Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Seems like Sotomayor (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/26/bio-judge-sonia-sotomayor/) is a good pick. Should be an interesting to watch the confirmation hearing.

So now everything she has ever said will be looked over and over and over etc....again

Seems like Sotomayor (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/26/bio-judge-sonia-sotomayor/) is a good pick. Should be an interesting to watch the confirmation hearing.

Until we find out she's filed some questionable tax returns in recent years. :)

While she will likely be appointed as the Reps can't stop it without a filibuster and she is a liberal, replacing a liberal, she and Obama will take some hits.

From the article: But Sotomayor's work as a judge is not without controversy. During a speech at the University of California at Berkeley, Sotomayor said, "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."
Sotomayor also served on a three-judge panel that declined to address the Constitutional issues at stake in Ricci v. DeStefano, a case involving white firefighters who claim they were denied promotions because of "reverse discrimination."

I added the wiki link.
Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano)

Makes me think about two things; one if a white male said what Sotomayor said, he'd be crucified in the media and would likely be forced to resign from whatever position he had. Second, if her opinion with the majority at the Court of Appeals is overturned at the SCOTUS, what does that say about her legal-reasoning? This case hitting the SCOTUS couldn't come at a worse time for her if they overturn the decision.

From the article again: And in 2005, when Sotomayor spoke on a Duke University forum, she said, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience" because "the court of appeals is where policy is made."

Interesting, I didn't think Federal judges made policy, I thought that was Congress' job.

Boricua!!!

While she will likely be appointed as the Reps can't stop it without a filibuster and she is a liberal, replacing a liberal, she and Obama will take some hits.

From the article: But Sotomayor's work as a judge is not without controversy. During a speech at the University of California at Berkeley, Sotomayor said, "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."
Sotomayor also served on a three-judge panel that declined to address the Constitutional issues at stake in Ricci v. DeStefano, a case involving white firefighters who claim they were denied promotions because of "reverse discrimination."

I added the wiki link.
Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano)

Makes me think about two things; one if a white male said what Sotomayor said, he'd be crucified in the media and would likely be forced to resign from whatever position he had. Second, if her opinion with the majority at the Court of Appeals is overturned at the SCOTUS, what does that say about her legal-reasoning? This case hitting the SCOTUS couldn't come at a worse time for her if they overturn the decision.

From the article again: And in 2005, when Sotomayor spoke on a Duke University forum, she said, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience" because "the court of appeals is where policy is made."

Interesting, I didn't think Federal judges made policy, I thought that was Congress' job.

If white firefighters didn't bring up a lawsuit black firefighters would have. Clearly there's a reason why the courts exist. I can make the argument that fire fighting doesn't require a test beyond how to use your equipment, what to do in certain situations and how to climb up ladders.

You act like she's a servant of the SCOTUS and should therefore think like SC judges. Her job is to discriminate between cases and obviously she has a disagreement with what judges in the SC deemed a case worth looking at. Let's not act high and mighty either, you got Robers and Alito who are fresh arrivales from the Court of Appeals.

Federal judges do make policy, they're just not suppose to call it policy. Judicial ruling sounds much more pleasant to the ear but what is it really? What do you think the SC does? Thumbs up and thumbs down on policy is policy creation! Even my boy Mark Levin knows this.

If white firefighters didn't bring up a lawsuit black firefighters would have. Clearly there's a reason why the courts exist. I can make the argument that fire fighting doesn't require a test beyond how to use your equipment, what to do in certain situations and how to climb up ladders.I haven't seen the test but I'm pretty confident it was a job knowledge test, similar to a test the military services use for promotion. How about the people who perform the best on the test get promoted, regardless of race. Period. If I'm the CIty of New Haven, I'll fight a lawsuit saying the test was racially biased if I know I've done my due diligence and the test is not biased.

You act like she's a servant of the SCOTUS and should therefore think like SC judges. Her job is to discriminate between cases and obviously she has a disagreement with what judges in the SC deemed a case worth looking at. Let's not act high and mighty either, you got Robers and Alito who are fresh arrivales from the Court of Appeals.I don't think she's a servant of the SCOTUS and no one's acting "high and mighty". All I'm saying is if her court's ruling is overturned by the SCOTUS by anything other than 5-4, her "legal reasoning" will be called into question.

Federal judges do make policy, they're just not suppose to call it policy. Judicial ruling sounds much more pleasant to the ear but what is it really? What do you think the SC does? Thumbs up and thumbs down on policy is policy creation! Even my boy Mark Levin (http://www.amazon.com/Men-Black-Supreme-Destroying-America/dp/1596980095/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243359862&sr=8-2) knows this.I've read the book and the whole premise is that Federal judges shouldn't be making policy they should be interpreting laws and settling cases based on law, not what their political agendas are or what they think is the "empathetic" thing to do.

From what I hear was they didn't have any black firefighters. Just one Spanish dude and a lot of white guys. So they didn't promote anyone even though many of these men were qualified and they had a postition to fill.

Typical liberal BS. She wouldn't even be nominated if she wasn't a Puerto Rican and a woman. It's the same as Obama. If he had been Barry Whitebread from po-dunk AL, Hillary would be the president.

I haven't seen the test but I'm pretty confident it was a job knowledge test, similar to a test the military services use for promotion. How about the people who perform the best on the test get promoted, regardless of race. Period. If I'm the CIty of New Haven, I'll fight a lawsuit saying the test was racially biased if I know I've done my due diligence and the test is not biased.


You assume we're all on equal footing. I haven't seen the test either so I can't make an argument for it or against it. I will say this though, if the test was all physical the result would be different.


I don't think she's a servant of the SCOTUS and no one's acting "high and mighty". All I'm saying is if her court's ruling is overturned by the SCOTUS by anything other than 5-4, her "legal reasoning" will be called into question.


Perhaps but lets be honest, she is merely disagreeing with other judges and it's hard to imagine a judge that hasn't disagreed with other judges. That line of attack is easily rebutted and pretty worthless if you don't mind me saying so.


I've read the book and the whole premise is that Federal judges shouldn't be making policy they should be interpreting laws and settling cases based on law, not what their political agendas are or what they think is the "empathetic" thing to do.

I know, my point was that SC has always been filled with political ideologues and empathetic people who make policy. Levin's opinion not withstanding SC judges can do whatever the hell they want. The Constitution places no limits upon what they can or can't do beyond conducting themselves ethically.

From what I hear was they didn't have any black firefighters. Just one Spanish dude and a lot of white guys. So they didn't promote anyone even though many of these men were qualified and they has a postition to fill.

Typical liberal BS. She wouldn't even be nominated if she wasn't a Puerto Rican and a woman. It's the same as Obama. If he had been Barry Whitebread from po-dunk AL, Hillary would be the president.
this has to be one of the most ignorant things posted on this board