in fact remarking upon the importance of holding the law above any particular personal background.

If you have verifiable evidence of poor decision-making, please post it. I would appreciate that service and it would further a healthy debate in ways that vague, generalized accusations do not.

Undoubtably. I support and encourage valid and intelligent investigation into Sotomayor's decisions. I do NOT support inferences that she is only being nominated because of her gender and/or ethnicity. While both obviously play a factor in the appointment, her professional record illustrates clearly that this is not a case of affirmative action.

Do you mean this Miguel Estrada? Having a Latin name does not mean that you are a victim of racism when you are filibustered and prevented from being appointed. It was his conservatism that Democrats had a problem with - not his latino heritage or his gender.

Didn't you just say that if she leaves before 2010 it might be considered as dissatisfaction with this appointment? Regardless, you're correct in the above instance, hypothetically. If she holds off until after 2010, her decision could be construed this way. We won't know until then, assuming Sotomayor is confirmed.

Wha?

What does 'sometimes you have to look at the situation rather than the records' mean? This is a sincere question. Her judicial record IS the situation. How she's ruled in the past is, barring statistical outliers, a reliable indicator of how she'll rule in the future.

As far as the comment that she won over enough liberals to get where she is: do liberals now include George H.W. Bush, who appointed her to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York?

This is an area where I'm woefully under-informed, so I can't speak to the accuracy of what you're saying here. If diabetes is, as you imply, more dangerous than cancer, than you're correct that this should be considered. But I personally find that difficult to believe. I'll concede this, since I have no real basis from which to argue other than to say that it seems strange.

Maybe. But this is about Republicans baselessly questioning Sotomayor's abilities, not about the long-term Democratic strategy. Again, I sincerely invite you to supply evidence of questionable decision-making on Sotomayor's part.

You appear to know more about the diabetes than I do. Again, I'll concede that this is an issue that should be addressed, if what you're saying is true.

Reposted from above:

Your point here is, I think, dead-on.

Still, isn't it a point that could be made about any institution? The existence of elites influencing the masses is not a new phenomenon. Should the preponderance of disingenuous hucksters and small-minded people keep intelligent, well-meaning 'traditional' conservatives from pushing for change within their party? That's essentially what I'm advocating.

Firstly, the comment taken in or out of context is disturbing for someone who is to be considered for the highest court in the land. There is a reason why Obama has come out and tried to apologize for it.

Secondly, no one is saying she isn't an experienced judge, but remember, she isn't being sold to us on her experience she is being sold on the 'richness' of her history oh and she's been a judge a long time too, Obama's the one that pushed identity over judicial experience.

The question is what does the experience tell us. As it stands now thousands upon thousands of people are combing through her rulings, cases, notes, etc... to get a better grasp of who she is and what type of Justice she would become. There are a few cases that made the news that caught my attention;
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/l...eech-case.html

If you click on the link there is a sublink that goes to the court ruling, it gives you a little more information but the gist of it is, because the Supreme Court hadn't yet ruled on it they took it upon themselves to determine that 'blogging' could be used by school officials for disciplinary actions because other school members may have read it thus it can go back to the school and that falls under previous rulings that you can't say mean and nasty's on school ground. Now, it could be inferred that since the Supreme court hasn't ruled on it yet and she is slated to go on the supreme court that it would be her same conclusion when she arrives there, which, certainly, in my opinion, goes against the idea that she is a defender of the constitution and that she follows the 'rule of law'.

Also, the Ricci case (New Haven firefighters) will most likely be overturned by the Supreme Court, it's also worth noting, the job he quit to train for the promotion was his second job and while you can argue Title IIV all you want, there is a special place where judges can add comments and notes and make statements on how they disagree with a ruling but had to adhere to it due to legalities (useful for when things are kicked up to a higher court) there was no such objection.

This is just the tip of the proverbial ice berg, there is a lot more judicial experience (however no high profile cases) when it comes to this judge and there will be a lot more cases to dissect and review.

Well, she certainly was only being nominated because of her gender, Obama only interviewed women and of those women he went with the most risky candidate, (not risky because of her ethnicity but) because of her history, lack of high profile cases and her health and he went with her in his words because of the 'richness of her story' and being an immigrant from Puerto Rico and rising from poverty was the key elements he highlighted. So to say that her ethnicity and gender didn't play a factor is laughable, is it affirmative action? No but certainly factors and when put into context of other possible nominee's something worth looking at and conversing about.


Actually... it was because he was dangerous and had no paper trail and he was LATINO! or at least that what Dick Durbin claimed.

Well, there hasn't been any real big ticket items to really identify her political leanings, at least that I've heard about, if you got some let me know. As to the situation comment, if very liberal senators vet you and say 'you're alright' it is presumably because they're comfortable with your leanings. This is more of a leap of political faith on my part I guess, I just can't get around the idea that so many far left leaning liberals would be pushing this lady through if she wasn't herself, liberal.

As to the George H.W. Bush appointment, that was part of a deal with then Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D) and Bush had to accept it. I don't fully understand the whole federal judge appointment thing so I'll have to take this at face value.
link to article that asserts that


It isn't 'more' dangerous then cancer but remember there are various types and degrees of cancer and Ginsberg certainly wasn't nominated and confirmed with the understanding that she had cancer.

The comment, taken in context, is the opposite of 'disturbing.' Taken out of context, it is disturbing. I have no issue with Sotomayor being questioned regarding her intent. I take issue with what appears to be the purposeful mangling of her comment to create the notion that she is racist.

But this is patently untrue. Many are saying that she isn't an experienced judge, or that her experience isn't impressive , or that her experience is a result of affirmative action. All of these statements are categorically false, and embarrassing to those who've made the statements.

First, you and I both apparently oppose the result of the ruling in that particular case (the notion that comments on a blog can be punished this way is absurd and insulting to me). The result of that case was unfair. However, the question here is not the unfair result but the proper application of existing law. If she applied the law, adhered to precedent, and ruled impartially, Sotomayor did her job. Whether the result is appealing is a separate question entirely.

Secondly, the fact that Sotomayor may end up sitting on the SC after having decided the case previously IN NO WAY goes against the idea that she is a defender of the Constitution and that she follows the rule of law. The mere fact of her sitting on the case again says nothing about her abilities, nor does it comment on her ideology.

What's your point? That she didn't note that she thought this was unfair? I thought that conservatives decried empathy, and wanted a pure application of the law regardless of the sympathetic nature of a plaintiff? I further thought that 'activist judges' who put their feelings before the law were unwanted.

If that is not the case, then conservatives such as Limbaugh should stop arguing that it is. Either you want someone to impartially, un-emotionally apply the law or you desire some form of empathy. What you suggest here is empathy, and ineffectual empathy at that. If Sotomayor had joined the majority but dissented as regards 'fairness' it might tell us more about her personal feelings - this is unargued - but it would not change the outcome of the case.

And I look forward to reading the dissections that emerge. Thus far, despite my misgivings regarding both the 'blog' case and the New Haven firefighter case, it is not an effective argument to say that Sotomayor misapplied the law, or was otherwise faulty in her ruling.

Bottom line: We don't like the result of those cases. That does not mean Sotomayor cannot be an effective Justice.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. I clearly state in the excerpt you've quoted that gender and ethnicity were factors in her selection, but that her professional record indicates clearly that this was not an 'affirmative action pick.'

Dick Durbin claimed he was dangerous politically, because being latino would make it harder to mount opposition to the nomination for fear of being labeled racist. That may be amorally political thinking, but it's not racist.

That's a large leap of political faith. Not to say that 'far left leaning Liberals' aren't expecting her to be liberal - just that they'd be woefully misinformed Liberals to accept that meme as fact. It simply isn't true as far as her judicial decisions go (as far as the record has borne out thus far at any rate). That assumption on your part is a large, unfounded one.

That's fair enough. Personally speaking, I do not have a problem with her being appointed and having diabetes. If she should die she would be replaced. We'd all soldier on.

Is it also worth talking about the fact that all of the white men who have dominated the court since its beginnings were chosen using even more rigid parameters of gender and ethnicity?

Regarding Sotomayor being a racist.

I still don't understand the persistence of people spouting the retarded claim that this woman is practically David Duke in judge robes.

I know the point I'm making can be used across many different orgs. The problem here is that as long as there is a stalemate, nothing will change. So who knows who is going to win out over keeping the naming rights to "Republican Party"? Who will bail first? Will the drive to change from within work? The cynic in me thinks that whatever side nets better ratings will win.

Not to derail the thread, but I think THIS National Review article is very relevant to the conversation.

Essentially there is a divide between the traditional "Elite" in the Republican party and the Populists (and those willing and able to manipulate the Populists) who are appealing to the Mob.

What (IMO) we're seeing with Limbaugh etc are populists rousing the rabble. These people have been purging the Republican party for over a decade.

What gives me some reason for hope is the utter failure of Limbaugh to get Hilary Clinton nominated in the general election last year despite a massive effort on his part to do so.

Yes, it should end them...

...but it sure as hell won't. The mainstream media's not going to simply start doing their jobs out of the blue one day, and that means what actually happened and what was actually said and written just doesn't matter in any tangible sense. Factual accuracy loses to perceived balance every time. Besides, who wants their news broadcast boycotted by looney, demonstrably dangerous pro-lifers?

What an utterly nihilistic view of things: if a tree falls in the forest and the 'mainstream media' doesn't report on it, then it doesn't exist.

Decent reporters, journalists and commentators, one of whom wrote this article, clearly are doing their jobs. If they weren't there'd be nothing for you to be dismissive of.

To sum up: We should all just give up and let the loons run the asylum. Nothing matters. And while we're on the topic, what's the point of law anyway? I mean, some crazy is just going to go around breaking it. So why bother to enforce it? Or make it?

The cynic in me sees the purge-and-isolation-fetishists like Limbaugh and Gingrich running the populist train of theirs into the ground in terms of their ability to effect wanted changes. This will result in (a) more instances of 'desperate' right-wing violence/terrorism due to a real or percieved impotence on the political stage and (b) an increased insistence on moderation within the party from (relatively) cooler heads. Even Dick Cheney now publically recognizes that stupid culture war BS like gay marriage isn't worth fighting over (though it's oh-so-convenient how he's made this remark now, after he left the White House, and after any chance he might have had to positively and substantively influence his party from a position of power regarding the issue). The more sensible members of the party will understand that it's change or die, and attempt to do that. The less sensible members are going to be a problem. I anticipate more violence.

I posted up the Pappas link elsewhere along with Limbaugh's statement comparing her to Duke, and people saw nothing wrong with what he said. I think I give up.

Not nihilistic, realistic, based upon the degree of trust people are still willing to give "new media" news sources versus the weight they will give to NBC Nightly News or The New York Times or other "respectable" sources who've demonstrated many times over the last decade or so that they can't even pee straight. If Glenn Greenwald blogs in Salon "hey, a tree fell, check out these pictures of it" and NBC News counters with the Octomom - in most people's eyes, that tree didn't fall - because why else wouldn't NBC be talking about it? The blogger isn't to be taken seriously because if he was, wouldn't his story be on NBC?

Nihilistic would be if i thought Glenn Greenwald should simply give up. I think we need to stop taking the word of people proven to be talking out of their asses most of the time and pay more attention to the Glenn Greenwalds out there.

It doesn't matter how good the reporting is if the editors, or the guys the editors answer to, don't allow it to run. The reporters are not the problem. Besides, I was basically agreeing with the author you accuse me of dismissing!

Nowhere did I say it's not an argument worth making.

Yes, we should give up and let the loons run the asylum. Why do we need the asylum? We need to escape from the asylum so we can see what's really going on in the outside world, instead of trusting the abusive loons who, we have learned, are definitely the ones running the place. They've proven they can't be trusted to give us the straight facts, but the secret is that the asylum door isn't locked, and the only thing keeping us within the walls of that awful place is our own inertia and a misplaced sense of trust.

Now, this doesn't mean they're 100% guaranteed to never, ever, have a single fact correct, ever. It just means we can't assume they're on the level... because they've proven otherwise so many times. We would be better served listening to people who have been proven more accurate, more often, more recently... such as the person you linked to!

Yes, since I think that a mainstream news media that has failed us again and again should not be trusted, I'm obviously advocating total anarchy.

Ahhh, National Review. Can't you even get racist slander right?

And they never will. But I love it when the cons attempt satire. They have no idea what the fuck they're doing. I'm sure they scratch their heads at how Mel Brooks "gets away" with what his white characters say in Blazing Saddles. Or: "Why can't I say it? Black people make fun of us too."

....Huh.

That's vile.

http://www.armchairsubversive.org/

Let's not forget that shit as well.

Huh?

Holy shit, this guy.

We don't have to leave it only at racism. Heh.