Sotomayor

[Tunnelcat]

Well, what does everyone here think of her nomination for the Supreme Court? She seems to be a VERY middle-of-the-road type of judge in her rulings. She may get hits from both parties, but Republicans may have to tiptoe lightly to not infuriate the Hispanic vote.

Sonia Sotomayor

[CUDA]

Well, what does everyone here think of her nomination for the Supreme Court? She seems to be a VERY middle-of-the-road type of judge in her rulings. She may get hits from both parties, but Republicans may have to tiptoe lightly to not infuriate the Hispanic vote.

Sonia Sotomayor

I dont know where you got your info about Middle of the road, everything I've read points to her being left of Ginsberg, they have her on tape as saying a Judge's job is to make policy last time I checked it was the legislature's job to make to law (policy) and it was a judge's job was to enforce the law (policy).

[Duper]

Yup, I've heard the same tape.

Bad choice.

[Gooberman]

I will give you that she has plenty of sound bites for the talk show hosts to keep their ratings up for the next few weeks. But Obama isn't phased by that sort of thing.

I did find this quote refreshing,

\"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement,\" -Sonia Sotomayor

[Spidey]

So…did he pick a Black Jewish Hispanic woman who is also Gay? -grin-

[ccb056]

What ever happened to the blindfold and scale when it comes to law?

[Will Robinson]

The repubs need to worry about dissing her because they might lose the Hispanic vote?!? You mean that group that doesn't turn out for the last couple of guys who were actually on their side on immigration and who actually appointed Hispanics to positions of power....yea...they need to cater to that voting block

The truth is they probably will bend over for that very reason though because the repubs are about as weak as the dems when it comes to standing up for principles and leading fearlessly by example instead of chasing trends and polls.
How the hell do you think we've gotten such lousy representation by either party so far? By electing slimy people who would make that kind of choice that's how!

Obama is doing so well dragging us to the left that he'll probably lose his reelection bid to Pat Buchannon and the pendulum will swing just as far to the right as Obama manages to knock it to the left all because the voters are so easily manipulated by the BS that qualifies as news.

[Tunnelcat]

Well, a lot of lefties I've heard are not happy with her abortion stance. She favored the Bush Administration's implementation of the Mexico City Policy restricting foreign organizations that received U.S. funds from promoting abortion in any family planning matters. She is a staunch Catholic after all.

[DCrazy]

last time I checked it was the legislature's job to make to law (policy) and it was a judge's job was to enforce the law (policy).

This is an amazing misinterpretation of the separation of powers... the legislature writes law, the executive enforces the law, and the judiciary interprets the law. This is first-grade civics.

[CUDA]

last time I checked it was the legislature's job to make to law (policy) and it was a judge's job was to enforce the law (policy).

This is an amazing misinterpretation of the separation of powers... the legislature writes law, the executive enforces the law, and the judiciary interprets the law. This is first-grade civics.

well I skipped 1st grade went right from kindergarten to 3rd and I probably should have said "interpret and apply" instead of "enforce"

the point still stands it is not the judiciary's job to make law. and Sotomayor is on record and saying its a Judges Job to make Policy.

so where is the Separation of Powers?

[DCrazy]

the point still stands it is not the judiciary's job to make law.

The judiciary is well within its rights to discard, constrain, contextualize, or reinterpret laws in its jurisdiction. The biggest power the Supreme Court has is to discard unconstitutional laws, after all. There is a lot of freedom intentionally left to the judiciary.

Basically someone realized that legislation by committee will eventually result in contradictory or unfair legislation, and we better have some level-headed individual people organized and ready to take care of that problem.

[CUDA]

the point still stands it is not the judiciary's job to make law.

The judiciary is well within its rights to discard, constrain, contextualize, or reinterpret laws in its jurisdiction. The biggest power the Supreme Court has is to discard unconstitutional laws, after all. There is a lot of freedom intentionally left to the judiciary.

So what your implying is that there is no law.

And "if" a law current is not written to the Judges liking that he can do what ever he feels like doing, even to the point of making a new one up on the spot.

I'll agree with you that the Supreme court has the right to discard unconstitutional law.

but what you are advocating are god like powers to judges

[DCrazy]

So what your implying is that there is no law.

That is a huge and incorrect leap from what I was saying.

And "if" a law current is not written to the Judges liking that he can do what ever he feels like doing, even to the point of making a new one up on the spot.

No, judges are restricted to the situation at hand. A judge can't use a shoplifting case to decide that medical marijuana should be legal. But if in the opinion of the judge the shoplifting law is ill-conceived, the judge is not only allowed but obligated to disregard that law. Depending on what court you're in, this may or may not be precedent-setting. Opinions in lower-level circuit courts aren't precedent-setting; cases in the federal circuit are.

but what you are advocating are god like powers to judges

I am describing the power we have given to judges as the final arbiters of the worth of law. That is their stated purpose: to give individuals or a small panel of individuals in whose faculties we trust the power to interpret or discard legislation as it pertains to the case at hand. Judges have to restrict their decisions as narrowly as applicable, based on the reason for the decision (for example, if a judge thinks that the law doesn't cover a particular corner case, that judge's opinion applies *only* to that corner case). And other judges are free to interpret such precedent-setting opinions as they believe they apply to the situation at hand.

But what you seem to be suggesting is that judges are not the final arbiters of law. In that case you are incorrect.

[CUDA]

But what you seem to be suggesting is that judges are not the final arbiters of law. In that case you are incorrect.

Civics lesson this is what we learned in 3rd grade

United States
All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader.

The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, is a general legal maxim according to which decisions should be made by applying known principles or laws, without the intervention of discretion in their application.[2] This maxim is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance. The word "arbitrary" (from the Latin "arbiter") signifies a judgment made at the discretion of the arbiter, rather than according to the rule of law.[3][4]

Generally speaking, law is a body of rules prescribed by the state subject to sanctions or consequences.[5] The predominant view is that the concept of "rule of law" per se says nothing about the "justness" of the laws themselves, but simply how the legal system operates.[6][7] As a consequence of this, a very undemocratic nation or one without respect for human rights can exist with a "rule of law" — a situation which may be occurring in several modern dictatorships. The "rule of law" or Rechtsstaat may be a necessary condition for democracy, but it is not a sufficient condition.[8]

Judicial discretion is the power of the judiciary to make some legal decisions according to their discretion. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the ability of judges to exercise discretion is an aspect of judicial independence. Where appropriate, judicial discretion allows a judge to decide a legal case or matter within a range of possible decisions.

However, where the exercise of discretion goes beyond constraints set down by legislation, by binding precedent, or by a constitution, the court may be abusing its discretion and undermining the rule of law. In that case, the decision of the court may be ultra vires, and may sometimes be characterized as judicial activism.

Concerns with regard to recidivism and other law and order issues have led to the introduction of mandatory sentencing laws which significantly limit judicial discretion in sentencing, particularly in the United States.

[DCrazy]

All of your sources agree with me. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

[CUDA]

All of your sources agree with me. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

I brought up the concept of Judicial activism and you stated that it was a judges right to in effect legislate, you would be incorrect

[Tunnelcat]

It's always 'judicial activism' when a decision doesn't agree with some political or public opinion. Consevative judges have also been accused of 'activist' rulings in the eyes of liberals. That's the problem, a judge can't always please everyone, even the majority of the population, nor should they. The concept of right and wrong is always colored by the politics and ethics of the person doing the judging, whether we like it or not. A judge has to make a 'best ruling' based on their experience, teachings and yes, emotional opinions. We can only hope that the laws that govern us are worked out over a period of time to be fair and impartial. That's why we have more than one justice on the Supreme Court.

[AlphaDoG]

I am describing the power we have given to judges as the final arbiters of the worth of law. That is their stated purpose: to give individuals or a small panel of individuals in whose faculties we trust the power to interpret or discard legislation as it pertains to the case at hand. Judges have to restrict their decisions as narrowly as applicable, based on the reason for the decision (for example, if a judge thinks that the law doesn't cover a particular corner case, that judge's opinion applies *only* to that corner case). And other judges are free to interpret such precedent-setting opinions as they believe they apply to the situation at hand.

Most judges (in the circuit court) are elected, if you don't like or agree with their rulings, vote them out.


http://walkerw.blogspot.com/2006/08/ele ... udges.html

[Tunnelcat]

True, but we're stuck with the appointees we get in the Supreme Court until they die, resign or retire!

[CUDA]

OMG!!!! I AGREE WITH TC

the supreme court and even the appelate courts have certain safeguards which prevent activist judges.

but I can point to the 9th circut as an exception to that rule, they are without a doubt the most overturned appeals court by the Supreme court

[AlphaDoG]

You are correct TC, sorry, didn't mean to derail this derailed thread.

the thing about the Supreme Court of the United States is indeed, they ARE appointed (by the President.)

It's a good thing, IMO, that they are appointed for life.

The way it's setup is to BALANCE power over many years. Not 4 years, not 8 years. The reason being that whatever party or political organization that happens to be in power cannot force any judge to resign. This maintains a (somewhat) balance between opposing views.

Just imagine if the Supreme Court where just another bunch of \"Czars.\"

[Tunnelcat]

OMG!!!! I AGREE WITH TC

Yeeeeeaaaaaaaaaay!

[CUDA]

apparently 60% of her rulings have been overturned by the Supreme court. makes me wonder if she understands the Constitution that she will be asked to rule on

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/ma ... dder-to-f/

[Dakatsu]

The fact that she ruled for the city in this case scares me. I'm worried:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano

[Gooberman]

apparently 60% of her rulings have been overturned by the Supreme court. makes me wonder if she understands the Constitution that she will be asked to rule on

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/ma ... dder-to-f/

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed - CUDA's link

In three of the cases where Sotomayor was overturned, the newest Supreme Court nominee had the same or similar position as the jurist she hopes to replace, Justice David Souter.

CNN

[DCrazy]

Most judges (in the circuit court) are elected, if you don't like or agree with their rulings, vote them out.

I hate direct election of judges. IMO an independent judiciary cannot function properly under direct election; in that case, they function too much like another legislation: beholden to the whims of voters, and pegged by wedge issues.

[DCrazy]

Most judges (in the circuit court) are elected, if you don't like or agree with their rulings, vote them out.

I hate direct election of judges. IMO an independent judiciary cannot function properly under direct election; in that case, they function too much like another legislation: beholden to the whims of voters, and pegged by wedge issues.

[Will Robinson]

..
In three of the cases where Sotomayor was overturned, the newest Supreme Court nominee had the same or similar position as the jurist she hopes to replace, Justice David Souter...

That isn't any consolation to conservatives Gooberman! Souter is a bit of a wacko liberal, his opinion on eminent domain law comes to mind as one example...

[DCrazy]

the supreme court and even the appelate courts have certain safeguards which prevent activist judges.

By the way I never disagreed with that. I probably should have referred to the hierarchy more. That's why we have a series of appellate courts and, ultimately, the Supreme Court, so that judges can keep tabs on others' decisions.

[Pandora]

apparently 60% of her rulings have been overturned by the Supreme court. makes me wonder if she understands the Constitution that she will be asked to rule on

this is a totally misleading soundbite. The supreme court generally tends to overturn 75% of the rulings it chooses to hear, so her reversal rate is actually below average.

So, what this number reflects is only the percentage of her decision the supreme court chose to look at. Of course she made many more rulings. How does her percentage fare there?

Since joining the Second Circuit in 1998, Sotomayor has authored over 150 opinions, addressing a wide range of issues, in civil cases". Even if we do not count the opinions she has authored in criminal, rather than civil, cases, that means the Supreme Court's reversal rate is not 60 percent, but at most 2 percent -- 3 cases out of 150.

(emphasis mine}

[Will Robinson]

apparently 60% of her rulings have been overturned by the Supreme court. makes me wonder if she understands the Constitution that she will be asked to rule on

this is a totally misleading soundbite. The supreme court generally tends to overturn 75% of the rulings it chooses to hear, so her reversal rate is actually below average.

So, what this number reflects is only the percentage of her decision the supreme court chose to look at. Of course she made many more rulings. How does her percentage fare there?

Since joining the Second Circuit in 1998, Sotomayor has authored over 150 opinions, addressing a wide range of issues, in civil cases". Even if we do not count the opinions she has authored in criminal, rather than civil, cases, that means the Supreme Court's reversal rate is not 60 percent, but at most 2 percent -- 3 cases out of 150.

(emphasis mine}

And yet that too is misleading because many bad decisions are never appealed so the number of 2% doesn't mean that 98% of the time she is doing a good job it only means that 98% of the time she has the final word and the country has to live with her decision. That's why it's important she is challenged on the things she stands for, the things she says etc. because that is who she is and who she is will become a big part of who we are when she becomes a Supreme Court justice.

[Pandora]

agreed. just wanted to point out that if you want to use statistics to asses her new role, then you should use the proper calculations, I'm not saying that it tells you anything about her or how suited she is.

[CUDA]

Well you know what they say,

there are Lies, D@mn Lies and Statistics

[Insurrectionist]

I always find that statistics are hard to swallow and impossible to digest. The only one I can ever remember is that if all the people who go to sleep in church were laid end to end they would be a lot more comfortable.

[woodchip]

but Republicans may have to tiptoe lightly to not infuriate the Hispanic vote.

But it is OK for her to say she will give better opinions than a white male could? I hope the republicans and yes the democrats hit her hard on this opinion and bar her from the bench

[Pandora]

Because she said something? Because she said something that is (or may be interpreted as) not PC? And this is coming from you, Woodchip?

Why not simply look into the data if race entered into her decision making during her law career. The data is out there. Please read the whole thing and then decide if there is any basis for this claim. A few excerpts:

Of the [race-related] 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times. [...] Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous. [...] Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.

Of the roughly 75 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor dissented 2 times. [...] In Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2002), she dissented from the majority’s holding that the NYPD could fire a white employee for distributing racist materials.

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She particulated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.

[Spidey]

The sides people pick on these issues are soooo predictable. (even you)

I think we should do away with the confirmation process altogether, because as far as I’m concerned it’s the president’s prerogative to appoint anybody they please.

I know…I know…

[Tunnelcat]

but Republicans may have to tiptoe lightly to not infuriate the Hispanic vote.

But it is OK for her to say she will give better opinions than a white male could? I hope the republicans and yes the democrats hit her hard on this opinion and bar her from the bench

I think we really NEED a woman replacement on the Supreme Court. Maybe or maybe not Sotomayor, I'm not totally in favor of her, but at least a WOMAN and I agree with her statement, it's valid. Male Judges just can't or shouldn't represent the female population of this country and it would scare me to see an all-male Supreme Court again.

I can just see it, my hard won freedoms from the struggles of the sixties squelched in an instant by an all-male paternalistic Supreme Court. But I'm just not on board for her very much at the moment. She's a staunch Catholic and I don't think she'll keep THAT from coloring her opinions either.

[woodchip]

Because she said something? Because she said something that is (or may be interpreted as) not PC? And this is coming from you, Woodchip?

A member of SOCTUS can have no opinion regarding race/gender/ethnicity. Any indication that any of those three will enter into her rulings makes her unfit to serve on the highest court.

[woodchip]

I think we really NEED a woman replacement on the Supreme Court. Maybe or maybe not Sotomayor, I'm not totally in favor of her, but at least a WOMAN and I agree with her statement, it's valid. Male Judges just can't or shouldn't represent the female population of this country and it would scare me to see an all-male Supreme Court again.

I can just see it, my hard won freedoms from the struggles of the sixties squelched in an instant by an all-male paternalistic Supreme Court. But I'm just not on board for her very much at the moment. She's a staunch Catholic and I don't think she'll keep THAT from coloring her opinions either.

I have no problem with a female or a man serving on SCOTUS...as long as they are qualified and wear the blindfold Lady Justice is depicted wearing while holding the scales. Sotomayor somehow thinks her life experiences make her better qualified than a white male. Laws were written with the very intent to keep emotions and "life experiences" from coloring a decision. We do not need judgments based on whimsey or what is politically correct. As such Sotomayor fails.