[excon]

Hello C:

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

excon

[galveston]

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?

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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 .

[galveston]

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

Just let a conservative try to play it.

[speechlesstx]

I get it now, even dumb people need representation...

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.

[tomder55]

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

[Dare81]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

I suppose you want the blindfold off?

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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" .

[speechlesstx]

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?

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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?

[excon]

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...

[tomder55]

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 ?

[tomder55]

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 .

[speechlesstx]

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.

[speechlesstx]

Is this what empathy looks like in a liberal administration, politicizing a blatant case of voter intimidation?