Give one example where she's done that. You've found a quote embedded in a speech she gave in 2001 - surely you can find something in one of the 400 opinions she wrote suggesting some sort of racial favoritism, no?
The point here is that there's been little to complain about in her record. If anything, she is conservative in applying the law in her cases!
Gawd I hate seeing reverse discrimination and racism:
Wait. . Wrong prezdent.
Oh well, IOIYAR.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
You can deflect and cloud the issue all you want, but you're going to have to address that correlation at some point if you're going to oppose the nomination for some reason other than knee-jerk anti-liberalism.
Q: I'm not trying to speak for you but I want to comment on these points: It's a question of competance. Plus, is it knee jerk to react to her statement that "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."?? Gotta go with Newt on this one: “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman. Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”
quote:
Erm, examples? Because from what I've seen her record is fairly unremarkable and void of controversy. The exceptions to her nomination seem to come entirely from remarks she's made in lectures, and not anything related to cases she's presided over. If anything, she's way too middle of the road.
Examples of her decisions that have been reversed (the last one especially reeks of controversy):
-In Knight v. C.I.R., (128 S.Ct. 782, 2008.), the Court found that, based on an erroneous interpretation of the tax code, Judge Sotomayor applied an incorrect standard.
-In Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, (547 U.S. 71, 2006), the Court found that Judge Sotomayor failed to apply precedent correctly in interpreting a scope of preemption provision of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.
-In New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, (533 U.S. 483, 2001), the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s reversal of Judge Sotomayor’s district court ruling that the Copyright Act permitted electronic publishers to reproduce all articles in a periodical under a “collective works” privilege, concluding that Sotomayor erred in her interpretation of “revision of [that] collective works” privilege in the Act.
-In Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, (534 U.S. 61, 2001), the Court reversed Sotomayor for allowing an inmate to sue a halfway house operator for negligence based on a Bivens claim. After the trial court dismissed the case, Judge Sotomayor reversed and reinstated the litigation. The Supreme Court reversed Judge Sotomayor’s decision, holding that the former inmate did not lack effective remedies and that he had full access to remedial mechanisms established by the Bureau of Prisons. The Court also held that the former inmate’s suit would not have advanced Bivens’ core purpose of deterring individual officers from engaging in unconstitutional wrongdoing.
- Sided with environmentalists in a 2007 case that would have allowed the EPA to consider the cost-effectiveness of protecting fish and aquatic life in rivers and lakes located near power plants. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
- Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.
- Ruled that a federal law allowing lawsuits against individual federal government officers and agents for constitutional rights violations also extends to private corporations working on behalf of the federal government. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
- U.S. v. Giordano, 442 F.3d 30. At issue was whether the conviction of a former mayor of Waterbury, Connecticut should be overturned. The conviction stemmed from the mayor’s repeated sexual abuse of the minor daughter and niece of a prostitute. The defendant’s prosecution on the charges that led to this appeal grew out of an unrelated investigation by the FBI and IRS into political corruption in the city of Waterbury. In the course of this surveillance, the government intercepted 151 calls on the defendant’s cell phones to or from a prostitute with whom the defendant had a long-term sex-for-money relationship. These calls showed that the prostitute was bringing a nine-year-old girl for sex upon the request of the Defendant. Sotomayor, writing for the majority of the court, held that the Defendant’s conviction should not be overruled because all of the Defendant’s appeals lacked merit. Specifically, the Court ruled: (1) defendant’s mere use of a telephone satisfied the jurisdictional element of the statute prohibiting the knowing transmission of minors’ names by use of facilities and means of interstate commerce with intent to entice, encourage, and solicit them to engage in sexual activity (2) statute prohibiting the knowing transmission of minors’ names by use of facilities and means of interstate commerce with intent to entice, encourage, and solicit them to engage in sexual activity did not exceed Congress’ authority under Commerce Clause.
- Ricci v. DeStefano. In this 2008 case, Sotomayor participated in a one-page decision that allowed the City of New Haven, Connecticut to scrap the results of a promotion test for the city’s firefighters because no African-Americans passed the test. In April 2009, the Supreme Court said that it would review the Second Circuit’s decision.
Now that's ed up... pure racial, controvercial politics and NOT an unbiased decision, which even has some Democrats crying foul:
quote:
"Sotomayor joined a per curiam opinion that went so far as to bury the white firefighters' crucial claims of unfair treatment. Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her in writing for apparently missing the entire host of Constitutional issues that were before the court. According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion 'contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case' and its 'perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.'
To judge just how bad the Ricci opinion is, even liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, wrote of his dissatisfaction with the case, stating, 'Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.' Ironically, Sotomayor's dreadful decision in Ricci is under review at this time by the Supreme Court with an opinion expected by the end of June when David Souter, the justice Sotomayor is nominated to replace, has announced his retirement."
As pointed out by Ed Whelan (President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center who's expertise is Constitutional law and the judicial nomination process): On those occasions on which the Supreme Court has reviewed Sotomayor’s rulings, she hasn’t fared well, drawing some pointed criticism and garnering at most 11 out of 44 possible votes for her reasoning across five cases. What's that, 25%? Impressive.
But again, if a Democrat appointed her, she must be the worst kind of judge, right?
You're the one making this about race - doesn't make a difference to me. Go ahead and oppose the nominee because you think it was an affirmative action pick or whatever and ignore her judicial record. I'm sure it's highly irrelevant anyway.
If anyone is making anything about race, it's the Democrats who skillfully made sure all the boxes were checked (grew up in poverty, is a minority, is a woman, prefers empathy over the rule of law...), and Sotomayor who believes being a Hispanic woman and her experienes provide her with better ability to make judicial decisions. Yeah, her story is great... fantastic. But to say this decision was made because she's more qualified than someone else is insanity.
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Gawd I hate seeing reverse discrimination and racism:
Wait. . Wrong prezdent.
Oh well, IOIYAR.
totally missed the point. Reagan didn't sit in judgement of the law. Reagan didn't pretend and make a Hollywood production to be post sexist in an attept to gain office.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
You're a smart guy, so explain to me how this is insignificant. You've made the 25% figure up - there's been no corroboration of that number. But let's accept it for a second - since 1998, Sotomayor has written 400 majority opinions and has presided over hundreds of additional cases. If she only sat with a conservative in 25% of those cases, that's still a hell of a judicial history to go by.
maybe i didn't make myself clear. my issue isn't whether she is a liberal. she is. it's the extent of her liberalism that concerns me but thats irrelevant.
i'm just taking issue with yours and Rachel Maddow's talking point about how often she sides with her colleagues and somehow thats a reliable indication of how conservative she is. its a crap stat
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Q: I'm not trying to speak for you but I want to comment on these points: It's a question of competance. Plus, is it knee jerk to react to her statement that "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."?? Gotta go with Newt on this one: “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman. Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”
Examples of her decisions that have been reversed (the last one especially reeks of controversy):
-In Knight v. C.I.R., (128 S.Ct. 782, 2008.), the Court found that, based on an erroneous interpretation of the tax code, Judge Sotomayor applied an incorrect standard.
-In Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, (547 U.S. 71, 2006), the Court found that Judge Sotomayor failed to apply precedent correctly in interpreting a scope of preemption provision of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.
-In New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, (533 U.S. 483, 2001), the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s reversal of Judge Sotomayor’s district court ruling that the Copyright Act permitted electronic publishers to reproduce all articles in a periodical under a “collective works” privilege, concluding that Sotomayor erred in her interpretation of “revision of [that] collective works” privilege in the Act.
-In Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, (534 U.S. 61, 2001), the Court reversed Sotomayor for allowing an inmate to sue a halfway house operator for negligence based on a Bivens claim. After the trial court dismissed the case, Judge Sotomayor reversed and reinstated the litigation. The Supreme Court reversed Judge Sotomayor’s decision, holding that the former inmate did not lack effective remedies and that he had full access to remedial mechanisms established by the Bureau of Prisons. The Court also held that the former inmate’s suit would not have advanced Bivens’ core purpose of deterring individual officers from engaging in unconstitutional wrongdoing.
- Sided with environmentalists in a 2007 case that would have allowed the EPA to consider the cost-effectiveness of protecting fish and aquatic life in rivers and lakes located near power plants. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
- Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.
- Ruled that a federal law allowing lawsuits against individual federal government officers and agents for constitutional rights violations also extends to private corporations working on behalf of the federal government. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
- U.S. v. Giordano, 442 F.3d 30. At issue was whether the conviction of a former mayor of Waterbury, Connecticut should be overturned. The conviction stemmed from the mayor’s repeated sexual abuse of the minor daughter and niece of a prostitute. The defendant’s prosecution on the charges that led to this appeal grew out of an unrelated investigation by the FBI and IRS into political corruption in the city of Waterbury. In the course of this surveillance, the government intercepted 151 calls on the defendant’s cell phones to or from a prostitute with whom the defendant had a long-term sex-for-money relationship. These calls showed that the prostitute was bringing a nine-year-old girl for sex upon the request of the Defendant. Sotomayor, writing for the majority of the court, held that the Defendant’s conviction should not be overruled because all of the Defendant’s appeals lacked merit. Specifically, the Court ruled: (1) defendant’s mere use of a telephone satisfied the jurisdictional element of the statute prohibiting the knowing transmission of minors’ names by use of facilities and means of interstate commerce with intent to entice, encourage, and solicit them to engage in sexual activity (2) statute prohibiting the knowing transmission of minors’ names by use of facilities and means of interstate commerce with intent to entice, encourage, and solicit them to engage in sexual activity did not exceed Congress’ authority under Commerce Clause.
- Ricci v. DeStefano. In this 2008 case, Sotomayor participated in a one-page decision that allowed the City of New Haven, Connecticut to scrap the results of a promotion test for the city’s firefighters because no African-Americans passed the test. In April 2009, the Supreme Court said that it would review the Second Circuit’s decision.
Now that's ed up... pure racial, controvercial politics and NOT an unbiased decision, which even has some Democrats crying foul:
As pointed out by Ed Whelan (President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center who's expertise is Constitutional law and the judicial nomination process): On those occasions on which the Supreme Court has reviewed Sotomayor’s rulings, she hasn’t fared well, drawing some pointed criticism and garnering at most 11 out of 44 possible votes for her reasoning across five cases. What's that, 25%? Impressive.
If anyone is making anything about race, it's the Democrats who skillfully made sure all the boxes were checked (grew up in poverty, is a minority, is a woman, prefers empathy over the rule of law...), and Sotomayor who believes being a Hispanic woman and her experienes provide her with better ability to make judicial decisions. Yeah, her story is great... fantastic. But to say this decision was made because she's more qualified than someone else is insanity.
judges aren't perfect, and unless the judge is a supreme court justice, it is inevitable that one of the decisions will be overturned. your boys alito, scalia, and thomas have each been on the losing end of decisions (i.e., their decents could be thought of as analogous to overturned decisions because it is on the wrong side of the majority opinion, and no better than an overturned decision).
moreover, she can't decide the cases by herself. She needs at least another judge to agree with her. In many of those cases you cited (surely a copy-and-paste job from a careless republican site), the majority was applying interpretations from other circuit courts of appeals (i.e., their position was supported by other federal appeals court judges). i would hardly call a few overturned cases regarding relatively insignificant issues a contentious history.
btw - the supreme court granting cercetari doesn't mean that they think the appeals court screwed up. it's hard to gauge exactly why they accept cases, but mainly cases are accepted to end disparity between different circuits and to interpret important constitutional issues (i.e., affirmative action).
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
As pointed out by Ed Whelan (President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center who's expertise is Constitutional law and the judicial nomination process): On those occasions on which the Supreme Court has reviewed Sotomayor’s rulings, she hasn’t fared well, drawing some pointed criticism and garnering at most 11 out of 44 possible votes for her reasoning across five cases. What's that, 25%? Impressive.
It might be more impressive if the 25% result didn't have a greater than +/-43% margin of error at a 95% confidence level (i.e., a sample of 5 decided cases in a population of, presumably, greater than 300 decided cases). Translated, this means that if 100 of her other decided cases were reviewed, 95 of those cases would be upheld in a range of 0 - 68% of the time. That doesn't sound too reliable to me!
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
totally missed the point. Reagan didn't sit in judgement of the law. Reagan didn't pretend and make a Hollywood production to be post sexist in an attept to gain office.
I'm sorry, but I'm totally missing your point. What exactly are you saying here? The point I am mentioning is this:
quote:
Reagan: Within the guidelines of excellence, appointments can carry enormous symbolic significance. This permits us to guide by example, to show how deep our commitment is and to give meaning to what we profess.
One way I intend to live up to that commitment is to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court.
I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can find, one who meets the high standards I will demand for all my appointments.
It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists. I will also seek out women to appoint to other federal courts in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench.
That kind of so-called "identity politics" given by your Republican hero President Reagan should make any affirmative action, tree-huggin' liberal blush, and any card-carrying Heritage Foundation member madder than hell. He wasn't just interested in appointing the BEST and MOST QUALIFIED individual to SCOTUS, no - he wanted the BEST and MOST QUALIFIED, *gulp*, WOMAN individual to SCOTUS.
And all this time I thought it was just us silly libruls who believed so firmly in affirmative action.
Oh well, I guess we should look at the merits of what she says:
quote:
U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?
ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.
ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.
And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.
But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.
And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."
When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.
So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.
COBURN: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I think I'll yield back the balance of my time at this time, and if I have additional questions, get them in the next round.
Wait. . Wrong SCOTUS nominee. Welp, nevermind, once again IOIYAR.
thedoggyworld
quote:
1. Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the bench than any Supreme Court justice in 100 years. Over her three-decade career, she has served in a wide variety of legal roles, including as a prosecutor, litigator, and judge.
2. Judge Sotomayor is a trailblazer. She was the first Latina to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was the youngest member of the court when appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York. If confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.
3. While on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has consistently protected the rights of working Americans, ruling in favor of health benefits and fair wages for workers in several cases.
4. Judge Sotomayor has shown strong support for First Amendment rights, including in cases of religious expression and the rights to assembly and free speech.
5. Judge Sotomayor has a strong record on civil rights cases, ruling for plaintiffs who had been discriminated against based on disability, sex and race.
6. Judge Sotomayor embodies the American dream. Born to Puerto Rican parents, she grew up in a South Bronx housing project and was raised from age nine by a single mother, excelling in school and working her way to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton University and to become an editor of the Law Journal at Yale Law School.
7. In 1995, Judge Sotomayor "saved baseball" when she stopped the owners from illegally changing their bargaining agreement with the players, thereby ending the longest professional sports walk-out in history.
8. Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the environment in a case of protecting aquatic life in the vicinity of power plants in 2007, a decision that was overturned by the Roberts Supreme Court.
9. In 1992, Judge Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate without opposition after being appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush.
10. Judge Sotomayor is a widely respected legal figure, having been described as "...an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind," "highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character would be assets," and "a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity."
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by jerZ07002
It might be more impressive if the 25% result didn't have a greater than +/-43% margin of error at a 95% confidence level (i.e., a sample of 5 decided cases in a population of, presumably, greater than 300 decided cases). Translated, this means that if 100 of her other decided cases were reviewed, 95 of those cases would be upheld in a range of 0 - 68% of the time. That doesn't sound too reliable to me!
Another translation is that 60% of her cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, 3 out of 5, have been overturned (2 unanimously).
I'm interested to know what your feelings are on the Ricci v. DeStefano ruling she made.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by thedoggyworld
Sounds great. What about this?
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Another translation is that 60% of her cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, 3 out of 5, have been overturned (2 unanimously).
your statistical abilities are horrendously miserable.
If she decided more than 300 cases (i'm using 300 as an example), and only 5 have been reviewed by the supreme court, it does not follow that the cases not reviewed would be overturned at the same 60% rate of those 5 cases; the sample size is just too small. That's the entire point of a margin of error analysis (to measure the probability that the sample size would apply to the entire population). Simply put, with a margin of error of +/-43%, 95% of the time, if the cases not reviewed by the supreme court were actually reviewed by the supreme court, the decisions would be overturned not 60% of the time, but within the range of 60+43 (100% - actually 103%, but you can't go that high) and 60-43 (17%). It simply is not reliable to say that the decisions would be overturned anywhere from 17-100% of the time.
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
I'm interested to know what your feelings are on the Ricci v. DeStefano ruling she made.
i haven't read the case, only media descriptions, but if that little tid-bit is accurate, i don't personally support her position (i don't support affirmative action at all). nevertheless, that doesn't mean she didn't have a legal basis for the position.
Q5echo
...for the record i think Tom Tancredo is off the f**king reservation.
