- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Here Come Da Judge
Here Come Da JudgeFollow
I think he should look here for his pick, honestly.. we can't ***** it up any worse then the other justices.
Sounds like Sonia Sotomayor will be Obamas nomination for SCJ.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Yeah, was just reading about her. I liked the baseball decision, I remember that from when it happened. Don't know much else about her yet.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
hangtennow wrote:
Locked,
You're on.
Quote:
I'm going to set the bar low with at least 10 years experience as a judge.
You're on.
Well, here we go then.
Quote:
Sotomayor was nominated on November 27, 1991, by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated by John M. Walker, Jr.. She became the youngest judge in the Southern District and the first Hispanic federal judge anywhere in New York State.
Sotomayor was confirmed by the United States Senate on August 11, 1992, and received her commission the next day.
Court of Appeals: Many Republicans, including then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch and six other Republicans who are still in the Senate today, voted for Sotomayor's confirmation to the Second Circuit. With solid Democratic support, and support from about half of Republicans, Sotomayor was confirmed on October 2nd, 1998, in a 67-29 vote, and she received her commission on October 7th.
Sotomayor was confirmed by the United States Senate on August 11, 1992, and received her commission the next day.
Court of Appeals: Many Republicans, including then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch and six other Republicans who are still in the Senate today, voted for Sotomayor's confirmation to the Second Circuit. With solid Democratic support, and support from about half of Republicans, Sotomayor was confirmed on October 2nd, 1998, in a 67-29 vote, and she received her commission on October 7th.
So she's been a judge since 1991, first as a federal judge, and then as a court of appeals judge. She graduated summa *** laude from Princeton and got her J.D. from Yale. I think she's incredibly qualified for the position. If you want to argue her views aren't to your liking, that's fine, but she's definitely qualified. Her appointment to the court of appeals was put on a secret hold for a year because someone (likely a Republican senator) wasn't happy that her taking a position would make her a contender for the Supreme Court. Guess that didn't turn out how they wanted!
Old as in three posts up?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
I missed the single line post, amongst the others.
Sorry
Sorry
I'm just jerkin' ya. I'm excited to have a candidate to discuss, actually.
I'm a little concerned about her health, but she's lived with a lot of stress so far.
I'm a little concerned about her health, but she's lived with a lot of stress so far.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
If anything will turn people against her, it'll be something like this:
CNN
CNN
CNN wrote:
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said in a 2001 speech that a judge's gender and ethnicity does, and should, influence his or her decision-making on the bench.
Sotomayor made the comments on October 26, 2001, at a University of California-Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court.
"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society," she said at the event, sponsored by the law school. "I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that — it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."
"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] 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," she added. "First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Sotomayor made the comments on October 26, 2001, at a University of California-Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court.
"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society," she said at the event, sponsored by the law school. "I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that — it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."
"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] 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," she added. "First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
If anything will turn people against her, it'll be something like this...
Nah, if anything it will be:
1. She's a woman
2. She's a Latino
3. She's been labeled a "liberal activist judge"
4. That CT case where she ruled that a firefighter promotion test needed to be thrown out because it was biased against minorities since no minorities did well on it.
As for point 4, I'd like to read more about the decision there and see what kind of test it was. Sounds like there's more to that story than is pointed out.
LockeColeMA wrote:
3. She's been labeled a "liberal activist judge"
That would have happened to any candidate Obama proposed, honestly.
And yeah, in part I'm rolling my eyes a little at the "we have to get a Latina on the SCOTUS" thing; but in all honesty a wider perspective will serve us well in the long run. She certainly has qualifications besides a ****** and Puerto Rican parentage.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Cons: She went to some pretty **** universities. People from different backgrounds have different experiences, sure, but I don't buy that they'd make "better" decisions.
Pros: Experienced. Will annoy republicans more than she annoys me.
Pros: Experienced. Will annoy republicans more than she annoys me.
Kavekk wrote:
Cons: She went to some pretty sh*t universities. People from different backgrounds have different experiences, sure, but I don't buy that they'd make "better" decisions.
Pros: Experienced. Will annoy republicans more than she annoys me.
Pros: Experienced. Will annoy republicans more than she annoys me.
Princeton and Yale are ****, now? I'm sure she would have gone to a real (British) university had she been planning on practicing law in the U.K.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Ash,
Guess lady liberty wears no blind folds in her views of justice. This woman believes it's the job of judges to make policy from the bench, she's said so. This is what liberals want. Judges who ignore the constitution whe making their decisions.
Edited, May 26th 2009 2:46pm by publiusvarus
Quote:
"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society,"
Guess lady liberty wears no blind folds in her views of justice. This woman believes it's the job of judges to make policy from the bench, she's said so. This is what liberals want. Judges who ignore the constitution whe making their decisions.
Edited, May 26th 2009 2:46pm by publiusvarus
publiusvarus wrote:
Ash,
Guess lady liberty wears no blind folds in her views of justice. This woman believes it's the job of judges to make policy from the bench, she's said so. This is what liberals want. Judges who ignore the constitution whe making their decisions.
Edited, May 26th 2009 2:46pm by publiusvarus
Quote:
"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society,"
Guess lady liberty wears no blind folds in her views of justice. This woman believes it's the job of judges to make policy from the bench, she's said so. This is what liberals want. Judges who ignore the constitution whe making their decisions.
Edited, May 26th 2009 2:46pm by publiusvarus
The other way to look at it is that all the whites and men on the SCOTUS are blinded and don't actively think of the Constitution in every situation, or wouldn't catch a certain caveat that a woman of Hispanic heritage might. Without clear examples, either statement is unfounded and has no use in a serious debate. I agree that the statement she said about judges making policy wasn't politically savvy, but it often happens just by their decisions, if not actively. Then again, she's a judge, not a politician. At least she wasn't dumb enough to think something like that the Vice President is in charge of the Senate, as one lady did.
Meh, she's qualified, she's more liberal than conservative, she's had only one "controversial" ruling in 19 years as a judge. It is a great pick by the Obama team, politically - they get Latino and female credit, plus a left-leaning judge. Judicially she's top notch, and despite the two gaffes I keep seeing thrown around she was originally placed in the federal courts by Bush senior which makes her more appealing to both sides. Her health might be a bit of a concern, but I don't see it as a huge trouble; she's only 54. She has two cases where she sided with pro-life groups (although has issued no ruling on the constitutionality of abortion), from what I have heard, hence why we're hearing vague "liberals hate babies" arguments, but no overt "Sotomayor will uphold Roe!" talk except from crazies. She's also Roman Catholic (like many Hispanics), though this may or may not influence her thoughts on abortion.
Again, she seems qualified, a great asset to Democrats, and there's really not much Republicans can sink their teeth into.
Edited, May 26th 2009 3:09pm by LockeColeMA
Quote:
Princeton and Yale are sh*t, now? I'm sure she would have gone to a real (British) university had she been planning on practicing law in the U.K.
I once saw a student graffiti the letter H on an Ivy League poster, then cross out the y. After seeing such a sterling attack of concentrated wit, I am unable to take the battered victim seriously.
Seriously, though, I think that if anything British Universities are overrated - even those in the Russell group are severely underfunded. No one seems to give a ****, though.
Edited, May 26th 2009 7:32pm by Kavekk
Princeton and Yale are sh*t, now?
Princeton has some nice little programs. Yale has always been a school for the wealthy to send their retarded children to.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
You're such a snot. 
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
3. She's been labeled a "liberal activist judge"
Tough sell, there, since W appointed her to the Appeals court.
Edit: I'm totally wrong there. Clinton did, my bad.
This is a slam dunk confirmation barring some major surprise. Nothing to see here, really. She's not particularly liberal, judicially, certainly not anywhere where I would have liked to see him go. She also writes sort of spongy occasionally poorly reasoned decisions, but if that were something to preclude someone from serving on SCOTUS, the pool would be awfully small.
Edited, May 26th 2009 6:59pm by Smasharoo
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
You're such a snot.
It's not my fault that 85% of Yale undergrads matriculate directly to ITT Tech.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
3. She's been labeled a "liberal activist judge"
Tough sell, there, since W appointed her to the Appeals court
Edit: I'm totally wrong there. Clinton did, my bad.
H. W. appointed her to the district bench IIRC. Which is already being bandied around as proof that she's not a liberal. Yes. Because politics never coincides such that a president would appoint a pick of the opposition party when they control Congress... No deals are ever done. No compromises reached. Nope. He was clearly the one person he selected for the job...
I do agree that barring anything major coming up, she'll probably get it. Obama picked someone low-key enough (by appearances) that I don't think the Republicans will muster up too much fight over it. There are a whole lot "worse" nominees from the Republican point of view.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Does it really matter what the republicans think right now?
Edited, May 26th 2009 11:38pm by Annabella
Edited, May 26th 2009 11:38pm by Annabella
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Quote:
Does it really matter what the republicans think right now?
Nope.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
This lady is nothing more than a judicial activist whose openly stated that she thinks it's the jobs of judges to make policy from the bench. That she says this in the first place shows exactly what kind of judge she is and how she regards the process.
publiusvarus wrote:
This lady is nothing more than a judicial activist whose openly stated that she thinks it's the jobs of judges to make policy from the bench. That she says this in the first place shows exactly what kind of judge she is and how she regards the process.
Are you ever happy with your lot?
Recent Visitors: 297
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (297)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Here Come Da Judge
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC