Sotomayor Confirmation Hearing

[daniel green]

"The American Bar Association announced on Tuesday that its standing committee on the federal judiciary has unanimously found Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be “well qualified” for elevation to the Supreme Court, its highest rating. The law group evaluates judicial nominees on the basis of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. It does not consider judicial ideology."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/sotomayor-receives-top-bar-rating/

[Hunky Dorie]

It is not surprising she received good marks. She will be on the Supreme Court.:biggrin:

[Susan43]

Sotomayor backers urge reporters to probe New Haven firefighter

WASHINGTON — Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are quietly targeting the Connecticut firefighter who's at the center of Sotomayor's most controversial ruling.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/71660.html

I read about this earlier and thought it was interesting.

[Susan43]

If you found the McClatchy article interesting. Digby has a few words on it too. This explains why I found it interesting. :biggrin:

Tort Reform!

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/tort-reform-by-digby-oh-my-goodness.html

[LisaM22]

I'm sorry if I am missing your point here, because you are such a wonderful poster, here, with such insightful links.

I agree with the new Supreme Court finding, and I also agree with Sotomayor in her upholding of current S C litigation decisions. She followed the law, she followed S C decisions before her, and the SCOTUS decided to take another look at this issue, and, thus, decide DIFFERENTLY!

I think all people should be subject to the same test results, regardless of race, background, or whatever. Would anyone want a heart or brain surgeon operating upon their own body, advanced because of race, not because of ability?

America has a debt to pay to people of color, and other minorities, it does NOT extend to objective, scientific testing method. Argue the test was not fair, argue the test ignored special crucial abilities, argue white people, because of their background, had unfair advantage and no steps were taken to equalize the playing field...same thing, I dont want a heart or brain surgeon operating on me because of his skin color or disadvantaged childhood. Either make up for the disadvantage by the time we make him a doctor, or don't make him a doctor.

My opinion only

I am all for affirmative action, what I am against is posting for a position and not putting in there only minorities apply if your only going to be hiring a minority as was the case here, why waste peoples time if you already know up front that one of the qualifications is they must be a minority, put that in the qualifications section, for one you will get more minorities to apply, two you will get less applications that do not qualify - jmho

[Lady_Jean_La]

It is not surprising she received good marks. She will be on the Supreme Court.:biggrin:

This will be the easiest confirmation in decades. :thumbsup:

[Susan43]

Senate Republicans Seek to Limit Class-Action Suits

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29622-2004Jul5.html

Weren't Ricci's cases class action suits?

[Lady_Jean_La]

I mean, really, what are the chances one would get discriminated against for three different things? :biggrin:Some people have been discriminated against there whole life. imo

[Jay]

Isn't that the reason we have that third branch of government, the Supreme Court, to set precedents and clarify the law,based upon the Constitution?.

That's my understanding, so teaching Constitutional law without teaching SC precedents, is not really teaching Constitutional law at all.


Right!

Anyone can read the Constitution facially, anyone can read the Bill of Rights facially.

The great Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison penned that the SC has the power to declare Congressional enactment's UNconstitutional.

They are also empowered by the constitution to hear cases based on the constitution itself.

Article 3, section 2, in part:

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,..

[ortiga]

Sheesh!

I've listening to this BS for about an hour, and I don't mean what is on this thread. Those hearings are just a bunch of hot air so far.

Let me know how it turns out.

:laugh:

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Sheesh!

I've listening to this BS for about an hour, and I don't mean what is on this thread. Those hearings are just a bunch of hot air so far.

Let me know how it turns out.

:laugh:

Yikes...Has Sonia even opened her mouth yet??..This must be excruciating for her to just sit there and listen to all these people go on and on..pontifying whatever their attitude is..Geesh....

LMS:laugh:

[ABC]

Yikes...Has Sonia even opened her mouth yet??..This must be excruciating for her to just sit there and listen to all these people go on and on..pontifying whatever their attitude is..Geesh....

LMS:laugh:

Actually, a Judge's job is to sit there, listen to people go on and make the odd ruling. After 17 years on the bench, I imagine she is use to it. I do admitt the Dems were a lot more fun when they blasted off at Roberts and Alito, particullary Ted Kennedy and his abortion speechs.

[daniel green]

WSJ calls them "The Seinfeld Hearings" A show about nothing.

LOL

That about covers it, doesn't it?

Well, except that Seinfeld was funny.

[Lady_Jean_La]

It is not surprising she received good marks. She will be on the Supreme Court.:biggrin:

No problem, just a formality. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

Especially since she loves to talk. lol!


mo

She's talking now! :thumbsup:

[Susan43]

Opening Statement of Judge Sotomayor

http://confirmsotomayor.org/2009/07/opening-statement-of-judge-sotomayor/#more-190

[Susan43]

The Hispanic community has some radio ads out supporting Justice Sotomayor.

Burning Latinos to keep Rush happy

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/13/752950/-Burning-Latinos-to-keep-Rush-happy

The ad and the transcript at the site.

[fiver]

Where was the support for Miguel Estrada? His nomination was scuttled by the Democrats because he was Latino. :blink:

link -> http://www.rove.com/uploads/0000/0078/judges-1.pdf

[Susan43]

Where was the support for Miguel Estrada? His nomination was scuttled by the Democrats because he was Latino. :blink:

link -> http://www.rove.com/uploads/0000/0078/judges-1.pdf

Actually I don't think your statement is true after reading the entire memo.

Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada's lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Democratic Senators also objected to the refusal by the Office of the Solicitor General to release samples of Estrada's writings while employed there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Estrada

He had NO judicial experience and according to the memo you posted he refused to answer any questions.

Funny how the right refused to release any of his writings but have complained about Sotomayor's. Can you imagine if she had no experience and refused to answer their questions how the right would be howling about her? LOL

[Lady_Jean_La]

As expected the Judge did very well. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

The Judge is doing a fantastic job.:thumbsup:

[ABC]

The Judge is doing a fantastic job.:thumbsup:

She is terrific. :thumbsup:

[theal3]

Yes, she's very impressive especially with the GOP "gocha questions." They are trying to make mountains out of mole holes...... I just don't get all these questions that hint at: if you don't think, decide, write, or speak as a white male, the norm, would, you are out of the norm and bias towards your ethnic background and gender and therefore not qualified. Their line of questioning is unbelievable! Very "Father's know best." IMHO.

[Hey Paula]

Kudos to Senators Sessions and Graham for asking appropriate and necessary questions.

[ABC]

Kudos to Senators Sessions and Graham for asking appropriate and necessary questions.

I dunno Paula. I think on this obviously very smart nominee with all the experience in the world, the Repubs would be best voting a unamious YES. They would be better saving ammunation for someone who should be challenged and not someone as terrific as Sonia Sotomayer. MOO

[theal3]

Judge Sotomayor is a shoe-in, and for all the right reasons.

Lindsey Graham once again, made one, if not more, inappropriate statements. For some reason, he continue to behave in a fashion that is totally out-of-line. How dare him be condesending to Judge Sotomayor. I think Graham needs to retire. He isn't helping the Right Wing.

JMHO

He was very condescending, and knows those clips will be played over and over. And what was all that about trying to quiz her on Military Justice etc. etal. He's such a braggart. He's used that line before: If I, a white male had said .... in reverse, my career would be over, he's been saying it for weeks and weeks. Some of the GOP because they are or have been lawyers try to be overly impressive, as if they know more than the judge regarding the courts and the Constitution. IMHO

[Hey Paula]

That was exactly my feeling. Sessions and Graham rocked!

Being a Supreme Court Justice demands tough questions and they were the ones that did. My impression of her "answers" were that that were weak to not even believable in several instances.

The democrat senators seemed to think their job was to answer for her and help her when her positions and words didn't come out well. Hopefull they won't take it upon themselves to write her speeches and briefs in the future.

jmo

ITA with your appraisal. The reason she appeared weak was because her replies were inconsistent with the statements she made in the past. Some of the lawyers who appeared before her certainly made derogatory statements re her temperament.

IMO

[Lady_Jean_La]

I dunno Paula. I think on this obviously very smart nominee with all the experience in the world, the Repubs would be best voting a unamious YES. They would be better saving ammunation for someone who should be challenged and not someone as terrific as Sonia Sotomayer. MOO

They are just going through the motions. Pretty quickly too now that Senators Biden and Kennedy are not there. imo

[Hey Paula]

I dunno Paula. I think on this obviously very smart nominee with all the experience in the world, the Repubs would be best voting a unamious YES. They would be better saving ammunation for someone who should be challenged and not someone as terrific as Sonia Sotomayer. MOO

I don't think anyone denies she is very smart and experienced, but so are many others. It's the same statements she has made several times which are troubling. They are a window to whom she really is and how she might use her SC seat to legislate from the bench.

IMO

[ABC]

They are just going through the motions. Pretty quickly too now that Senators Biden and Kennedy are not there. imo
And not asking the same question about abortion in a million different ways.

[Susan43]

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. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.

Now, guess who said this during their confirmation hearing...and guess who voted this person on to the Supreme Court. LOL

http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2009/07/meet-hypocrites-senators-jeff-sessions.html

What a bunch of hypocrites those Senators are.

ETA because I didn't want my last sentence misunderstood.

[Susan43]

I sure am glad I'm not the one undergoing a confirmation hearing because I really believe that on some issue women are far better at making decisions then men are. That isn't to say that men don't make good decisions on some issues they make better decisions. But I don't think I could keep my mouth shut.

Just as an example, take the 13 yr. old girl that was stipped searched.

Justice Stephen Breyer to query whether this is all that different from asking Redding to "change into a swimming suit or your gym clothes," because, "why is this a major thing to say strip down to your underclothes, which children do when they change for gym?"


Luckily Justice Ginsburg spoke up and the court ruled correctly (IMO).

IMO Ginsburg was a heck of a lot "wiser" then the men because of course none of them had ever been a 13 yr old GIRL.

http://www.slate.com/id/2216608/pagenum/2

[Susan43]

Funny how that hypocrisy thing works for Republicans! Wonder if these Republican Senators know what a mess they are making on the public video record, about how they are not comfortable with Hispanics taking a seat on the high court, but were ok with an Italian saying those things.

Boggles the mind how these Republicans don't think FIRST, but say so many disgusting and self-contradictory things on the public record.

They still aren't used to the fact that everything they say is subject to being heard or read due to the internet. But I think what bothers me is they act like nobody's paying attention. And if they think that the Hispanic community isn't keeping an eye on these hearings they really have another think coming.

[theal3]

They still aren't used to the fact that everything they say is subject to being heard or read due to the internet. But I think what bothers me is they act like nobody's paying attention. And if they think that the Hispanic community isn't keeping an eye on these hearings they really have another think coming.

Good observation Susan. Several are not doing their party any good with "party building." Sessions was really over the top, considering his past comments that kept him from a judgeship. So many behind the times, IMHO. She as more experience and qualifications than many already on the Bench, yet they attack, just cause that's what they do. Some show I heard today said, and she's not the first hispanic judge, but I forget who they mentioned from years and years ago. And she is not the first woman. So, what's their problem? Her record is in line with other judges, even conservative or moderate judges. They want to portray her as a flamming liberal, and she is not.

[Susan43]

Good observation Susan. Several are not doing their party any good with "party building." Sessions was really over the top, considering his past comments that kept him from a judgeship. So many behind the times, IMHO. She as more experience and qualifications than many already on the Bench, yet they attack, just cause that's what they do. Some show I heard today said, and she's not the first hispanic judge, but I forget who they mentioned from years and years ago. And she is not the first woman. So, what's their problem? Her record is in line with other judges, even conservative or moderate judges. They want to portray her as a flamming liberal, and she is not.

As far as I'm concerned Eugene Robinson hits it right on the money.

Whose Identity Politics?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302605.html

[Susan43]

This is hilarious...

Sotomayor Surprises Sessions

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/07/14/sotomayor-surprises-sessions/

[Lady_Jean_La]

And not asking the same question about abortion in a million different ways.

That's refreshing. imo They do have a few demonstrators though.

[RayStar]

I sure am glad I'm not the one undergoing a confirmation hearing because I really believe that on some issue women are far better at making decisions then men are. That isn't to say that men don't make good decisions on some issues they make better decisions. But I don't think I could keep my mouth shut.

Just as an example, take the 13 yr. old girl that was stipped searched.



Luckily Justice Ginsburg spoke up and the court ruled correctly (IMO).

IMO Ginsburg was a heck of a lot "wiser" then the men because of course none of them had ever been a 13 yr old GIRL.

http://www.slate.com/id/2216608/pagenum/2Thanks for this post and I know who thought it was ok for the strip search.:angry:
I am so glad you posted this link. Graham and Sessions need to take a hard look at it.

[RayStar]

This is hilarious...

Sotomayor Surprises Sessions

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/07/14/sotomayor-surprises-sessions/
This was over the top. He made a real mess of himself.
Someone posted these men forget the world is watching and I say everything is recorded. I have a problem with the men attacking a smart woman. Her record speaks for itself.
I hope tomorrow they leave their negativeness in the parking lot.

[Susan43]

This was over the top. He made a real mess of himself.
Someone posted these men forget the world is watching and I say everything is recorded. I have a problem with the men attacking a smart woman. Her record speaks for itself.
I hope tomorrow they leave their negativeness in the parking lot.

The big problem the right has at the moment is that she has ruled on over 3,000 cases and they really don't have one to go after. So, they've had to attack her personally. I was just disgusted when Graham had the nerve to say that some lawyers called her a 'bully.' No names of course, just anonymous gossip. This tag came right out of a blog article without any backup and the author of the article was soundly bashed for it. Since then no one has come forward to back that insult up. Funny isn't it? When a woman asks tough questions she is a bully, when a man asks them he is assertive. 2009 and we're still not beyond that.

Don't miss the Robinson article I posted upthread. It's right on the money.

[dref99]

The big problem the right has at the moment is that she has ruled on over 3,000 cases and they really don't have one to go after. So, they've had to attack her personally. I was just disgusted when Graham had the nerve to say that some lawyers called her a 'bully.' No names of course, just anonymous gossip. This tag came right out of a blog article without any backup and the author of the article was soundly bashed for it. Since then no one has come forward to back that insult up. Funny isn't it? When a woman asks tough questions she is a bully, when a man asks them he is assertive. 2009 and we're still not beyond that.

Don't miss the Robinson article I posted upthread. It's right on the money.

As a woman who started working in a male dominated field in the 1960s - I have met few men who liked or liked working with a woman who would attempt to take them on as an equal. I did meet a few and they are still my friends today. I have much admiration for any woman today who has fought for her right to be there, as I gave up on the fight many years ago. That Sonia Sotomayor is willing to sit through and respond to this incredible attack on her personal attributes is just another indicator of her intelligence and strength.

I repeat your link Susan - a good read

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302605.html

jmo

[Susan43]

As a woman who started working in a male dominated field in the 1960s - I have met few men who liked or liked working with a woman who would attempt to take them on as an equal. I did meet a few and they are still my friends today. I have much admiration for any woman today who has fought for her right to be there, as I gave up on the fight many years ago. That Sonia Sotomayor is willing to sit through and respond to this incredible attack on her personal attributes is just another indicator of her intelligence and strength.

I repeat your link Susan - a good read

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302605.html

jmo

I worked in male dominated professions most of my life and I agree that there have been many men who had a problem working well with women. Like you the ones that didn't have a problem became friends. However as I got older and the men younger it became less of a problem. I do think that the younger generation is getting better about the issue.

It's hard for me to not admire Judge Sotomayor. She's worked hard.

And yes...:biggrin: Robinson really hit it didn't he?

[Lady_Jean_La]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/wdc/sotomayor_judiciary/index.html?SITE=YAHOO&SECTION=HOME


AP

Interactive chart with quick brief information on committee.

[Susan43]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/wdc/sotomayor_judiciary/index.html?SITE=YAHOO&SECTION=HOME


AP

Interactive chart with quick brief information on committee.

Very cool, thank you Lady! :biggrin:

[theal3]

The big problem the right has at the moment is that she has ruled on over 3,000 cases and they really don't have one to go after. So, they've had to attack her personally. I was just disgusted when Graham had the nerve to say that some lawyers called her a 'bully.' No names of course, just anonymous gossip. This tag came right out of a blog article without any backup and the author of the article was soundly bashed for it. Since then no one has come forward to back that insult up. Funny isn't it? When a woman asks tough questions she is a bully, when a man asks them he is assertive. 2009 and we're still not beyond that.

Don't miss the Robinson article I posted upthread. It's right on the money.

ITA, Graham's remarks and pusing the point several times bothered me, and there were others that praised her but he picked out the one he wanted to. She did a good job of explaining why she was "tough" she was making lawyers prove their points for appeal, etc., and sometimes they were new to that court, inexperienced. Oh well, same double standard: when annita hill was questioned on Thomas, they trashed her, accused her of being politically movitvated and lying. It's a "woman" thing as if they need to be drilled, grilled more. I imagine many members of Congress (many lawyers) at one time "dreamed" of being a judge and moving up and didn't make it, so ran for office. He was very condescending.

[Not Telling]

If a judge is not to bring anything personal (beliefs, opinions, life experiences, gender, race, ethnicity) what is it that separates them from the others?... How can they come to a different conclusion than another judge? How can 5 justices routinely come to the same conclusion on case after case, while the other 4 routinely come to the opposite conclusion? If it was simply a matter of applying precedent and the Constitution, it seems that all 9 would have to come to the same conclusion... But our system requires a majority decision of the nine justices which indicates that a difference of opinion is likely and that the Constitution recognized that likelihood...

So what personal characteristic did the framers of the Constitution recognize that might cause one judge to decide an issue differently than another judge? What could it be other than personal experience?

[ABC]

I think the folks who are brilliant enough to be on the Court are way beyond gender, bias and the like and if they did not start off that way, the Court trandsends them. Sonia is a great addition to the Court.

[LisaM22]

I think the folks who are brilliant enough to be on the Court are way beyond gender, bias and the like and if they did not start off that way, the Court trandsends them. Sonia is a great addition to the Court.

most republicans agree with you, she was a neutral pick, not sure why Obama did that right now, maybe he thinks democrats will have more seats next go round, so he picked a non partisan pick, then again maybe he was trying to throw republicans a bone, trying to play nice with them in a bipartisan way so they would work with him going forward

[ABC]

most republicans agree with you, she was a neutral pick, not sure why Obama did that right now, maybe he thinks democrats will have more seats next go round, so he picked a non partisan pick, then again maybe he was trying to throw republicans a bone, trying to play nice with them in a bipartisan way so they would work with him going forward
Of course, Obama was throwing the Repubs a bone. What else? He wants to be their friend and maybe their new best friend. In any event, she is fabulous, a terrific pick and will be a good addition to the Court. Like Roberts and Alito, I think she was picked for her brains and experience.
I am sad to see abortion enter the picture again. Why are these guys, Dems and Repubs, so concerned about abortion and the abilities of women?

[Lady_Jean_La]

most republicans agree with you, she was a neutral pick, not sure why Obama did that right now, maybe he thinks democrats will have more seats next go round, so he picked a non partisan pick, then again maybe he was trying to throw republicans a bone, trying to play nice with them in a bipartisan way so they would work with him going forwardShe was an historic choice and I think President Obama has that high among his priorities. imo

[LisaM22]

Of course, Obama was throwing the Repubs a bone. What else? He wants to be their friend and maybe their new best friend. In any event, she is fabulous, a terrific pick and will be a good addition to the Court. Like Roberts and Alito, I think she was picked for her brains and experience.
I am sad to see abortion enter the picture again. Why are these guys, Dems and Repubs, so concerned about abortion and the abilities of women?

ABC, you voted for Bush, you voted for McCain and Palin, of course you like Roberts and Alito, that surprises me not

Roberts and Alito were picked because of their stance on abortion, had they been pro-choice, they never woudl of been picked by bush, that was bush's number one requirement sadly, looking at Obama's pick, you can see that is not his number one concern or he would not of picked her

[LisaM22]

She was an historic choice and I think President Obama has that high among his priorities. imo

could be, I am sure equal rights for all is one of his priorities, I am sure some will attack Obama for this bipartisan pick on both sides of the isle, I do not like his pick, but it was his pick, I hope it works out well for America

[theal3]

She's better qualified than some already on the bench. And by her court cases, moderate, not flamming left. The GOP should learn when to pick their fights. They look silly, making mountains out of mole hills.

[Lady_Jean_La]

"It says a lot about opportunities in our country," Gonzales told CNN's Wolf Blizter. "This is a powerful message, a powerful message of hope and opportunity through this appointment, just like there's a powerful message sent when an African-American is elected president."


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/supreme.court/index.html

:thumbsup:

[ABC]

She's better qualified than some already on the bench. And by her court cases, moderate, not flamming left. The GOP should learn when to pick their fights. They look silly, making mountains out of mole hills.
I totally agree and from the get go wrote and told others that the best thing the Repubs could do for themselves is vote her confirmation in with a Unanmious YES. But they don't listen to me any more then the Dems do. Very Sad!:sad:

[LisaM22]

"It says a lot about opportunities in our country," Gonzales told CNN's Wolf Blizter. "This is a powerful message, a powerful message of hope and opportunity through this appointment, just like there's a powerful message sent when an African-American is elected president."


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/supreme.court/index.html

:thumbsup:

is that what republicans are upset about, that this sends a powerful message about equal opportunities for all in our country

[ABC]

ABC, you voted for Bush, you voted for McCain and Palin, of course you like Roberts and Alito, that surprises me not

Roberts and Alito were picked because of their stance on abortion, had they been pro-choice, they never woudl of been picked by bush, that was bush's number one requirement sadly, looking at Obama's pick, you can see that is not his number one concern or he would not of picked her
I voted for Big Bill Clinton twice too and would again. I signed numerous patitations to free him from the impeachment charges as I did the Border Guards. I Never voted for Dick Nixon and only voted for Jimmy Carter once and wrote in Bobby's name twice in 64 and 68. As many folks who write they vote for the candidate, I actually do. Roberts and Alito were picked cause they are brilliant men and I actually adore them as I do Sonia and Ruth Ginsburg. Its about their brains and not about their politics.

[LisaM22]

Why do you think Obama voted against both Roberts and Alito, even after he admitted that they were well qualified and had good judicial temperment?

because he did not feel selecting someone for their pro-life beliefs was right, Obama was right to not vote for them, Obama feels that is not a choice government should make for women, it's a personal choice, not one for the government to make for us, why is it republicans always want bigger and bigger government that intrudes more and more in our personal lives?

[theal3]

because he did not feel selecting someone for their pro-life beliefs was right, Obama was right to not vote for them, Obama feels that is not a choice government should make for women, it's a personal choice, not one for the government to make for us

Well said. Plus it's the law and was decided over 30 years ago under right to privacy issues. The question remains, can a judge put aside personal religious belief when deciding a case.

[LisaM22]

Is it a Senator's job to decide Constitutionality or is it the job of the SC?
Are some senators afraid that the Constitution may not support Roe v Wade, so they have to stack the court to insure that smart, educated judges don't undo that case?

Your response indicates to me that you believe it is ok for a senator to use their personal "pro-choice" beliefs in deciding on voting for a SC justice, but that priviledge should not be given to those who disagree.

it is not the same as voting for someone with an agenda such as a pro-lifer's agenda and voting for someone that supports the law of the land - we are not and hope will never be a theocracy

[LisaM22]

<snip>

Democrats legislate religion out of the public square and out of schools because THEY don't want it.
<snip>

IMO

religion is allowed in public schools, just not forced religion or proselytizing by the teachers, students can pray or whatever they want as long as they do not disrupt the other students from learning in the process, in fact most schools have a world religions elective, every school library has a bible on the shelves available to students to check out, so not sure what you are talking about, no teachers can not tell students they are gonna go to hell for not believing if that is what you want, I hope that never is allowed to happen

[LisaM22]

We are rapidly becoming a theocracy....because the left is remaking America to worship "mother earth" as our central god. Cap and Tax and "global warming" is the religion of left (IMO) and they are legislating our lives accordingly.

IMO

protecting our home makes us a theocracy? protecting the earth makes us a theocracy? how much do we spend defending our home, let's take a look at our military budget and look see - are you really against that? I guess if your religion believes in Armageddon you really would not care about what happens to the earth as you feel it must be destroyed for it to be saved?

[LisaM22]

Nice try, but National Security is part of the US Constitution. Mercury laden lightbulbs and ethenol isn't. Those are pure inventions of the democratic party. There is nothing wrong with people choosing to conserve and working to convince others to do so. It's when you legislate away freedom in the name of a theory that is the basis to legislate the "morality of mother earth", that a theocracy is created.

Democrats (at least from what I can see) find wealth morally repugnant and legislate ways to redistribute that wealth as they feel it should "morally" be distributed.

There was a democrat in office at the start of WW2 and Korean war so the military budget meme fails to defeat the argument that the left would be happy with a theocracy in America as long as the god worshipped was mother earth.

IMO

we already have regulations for food service, cars, fuel, electricity, prescriptions, ect, are you saying we should do away with such regulations

the word god in any thing government means all and any gods or even the idea that god = everything and not a being at all, not one particular god, Obama is a Christian, but that doesn't mean all Americans need to be Christian, it just means Obama is a Christian, democrats do not descrimintate the way you try to portend

[Jay]

My opinion -
As much as precedent and law drive a legal conclusion, it is more a reflection of personal philosophy, approach, and even personal agenda that influences the differences more than experiences.

Especially on matters of "first impression".

Before precedent though, the courts had only thier collective/individual intelligence to rule on an issue.

When a 4TH Amendment case was decided, what other resource, before precedent, was there to rely on except a common sense approach, etc.

No UNreasonable searches and seizures! So how does a judge/justice define "unreasonable"??


Cases that come before the SCOTUS arrive there precisely because they are difficult and somewhat unclear in law and the Constitution - hence, there is also a reason why there are 9 justices instead of 1 decider.
jmo


The 1st SC only had 6 Justices, the Chief Justice included, so if there was a tie, the decision of the lower court stood.

[Jay]

Yes, I do think the federal government needs to get out of regulating people's lives. It's nothing more than government controling people's liberty and directing people to live how the government thinks we should live. THAT is not the role of the government as set forth in the constitution! Can you point to any governmental document that refers to "god" in a lower case?

IMO


GOD, is secular in nature, as so ruled, and endorses no religion under the Establsihment clause.

[Jay]

Thanks for the legal history. I am clearly not a scholar in this area, but find a lot of this interesting.

As to the info on "precedent", what you say makes sense.....I am not really even a big fan of it since I fear that if one case is decided poorly from the collective wisdom, it could set precedent for cases after it to also come to a poor conclusion.
But, I understand why it is often used in legal judgements - and why it can be so darn difficult to undo once precedent is set!

jmo


The US SC has overruled themselves about 200 times since 1789, but mainly minor decisions. The most recent I believe was Lawrence v. Texas,a major ruling, overruling Bowers v. Hardwick.

The SC itself has stated precedent is not absolutely binding, but will only be overruled when the times demand it.

[Susan43]

The US SC has overruled themselves about 200 times since 1789, but mainly minor decisions. The most recent I believe was Lawrence v. Texas, overruling Bowers v. Hardwick, a major ruling.

The SC itself has stated precedent is not absolutely binding, but will only be overruled when the times demand it.

Hi Jay! :seeya: How nice to see you here. Soooooo, what is your opinion of our nominee?

Personally, I haven't watched much of the hearing, I tried to but found myself getting irritated by the pontificating by the Senators.

[Jay]

Hi Jay! :seeya: How nice to see you here. Soooooo, what is your opinion of our nominee?

Personally, I haven't watched much of the hearing, I tried to but found myself getting irritated by the pontificating by the Senators.


Hi Susie Q!


I think she is more than qualified, as most Circuit Appeals Judges would be.

Sandra Day O'Connor was simply a lower state appeals court judge from Arizona, no federal experience.

[Jay]

Really? Where did you get that idea?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

What in that statement rules that God is secular in nature?

:lol: :lol:

This is why "In GOD we trust" is permitted on money and "one nation under God" is permitted in the Pledge of Allegiance!

If we were to use the terms Jesus/Jesus Christ or Buddha, it would be endorsing a particular religion, most probably.

GOD does not endorse any particular religion. Many state constitution's Preamble's, or in the body of them, praise God or some type of Diety.

[Susan43]

Hi Susie Q!


I think she is more than qualified, as most Circuit Appeals Judges would be.

Sandra Day O'Connor was simply a lower state appeals court judge from Arizona, no federal experience.

Good! I respect your opinion. Did you by any chance read the article I posted by Eugene Robinson? It's terrific. IMO he hit the nail on the head.

It really is amazing that the air conditioning can keep up with all the Senatorial hot air.

[Lady_Jean_La]

Agree, but claiming the establishment clause makes "God" secular is a twist of facts and logic when it doesn't even use the word God. Progressives try so hard to rewrite our history to deny the fact that our country was formed by God fearing men (whether Diests or of another Christian faith) its almost funny. Almost.

IMO

Imagine the Founders not only risking their fortunes and lives but their immortal souls. imo

But there is no religious test for the SC.

[Jay]

Agree, but claiming the establishment clause makes "God" secular is a twist of facts and logic when it doesn't even use the word God. Progressives try so hard to rewrite our history to deny the fact that our country was formed by God fearing men (whether Diests or of another Christian faith) its almost funny. Almost.

IMO

Read a summary of the Newdow case here. First the 9th Circuit DID rule "One nation under GOD" violated the establishment clause, it was appealed to the US SC. They reversed only due to the issue of Prudential standing, it was remanded and the 9th reversed themselves.

When you see the LEMON TEST, click on the link, it cites the 3 prong Lemon test for secular law and whether a law/custom/practice, will pass Constitutional muster


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow


If you may remember the famed athiest Madelyn O'hair filed suit in the 1960's to remove GOD from money, that is "In God we trust", she lost. This was before the Lemon case though.

LORD does appear in the Constitution itself, but only as a reference to the year 1787 A.D., in Article 7.

[theal3]

Imagine the Founders not only risking their fortunes and lives but their immortal souls. imo

But there is no religious test for the SC.

Nor for any elected or appointed office. Thank Goodness.

[RayStar]

Good! I respect your opinion. Did you by any chance read the article I posted by Eugene Robinson? It's terrific. IMO he hit the nail on the head.

It really is amazing that the air conditioning can keep up with all the Senatorial hot air.I read your post on Mr. Robinson. I am really trying to figure out Lindsey Graham. This man is so angry that John McCain did not win? It is an obsession. IMO
Anyone wonder if that wise Latino comment had never been made what would these guys jump on her about???

[Lady_Jean_La]

Nor for any elected or appointed office. Thank Goodness.

That would be a subject for another thead or forum. imo

[Susan43]

I read your post on Mr. Robinson. I am really trying to figure out Lindsey Graham. This man is so angry that John McCain did not win? It is an obsession. IMO
Anyone wonder if that wise Latino comment had never been made what would these guys jump on her about???

LOL I know, it seems like everytime I saw a vid of the hearing there was another Republican bringing it up. IMO that just shows how much wiser she really is. :biggrin:

I heard somewhere (dang I hate having a bad memory) that Rush went after Graham for being too nice to Sotomayor on the opening day. So he remedied that on the second day. LOL I also heard someone (maybe the same someone) say that Graham had a lot of nerve questioning her "temperament" since he was just a strong follower of McCain, who is known for his volatile temperament. LOL

[Susan43]

Minnesota should be so proud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJNsfXtYgCY

Franken mocks the process by asking Sotomayor about Perry Mason episodes. :rolleyes:

Good to know Stuart Smalley takes his role so seriously.

IMO

Yes, God forbid there should be any humanity in the hearing. What could he have been thinking. :lol:

But for those that didn't see Franken's questioning. He opened his time by saying that he found it interesting that she decided to become a prosecutor after watching Perry Mason, where the prosecutor lost every case (exept one). I have to say I find that interesting too. I can see a defense attorney saying that Perry Mason influenced them, but to decide to become a prosecutor? Makes me wonder how her mind works.

[Susan43]

Warming the Room With a Confident Touch

Here is what Sonia Sotomayor has revealed about herself, after answering six hours of questions yesterday in her second day of Senate confirmation hearings:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071403171.html?hpid=topnews

Terrific article! :thumbsup:

[Lady_Jean_La]

Read a summary of the Newdow case here. First the 9th Circuit DID rule "One nation under GOD" violated the establishment clause, it was appealed to the US SC. They reversed only due to the issue of Prudential standing, it was remanded and the 9th reversed themselves.

When you see the LEMON TEST, click on the link, it cites the 3 prong Lemon test for secular law and whether a law/custom/practice, will pass Constitutional muster


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow


If you may remember the famed athiest Madelyn O'hair filed suit in the 1960's to remove GOD from money, that is "In God we trust", she lost. This was before the Lemon case though.

LORD does appear in the Constitution itself, but only as a reference to the year 1787 A.D., in Article 7.

Here is an example.

He also asserted that the summary order cited a district court analysis that did not exist.

The three-judge panel, including Sotomayor, “said that they relied upon the district court’s analysis of the Lemon test,” said DePrimo, referring to the guidelines set out for Establishment Clause cases in the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtzman.

“The district court didn’t analyze the case under the Lemon Test,” said DePrimo. “The district court made no mention of the Lemon Test. So to say that they were accepting the lower court’s analysis and reasoning obviously is not correct,”

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50678

[Not Telling]

Minnesota should be so proud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJNsfXtYgCY

Franken mocks the process by asking Sotomayor about Perry Mason episodes. :rolleyes:

Good to know Stuart Smalley takes his role so seriously.

IMO



Sen. Tom Coburn Evokes Ricky Ricardo While Speaking To Sotomayor: "You'll Have Lots Of Splainin' To Do"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/15/coburn-evokes-ricky-ricar_n_233555.html

[Susan43]

Unfortunately for Sotomayor she DID make that kind of comment several times though. SO, now she has to live with it and quite honestly, I find it uncomfortable to hear her try to defend the indefensible because she did say it.
It is hardly the fault of the Republicans that she said what she did.

Perhaps if you want to find anger at the nomination of a SC Justice, you would like to re-visit Ted Kennedy and Judge Bork.
jmo

After re-visiting the Bork decision, I am delighted that Bork was not elevated to the SC. Personally I am firmly in the camp that believes we have a right to privacy.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/22/us/the-bork-hearings-packwood-seeing-threat-to-privacy-opposes-bork.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork

[Susan43]

Sen. Tom Coburn Evokes Ricky Ricardo While Speaking To Sotomayor: "You'll Have Lots Of Splainin' To Do"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/15/coburn-evokes-ricky-ricar_n_233555.html

LOL yep, and if you read the article I posted from WaPo you'll see that Grassley made a joke and made Sotomayor LOL.

Here's the link in case you missed it, it's a great article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071403171.html?hpid=topnews

[Not Telling]

LOL yep, and if you read the article I posted from WaPo you'll see that Grassley made a joke and made Sotomayor LOL.

Here's the link in case you missed it, it's a great article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071403171.html?hpid=topnews

I did read it....thanks! Great article!

[Susan43]

I have no problem with a little banter and humor in the proceedings, but after watching Franken, I found him to be waaaay out of his league here.
He didn't come across as even a light-weight. Maybe a fly-weight.
jmo

He brought up one subject that is very important and one that the right and left agree on, net neutrality.

The subjects he brought up are important to progressives so it's no surprise they didn't interest you.

[Susan43]

Hey, you are the one who recently admitted to not getting into watching the proceedings, so I don't think I will take your opinion on it too seriously.
I don't have a real problem on the subject matter that he questioned (and got the typical non-response to), but rather his halting style where even he seemed to understand that he didn't belong there.

jmo

I really can't understand why you would bother replying to my posts if you are going to insult me. Please do me a favor and just not answer OK? Because I did watch Senators Spector and Franken today and personally, I was pretty impressed with Franken especially considering he's only been a Senator about a week.

[Brentwood]

I think that bringing out a stereotype statement like "splaining" is inserting prejudice. I find it insulting. I am a Swedish-American citizen, but none-the-less, when one of us is diminished, we all are.

[Susan43]

I think that bringing out a stereotype statement like "splaining" is inserting prejudice. I find it insulting. I am a Swedish-American citizen, but none-the-less, when one of us is diminished, we all are.

While what you say is true, I honestly don't think he realized it could be taken as an insult. I think he thought he was being cute and I'd put money on it that he uses that line all the time. It really was used a lot during my lifetime, I guess because we all watched "I Love Lucy" and loved the two of them. And he belongs to my generation.

I'm really not trying to defend him although I realize it sounds like that, but with people his age it's just unconscience. I actually agree with Brownstein here.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=43647

[Brentwood]

While what you say is true, I honestly don't think he realized it could be taken as an insult. I think he thought he was being cute and I'd put money on it that he uses that line all the time. It really was used a lot during my lifetime, I guess because we all watched "I Love Lucy" and loved the two of them. And he belongs to my generation.

I'm really not trying to defend him although I realize it sounds like that, but with people his age it's just unconscience. I actually agree with Brownstein here.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=43647

I see your point. However if Sotomayor was a white American male, any cultural background would not be an issue. Even though I loved the “I love Lucy” show, it presented Lucy as a dizzy wife who had splaining to do.

I also loved watching bewitched in the 60’s but that show presented women as being required to be subservient to the man.

What I am getting at is we should evolve in our thinking from what that era presented as the norm. Why should Sotomayor be treated different than a man would in this situation?

[LisaM22]

Yes, I do think the federal government needs to get out of regulating people's lives. It's nothing more than government controling people's liberty and directing people to live how the government thinks we should live. THAT is not the role of the government as set forth in the constitution! Can you point to any governmental document that refers to "god" in a lower case?

IMO

corps need to be regulated or they will not do the right thing, this has been show over and over, look at the banks, some things do need to be regulated, especially when a product is basically run by a monopoly of one or a couple companies

[Brentwood]

I agree with you. Judge sotomayor should be treated as any man would be with respect and dignity.

jmho

I am a bit of a lurker and do not post often. I agree with your intelligent posts and enjoy reading them. I couldn't agree more with your post about Sotomayor...that she should be treated equally and with respect and dignity.

[LisaM22]

Links to teachers telling children they were going to hell for not believing a specific religious doctrine? Link to school libraries having bibles available for check out?

True, students can pray before or after school and must not "disturb" other students...but what does that mean? I worked with a woman who nearly had a cow when she saw another coworker with a bible on her desk.....at a private company. Does that constitute a disturbance?

And claiming that "world religion" as an elective defeats the argument that democrats want religion out of schools doesn't defeat the truth that it has always been the democratic party that puts forth legislation to deny the expression of Judeo-Christian values in public schools.

IMO

do you really need links to show that teachers have tried to do this?

timeandspace : "And claiming that "world religion" as an elective defeats the argument that democrats want religion out of schools"

yes it does, it is not the religion we have a problem with it is the proselytizing, heck we voted for a Christian for goodness sakes, were not against religion, just the proselytizing of religion in public schools


timeandspace : "True, students can pray before or after school and must not "disturb" other students...but what does that mean? I worked with a woman who nearly had a cow when she saw another coworker with a bible on her desk.....at a private company. Does that constitute a disturbance?"

it means you can not disrupt class while practicing your religion on school grounds, example, no rain dances in the hallways while class is in session .....

[LisaM22]

Really? Where did you get that idea?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

What in that statement rules that God is secular in nature?

:lol: :lol:

you just answered your own question... God in Government is secular in nature, that is the only reason it is allowed, to make it Christian, Muslim or any one religions god, woudl mean it woudl have to go, so no republican lawmaker would ever say in court it stood for a certain god, they woudl say it was secular, just like Christmas and like Christmas, it has become just that (secular), it is like saying all holidays are holly days, rather they secular days of importance that we call holidays - it has all back fired on the fanatics, what they forced into government has not converted the world to their religion at all, it has made secular what was once religious in nature, separation of church and state is not only best for government, it is best for the church as well

[Lady_Jean_La]

AP

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/07/14/national/a001002D74.DTL&type=business

Legal terms explained.

[LisaM22]

timeand space,

this is a interesting case, federal holidays are just recognizing the secular cultural aspects of a public holiday

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/12/07/loc_judge_invokes_santa.html

"Judge Dlott said the government is “merely acknowledging the secular cultural aspects of Christmas by declaring Christmas to be a legal public holiday. ... "

[dref99]

I read your post on Mr. Robinson. I am really trying to figure out Lindsey Graham. This man is so angry that John McCain did not win? It is an obsession. IMO
Anyone wonder if that wise Latino comment had never been made what would these guys jump on her about???

They would have found something equally trivial - the people who are making these remarks are mainly white men who cannot relate to anyone other than a white man in a position of power.

I would suggest that Snr Graham is probably much more upset that Obama won, rather than that John McCain lost.

I enjoyed Franken's remarks/questions. At least he asked a question as opposed to those expounding on their own brilliance while downgrading the ability and experience of Sotomayor.

The temperament of Sotomayor having to listen to and mainly ignore the unjustified criticism is amazing. Difficult to see too many other folks being able to do this - it well demonstrates her abilities as an impartial Judge.


jmo

[RayStar]

Yes Dref99 it is still hard to listen and watch LG go after the judge because BO is president.

SM will be confirmed so they just need to leave her alone tomorrow. I doubt many female repubs followers of LG or JS are enjoying how they are attacking the judge. Women have come a long way and we still have many bridges to burn!

I am truly concerned with Lindsey Graham. He appears to be so troubled by Obama's win. IMO

[Lady_Jean_La]

Does nobody else find this troubling?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_sotomayor_senate

If you won't comment on abortion, gun rights, suicide rights, or the overextension of Congress' authority, then what will you comment on as a Supreme Court nominee?

As far as credentials as a constitutional scholar go, Bork is head and shoulder's above and well out of Sotomayor's league. And before you default to "Bork was an idiot", let's remember that had he declined to answer inquiry during the confirmation process, we would have never known that he, as a strict contructionalist, did not find a penumbral right to privacy in the Bill of Rights, and thus no basis for Roe v. Wade. We have no such insight on this nominee.

When a federal Judge tosses out that empathy should play a role in judicial decisions (even adjusted for the context in which the comment was said), it gets my attention. Since I heard that quote, my question has been "How does one show empathy for one group and not discriminate against another?". Just to be clear, I don't think it can be done. In fact, I might go so far as to argue that invoking "empathy" in judicial decisions offends the very concept that we are a nation of laws, not men. And where doe her empathy lie? Who knows?, she ducked every substantive question.

She may very well be qualified. I don't question her intelligence. But to look to polls and decide that responding to legitimate, and perhaps uncomfortable, items of inquiry may be evaded simply because she is likely to win anyway defeats the whole purpose of the confirmation process and does nothing to instill confidence in the public in this nominee and, by proxy, this administration.

Form over substance may have a time and place, but not when deciding on who fills the 9th seat on the Supreme Court. I don't like this one little bit.

President Obama won and he gets his choice unless he picks a raving maniac, child molester or tax evader. The purpose of the process is to eliminate some major error. Other than that the President gets his choice.

imo

[Susan43]

Does nobody else find this troubling?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_sotomayor_senate

If you won't comment on abortion, gun rights, suicide rights, or the overextension of Congress' authority, then what will you comment on as a Supreme Court nominee?

As far as credentials as a constitutional scholar go, Bork is head and shoulder's above and well out of Sotomayor's league. And before you default to "Bork was an idiot", let's remember that had he declined to answer inquiry during the confirmation process, we would have never known that he, as a strict contructionalist, did not find a penumbral right to privacy in the Bill of Rights, and thus no basis for Roe v. Wade. We have no such insight on this nominee.

When a federal Judge tosses out that empathy should play a role in judicial decisions (even adjusted for the context in which the comment was said), it gets my attention. Since I heard that quote, my question has been "How does one show empathy for one group and not discriminate against another?". Just to be clear, I don't think it can be done. In fact, I might go so far as to argue that invoking "empathy" in judicial decisions offends the very concept that we are a nation of laws, not men. And where doe her empathy lie? Who knows?, she ducked every substantive question.

She may very well be qualified. I don't question her intelligence. But to look to polls and decide that responding to legitimate, and perhaps uncomfortable, items of inquiry may be evaded simply because she is likely to win anyway defeats the whole purpose of the confirmation process and does nothing to instill confidence in the public in this nominee and, by proxy, this administration.

Form over substance may have a time and place, but not when deciding on who fills the 9th seat on the Supreme Court. I don't like this one little bit.

Nope, I'm not at all worried about it. And I am delighted that Bork didn't get confirmed. I believe in the right to privacy and evidently Bork doesn't. It isn't just Roe V Wade the relies on the right to privacy. We have a whole raft of issues that have been decided on that point, like birth control for example.

Here is Alito at his confirmation hearing.

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. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.
http://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2009/07/meet-hypocrites-senators-jeff-sessions.html

And here is something from the Thomas confirmation hearing.

"I have followed this man's career for some time," said President George H.W. Bush of Clarence Thomas in July 1991. "He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor."
http://www.americablog.com/2009/07/ah-empathy.html

It's a shame that the right has tried to turn empathy into a negative, when obviously it used to be a positive.

[daniel green]

While what you say is true, I honestly don't think he realized it could be taken as an insult. snipped]

Even if he didn't mean it as an insult, to use a Spanish-speaker's mispronounciation of that word was, well, tacky at best. I think goes along with his thinking about minorities, given his track record and previous statements that kept him from being a judge.

[daniel green]

snipped I actually agree with Brownstein here.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=43647

I certainly agree with this, from it:

The comment blew up a rhumba storm of controversy the minute he said it. "Tin ear!", railed an AP story. Mr. Coburn also got a little nunchucked on Politico. How could this guy say something so old-fashioned, Latin-stereotyped to a Latina when cultural background and its effect on legal decisions was the big argument over her confirmation as one of the Supremes? What would have happened in the Clarence Thomas hearings if someone had referred to "Amos and Andy," or with Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the TV series, "The Goldbergs?" "Yoohoo, Kingfish!"

[shiloh2000]

I agree. There are so many relevant things he could have inquired about, while adding humor. He seemed totally out of place.

IMO

Relevant? Franken relevant? Don't think so.....

[shiloh2000]

Does nobody else find this troubling?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_sotomayor_senate

If you won't comment on abortion, gun rights, suicide rights, or the overextension of Congress' authority, then what will you comment on as a Supreme Court nominee?

As far as credentials as a constitutional scholar go, Bork is head and shoulder's above and well out of Sotomayor's league. And before you default to "Bork was an idiot", let's remember that had he declined to answer inquiry during the confirmation process, we would have never known that he, as a strict contructionalist, did not find a penumbral right to privacy in the Bill of Rights, and thus no basis for Roe v. Wade. We have no such insight on this nominee.

When a federal Judge tosses out that empathy should play a role in judicial decisions (even adjusted for the context in which the comment was said), it gets my attention. Since I heard that quote, my question has been "How does one show empathy for one group and not discriminate against another?". Just to be clear, I don't think it can be done. In fact, I might go so far as to argue that invoking "empathy" in judicial decisions offends the very concept that we are a nation of laws, not men. And where doe her empathy lie? Who knows?, she ducked every substantive question.

She may very well be qualified. I don't question her intelligence. But to look to polls and decide that responding to legitimate, and perhaps uncomfortable, items of inquiry may be evaded simply because she is likely to win anyway defeats the whole purpose of the confirmation process and does nothing to instill confidence in the public in this nominee and, by proxy, this administration.

Form over substance may have a time and place, but not when deciding on who fills the 9th seat on the Supreme Court. I don't like this one little bit.

What bothers me is she'll get in just because BO wants her regardless of qualifications. Her avoiding to answer pertinent questions were actually answered by her refusing to do so.

[RayStar]

What bothers me is she'll get in just because BO wants her regardless of qualifications. Her avoiding to answer pertinent questions were actually answered by her refusing to do so.No her qualifications stand alone with BO's approval.

[ABC]

What bothers me is she'll get in just because BO wants her regardless of qualifications. Her avoiding to answer pertinent questions were actually answered by her refusing to do so.

Sonis Sotomayer is a graduate of Yale and Princeton, two very high flying instituations and has seventeen years of experience as a Judge. She has actually been appointed to the bench by both George W. and Obama. I don't know how much more she could be qualified.

[RayStar]

No her qualifications stand alone without BO's approval.


Editing my post after the time allowed has passed. should have been without.

[ABC]

I have asked several times in this thread - which seems to be ignored - but will try again.

If qualifications are only graduating from a great university, serving well on lower courts and having a decent judicial temperment, WHY did Obama as a Senator vote "no" on justices Roberts and Alito?
(I recognize that you think they are good justices, but why not Obama?)

Did something change along the way to confirming judges somewhere? IMO, yes. Witness the hearings on Bork, Thomas, Roberts and Alito.
Raptor, thats easy. Obama was voting along with party lines. Bork was a great man and very qualified to be on the Court. He should have bee confirmed and it was a witch hunt. Instead we got years of Souter and STevens. To me, that is a clear demonstration of how these "elected officals" is cutting the USA off from its greatness. I doubt the Founders had a vision of this Petty going on.

[Lady_Jean_La]

What bothers me is she'll get in just because BO wants her regardless of qualifications. Her avoiding to answer pertinent questions were actually answered by her refusing to do so.

That's the way the system works. imo

[LisaM22]

Sonis Sotomayer is a graduate of Yale and Princeton, two very high flying instituations and has seventeen years of experience as a Judge. She has actually been appointed to the bench by both George W. and Obama. I don't know how much more she could be qualified.

she is about as bipartisan of a pick as you can get, Obama did not have to do that, but he did, really I am not sure why,he could of picked anyone

[Lady_Jean_La]

she is about as bipartisan of a pick as you can get, Obama did not have to do that, but he did, really I am not sure why,he could of picked anyone

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is an historic pick. Very important for the President. imo

[LisaM22]

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is an historic pick. Very important for the President. imo

Obama has already made the history books, what matters to him now is that he does a good job as president, so America prospers and history speaks well of him, think that should be a goal of all presidents, heck, I would of been happy had the last president just left America in the same condition he found it in when he took office, Obama does not have that luxury

[Susan43]

GOP Grilling of Sotomayor: No Hit with Hispanic Voters

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1910842,00.html

[RayStar]

Angry Lindsey Graham asked her something about a cookbook for an answer he wanted. Now I wish she had said no the auto mechanics magazine is down the hall.

These men are driving me NUTS. Sessions wants to give us back to King George or something that is running around in his head that the judge did not rule on.

This nomination is being watched very closely and perhaps it might be wise to make a wise decision in confirming a wise woman.:biggrin:

[ABC]

Angry Lindsey Graham asked her something about a cookbook for an answer he wanted. Now I wish she had said no the auto mechanics magazine is down the hall.

These men are driving me NUTS. Sessions wants to give us back to King George or something that is running around in his head that the judge did not rule on.

This nomination is being watched very closely and perhaps it might be wise to make a wise decision in confirming a wise woman.:biggrin:

I know exactly how you feel. They were driving me nuts during the Roberts and Alito hearing. It was actually worse in my opinion cause Teddy and Joe Biden kept making speechs and Teddy was fixated on abortion. They even made Ms Alito cry, they were so mean.

[ABC]

:angry: yeah ... all that posturing and for sure neither Alito or Roberts should have been confirmed.

:scared: 40+ years of Roberts, another time, another thread, to talk about term limits for the USSC.

Thankfully, its hard to keep a good man down. I will go with the vision of the :patriot:Founders who have have well for us in the last 200 plus years.

[Carol25]

Thankfully, its hard to keep a good man down. I will go with the vision of the :patriot:Founders who have have well for us in the last 200 plus years.

That is if we would follow our constitution and its intent. I am not sure we are.

I agree, the Founding Fathers were blessed with insight, but not enough for the straining of the constitutions purposes as we are doing at this time.

[California]

I think the folks who are brilliant enough to be on the Court are way beyond gender, bias and the like and if they did not start off that way, the Court trandsends them. Sonia is a great addition to the Court.Great explanation. She did a great job.

[SeeksJustice]

I don't have the time to educate you on the historical constructs the founders relied upon in creating this Constitutional Republic, no to the arguments that went into the final signing. Yes, my response is strident because it reflects my frustration at progressives who think the Constitution is a suggestion that is as outdated as an episode of the Brady Bunch, when they have probably not ever actually read the Constitution, nor read the Federalist Papers or countless books that include biographies of the signers or arguments held during the founding of the country. They base this falicy on what they learn in grade school and what they have been told by commenters on Huffington Post.

Yeah, it's frustrating.

IMO

I think you are incorrect to suggest that the original Constitution would stand, as it was written, today. If it were NOT outdated, then explain why it is that there have been MANY amendments to it. If our Founding Fathers had not wanted ANY changes to the original Constitution be made, they would have left out Article Five.

Our country and times have changed. It is only natural that what is in the Constitution should change as well.

Huff Post has nothing to do with anything and really just made your comments trival.

[Jay]

The Constitution provided for the Amendment process as specific proof that it is not a living, changing document. The process to Amend the constitution is not an easy, flexible process for a reason.


I have to disagree here somewhat, although Scalia does not like the term "living/breathing document", I disagree with him also.

The process is not easy, no, but is in place for as many AM's as would pass. One Justice, who's name escapes me, said the Constitution must change as times change, or as we change clothes, or such?


There have only been 17 Amendments to it in the last 200+ years (excluding the original Bill of Rights) for a reason.



As a little trivia, not saying you don't know already, but if we look at the 27th AM, it was actually AM/Article 2, as proposed to the states in 1789.

Amendment XXVII

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

The 1st and 2nd Article's/AM's of the Bill of Rights were not ratified of the 12 proposed/sent to the states.

The Bill of Rights in the Archives has all 12 Articles as proposed.

[Not Telling]

At least we know Sotomayor is well versed on Perry Mason.

http://rss.usatoday.mlogic3g.com/detail.jsp?key=512147&amp;rc=news

Perhaps she should have spent the time studying.

http://patterico.com/2009/07/15/sotomayorisms-you-like-suck-at-talking-your-imminence/

IMO

Perhaps if Cheney had spent more time studying, rather than accumulating multiple DUIs and five draft deferments, he might not have flunked out of Yale, twice...

Perhaps if Bush had spent more time studying, he would have been better than a "C" student and learned how to pronounce the word "nuclear"..... jmo

[LisaM22]

That is if we would follow our constitution and its intent. I am not sure we are.

I agree, the Founding Fathers were blessed with insight, but not enough for the straining of the constitutions purposes as we are doing at this time.

bush was able to select his choice of SC judges, if they are anything like Bush, the years of treating the constitution like just a piece of paper will be with us for some time, let's just hope they never get full control of the SC

[Not Telling]

Wow, that's your defense of the SC nominee. Very "telling"

IMO

And your best defense is to attack her extemporaneous spoken word rather than her rulings?

[Not Telling]

Her rulings are of record...including how many times they were overturned. My comments were directed at the hearings in which she displayed poor intellect. IMO


If you had paid attention to the context of her answers you should know that what she said was not a display of poor intellect..

*Intellect*
noun
The faculty of thinking, reasoning, and acquiring and applying knowledge.



Furthermore, if you had read her written rulings, it should be obvious that she has great intellectual ability.

jmo

[California]

bush was able to select his choice of SC judges, if they are anything like Bush, the years of treating the constitution like just a piece of paper will be with us for some time, let's just hope they never get full control of the SC

Were his choices all approved?

[California]

Obama has already made the history books, what matters to him now is that he does a good job as president, so America prospers and history speaks well of him, think that should be a goal of all presidents, heck, I would of been happy had the last president just left America in the same condition he found it in when he took office, Obama does not have that luxury

President Obama's choices will make him look good. mho

[LisaM22]

President Obama's choices will make him look good. mho

yep, that is what I was saying, I think just the fact that he is doing things for the right reasons makes him look good to me, it's been too long sense we had a president that really cared about the people of this great county, Obama may make some mistakes along the way I am sure, he is human, but I think he will do a great job:patriot:

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Please have patience with me..I dont know all the ins and outs of your Consitution.etc..but I have watched the confirmation hearing for Sonia. I just dont grasp all the hoopla by the Rep. people who kept asking her the same few questions..really a very narrow agenda..Even I would have hd questions..that would shed more light on her qualifications and appropriateness for this asignment to the USSC...

Am I wrong, they kept talking about the reversal of her judgement in that Fireman's case....I read that the Supreme court didnt find fault with her ruling, but went ahead and changed the Precedent to the law. in a vote 5-4..So..then how could they find fault with her ruling, if it took the Supreme Court to change "the Rules" she had followed??..I just dont get that at all?..Seems rather off the mark if they were trying to find fault with her ruling...Course..What do I know??

LMS

[Susan43]

Yesterday I watched the testimony of the ABA witnesses. Here is a portion of their testimony. From the transcript.

A nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States must possess exceptional professional qualifications. That is, a high degree of scholarship, academic talent, analytical and writing ability, and overall excellence. And because of that, our investigations of Supreme Court nominees is more extensive than the nominations to the lower federal courts.

And they're procedurally different in two ways. First, all circuit members participate in the evaluations. An investigation is conducted in every circuit, not just the circuit in which the nominee resides. Second, in addition to the Standing Committee reading the writings of the nominee, we commission three reading groups of distinguished scholars and practitioners who also review the nominee's legal writings and advise the Standing Committee.

Georgetown University Law Center and Syracuse University School of Law formed reading groups this year, and these groups were comprised of professors who are all recognized experts in their substantive areas of law. A practitioner's reading group was also formed, and that group was also comprised of nationally recognized lawyers with substantial trial and appellate practices. All of them are familiar with Supreme Court practices, and many have clerked for justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.

In connection with Judge Sotomayor's evaluation, we initially contacted some 2600 persons who were likely to have relevant knowledge of her professional qualifications. This included every United States federal judge, state judges, lawyers, law professors and deans, and, of course, members of the community and bar representatives. We received 850 responses to our contracts, and we personally interviewed or received detailed letters or e-mails from over 500 judges, lawyers, and others in the community who knew Judge Sotomayor or who had appeared before her.

We also analyzed transcripts, speeches, other materials, and, of course, Ms. Boies and I interviewed her, and it is on that basis that we reached the unanimous conclusion as a Standing Committee that she was well qualified.

Well qualified is the highest ABA rating.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071602628.html

There is more at the site. I was a little stunned at the extent of their research.

[California]

FWIW I totally agree and you do understand; that ruling was interesting to say the least. If that represents the total concern about Sotomayor's qualifications, imo ... time to call a vote and stop the posturing. Confirm the lady.

There won't be a problem. mho:biggrin:

[Lady_Jean_La]

Angry Lindsey Graham asked her something about a cookbook for an answer he wanted. Now I wish she had said no the auto mechanics magazine is down the hall.

These men are driving me NUTS. Sessions wants to give us back to King George or something that is running around in his head that the judge did not rule on.

This nomination is being watched very closely and perhaps it might be wise to make a wise decision in confirming a wise woman.:biggrin:

I don't think the nomination is being watched closely by the avaerage person. The ratings were low the first day with much less coverage after that. She will be confirmed but nothing exciting there. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071901772.html

The whole affair lacked a key element -- suspense -- as Republicans quickly conceded the judge was a lock for confirmation. There was no hint of personal impropriety. The focus has been squarely on a few Sotomayor rulings and off-the-bench comments, particularly her clumsy "wise Latina" remark.

[Lady_Jean_La]

:bored: Another lie and an ugly slideshow, bet Howard Kurtz is NOT thrilled with AP using him this way.Who lied?

:confused:

[daniel green]

GOP Grilling of Sotomayor: No Hit with Hispanic Voters

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1910842,00.html

Nope. Not pleased at all.

Are the GOP trying to lose the few Latino voters they had left after November???? :confused:

[daniel green]

Latino voters? Are they trying to lose the few any voters they might have left?

Oops. My bad. :blushing:

Yet the Sotomayor show was still rich in historical significance. Someday we may regard it as we do those final, frozen tableaus of Pompeii. It offered a vivid snapshot of what Washington looked like when clueless ancien-régime conservatives were feebly clinging to their last levers of power, blissfully oblivious to the new America that was crashing down on their heads and reducing their antics to a sideshow as ridiculous as it was obsolescent. The hearings were pure “Alice in Wonderland.” Reality was turned upside down. Southern senators who relate every question to race, ethnicity and gender just assumed that their unreconstructed obsessions are America’s and that the country would find them riveting. Instead the country yawned. The Sotomayor questioners also assumed a Hispanic woman, simply for being a Hispanic woman, could be portrayed as The Other and patronized like a greenhorn unfamiliar with How We Do Things Around Here. The senators seemed to have no idea they were describing themselves when they tried to caricature Sotomayor as an overemotional, biased ideologue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/opinion/19rich.html?em

Bless their hearts, they are just so out of touch with the 21st century.

In the new Gallup poll, btw, it shows that the 1-29 yrs old demo has 70% approval of the President.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121199/Obama-Weekly-Job-Approval-Demographic-Groups.aspx

[daniel green]

:sneaky: Dang that Obama, he tricked them. How dare he nominate a qualified moderate jurist?

Probly used hope and change. :cursing:

[Lady_Jean_La]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121799/Support-Sotomayor-Essentially-Unchanged-Hearings.aspx

Still, in the more than two decades of Gallup polling on Supreme Court nominees, no nominee with at least 50% support from the American public failed to win confirmation. The 55% now supporting her is slightly lower than the 60% who favored John Roberts in 2005, but is comparable to the slight majorities who supported Samuel Alito (54%) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (53%) prior to those justices' confirmations. :thumbsup:

[Lady_Jean_La]

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=111524&catid=14

On the question of whether the high court should allow its proceedings to be televised, Sotomayor signaled that she's a thumbs up. :thumbup:

[daniel green]

The Republicans are sending mixed signals and making missteps on race. While some bemoan the dearth of minorities in the party, others seem bent on ensuring it. At last week’s Young Republican National Convention, Michael Steele joked that he would welcome blacks to the party with “fried chicken and potato salad.” At the same meeting, the group threw racial sensitivity to the wind by electing a woman as its president even though she had a racially offensive exchange on her Facebook page. Then there was the awkward juxtaposition of Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, going after Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court nominee, over racial language in her speeches. This is the same Sessions whose own nomination to the federal court was torpedoed after reports emerged that he had called the N.A.A.C.P. “communist-inspired,” but once joked that he had thought the Ku Klux Klan was “O.K.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/opinion/18blow.html

[Lady_Jean_La]

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?last_story=/politics/war_room/2009/07/21/palin_tenth/

Since Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, didn't have a complete meltdown during her confirmation hearings, more and more Republicans are now hopping on her bandwagon as it pulls out of the station. Tuesday, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, became the fourth Senate Republican to announce that she will vote to confirm Sotomayor.

[daniel green]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32251444/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

[Brentwood]

I hope the nra goes down the drain with the right wing.

Go Sotomayor!

[LisaM22]

I am glad we have groups like the NRA, but I agree, assault rifles should be illegal

[watcher2005]

If only we were more helpless, the people who give banksters billions and allow poisons to be put in our food would take better care of us.

[Lady_Jean_La]

Nothing can stop Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She has it made. imo

[Volumina]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32251444/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

I absolutelely love it.:thumbsup:

[Lady_Jean_La]

A Wise Latina Woman on a Roll!

And isn't that what the Supreme Court is supposed to be all about???

:confused:Good question.

[Brentwood]

The NRA's threat to punish senators irritates the heck out of me. Some have been bought off.

[Brentwood]

Go Sotomayor! Our Country is better having you, soon to be, on our SC.