Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

#1
Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OfC99LrrM2Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OfC99LrrM2Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Oops.

2938u4ji232938u4ji232938u4ji232938u4ji232938u4ji23
 
#2
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

Sotomayor's record as far as the SC goes is PATHETIC. Eight of her cases have been heard by the SC and seven out of those eight cases were REVERSED.

Sotomayor should not be a law clerk much less a justice on the highest court in the United States of America.



:doh1:doh1:doh1:doh1
 
#3
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

And speaking of RACISM:

"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."
-- Sonia Sotomayor

PFFFFT! Blow it out your ass, baboon. That's like saying a reformed drug junkie or reformed pedophile or reformed thief makes a good candidate to lead a group composed of the aforementioned people, and to hell with natural leaders endowed with common sense.

Icky AND stupid.

Another fantastic Obozo pick.

 
#4
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

Possible Obama Supreme Court Pick Slapped Down Reverse Discrimination Case in One-Paragraph Opinion

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47838

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.
Swinish racist bitch.

To hell with the qualified whites, diversity is our strength. :handjob:

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.
Sonia says: "the yellow need to be more mellow."

This is what you get when you rule on "empathy", rather than LAW.

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."
Outrageously misguided but a classic example of liberal moral relativism in its extremity.

Sotomayor thinks Christianity is on par with soft witchcraft.

:HUH:

So Hussein nominates Godawfullo's ugly twin sister -- a welfare child of Puerto Rican immigrants who was raised to bring the inadequacies of her old country into the United States and leech the lifeblood out of the system. From then on, she joins a Hispanic lobby to meet those ends on a level that would rob white Americans of many generations of their birthright by any means necessary.

Jefferson would never approve her.

Folks, elections have consequences.

Nobody can claim otherwise.

The only good news is there won't be much of a shift from Souter to Sotomayor. They both believe the Courts are the real Legislative Branch. 2938u4ji23

Yet "Hope and Change"(tm) marches on, as King Hussein will probably appoint more of these touch-feely George Soros liberal activists to whom the Constitution is toilet paper, foreign law is the standard, and "empathy" replaces competence and objectivity.

 
#5
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

Oops.

First quote should be:

Sonia Sotomayor ... 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.
Swinish racist bitch.

To hell with the qualified whites, diversity is our strength. :handjob:
 
#6
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made


? The American Patriot... Main Index Archives Bubbles and advice f... ?

I was wrong about Sotomayor speech

Wednesday May 27, 2009

Categories: Law
The NYT has a link to the entire speech in which she made the comment about the "wise Latina" reaching a "better" verdict than "a white male who hasn't lived that life." I'm still a bit troubled by the remark, but not in any important way. Taken in context, the speech was about how the context in which we were raised affects how judges see the world, and that it's unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Yet -- and this is a key point -- she admits that as a jurist, one is obligated to strive for neutrality. It seems to me that Judge Sotomayor in this speech dwelled on the inescapability of social context in shaping the character of a jurist. That doesn't seem to me to be a controversial point, and I am relieved by this passage:
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.​
Relieved, because it strikes me as both idealistic and realistic. I am sure Sotomayor and I have very different views on the justice, or injustice, of affirmative action, and I'm quite sure that I won't much care for her rulings as a SCOTUS justice on issues that I care about. But seeing her controversial comment in its larger context makes it look a lot less provocative and troubling. As some of you have noted in comments.
UPDATE: In fact, come to think of it, I can remember a couple of occasions at The Dallas Morning News, sitting in on editorial board meetings with judicial candidates, in which I was favorably impressed by aspiring judges who talked about, well, empathy. One candidate who comes to mind had grown up poor and a racial minority, but had worked her way out of deprivation and built a strong legal career. She came to us as a sitting judge who sought higher office. We asked her to talk about a case or cases that would give us an idea of the perspective she would bring to the bench. She spoke about how she came to learn early in her bench career that the decisions she made affected not just the person at trial, but his family. She spoke about how it gave her a greater appreciation for the dimensions of the law, and what constitutes justice -- to be specific, that justice is not something mechanical, a result that can be obtained by feeding facts into a program, and having a computer spit out the "correct" answer. Rather, it requires wisdom, and its application. As I recall that meeting, the judge's answer struck me as wise about human nature, and how the law provides a framework for justice, but doesn't guarantee it -- and how sometimes, subjective factors necessarily influence a judge's decision about the right outcome in a particular case.
Also, I recall a black judge who came in for a candidate forum once. We put the same question to him. He talked about his hardscrabble background, and how he always tried to keep squarely in front of him when he had a black male defendant, "There but for the grace of God go I." His point was clearly not to assert that he had a different standard for black men who come into his court, but rather that his empathy (that word again) helped keep him humble in his approach to decision-making. If I remember correctly (this was a couple of years ago), I came out of that meeting thinking that I would feel pretty good about going before this judge's court as a defendant, because I could trust that judge to put himself imaginatively in my place, and try to see things as I did. That's not to say he would rule in my favor, but that he is at least aware that justice is not the same thing as rote application of the law; i.e., that while justice must never be entirely, or even mostly, subjective, it nevertheless requires taking into account particulars of the case. This is called wisdom. This is called judgment.



http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/05/i-was-wrong-about-sotomayor-sp.html
 
#7
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

As is usual and customary with the proud know-nothings and aggressively anti-intellectual, their rantings on the next Supreme Court Justice were reflexive and solely based on their "feelings" rather than the facts. Dismissed. . .
 
#9
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

I've seen it both ways. I'm no Latin scholar, so the understanding that "injusta" may be more proper than "unjusta" would not surprise me.
 
#11
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

doc is a lean, mean, thug-posting machine. . .Just keep your hands and feet away from his mouth. . .
 
#13
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made



Friday, May 29, 2009

EDITORIAL: The franchise for felons

<script type="text/javascript">document.write("<img id='img1' height='1' width='1' >");document.getElementById("img1").src="http://beacon.scorecardresearch.com/scripts/beacon.dll?C1=8&C2=2102&C3=255&C4=501725&C5=3111&C6=&C7=" + escape(window.location.href) + "&C8=" + escape(document.title) + "&C9=" + escape(document.referrer) + "&C10=" + escape(screen.width+'x'+screen.height) + "&C15=&C16=&rn=" + Math.floor(Math.random()*99999999); </script>

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor wants to give jailbirds the right to vote. It's her opinion that the federal Voting Rights Act can be used to force states to allow voting by currently imprisoned felons. Ms. Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in a 2006 felon-voting case should make senators extremely wary of confirming her for the high court.

In Hayden v. Pataki, a number of inmates in New York state filed suit claiming that because blacks and Latinos make up a disproportionate share of the prison population, the state's refusal to allow them ballot access amounts to an unlawful, race-based denial of their right to vote. Eight of 13 judges on the liberal-leaning Second Circuit dismissed their arguments, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled likewise in a similar case.

Yet, operating on a dubious and extremely broad reading of the Voting Rights Act, Ms. Sotomayor dissented from the decision. In a remarkably dismissive, four-paragraph opinion, she alleged that the "plain terms" of the Voting Rights Act would allow such race-based claims to go forward.

Judge Jose Cabranes, who like Ms. Sotomayor was appointed by President Bill Clinton, didn't find the matter to be so clear. His majority decision against the criminal felons, in favor of the state, comprised 36 tightly reasoned pages. Particularly compelling is the fact that the Voting Rights Act was passed to help further the aims of the Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments. The 14th Amendment specifically allows states to deny the vote to those convicted of crimes.

Ms. Sotomayor is thus in the position of asserting that Congress can prohibit New York from doing something the Constitution itself specifically endorses. It's as if she thinks black and Hispanic felons are convicted in order to deny them the vote, rather than that they are denied the vote as a result of being duly convicted. Her position ignores the fact that it is the convicts' own actions, their crimes - not any state-based racial discrimination - that make those felons ineligible to vote.

As almost every state has done since the United States was founded, New York forbids currently incarcerated or paroled prisoners from voting. Some states go even farther by prohibiting some felons from voting even after they have served their sentences. New York's law is not so stringent. It only applies to felons still under criminal sentences. It equally applies to all felons, black or white.

There is growing evidence that Judge Sotomayor believes some races are more equal than others. She said in a 2001 speech that she would expect a Latina judge to reach the right decision more often than would a white male judge. Her dissenting opinion in Hayden v. Pataki is another example of her taking racial grievance-mongering to absurd new depths. They are depths unbefitting a Supreme Court justice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beautiful, 4626.

Your commentary vacuous as always.


Sonia Sodomy wants to give away the franchise to felons.

Would white men still be able to vote in the future under this reprehensible pick?

Sonia Sodomy should be laughed out of the hearing room.

:hangt

 
#15
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

This is just a thumbnail case of how great the next eight years are going to be as we watch Toronto Mark rail from his non-American bunker about how Bad We All Got It.

Good to see the GIANT Parody Pics and excessive use of smileys this morning, kid.

That means your manic cycle is kicking in and so when you go out for coffee or groceries later, you might be a bit more friendly to encounter.

Raise a glass to Better Living Through Better Medicine!
 
#16
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

Though I don't expect a Canadian who has demonstrated an hostility to rational thought to understand, Queen Sotomayor's (a minority female who will soon achieve higher than most white males, I might add) dissent did not concern the merits of the claim, merely that under the standards applicable to a Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff's should be allowed the opportunity to attempt to prove their claim. There is a difference, and that difference, though subtle, is outside the comprehension of some attorneys, and quite obviously outside the comprehension of the ranting mouth-breathers.
Secondly, though I consider it scandalously funny for anyone to cite the Washington Times for anything other than Reverend Moon's astrology schedule, the Constitution (of the United States) does not "endorse" felon disenfranchisement, it merely declines to prohibit the practice. There is a difference, though I wouldn't expect an anti-reasoning type of individual to comprehend that difference.

Public Service Report: I was provided some 11 minutes of slight amusement by our mountie wannabee's decision to stand in as punching bag for an exercise in rational thought and critical analysis. The 11 minutes result is much better than yesterday's effort. Carry on. . .
 
#17
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

I was wrong about Sotomayor speech

No, you weren't. 2938u4ji23

Hitler knew the power of injecting race into politics and these statists lust for power more than killing babies or involving themselves in acts of sodomy.

The race card is the "precious" and Hussein is Gollum.

For years, the loony left has been working hard at erasing all history of their racist past (democrats were rabidly anti-black until the 60's), they have convinced themselves -- and lemmings like 4625 -- that they are the only ones who are righteous, compassionate, and pure enough to define and dictate racial justice.

And yet these leftists are as racist as they ever.

But years of indoctrinating school children and college students in an Orwellian-type of the "opposites" game -- with "conservatives are racist; democrats are inclusive" added to Orwell's "freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength" -- new generations are convinced that electing someone to office based on his/her ethnic background, instead of character, honesty, and knowledge of the subject, is not only acceptable, but also good for "righting past wrongs."

Did it ever occur to Sonia Sodomy that this daughter of a Puerto Rican tool-and-die worker and a nurse, succeeded because so many Americans made a conscious effort to look past the racism and class warfare she engages in?

I hate leftists.

I hate leftists!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Racism: The Case Against Sonia Sotomayor

<small class="commentmetadata"> By HHR | May 28th, 2009 | Category: Featured, Opinion | </small>

By Leette Eaton-White


With the nomination of Judge Sotomayor every American needs to scrutinize her in an effort to determine if she will be a good Supreme Court Justice. But so far very few with the power to determine her fate have done so. One of HHR’s contributors Raynard Jackson, said “I hope and pray that Republicans won’t revert back to their natural inclination of injecting race into this battle.” Well he is dead wrong. Some of the people interjecting race are Chuck Schumer and even Judge Sotomayor.

Both have used her race as the qualifying factor.Schumer expressed the idea that if Republicans go hard on her they will further alienate themselves from Hispanic voters that they “oppose her at their peril”. Well I have news for Schumer, if the Republicans don’t go hard on her they are every bit as racist as democrats are proving themselves to be. Since when do we get rid of racism by replacing it with racism? Think of what that statement is saying. As if going hard on her is racist! If they go easy on her then they imply that she can’t handle defending her rulings and beliefs.

If they go easy on her they imply that she is too stupid or weak to defend herself…. And that would be implied because of her race. That would be incredibly racist. Republicans should respect her by challenging her as best they can. The best way to show her abilities is to show them under pressure, not at a meeting for afternoon tea.
And let us examine the words of Judge Sotomayor herself.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Sonia Sotomayor, 2001 ceremony commemorating the 40th anniversary of the first judicial appointment of a Latino to a federal court

Oh really Sonia Sotomayor? Really? Because said Latina is a women? Because she is Latina? Does she have a rich experience because of gender and race? Frankly if you ask my opinion none of that qualifies anyone to be a judge of any sort. But then again I am not even the least bit racist or sexist.

But time and time again liberals prove themselves to be such by requiring that we look at a person’s race before their merit, going directly against Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King’s message over and over again even while they claim to champion his ideas. I think that based on that statement alone she should step away from the nomination. Her words on race are, in my humble opinion, bigoted in nature and may suggest she is an ideologue. No one with such a cut off sense of race and gender should be on the most powerful court in the United States. For those of you not sure about my opinion on the matter examine this statement.
“I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
What bigot said that?! No one actually said that, but it displays how racist and sexist the statement is. If a white man had said that he would be vilified and forced to walk away. So often we expect that the most racist amongst us would be white people, but liberals prove over and over that is not the case.

The new racism tells us to embrace the false dichotomy that whites are racist or ignorant of other races at best, and all other races deserve an easier ride, a more favorable view and a better chance because of past wrongs perpetuated by whites.

This is not justice; this is not correcting a wrong. It is just another wrong. You cannot right a wrong with another wrong. You don’t excuse bad behavior by pointing at other bad behavior. We shouldn’t judge people by race and give them a hard or easy time because of it. Anyone seeking a position of power should be grilled before they assume power.

Suggesting that anyone wishing to challenge the ideas of people of a different race simply because of race is discriminatory. Trying to suppress free speech by way of intimidation is wrong at best. Mr. Jackson also made another statement in his HHR article “Picking Sotomayor basically buys off the Hispanic community and will prevent them from bugging the administration about illegal immigration.”

If you are Hispanic and reading this you should be furious. Not with Mr. Jackson, it isn’t his fault that he is right. Its Obama’s fault that this is so.

You should be furious with him. He wants you to ignore issues by looking at this woman’s race alone (encouraging you to be racist) and to forget all concerns you have as an American… not a Latino. Our leaders are depending on you to be blind to issues and concerned only for race.
Assuming that because you are Latino you must think a certain way, and must act a certain way, and must vote a certain way based on nothing of real value… just race. That is a racist insult to your ability to reason as an adult and to make important decisions for this nation as an American.

No one should be able to do that to you.

If we are to judge the ability of this woman to be on the Supreme Court we must ignore her race all together and examine her words, her beliefs, and her judgments in court. This is the only fair way. I already think she should be sidelined based on her statements, but for those who think that is not enough it is important that she be taken to task in a respectful manner she deserves nothing less if she is as capable as liberals claim.

Leetteis a native New Yorker and a full time student studying Forensic Psychology. She has been a Conservative Republican since 2002, finding her Republican roots at the age of 15. HipHopRepublican opened the gateway for her to start her political activism in urban areas and across the net.Contact - Leette4hhr@gmail.com
 
#18
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

Envision the liberal hysteria that would result from this being said by a white Anglo-Saxon Republican man about another one WASRM being appointed as a judge.

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latino woman who hasn't lived that life."
"Taken out of context", my ass!!

The Great Unifier who promised an end to race-based divisiveness is telling America to go fuck itself, and that he lied his partially-black ass off!

End it?

He's exacerbating it for political gain.

Oh, I expected a Marxist to pick a Marxist judge.

I even expected a Marxist to pick a Marxist activist judge.

But I didn't expect a bully.

Hussein is putting identity politics over the rule of law, and expecting that she'll be treated like a sacred cow.

Ah, but not everyone is willing to lay down and die just because of her race.

Newt Gingrich rightfully denounced Sodomy as a racist.

"Up"Chuck Schumer has said despicable things about Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada, and other originalist minorities, and we're supposed to flush that down the toilet when he takes the moral high road by recommending a minority who has a record of activism at the bench?

Take it and shove it, hypocrites!!


Sonia Sodomy is a race hustler, and you're fooling nobody. It's just that so many indoctrinated leftists within the voting population want a race hustler, which is why we have King Hussein in the White House to begin with. 2938u4ji23
 
#19
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment
Thursday, May 28, 2009

By Matt Cover

President Barack Obama looks on as his Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday May 26, 2009. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais )

(CNSNews.com)
? Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment?s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.

?It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,? said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, ?it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.?

The Maloney v. Cuomo case involved James Maloney, who had been arrested for possessing a pair of nunchuks. New York law prohibits the possession of nunchuks, even though they are often used in martial arts training and demonstrations.

The meaning of the Second Amendment has rarely been addressed by the Supreme Court. But in the 2008 case of Heller v. District of Columbia, the high court said that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right of all Americans and that the Second Amendment guaranteed that right to everyone.

The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, ?guarantee(s) the right of the individual to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ?shall not be infringed.??

?There seems to us no doubt,? the Supreme Court said, ?that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.?

Sotomayor, however, said that even though the Heller decision held that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right--and therefore could not be justly denied to a law-abiding citizen by any government, federal, state or local--the Second Circuit was still bound by the 1886 case, because Heller only dealt indirectly with the issue before her court.

?And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we must follow Presser because where, as here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which [it] directly controls.?

In its 2008 case, the Supreme Court?s took a different view of its own 1886 case, saying that Presser had no bearing on anything beyond a state?s ability to outlaw private militia groups.

?Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment?s meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations,? the court ruled. ?This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment.?

The Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not specifically extended to the states through a process known as incorporation, which involves interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to read that no state can deprive its citizens of federally guaranteed rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part: ?No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ? nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.?

Sotomayor?s decision rejected the Fourteenth Amendment?s incorporation doctrine as far as Second Amendment was concerned, saying any legislation that could provide a ?conceivable? reason would be upheld by her court.

?We will uphold legislation if we can identify some reasonably conceived state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the legislative action. Legislative acts that do not interfere with fundamental rights ? carry with them a strong presumption of constitutionality,? the appeals court concluded. ?The Fourteenth Amendment,? she wrote, ?provides no relief.?

Sotomayor?s ruling ran to the left of even the reliably liberal San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in the April 2009 case Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment did, in fact, apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, heavily citing the Supreme Court in Heller.:doh1

?We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is deeply rooted in this Nation?s history and tradition,? said the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals. ?We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.?

Gun Week Senior Editor Dave Workman told CNSNews.com that the Nordyke and Maloney decisions are at odds and the Supreme Court, possibly with a Justice Sotomayor, may soon sort them out.

?Whenever you have a conflict like this, you?re likely to have it end up before the Supreme Court so they can decide the issue. If the Second Amendment is incorporated into the states, it?s going to jeopardize thousands of local gun laws, and the people who supported those gun laws are just freaked about that.?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WELL, ISN'T THAT SPECIAL!

Hmmm...what other amendments don't we have to follow, dyke? :+clueless

 
#20
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

Gingrich rightfully denounced Sodomy as a racist .... TOO FUNNY .... THE "REV" IS THE SAME ASSCLOWN WHO SLAMMED CLINTON FOR HIS AFFAIR WHILE HAVING ONE OF HIS OWN AT THE SAME TIME .... Gingrich has as much "credibility" as Bush giving Military Lessons at West Point
 
#21
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

MARK is puzzled: Hmmm...what other amendments don't we have to follow??

Manny: As far as you're concerned, none - since the US Constitution is not law in your native Canada. Your only concern need be that Charter. So read it, study it and shape up son!
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
#22
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

Sotomayor's And Alito's Similarities

<!-- google_ad_section_start -->
With federal judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court,everyone is predicting how things will turn out during the Senate confirmation hearings.
Newsday looks at how Sotomayor actually has many similarities with Justice Samuel Alito,who was appointed by President Bush in 2005:

"Both grew up Roman Catholic in modest homes wanting to be judges, attended the same Ivy League schools, became prosecutors in their first full-time jobs and served more than a decade on the circuit court. And both have remained closely tied to their ethnic roots and the communities where they grew up: Alito, 59, as an Italian American in New Jersey, and Sotomayor, 54, as a Puerto Rican in the Bronx."
And, as Sotomayor's impartiality gets the once over,keep in mind that Alito said during his confirmation hearings,:
"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."

By Jen Chung in News on <ABBR class=published title=2009-05-29T15:00:16-05:00>May 29, 2009
From:
http://gothamist.com/2009/05/29/sotomayors_and_alitos_similarities.php

 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
#24
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

[SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+3]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1]
Demagogues across the political spectrum instigate controversy to further their own agendas.Who's President Obama a left-center conventional defender of the military/industrial/American imperialist status quo realistically supposed to choose as his Supreme Court nominee?
You can be sure Sotomayor's been thoroughly vetted,and can be counted on to not stray into "extremist" territory on any decision of major substance.
She's the judicial equivalent of Obama in the power structure,and is also practical enough to carry out what's necessary.

[SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Excerpts below from:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff05292009.html[/FONT]
[/SIZE][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]White Suits and Black Robes [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]Sotomayor's Problem Isn't That She's Too Latina [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]By DAVE LINDORFF [/SIZE][/FONT]
May 29,2009

[/FONT][/FONT]
[/SIZE][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+3]O[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]I don?t know at this point whether Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a good choice for Supreme Court Justice or a bad one. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]She certainly is a lousy judge for writers and other creative people, having ruled (and been overruled by an appellate court and then, when that reversal was upheld, by the US Supreme Court in a case called New York Times Inc. v. Tasini) that the Times and periodical publishers could reprint, without any additional compensation, any freelance works they contracted on the basis that they had a general copyright on each entire issue they publish. [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]And she appears to have rarely met an insurance company that she didn?t feel was more deserving of court succor than any insured person suing an insurer. In a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reporter Joseph N. DiStefano quotes an insurance attorney named Randy Maniloff as saying that in cases involving insurance companies and insurance policyholders ?It?s insurers by a landslide.? Such a pro-corporate position would put her in league with the Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas wing of the court, and would be consistant with her pro-corporate stance vis-?-vis writers and artists and copyright law. (In fairness, Sotomayor did rule against an insurance firm and in favor of a policyholder?s family in 2005.)[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Having said that Sotomayor shows a disturbing pro-corporate stance in her past rulings, I have to say that the freak-out on the right over Sotomayor?s comments regarding the impact of her being female and Latina on her decisions as a jurist is the height of nonsense and hypocrisy. To watch them frothing, you would think that she was a latter-day William O. Douglass, which is hardly the case.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]What Sotomayor said that has the right in a lather was:[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]?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.?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]She made that comment at a lecture in Berkeley in 2001, but it came following this earlier statement:[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]?Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure....that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise??[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]She went on to note: [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]?Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case.?[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]There are plenty of reasons to oppose President Barack Obama?s appointment of Sotomayor to the Supreme Court?she is not a particularly profound Constitutional scholar and she has a record of accommodating corporate interests at the expense of individuals?but her acknowledging that being female and Latina may have a positive impact on her judicial decisions is not one of them.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]If she is confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice later this year, as appears likely, one can only hope that she will allow her decisions to be informed by that background, and that she will not just become another one of ?the boys? on the bench.[/SIZE][/FONT]
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
#25
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

World "Socialist" Web Site's[WSWS] critical take on Obama's nomination for Supreme Court justice.

Obama names Sonia Sotomayor to US Supreme Court

By Patrick Martin
27 May 2009
Excerpts from:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may2009/soto-m27.shtml

The Sotomayor nomination is being hailed by liberals and damned by the ultra-right in equal measure, but it confirms Obama?s predilection for the predictable, conservative choice. It demonstrates the essence of Democratic Party liberalism, personified by Obama himself: the defense of corporate America and the capitalist state, slightly flavored with identity politics.

Sotomayor is the first Hispanic and only the fourth woman to be nominated to the highest US court, and this fact produced typical gushing from the likes of the Nation magazine, which declared, ?Obama Pick Sonia Sotomayor Reflects America.? This gesture towards minorities and women does not, however, alter in the slightest the fundamentally reactionary role of the Supreme Court as an institution and the conservative, pro-business orientation of the Obama administration.

Despite the predictable fulmination among the anti-abortion fanatics and anti-gay bigots, there is not the slightest hint of radicalism in the choice of Sotomayor. She has the longest record of judicial service of any Supreme Court nominee in the last 50 years.

If her birth and life circumstances growing up were humble, her subsequent resume is thoroughly establishment: Princeton, Yale Law School, editor of the Yale Law Journal, six years as a Manhattan assistant district attorney prosecuting criminal cases, eight years as a corporate lawyer specializing in international commerce (Fiat was a major client). Included in her portfolio was the defense of corporations in product liability cases.

Republican President George H.W. Bush named Sotomayor to a vacancy on the Federal District Court for Southern Manhattan in 1992, at the urging of the conservative Democratic senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. President Bill Clinton named her to a vacancy on the Second US Circuit Court of Appeal in 1997, and she was confirmed 67-29 by a Republican-controlled Senate in 1998 after some delaying tactics.

The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch of Utah, voted for Sotomayor in 1998. Now the ranking minority member of the committee, Hatch is expected to vote for her again. In all, nearly half the Senate Republicans approved her nomination in 1998, making it difficult for them to argue that her subsequent 11 years on the appeals court have now rendered her unqualified.

Nothing in Sotomayor?s legal record suggests that she will be anything more than a more or less interchangeable replacement for outgoing Justice Souter, who was also a nominee of George H.W. Bush. In a 2006 case, she embraced the ?war on terror? paradigm of the Bush administration, upholding warrantless searches of ferry passengers crossing Lake Champlain?certainly one of the more unlikely targets of international terrorism.
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
#26
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

Speaking of Supreme Courts



Nov 26,2008

Things You Might Not
Have Known About
Canadian Law
Posted by MGK Published in Law, Bad Comedy
From:
http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2007/11/26/things-you-might-not-have-known-about-canadian-law/

The Canadian judicial system is held in high esteem for its fairness and dedication to good justice. Other countries often look to our judiciary, particularly our Supreme Court, and wonder what the secret of good Canadian jurisprudence is.
It is really quite simple. One of the strictest requirements for membership in the Supreme Court of Canada is that you must be a direct blood descendant of Santa Claus.


The Canadian Supreme Court working out incognito at the gym:


In disguise,preparing to board a plane for a fact finding mission:


In NYC trying to blend
into the crowd:

 
#27
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

[/b]
No, you weren't. 2938u4ji23

Hitler knew the power of injecting race into politics and these statists lust for power more than killing babies or involving themselves in acts of sodomy.

The race card is the "precious" and Hussein is Gollum.

For years, the loony left has been working hard at erasing all history of their racist past (democrats were rabidly anti-black until the 60's), they have convinced themselves -- and lemmings like 4625 -- that they are the only ones who are righteous, compassionate, and pure enough to define and dictate racial justice.

And yet these leftists are as racist as they ever.

But years of indoctrinating school children and college students in an Orwellian-type of the "opposites" game -- with "conservatives are racist; democrats are inclusive" added to Orwell's "freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength" -- new generations are convinced that electing someone to office based on his/her ethnic background, instead of character, honesty, and knowledge of the subject, is not only acceptable, but also good for "righting past wrongs."

Did it ever occur to Sonia Sodomy that this daughter of a Puerto Rican tool-and-die worker and a nurse, succeeded because so many Americans made a conscious effort to look past the racism and class warfare she engages in?

I hate leftists.

I hate leftists!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Racism: The Case Against Sonia Sotomayor

<small class="commentmetadata"> By HHR | May 28th, 2009 | Category: Featured, Opinion | </small>

By Leette Eaton-White


With the nomination of Judge Sotomayor every American needs to scrutinize her in an effort to determine if she will be a good Supreme Court Justice. But so far very few with the power to determine her fate have done so. One of HHR?s contributors Raynard Jackson, said ?I hope and pray that Republicans won?t revert back to their natural inclination of injecting race into this battle.? Well he is dead wrong. Some of the people interjecting race are Chuck Schumer and even Judge Sotomayor.

Both have used her race as the qualifying factor.Schumer expressed the idea that if Republicans go hard on her they will further alienate themselves from Hispanic voters that they ?oppose her at their peril?. Well I have news for Schumer, if the Republicans don?t go hard on her they are every bit as racist as democrats are proving themselves to be. Since when do we get rid of racism by replacing it with racism? Think of what that statement is saying. As if going hard on her is racist! If they go easy on her then they imply that she can?t handle defending her rulings and beliefs.

If they go easy on her they imply that she is too stupid or weak to defend herself?. And that would be implied because of her race. That would be incredibly racist. Republicans should respect her by challenging her as best they can. The best way to show her abilities is to show them under pressure, not at a meeting for afternoon tea.
And let us examine the words of Judge Sotomayor herself.

?I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn?t lived that life.?
? Sonia Sotomayor, 2001 ceremony commemorating the 40th anniversary of the first judicial appointment of a Latino to a federal court

Oh really Sonia Sotomayor? Really? Because said Latina is a women? Because she is Latina? Does she have a rich experience because of gender and race? Frankly if you ask my opinion none of that qualifies anyone to be a judge of any sort. But then again I am not even the least bit racist or sexist.

But time and time again liberals prove themselves to be such by requiring that we look at a person?s race before their merit, going directly against Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King?s message over and over again even while they claim to champion his ideas. I think that based on that statement alone she should step away from the nomination. Her words on race are, in my humble opinion, bigoted in nature and may suggest she is an ideologue. No one with such a cut off sense of race and gender should be on the most powerful court in the United States. For those of you not sure about my opinion on the matter examine this statement.
?I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn?t lived that life.?
What bigot said that?! No one actually said that, but it displays how racist and sexist the statement is. If a white man had said that he would be vilified and forced to walk away. So often we expect that the most racist amongst us would be white people, but liberals prove over and over that is not the case.

The new racism tells us to embrace the false dichotomy that whites are racist or ignorant of other races at best, and all other races deserve an easier ride, a more favorable view and a better chance because of past wrongs perpetuated by whites.

This is not justice; this is not correcting a wrong. It is just another wrong. You cannot right a wrong with another wrong. You don?t excuse bad behavior by pointing at other bad behavior. We shouldn?t judge people by race and give them a hard or easy time because of it. Anyone seeking a position of power should be grilled before they assume power.

Suggesting that anyone wishing to challenge the ideas of people of a different race simply because of race is discriminatory. Trying to suppress free speech by way of intimidation is wrong at best. Mr. Jackson also made another statement in his HHR article ?Picking Sotomayor basically buys off the Hispanic community and will prevent them from bugging the administration about illegal immigration.?

If you are Hispanic and reading this you should be furious. Not with Mr. Jackson, it isn?t his fault that he is right. Its Obama?s fault that this is so.

You should be furious with him. He wants you to ignore issues by looking at this woman?s race alone (encouraging you to be racist) and to forget all concerns you have as an American? not a Latino. Our leaders are depending on you to be blind to issues and concerned only for race.
Assuming that because you are Latino you must think a certain way, and must act a certain way, and must vote a certain way based on nothing of real value? just race. That is a racist insult to your ability to reason as an adult and to make important decisions for this nation as an American.

No one should be able to do that to you.

If we are to judge the ability of this woman to be on the Supreme Court we must ignore her race all together and examine her words, her beliefs, and her judgments in court. This is the only fair way. I already think she should be sidelined based on her statements, but for those who think that is not enough it is important that she be taken to task in a respectful manner she deserves nothing less if she is as capable as liberals claim.

Leetteis a native New Yorker and a full time student studying Forensic Psychology. She has been a Conservative Republican since 2002, finding her Republican roots at the age of 15. HipHopRepublican opened the gateway for her to start her political activism in urban areas and across the net.Contact - Leette4hhr@gmail.com


Sotomayor the full fledged racist sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States. Amerika a great country.
 
#28
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

I FEEL YOUR PAIN. NOT THEIRS. YOURS.

by Ann Coulter


May 27, 2009

God save us from liberal "empathy." After President Barack Obama announced his empathetic Supreme Court nominee this week, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, we found out that some people are more deserving of empathy than others.

For example, Judge Sotomayor apparently "empathized" more with New Haven, Conn., government officials than with white and Hispanic firefighters who were denied promotions by the city on the basis of their race.

Let's hope she's as empathetic to New Haven residents who die in fires fought by inferior firefighters as a result of her decision.

In the now-famous firefighters' case, Ricci v. DeStefano, the New Haven Fire Department administered a civil service exam to choose a new batch of lieutenants and captains. The city went so far as to hire an outside consultant to design the test in order to ensure that it was job-related and not racially biased. (You know, just like all written tests were pre-screened for racial bias back when we were in school.)

But when the results came in, only whites and Hispanics scored high enough to earn promotions.

Such results never entice Democrats to reconsider their undying devotion to the teachers' unions that routinely produce students who can't read, write or do basic math. Obviously, disadvantaged children from single-parent homes suffer the most from inadequate public schools -- and their tragic outcome bedevils the entire society for the rest of the students' lives.

Instead, Democrats hide the failure of government schools by punishing the high-scoring whites, Asians and Hispanics, who presumably learned everything they know at home. (If only successfully applying a condom were relevant to firefighting, public school graduates raised in single-parent homes would crush the home-learners!)

So naturally, New Haven city officials decided to scrap the exam results and promote no one.

Seventeen of the high-scoring whites and one high-scoring Hispanic sued the mayor, John DeStefano, and other city officials for denying them promotions solely because of their race.

The district court ruled that there was no race discrimination because the low-scoring blacks were not given promotions either -- citing the landmark case, One Bad Apple v. The Rest of the Barrel. (That's the sort of sophistry we're taught in law school.)

Concerned that Sotomayor's famed "empathy" might not shine through in cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, the Democrats are claiming -- as Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said on MSNBC -- that she was merely applying "precedent" to decide the case. You know, just like conservatives say judges should.

This was an interesting claim, in the sense that it was the exact polar opposite of the truth.

To be sure, there is "precedent" for racial discrimination by the government, but Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education. If Sotomayor had another case in mind, she wasn't telling: The lower court's dismissal of the firefighters' case was upheld by Sotomayor and two other judges in an unsigned, unpublished opinion, titled, "Talk to the Hand."

Not only that, but Sotomayor's fellow Clinton appointee, Jose Cabranes (who sounds like an "empathetic" fellow), issued a blistering dissent from the appellate court's denial of a rehearing specifically on the grounds that the case "raises important questions of first impression in our Circuit -- and indeed, in the nation."

A "case of first impression" means there's no precedent. If there were a precedent, it would be a case of, at least, "second impression."

If it were merely "empathy" that explained liberal judges' lawless opinions, one might expect some liberal judges to have empathy for the white and Hispanic firefighters being discriminated against today, and others to have empathy for the hypothetical black firefighters discriminated against in times past.

But all liberals only have empathy for the exact same victims -- always the ones that are represented by powerful liberal interest groups. As Joe Sobran says, it takes a lot of clout to be a victim.

Thus, the media and Democrats seem to find successful Hispanic attorney Sotomayor much more "empathetic" than successful Hispanic attorney Miguel Estrada.

After aggressively blocking Estrada's nomination to a federal appeals court during Bush's first term solely on the grounds that he is Hispanic and was likely headed for the Supreme Court -- according to Senate Democrat staff memos -- now Democrats have the audacity to rave that Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice!

If Sotomayor is not more empathetic than Estrada, liberals at least consider her more Hispanic -- an interesting conclusion inasmuch as Sotomayor was born in New York and Estrada was born in Honduras.

Forty-four of 48 Senate Democrats voted to filibuster Estrada's nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, with congressman and professional Hispanic Raul Grijalva assuring them that just because "he happens to be named 'Estrada' does not give him a free ride."

The truth is liberals couldn't care less about Sotomayor being Hispanic. Indeed, liberals often have trouble telling Hispanic people apart, as James Carville illustrated on "Good Morning America" Wednesday morning when he kept confusing Miguel Estrada with Alberto Gonzales.

"Empathy
," in Liberalspeak, is nothing but raw political power.
 
#30
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

she admitted she made a mistake in the speech.
Let's go through the process and let due process happen.
 
#33
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

Sotomayor's record as far as the SC goes is PATHETIC. Eight of her cases have been heard by the SC and seven out of those eight cases were REVERSED.

Sotomayor should not be a law clerk much less a justice on the highest court in the United States of America.



:doh1:doh1:doh1:doh1
 
#34
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

she admitted she made a mistake in the speech.
Let's go through the process and let due process happen.
Actually, if a white man made similar statements about a Latino he would be run out of town. Turn about is fair play. It is time to run her out of town and may she never surface again except to make me some tacos and burritos and clean my house.
 

soli

EOG Dedicated
#35
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

Actually, if a white man made similar statements about a Latino he would be run out of town. Turn about is fair play. It is time to run her out of town and may she never surface again except to make me some tacos and burritos and clean my house.
She will be Confirmed just like your 5th grade education has been confirmed. I can't wait to see you cusssing and fussing when she is confirmed.:cocktail
 
#36
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

I agree Nic that a white man would be crucified for those statements or close to them. .but that is the world we live in now here in America where you have to pander to minorities and be pc because without minority vote you will never get elected again.
it is double talk and whites get the raw deal now but it makes everyone in the country feel better because 200 years ago we condoned slavery and 100 years ago this and 50 years ago that.
 
#37
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

Hi Joe, been a while

chances are she'll be approved, and that's probably how it should be. The POTUS gets to nominate at his discretion, and unless she has some unknown flaw, the nomination should stand.

Having said that, there are two more observations.

1) the Left doesn't understand or respect the concept I just described. As a matter of fact, they think they should help with the nomination as evidenced by the "Gang of 14" which was put together to help choose Bush's nominees. Where is that gang today?

2) her statement that the "court is where policy is made" may just be her stumbling block. She meant what she said, even though the video shows she knew she shouldn't say it.
 
#38
Re: Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

Another newsflash: 1) Don't bet against Sotomayor being easily affirmed; 2) The various federal courts of appeal are where the vast majority of federal precedent is made--some might refer to that as "policy."
Understand that the Supreme Court now accepts such a small percentage of discretionary cases, that a federal court of appeals is usually the end of the road for most litigants.
Any eighth grader knows that laws--which some may refer to as "policy," are made by the legislature.
 
Top