|
Obama's America begins to take hold; Supreme Court Justice retires (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
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. |
it didn't and shouldn't have. it was time for a woman on the SCOTUS back then and probably overdue, just like it was high time for the 19th Amendment or the 13th Amendment.
can you say it's time today for a Puerto Rican woman to sit on the highest court in the same context? no, you can't...and you sure as hell can't come across as legitimately post-racial if your only qualifier in nominating someone to any position in government is their race. thats all i'm saying
...and another thing you Donks seem to conveniently forget when supporting this woman - the take-down of Miguel Estrada - you should be ashamed:o |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
it didn't and shouldn't have. it was time for a woman on the SCOTUS back then and probably overdue, just like it was high time for the 19th Amendment or the 13th Amendment.
can you say it's time today for a Puerto Rican woman to sit on the highest court in the same context? no, you can't...and you sure as hell can't come across as legitimately post-racial if your only qualifier in nominating someone to any position in government is their race. thats all i'm saying
...and another thing you Donks seem to conveniently forget when supporting this woman - the take-down of Miguel Estrada - you should be ashamed:o |
I kinda agree with you here. I don't like how the government fills important positions because of a perceived need to occupy that position with a person of some ethnic background (i.e., i hate affirmative action - i would prefer throwing more resources at these groups so that they can compete with everyone else on an equal footing based on the same foundation instead of simply modifying the end result to achieve the goal).
Additionally, I don't like how the perceived need is based on a comparison of the composition of the supreme court to the population as a whole (i.e., 13% latinos in the general population means that the the latinos should represent about 13% of the bench). A fairer basis for such a comparison is the population of latino lawyers (or other federal judges). |
|
|
| Arbiter |
It's worth noting that the Supreme Court generally reverses or vacates the lower court opinion more often than it affirms, probably because Justices are more inclined to grant certiorari when they see a "wrong to be righted" in the judgment below.
Thus, out of the 49 cases from the term beginning in October 2008 that had been decided as of April, only 18.4% were affirmed:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-con...atpack-full.pdf |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: |
'Empathy' Is Code for Judicial Activism: What damage did Democrats suffer when they attacked Miguel Estrada
By KARL ROVE
Both President Barack Obama and Republicans get something they want from the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.
Mr. Obama said he wanted to replace Justice David Souter with someone who had "empathy" and who'd temper the court's decisions with a concern for the downtrodden, the powerless and the voiceless.
"Empathy" is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn't pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.
There is a certain irony in a president who routinely praises America's commitment to "the rule of law" but who picks Supreme Court nominees for their readiness to discard the rule of law whenever emotion moves them.
Mr. Obama's pick also allows him to placate Hispanic groups who'd complained of his failure to appoint more high profile Latinos to his administration. After the Democratic share of the Hispanic vote increased to 67% in 2008 from 53% in 2004, Latino groups felt they were due more cabinet and White House posts.
Mr. Obama also hopes to score political points as GOP senators oppose a Latina. Being able to jam opponents is a favorite Chicago political pastime. Besides, the president has been reluctant to make comprehensive immigration reform an issue, so a high-profile Latina appointment buys him time.
The Sotomayor nomination also provides Republicans with some advantages. They can stress their support for judges who strictly interpret the Constitution and apply the law as written. A majority of the public is with the GOP on opposing liberal activist judges. There is something in our political DNA that wants impartial umpires who apply the rules, regardless of who thereby wins or loses.
Mr. Obama understands the danger of heralding Judge Sotomayor as the liberal activist she is, so his spinners are intent on selling her as a moderate. The problem is that she described herself as liberal before becoming a judge, and fair-minded observers find her on the left of the federal bench.
Republicans also get a nominee who likes showing off and whose YouTube moments and Google insights cause people to wince. There are likely to be more revelations like Stuart Taylor's find last Saturday of this Sotomayor gem in a speech at Berkeley: "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." Invert the placement of "Latina woman" and "white male" and have a conservative say it: A career would be finished.
Both Mr. Obama and the Republicans also are denied things in this nomination. Republicans are denied an easy target. Ms. Sotomayor has a compelling personal story, attractive for cable, celebrity magazines and tabloids.
The media has also quickly adopted the story line that Republicans will damage themselves with Hispanics if they oppose Ms. Sotomayor. But what damage did Democrats suffer when they viciously attacked Miguel Estrada's nomination by President George W. Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second-highest court? New York Sen. Chuck Schumer was particularly ugly, labeling Mr. Estrada a right-wing "stealth missile" who was "way out of the mainstream" and openly questioning Mr. Estrada's truthfulness.
Nonetheless, Republicans must treat her with far more care than Democrats treated John Roberts or Samuel Alito and avoid angry speeches like Sen. Ted Kennedy's tirade against Robert Bork. The GOP must make measured arguments against her views and philosophy, using her own words and actions.
The Ricci case is an example: Whites were denied fire department promotions because of a clear racial quota. Ms. Sotomayor's refusal to hear their arguments won her stinging criticism from fellow Second Court of Appeals judge José Cabranes, a respected Clinton appointee.
Mr. Obama won't get a new leader on the Supreme Court. Ms. Sotomayor does not appear to be a consensus builder whose persuasive abilities would allow her to flip a 4-5 decision to a 5-4 decision. She is likely to be just another reliable liberal vote, much as Justice Souter was, only without his gloomy silences and withdrawn nature.
While the next two to four months of maneuverings and hearings may provide more insights into the views of Mr. Obama's pick, barring an unforeseen development -- not unheard of in Supreme Court nominations -- Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic) and third woman confirmed to the Supreme Court. Democrats will win the vote, but Republicans can win the argument by making a clear case against the judicial activism she represents. |
|
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
|
Bush 1 nominated Clarence Thomas because he had empathy (at least that's what he said when he nominated him)
| quote: | Originally stated by George H.W. Bush
"I have followed this man's career for some time," Bush said of Thomas. "He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor." |
|
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Bush 1 nominated Clarence Thomas because he had empathy (at least that's what he said when he nominated him) |
I don't recall much other than the whole Anita Hill/Long Dong Silver fiasco with Thomas, but in that quote is it implied that Bush I specifically nominated Thomas because he had empathy? Or was that merely a comment Bush I made regarding Thomas' character in general? Maybe parsing words, but to me, you're implying that "empathy" was the reason for his nomination. However, given only that snipped of the quote out of context, it's not clear to me that that is the case.
i.e. what if I said that one of my friends is nice. That doesn't go to say that I am friends with them because they are nice per se. Can you give me more of the quote to put it in better context?
Furthermore, if your conclusion about Bush I's nomination of Thomas is indeed correct and we can agree that that is wrong, wouldn't it also be proper to conclude that the nomination of Sotomayor is also wrong for the same reason? 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Also, there was something in a recent Gibbs press conference where he took issue with one of the quotes from Sotomayor that is making the rounds, but the language could be telling but that the W.H. is trying to dismiss.
| quote: | “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,” Sotomayor said...
Gibbs said critics had taken out of context Sotomayor’s attempt to declare that “she has lived a different life than some people have, based on her upbringing—that she understands that.” He said Sotomayor was simply acknowledging that a different background “could certainly lead to different conclusions.”
Journalists at the White House briefing were dubious about the press secretary’s explanation, with several shouting back in unison: “She said ‘better.’” |
Anyhoo..food for thought. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I don't recall much other than the whole Anita Hill/Long Dong Silver fiasco with Thomas, but in that quote is it implied that Bush I specifically nominated Thomas because he had empathy? Or was that merely a comment Bush I made regarding Thomas' character in general? Maybe parsing words, but to me, you're implying that "empathy" was the reason for his nomination. However, given only that snipped of the quote out of context, it's not clear to me that that is the case.
i.e. what if I said that one of my friends is nice. That doesn't go to say that I am friends with them because they are nice per se. Can you give me more of the quote to put it in better context?
Furthermore, if your conclusion about Bush I's nomination of Thomas is indeed correct and we can agree that that is wrong, wouldn't it also be proper to conclude that the nomination of Sotomayor is also wrong for the same reason? 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Also, there was something in a recent Gibbs press conference where he took issue with one of the quotes from Sotomayor that is making the rounds, but the language could be telling but that the W.H. is trying to dismiss.
Anyhoo..food for thought. |
I'm just wondering when "empathy" became this liberal code word, because it seems it wasn't used as a pejorative in the Thomas case. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| I'm not thrilled with this nomination by any stretch of the imagination, but if people who believe that there is such a thing as "judicial activism" oppose it then it can't be all that bad. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
It's worth noting that the Supreme Court generally reverses or vacates the lower court opinion more often than it affirms, probably because Justices are more inclined to grant certiorari when they see a "wrong to be righted" in the judgment below.
|
since you're still in law school you may have a better recollection of the reasons why the SC grants cert, but if i remember correctly, one of the main reasons the court grants cert is to end disparities between the circuits. Consequently, the court isn't as concerned with the wrong in the particular case as it is with having different legal results based on the same fact pattern among the various circuits. correct me if i'm wrong. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
it didn't and shouldn't have. it was time for a woman on the SCOTUS back then and probably overdue, just like it was high time for the 19th Amendment or the 13th Amendment. |
So a woman needed to be nominated because that was the role of the President at that particular time in history was the right time to not judge someone completely and entirely on their merits as well as their judicial decisions ONLY, but instead also throw into the equation that affirmative action was needed as well?
My how the roles between us have switched.
| quote: | | can you say it's time today for a Puerto Rican woman to sit on the highest court in the same context? no, you can't...and you sure as hell can't come across as legitimately post-racial if your only qualifier in nominating someone to any position in government is their race. thats all i'm saying |
Please differentiate your argument between race and sex. In no way is your argument logically consistent. IOW, why was it arbitrarily and subjectively the "correct" time to have a woman in SCOTUS, the merits of all candidates decisions only be damned, when it's considered to be "incorrect" to have someone who's a minority on the bench now? And is there a difference between a male minority candidate and a female minority candidate?
And who said anything about race being the only qualifier? I sure as hell didn't make that argument. But even if I considered it as merely one of my qualifiers, my point is how is that any different than Reagan making sex as obviously one of his qualifiers? And how can you make a logical difference between the two when they're essentially philosophically identical (i.e. minority groups)?
| quote: | | ...and another thing you Donks seem to conveniently forget when supporting this woman - the take-down of Miguel Estrada - you should be ashamed:o |
Pretty pathetic of wingnuts like yourself to try and make that comparison. Estrada was blocked not just because of his uber-conservative stance, but among other reasons his experience as a judge was lacking, a paper trail was lacking as his experience as a legal academic, and the experience he had in the SG's office could not be properly scrutinized because the SG didn't want to release any memos he wrote.
Compare him to Sotomayor's record and, well, there is no comparison for you to make. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
since you're still in law school you may have a better recollection of the reasons why the SC grants cert, but if i remember correctly, one of the main reasons the court grants cert is to end disparities between the circuits. Consequently, the court isn't as concerned with the wrong in the particular case as it is with having different legal results based on the same fact pattern among the various circuits. correct me if i'm wrong. |
Circuit splits are definitely one of the most influential criteria when it comes to granting cert, but the Court addresses cases where there is no split routinely and also ignores plenty of circuit splits for whatever reason. There could be many reasons why the Justices decide to address an issue, and in fact there are probably many factors that enter into it. One possible factor (supported, albeit in a limited way, by the statistical evidence) is that they are more receptive to cert. petitions that effectively persuade them that the judgment below should not be allowed to stand.
So you are certainly not wrong to emphasize the importance of circuit splits, but I don't think that the weight of that factor excludes in any way the possible influence of a Justice's visceral reaction to the merits of the judgment being appealed. |
|
|
| The17sss |
Food for thought on the destruction of Miguel Estrada's nomination... could it perhaps be that the Democrats desperately did not what the GOP to get credit for being the first to get a Latino to the bench? Byron York makes some good points about it (and what's this nonsense about him not having the experience? lol):
| quote: | In 2001, President George W. Bush nominated former Justice Department lawyer Miguel Estrada to a seat on the federal courts of appeals. In that instance, as today, the nominee was was a Hispanic with a compelling story and impressive qualifications. And some of the very people who are today praising Sotomayor spent their time devising extraordinary measures to kill Estrada's chances.
Born in Honduras, Estrada came to the United States at 17, not knowing a word of English. He learned the language almost instantly, and within a few years was graduating with honors from Columbia University and heading off to Harvard Law School. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, was a prosecutor in New York, and worked at the Justice Department in Washington before entering private practice.
Estrada's nomination for a federal judgeship set off alarm bells among Democrats. There is a group of left-leaning organizations -- People for the American Way, NARAL, the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, and others -- that work closely with Senate Democrats to promote Democratic judicial nominations and kill Republican ones. They were particularly concerned about Estrada.
In November, 2001, representatives of those groups met with Democratic Senate staff. One of those staffers then wrote a memo to Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin, informing Durbin that the groups wanted to stall Bush nominees, particularly three they had identified as good targets. "They also identified Miguel Estrada as especially dangerous," the staffer added, "because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."
It was precisely the fact that Estrada was Hispanic that made Democrats and their activist allies want to kill his nomination. They were determined to deny a Republican White House credit, political and otherwise, for putting a first-rate Hispanic nominee on the bench.
Durbin and his colleagues did as they were instructed. But they had nothing with which to kill the nomination -- no outrageous statement by Estrada, no ethical lapse, no nothing. What to do?
They brainstormed. Estrada had once worked in the Justice Department's Office of Solicitor General, right? (Appointed under the first President Bush, Estrada stayed to serve several years under Clinton.) That office decides which cases the government will pursue in the Supreme Court, right? And that process involves confidential legal memoranda, right? Well, why don't we suggest that there might be something damaging in those memos -- we have no idea whether there is or not -- and demand that they be made public?
Durbin and his colleagues knew the Bush Justice Department would insist the internal legal memos remain confidential, as they always had been. It wasn’t just the Bush Administration that thought releasing the documents was a terrible idea; all seven living former Solicitors General, Republican and Democrat, wrote a letter to Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy begging him to back off.
But the Democrats didn't back off. They had a new, very serious question to ask: What is Miguel Estrada hiding? The answer was nothing, of course. But the strategy worked. Democrats stonewalled Estrada's nomination, and, after losing control of the Senate in 2002, they began an unprecedented round of filibusters to block an entire slate of Bush appeals-courts nominees, Estrada among them. The confirmation process ground to a halt.
More than two years after his nomination was announced, Estrada, tired of what appeared to be an endless runaround, withdrew his name from consideration. Instead of being on the federal bench, he is now in private practice in Washington.
And that was how Democrats treated the last high-level Hispanic court nominee. Think about that when you watch their lovefest with Sonia Sotomayor. |
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...e-46407227.html
And that is how you masterfully derail a Latino nominee with no actual good reason my friends. |
|
|
|
|
