• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

talloulou said:
It BEATS ME how anyone could listen to a woman laugh at her own audacity of admitting the inadmissible and apologize, justify, or excuse in any way the statement that she immediately all but admits there is no excuse for saying literally seconds after saying it.

And no, that is NOT how the judicial system works.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry.

Just to add. My husband and I did not speak of this nomination all day yesterday. He got home from work and we started watching Hardball. When he heard the quote you all are going nuts over and Pat Buchanan's same talking points as talloulou, he said, "WTF?" He is a trial attorney, and also has a full understanding of how appellate courts can set policy. He often deals with appeals from the DC Circuit. So not having discussed this, we BOTH came to the same conclusion.
 
Last edited:
I would like to make a comment on the New Haven decision. At first blush, I thought it was judicial activism, but after reading on the case, I am not so sure. Rather than dictating quotas to the city of New Haven, Sotomayor was instead was taking a position that the City's jurisdiction was such that the Federal government's intervention would be unconstitutional. It was the city that had made the original decision, and Sotomayor ruled against those challenging that decision. Not sure that it was the right decision, as it allowed the city to set quotas, which IMHO is a Constitutional violation, but she seemed to be deciding on the basis of settled law, in that appellants did not have a valid Title VII claim, and was not creating law. That, of course, is not judicial activism, but I still believe that it was a wrong decision.

Also, Sotomayor does not seem to be making decisions based on color. In Norville v. Staten Island University Hospital, she ruled against a black disabled woman who claimed that white people were given preferential treatment. In Williams v. R H Donnelly and Co, she ruled against a black man claiming racial discrimination.
 
Last edited:
aps said:
You have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Then neither does she since she balked immediately after saying it, tried to take it back emphatically.

But whatever. I guess for some it's easy to straddle two viewpoints simultaneously. Either she's wrong having said it or she was wrong rather hysterically trying to bite it back. How can she be right on both counts is beyond me.

But again, please please please let's talk about her college yearbook where she quotes a famous socialist.
 
WI Crippler said:
Obama to pick Sotomayor for Supreme Court - White House- msnbc.com

I don't know much about her, but according to the article she is experienced enough for the role. They also bring up an interesting tidbit....

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Her taped comments regarding the role of the appellate courts as being a place where POLICY is made are enough to disqualify her in my opinion.

Appellate and Supreme Court Justices should not be in the business of making "POLICY." There role is to properly interpret the laws of the land and the Constitution without prejudice or empathy.

Obama's message by selecting one of the most Liberal nominees he could find to those on the other side of the aisle basically undo the rhetoric he spewed as a candidate suggesting that he wanted to WORK with BOTH sides in a bi-partisan way.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiAnWLUMmYg]YouTube - sonia sotomayor says courts make policy[/ame]
 
talloulou said:
Then neither does she since she balked immediately after saying it, tried to take it back emphatically.

But whatever. I guess for some it's easy to straddle two viewpoints simultaneously. Either she's wrong having said it or she was wrong rather hysterically trying to bite it back. How can she be right on both counts is beyond me.

But again, please please please let's talk about her college yearbook where she quotes a famous socialist.
Click to expand...

I have already indicated that because the Second Circuit is not the court of last resort, she can't say that it makes policy since that policy (or ruling) can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
 
Truth Detector said:
The notion that this lady is a Centrist and NOT a HUGE Liberal make me laugh. :rofl
Click to expand...

Well when she had to pick a quote for her yearbook she went with the guy who ran multiple times on the socialist ticket. If that doesn't clue folks in, nothing well.
 
Re: Conservative groups criticize Sotomayor pick

tlmorg02 said:
Of course the right is against her. Par for the course and expected. Most unbiased commentators have said she is a good candidate remianing centrist on most issues. If the court did not from time to time make leaps forward segregation would still exist, does the right advocate going back that far?
Click to expand...

Ah yes, how quickly the Left wishes us all to forget their vicious PERSONAL attacks on Robert Bork (coining the term being "borked"), Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and even the public smear campaign on Harriet Myers.

You know, the blatant and asinine hypocrisy from Liberals is truly profound. You just cannot fabricate the level of stupidity it takes to be a member of the Democrat led Congress or Liberal media to have and extreme case of Alzheimer’s whenever their preferences are questioned for the lack of jurisprudence.

:roll:
 
Some of her decisions overuled by the Supreme Court:

SECURITIES FRAUD RULING OVERTURNED BY SUPREME COURT

*Sotomayor wrote the majority decision in 2005 in a securities fraud case involving Merrill Lynch that later was overturned by the Supreme Court in a victory for corporate defendants.

The purported securities fraud class-action case had been brought by a former Merrill Lynch broker who accused the investment firm of fraudulently manipulating stock prices.

Sotomayor reinstated the case, after it had been dismissed by a lower court, ruling that it was not barred by a federal law which makes it harder to bring such lawsuits.

The Supreme Court in 2006 unanimously disagreed with her ruling and held such suits were prohibited by federal law.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INVOLVING POWER PLANTS

* Sotomayor wrote a major environmental law ruling that the Bush administration Environmental Protection Agency could not weigh the costs of introducing technology used in power plant cooling structures against the benefits of protecting aquatic life.

Her ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court on April 1 by a 6-3 vote in a defeat for environmentalists and a victory for the EPA and energy companies that operate power plants.

WINE SHIPMENTS

* Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that upheld New York's law barring direct shipments of out-of-state wine to in-state consumers.

The Supreme Court in 2005 struck down such laws, arguing they unconstitutionally limited interstate commerce.

COPYRIGHT CASE

* Freelance journalists had sued the New York Times Company for copyright infringement because the Times included in an electronic database the work of the authors it had published.

Sotomayor as a trial judge ruled that the publisher had the right to license the work of the freelancers, in a decision that limited the copyright rights of the authors.

Her decision was reversed on appeal, and the Supreme Court in 2001 upheld the reversal.
 
talloulou said:
Well when she had to pick a quote for her yearbook she went with the guy who ran multiple times on the socialist ticket. If that doesn't clue folks in, nothing well.
Click to expand...

Oh brother. I can't stop being completely turned off by your posts in here. It amazes me.
 
aps said:
Oh brother. I can't stop being completely turned off by your posts in here. It amazes me.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound particularly civil aps. And don't give me that crapola. I refuse to believe I don't turn you on. :) Just because one of us is wrongheaded doesn't mean we stop being flirtatious.
 
talloulou said:
Well when she had to pick a quote for her yearbook she went with the guy who ran multiple times on the socialist ticket. If that doesn't clue folks in, nothing well.
Click to expand...

Could you tell me what effect that quote, made decades ago, had on any of her decisions? I don't see it. And also tell me how a statement made decades ago has any bearing on her present political compass. A case in point - Some Neocons were once members of the Communist party. Were they still Communists after they became Neocons and joined the Republican party?
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
That is a ruling, yes. You have shown a dislike for one out of hundreds of rulings she has made. Did Rush tell you about any others you might want to object to, cuz one ruling is not much.
Click to expand...

What a garbage reply.


Unlike you I don't have a third party telling me who I am to like or dislike.
Haven't listened to Rush since 1994!... you twit.
 
danarhea said:
Could you tell me what effect that quote, made decades ago, had on any of her decisions? I don't see it. And also tell me how a statement made decades ago has any bearing on her present political compass. A case in point - Some Neocons were once members of the Communist party. Were they still Communists after they became Neocons and joined the Republican party?
Click to expand...

I'm just not surprised that Obama was able to find a woman who quoted a famous member of the socialist party in her college yearbook. I'd personally feel better if she quoted Metallica.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cease the name calling. No matter how much someone bugs the piss out of ya, no name calling. Causes work for me and I'm lazy.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
come now, if you want me to do all this work for you, wouldn't it be fair that the otherside at least answer my question 1st?


what context was she taken out of?
Click to expand...

I am not a side, I am a person. No one in this whole thread that I have seen has objected to more than one ruling of hers, and the only person who has actually commented on the legal aspect of the ruling suggests that from a legal position, she might even be right in her ruling...ie she might have preferred to rule another way, but the law prevented it.

So come on now, we are talking about a nominee to the supreme court. What rulings has she made that you disagree with, and why? If you object to her, you must have a reason, and I would hope for your sake that your objections actually have to do with her body of work.
 
talloulou said:
Moderator's Warning:
Cease the name calling. No matter how much someone bugs the piss out of ya, no name calling. Causes work for me and I'm lazy.
Click to expand...

LOL @ the way you worded your warning.
 
Redress said:
I am not a side, I am a person. No one in this whole thread that I have seen has objected to more than one ruling of hers, and the only person who has actually commented on the legal aspect of the ruling suggests that from a legal position, she might even be right in her ruling...ie she might have preferred to rule another way, but the law prevented it.

So come on now, we are talking about a nominee to the supreme court. What rulings has she made that you disagree with, and why? If you object to her, you must have a reason, and I would hope for your sake that your objections actually have to do with her body of work.
Click to expand...




Let me take you at you word, and put this forth...


If we all can only name one ruling, Is she qualified to be on SCOTUS? :shock:



I fully object to her because she was picked not by the character of the person, but the ethnicity and sex.

I fully object to her who all but bragged about legislating from the bench.


I fully object to he way they swept new haven under the rug.



That's enough for me.



oh and I objected to McCain for much less. ;)
 
talloulou said:
Well when she had to pick a quote for her yearbook she went with the guy who ran multiple times on the socialist ticket. If that doesn't clue folks in, nothing well.
Click to expand...




Really?


Redress, this is another reason. :lol:




In police work, they would call this a "clue"
 
Truth Detector said:
Some of her decisions overuled by the Supreme Court:

SECURITIES FRAUD RULING OVERTURNED BY SUPREME COURT

*Sotomayor wrote the majority decision in 2005 in a securities fraud case involving Merrill Lynch that later was overturned by the Supreme Court in a victory for corporate defendants.

The purported securities fraud class-action case had been brought by a former Merrill Lynch broker who accused the investment firm of fraudulently manipulating stock prices.

Sotomayor reinstated the case, after it had been dismissed by a lower court, ruling that it was not barred by a federal law which makes it harder to bring such lawsuits.

The Supreme Court in 2006 unanimously disagreed with her ruling and held such suits were prohibited by federal law.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INVOLVING POWER PLANTS

* Sotomayor wrote a major environmental law ruling that the Bush administration Environmental Protection Agency could not weigh the costs of introducing technology used in power plant cooling structures against the benefits of protecting aquatic life.

Her ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court on April 1 by a 6-3 vote in a defeat for environmentalists and a victory for the EPA and energy companies that operate power plants.

WINE SHIPMENTS

* Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that upheld New York's law barring direct shipments of out-of-state wine to in-state consumers.

The Supreme Court in 2005 struck down such laws, arguing they unconstitutionally limited interstate commerce.

COPYRIGHT CASE

* Freelance journalists had sued the New York Times Company for copyright infringement because the Times included in an electronic database the work of the authors it had published.

Sotomayor as a trial judge ruled that the publisher had the right to license the work of the freelancers, in a decision that limited the copyright rights of the authors.

Her decision was reversed on appeal, and the Supreme Court in 2001 upheld the reversal.
Click to expand...




Redress. These too.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Let me take you at you word, and put this forth...


If we all can only name one ruling, Is she qualified to be on SCOTUS? :shock:
Click to expand...

If anyone can look at her carreer, and only find one, or even a few rulings they disagreed with, I would call that a strength. She has been a judge for 20 years. I can't go 20 days without doing something some one disagrees with.

I fully object to her because she was picked not by the character of the person, but the ethnicity and sex.
Click to expand...

What does her sex and race have to do with her qualifications? You are making an assumption that her character was not an important factor.

I fully object to her who all but bragged about legislating from the bench.
Click to expand...

You know the context that what she said was made under(that is, what was she talking about that the quote came from), and that most lawyers seem to agree with her comment(at least those that post here)?


I fully object to he way they swept new haven under the rug.
Click to expand...

Swept New Haven under the rug how? I knew about it before I ever heard of her, or this is how I heard of her first, though the name did not register. I am not following what you are saying here.



That's enough for me.



oh and I objected to McCain for much less. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, at least you are consistent.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Redress. These too.
Click to expand...

Do you know anything about those rulings? If not, how can you use them to judge her. Hell, you might in looking into them, agree with her and disagree with SCOTUS. Jumping on any bandwagon that makes your point without analyzing it is silly.
 
Redress said:
If anyone can look at her carreer, and only find one, or even a few rulings they disagreed with, I would call that a strength. She has been a judge for 20 years. I can't go 20 days without ding something some one disagrees with.
Click to expand...


See the ruling TD posted. We can go over those if you would like.


What does her sex and race have to do with her qualifications? You are making an assumption that her character was not an important factor.
Click to expand...


It should have been nothing. Obama sought out a female hispanic. a bigoted one at that.


You know the context that what she said was made under(that is, what was she talking about that the quote came from), and that most lawyers seem to agree with her comment(at least those that post here)?
Click to expand...


most lawyers? proof?

Anyway, lets add in her racist comment that she is better than a white man at being a judge (obvious paraphrase on my part)


Swept New Haven under the rug how? I knew about it before I ever heard of her, or this is how I heard of her first, though the name did not register. I am not following what you are saying here.
Click to expand...



New Haven Firefighters File Reverse Discrimination Lawsuit


What was her ruling?




Well, at least you are consistent.
Click to expand...


It's the fiber. :cool:
 
Redress said:
Do you know anything about those rulings? If not, how can you use them to judge her. Hell, you might in looking into them, agree with her and disagree with SCOTUS. Jumping on any bandwagon that makes your point without analyzing it is silly.
Click to expand...




meh I am starting to look into them.... Thus far I fully agree with all but the 1st one. I am looking for more info on that 1st one.


Many of these rulings were indeed legislating from the bench.


The interstate commerce one violated the USC and was rightfully overturned for example.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
See the ruling TD posted. We can go over those if you would like.
Click to expand...

See my post in relation to that. You have probably already replied to it, and I will get to that one in a couple, if I don't run out of time and have to do actual work.


It should have been nothing. Obama sought out a female hispanic. a bigoted one at that.
Click to expand...

Proof that President Obama sought out a Hispanic female?


most lawyers? proof?
Click to expand...

Note the qualifier that I added, that post here. I know of 2 that post here, or at least I think 2, that being Aps and RightinNYC, both of whom think the comments are not a big deal.

Anyway, lets add in her racist comment that she is better than a white man at being a judge (obvious paraphrase on my part)
Click to expand...

I am not even going to try and defend her comment on that subject. She will have to handle that all on her own.

New Haven Firefighters File Reverse Discrimination Lawsuit


What was her ruling?
Click to expand...

I know what her ruling was. I am asking about your comment that it was "swept under the table". I do not understand that part.




It's the fiber. :cool:
Click to expand...

This is why I enjoy chatting with you, you always make me laugh, in a good way.

meh I am starting to look into them.... Thus far I fully agree with all but the 1st one. I am looking for more info on that 1st one.


Many of these rulings were indeed legislating from the bench.


The interstate commerce one violated the USC and was rightfully overturned for example.
Click to expand...

I was right, you had responded already, and based on my limited knowledge, I agree that the interstate commerce one looks shakey, but I am definatly not a lawyer, and I do understand that sometimes the law is complex.

Did you remember seeing a thread about illegal aliens and identity theft, where SCOTUS ruled with the illegal aliens, and it looked really bad, right up till it got looked at deeper, and it turned out the problem was with how the law was worded?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom