Hello:

She's everything the president and I wanted - and empathetic too.

She WILL be confirmed. It's just a matter of how much the right wants to embarrass itself.

excon

Have not done much research on her yet but this comment stands out .



“All of the legal defense funds out there—they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law. [Laughs] I know. I know. [Laughter] I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, I’m…y’know.”

YouTube - Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q)

I know that is not what the founders intended for the court. Her attitude is almost classic textbook definition of judicial activism .

I know that is not what the founders intended for the court. Her attitude is almost classic textbook definition of judicial activism .

The doctrine of judicial review was in the constitutions of at least 5 of the original 13 states. Its also considered an implied power of the Judicial branch affirmed with Marbury vs Madison in 1803. So I doubt if you can say its not what the Founding Father intended.

P.S. excon beat you to it with a thread about Sotomayor, so I merged them.

She also said, "we educated, privileged lawyers have a professional and moral duty to represent the underrepresented in our society, to ensure that justice exists for all, both legal and economic justice."

I've wondered what economic justice means and thankfully, the Center For Economic and Social Justice defines the purpose of "economic justice."

"The ultimate purpose of economic justice is to free each person to engage creatively in the unlimited work beyond economics, that of the mind and the spirit."

Huh?

The case that stands out ;which is being reviewed by SCOTUS now is the New Haven Firefighter's reverse discrimination case(Ricci v. DeStefano ) http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Ricci%2C_et_al._v._DeStefano%2C_et _al (http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Ricci%2C_et_al._v._DeStefano%2C_et _al).

A panel of the 2nd Circus Court of Appeals ,including Sotomayor, ruled against the plainiffs . Judge Cabranes, a Clintoon appointee objected to the panel's opinion that contained “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case.” SCOTUS has already ruled against reverse discrimination in similar cases like Washington v. Davis.

Scott There is a strong argument that says Marberry was a power grab by the judiciary. The only reason it stands is that the other branches have not challenged it. I like the response that Andrew Jackson had to the imperial judiciary .
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

I know that is not what the founders intended for the court. Her attitude is almost classic textbook definition of judicial activism .Hello tom:

(snicker) (giggle)... Ahem... You can actually say that with a straight face (assuming I could SEE your face).

Ok. If we're going to get it on about judicial activism, let's GO.

You righty's are as ACTIVIST as you get. Where in your right wing strict constructionist Constitution, does it say that black people are only 3/5ths of white men? In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), the right wing Court concluded that, be they slave or free, Blacks were a "subordinate and inferior class of beings" without constitutional rights.

Of course, you CAN'T find that crap in the Constitution. They made it up, and they continue to do so.

excon

Dred Scott was absolutely wrongly decided and proof of what I am talking about. Had SCOTUS not interfered in Dredd Scott there is a good chance the Civil War would not have been fought. I will go further... Plessy was also wrongly decided and was corrected by Brown v Board of Education. I am not arguing this on a left v right basis.

By the way ;the 3/5th compromise was in the Constitution but was reversed by amendment... the only proper way to change the Constitution... not by judicial fiat.

Hello again, tom:

Ok, then let's stop with the left and right issues... I simply suggest that when the right say's "strict constructionalist", it's code for a person who has empathy for the right.

You don't, and you wouldn't make the suggestion that only liberals have empathy, would you?? Because if you did, I'd snicker some more...

excon

I am interested in judges interpreting the law ;not making feelings judgement .

Jefferson on judicial activism and judicial review :

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. "

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

I simply suggest that when the right say's "strict constructionalist", it's code for a person who has empathy for the right.


I do not use that term .I prefer originalist . I do not want judges making legislation.

Here is Sotomayor's idea of empathy .

“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.”

In other words a white male could not possibly fairly rule on a case involving a Hispanic. This is the best Obama could come up with ?

Justice has been portrayed as a woman wearing a blindfold. Justice is supposed to be impartial, not emphathetic.

Sonia wants to take off the blindfold and has said as much.

David Frum has an interesting take on Sotomayor as a Supreme...


OBNOXIOUS... BUT IN A GOOD WAY? (http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=2f0218a8-be6c-4380-9a44-f533327c01d4)
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 7:57 AM

On the other hand, here's the possible good news in the Sotomayor nomination. A conservative legalist friend notes that the all-important 5th vote on the Supreme Court is Justice Anthony Kennedy's. The Reagan-appointed Kennedy has drifted to the left in recent years - in part (it's gossiped) because of his negative reactions to the brilliant but sometimes acerbic Antonin Scalia.

Having lost in 2008, Republicans had no hope of a conservative or even a moderate judicial nominee. What we should therefore be hoping for, my friend continues, is the most personally obnoxious liberal, someone certain to offend and irritate Kennedy - and push him careening back rightward. For this reason, the politic Elena Kagan would be the very worst pick from a conservative point of view. As dean of Harvard Law School, she proved herself adept at wooing conservative support. By contrast, if Jeffrey Rosen's reporting is correct, Sotomayor was almost unanimously disliked by her colleagues on the Second Circuit and even more by their clerks. And she's unlikely to gain humility from this latest promotion... so who could be better?

David Frum is part of the Republican movement that wants to redefine the "Republican brand" as Democrats lite. (David Gergen is also in that group)http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/26/one-of-obama%E2%80%99s-finest-hours/ (http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/26/one-of-obama%E2%80%99s-finest-hours/)
Frum is buying into the Obama strategery that a Republican fight against the Sotomayor nomination will be viewed as Republican racism against a growing identity group.

However ,I had expected Kagan to be the nominee because of the reason Frum describes. She is actually more liberal than Sotomayer and by all accounts would've been formidable in a debate .But she is already Solicitor General .

Sotomayor by contrast dismissed the Ricci case with a single paragraph of no substance "that lacked a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal" and "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case." after a review of 1800 pages of testimony and over an hour of oral arguments according to fellow Clintoon appointee Jose Cabranes .
Here is the decision in it's totality :



PER CURIAM:

We withdraw our Summary Order of February 15, 2008. Ricci v. DeStefano, 2008 U.S.

App. LEXIS 3293, 2008 WL 410436 (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2008).

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.) granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts.

We affirm, for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. Ricci v. DeStefano, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73277, 2006 WL 2828419 (D. Conn., Sept. 28, 2006). In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs' expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.


Perhaps Frum is right that she is a light weight. Perhaps she is Obama's Harriet Miers,and Kagan will be the real nominee after the Republicans trash the hispanic nominee ;further strengthening the Democat hold on them( although it did not seem to matter much that the Dems were free to trash Alberto Gonzalez and blocking Miguel Estrada's nomination to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circus )

I read Rosen's article yesterday. Since it is full of unidentified sources I will defer opinion until some of these sources goes public in Senate testimony. I wonder if there is an Anita Hill in the group ?Rosen did a quick retreat today
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/05/26/the-sotomayor-nomination.aspx

More Jefferson about the power of SCOTUS:

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."
Thomas Jefferson

Hello again, tom:

Rosen NOW say's: "Instead, the strongest case to be made for Sotomayor is the idea that the range of her experience--as a trial judge, appellate judge, and commercial litigator--might give her the humility to recognize that courts participate in a dialogue with the political branches when it comes to defining constitutional rights, rather than having the last word."

If one has to "dialogue" with a politician before one comes up with their "strict" interpretation of the Constitution, it would seem Rosen wants the candidate to be more empathetic to the political view...

To me, that would look like activism. But, that's just me.

excon

Hello again, tom:

Yesterday, the Supreme Court rolled back limits on questioning of suspects... Scalia writing for the majority said the previous ruling was overturned because its "marginal benefits are dwarfed by its substantial costs" in that some guilty defendants go free.

I don't know. I read the Bill of Rights. I don't find anything in there about "costs and/or benefits". He made it up out of whole cloth. In fact, this ruling is judicial activism on steroids!

You don't think so, of course, because the empathy Scalia and the right wingers have is for the COPS!!

The truth of the matter is, that our Constitution was designed to protect the rights of EVERYBODY. Inherent in that truth, is the realization that in order to accomplish that, a few guilty people will go free. It's a cost the founders were willing to undergo. I agree with them. Scalia doesn't. He's wrong.

A further fact. The idea embedded in the above paragraph is the BEDROCK and the FOUNDATION on which our freedoms lie. Scalia doesn't agree. He's wrong.

excon

It is interesting that Solicitor General Elana Kagan;who was also on Obama's short list of potential nominees discussed above;also called for an overruling of the Jackson decision and was one of the authors of the amicus for the government .Presumably Obama also favored it's reversal.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/us-amicus-in-montejo-4-14-09.pdf


The theory was that Kagan would be better able to take on Scalia in a debate on the bench. But it appears they might be natual allies... at least on issues regarding 6th Amendment rights.

Scalia's argument makes sense when you also factor in the 10th amendment .

Louisiana automatically appointed defense counsel to defendant Montejo and then told him that his failure to accept it means he's rejecting his rights under Michigan v Jackson .The court said that the Jackson decision doesn't work because different states have different systems and the states can decide if a defendant must affirmatively accept counsel or not.

This is a very narrow ruling that in no way denies the defendant 6th Amendment protections.

Rosen NOW say's: "Instead, the strongest case to be made for Sotomayor is the idea that the range of her experience--as a trial judge, appellate judge, and commercial litigator--might give her the humility to recognize that courts participate in a dialogue with the political branches when it comes to defining constitutional rights, rather than having the last word."

If one has to "dialogue" with a politician before one comes up with their "strict" interpretation of the Constitution, it would seem Rosen wants the candidate to be more empathetic to the political view...

To me, that would look like activism. But, that's just me.

I think he was referring to separation of powers . The problem with the court is they think they have the power to be the final arbitrator of the Constitution. That to me is activism.

Again... I do not adhere to "strict" interpretation .I believe in 'judicial restraint' and 'originalism'.
Judicial Restraint is simply the theory that law and policy is not made from the bench (word to Sotomayor ).

Originalism is not applying the law to a strict text ,but to what the original intent of the law was at the time of the writing. It requires more than just the textual reading ,but it also has to be put in context .That would mean a reading of the supporting documents like the Federalist papers and the writing of the founders. Also when reading the amendments the original intent can also be found in the debates that created the amendment.Originalism allows for reasonable interpretation ;strict construction does not.

She is a Neo-Communist activist bent on destroying our legal system, free market economy and the moral and traditional fabric that weave our country together sad day indeed

Hello C:

Wow! Dude. I wonder how you'd respond if he'd a chosen a real liberal.

excon

Her comment about old white men and latina's is about as racist as you get.

If the shoe was on the other foot, I wonder how loud the left wingers would howl?

If the shoe was on the other foot, I wonder how loud the left wingers would howl?Hello gal:

No louder than your right wing brethren. She said something else about the court making policy too, that's going to cause her some trouble...

But, those two things are it, and they ain't near enough to derail her nomination. She's eminently qualified for the bench, and she'll breeze through.

You guys'll muss her up a bit, but it'll be for naught.

excon

I agree she will be confirmed easily . About 11 of the gang of 14 confirmed her for the Circus Court and the ususal suspect RINOs like Olympia Snowjob .

She will also have to answer why 4 recent decisions of hers was overturned. But she has years of experience on the bench so she is in. Besides no one would tolerate a "BORKING " by the Republicans like Bork Thomas and Alito were subjected to by Biden and the Dem thugs on the Judiciary Committee .

Isn't it amazing how the left can play the race card at will. NO PROBLEM!

Just let a conservative try to play it.

I get it now, even dumb people need representation (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085)...


The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."



Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.



Not all the former clerks for other judges I talked to were skeptical about Sotomayor. "I know the word on the street is that she's not the brainiest of people, but I didn't have that experience," said one former clerk for another judge. "She's an incredibly impressive person, she's not shy or apologetic about who she is, and that's great." This supporter praised Sotomayor for not being a wilting violet. "She commands attention, she's clearly in charge, she speaks her mind, she's funny, she's voluble, and she has ownership over the role in a very positive way," she said. "She's a fine Second Circuit judge--maybe not the smartest ever, but how often are Supreme Court nominees the smartest ever?"

Can't wait to see Scalia's first dissent to one of her opinions.

So far in the 5 cases that she authored the majority opinion ;and SCOTUS granted certiorari ;they reversed 3 of her decisions.

One minute they are telling us the virtues of torture, the next, they are outraged over perceived racism, this from the same crowd that wants to gun down Mexicans as they cross the border and profile blacks..

It's odd how they consider everyone that is left of Cheney who happens to not be white a racist. Is there a non-white skinned person who isn't a racist in the minds of these simpletons?

Btw, this is the same crowd who pretends Rush Limbaugh is NOT a racist when he really has made many overtly racist comments over the years.

All she was saying was that a Latina woman can bring a better perspective to cases involving minorities, specifically Latinos, because she lived it first-hand. She said nothing racist what-so-ever; what she is really saying in greater context is that any given person is better equipped to understand the perspective of their own people than someone else would be through empathy and second hand accounts, her point being that she thinks it's valuable to have some people who understand and represent significant minorities and perspectives on the court, that's all.

So then if I am a white male defendant I should ask for a white male judge because he lived it first-hand ?


Is there a non-white skinned person who isn't a racist in the minds of these simpletons?

You always manage to toss in those ad hominems .
I bet you are of the opinion that a quote such as hers is not racism because she is a member of a PC approved minority and in her case it is only a reflection of racial and ethnic pride. But a white person gets no pass saying something similar.

To answer your question... Since the discussion is about a justice for SCOTUS then Clarence Thomas comes immediately to mind. He had the "life experience " similar if not harder than justice Sotomayor.
But was that the standard by which the Democrats view him ? Do they think he is a fine judge because of these life experiences ? No ;the racist white Democrats in the Judiciary Committee trashed him during confirmation and the left continues to ridicule him today. Since he doesn't cow-tow to liberal orthodoxy then clearly he is not in that exempt group.

Another jurist that comes to mind is Miguel Estrada . His life experiences did not seem to matter to the left. The Dems used the filibuster to keep him off the bench.

Not only is she racist ;she is also biased and sexists. But my biggest beef with her so far is that she thinks that policy is made from the bench. That is an instant disqualifier . Perhaps she wants the constitution scrapped in the Chavez, Morales, Correa mode.

One minute they are telling us the virtues of torture, the next, they are outraged over perceived racism, this from the same crowd that wants to gun down Mexicans as they cross the border and profile blacks..

It's odd how they consider everyone that is left of Cheney who happens to not be white a racist. Is there a non-white skinned person who isn't a racist in the minds of these simpletons?

The real shame here is you actually believe this. Maybe you should get out more.


Btw, this is the same crowd who pretends Rush Limbaugh is NOT a racist when he really has made many overtly racist comments over the years.

Name one.


All she was saying was that a Latina woman can bring a better perspective to cases involving minorities, specifically Latinos, because she lived it first-hand.


And that matters how exactly?


She said nothing racist what-so-ever; what she is really saying in greater context is that any given person is better equipped to understand the perspective of their own people than someone else would be through empathy and second hand accounts, her point being that she thinks it's valuable to have some people who understand and represent significant minorities and perspectives on the court, that's all.

http://www.hudeclaw.com/images/Lady%20Justice.gif

I suppose you want the blindfold off?

And that matters how exactly? I suppose you want the blindfold off?Hello Steve:

There was a Supreme Court ruling recently about a 13 year old girl being strip searched... The old white men on the court didn't understand how humiliating it was until Ruth Bader Ginsberg told them.

The "empathy" THEY showed, of course, was for the COPS who did the searching...

So, if the blindfold is OFF for the RIGHTY'S, you betcha I want it OFF for the ordinary people.

excon

Breyer also spoke from personal experiences and his comments were shallow and as irrelevant to the issues in Safford Unified School District v. April Redding as Ginsbergs . This case will be decided on 4th amendment issues ;not on the sensitivities of Breyer ,Ginsberg ,or Savana Redding . A strip search can be humiliating to anyone regardless of age or gender. The question is ;was it constitutional ?

My own opinion ? I think the search went beyond what was "reasonable" .

Hello Steve:

There was a Supreme Court ruling recently about a 13 year old girl being strip searched... The old white men on the court didn't understand how humiliating it was until Ruth Bader Ginsberg told them.

The "empathy" THEY showed, of course, was for the COPS who did the searching....

So, if the blindfold is OFF for the RIGHTY'S, you betcha I want it OFF for the ordinary people.

excon

As far as I can tell this case hasn't been decided yet so I'm not sure how you can say that. Have you predetermined the outcome based on the justices handling of the arguments? As humiliating as it was and as unbelievably stupid the school district was shouldn't the constitution still be the deciding factor?

As humiliating as it was and as unbelievably stupid the school district was shouldn't the constitution still be the deciding factor?Hello again, Steve:

I see the Constitution as black or white. So do you. Only your black is my white. Since we both can read, and we're not deficient, there apparently IS a grey area.

THIS is the area where empathy IS important. You guys are empathetic as well, only you deny it... I don't know why.


Yesterday, the Supreme Court rolled back limits on questioning of suspects... Scalia writing for the majority said the previous ruling was overturned because its "marginal benefits are dwarfed by its substantial costs" in that some guilty defendants go free.

I dunno. I read the Bill of Rights. I don't find anything in there about "costs and/or benefits". He made it up out of whole cloth. In fact, this ruling is judicial activism on steroids!

You don't think so, of course, because the empathy Scalia and the right wingers have is for the COPS!!!
Even though tom explained away the ACTIVISM displayed above by Antonin Scalia, it IS what it IS. That is, of course, unless you can find the words "costs" and or "benefits" ANYWHERE in the Bill of Rights.

You won't find it, because it's NOT there. Do you know why?? Because the founders believed what they wrote. They didn't say your rights are sacrosanct unless we can find a benefit to society to REMOVE them.

Noooo. It doesn't say that at all.. A right, is a right, is a right. Scalia is making it up on the fly, and you can't deny it.

excon

That was nice cherry-picking of Scalia's opinion...


(c) Stare decisis does not require the Court to expand significantly the holding of a prior decision in order to cure its practical deficiencies. To the contrary, the fact that a decision has proved “unworkable” is a traditional ground for overruling it. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808 . Beyond workability, the relevant factors include the precedent’s antiquity, the reliance interests at stake, and whether the decision was well reasoned. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. ___, ___. The first two cut in favor of jettisoning Jackson: the opinion is only two decades old, and eliminating it would not upset expectations, since any criminal defendant learned enough to order his affairs based on Jackson’s rule would also be perfectly capable of interacting with the police on his own. As for the strength of Jackson’s reasoning, when this Court creates a prophylactic rule to protect a constitutional right, the relevant “reasoning” is the weighing of the rule’s benefits against its costs. Jackson’s marginal benefits are dwarfed by its substantial costs. Even without Jackson, few badgering-induced waivers, if any, would be admitted at trial because the Court has taken substantial other, overlapping measures to exclude them. Under Miranda, any suspect subject to custodial interrogation must be advised of his right to have a lawyer present. 384 U. S. at 474. Under Edwards, once such a defendant “has invoked his [Miranda] right,” interrogation must stop. 451 U. S. at 484. And under Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U. S. 146 , no subsequent interrogation may take place until counsel is present. Id. at 153. These three layers of prophylaxis are sufficient. On the other side of the equation, the principal cost of applying Jackson’s rule is that crimes can go unsolved and criminals unpunished when uncoerced confessions are excluded and when officers are deterred from even trying to obtain confessions. The Court concludes that the Jackson rule does not “pay its way,” United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897 , n. 6, and thus the case should be overruled. Pp. 13–18.

2. Montejo should nonetheless be given an opportunity to contend that his letter of apology should have been suppressed under the Edwards rule. He understandably did not pursue an Edwards objection, because Jackson offered broader protections, but the decision here changes the legal landscape. Pp. 18–19.

Where's the activism in that?

That was nice cherry-picking of Scalia's opinion... Where's the activism in that?Hello Steve:

I read it, and I'm still not deficient.. It's a lot of legal mumbo jumbo to limit a Constitutional right based upon the costs and benefits to society...

A duck by any other name, IS a duck. Or should I talk about the forest and the trees. At least I GET how the left is empathetic... Right wing empathy goes right over your head... Maybe you been sipping TOO much Limbaugh koolaid

excon

PS> Cherry picking?? Dude! You'd sing a different tune if they tried to take away your guns based upon the costs and/or benefits to society...

The Jackson rule made a presumption that if a suspect waived the right to council being present during questioning ,that the police would still be violating the suspects rights by questioning the suspect . That was the activist decision... not the reversal of the Jackson rule.
This ruling is in line with the position of several states as well as the Obama Administration .

As for empathy... when juries are instructed they are told to ignore personal feelings and to decide a case based on the law as the judge has instructed them. Juries are supposed to be impartial ;why not judges ?

Scalia is one of the most defendant friendly justices on the court.

Here are some of his recent cases :

Crawford v. Washington Scalia supported defendants against prosecutors trying to get convictions based on hearsay.

Blakely v. Washington Scalia led the fight against the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines.

Arizona v. Gant.. Scalia ruled in favor of criminal defendant on 4th amendment issue concerning a car search, overruling NY v. Belton.

Begay v. United States ..that DUI was not a violent felony based on the rule of lenity.

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez -- that a criminal defendant has a right to counsel of his choice.
“I don't want a 'competent' lawyer. I want a lawyer to get me off. I want a lawyer to invent the Twinkie defense. I want to win.”

United States v. Santos.. that the money laundering statute is ambiguous

So the truth is that Scalia has decided cases both for and against the criminal .

Hello Steve:

I read it, and I'm still not deficient.. It's a lot of legal mumbo jumbo to limit a Constitutional right based upon the costs and benefits to society...

Sure looked legally sound to me.


A duck by any other name, IS a duck. Or should I talk about the forest and the trees. At least I GET how the left is empathetic... Right wing empathy goes right over your head... Maybe you been sipping TOO much Limbaugh koolaid

I don't drink Koolaid. The difference between left-wing and right-wing empathy is the right-wingers don't see government as the primary source and dispenser.


PS> Cherry picking?? Dude! You'd sing a different tune if they tried to take away your guns based upon the costs and/or benefits to society...

Has nothing to do with my point, which was tell the whole story, not just the part that (dishonestly) supports your argument.

Is this what empathy looks like in a liberal administration, politicizing a blatant case of voter intimidation (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1)?

The SCOTUS oath of office :

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."(Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code)

The real shame here is you actually believe this. Maybe you should get out more.



Name one.



And that matters how exactly?



http://www.hudeclaw.com/images/Lady%20Justice.gif

I suppose you want the blindfold off?

Name one I will name 10

I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson

Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a li and quor store and practice robberies.

They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?

. Limbaugh attacks on Obama. Limbaugh has called Obama a ‘halfrican American’ has said that Obama was not black but Arab because Kenya is an Arab region, even though Arabs are less than one percent of Kenya. Since mainstream America has become more accepting of African-Americans, Limbaugh has decided to play against its new racial fears, Arabs and Muslims. Despite the fact Obama graduated magna laude from Harvard Law school, Limbaugh has called him an ‘affirmative action candidate.’ Limbaugh even has repeatedly played a song on his radio show ‘Barack the Magic Negro’ using an antiquated Jim Crow era term for black a man who many Americans are supporting for president. Way to go Rush.

But you will defend rush all day long.Quit hanging out with the kkk crowd and then you would realize what real racism is.

So then if I am a white male defendant I should ask for a white male judge because he lived it first-hand ?


You always manage to toss in those ad hominems .
I bet you are of the opinion that a quote such as hers is not racism because she is a member of a PC approved minority and in her case it is only a reflection of racial and ethnic pride. But a white person gets no pass saying something simular.

To answer your question ....Since the discussion is about a justice for SCOTUS then Clarence Thomas comes immediately to mind. He had the "life experience " simular if not harder than justice Sotomayor.
But was that the standard by which the Democrats view him ? Do they think he is a fine judge because of these life experiences ? No ;the racist white Democrats in the Judiciary Committee trashed him during confirmation and the left continues to ridicule him today. Since he doesn't cow-tow to liberal orthodoxy then clearly he is not in that exempt group.

Another jurist that comes to mind is Miguel Estrada . His life experiences did not seem to matter to the left. The Dems used the filibuster to keep him off the bench.

Not only is she racist ;she is also biased and sexists. But my biggest beef with her so far is that she thinks that policy is made from the bench. That is an instant disqualifier . Perhaps she wants the constitution scrapped in the Chavez, Morales, Correa mode.


Read her full statement , a white man WHO HAS NOT LIVED THAT LIFE.But you are two busy listening too rush

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.

NOW WHO SAID THAT HMMM
Justice sam alito

Name one I will name 10...

Try any of them in context and turn your sarcasm detector on.


But you will defend rush all day long.Quit hanging out with the kkk crowd and then you would realize what real racism is.

You're a spunky one are you? I love it when people who don't know a thing about me accuse me of being a racist. Stick around and open your mind and perhaps you'll learn something.

Try any of them in context and turn your sarcasm detector on.



You're a spunky one are you? I love it when people who don't know a thing about me accuse me of being a racist. Stick around and open your mind and perhaps you'll learn something.

As I said you will defend rush all day long.

As I recall ;the Dems. Especially the despicable Ted Kennedy opposed Alito for some papers from Alito's Princeton days in the 1970s... papers from the "Concerned Alumni of Princeton "that had no mention of Alito at all. Yet Kennedy tried to link them to Alito. They were trying to paint him as a racist ( a common smear tactic by the left I notice) Nowhere do you hear them mention that Sotomayor's address was published in a La Raza(the race ) paper.

Fat Teddy asked Alito the following question :
“The Supreme Court is the guardian of our most cherished rights and freedoms. They are symbolized in the four eloquent words inscribed above the entrance to the Supreme Court: 'Equal Justice Under Law,' "
“Will the nominee be fair and open-minded, or will his judgment be tainted by rigid ideology? Is he genuinely committed to the principle of equal justice under law?”

You would think with all that empathy Alito displayed in the quote you provide the answer would be self evident... right ? No need to question him further... right ?

But of course the big difference between Alito's and Sotomayor's comments is that never does Alito claim that he would make "BETTER " decisions than someone from a different race or ethnic group because of these experiences. This of course begs the question ;what is so unique about her life experiences besides her race ? She appears to have the same or better American tale as countless others(more on that below) .
In Alito's answer (if you bother to listen to the complete line of questioning during this part of his hearings) Alito said it is not his place to bend the law. So empathy or not, the law is the law and a justice is supposed to apply it as written.

I don't know if you have ever ,or can ,serve as a juror .If you have ,you may recall that when you are sworn in you were instructed to throw out all preconceived ideas, beliefs, experiences and prejudices and deliberate solely on the evidence presented and the law.
But I guess jurors are held to higher standards than a judge.

I just have to wonder where is her empathy for Frank Ricci ;a white New Haven firefighter .....or does her empathy only apply to minorities ? He has an American tale also .He is someone who struggled his whole life with learning disabilities and dyslexia(that were not helped with his public school education ....at least Sotomayor had the advantage of going to private schools).Yet though hard work he made it into a community school(not Princeton) where he studied fire science so he could follow his dream of being a fire fighter.

He started at the bottom of the New Haven fire dept.,and spent his spare cash buying text books so he could study and be ready for the liutenants exam . He quit a 2nd job so he could study for the test.

When the tests were finally administered he placed 6th which should've easily qualified him for promotion. But the tests were tossed out because no blacks passed it. Ricci and others sued.

Sotomayor wrote a terse dismissal of the suit that lacked any substance and certainly no "empathy" . A fellow Clintoon hispanic appointee to the court ,Judge Jose Cabranes,wrote to SCOTUS that the dismissal ignored the serious constitutional issues at stake.
SCOTUS will reverse another Sotomayor decision at the same time that she will be confirmed to be an associate justice to SCOTUS. How fitting .The case will be dismissed not because of empathy to Ricci ;but because the New Haven law is a misreading of the 14th Amendment.

Actually ;I take it back... Ricci has had a harder time of it. Sotomayor led a charmed life spending her childhood in private school environments, early adulthood amongst the Ivy League elites, and most of her adulthood as a wealthy corporate attorney .

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs on Sotomayor's comment :"I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor."

Obama yesterday on Sotomayor's comment : "I'm sure she would have restated it,"

Why if there is nothing wrong in her statement ?

BTW ,your constant referring to Rush Limbaugh is getting boring. I do not have the radio on when his program airs. I think linking us to Rush ads as much to the discussion as if I were to make reference to Keith Olberman every time I addressed your replies.

As I recall ;the Dems. especially the dispicable Ted Kennedy opposed Alito for some papers from Alito's Princeton days in the 1970s ....papers from the "Concerned Alumni of Princeton "that had no mention of Alito at all. Yet Kennedy tried to link them to Alito. They were trying to paint him as a racist ( a common smear tactic by the left I notice) Nowhere do you hear them mention that Sotomayor's address was published in a a La Raza(the race ) paper.

Fat Teddy asked Alito the following question :
“The Supreme Court is the guardian of our most cherished rights and freedoms. They are symbolized in the four eloquent words inscribed above the entrance to the Supreme Court: ‘Equal Justice Under Law,' "
“Will the nominee be fair and open-minded, or will his judgment be tainted by rigid ideology? Is he genuinely committed to the principle of equal justice under law?”

You would think with all that empathy Alito displayed in the quote you provide the answer would be self evident .....right ? No need to question him further .....right ?

But of course the big difference between Alito's and Sotomayor's comments is that never does Alito claim that he would make "BETTER " decisions than someone from a different race or ethnic group because of these experiences. This of course begs the question ;what is so unique about her life experiences besides her race ? She appears to have the same or better American tale as countless others(more on that below) .
In Alito's answer (if you bother to listen to the complete line of questioning during this part of his hearings) Alito said it is not his place to bend the law. So empathy or not, the law is the law and a justice is supposed to apply it as written.

I don't know if you have ever ,or can ,serve as a juror .If you have ,you may recall that when you are sworn in you were instructed to throw out all preconceived ideas, beliefs, experiences and prejudices and deliberate solely on the evidence presented and the law.
But I guess jurors are held to higher standards than a judge.

I just have to wonder where is her empathy for Frank Ricci ;a white New Haven firefighter .....or does her empathy only apply to minorities ? He has an American tale also .He is someone who struggled his whole life with learning disabilities and dyslexia(that were not helped with his public school education ....at least Sotomayor had the advantage of going to private schools).Yet though hard work he made it into a community school(not Princeton) where he studied fire science so he could follow his dream of being a fire fighter.

He started at the bottom of the New Haven fire dept.,and spent his spare cash buying text books so he could study and be ready for the liutenants exam . He quit a 2nd job so he could study for the test.

When the tests were finally administered he placed 6th which should've easily qualified him for promotion. But the tests were tossed out because no blacks passed it. Ricci and others sued.

Sotomayor wrote a terse dismissal of the suit that lacked any substance and certainly no "empathy" . A fellow Clintoon hispanic appointee to the court ,Judge Jose Cabranes,wrote to SCOTUS that the dismissal ignored the serious constitutional issues at stake.
SCOTUS will reverse another Sotomayor decision at the same time that she will be confirmed to be an associate justice to SCOTUS. How fitting .The case will be dismissed not because of empathy to Ricci ;but because the New Haven law is a misreading of the 14th Amendment.

Actually ;I take it back...Ricci has had a harder time of it. Sotomayor led a charmed life spending her childhood in private school environments, early adulthood amongst the Ivy League elites, and most of her adulthood as a wealthy corporate attorney .

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs on Sotomayor's comment :"I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor."

Obama yesterday on Sotomayor's comment : "I'm sure she would have restated it,"

Why if there is nothing wrong in her statement ?

BTW ,your constant refering to Rush Limbaugh is getting boring. I do not have the radio on when his program airs. I think linking us to Rush ads as much to the discussion as if I were to make reference to Keith Olberman every time I addressed your replies.

I am not here to entertain you, if you think my replies and constant referring to rush is getting boring then quit reading my replies.As for kieth I think he is in the same boat as rush.

The answer to your half a page reply is this read her statement in context and don't forget this last part

A white man WHO HAS NOT LIVED THAT LIFE.

They were trying to paint him as a racist ( a common smear tactic by the left I notice)Hello tom:

You need to put your listening ears on.

excon

Hello again:

I cannot stress enough that your Supreme Court, in the name of Antonin Scalia, weakened YOUR RIGHT to counsel just the other day. He did it because he doesn't like what the founders wrote. He doesn't believe in original intent. HE decided HIS decision was better. He did it because he has EMPATHY for the COPS!!

This is JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ON STEROIDS!!

To wit:

The case.. . at Mr. Montejo's preliminary hearing, the judge ordered a public defender appointed, but the police continued to question him before the lawyer arrived. He agreed to show them where the murder weapon was thrown.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia argued essentially that since Mr. Montejo had been read his Miranda rights, his continued answers were a valid waiver of counsel. Justice Scalia explicitly revoked the court's 1986 ruling in Michigan v. Jackson that a prisoner could waive his rights to counsel only in the presence of the lawyer, or by initiating contact with the police.

That ruling recognized that many prisoners cannot knowingly relinquish their right to counsel unless a lawyer helps them understand the protections they are giving up and the jeopardy they face.

Without any real evidence, Justice Scalia dismissed this approach as unworkable and wrote that “its marginal benefits are dwarfed” by the possibility that the guilty might go free.

I don't care HOW you try to spin it, it's about the COSTS and BENEFITS to society of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Don't you get it Righty's?? If costs and benefits are the measure, society would benefit a WHOLE lot if we got rid of every single one of those pesky freedoms...

No, you don't get it, do you?? But, they better not try that cost/benefit crap when they talk about guns, huh?? You guys are pathetic.

excon

As i said you will defend rush all day long.

And I said "try any of them in context and turn your sarcasm detector on." Is that too scary to actually understand the context, sarcasm and humor he's known for or are you just here to bash Rush all day long. I'm not his or anyone else's apologist, I just happen to think facts and context matter. Apparently you think character assassination is what matters.

Ex, I simply don't understand your position at all.

You constantly say that you fully support the US Constitution, but you support a candidate for SCOTUS that has shown by her own words and past decisions that she is NOT an original intent judge.

Let's not derail the discussion by bringing up those already on the Court. They are already there, for good or bad.

I should think that for you, and others, to be consistent, would INSIST that any candidate be "original intent".

But I guess not.

Ex, I simply don't understand your position at all.
I should think that for you, and others, to be consistent, would INSIST that any candidate be "original intent".Hello Gal:

What you righty's don't understand is EVERYBODY has a bias, and EVERYBODY reads the Constitution differently.

To wit: The Fourth Amendment says that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effect, against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated...

I KNOW what it means and what it says. You folks, on the right, however, don't agree. In fact, you support every single dilution of those rights that ACTIVIST judges have put in place over decades... And, there have been dozens and dozens...

For ME, I'm happy to have a justice who's empathy's lie with MY kind of people.

excon

Hello Gal:

What you righty's don't understand is EVERYBODY has a bias, and EVERYBODY reads the Constitution differently.

To wit: The Fourth Amendment says that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effect, against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated....

I KNOW what it means and what it says. You folks, on the right, however, don't agree. In fact, you support every single dilution of those rights that ACTIVIST judges have put in place over decades.... And, there have been dozens and dozens...

For ME, I'm happy to have a justice who's empathy's lie with MY kind of people.

excon

OK, so you DON'T want a judge who adheres to original intent.

And your argument for this is that judges in the past have NOT been original intent.

So you are not really interested in whether the Constitution is upheld, but rather that a judge that might favor YOU be appointed.

You have clarified your position.

Thanks.

And I said "try any of them in context and turn your sarcasm detector on." Is that too scary to actually understand the context, sarcasm and humor he's known for or are you just here to bash Rush all day long. I'm not his or anyone else's apologist, I just happen to think facts and context matter. Apparently you think character assassination is what matters.

You want to look at rush's statement in context but not at sotomayor's.Nice.

Ex he agreed to continue to answer police questions after he was appointed council... that is his right also .He was clearly instructed on his Miranda rights .All Scalia did was write a majority opinion that reversed a bad call by a previous court.

All Scalia did was write a majority opinion that reversed a bad call by a previous court.Hello again, tom:

That is what I'd expect from somebody, who along with Antonin Scalia, is only too happy to weaken the rights of a CRIMINAL... It's judicial activism exemplified. But, like I said earlier, the tune changes when speaking about the Second Amendment...

YOU say it's bad law... but, an array of former state and federal law enforcement officials and judges, including both Republican and Democratic appointees, have reached the opposite conclusion. In an amicus brief, they said that the Jackson ruling “has done far more to promote effective law enforcement than to undermine it” and warned that abandoning its bright-line standard would make it harder to ensure that a defendant's constitutional rights are respected.

In an angry dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the 1986 opinion, which he wrote, was designed to ensure the right to counsel at every critical stage of prosecution. The court has now put the fairness, integrity and credibility of the justice system at unnecessary risk. doesn't mind if his Constitutional rights are violated

You say it's bad law because YOUR empathy lies with the COPS! MINE lies with the Constitution. I stand by my statements!

excon

PS> Yes, I used quotes from the NY Times.

A person still has the right to request a lawyer, and as soon as he does, the police have to stop interrogating him. But if the person decides to confess he doesn't have to wait for his lawyer .

Michigan v Jackson was the example of the judicial activism.Nothing in the Constitution says the a suspect must have his lawyer present in order to waive his right to talk with the police. Montejo v Louisiana corrects Steven's misread of the 6th amendment .

You want to look at rush's statement in context but not at sotomayor's.Nice.

I see you're still making assumptions and avoiding the challenge.

Dare, the Dems can't seem to agree (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23145_Page2.html#ixzz0HBjOJlgd&B) on how to interpret her "wise Latina" remark, why should we?


New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat with a large Puerto Rican constituency, refused to concede that Sotomayor chose her words poorly, predicting on ABC's “This Week” that “she'll stand by the entire speech. I think that she will show that the speech, when you read it, says rule of law comes above experience,” said Schumer, who as a member of the Judiciary Committee will participate in Sotomayor's confirmation hearings. Pressed by host George Stephanopoulos, Schumer added “the specific sentence there is simply saying that people's experiences matter and we ought to have some diversity of experience on the court. And I think that's accurate.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a fellow Judiciary Democrat, suggested the debate over Sotomayor's statement may be taking it more seriously than she intended it, though Feinstein herself seemed torn between defending it or apologizing for it.

“I'd say that one statement, probably made with a sense of a smile, you know, that 'here I am, I can do better' – I don't have a problem with it. It's not – it's not the right thing to say. It's not the right thing, but I don't think she meant it that way either,” Feinstein said on CBS's “Face the Nation” on Sunday. She also called Sotomayor's word choice “inartful,” though, telling host Bob Schieffer “there's one word, Bob, in the statement. It's the word 'better.' That a Latina woman who has gone through these experiences – that her views would be better. And without that one word, it's a perfectly fine statement. And I understand what she meant by it.”

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, whose recent party switch makes him the junior-most Democrat on Judiciary, played down the comment. He told “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace it “didn't stand out all that much in context” of the speech. And his interpretation of its meaning echoed Sotomayor's controversial phrasing. “I think she meant that somebody with her experience has something to add,” he said. “The diversity and the point of view of Latina woman is significant. It adds to the mix.”

Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont tried to turn the tables on Republicans using the remark to question Sotomayor's fitness for the bench, pointing to former President George W. Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the high court. During his 2006 confirmation hearings, now-Justice Alito said “When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who, who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or, or because of gender. And, and I do take that into account.”

... Leahy asserted “it would be ridiculous to think somebody's life experience doesn't affect them.”

They know it's a problem, so why should we let it go?

They know it's a problem, so why should we let it go?Hello again, Steve:

I'd certainly ASK her about it... But, don't get carried away. It ISN'T going to derail her nomination.

excon

And President Obama conceeded Saturday that if she could she would retract her (what Robert Gibbs called )poorly chosen words .
Obama sure Sotomayor would restate 2001 comment - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_sotomayor)


I'd certainly ASK her about it... But, don't get carried away. It ISN'T going to derail her nomination.


Yup... I'm actually more interested in her explanation of her flippant comment about making policy from the bench.

yup .....I'm actually more interested in her explanation of her flippant comment about making policy from the bench.

Agreed.

Hello again,

Me too... But, neither of the TWO events are going to derail her. The important thing, is that since she was nominated, these are the only TWO items the right could dig up.. So, she's going to sail...

The other important thing, is the Senate Republicans apparently are signaling a break from the limp one. It's about time.

excon

Well there are other things too that need further scrutiny ; like her stand on and decisions about corporate law ;gun control and dare I say it... a little more clarity on he views of the social issues.

On the positive side I have been hearing some good things about her time in NY as a prosecutor.

But none of that would derail.

Even if the questioning gets to her she can always use the "Ginsburg Precedent" to avoid answering tough questions.

One thing that Obama did right was getting Biden off the Judiciary Committee. Before him Scalia got confirmed almost by affirmation . But as soon as Joe became chair of the committee the Borking began.

Ex, apparently Bob Herbert (among many others) agrees with you about those dangerous conservatives...


The Howls of a Fading Species (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/opinion/02herbert.html?_r=2&ref=opinion)

By BOB HERBERT
Published: June 1, 2009

One can only hope that the hysterical howling of right-wingers against the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is something approaching a death rattle for this profoundly destructive force in American life.
Skip to next paragraph

It’s hard to fathom the heights of hypocrisy currently being scaled by the foaming-in-the-mouth crazies who are leading the charge against the nomination. Newt Gingrich, who never needed a factual basis for his ravings, rants on Twitter that Judge Sotomayor is a “Latina woman racist,” apparently unaware of his incoherence in the “Latina-woman” redundancy in this defamatory characterization.

Karl Rove sneered that Ms. Sotomayor was “not necessarily” smart, thus managing to get the toxic issue of intelligence into play in the case of a woman who graduated summa laude from Princeton, went on to get a law degree from Yale and has more experience as a judge than any of the current justices had at the time of their nominations to the court.

It turns the stomach. There is no level of achievement sufficient to escape the stultifying bonds of bigotry. It is impossible to be smart enough or accomplished enough.

Sounds like he and everyone like him needs a lesson (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/02/its_not_fair_to_casually_call_people_racist_96778. html).

Excon,

I've been away a while, so I haven't had time to comment until now.

Sotomayor WILL be confirmed. I have no doubt about that. After all, what use to Obama is a majority in Congress if not to get your appointees approved.

BUT... is she qualified for the job? Is she the right person for the job?

Based on what I have been hearing out of her own mouth, the answer is no.

She has said that she sees the job of the appelate courts as making policy. If she can say such a thing, it means that she has no understanding of the Constitution... the separation of powers clause. The power of setting policy is with the Executive Branch. The power of making laws is with the Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch is supposed to do one thing and one thing only... INTERPRET the law and Constitution. They do not set policy. That she can say that it is the court's job to set policy shows a clear lack of understanding of the Constitution. Do we want a person who has such a lack of understanding of this fundamental Constitutional concept to be sitting on the court who's job it is to interpret that Constitution?

Then there's the fact that she has stated publicly that she believes her race and gender make her a more qualified judge than anyone else. I find it interesting that such a statement could be supported by the very people who claim to believe that race and gender should not be a factor in judging the qualifications of a SCOTUS Justice. And I question any nominee who would say such a thing.

I agree that Sotomayor's story is one that inspires. But I don't recall anyone being inspired by the story of Clarence Thomas, a story that has the same level of hardship and tragedy, if not more, as Sotomayor's. Thomas was born in one of the most impoverished African American communities in the South... Pin Point, Georgia. After his father left the family, his mother worked as a "domestic worker" (read "cleaning lady" or "maid"). A fire in their home left the family homeless and they were forced to live in Savanah with Thomas' grandfather and step-grandmother. Thomas' grandparents and mother were uneducated, though they owned a small business. Thomas was the only Black person in his Savanah, Georgia high school, and eventually went to College of the Holy Cross in Massachusets, where he created the Black Students Union, and eventually graduated laude. He then went to Yale Law School and received his JD in 1974. Thomas has said that his Yale law degree was not taken seriously by many law firms to which he applied, because they though that he was a product of affirmative action policies that "dumbed down" the degree for him.

That's a pretty compelling story too, but his personal story was largely ignored by the media, whereas Sotomayor's story is being hailed as one of inspiration to the masses. Instead, in the case of Clarence Thomas, we were stuck wondering about the color of Thomas' pubic hairs. THAT became the main issue of his appointment.

Also, there has been the implication that Sotomayor's race and gender should not be brought into the discussion of her qualifications. And I agree that they should not be, unless there is some reason to believe that being Latina and a woman will act as a barrier of some sort to her ability to interpret the law correctly and fairly.

But I find it interesting that the very people who make this implication (and made similar implications about Obama's race and religious background) are the same people who have no problem doing so when others are under the guns. Yet they also claim that "white men" are never subjected to such questions about their backgrounds.

Baloney.

When Rudy Giulliani ran for Mayor of NY and then for the GOP nomination for the Presidency, his marital status became a major question regarding his qualifications for the job.

When Mitt Romney ran for the GOP nomination, his religious background as a Mormon became a central issue of the race.

When Robert Bork was nominated, his religious beliefs (read: "anti-abortion stance") were questioned as a reason for him not to be approved.

Samuel Alito's appointment was opposed by the ACLU. John Kerry tried to filibuster the nomination. His "religion" (even though he has not publicly stated what his religion is) was questioned, especially on Roe V Wade issues.

John F. Kennedy's religion became a central issue in his campaign for the Presidency.

Alfonse D'Amato's Italian heritage was an issue for his opponents who tried to imply that he would be too soft on organized crime because of his Italian affiliations. (Interestingly, nobody made any similar implication regarding Mario Cuomo.)

My point is that we have a long history of ALL candidates having their backgrounds questioned, including race, religion, marital status, etc. If it was appropriate to question these candidates and appointees, shouldn't we be prepared to do the same for ALL candidates? Even Latinas?

Elliot

And seeing as how 60 percent of her decisions that have gone to SCOTUS have been overturned - with one possible pending - how does that make her qualified?

This is easily one of the most entertaining threads I have read anywhere for a long while. Please allow me to interject my 2 cents worth of opinion (and that is all it is worth in this economy).

Liberal and Conservative ideology is the basis of the argument. Liberal people believe in a liberal interpretation of the US Constitution believing it to be a living and breathing document allowing for an incredible amount of interpretation which also allows for such concepts as "common law" to enter into the mix. The common law practiced in the US is based upon English common law which is dictated law initially springing from a totalitarian system and is then proscribed by the Magna Carta and other "rulings" and the English parliament giving an individual its rights. When a question about law arises, a judge is free to apply more than just the US Constitution but also past precedents and even foreign law to the decision before them. At the time the US Constitution was written, this practice of using common law was already in place and was never scrapped and it has a rich tradition continued even today. It is a remaining vestige of English colonialism.

Conservatives on the other hand hold an almost religious view of the US Constitution as being something almost pure and inspired by God and that the original intent of the framers is more important than the body of work that judges in England and the colonies have given us. Anything contrary to the written Constitution as interpreted through the eyes of the original framers is incorrect. The question is which one is correct? The US Constitution itself says it is the ultimate decider of law and not the practice of common law as stated in Article III section 2.

For some reason, law schools and the judiciary have never accepted this and continue to teach and practice common law with precedents dating back to pre-colonial England.

In the practice of common law, Sotomayor is a good choice and eminently qualified. As a constitutionalist, she is not. The American got what they voted for even if they didn't understand what they were getting and now there is a backlash. Don't blame Sotomayor or Alito for the mess; blame Thomas Jefferson for not slapping John Marshall down hard enough during the Marbury vs Madison decision (which coincidentally was a problem of Marhall's own making and should have recused himself as he was the one who originally was supposed to deliver the very commission in question while he was acting as Secretary of State under President John Adams) and more recent politicians for not fixing the mess. Theirs is a struggle for personal power proven by their actions and not one enlightened governance for the good of all.

Don't blame Sotomayor or Alito for the mess; blame Thomas Jefferson for not slapping John Marshall down hard enough during the Marbury vs Madison decision

Thank you .I have been calling Marbury a judicial power grab for a long time.

Tom, many SCOTUS decisions have been power grabs. Some examples:

Marbury v. Madison - an attempt to steal judicial authority, judicial review.

Dredd Scott - an attempt by the court to steal rights from Blacks, and an attempt to control the policies of the entire nation... judicial fiat regarding civil rights.

Wickard v. Fillburn - Attempt (successful) by the courts to control of private ownership and private production methods via the interstate commerce clause, even when the private items are for private consumption, not for commerce of any type.

Roe V. Wade - an attempt (so far successful) to control the abortion issue from the bench via judicial fiat.

Hylton V USA - Establishment of federal excise taxes via judicial fiat.

Miranda v. Arizona - judicial review of police actions, establishment of judicial control over criminal rights.

Kelo v. New London - established the government's "right" to take land from one private individual and give it to another private individual via "emminent domain"... establishment of government control over private property rights.

In short, there are a lot of cases that establish the government's or the court's power over private citizens.

True but Marbury is the mother of all activism .
Marshall was both Sec State for Adams and the cousin of Jefferson;who he despised . So by all degree of ethics he should've recused himself from the decision.

There are all other types of dishonesties and intrigues associated with the case including the declaring of a law by Congress unconstitutional that was unrelated to the facts of the case (Judiciary Act of 1789) before he took one of the biggest power grabs in US history . The truth is that there is zippo in the Constitution that makes SCOTUS the final arbiter . But since no one has challenged this premise it may as well at this point be written into the Constitution.

It would take too much time to go into greater detail but it is worth a semester in College just dealing with the issue of SCOTUS supremacy . The cases you cite are the fall out and legacy of Marbury.

true but Marbury is the mother of all activism .
Marshall was both Sec State for Adams and the cousin of Jefferson;who he despised . So by all degree of ethics he should've recused himself from the decision.

There are all other types of dishonesties and intrigues associated with the case including the declaring of a law by Congress unconstitutional that was unrelated to the facts of the case (Judiciary Act of 1789) before he took one of the biggest power grabs in US history . The truth is that there is zippo in the Constitution that makes SCOTUS the final arbiter . But since no one has challenged this premise it may as well at this point be written into the Constitution.

It would take too much time to go into greater detail but it is worth a semester in College just dealing with the issue of SCOTUS supremacy . The cases you cite are the fall out and legacy of Marbury.

I don't disagree, but I think that Wikard v. Fillburn is actually a more radical and far-reaching decision. It opened the entire concept of government control of private property via the interstate commerce clause... it is what set the precedent for all government regulation and control of private industry and private property. Wikard is the reason that auto companies, energy companies, hospitals, banks, securities firms and your private garden can be regulated by the government... regardless of whether they are actually involved in interstate commerce or not. Wikard reaches into the entire structure of capitalism and reframes it in a way that gives the government unprecedented powers over our property and how we use it. Yes, Marbury is far-reaching, but it's affect is limited to judicial review of actions within the government. Wickard affects you and me and everything we own or can buy or sell. The effect of the decision is much farther reaching than just judicial review of government actions.

Elliot

I'll go along with that ;especially since it came after the Schechter Poultrycase which invalidated over expansive interpretation of the commerce clause(and killed the NIRA in the process) .

Poor Filburn... how dare he try to grow his own wheat !

Turns out Sotomayor's "isolated "wise Latina woman" slip was more like a mantra (http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/legal_beat/2009/06/sotomayor-repeatedly-reference.html). Does that make it an indicator of her thinking or does she just like to 'misspeak' repeatedly?

"The ultimate purpose of economic justice is to free each person to engage creatively in the unlimited work beyond economics, that of the mind and the spirit."

Huh?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, huh??

One minute they are telling us the virtues of torture, the next, they are outraged over percieved racism, this from the same crowd that wants to gun down Mexicans as they cross the border and profile blacks..

It's odd how they consider everyone that is left of Cheney who happens to not be white a racist. Is there a non-white skinned person who isn't a racist in the minds of these simpletons?

Btw, this is the same crowd who pretends Rush Limbaugh is NOT a racist when he really has made many overtly racist comments over the years.

All she was saying was that a Latina woman can bring a better perspective to cases involving minorities, specifically Latinos, because she lived it first-hand. She said nothing racist what-so-ever; what she is really saying in greater context is that any given person is better equipped to understand the perspective of their own people than someone else would be through empathy and second hand accounts, her point being that she thinks it's valuable to have some people who understand and represent significant minorities and perspectives on the court, that's all.

Thank you voice of reason.

And I said "try any of them in context and turn your sarcasm detector on." Is that too scary to actually understand the context, sarcasm and humor he's known for or are you just here to bash Rush all day long. I'm not his or anyone else's apologist, I just happen to think facts and context matter. Apparently you think character assassination is what matters.

Why don't you frame it for us in a way that makes Rush not sound like a racist. Dare explained Sotomayor's statement about the Latino woman/white man thing for her non-supporters. Are you saying that ALL of the statements from Rush were just "taken out of context" or just his attempt at humor?

My daughter's dad was killed in a motorcycle accident. I have been trying to get most sentimental things- but the family he lived with at the time ended up taking his thins- including a car, Harley Davidson, and other video things. I want to gothere and demand it all back- butam not a very : Intimidadting woman>"

my daughter's dad was killed in a motorcycle accident. I have been trying to get most sentimental things- but the family he lived with at the time ended up taking his thins- including a car, Harley Davidson, and other video things. I want to gothere and demand it all back- butam not a very : Intimidadting woman>"

What? Are you sure this is where you want to post this?

Why don't you frame it for us in a way that makes Rush not sound like a racist. Dare explained Sotomayor's statement about the Latino woman/white man thing for her non-supporters. Are you saying that ALL of the statements from Rush were just "taken out of context" or just his attempt at humor?

How did we get back to Rush? I'm not a Dittohead but I've heard enough Rush to know he's not racist. I also know it's pointless to try and explain him to the other side... they don't get it.

but I've heard enough Rush to know he's not racist. I also know it's pointless to try and explain him to the other side...they don't get it.Hello again, tom:

It's true. It IS pointless to explain. I DON'T get it.

Maybe I should humm a few bars of Rush's favorite tune, Barack the Magic Negro. It's such a pretty song. Perhaps, if I sang it enough, it'll dawn on me...

But, I doubt it.

excon

also know it's pointless to try and explain him to the other side... they don't get it.

He combines political opinion with entertainment.. same as Jon Stewart and Bill Mahr and Al Franken. Al Franken is about to become a Senator . If either of the other 2 were to run they would probably garner a pretty decent electoral following from the left.Rush at least does not take his act seriously enough to think it qualifies him for elected office.

The problem here is that Rush says something in parody and the left takes him seriously .
As an example ;Nobody should take it seriously when Rush said slavery was a good thing because the streets were safe at night.... it is an absurd comment and was meant to be .

I don't listen to him all that often because his schtick is getting stale and I have better things to do during lunch hour (the only time I would be able to tune him in).

But this talk about Rush is a diversion. In the end his opinion doesn't matter .He is not a candidate for SCOTUS ....Sonya Sotomayor is .It is her philosophies,attitudes ,and temperment that need examination.


Maybe I should humm a few bars of Rush's favorite tune, Barack the Magic Negro. It's such a pretty song. Perhaps, if I sang it enough, it'll dawn on me...

Perfect example of what I am talking about. He took a commentary by black columnist David Ehrenstein ,and parodied it.
Here was the op-ed .
Obama the 'Magic Negro' - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center)

Now everyone thinks Rush is the origin of the phrase and it's relevance to Obama ,even though it first ran in the LA and NY Slimes . The song that was produced for Rush's show imagines Al Sharpton's envy at the success Obama has attracting the white voter.. seemingly without effort... while black politicians like Sharpton have made a career at the effort.
From the op-ed :
The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged "inauthenticty," as compared to such sterling examples of "genuine" blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg. Speaking as an African American whose last name has led to his racial "credentials" being challenged — often several times a day — I know how pesky this sort of thing can be.



To take the song as anything more than a comic parody is taking it out of context.

I believe he calls it "illustrating the absurd by being absurd." The left can't seem to recognize that the absurdity he's demonstrating is usually their own... or they know it and use it as a diversion as tom said.

In my opinion her remark about the old white man/Latina woman was not her finest moment. What the intent in her heart was, I don't know. None of us do. From day one, every time I was channel surfing, that one remark would be the topic of conversation. My thoughts were, "what else you got?" In her long career, is this statement all that the conservatives could come up with to use against her. Just my thoughts.

I believe he calls it "illustrating the absurd by being absurd." The left can't seem to recognize that the absurdity he's demonstrating is usually their own....or they know it and use it as a diversion as tom said.

I think he means every word he says. He uses the absurd illustration to be able to get away with it. I believe that he has a mean and nasty heart and his job description as an entertainer, allows him to put it all out there. He is a small person. Remember what he said about Michael J Fox, pitiful. It backfired on him though because it magnified Michael's message.

He combines political opinion with entertainment ..same as Jon Stewart and Bill Mahr and Al Franken......

To take the song as anything more than a comic parody is taking it out of context.Hello tom:

I don't know. I really thought you paid attention. You don't. You find race based humor on their shows?? No you don't. Not even close. How could you miss it??

Could it be that you miss it, because you harbor those racist thoughts too?? I think it could.

excon

I think he means every word he says. He uses the absurd illustration to be able to get away with it.

You've got to be kidding me.


I believe that he has a mean and nasty heart and his job description as an entertainer, allows him to put it all out there. He is a small person. Remember what he said about Michael J Fox, pitiful. It backfired on him though because it magnified Michael's message.

No one said he was perfect, but he's certainly not what the left wants you to think about him. It's still beside the point, as tom said he's not a candidate for SCOTUS which is what this thread is about.

You've got to be kidding me.


No, I think you are kidding yourself.


No one said he was perfect, but he's certainly not what the left wants you to think about him. It's still beside the point, as tom said he's not a candidate for SCOTUS which is what this thread is about.



The left doesn't want me to think anything. I think it myself. You are right, he is not a candidate, just a big jerk.

You find race based humor on their shows??

Do you include hick,hillbilly and red neck comments as racists ?

Bill Maher said Bobby Jindal clicked his heels to turn 'into a cobra' . He also made more 7-11 type remarks. You will recall no doubt that he was smacked with a $9million palimony settlement in no small part because he used "insulting, humiliating and degrading racial comments" .

Franken being a former talk show host himself has plenty of lines that can be passed off as schtick in his career; like :
"There were times when there was not as much food as there could have been when I first started out.' 'C'mon, I went to school at Harvard. I didn't have two kids or a disability or live on an Indian reservation.'"

When he was interviewing Bob Woodward during his radio show Woodward talked about a dark horse in the race and Franken asked... “J.C. Watts?"

Or how about this gem ?
"It's not preppies, cause I'm a preppie myself. I just don't like homosexuals. If you ask me, they're all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia."

Maybe you should pay attention also.I recognize this as comic schtick and not the measure of the person.Bad comedy no doubt ;but comedy .
I'll accept your apology for suggesting I harbor racist thoughts.

There was a Supreme Court ruling recently about a 13 year old girl being strip searched... The old white men on the court didn't understand how humiliating it was until Ruth Bader Ginsberg told them.

The "empathy" THEY showed, of course, was for the COPS who did the searching...

So, if the blindfold is OFF for the RIGHTY'S, you betcha I want it OFF for the ordinary people.

Excon



Breyer also spoke from personal experiences and his comments were shallow and as irrelevant to the issues in Safford Unified School District v. April Redding as Ginsbergs . This case will be decided on 4th amendment issues ;not on the sensitivities of Breyer ,Ginsberg ,or Savana Redding. A strip search can be humiliating to anyone regardless of age or gender. The question is ;was it constitutional ?

My own opinion ? I think the search went beyond what was "reasonable" .



The justices got it right . In an 8-1 decision today they said the search violated her rights. Dissenting was Clarence Thomas who thought the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.

As I predicted ;the case was decided on the 4th amendment issues alone.

In an 8-1 decision today they said the search violated her rights. Dissenting was Clarence Thomas who thought the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.Hello again, tom:

Cool.

But, I wonder if it could be argued that the lone dissenter has a little empathy for the cops and "school officials"?? You certainly couldn't argue that his dissent was based on the Constitution. Because the guys who ARE originalists said something else.

Look. Here's' my point. I admit that people have empathy. I say they carry their empathy to work. I say that when a liberal judge makes a decision, his empathy is showing. I say that when a conservative judge makes a decision, HIS empathy is showing.

YOU, on the other hand, say that when a conservative judge makes a decision, it's based on the Constitution, and that no way, no how was any EMPATHY employed, because the right just doesn't do that.

I, of course, think you're flat wrong about that, and I think my question points that out. I'll bet you have something else to say about it, though.

excon

Hello again, tom:

Cool.

But, I wonder if it could be argued that the lone dissenter has a little empathy for the cops and "school officials"??? You certainly couldn't argue that his dissent was based on the Constitution. Because the guys who ARE originalists said something else.

Look. Here's' my point. I admit that people have empathy. I say they carry their empathy to work. I say that when a liberal judge makes a decision, his empathy is showing. I say that when a conservative judge makes a decision, HIS empathy is showing.

YOU, on the other hand, say that when a conservative judge makes a decision, it's based on the Constitution, and that no way, no how was any EMPATHY employed, because the right just doesn't do that.

I, of course, think you're flat wrong about that, and I think my question points that out. I'll bet you have something else to say about it, though.

excon

First of all, I think you have an incorrect definition of the term "empathy". Empathy is not just "feeling bad" for one side or the other. That's SYMPATHY, not empathy. Empathy is when you put yourself in the shoes of the other party and actually FEEL WHAT THEY FEEL (or a close approximation of it). Sympathy is all fine and good, but it doesn't usually cloud sound judgement. EMPATHY takes you out of yourself and puts you in the situation of the other party, which by its nature clouds your ability to judge fairly what the LAW says about the situation. EMPATHY has no place on the court.

Thomas MIGHT have been sympathetic to the law enforcement officials and school administrators in this case (though I tend to doubt it... their position isn't one that lends iteself toward sympathy), but he was not EMPATHETIC to their plight.

Second, the question of whether empathy is part of the decision-making process of the court is evident in the written decisions and written disents. If the argument being forwarded is based on the law and the Constitution, then it is a LEGAL argument. If the argument mentions the feelings of the judge or the principals of the case and has no legal argument OR a very tortured legal argument, then it is based on empathy. There have been lots of cases that have been decided based on empathy rather than law.

Thomas' dissent was based on a LEGAL argument, and one that the SCOTUS has cited in the past. It was a different interpretation than the rest of the court came to, but it was not based on EMPATHY. It was based on a valid legal point... one that everyone else disagreed with, but no less valid for it.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

So you want it BOTH ways, huh? I'm used to that.

excon

I can't read Thomas' heart . What he put on paper is a rationale based on his interpretation of the 4th Amendment . He went on further to say that it would not have been the 1st time someone tried to hide something by stuffing it down their shorts. That is also factually true . It does not surprise me that the originalists don't always agree because the founders and the authors of the amendments did not always agree. Originalism is not easy .It requires a deep understanding on the intent and the written and stated positions of the author's of the Constitution. It is also not perfect by any means and I have found Justices I admire wrong in their reasoning more than once.

But it beats the hell out of making decisions with a predetermined outcome in mind ;or the idea that you can "make policy ."

Hello again, El:

So you want it BOTH ways, huh? I'm used to that.

excon

Not sure how you come to that conclusion based on what I posted.

Empathy is a bad trait in a judge. Whether SYMPATHY is also a bad trait in a judge is open for debate. Thomas' decision shows neither empathy nor sympathy, but rather legal reasoning that the others on the court happened not to agree with. I'm not sure how that leads to me "wanting it both ways".

Elliot

I can't read Thomas' heart . What he put on paper is a rationale based on his interpretation of the 4th Amendment . He went on further to say that it would not have been the 1st time someone tried to hide something by stuffing it down their shorts. Hello again, tom:

I can't read his heart either... But, what he SAID indicates that his empathy lies with the drug warriors. In my view, if the Fourth Amendments' words were what he was trying to decifer, he wouldn't have written about HER and WHAT the search was for. It didn't MATTER what the search was for. It mattered HOW the search was conducted.

Yet, Thomas wrote about HER and the drugs the school officials thought she was hiding... He lamented further about kids and drugs and hiding them when he wrote "nor will she be the last after todays decision which announces the safest place for secret contraband in school"...

I think his empathy is clear. In fact, I don't think it could be CLEARER.

excon

First of all, I think you have an incorrect definition of the term "empathy". Empathy is not just "feeling bad" for one side or the other. That's SYMPATHY, not empathy. Hello again, El:

So, you think, that I think, judges rule or SHOULD rule because they "feel bad" for one side or the other...

Actually, my legal thinking HAS progressed beyond the 5th grade level. To intimate that it hasn't, isn't very becoming of you.

excon

I can't defend Thomas's dissent because I think he got it wrong in that there was not enough probable cause to call the search reasonable.

The funny thing is that in his dissent he accuses the majority of a double standard in that a few of them would've probably joined him if the issue had been illegal drugs instead of an OTC pain killer.


We can spin the word "empathy " forever... but I see nothing in his dissenting opinion that relies on anything more than an interpretation of the 4th and previous SCOTUS decisions.

The funny thing is that in his dissent he accuses the majority of a double standard in that a few of them would've probably joined him if the issue had been illegal drugs instead of an OTC pain killer.

... but I see nothing in his dissenting opinion that relies on anything more than an interpretation of the 4th and previous SCOTUS decisions.Hello again, tom:

OMG!! What he wrote is the CLASSIC definition of empathy for drug warriors. Thomas HAS it, is PROUD he has it, and he WISHES the others had it too.

Yet, you can't see it... Oh, well.

excon

Hello again, El:

So, you think, that I think, judges rule or SHOULD rule because they "feel bad" for one side or the other.....

Actually, my legal thinking HAS progressed beyond the 5th grade level. To intimate that it hasn't, isn't very becoming of you.

excon

I never said that. Nor did I even intimate it. Your hostility is causing you to read stuff into what I have posted that isn't there.

All I did was point out the difference between empathy and sympathy, and state that I believe that you are confusing the two. I also pointed out why empathy is a BAD thing for a judge to have, while it can be argued (though not by me) that sympathy is a good thing for a judge to have to a limited degree. Finally, I pointed out how one can tell the difference between a decision based on empathy and one based on legal interpretation.

I never said that you were arguing that all judges should make decisions only based on how they feel. I don't think that is what you believe. I DO think that you believe that empathy plays a more important role in how judges do their jobs than it actually does or should do. But again, you are reading something into my post that isn't there, was never intended, and that I wasn't even considering.

Why are you being so hostile?

Elliot

Hello again, tom:

OMG!! What he wrote is the CLASSIC definition of empathy for drug warriors. Thomas HAS it, is PROUD he has it, and he WISHES the others had it too.

Yet, you can't see it.... Oh, well.

excon


We can't see it because it isn't there.

Have you even read the decision?

We can't see it because it isn't there.Hello again,

Well, there just ain't nothing more to be said about that.

excon

One of the most brilliant minds available for SCOTUS was just overruled (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D994CJI02&show_article=1)... again.

She now has 1 victory in SCOTUS and 6 decisions overturned .

This Kossack get's it right .
Daily Kos: State of the Nation (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/29/748061/-Ginsburg-spectacularly-wrong-on-Ricci,-Title-VII)

According to Ginsberg's dissent ,cities should not give tests for promotions but instead should rely on the subjective evaluations of "assessment centers " when deciding who to promote . These rely more on video simulation and oral Q and A than objective examinations .

But the New Haven test also had an oral section as well as a written section . The city used various resources to ensure the test was fair. The education “experts” and race experts gave it their stamp of approval. It only became a problem after the results came in and the results the city wanted did not happen.The only reason Ricci
(who has learning disabilities of his own) passed the test was due to his hard work ;studying extra,and hiring a tutor at his own expense. Can those who did not pass it make the same claim ?

What is Ginsberg saying ? That minorities can't do well in written exams? Other professions rely on written exams . Does she make the claim that lawyers ,doctors ,accountants ,and many other professions should also scrap their exams because they discriminate ?

I think Alito's concurrent opinion is right on :

“Petitioners were denied promotions for which they qualified because of the race and ethnicity of the firefighters who achieved the highest scores on the City's exam. The District Court threw out their case on summary judgment, even though that court all but conceded that a jury could find that the City's asserted justification was pretextual. The Court of Appeals then summarily affirmed that decision.
The dissent grants that petitioners' situation is “unfortunate” and that they “understandably attract this Court's sympathy.” But “sympathy” is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law—of Title VII's prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them”.

Hello Righty's:

I assume that because they didn't agree with her, you think she was wrong...

But, you didn't think Thomas was wrong when all 8 of 'em disagreed with him just two days ago. You thought his dissent was brilliant AND Constitutional.

Now, you want it both ways... I understand,

excon

Huh ? Here was my comment on the decision:

The justices got it right . In an 8-1 decision today they said the search violated her rights. Dissenting was Clarence Thomas who thought the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.

As I predicted ;the case was decided on the 4th amendment issues alone.

Hmm, I didn't say anything about Thomas' dissent. Which righty's are you referring to?

Hmm, I didn't say anything about Thomas' dissent. Which righty's are you referring to?Hello Steve:

Hang on. I'll find 'em

excon

The difference, excon, is that Thomas' dissent was based on a legal argument with some merit, just from a logical point of view. Sotomayor's decision and Ruth Ginsberg's dissent of the SCOTUS decision was based on their personal political positions, and their arguments were clear cases of grasping at straws in order to make a political statement. That's the difference.

Context is everything, excon.

Elliot