Getting Smart on Sotomayor

Enjoy your blog Larry!

Well, first let me say that the “smearing” of judges didnt start with the republicans…..it started with ted kennedy and continued with bork, thomas alito and roberts……as far as finding a “case” in which she said Im a racist”…..I dont think you’ll find ANY CASE ANYWHERE of any judge who openly admits to being a racist….The republicans are using her own words….she made the comment….she belongs to la raza…..I dont think orrin hatch was twisting her arms…

Why don’t you play teacher since you know so much. Why don’t you start with the ricci case; that’s the one that is in the msm as of late.

Funny. If I said that my life experiences as a white male makes me come to BETTER decisions than my minority and/or female counterparts, and I say better because minorities and females often make bad decisions, then you would ask me when the next Klan meeting was. And rightfully so!

But when a “latina” poses the same garbage its, “c’mon, minorities can’t be racist!” and “what Sotomayor really meanst was….”

Just words? Just speeches?

Bork found no right to privacy in his testimony, even though he did later find it and admitted such. Your analogy falls apart there.

Don’t keep including Bork as an innocent victim. Please. Read your history (I presume you aren’t old enough to have lived it). Bork was disqualified by his own actions and it was incredible that the Republicans had the nerve to nominate him.

I agree. See my post above. Bork “borked” himself. The right to privacy is a penumbra right, which he failed to see until he was denied his position on the court. He has said he regretted it, which takes the wind out of the sails of the right-wing nutbags who think he deserved the appointment. Privacy is, indeed, guaranteed. It is a shame the right-wing only applies that guarantee to themselves.

Actually, although I am pro choice I do own that Roe is a piece of judicial activism. It was a bad decision, and thats part of why it doesnt sit well with Americans. I will not be holding my breath for Obama to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, its clearly not on his agenda. But it should be done if we want abortions to be legal in the USA.

Just because I think the legislative branch of government should make laws, and the courts should apply them doesnt make me a raving bible thumping white supremacist who follows a legal code written by a bunch of old jewish men “7,000″ years ago.

The fact that Rush Limbaugh does not like Sotomayor doesnt require me to like her. Ditto for Liddy. Its completely irrelevant to me. I dont like her own “wise latina” comments, and I found them worse in context than in the abbreviated version.

A white male who said the equivalent of this would never get the nod. It should not be OK for some and not for others. Thats not why my parents brought us here all those years ago.

Please show me the section of the Constitution that states you can (or cannot) have an abortion?

uh … I believe that this might be where you have a claim of State’s rights. The Constitution did not grant powers to the three Federal branches only. It anticipated that some powers would remain with the States. Would that that were the case. I personally feel that Unca Sam is too much with us.

Mr. Johnson, I respect your expertise in the areas of intel and terrorism. But in the area of judicial philosophy, we agree to part company. I’m just praying that Sotomayor gets an up or down vote by the whole senate, unlike what happened with Miguel Estrada.

Agree with every word you just wrote!

Anyway, the decision by Sotomayor-panel will most likely be overruled by the Suppreme court. Good.

Before the spelling police start….—> “Supreme”

That was icing on the Saturday Night Massacre cake.

There are double standards, but this issue won’t be addressed here because there is no way to argue with the truth.

spelling police

Yes, the red sharpie crew. Good call.

ok….leave bork aside….what about thomas….alito…roberts?….they were all smeared by liberals……..and wasnt it joe biden who said…..”the only reason bush nominated thomas was because he was black”….thats a direct quote….so I dont really care if the left thinks soto-mayor is getting smeared…….the liberals wrote the rule book on smears……

Put Thomas aside too. I happen to admire Anita Hill and think she was quite courageous to stand up at great cost to herself.

Thomas is an idiot with no command of the English language and no ability to reason outside of “yes” or “no”. That being said, I have no problem with Roberts or Alito as they at least have the ability to speak English, comprehend arguments, ask questions, and actually defend them.

In short, Clarence Thomas is truly in way above his pay grade and a fool who will be on the court until he ceases to exist.

They live in a fantasy world where the earth and all living creatures were created 7000 years ago in six days by almighty God.

This is your blog, and I am just a guest here, but I am curious now, if this is the new definition of fundamentalist? Because to me, if somebody believes parts of the bible and thinks the rest are crap… then what is the point? It is either all inspired writing, or it is all crap. I am not sure what this has to do with “right wing”, and why this needs to become the standard that separates “wing nuts” from the rest… but if it is, then I believe we are in trouble. No, not biblical trouble, but that perhaps we should stop worrying about losing our freedoms, and just go off and accept that they are already gone and probably for good. I am not sure how I got myself into this corner, trying to defend religion when myself, I don’t actually have much faith in religion per se to begin with. But I do believe in GOD and freedom, and when we let people like Matt Damon in his attack on Sarah Palin define what religion is for us, or what it should be, then we really have become the Taliban in some way and are just too far gone to realize it yet.

You can have both. This is an example of the essential problem. Sticking up for Anita Hill’s bravery does not change what Biden has reportedly said. And if it isn’t racist, what is?

Legal briefs are fine, but most of us are not lawyers and really don’t have the time to get bogged down in all that verbiage and legalese. We should, nevertheless, all try to have informed opinions, which we are clearly not going to get listening to Bill Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc. So where does that leave us? Nowhere really. I don’t have a generally high opinion of the Supreme Court to begin with thanks to them handing the 2000 election to George W Bush. The only thing I really worry about related to Sonia Sotomayor are any possible associations she may have had with La Raza, whom I have always perceived as an irrational, self-serving, unpatiotic organization. I worry about that as much as I worried about Clarence Thomas’ alleged interest in pornography and tendency to indulge in sexual harrassment. I don’t know the facts about either. Who’s going to tell me? Who am I going to believe?

Thank-you HC123!

My sentiments exactly. No matter what the context or arena, Sotomayor took the low road with her smart latina vs white male comment. We simply need smarter and AWARE SCOTUS candidates than that.

We’re supposed to give her a pass? Ummmm, not buying that one.

And if it isn’t racist, what is?

Honesty.

Sticking up for Anita Hill’s bravery does not change what Biden has reportedly said.

But nobody cares what Biden said. It is as if democrats have been granted a permanent non-culpability certification of some sort. This is so partisan inspired and transparently hypocritical , it is ridiculous.

Larry, I’m a Democrat but I’m surprised at how much you’re pushing this issue of Sotomayor…. there have been a few posts regarding this as if there is some personal interest in her by you. I’m not chastising you for it but it does make me wonder if there’s some personal interest in the matter…

Frankly, I have no sympathy for her getting beat up on some public comments she’s made…. if you want to put yourself out there like that knowing you’re in a sensitive area…then you learn to control what you say even if you’re thinking otherwise.

I will just say that I’ll laugh if she gets confirmed and goes against liberal stances in her high court rulings. There are a lot of raw issues she’s not had to rule on as a previous judge that leave a lot of mystery. Abortion being one of them.

And yes, for the conservatives… turn about is fair play…. seems the liberals are always crying when someone comes to beat them over the head but it’s OK for them to do it to others…. life’s a bitch that way! LOL

We should, nevertheless, all try to have informed opinions, which we are clearly not going to get listening to Bill Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

How about Keith Olbermann? That’s as nutty as they get.

The only thing I really worry about related to Sonia Sotomayor are any possible associations she may have had with La Raza, whom I have always perceived as an irrational, self-serving, unpatiotic organization.

It’s probably off limits to link Sotomayor to La Raza; turning a blind eye is much easier.

Well, Docelder, you’re a standup guy but I must say that as far as the “Old Testament” goes (which is neither a “Testament” nor “Old”), get thee to a Rabbi for edification and refrain from heeding the King James’ version, which is mistranslated crap.

I’m kind of tired of the Sotomayer lovefest going on by the posters here. It makes me have no interest in her whatsover. It’s not too far from the MSNBO lovefest that went on. Quite frankly, the bottom line is this:

I know BHO’s judgement is the pooorest of poor. I am not going to approve of any of his appointees, nor do I trust the MSM to tell me truths about her. It’s probably a good thing I have no say in the matter. If BHO finds her competent that’s a huge black mark against her.

Is it going to even matter that we have a Supreme Court while under a dictatorship in the country formerly known as the United States of America?

I care what Biden says…I really liked his “telepromter” joke. That was a hoot

And yes, for the conservatives… turn about is fair play…. seems the liberals are always crying when someone comes to beat them over the head but it’s OK for them to do it to others…. life’s a bitch that way! LOL

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps Larry thinks she may be correct on some issues and perhaps most? This constant “you’re wrong, I’m right” dogma has gotten us into a world of hurt for no other reason than to justify one’s own position on a subject. I don’t like That One but if Sotomayer is the real deal (and I’ll wait for the hearings, thank you very much) I’ll support her nomination.

You see, unlike you, I’m not a bot of either persuasion.

anita hill didnt suffer for lying under oath…..she actually got promoted to a far left think tank after her lies about clarence thomas….I dont admire that……she let old white liberals use her to defame thomas…..thank god it didnt work………

Let her speak for herself before you judge. We all know how the MSM gets most things wrong. I’m waiting for her to clue me in one what she thinks and not gasbags of either persuasion.

You are far too smart to take the cheap route. I hope to see a better effort.

With all due respect, I think this issue of legislating from the bench IS a valid concern. Being concerned about how often (not whether or not) and under which circumstances any given judge will be inclined to do this is perfectly legitimate. I want someone inclined to do less of it because most of it should be done by elected officials. I want someone who tends to be less empathetic and more impartial because who knows which side of the case ‘you’ will be on one day? (It could be either so be careful what you wish for.)

Anyway, it matters not one whit what we the people think. Congress represents only itself, and the MSM will help them choose. (We should still inform ourselves and voice our opinions to our reps, but let’s not kid ourselves either.) And who knows if the Judiciary Committee will read one page about Sotomayor? We all know they don’t read much of anything important.

Sorry to get all emo on everyone, but the point is with BO behind it, this is nothing BUT politics.

You know nothing about Anita Hill-end of comment.

I will check her out myself, but I have no say anyway. I am now paranoid about people Barky likes and respects though. We all get to see frequently what that means, some sort of payback.

Just get Barrakula out so we can have back some form of decency and normalcy soon.

Sorry, it seems there are none in the public eye who have any shred of common sense or decency!

“Popular belief” is that the selection of a VP running mate is one of the most imporant that the candidate makes. Sinc 0bama has no known sense of humor, we at least got one person in the WH who can make us laugh!

That’s because this site is full of dingy broads who easily get bent out of shape at the smallest thing, just like your typical women do.

Now, as a white male I know BETTER and can come to BETTER conclusions than all of the women on this site because I’m obviously much wiser than females and minorities.

Just words? Just speeches?

Hmmmmmmmmm. I just got to thinking. Would the Sotomayor Supreme Court be willing to look into that nasty little birth certificate/eligibility issue???

Oh, probably not.

BTW, I find it kind of insulting that BHO had to pick a woman/latino. The MSM said it would be so and it was. I guess I’m just tired of how unfair this country has become. What if we went with the next qualified person, who had earned it?????

It’s all politics and even though it’s been so for a while, it has gotten old, in my view.

Citizen of the former US of A.

And Clarence Thomas is a prick of the first order.

And before you start in on me, I am a male, understood?

Can I take Sotomayor and trade in Barry, Harry and Nancy????

Then you might talk me into being more accepting!

LOL!

It’s gotta be a rainbow court, PIC. It doesn’t matter if any of them revere the law, don’t you know?

They want us to ignore her statements and concentrate on her qualifications. Well I can think of 15 firefighters in New Haven that are also highly qualified but the Princess didn`t seem to consider qualifications on that one. Cry me a river if she comes under the same scrutiny as every other nominee.

Hmmmmmmmmm. I just got to thinking. Would the Sotomayor Supreme Court be willing to look into that nasty little birth certificate/eligibility issue???

If you knew anything about the temperament of justices and their appointers, you would be surprised. The most liberal justices were appointed by conservative presidents and vice-versa. I’m sure That One isn’t out of the woods, yet. Why not let her speak?

You should read the ruling. The city screwed up–not Sotomayer. They punted to the courts, cowards that they were.

Besides, haven’t we all harped on the qualifications of That One? I know I have and so have you. She IS qualified–the only item at issue is her opinions, which are available on line for all to see. I won’t judge her on one opinion.

Judges never make law. They rule on cases based on existing law and, importantly, the interpretation of that law.

The difference between “orginalists” and “seat-of-the-pantsers” is that originalists is that originalists do not creatively interpret existing law.

Sotomayor has never made law herself. She just creatively interpreted the law.

What is a major concern and should concern everyone is her prepared speech when she positioned herself as superior to any white man. If she cannot apologize for that in the hearings then she should be prepared to withdraw her nomination. Alito never said that Italian Americans were superior to anyone.

I will, when it shows obvious racism in her statements which were not “off the cuff”…..but carefully thought out and written.

That “legislating from the bench”, as you call it, is interpretation of the law, which is what the courts are supposed to do. If their opinion is that legislation voted upon by Congress and signed by the President is Unconstitutional, that isn’t legislating but review. The SC is the final arbiter.

If you desire iron-clad laws, best ask your elected representatives to actually write laws that pass muster and for the President to sign them without making all sorts of silly-ass signing statements.

me too Ferd..the jury is still out for me..

Whatever statements you are referring to are not in the record and you can actually look it up and be convinced. What you are referring to are off-the-cuff statements made as a private citizen in a non-governmental venue. I dislike That One but won’t tarnish her reputation simply because he appointed her. I’m sure you would expect the same if you were in her position, especially considering your posts on such matters in the past.

Ferd said:

“I don’t like That One but if Sotomayer is the real deal (and I’ll wait for the hearings, thank you very much) I’ll support her nomination.”

Excellent advice–wait for the hearings. Sotomayor and the public both deserve to hear a full disclosure from Sonia Sotomayor herself. I doubt she’ll be given softball questions and she better be ready to be open and clear in her answers. I’ll make a personal judgment then and only then.

But I do take offense with the kneejerk smears, the adolescent sexist remarks from the likes of Limbaugh and Liddy. Have the Dems been guilty of hyperventilating? Absolutely. But tit for tat isn’t going to get us anywhere. And frankly, I’m sick of it from both sides.

But regardless of what personal judgment I make, Sonia Sotomayor will most likely be confirmed, short of a PR seismic shift. The Dems have the votes, period. The Republicans are making themselves look like Neanderthals with these stupid comments. If I had the bully pulpit I’d say: get a grip!

That’s BS. Textualist and purposivist Justices are playing the exact same game — interpreting ambiguous statutes to mean what they want them to mean. Neither of them have any sort of principled superiority over the other. Go read some controversial Scalia opinions where he “finds” a “clear meaning” in the “plain text” of a statute, and then try to tell me with a straight face that there’s no creativity at work. You can’t.

Peggy Sue:

I’m on your side on this one. I don’t like That One, as is amply demonstrated from my treatment of obamabots. I do, however, draw the line at nominees, especially those that at first blush pass the muster. At least she has impeccable credentials and a history, which I am reading as I post. She appears to be a true centrist, ruling both for and against the same groups, depending on the matter at hand. Am I entirely comfortable with her–no. Do I think the world will fall apart if she is confirmed–again, no. I want to hear her and see her in front of the Judiciary committee before I decide.

i need to know more about her.the hearings will be interesting…

Wrong, bucko. If the legislative branch wrote good law, there would be no need for interpretation as it would be plain to all involved. Try reading some of the crap that is passed as law and you’ll see what I mean. Oh, you can’t read. never mind.

A white male candidate would be “Toast” for making a single similar comment about Latina women? TRUE

A white male should been toast for a single comment? FALSE.

Sotomayor should be toast for making a single statement? FALSE.

Had Sotomayor attended a racist church for 20 years she should be toast? TRUE

Sotomayor’s Wise Latina Woman comment in full context. this is what she said, and how she said it. It was in response to Justice O’Connor’s statement that a wise old man and a wise old woman could reach the same conclousion:

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

Justice 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 Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle.

I am also 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. Second, 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.

Sounds pretty cut and dry to me. I’m contacting all my local officials, and letting them know that I won’t vote for them in ’10 if they support this appointment.

Although she’ll most likely be schmoozed through the nomination, I will at least be able to sleep at night

What say you people about today’s statement that her 1970′s marriage to a “Chicago” attorney by the way was a sham and that she is a deeply closeted lesbian. This from Andy Martin who says he knows her past very well having taught wity her and having been up against the 2nd circut for many, many years. He states that a “man” only comes out when she is under federal eyes, then he is gone just as quickly when the scrutiny is over.
Also interesting that as usual there is a Chicago connection.

Hearings haven’t even been held yet for this nominee. It may very well be that she’ll say something in her testimony that will assuage the concerns of her critics. But so far I’m not hearing much of an outcry from Republican lawmakers about her, so once again I have to take issue with the straw man argument put forth in this article — Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. don’t have a vote.

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post is hardly a conservative yet she’s criticized Sotomayor’s infamous statement about Latina women/white males. Anyone who denies the statement isn’t provocative and worthy of debate is being disingenous. The POTUS himself has done a bit of damage control regarding it.

Doc99 alluded to Miguel Estrada (read about him — he has a compelling bio too). Democrats led the first-in-history filibuster of an appeals court nominee when Bush nominated him, so I don’t think they occupy any moral high ground when it comes to Latinos, or when it comes to obstructionist tactics.

Maybe Republican lawmakers aren’t as exercised about her nomination (as I suspect the POTUS would like them to be) because she’s replacing the liberal Souter AND she was appointed to the court of appeals by a Republican president.

refrain from heeding the King James’ version, which is mistranslated crap.

Thanks Ferd, agreed the King James was the p.c. version at the time of writing. Still, the whole six days thing followed by a day of rest, I think translated the same. I know some religions even disagree as to the rest day. Also, I understand the whole old testament part, doesn’t really apply to us now anyway, as there is the “new covenant”. I was raised in a household of two very fundamentalist raised parents, both of which… the maternal and fraternal parents hated each other for the others religion. So, I grew up to not have much use for religion proper, but I think I do understand it, probably as few do, and felt the need to defend it. Or rather, defend the people who believe as they do. As they have the right to believe or not believe however they wish.

I would like to know what her views on affirmative action are. The ricci case was so unfair, maybe it’s time to look at affirmative action again. Aren’t we all suppose to be treated equally or is that the political thing to say but not do?

I should’ve said anyone who SAYS the statement isn’t provocative…

Also, Charles Krauthammer said she should be confirmed.

I think he said “will be confirmed” not “should be confirmed.” Of course, I could be wrong….link please.

Peggy Sue and Ferd, Perhaps the initial impression we got of her is going to be the most honest. You know that for those hearings she will have thought out every possible angle on every potential question.

I fully expect her to ‘show’ us how she is completely race blind despite her previous comments.

Sonic Kitty you said it… she was chosen on purpose…and I too believe it was political… NOBama does NOTHING that isn’t calculated or for his own political gain… it’s all to Chicago Politics like… from what I understand from people in the know here in DC… he only talked to a few other candidates and nothing was ever of a serious tone. It was very calculated on his part… Now, having said that I’m not for or against her just yet. I’m just saying that she needs to take her lumps for things she’s said publically… She should know that these things could come back to haunt her when she’s in a high judicial position!

The city screwed up–not Sotomayer.

She had an opportunity to right a wrong; she didn’t.

The title of his column was “Criticize Then Confirm”. In it, he raises questions about her but feels a POTUS deserves deference when it comes to SCOTUS nominees.

Yes so you helped me make my point. It is a valid concern.

Bullshit. She had a Constitutional obligation to follow the law, which you bots of either ilk, right of left, fail to recognize. The city could have made a case out of it–they chose not to so do and were then at the mercy of the people who were affected. Blame them, shill.

No link, no EXACT quote, no believe.

Do a search and read it for yourself — when I try to post links my comments don’t appear for some reason.

Are you a lawyer? What will you say when her decision is overruled by the supreme court?

Ultimately, yes, he did, but he said a lot more, and it is worth reading: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803613.html

My comment was intended to separate That One from Sotomayer. I failed and for that I am culpable. Let me try again. I don’t think Sotomayer is a liberal nor do I think she is a conservative. I think she tries to follow the law given her interpretation of it as apposed to the interpretation of her fellow jurists. Notice my use of interpretation and that they ALL interpret. You would be better off saying that YOUR interpretation is better than HER interpretation, since, de facto, it is all interpretation. Do you now get my drift? I’ll decide when I hear her side of the story.

Nope. I didn’t make the claim. I don’t need to search for something that might not be out there. If you make a claim you need to back it up. You could at the very least provide the EXACT quote.

What are you referring to? Please paste exact quote.

All your comments are irrelevant. She stands on her own merits or fails, irrespective of what some gasbags think or what transpired in hearings previously held for other nominees. I care little about other nominees as they are not being scrutinized at this point in time. She is the one being judged and I will listen and judge for myself accordingly.

“take her lumps”–exactly!! I don’t think anyone should be playing interference for her. She’s smart enough to figure it all out herself.

I’m not “claiming” anything. I gave you the exact title of his column. Jeez, lighten up and do a little research of your own, if you’re capable.

Previous smearing is no excuse for present smearing. I don’t care if it started with the snake in the Garden of Eden. I’m SICK of the smearing campaigns against every single woman who dares to aspire to high office. Sotomayor is qualified, has more experience than any other judge sitting on the Supreme Court. Enough is enough!

All of the time we spent bringing to light those facts — words that defied deeds etal — regarding 0bama did NOTHING. The MSM makes the world go round until it decides that tanking numbers — whether viewers or readership — isn’t worth the price.

Yeah, Scott, he nominated her because he more than likely knew that it would cause a firestorm from both the right and left. (No centrist ever goes unpunished). When her nomination fails, then That One can send in his his real candidate, someone like a southside Chicago thug who will be approved inspite of Reupblican opposition. But good for you guys to call her on her centrism. I’m sure we’ll all be better off for it.

Thanks for the re-explanation, Ferd. It’s very big of you to wait for her to speak more. I am not so trusting in general…anymore.

Question for you: Since Ginsberg will definitely be retiring within 3 1/2 years, and possibly another judge–(?) although I don’t know who–the question is, despite ALL you know about the BO machine, do you not think this has all been meticulously planned out WAY in advance for the Grand Obamagenda? (As opposed to being for the benefit of the good people of this nation?) …hence, my mistrust.

When was the last time you saw a politician or political appointee “speak for themselves?”

She will be so coached and prepped by time she gets in front of the cameras, you could be listening to anyone!

La Raza isn’t the problem, in case you weren’t aware. Mainly the problem was with those who voted for That One. Let’s call a spade a shovel, shall we?

I’m not “claiming”

Good for you. Too many people make claims and are unable to back them up…just checking.

Well beebop, I’ll still take my chances because I’ve seen enough misogyny to last a lifetime. I’m not saying she’s App-le Pie and Motherhood but the alternatives could be much worse. Think about that One and his penchant for diversion. He’s banking on her not being confirmed so he can nominate someone even worse.

Thank you for posting the link RRRA!!! I don’t know why, maybe it’s my browser, but when I’ve tried to include links in the past the comment doesn’t get posted. So I’ve given up trying.

I think Krauthammer raised some valid points. I may not always agree with everything he says but he’s serious and civil, unlike the blowhards mentioned in this article.

Think outside the box. He’s planning on her not being confirmed so the Democrats can then say they’ve had enough and they’ll put through anyone he nominates after her failure.

There’s your red flag. You still think That One thinks like you do–he doesn’t and if we don’t get up to speed fast, he’ll have us hook, line, and sinker. Stop being partisan on this one.

This is the interesting point about Ricci that conservatives can’t seem to grasp. They only focus on the white guy who was clearly screwed when the promotions were thrown out, not the law.

Sotomayor and one other colleague on the three members appeal board did what conservatives claim they want. They looked at the law which said that the city was within their rights to cancel the exam and thus upheld the lower court ruling which said the same.

If Sotomayor legislated from the bench, she would have sided with Ricci who was clearly treated unfairly. If she was an activist with empathy she would have ruled for him. In face the conclusion from the appeals court mentioned the unfairness of Ricci’s situation. However, she ruled like a constrictionist.

People don’t know their history. Besides, there is something to be said for the freedom to decide that goes with life tenure.

She wouldn’t have sided with ricci because Sotomayor most likely believes in affirmative action. Of course, I could be wrong. Tell me, what is her stance on that issue?

Yes she did. What you didn’t mention is that the city fessed up to punting on the issue. They took no stand at all. But she gets all the blame. But that, I suppose, is OK, because they were probably just good old boys with the collective IQ of a three-toed sloth.

She ruled according to the law. If those who oppose her don’t like it, they should contact their representatives and ask THEM to change the law. What a quaint notion.

She ruled according to the law. If those who oppose her don’t like it, they should contact their representatives and ask THEM to change the law. What a quaint notion.

No need. This case will be reversed.

BTW, I’m not a conservative and I happen to be Hispanic. Are you assuming?

Enough is enough!

Yeah, thats going to stop the debate. Seriously, every nomination is scrutinized. Would you prefer her to have special treatment?

Here is a great brief ‘brief’ of the Ricci case. Even without wading into the legalese of the actual court documents, it appears to me that, the courts have ruled correctly. I predict the SCOTUS will uphold the lower courts’ rulings.

Ricci

No not at all..Making no assumptions. It just the whole furor over Ricci misses the point. The case was not about affirmative action.

It was about whether the city was within its right to cancel the results of the exam. That was the question of law and that is rarely brought up by those who discuss Ricci and what Sotomayor’s ruling in this preceeding really means.

I just find it ironic, that those who spend so much time talking about “activist” judges who “legislate” from the bench hold up Ricci as a ruling to paint Sotomayor as such.

The fact is, she applied the law as conservatives claim they want. Except they didn’t like the outcome.

I predict that SCOTUS will NOT uphold the lower courts ruling. Why do I believe that this will be overturned you may ask?

1. The court leans right

2. The msm seems to think SCOTUS will overrule.

3. The ricci story has now become too big to hide it from the public.

4. The majority of Americans are against affirmative action.

Well for all the supposed empathy that Sotomayor is supposed to show by being Latina and female, she hasn’t sided primarily with minorities in discrimination cases:

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She participated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/

In fact here is the SCOTUSblog posts on Sotomayor which is interesting reading:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/?s=sotomayor

Personally I think she’s not going to be as radically liberal as the left wing hopes once she’s on the bench. For example, she hasn’t had many cases regarding reproductive rights before her but the ones she has had do not show a marked ideology towards pro-life or pro-choice. So she might ultimately be more of a moderate.

I also felt Obama picked someone he felt was politically advantageous and he would be confirmed fairly easily. Even with some Conservatives huffing and puffing, I think she will be the next SC Justice. I figure Obama is saving his really radical choice for the next SC vacancy.

Diversion. What did the city do, dim-bulb? You present nothing but “This case will be reversed”. Got a clue, dee-doo?

The fact is, she applied the law as conservatives claim they want. Except they didn’t like the outcome.

This is just another talking point you picked up through the msm, aka Keith Olbermann.

This will be overturned; you will see. Be prepared.

BTW, I thought you wanted “empathy.” There was no empathy for the firefighters. Maybe she couldn’t relate.

Yes, well, I am not in a box; I’m under a rock at this point–it’s far safer

We shall see about your theory.

What did the city do, dim-bulb?

Got a clue, dee-doo?

Am I pissing you off? Notice how I’ve never resorted to name calling. IMO, it juvenile.

Most of the msm is stating this. You don’t believe MSNBC?

I figure Obama is saving his really radical choice for the next SC vacancy.

Nope–his really radical choice is a-coming. When Sotomayor is denied and she will be because all the left-wing and right-wing kooks are against her, he will nominate the most extreme leftist imaginable and that person will be confirmed because the Democrats will only have to point to the bullshit going on now and say something to the effect that it is time to move on. It’s all in the smoke and mirrors routine. Know your callow enemy and beat them at their stupid game. The Republicans will be had and the Democrats will be happy as larks.

Stop buying into That One’s crap, will you?

ODEB—You are just trying to egg us on, right? I can’t believe you really mean a word of what you say.

Empathy is fine, but the rule of law comes first.

If SCOTUS decides to overrule so be it. Then, they are legislating from the bench. Yes, Ricci’s rights were infringed, but the law at the time as applied said the city was within its rights to act as it did.

If SCOTUS changes that so be it. Then they are the ones showing empathy.

At the end of the day for too many, it is not about fair application of the law, but about whether or not the ruling suits their world view.

The current court would indeed be legislating from the bench, showing empathy and being activists if and when they overrule Ricci.

Ferd–I believe the wording is “right to be left alone.” You can define that as privacy or a lot of other things….

Wow, you believe MSNBC. Enough said, troll.

As for juvenile, moron, you never answered my question, which is typical of trolls who haven’t a clue. So either answer it or shove it up your ass. Either way, I don’t truly care.

Who will reverse it and why, Nostradinkus?

So Obama shouldn’t be focusing so much on empathy like he continues to do so; This will only hurt Sotomayor. She may be asked about her views on affirmative action. She may also be asked about her activism….and then there’s her membership to La Raza. You know, there’s just too much empathy going on there.

Actually Bork said “privacy” verbatim after his failed attempt. And privacy is a penumbra right (and not the right to be left alone, which is not guaranteed anywhere). I like being left alone but alas will never have it as someone is always trying to get me to contribute to one cause or another.

Hmmm…I thought I was quoting a source that you respected. My mistake.

Who will reverse it and why, Nostradinkus?

Since you seem to be upset and even though I’ve already listed this in this thread, I will list it again. Keep in mind that this is my opinion.

I predict that SCOTUS will NOT uphold the lower courts ruling. Why do I believe that this will be overturned you may ask?

4. The majority of Americans are against affirmative action.

Empathy? You self-serving, monumentally ignorant troll. Your idol, That One, has no empathy for anyone but himself. I guess you spent your formative “year” in 2008 fiddling with your IPod as you have no fucking clue as to the reality of your Master’s subterfuge.

That you can post such ignorant bullshit belittles Sotomayor and her true potential as she is the real McCoy and your False Messiah is nothing more than a callow, shallow boy possessing an empty suit to match his empty skull. You suck as does he.

Do I need to go on, troll, or will you give this charade up? Your boss is a useless wannabe.

Your idol, That One, has no empathy for anyone but himself.

Are you referring to Obama? He’s not my idol. I don’t agree with him on anything. Especially the economy….but that’s another topic.

So let me get this straight; you support Sotomayor but don’t support Obama?

Sheesh! Obama did say he was into empathy. It’s not my problem that you haven’t kept up with the news.

What? I certainly do not buy into Obama’s crap. I certainly didn’t vote for him nor do I agree with a lot of what he has done so far. But neither am I some sort of right wing wacko who opposes everything about him.

If what you think will happen regarding Sotomayor not being confirmed and Obama choosing someone really radical in her place who is confirmed, then I bow to your brilliance.

But they haven’t read the case; obviously, they see “black” and “white” and assume, the case hinges on affirmative action. But it doesn’t. By discarding all tests, from both black and white passers, the city’s conduct was “race neutral.”

I will just say that I’ll laugh if she gets confirmed and goes against liberal stances in her high court rulings.

Yeah. Overturning Roe vs Wade – that’d be a side-splitter all right.

I am so sorry for the truly outrageous behavior of my son, Ameliancher. He is Greek by birth but acts like a Philistine. I have made every effort to enable him to be a real human being but he insists on living in the basement, eating cheetos and getting crumbs all over my basement. He doesn’t bathe and won’t listen to reason when I tell him to leave you fair folks at NQ alone. He just gets that Devil’s gleam in his eye, smokes a lot of sweet-smelling herbs of some kind and goes ahead with his 12-year old nonsense. He isn’t an adult, mind you, but i hope you will forgive him is transgressions. I continue to work on his issues.

Althea

Heh, heh…yeah, I read that. I’m sure ricci saw this as “race neutral”

Wasn’t Bork basically writing justifications for Nixons’ lawbreaking at one time as an Executive legal appointment?

For God’s sake, stop it. I never said I was brilliant, or anything approaching that. now did i?

Huh?

I only reminded you of his ability to con people. Sorry if you took offense.

This is an example of blaming the messenger.

Yes he was.

Where are the white judges at?

FYI:
Women voters are the largest active participants in the electoral process.

So basically, you saying that you don’t like diversified opinions?

**Lag
should read:
“Where are all the white judges at?”(/Blazing Saddles)

Wow troll, you think that because That One says something, it is true (he was into empathy). You are so stupid that you confuse Sotomayer with That One. Did it ever occur to you, pinhead, that they are two different people. No, because you are some sort of fucking android with delusions of intelligence.

You, like your bot brethren, are morons of first order. Go find a website that meets both both your hat size and identical IQ.

“Who’s going to tell me? Who am I going to believe?”
You are going to believe in your own powers of reasoning after sorting facts that you research by looking up as many sources as possible on the topics of your interest, comparing them, and making an educated guess as to what is most probable.
You have already ascertained that the primary msm sources are not to be trusted by this same method. All you have to do is continue.

Nicely done, NomNomNom

Actually you are both right.
I was mocking the types of judges.
They all interpret the law to suit their own ideological beliefs.
And, yes, laws are written with as much ambiguity as possible which is what keeps lawyers employed:)

“Clarence Darrow and Justice of Obama’s Empathy Test”

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/john-farrell/2009/06/01/clarence-darrow-and-the-justice-of-obamas-empathy-test.html

BTW, it’s “Sotomayor” NOT “Sotomayer”

Absolutely! What happened to being responsible for your own education and decision making in America?

If it’s the prevalent attitude that someone else should just tell me the information, no wonder Obama won!

BTW, it’s “Sotomayor” NOT “Sotomayer”

Oh, goody–an ass-clown who can spell but not communicate in any sort of functional manner. Troll, you have a great deal to learn about the Queen’s English, which you are a failure at. You also have a distinct inability to argue with any sort of logic and possess an empty basket with files buzzing about. Have you been bitten yet?

Yeah, there are “files” buzzing about and flies, too. He is an Administrator’s nightmare.

no response is required for your nonsense personal attack on justice thomas…everyone readit for what it was….vile and disgusting…I dont care if you are a man….or a woman who wants to be a man……it still stinks

Well, it’s been fun and I enjoyed reading other points of view. Some here prefer not to “hear” other opinions; therefore they resort to name calling. Possible anger? Anyway, when it’s all said and done, Sotomayor will most likely be confirmed and the Ricci case will most likely be overturned. Peace

I was going to /snark it but I wanted to keep the irony!

Of course, that’s probably just a flaw in my thinking, being a lowly white male and all, who can’t come to better conclusions and decisions, than say, a latina female.

{Diversified” LMAO, son. You mean diverse. When did you learn English? Diversified is entirely incorrect in this context, dumbass boy of mine.

Come on back, kiddo, so I can truly spank your sorry arse.

In so arguing, however, Solicitor General Bork was careful to explain that the President, unlike the Vice President, could not constitutionally be subject to such criminal process while in office.

Your Mama ain’t buyin’ it, Ameliancher. Get your sorry ass home.

Thanks, I’ll remember that the next time “Mom.” See ya

Learn some English, boy.

Is Ricci a lawyer, too?

No, but ame stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, if it helps.

Which, as it turns out, he could be subject. So Bork was wrong on at least two accounts: privacy and the power of the president.

I’m glad he wasn’t confirmed.

“Yale Law School professor Thomas W. Merrill, who specializes in the Supreme Court, said … the case involves major issues of federal statutory interpretation.

From his reading, it’s not a particularly attractive case for the civil rights community because of underlying allegations that the tests were dropped out of political motivation and to mollify the mayor’s allies.”

This is getting O/T to dwell on the Ricci case, but I read the link you provided above for the Christian Science Monitor article about it. Indeed, it’s not all black and white — there are shades of gray, as usual.

It seems the exam was specifically designed (whatever that means) to help AAs pass, yet none did. I wonder if this could be a factor in the SCOTUS ruling — are there limits to the lengths permitted to ensure minority participation? Does the fact that the employment in question is public safety-related have any bearing? Was it truly race neutral to toss out the exam?

No wonder we need judges.

The test was designed to enable the AA community to pass. They did not. The city gave up because it could not meet the requirements and passed no one.

Maybe the law should be changed. Both the city and Judges were in a no-win situation. No AA passed!

Are you familiar with the entire case from its inception, or just the Sotomayor involvement?

Larry, do you think you have made it a little difficult to contribute on this thread? I made it through the first two cases in your link before my eyes began to cross and my thoughts became muddled.

If someone with a legal background on nq could explain the cases and decisions, I might be able to contribute to the discussion. Otherwise I’m just floating around in a sea of legalize without an opinion to call my own.

How do you dare to call Anita Hill a liar? She had everything to lose by testifying, but she did so anyway. I admire her courage and grace under such extraordinarily adversarial circumstances.

-but the law at the time as applied said the city was within its rights to act as it did.-

I don’ think it’s that clear. It seems to involved not just race based promotions but race based politics….gathered from reading the NH locals news and editorials. NH is a city of approx. 40% minorities …that’s a sizable voting block.

“there is no way to argue with the truth.”

Face it Dubya II Electric Boogaloo, it’s the attitude not the “truth” that is the focus of the debate.

lowly white males United.

Truth? Where? I’m still looking for it. She made a statement and I see no refutation of it. I may not like what she said but maybe she might be right in some fashion.

if Sotomayer is the real deal (and I’ll wait for the hearings, thank you very much) I’ll support her nomination.

The only reservations I have is her membership in La Raza and the extent of the bias and conflict of interest it may cause when cases that have La Raza or groups like ACORN as a party to any legal proceeding before the court.

This not to say she does not have constitutional right to “free association”, but whether the money trail will lead right thru any opinion she may render if cultural nationalism and the constitution are central to any issue before the court.

I await her testimony and will be very interested in her jurisprudence.

Just imagine a Judge Yu.

Beebop; do you not think there is a limit to being coached? Your point is well taken.

In BO’s case he has TOTUS, in her case, 11 years on the bench and the proported Judge Soto-Mayor’s outspokenness will make “coaching her” difficult at best.

I am curious to watch the old bulls in the Senate and what the decorum of the questions will be.

I do not care what ethnic backround she is from and actually find it sad she herself has called attention to it. It only matters that the nominee is qualified and has the temperment and experience for the position.

In as much as BO did the nominating and I have zero respect for him and his abilities, what other choice would you have?

Teak:

I concur. That being said, I may, as a white man who has more in common with her, tend towards her confirmation. Frankly, I am sick of white bozos (the kind who wrecked GM) making the assumption that I would go along with them, especially when they have done el zippo for me at any point in my life, simply because I am white. My allegiance is to the Constitution and to the Republic, which is more than I can say for them. I will support her nomination if it appears to be in our best interests. I will not lock-step with those who brought us Bush==ever.

Behind Door Number 1 is:
Behind Door Number 2 is:
Behind Door Number 3 is:

Pick ‘Em.

I mean–REALLY–pick ‘em. That is our choice.

Ninja Kitty add Justice Kennedy and Stevens to that list.

Larry,
You are obviously an intelligent man but the argument put forward here is just ridiculous. You unload alot of derision for someone who puts forth this argument:

“Their Constitutional fantasy world insists that all questions were anticipated and answered by our founding fathers. Oh really?

Please show me the section of the Constitution that states you can (or cannot) have an abortion? IT DOES NOT EXIST!! So let’s at least admit, regardless of which side of the issue you support, that any interpretation supporting or rejecting abortion is judicial activism. Hell, there is not even a specific mention of the “right of privacy” in the Constitution but such a right has become an accepted principle by most legal scholars.”

Nobody believes the founding fathers anticipated and answered all questions. The simple point is if there is no position taken in the constitution there should be no position taken by the Judiciary. The instrument of remedy becomes the legislative branch. It is entirely acceptable for the the Supreme Court to rule that the Constitution is silent on a topic and therefore it is left to legislation to solve it. In fact that is how most cases get dealt with by the Supreme Court. Take the example of abortion, you don’t have to rule it’s constitutionality you can simply say the constitution is silent and there is no constitutional right or prohibition. (which by the way is the way it should rule) It is left to elected officials who are accountable to US citizens to work it out. Why is it so difficult to see the brilliance of this protection given to us by the founding fathers to keep the “power” in the hands of the people and not an unelected, unaccountable oligarchy? Even the founding fathers acknowledged they may not have anticipated enough, if we want to install a right the process is amendments.

That is what is meant by judicial activism. If a judge is allowed to “interpret” the constitution based on “penumbras and emanations” how can you not see the devastating potential?

being a hispanic female myself, i do not like her. based on what i have seen and read about her, i personally think she is a racist, if she doesn’t like white peole then what the hell is she doing in this country? go back where you came from. i’m just sayin. i don’t support people just because they are female or they are hispanic or blah blah blah. i support the best person for the job, and in my opinion, she is NOT the best person for the job!

Yes, well, I am not in a box; I’m under a rock at this point–it’s far safe

LMAO and touche. I stand corrected but with a bit of mirth, SNJ. My theory may be way off but he is exactly like my ex-wife and only daughter. It is painful but he is they and they are he. It hurts sometimes because I see it only too plainly. ODD and NPD are what he suffers from. He will use it to his advantage–every time.

No matter how you slice it or who was discriminated against, discrimination did take place.

This is one of the reasons it could open the dialogue to get rid of or modify greatly Affirmative Action.

Could be Sotomayor didn’t have the chops to rule or simply, the case needed to go before the SCOTUS because of the ramifications.

Political motivation? Yeah, I had read that angle, too.

Links? who’s “statement”? and do I care if she is in a closet?

So why bitch at Judges? I mean, really. Get your head screwed on straight.

What the fuck does this have do do with her ability, dumbass?

Patience

Perhaps you could state where you read the reference if not the link.
,
Thanks.

Political motivation or an ultimatum? I am beginning to think we”re on the way to becoming an oligarchy that uses the other Golden Rule. Frankly, I’d rather have her right now than not.

Too many people make claims and are unable to back them up…

Like you, troll, as an appropriate example. Try drying up and shoving off.

you want us to refute that latina women make BETTER decisions then white males? Seriously?

I guess I’ll make my argument: White males make better judicial decisions then latina women because white males do EVERYTHING better then minorities and women.

Now refute that. I really can’t believe you are that stupid. Her statement is ridiculous, racist and COMPLETELY unfounded. I could make a better case for white male justices but wouldnt because it’s ridiculous, racist and sexist. How can you people just not admit something so clearly true. I am not saying it should disqualify her but come on…

OMG–What’s happening over there? Do they need some oxygen pumped in, some vitamins added to the water? Sheesh!

Do you have all your teeth, troll? LMAO at your stupidity.

Dry up, asshat.

Oh, and by the way, dumbass, answer my questions if you have any capability, which you don’t because you are as dumb as a cola-bucket.

Oh, and by the way, dumbass, answer my questions if you have any capability, which you don’t because you are as dumb as a coal-bucket.

How about this simple fact. Harold Carswell, Republican SCOTUS nominee in 1970 was rejected by the Senate and the primary reason given was his high reversal rate as a District Court Judge (58%) and Sottomayor has a 60%. And what are you basing your “more experienced than any other judge” comment on?

guess I’ll make my argument: White males make better judicial decisions then latina women because white males do EVERYTHING better then minorities and women.

Let’s see, toothless,

You say:
1) White Males make better decisions
2) White Males make better decisions because white males do everything better
3) White Males make better decisions because white males do everything better than minorities and women
4) You must be a white male

1) Not in evidence-Trailer parks
2) Not in evidence-Trailer parks with Pontiacs on jacks
3) Not in evidence-Trailer Parks with Pontiacs on jacks with women cooking all the fajitas
4) Self-evident, one slack-jawed mouth-breather taking time out to feel his mortality.

Ahhh……..said like a true (dishonest) liberal.
Smearing, outrageous accusations and all the rest of the garbage that comes out of the demcong/media is fine…
But how DARE anyone question Sotomajor?
That’s….that’s smearing……

Larry:
If judges are to write legislation (disguised as legal opinions), then they should be elected.

Oblah blah chose her simply for political pandering and use later on for all those hispanic votes etc…. This is all just a game for the narcissist.

The “red sharpie” crew has struck again?

It was not just white firefighters that passed the test, check again.

An hispanic firefighter also passed, and was disadvantaged by the ruling.

So why even give a test? Why not just come out and say they are only going to promote AA candidates? What are the white guys going to do… sue them? Who would care? Obviously nobody does care. Lesson for next time around, just be honest and just promote whoever fits you social engineering scheme and base it solely on race. Nobody cares. If you are the wrong race, get a new job, go into business for yourself, or emigrate somewhere you can have a better life and a fair shake. What else is there, when nobody cares? Apparently, nobody does.

That sounds good, but get real…there are only so many hours in the day. And I dare say some of the other commenters are being a little presumptuous, as well. Once upon a time in this country, the public relied on a free, unbiased press to ascertain and report the facts. There is no such institution anymore. Check out Sibel Edmonds new website; she, with the help of some other whistleblowers are attacking the media issue head-on.

thank you!

and btw to fred berfle above who kept saying we have penumbra rights – wtf? the whole penumbra thing was a bs construction made up to justify the decision in roe. there’s no such thing as a “penumbra right.”

i agree completely with hc123 that roe was judicial activism. whether one agrees or disagrees with the outcome, the rationale was bull. by to 77 has this right, and i don’t think fred berfle’s personal attacks on him or her were right.

it should be overturned (imho) as the city was wrong and she was wrong to rubber stamp their decision. at the very least, imho, the case raises complex constitutional issues, which she and the other judges chose to avoid in the rubber stamp per curiam bs opinion.

of course, the way things are going in this country, i won’t be surprised if the
s ct doesn’t get bullied/packed/etc. into doing whatever obama wants.

you have concluded that the law said the city was within their rights. the issue isn’t whether the statute said this (and from what i’ve read, the city was engaging in some logical leaps from the statutory language – basically saying if we do this, we’re less likely to get sued by aa’s, so let’s do it). the real issue is whether the acts are constitutional. the plaintiffs raised this issue and the circuit court, including sotomayor, avoided their responsibility to consider it (other than their rubber stamp statements).

you say she ruled like a constructionist – no true constructionist would’ve accepted the city’s circular rationale.

imho.

ame, your mom isn’t buying it, but i am. i completely agree that sotomayor will be confirmed. i also believe ricci will be overturned (imho, it was DEFINITELY wrongly decided by the district and circuit courts, so the only doubt is whether the s ct will get it right).

regardless of one’s views on obama, sotomayor, whatever, i don’t see the need for derisive comments. jmho.

oh so true!

HC there are currently two female members of the Judiciary Committee and sixteen males. Do you really believe they would refuse to confirm a white man who claimed in a speech he would make better decisions than a woman of any race or ethnicity? Sixteen of them would probably agree whether they said so publicly or not.

This “White Man” pity party needs to stop and Sotomajor needs to be judged on the basis of her legal decisions, character and experience. If her decisions indicate she has made her ethnicity or gender the single most important part of her rulings that should be taken into consideration by the committee.

There is some entertainment value reading comments from the group who has literally ruled the world for centuries, but even if she exaggerated the importance of her gender and heritage, diversity on the Supreme Court is a good thing. And re Thomas, he is “mini me” to Scalia and no Thurgood Marshal or Hugo Black. It was clear at the time of his confirmation, the Dems didn’t want to vote against a black man even if he was conservative, but had no trouble dismissing the testimony of the black woman he sexually harassed. Perhaps they were just rehearsing for 2008.

Oh, they’re all excited. It’s just like us gays with Perez Hilton, Miss California and Prop 8 — a cattle prod to stir up the base, a lot of media buzz that changes nothing. It’s between Sotomayor and the Judiciary Committee. They will grill her and she will do fine.

Obama is the real target of the attacks on Sotomayor. They want to get back some Reagan Democrats without driving away Hispanics. So the hatchetmen rile up the base and ask for money, while the Senate Minority plays nice where it counts. I’m curious, have any of you received letters asking for money to ‘fight Sotomayor?’ That’s how the hustle runs.

it is NOT race neutral to discard tests from passers and non-passers – two entirely different classifications – on the basis of the racial outcome of the passers not being what they wanted.

had the city discarded all the tests because not enough white people passed, the courts and the public would’ve screamed bloody murder, and rightfully so.

disparate impact has been distorted beyond all recognition in this case, and, unless the s ct finds some very narrow basis upon which to uphold the decision and thereby avoid addressing the problem, it will be reversed, imho.

Teak, does La Raza have an organizational connection to ACORN? BTW, many people have mistaken the translation of “La Raza”. One of the translations and the one used on the La Raza homepage is “the community” and it also refers to “the people”.

I have no opinion of her either and will be interested in hearing her testimony.

For all intents and purposes, the Constitution DOES have an ABSOLUTE guarantee to a right to privacy.
Read the First Amendment, folks. What does it say?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Now, how in the world can we have a “free exercise” of religion IF we don’t have a “right to privacy”? How can one truly exercise a right to “freedom of speech” if one’s very THOUGHTS cannot be private? Peaceable assembly? There’s nothing that says any such assembly must be in a public forum. It could just as easily apply to a group of women meeting for a lingerie party without fearing that the “morality police” are going to break up the party.
And if that particular amendment doesn’t cut it for you, then how about the 9th Amendment?

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

IOW, folks, the Founding Fathers quite clearly said that just because you don’t see a right listed doesn’t mean you don’t have it. Dictators and despots FEAR privacy. I wonder why so many “conservatives” are afraid of an unenumerated right to privacy as well.

yes Portia, agree. marktarheel well, what Ferd said.

yup like i said Obama as much as i dispise the turd is a fracken genius. Bravo Barack, Brav fracken O. Any more bedlam and you will be giving Luci a run for his money. Turn your critics each other and kill the competition. All you’ll have to do is clean up after. Hell all you did was just nominate a female judge that belong to a minority group. You didn’t tell them to bludgen each other all you had to do just reminded them how different they are, and lookie here they can’t work together anymore the PC patrol and the conserves doing your work distroying each other for you. all the while you are doing what ever the hell it is you want to do. This is good, creepy as hell but good. Just because i think your are scum doesn’t mean i can’t admire your work i mean it’s almost artistic. Here i was think that turning blacks on CLintons was the height of your powers. Now if you could just turn China and North Korea on each other to the point of their own distruction. I might just vote for you in 2012. LOL just kidding we both know you aren’t that good. it’s hard to turn people who CANT have opinions on each other. I mean you must have a population who is more use to running their mouths than thinking to fool them into loving their opinions more than their liberties. Lord knows it’s how you got elected. You said all the right thing to all the stupidest people and then wham you are president. But that’s just it, we are so use to talking we don’t know how to listen.

For powers to be granted they must be expressed, this would be to anything attributed authorities.

For powers reserved the people, it is broad so to allow them fullest range of freedoms.

http://documents.nytimes.com/selected-cases-of-judge-sonia-sotomayor#p=1

“[T]he right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor

The Maloney opinion is, on this issue, entirely consistent with Judge Sotomayor’s opinion in a 2004 case: “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” United States v. Sanchez-Villar, 99 Fed.Appx. 256, 2004 WL 962938 (2d. Cir. 2004)(Summary Order of Judges Sack, Sotomayor & Kaplan), judgement vacated, Sanchez-Villar v. United States, 544 U.S. 1029 (2005)(for further consideration in light of the 2005 Booker decision on sentencing).

Judge Sotomayor’s record suggests hostility, rather than empathy, for the tens of millions of Americans who exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

http://volokh.com/posts/1243356423.shtml

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/sotomayor-and-the-second-amendment/

http://gunowners.org/

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sotomayor-obamas-end-run-on-the-second-amendment/

Good try Larry.

but the ONE thing that is consistent on this crazy planet is that insecure, inferior life forms will ALWAYS try to tear down those that appear stronger and more secure.

It’s a constant I’ve come to almost count on in this chaotic blue marble full of Insanity Hannity’s. I was quite “dislodged” from myself for awhile during the “pro-Hillary” Fox News Moments a while back. Whew that was very unsettling.

Some things just MUST stay reliable, right? lmao.
argh :-[

Why? Judges are lawyers and they are all part of the same industry that leaches off society. Any idiot can go to a law school and start practicing law and some become judges. They have no real value other than to create situations for themselves so that you do “need” them. Sotomayor is just as bad as the rest of them and political affiliation has nothing to do with it.

However, I have a major problem with Sotomayor’s prepared comments when she said that she (a Latino women)had superior judgement to any “white man.” I have zero tolerance for bigots. If she does not apologize for that comment during the hearings then she should withdraw and allow another women without a chip on her shoulder take her place.

You have to look at how many decisions went to appeal in the first place. In Sotomayor’s case, that would be five out of a total of over 300, and three were reversed. That is not a 60% reversal rate anywhere other than the minds of those who do not want to see her confirmed. It actually works out to less than 1%.

Why would Sotomayor be likened to a racist on a par with the KKK? She is an advocate in good standing with La Raza. La Raza is united with the Brown Beret and the Aztlan Movement (overthrow of the American Southwest), and the Brown Beret is united with numerous other militant organizations INCLUDING the Black Panthers. Sotomayer essentially must agree with the overthrow of the white European population of the Southwestern United States, else she would not be a member of La Raza Unida (The United Race) which includes both Latin and Black races. The Aztlan Movement is recruiting “Soldiers” today, and have been for quite some time.

With all due respect, Larry, I don’t have to read Sotomayer’s opinions to understand that Barak Obama’s position on Roberts and Alito (both highly qualified, he said, but not the right “temperant” ), and his very verbal support of filibustering both (before the CSpan cameras, to pump up his own political supporters) was quite political, and for his own electoral advantage.

Not to mention the Democrats’ filibustering of Miguel Estrada, who was also Hispanic.

I have every right to see Barak Obama and his staff—all of whom firmly supported filibusters of very qualified nominees—as complete hypocrites in their political posturing.

I don’t have to read Sotomayer’s opinions to see the double standard for exactly what it is.

Due respect.

Sorry for the late response, but you’ve so radically missed my point that I feel compelled to publicly laugh. My point is exactly that which you’re claiming as a refutation — Congress sucks at writing clear laws, and at times even intentionally shrinks from doing so. Occasional statutory ambiguity is simply a fact of American law. And the textualist method of resolving that ambiguity is just as questionable as the various methods the liberals use.

So: haha.

Rile the masses, agitate and anger, chaos= Divide and Conquer. Alinsky/Marxism at its best. This week he (Obama) will address the Muslim world from when he visits Saudi Arabia–he is keeping his promise of “Change”. Yep. Change From a Democratic government to a dictater.

“Do you really believe they would refuse to confirm a white man who claimed in a speech he would make better decisions than a woman of any race or ethnicity?”

Yes, I do. This white male would be bounced out on his ear, if anyone was dumb enough to nominate him.

I dont have “white man pity”. Nor do I feel the need to punish “white men” as a group for how life was in the past, or because some specific white males may be jerks right now. This is the very definition of prejudice.

People should be judged by who they are and what they do. Not by their melanin content or gender. You should not assume that all members of an ethnic group have the same thoughts and opinions inside their brains, which is where diversity lives. Not in the skin. In the mind. You know, that part of the body Americans no longer really use.

I think you are wrong.

According to the article Myths and Falsehoods Surrounding the Sottomayor Nominations on the website sodahead.com DEFENDING her nomination they confirm the 60% reversal rate and conclude it just isnt very high. In addition she has written opinions on only 232 cases in her career not over 300. She has had only 5 cases reviewed by the Supreme Court meaning the other 227 are meaningless (they may never been appealed higher or the Supreme Court may not of felt they were of constitutional significance). So of the 5 cases 60% were overturned, now I’m not saying that she should be rejected because of it but I don’t think it is out of bounds to bring up if we have already had a Republican nominee rejected with a 58% rate.

It shows most people don’t want an honest review and process they just want to score political points.

clarification: “meaning the other 227 are meaningless ”

meaningless in regards to the question of review and reversal. Not meaningless in regards to the importance of the case in the real world. if the other 227 are not reviewed it tells us nothing about here judicial opinions in the context of mainstream judgements.

What’s been totally overlooked in this argument is the fact that by virtue of white males still making more money than women of all colors for the exact same work, is tantamount to “saying” that a white male is better than a female every damn day!

Nothing Judge Sotomayor can say in one candid statement could ever top that!

The union brought down GM. Not the white bozos in the board room. I believe ms hispanic wonder woman will rule with her hispanic head not her love of America. In the last few years I have seen many poor minorities being educated in Yale, Princeton etc. These graduates seem to hate America the same country that has paid for their educations. My two daughters have graduated from college but not a college like the ones I have mentioned. One more comment-What is going to happen when the WHITE population stops paying for all of the freeloaders? GM is just childs play for our Muslim president!!

Still better than Alito, who I understand had a 100% reversal rate, but I note that you didn’t mention that. So much for “honest review”.

Here is an article from The National Law Journal which explains why this particular statistic is virtually worthless:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/l5tn3r

Founding Father and educator Noah Webster (1758-1843) had this to say: “The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.

So it was natural for the early Americans to turn to the Bible for guidance as to how to make civil law. This was the standard for law beginning with the Mayflower Compact all the way through the constitutions of all 50 states. By the way, what was the stated purpose of the Pilgrims as expressed in the Mayflower Compact? Contrary to revisionist history, their purpose was not to find reigious freedom—they already had found religious freedom in Holland. Their purpose is clearly stated as being for the “Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith.” The Pilgrims were missionaries.

For example, the first state constitution was the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639). You may read this document at http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/orders.html. The framers of this document desired that every aspect of it be based on the Bible (See DeMar’s book, America’s Christian History, pgs. 57-58). This document was a model for other constitutions including the U.S. Consitution which followed. The above table outlines the wide spread influence of biblical thought on America’s legal system.

Biblical absolutes enshrined into law offered a consensus that meant freedom without chaos. One aspect of this is that, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, there exists “unalienable rights” of men. Rights were unalienable because they were given by God. This is very significant because in most societies up until that time (and indeed even today), rights are only conferred by whoever is in power at the time.

Because the American consensus was that the Bible was TRUTH, the tyranny of a few or even the tyranny of the majority could be overcome by one person standing up and appealing to the Bible. The freedom of expression in general in America is a result of our biblical system. Those people who feel free today to condemn the Bible are, ironically, among those who benefit most by the freedoms inherant in our biblical system!

Another aspect of our system of government is that it is based on the Rule of Law. This concept is a direct descendant of Hebrew law and the Ten Commandments. Together with the concept of unalienable rights from God, these concepts helped ensure a way of life that respected the dignity of every individual.

It has been said that America has never been a Christian nation, or that our founders were a bunch of atheists, agnostics, and deists. But consider the facts. At least 50 of the 55 framers of the U. S. Constitution were Christians (see M. E. Bradford’s book listed below). Every single American president has referenced God in his inaugural address. Every one of the 50 state constitutions call on God for support. The Supreme Court, in 1892 after a an exhaustive 10-year study of the matter, said: “This is a relgious people. This is a Christian nation.” Even today, the Supreme Court opens each session with the verbal declaration, “God save the United States of America.”

But again, the flaws are not in biblical Christianity, but the failure to implement it. If the compassion of Christ were to dominate society, poverty would disappear and the workplace would offer dignity for all. The solution is not forced redistribution of wealth, which is tantamount to stealing. The solution is public emphasis on biblical ethics.

We must have a common understanding of moral absolutes, or as John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

In fact, Sotomayor has said the 2nd Amendment applies only to the federal government, and that states and cities have every right to regulate or limit their citizens’ gun rights.

Oddly, I doubt that Larry knew that, or that Larry would agree with her.

I, too, believe Ricci will be overturned.

And it will be a landmark case.

Oh, my.

Sotomayer would consider you a racist , for that comment.

Obama:Dubya II,

Since men have held the lion’s share (actually more than the lion’s share) of power in this country, could that be the reason why it took so long to pass laws that would require employers to pay women the same pay as men for the same work? Of course, what good are laws that aren’t enforced by those in power? The fact that this kind of injustice still prevails is proof that men are not making completely fair decisions which include those outside their personal life experience. In fact, what’s been overlooked in this argument is that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” and white men have pretty much had absolute power in our country. That’s the problem that needs to be addressed.

Again, men scream the loudest when they think they’ve been unfairly treated, but have a blind eye and a deaf ear to the unfair treatment women are still receiving as a result of the power equity being so unbalanced in favor of men.

Since the law is never “black and white” in how it’s interpreted, and must include the gray area of reason and perspective in making a judicial decision, perhaps, Judge Sotomayor was simply trying to put into perspective a valid point with regard to the decision making process, which has been totally missing in our Supreme Court — a minority woman’s view in how the law should be interpreted.

That’s their spin. It means what it says.

raza
femine race (also biology); breed, stock, strain; “raza humana” human race, mankind; “de raza caballo” thoroughbred.

I didnt mention it because I didnt know it at the time. But it is an honest point. I am not saying one way or another but at least admit if it was used in the past it is proper review in the present and it is not just people being racist or sexist.

Do you come here just to go off on people? You don’t seem able to make a statement without adding an insult.

Deception? Hiding who she really is? Gee, I dunno, maybe she should stand up for what she really beleives in. Maybe she’s also covering up the depth and breadth of her allegiance to her ethnicity? You really can’t say anything without adding an insult can you?

You need to up your meds. I’m angrier than I’ve ever been about politics and the direction our society has taken, but verbally abusing everyone I disagree with doesn’t really help me feel better.

It’s about equal protection under the law. When a government institution can throw out results because it doesn’t like, or is uncomfortable with, them, then those fire fighters were not receiving equal protection. If it were the other way around, heads would explode over the crypto-racism involved.

The “win” would be to hire the most competent. There is no requirement to avoid “hurt feelings”.

They didn’t discard until after they had the results. That little bit of information blows the “neutrality” out of the water. Once they knew who passed and who didn’t, there was motive. It’s like Monty Hall asking you if you want to give up the prize you won behind door #1 for what’s behind door #2. It’s not even odds, because he knows what’s behind the doors, and offers one door over the other based on that info, not randomly.

Larry, Why are you working so hard to defend Sotomayor????? Let the process work and stop trying to influence us. The more someone jams something down my throat, the more I resist. It makes me believe that you know something that you don’t want us to know and reminds me very strongly of Obama! What’s up Larry? Who got to you???

Alito was the last Justice to be confirmed. Nobody even mentioned this for him despite his overwhelming worst-ever showing in these stakes. So, yes, I think people are being sexist and/or it’s because she is Latina. Had she been white and male, this would not be a blip on anyone’s screen. Alito is the proof of that.

HC can we agree to disagree on whether a similar statement by any man would be a serious consideration in confirmation hearings? After all, who would ask the questions? Diane Fienstein or Amy Kloubuchar?

I could also disagree on the definition of prejudice. Several thousands of years of history has shown who have enslaved women and which group has had to defer to whom. These are facts and not indicative of hate my part or a desire of my gender to become the enslavers.

Your last paragraph is one we can completely agree on without question. So why the emphasis on the gender and ethnicity of Sotomajor instead of focusing on her rulings, education, character and experience?

BTW diversity does live in the mind and since we are all more or less born with an equal ability to reason, we must conclude the rules of our society and our environment create the little neurons firing in the cerebrum exciting the memories which determine our behavior and reaction to daily events in our lives.

The more the brain is used to explore ideas the better we can use logic to make our decisions. Lazy people lose the cells they are born with when they refuse to exercise their brains and react on an emotional level or let others think for them.

so then why was it brought up with Carswell?

If the Dems gave Alito special treatment because he’s white and a male it is clearly the Dems that you think are the racists and sexists.

The age old excuse against women having power was that they were not properly educated, had the requisite experience or mental capacity to hold powerful office as men “naturally” were. Well, that male myth has been blown out of the water. Now, women have to deal with the bizarre, inexplicable, biased, and psychology deranged reasons men (and subservient women) put forth to undermine a woman’s rise to power.

You talk about Sotomayor hiding who she is…well, that’s a load of BS. What about obama? He has hidden who he is throughout his entire political career and he has never been attacked for it — not the way the women are!

Why aren’t you just as concerned at obama’s lack of disclosure when it comes to his grades during his college years (since he is considered so brilliant, why would he not disclose his brilliant GPA?); his state senate records have been destroyed (why?); and what about his obstructive actions in producing a certified birth certificate to show he is an American citizen? Form copies of birth certificates don’t count…besides, a President must be a native born American in order to be President. Don’t you think we should hold a person vying for the most powerful position in the world to the same standard we hold a woman who is about to be a Supreme Court Justice and who will have far less power than a President?

Again, the double standard continues to be applied to any and every woman who dares think she is equal to or better than any man, no matter how medicore his record may be compared to her more extraordinary one — the question is why? Fear that with this long overdue access to power women will use it to treat men the same way they’ve treated women for centuries? What will it take for men to stop considering women the “enemy” and judge them through the same lens they judge each other? Is fairness only to be applied to men?

It just doesn’t stop…during the “error” of obama alone, we have seen the vilification of some extraordinary women who have met higher standards in order to be considered on equal footing with men — Hillary, then Palin and now Sotomayor and they still get attacked on a daily basis.

It’s this way of thinking which is literally destroying the planet. Thank you, patriarchy, for nothing.

[...] Originally posted here: Getting Smart on Sotomayor : NO QUARTER [...]

[...] “Getting Smart on Sotomayor,” by Larry Johnson, June 1, 2009: There is so much ill-informed, emotional garbage floating around the internet that I thought a factual pause might be appropriate. Here’s a new rule–unless you have actually read the legal opinions written by Judge Sotomayor and examined the original decision in the underlying cases you are not qualified to have an opinion about her. You do have the right to be stupid and ignorant, but if you have not actually read the legal reasoning in the disputed cases then you are simply operating on hearsay. Third hand hearsay at best. [...] [...]