Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
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
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.