[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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

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.

[speechlesstx]

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

Agreed.

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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

The Howls of a Fading Species

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.

[ETWolverine]

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

[speechlesstx]

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?

[SailorMark]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[ETWolverine]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[ETWolverine]

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

[tomder55]

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 !

[speechlesstx]

Turns out Sotomayor's "isolated "wise Latina woman" slip was more like a mantra. Does that make it an indicator of her thinking or does she just like to 'misspeak' repeatedly?

[cozyk]

"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??

[cozyk]

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.

[cozyk]

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?

[trinitykiefer]

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>"

[cozyk]

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?