The White House Press Office has released the following information about Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor:Sonia Sotomayor has served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since October 1998. She has been hailed as “one of the ablest federal judges currently sitting” for her thoughtful opinions,i and as “a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity”ii for her ascent to the federal bench from an upbringing in a South Bronx housing project.
Her American story and three decade career in nearly every aspect of the law provide Judge Sotomayor with unique qualifications to be the next Supreme Court Justice. She is a distinguished graduate of two of America's leading universities. She has been a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator. Before she was promoted to the Second Circuit by President Clinton, she was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. She replaces Justice Souter as the only Justice with experience as a trial judge.
Judge Sotomayor served 11 years on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one of the most demanding circuits in the country, and has handed down decisions on a range of complex legal and constitutional issues. If confirmed, Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit, said “Sonia is an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind. She brings a wealth of knowledge and hard work to all her endeavors on our court. It is both a pleasure and an honor to serve with her.”
In addition to her distinguished judicial service, Judge Sotomayor is a Lecturer at Columbia University Law School and was also an adjunct professor at New York University Law School until 2007.
An American Story
Judge Sonia Sotomayor has lived the American dream. Born to a Puerto Rican family, she grew up in a public housing project in the South Bronx. Her parents moved to New York during World War II – her mother served in the Women’s Auxiliary Corps during the war. Her father, a factory worker with a third-grade education, died when Sotomayor was nine years old. Her mother, a nurse, then raised Sotomayor and her younger brother, Juan, now a physician in Syracuse. After her father’s death, Sotomayor turned to books for solace, and it was her new found love of Nancy Drew that inspired a love of reading and learning, a path that ultimately led her to the law.
Most importantly, at an early age, her mother instilled in Sotomayor and her brother a belief in the power of education. Driven by an indefatigable work ethic, and rising to the challenge of managing a diagnosis of juvenile diabetes, Sotomayor excelled in school. Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She first heard about the Ivy League from her high school debate coach, Ken Moy, who attended Princeton University, and she soon followed in his footsteps after winning a scholarship.
At Princeton, she continued to excel, graduating summa cum laude, and Phi Beta Kappa. She was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. One of Sotomayor’s former Yale Law School classmates, Robert Klonoff (now Dean of Lewis & Clark Law School), remembers her intellectual toughness from law school: “She would stand up for herself and not be intimidated by anyone.” [Washington Post, 5/7/09]
A Champion of the Law
Over a distinguished career that spans three decades, Judge Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our judicial system – yielding a depth of experience and a breadth of perspectives that will be invaluable – and is currently not represented -- on our highest court. New York City District Attorney Morgenthau recently praised Sotomayor as an “able champion of the law” who would be “highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character could be assets.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/9/09]
A Fearless and Effective Prosecutor
Fresh out of Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor became an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan in 1979, where she tried dozens of criminal cases over five years. Spending nearly every day in the court room, her prosecutorial work typically involved "street crimes," such as murders and robberies, as well as child abuse, police misconduct, and fraud cases. Robert Morgenthau, the person who hired Judge Sotomayor, has described her as a “fearless and effective prosecutor.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/9/09] She was cocounsel in the “Tarzan Murderer” case, which convicted a murderer to 67 and ½ years to life in prison, and was sole counsel in a multiple-defendant case involving a Manhattan housing project shooting between rival family groups.
A Corporate Litigator
She entered private practice in 1984, becoming a partner in 1988 at the firm Pavia and Harcourt. She was a general civil litigator involved in all facets of commercial work including, real estate, employment, banking, contracts, and agency law. In addition, her practice had a significant concentration in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright and unfair competition issues. Her typical clients were significant corporations doing international business. The managing partner who hired her, George Pavia, remembers being instantly impressed with the young Sonia Sotomayor when he hired her in 1984, noting that “she was just ideal for us in terms of her background and training.” [Washington Post, May 7, 2009]
A Sharp and Fearless Trial Judge
Her judicial service began in October 1992 with her appointment to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. Still in her 30s, she was the youngest member of the court. From 1992 to 1998, she presided over roughly 450 cases. As a trial judge, she earned a reputation as a sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into departing from the rule of law. In 1995, for example, she issued an injunction against Major League Baseball owners, effectively ending a baseball strike that had become the longest work stoppage in professional sports history and had caused the cancellation of the World Series the previous fall. She was widely lauded for saving baseball. Claude Lewis of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that by saving the season, Judge Sotomayor joined “the ranks of Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson and Ted Williams.”
A Tough, Fair and Thoughtful Jurist
President Clinton appointed Judge Sotomayor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1998. She is the first Latina to serve on that court, and has participated in over 3000 panel decisions, authoring roughly 400 published opinions. Sitting on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has tackled a range of questions: from difficult issues of constitutional law, to complex procedural matters, to lawsuits involving complicated business organizations. In this context, Sotomayor is widely admired as a judge with a sophisticated grasp of legal doctrine. “’She appreciates the complexity of issues,’ said Stephen L. Carter, a Yale professor who teaches some of her opinions in his classes. Confronted with a tough case, Carter said, ‘she doesn’t leap at its throat but reasons to get to the bottom of issues.’” For example, in United States v. Quattrone, Judge Sotomayor concluded that the trial judge had erred by forbidding the release of jurors’ names to the press, concluding after carefully weighing the competing concerns that the trial judge’s concerns for a speedy and orderly trial must give way to the constitutional freedoms of speech and the press.
Sotomayor also has keen awareness of the law’s impact on everyday life. Active in oral arguments, she works tirelessly to probe both the factual details and the legal doctrines in the cases before her and to arrive at decisions that are faithful to both. She understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts. For example, In United States v. Reimer, Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion revoking the US citizenship for a man charged with working for the Nazis in World War II Poland, guarding concentration camps and helping empty the Jewish ghettos. And in Lin v. Gonzales and a series of similar cases, she ordered renewed consideration of the asylum claims of Chinese women who experienced or were threatened with forced birth control, evincing in her opinions a keen awareness of those women’s plights.
Judge Sotomayor’s appreciation of the real-world implications of judicial rulings is paralleled by her sensible practicality in evaluating the actions of law enforcement officers. For example, in United States v. Falso, the defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography after FBI agents searched his home with a warrant. The warrant should not have been issued, but the agents did not know that, and Judge Sotomayor wrote for the court that the officers’ good faith justified using the evidence they found. Similarly in United States v. Santa, Judge Sotomayor ruled that when police search a suspect based on a mistaken belief that there is a valid arrest warrant out on him, evidence found during the search should not be suppressed. Ten years later, in Herring v. United States, the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion. In her 1997 confirmation hearing, Sotomayor spoke of her judicial philosophy, saying ”I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.” Her record on the Second Circuit holds true to that statement. For example, in Hankins v. Lyght, she argued in dissent that the federal government risks “an unconstitutional trespass” if it attempts to dictate to religious organizations who they can or cannot hire or dismiss as spiritual leaders. Since joining the Second Circuit, Sotomayor has honored the Constitution, the rule of law, and justice, often forging consensus and winning conservative colleagues to her point of view.
A Commitment to Community
Judge Sotomayor is deeply committed to her family, to her co-workers, and to her community. Judge Sotomayor is a doting aunt to her brother Juan’s three children and an attentive godmother to five more. She still speaks to her mother, who now lives in Florida, every day. At the courthouse, Judge Sotomayor helped found the collegiality committee to foster stronger personal relationships among members of the court. Seizing an opportunity to lead others on the path to success, she recruited judges to join her in inviting young women to the courthouse on Take Your Daughter to Work Day, and mentors young students from troubled neighborhoods Her favorite project, however, is the Development School for Youth program, which sponsors workshops for inner city high school students. Every semester, approximately 70 students attend 16 weekly workshops that are designed to teach them how to function in a work setting. The workshop leaders include investment bankers, corporate executives and Judge Sotomayor, who conducts a workshop on the law for 25 to 35 students. She uses as her vehicle the trial of Goldilocks and recruits six lawyers to help her. The students play various roles, including the parts of the prosecutor, the defense attorney, Goldilocks and the jurors, and in the process they get to experience openings, closings, direct and cross-examinations. In addition to the workshop experience, each student is offered a summer job by one of the corporate sponsors. The experience is rewarding for the lawyers and exciting for the students, commented Judge Sotomayor, as “it opens up possibilities that the students never dreamed of before.” [Federal Bar Council News, Sept./Oct./Nov. 2005, p.20] This is one of many ways that Judge Sotomayor gives back to her community and inspires young people to achieve their dreams.
She has served as a member of the Second Circuit Task Force on Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts and was formerly on the Boards of Directors of the New York Mortgage Agency, the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
_________________________
i American Philosophical Society, Biographical Essays of Moderators, Speakers, Inductees and Award Recipients, Annual General Meeting, April 2003, at 36.
ii Honorary Degree Citation, Pace University School of Law, 2003 Commencement.
I like that Bernie is a reliable extension of the White House press unit. This is the same press unit that bars pool reporters from events they "report" on themselves, complete with lead-ins, interviews, and identifying chyrons at the bottom of the screen. Way to comply, Bernie. You're earning your doctorate in useful idiocy.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe he picked her. He must not read the newspapers. This is old news. Down in D.C., we knew about this for over a week.
ReplyDeleteThe Washington Post has been muddying her up. (they say she has a pretty vulgar mouth and lacks patience on the bench.) From their reports, it was almost certain that if Obama picked her, she wouldn't be confirmed.
Who knows? This is why I leave the politics to the politicans.
Peace, ~~Alex
Anon 12:27,
ReplyDeleteI'm well aware that information supplied by the WH Press office will be slanted in favor of whatever the president wants. But I appreciated the detail and references to specific cases that I found nowhere else. That's why I posted it.
One is only an idiot when he accepts information at face value. Most readers are more discerning than that. When you point out my source is biased, you are pointing out what is obvious. From the tenor of your comment, so are you.
What's important is what is accurate and what is not. Does she bully people? Can anyone name names? What is the evidence that she is intemperate?
Or is the real objection that her views are not consercvative enough?
She was first appointed to the bench by GW Bush. She was confirmed to the 2d Circuit by a Republican Senate.
I thought Justice Roberts, a conservative, was an excellent choice for the High Court. So is she.
"Does she bully people? Can anyone name names? What is the evidence that she is intemperate?"
ReplyDeleteYour questions are irrelevant, especially with regard to an appointment of this importance.
As Ted Kennedy said during the Clarence Thomas hearings, evidence need not necessarily exist. Rather, "it's the seriousness of the allegations."
Ted was right. Every single thing should be thoroughly investigated. Obama voted to fillibuster SCOTUS nominees. While there's no need to be so small as a punk freshman Senator, she should be given a rigorous examination and answer the considerable pile of questions regarding her intelligence and behavior.
My biggest concern about her nomination is her views regarding judicial activism. She told a group of Duke Law students in 2005 that the US Court of Appeals is "where policy is made." After realizing what she said, she then spent several minutes backpedaling.
ReplyDeleteUnelected judges in receipt of lifetime appointments should not make policy. That is dangerous to both sides of the liberal /conservative debate.
The Banker
We all know what this gal is. A pal of Mr. O. A full blown liberal who has been overturned by the Supreme Court four times. She believes in judicial activism and will add to the court's policy of making law. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution as it was written. They are not suppose to make law. They are not suppose to take from Scottish law. They are suppose to be originalists. Nothing else, particularly one's feelings or personal experiences, is to be use when doing the job.
ReplyDeleteAt least Obama doesn't plant male prostitutes (Jeff Gannon) in the press unit like Bush.
ReplyDeleteChris Miller, you are full of it. She's just a "pal of Mr. O." Right, the first Hispanic woman to be nominated to the court, and she's an empty suit, obviously. Think about what you say before you say it. No conservative has any room to complain about activism, activists like Scalia, Thomas, Allito, and Roberts have gone out of their way to legislate from the bench on behalf of big business, executive power, religious conservative groups, and even to win an election. Judge Sotomayor is minimally speaking, every bit as qualified, intellectually solid, and prepared as Justice Roberts and Allito were when appointed under President Bush, and is as entitled to a fair hearing as Justice Thomas was when he passed by a slim 52-48 margin.
ReplyDeleteShe should be Borked.
ReplyDeleteHer reputation should be ignored. She should be trashed and personally attacked for her beliefs. She should be accused of being a vicious racist and militant, selective infanticide supporter. Her coke cans should be investigated for pubic hair and her video rentals should be investigated to expose any sexual predilections. Any wacky charges should be exhaustively considered in the absence of evidence because of the seriousness of the allegations. Filibusters and delay maneuvers should be undertaken so that she never gets a floor vote - her certain approval notwithstanding.
She should be Borked for a "change."
Rising Sun, she's absolutely entitled to a fair hearing. However, let me challenge you to cite examples of where Justices Scalia, Thomas, etc. legislated from the bench.
ReplyDeleteI believe an impartial reading, even of what happened in the Bush/Gore election, was interpretation of law, not the making of it. Big difference.
The Banker
Rising Sun
ReplyDeleteCite the cases where the Thomas, Altio, Robert,and Scalia have made decisions that benefitted business or religous groups and tell me how they were outside the boundaries of the Constitution?
Banker and Chris,
ReplyDeleteI'd be happy to respond to your request:
-Bush v. Gore- Following typical Scalia talking points, the original constitution does not give the federal government the power to rule on a given state's standard of determining a vote, and even taking about later amendments, they only apply to protecting the right of all to vote, not on determining who's vote doesn't count. The point here is that a bunch of "state rights" judges overruled the Florida Supreme Court to get a desired result.
-The "conservative wing" of the court ruled that Americans with disabilities cannot sue the state for damages under the "Americans With Disabilities Act," despite the fact that Congress expressly wrote that into the law it passed in the first place. Rehnquist wrote that opinion just before his death, and was joined by Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor. Activism.
-In 2008, Scalia wrote the opinion overturning the "D.C. Gun Ban," also known legally as D.C. v. Heller. In this opinion, which he was joined on by Thomas, Roberts, Allito, and Kennedy, Scalia for the first time ever from the bench, said the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms, a question previously left to the legislative branch by judges. In his opinion, he also essentially said the part about "maintaining a well-regulated militia" was now outdated, and essentially not important. Activism.
-In 2007, The Roberts court struck down integration programs for schools in Louisville and Seattle on the grounds that the 14th Amendment has a never before found "protection from" unwanted integration. Activism
-Scalia attempted to use Boumediene v. Bush (2008) to say since the constitution didn't say so, the long established precedent of "habeas corpus" was not always present in American rule of law. That is activism. I guess since it's pro-administrative power though, conservatives make up a logic for it.
-Scalia and his backers attempted to use Lawrence v. Texas (2003) to overturn the standing precedent on "the right to privacy" the court has upheld for nearly 40 years. That is not respect to precedent, it's activism. It's activism that was being cheered by Evangelicals though, so conservatives think it's fine.
-Scalia openly dismissed Justice O'Connor's 1989 assertion in her dissent to Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that reconsidering Roe would be counter to the principle of judicial restraint. Because of course, he morally opposes abortion.
I guess that's good enough?
She's a lightweight affirmative action appointee. Her dismissal of the Connecticut firefighter reverse discrimination case will be decided against her by SCOTUS as she's trying to explain why most of her crayon-written opinions have been routinely overturned. This could have been much worse for conservatives (e.g. Clinton, Sunstein, Dershowitz). She's a dumb Harriet Miers.
ReplyDeleteYeah 6:53, that liberal bastion Yale Law had her make the Law Review because she is so gosh darn dumb.
ReplyDeleteTo bad there are no Thomas and bubble head Robert judges out there.
Rising Sun, thanks for the information. Needless to say I have a different view! Let's go point by point -
ReplyDeleteBush v. Gore - two issues at play - were the recounts constitutional, and if they were not, what was the remedy? The vote was 7-2 that the recounts were not constitutional, violating the equal protection clause as they were using different recount standards in different counties. The 2nd issue - remedies - the vote was 5-4 that it was not possible to complete a recount in accordance with FL law.
Your view that the Equal Protection Clause (part of the 14th amdendment) does not apply is questionable at best. Even Gore's attorneys didn't argue that - they argued that the Clause had been met. Again, the vote on the Clause incl. 2 liberal justices - hardly a "cram down" by the conservative group.
-The "conservative wing" of the court ruled that Americans with disabilities cannot sue the state for damages under the "Americans With Disabilities Act" - Renquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor. I ask, since when are Kennedy and O'Connor part of the conservative wing? Both are more swing votes than anything. Hardly a conservative cramdown.
-In 2008, Scalia wrote the opinion overturning the "D.C. Gun Ban," D.C. v. Heller. Even liberal scholars who favor gun control personally (i.e. Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe) have acknowledged that a strict interpretation of the Constitution confers an individual the right to keep and bear arms. The liberal wing of the court, in their dissent, took the position that the 2nd amendment conferred no individual right. There are many, both liberals and conservatives, who disagree. Hardly activism when people on both sides agree.
-In 2007, The Roberts court struck down integration programs for schools in Louisville and Seattle. Discrimination is against the law. So is selective discrimination. Does the court not have the responsibility to decide in accordance with the law?
-Scalia attempted to use Boumediene v. Bush (2008). The conservative wing dissented, so I have no idea what your point is here?
-Scalia and his backers attempted to use Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Not sure again what you mean here, the liberal wing decided this one, having been joined by the swing votes.
-Scalia openly dismissed Justice O'Connor's 1989 assertion in her dissent to Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that reconsidering Roe would be counter to the principle of judicial restraint. Because of course, he morally opposes abortion. Scalia and O'Connor voted the same way on this case - where's the activism / cramdown?
I made my statement regarding Judge Sotomayor based on her comments in 2005 that "policy is made" on the bench. That to me is the definition of activism and that is a problem. I know I'm on the conservative side, but when I see votes that are 6-3 and 7-2, I'm not seeing conservative activism.
The Banker
Dudes and Dudettes,
ReplyDeleteShe was one of the judges that ruled in favor of the professional baseball strike that resulted in the World Series being cancelled. Somebody, please, prove me wrong. If this is true, she lost my confidence.
Peace, ~~Alex
Banker,
ReplyDeleteWithout going back through each one, some of the times you stated that he didn't vote in the affirmative, or even with the other conservatives, Scalia authored opinions of his own. I think my main point is that you can call basically any nominee an activist. I'm not trying to make the argument that she is necessarily "less activist." I believe she is entitled to a similar overall treatment in these circumstances to Justices Allito and Thomas, probably the two most controversial of modern appointments.
Half Father Alex,
ReplyDeleteJudge Sotomayor is actually regarded as baseball's savior. She ended a baseall strike in '95, ruling against owners and in favor of the players. Her ruling wascalled a "wicked fastball."
Thanks Bernie,
ReplyDeleteSee what happens when you read only the headlines of The Washington Post. I left that article with the impression of the opposite of your claim. They really know how to write headlines. But I am to blame for not reading the whole article.
Thanks, again. ~~The Champ!
I think the point being made by Rising Sun is that we have a fair share of "activists" on both sides of the political spectrum.
ReplyDeleteMy concern about this nomination is that the real basis for opposition is not Sotomayor's activism or intemperate behavior. It's really just partisanship.
It's the same partisanship that led Democratic senators like Obama to vote against qualified candidates like Roberts.
If she were a slouch or an inept judge, I could see a complaint. But she is highly qualified, as was Roberts and a host of others who needlessly endure painful examination.
I have no problems with questions like those posed by The Banker or Chris. I think she could answer them. But how do you answer someone like the Anon who suggests that allegations alone are a basis for disqualification. This is meant as some sort of rebuke to Ted Kennedy, but it's not good government. It's partisanship.
It's why Dent claims our system is broken. We need to drop these stances on both sides.
Bernie,
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, it's plain as day. How often do you read stories about judges being appointed to circuit courts' of appeal? Rarely. You almost never read those stories, because those judges are passed through with ease. You never read about Justice Sotomayor's appointment to the district or appeals bench, nor did you read about the appointments of Roberts, Ms. Rendell, Mike Fisher, or Judge Van Antwerpen. It's just at the Supreme Court level that you hear about these nasty, nasty fights over confirmation. Now, in some cases, there should be more scrutiny at other levels. In some other cases yet, some Supreme Court Justices are not all that controversial. These fights are made up.
They are made up to raise millions of dollars for political action committees and such. It's simply to fuel future fights. In this case, this isn't Allito replacing O'Conner, it's not like a Ginsberg-like judge being appointed to replace Kennedy, it's not like even the Thomas' nomination. This is Sotomayor for Souter, a small, if at all, alteration of the court. Unless there is a real issue that calls into question her ability to serve, she should be approved.
Boonie, what part of your legal experience are you bringing in analyzing this pick. Is it the time you lied to your superiors at the Justice Department ?
ReplyDeleteThe New Haven White prospective firefightes whose exams were nullified by the Judge because not enough black prospective firefighters passed it must be livid .... That is reverse discrimination ....
ReplyDeleterepugs you lost get over it. shut up and put up. you cant stop this appointment so move on.
ReplyDeleteDs have treated R nominees abominably. Obama was one of the chief partisans in opposing the eminently qualified Roberts on purely political grounds.
ReplyDeleteThe racist argument cuts both ways with Sotomayor. She quickly and tersely dismissed the claim of Caucasian, dyslexic New Haven, CT firefighter who paid for tutoring with his own money, studied for the promotional exam, and scored higher than minority candidates who were promoted in his stead because of their race. The firefighter's "American story" is as compelling as Sotomayor's. Her ruling will likely be overturned by SCOTUS. Her quick dismissal was questionable and unexplained; leaving many to question her racial bias and/or work ethic.
Racists come in all shades and colors and backgrounds. We already know she made a statement about being able to make better decisions than a white male because she's a female Hispanic. A white person making a similar outrageous statement would be righteously compared to David Duke.
OT: she'll be the sixth Catholic on a court of nine (one Jew, two Protestants). We've apparently come a long way from the papist finger pointing years of JFK.
Do the research everyone -
ReplyDeleteSee how many of her rulings are overturned historically. It's not just one or two.
Her judicial record speaks for itself.
Her own comments speak for her radical, leftist views, as well as Obama's little view of the the United States, as well.
But whatever. She's in. Make no mistake about that.
To oppose her is to be a racist. So get in gear with the program or leave the country...
Rising Sun
ReplyDeleteWhat you saw was a return to the original intent of the Constitution
Battle Cry,
ReplyDeleteRight, original intent was for judges to be conservative activists, not respecting precedent, and taking out entire sections of laws and amendments so they can rule the way they want. Original intent my behind! It's called judicial activism, and it comes in both liberal and conservative forms.
Ironpigpen,
A lot of really great judges on district and appeals benches get overturned an awful lot. The judiciary sort of follows politics, but is behind it. Right now, we have a very conservative federal judiciary, because 3 of the last 4 Presidents were Republicans. Being that she was put on the 2nd circuit court, a fairly liberal circuit court, and being that 7 of the 9 Supremes right now were appointed by Republican Presidents, it's not all that shocking that her opinions are overturned, nor is it even slightly a reliable way to judge her time on the court.
Anon,
Go read the New Haven case. I have. Justice Sotomayor is not a racist, at least not from anything in that case. You may not agree with her, but she cited relevant case law in coming to her view. Again, it may be overturned, especially by a court so Republican leaning, but her opinion isn't grounded in racism.
This woman is every bit as qualified, if not more, than her fellow Princeton alum Samuel Allito (her grades at Princeton show her to have been a superior student, for all of those of you who say she is a lightweight dummy). She should, and will be confirmed. All of these folks crying about her being racist towards white men are ridiculous. The world's changing folks. You don't have to look like me to be President, Supreme Court Justice, Secretary of State, etc.
"Anon,
ReplyDeleteGo read the New Haven case. I have. Justice Sotomayor is not a racist, at least not from anything in that case. You may not agree with her, but she cited relevant case law in coming to her view. Again, it may be overturned, especially by a court so Republican leaning, but her opinion isn't grounded in racism."
Nice try, but you're misinformed or lying. She summarily dismissed the firefighter's case in a single-paragraph, unpublished summary order that never mentioned the case's critical issues. She was embarrassingly called on it by a well known liberal 2nd Circuit judge, who is credited with keeping the claim alive. From today's Hartford Courant:
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sotomayorside0527.artmay27,0,7883030.story
There's no room for racists on SCOTUS. She's made racist statements and has shown disregard for rights of non-Hispanic plaintiffs. Remember what I've said about Republican appointees since the Bork days: "The seriousness of the allegations demands thorough investigation." We should be fair here. She needs a thorough going over. No sense in rushing such important matters.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteSorry, you are wrong again. She is signed onto an opinion put forth by Justice Barrington Parker. Let me help you by printing a piece of it:
"At the heart of the dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc is the assertion that there was no Supreme Court or circuit law to guide this district court, or future district courts faced with similar claims. I disagree. The district court correctly observed that this case was unusual. Nonetheless, the district court also recognized that there was controlling authority in our decisions--among them, Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 1999) and Bushey v. N.Y. State Civil Serv. Comm'n, 733 F.2d 220 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1117, 105 S. Ct. 803, 83 L. Ed. 2d 795 (1985). These cases clearly establish for the circuit that a public employer, faced with a prima facie case of disparate-impact liability under Title VII, does not violate Title VII or the Equal Protection Clause by taking facially neutral, albeit race-conscious, actions to avoid such liability.
Insofar as the dissent suggests that the plaintiffs produced evidence of a racial classification or the imposition of a quota, I think it entirely mistaken. Although the City acted out of a concern that certifying the exam results would have an adverse impact on minority candidates--and although, as the panel noted in its decision, the result was understandably frustrating for applicants who passed the test--the City's response, to decline to certify any of the exams, was facially race-neutral. The City did not classify or confer any actual benefit on applicants on the basis of race. The dissent's citations to Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 115 S. Ct. 2097, 132 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1995), and City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 109 S. Ct. 706, 102 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1989), are therefore inapposite. See Hayden, 180 F.3d at 49 (distinguishing those cases as "concerned with select affirmative action tools, such as quota systems, set-aside programs, and differential scoring cutoffs, which utilize express racial classifications and which prevent non-minorities from competing for specific slots or contracts.").
Because there was no racial classification, the plaintiffs bore the burden of persuasion on the issue of discriminatory purpose. Jana-Rock Constr., Inc. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Econ. Dev., 438 F.3d 195, 204 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, however, there was no evidence of a discriminatory purpose; according to the record evidence, the City was motivated by a desire to comply with, and avoid liability under, Title VII and its implementing regulations. See Bushey, 733 F.2d at 226 ("It is settled that voluntary compliance is a preferred means of achieving Title VII's goal of eliminating employment discrimination." (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)); see also Hayden, 180 F.3d at 51 ("A desire to reduce the adverse impact on [minority] applicants ... is not analogous to an intent to discriminate against non-minority candidates.").
[...]
Moreover, I hardly think that in order to decline to certify the exam results, the City was required to prove, through a validation study or some other means, that its own tests were not "job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity," 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) (defining affirmative defense to prima facie case of disparate impact violation). In fact, our case law explicitly rejects that proposition. See Bushey, 733 F.2d at 226 (disagreeing with the assertion that "before adopting remedial measures" the employer must "prove that [the] prima face case [of a disparate-impact Title VII violation] was not rebuttable through job-related explanations").
[...]
The plaintiffs were entitled to a careful and thoughtful review of their claims. The panel decided that the district court had given them just that, and thus adopted the district court's reasoning in its per curiam opinion. Nothing more is required."
to continue...
ReplyDeleteRacism? Or respect for existing case law. Get your facts straight, Anon. Having a good knowledge of CT politics, I can tell you that the Hartford Courant is no place for you to be getting your talking points. It's a rag. I think the majority opinion of the 2nd Circuit Court tops it. Don't try and pass off a right-wing scab paper, owned by the Tribune, as truth.
You are misinformed, or lying, sir or madam.
The charge that The Hartford Courant is right-wing betrays intellectual dishonesty. They flakked reliably for Obama and endorsed him with gusto. Sotomayor was taken to task by a widely respected liberal Circuit judge for ignoring the case's serious constitutional issues. Based on questions asked during SCOTUS arguments, her opinion is expected to be overturned by more than the usual 5-4 philosophical vote. She has explaining to do. Her racist statements at Berkeley must also be investigated. She's displayed very poor judgment and troubling insensitivity on racial issues.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteIf you want to debate the Courant's slant fine, but we have to start with the fact that they are owned by the Tribune, who only in 2008 endorsed their first Democrat for President due to the fact that they are primarily run out of Chicago. The Hartford Courant has recently followed them in endorsing President Bush before endorsing President Obama this time. They continue to produce such beauties as a recent piece questioning if Jackie Dodd (wife of Senator Chris Dodd) actually belonged on corporate boards, not seeking any comment by her, the Senator, or his staff, but quoting the state GOP Chairman. The article also failed to note that she had been a Senate Finance and Banking committee staffer for the GOP before their marriage. Basically, I'm saying the Courant is a right-wing hit piece that masquerades as a paper. It endorses things like torture on it's editorial page, and then uses it's news pages to try and attack Congresspeople like Rosa DeLauro and John Larson. It's a rag. It's owned by a right-wing media company. You are hiding behind it.
Even so, you're ignoring the text put before you, anon. We can all read the opinion. Case law was cited. Nothing was dismissed without merit. You are a liar, my friend. Do your research and don't rely on clearly biased news sources.
Defending Dodd and his crooked wife show a remarkably firm planting on the liberal plantation. You need to phone your office. Dodd isn't even going to get out of his next primary. His own party has lost its stomach for his brazen corruption.
ReplyDeleteThe fact remains that Sotomayor has serious questions to answer regarding her pattern of racial insensitivity. Don't take it from me or The Hartford Courant. Take it from her fellow, very liberal, Circuit judge.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteWho is this "very liberal" judge? Another member of the 2nd circuit? That's great, well her, AND A SECOND JUDGE, wrote the opinion I just posted, which proves you are off in wing-nut land talking about her and racial issues, but by all means keep it up. Perhaps we can see the GOP get like 20% of the Hispanic vote in 2012 talking this nonsense.
As for Dodd, he's gained 10% in the last month, so assuming he stays in this race, I bet you a beer he wins. Right-wing talking points aside, the guy's damn effective at passing legislation (FIRE Act and Family and Medical Leave 1 come to mind), and MOST of the undecideds are Democrats, meaning his numbers will only continue to rise. His primary opponent has some past issues and no one in the congressional delegation will oppose him. The corruption charges against him are a big conservative pile of dung, as most anything out of the RNC and NRSC are at this point, and he will win, unless he decides to walk off into the night, and then we will probably win the seat by 40%, because Simmons is a joke. I'm proud to be on the "liberal plantation" (nice racial jab at the left) because we are standing for a better America, one which regulates it's businesses, cares about job creation, does not torture, and doesn't fight wars for no apparent reason. Call it what it is anyway, we'll have 65 seats in the Senate by 2011.
"I would hope that a WISE LATINA WOMAN with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a BETTER conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
ReplyDeleteSonia Sotomayor
For the record --- THIS IS NOT RACISM OR BIGOTRY
-----------------------------------
"I would hope a white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a BETTER than a latina woman who hasn't lived that life"
Nobody
For the record --- TOTAL RACISM AND/OR BIGOTRY
-----------------------------------
"I want her to march up those steps and START providing some justice"
Barrack Obama last evening in CA
Welcome to the New America.
Love it or leave it.
Rising Sun -
ReplyDeleteWhy is Obama's army still in Iraq if that war was for no apparent reason.
I know, I know.
Bush lied. People died. Okay, fine.
So, why is Obama's army still there?
How long has he been in office now???
I heard this month (May) was the most deadly since last September.
How are the bailouts going for your liberal plantation?
How is the job creating / saving going?
I hear the Chinese Communists are thrilled with Obama's spend, spend, spend policies
Ironpigpen,
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you print that sentence from a larger paragraph. Why not the rest of her statement? Could it not be what you are making it? A wise person of any color or gender would have to assume so.
Now onto the wars, bailouts etc. First off, all but one Democratic Presidential candidate said they would need at least a year to 20 months to get out of Iraq, or else risk putting the troops in danger doing so. Bush minimally did mislead the country with bogus claims out of the VP's office that there were WMD's in Iraq. That doesn't mean I now expect the President to do something unsafe and stupid to fix it.
Now, on the bailouts subject, I assume you either A.) Believe we should have done nothing, and should continue to do nothing, or B.) We should pass another tax cut, because they worked the last 8 years, right? For the record, the Chinese Communists don't like the level of debt we have, which ought to put to rest the ignorant charge that government bailing out CORPORATIONS is socialism (no real socialist even believes in privately held companies.). Out on our "liberal plantation" (we see why Republicans do so well with minority voters in this language) things are improving, because it does appear that we have begun to climb off of rock bottom, and we now have a President who believes regulation is more than a dirty "four letter word." As I said to anon though, by all means, continue on as you guys are. The next Senate won't even really need a minority party leader, because that party won't be necessary to do anything. By all means, call Justice Sotomayor a racist, tell us all what Rush Limbaugh thinks, defend torture, and call President Obama a socialist. Apparently it's working well with independents and moderates.
How is your share of GM ownership going today?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of the proposed "vat tax"?
I also missed the part explaining why Obama's army is still in Iraq?(you know, the war for no reason)
But hey, I did not to interrupt you being so smug about Obama's election victory!
We will see how thrilled you are with everything NEXT April 15, won't we then?
In the meantime, keep on worshiping the Messiah and good luck with your liberal plantation.
(You might need some, who knows???
Obama knows he's already out of cash. The Chinese know, too.)
Rising Sun -
ReplyDeleteYou do know the Supreme Court has overturned FIVE of SIX of Sotomayor's rulings that went before them, do you not?
80% Failure - not so slick, do you not agree?
You also might want to investigate the New Haven firefighter deal. Fascinating stuff.
(Completely made-up by a bunch of white racists, I'm sure)
Sotomayor is in. I said that before.
It is clear Sotomayor is a flat out racist, however. Her words, dude. Her own words.
Have you seen Sotomayor's Gallup polls? Not exactly overwhelming stuff by any stretch of the imagination.
Keep on hammering the compelling life story and everything will work on fine :)
Ironpigpen,
ReplyDeleteI think I've already debunked your "New Haven Fire Fighters Case," but let's do it again. Here is the majority opinion:
"At the heart of the dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc is the assertion that there was no Supreme Court or circuit law to guide this district court, or future district courts faced with similar claims. I disagree. The district court correctly observed that this case was unusual. Nonetheless, the district court also recognized that there was controlling authority in our decisions--among them, Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 1999) and Bushey v. N.Y. State Civil Serv. Comm'n, 733 F.2d 220 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1117, 105 S. Ct. 803, 83 L. Ed. 2d 795 (1985). These cases clearly establish for the circuit that a public employer, faced with a prima facie case of disparate-impact liability under Title VII, does not violate Title VII or the Equal Protection Clause by taking facially neutral, albeit race-conscious, actions to avoid such liability.
Insofar as the dissent suggests that the plaintiffs produced evidence of a racial classification or the imposition of a quota, I think it entirely mistaken. Although the City acted out of a concern that certifying the exam results would have an adverse impact on minority candidates--and although, as the panel noted in its decision, the result was understandably frustrating for applicants who passed the test--the City's response, to decline to certify any of the exams, was facially race-neutral. The City did not classify or confer any actual benefit on applicants on the basis of race. The dissent's citations to Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 115 S. Ct. 2097, 132 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1995), and City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 109 S. Ct. 706, 102 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1989), are therefore inapposite. See Hayden, 180 F.3d at 49 (distinguishing those cases as "concerned with select affirmative action tools, such as quota systems, set-aside programs, and differential scoring cutoffs, which utilize express racial classifications and which prevent non-minorities from competing for specific slots or contracts.").
Because there was no racial classification, the plaintiffs bore the burden of persuasion on the issue of discriminatory purpose. Jana-Rock Constr., Inc. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Econ. Dev., 438 F.3d 195, 204 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, however, there was no evidence of a discriminatory purpose; according to the record evidence, the City was motivated by a desire to comply with, and avoid liability under, Title VII and its implementing regulations. See Bushey, 733 F.2d at 226 ("It is settled that voluntary compliance is a preferred means of achieving Title VII's goal of eliminating employment discrimination." (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)); see also Hayden, 180 F.3d at 51 ("A desire to reduce the adverse impact on [minority] applicants ... is not analogous to an intent to discriminate against non-minority candidates.").
[...]
Moreover, I hardly think that in order to decline to certify the exam results, the City was required to prove, through a validation study or some other means, that its own tests were not "job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity," 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) (defining affirmative defense to prima facie case of disparate impact violation). In fact, our case law explicitly rejects that proposition. See Bushey, 733 F.2d at 226 (disagreeing with the assertion that "before adopting remedial measures" the employer must "prove that [the] prima face case [of a disparate-impact Title VII violation] was not rebuttable through job-related explanations").
[...]
The plaintiffs were entitled to a careful and thoughtful review of their claims. The panel decided that the district court had given them just that, and thus adopted the district court's reasoning in its per curiam opinion. Nothing more is required."
Ironpigpen,
ReplyDeleteI guess that kind of answers if I've checked out the case or not. I have, and she was on sound legal ground, not racial ground in her opinion. She got that right.
As for the 5 of 6 opinions non-sense, I think I previously answered that too. 7 of the 9 judges on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republican Presidents, apparently because they come from a conservative background. The ratio was even worse I believe in the 1990's when she was put on the bench. It's not shocking, nor does it really suggest anything, from them reversing her. If anything, it kind of tells you where they are at in the conservative side.
I haven't one time brought up her life story, nor have I brought up Gallup, but if you want to go there fine. Her ratings in Gallup are BETTER than Samuel Allito's were. So what's your point? As for her life story, it is great, but not really necessary, because not only is she not a racist, she's also a superb nominee.
Again Ironpigpen, you're making a fool of yourself. My taxes went down, and stay that way for the next several years under the stimulus, so I'm going to be happy next April 15th. I'm glad the President is bailing out GM, he's saving thousands of jobs.
ReplyDeleteYou're making a fool of yourself by continuing to repeat the "liberal plantation" line. Again, you wonder why John McCain, George W. Bush (both times), Bob Dole, and Old Man Bush all failed to crack 10% in the African-American vote.
As for Iraq, I did answer you. If you choose not to acknowledge it, that's fine. I fully support the President's timeline to end the war. It's called being a leader, not messing up everything like the last President.
WOW, AMERICA REALLY IS GOING OFF A CLIFF! WHAT SHAME, I ONCE LOVED THIS COUNTRY SOOO MUCH BUT NOW I HAVE NO REASON TO! WITH PIECES OF SHIT LIKE THIS IN WASHINGTON :(
ReplyDelete