I’m not the only one who sees it my way. I quoted a judge on the level of Sotomayor who commented directly on the case. So I see your :rolleyes: and raise you :rolleyes::rolleyes:
:dubious:
There are going to be very few cases that “demonstrate such racist decisions”, even if someone is in fact biased. Being biased doesn’t mean you’re going to make egregiously ridiculous decisions in favor of minorities, or use blatant racist language in your decisions. It just means that where there’s leeway to rule this way or that way, you’re more inclined to vote in accordance with your biases than otherwise. The fact that you can’t point to a specific decision and say it’s racist doesn’t show anything.
That said, I don’t think it’s been conclusively shown that she’s biased either (although there’s certainly room for suspicion based on her own words). My point here is just that your specific argument has no merit.
That’s silly–I’m not the one calling her racist, others are. If there’s no evidence of racism in her judicial work, then any racism on her part is irrelevant when deciding whether to promote her in the judicial branch.
Your argument hinges on drawing a line between bias and racism that’s also irrelevant. If the accusation instead becomes that she’s biased, I will of course ask for evidence of bias in her decisions. Your objection has no merit.
If what you want is for a Court to rehear the original case, and rule on the discrimination aspects, then you should applaud Sotomayer. By upholding the District Ct (the only possible ruling within a strict interpretation of their purview), the Case will now go to SCOTUS who are allowed and expected to issue activist rulings. If you think that the Plaintiffs got a bum deal, and it’s that obvious, then you should applaud Sotomayer, not condemn her.
Most people, if I may be blunt, don’t give a rat’s ass. The only battle going on here is in Washington, DC and specific spots outside Washington, like the headquarters of CNN in Atlanta. Whatever group it is that you have determined “believes Obama screwed up the nominating process”, it is still the case that the argument you made was not an argument against withdrawing her nomination. It was an argument about how something might resonate with whomever. Your conditional assertion does not address the complaint I made about your post.
(And I realize you are being piled-on here — nothing new about that — so it isn’t necessary for you to deal with my rather complicated assault on your position, if you’d prefer to deal with the simple stuff.)
I don’t see anything that requires judicial activism.
Yeah, well, I can point you to six judges who did. That’s six times as authoritative as your appeal to authority.
And six who didn’t. the difference is Sotomayor thinks Title VII is OK to use as an excuse to discriminate after-the-fact.
That’s not what she said at all.
For the 10th time, an Appelate Court is only supposed to hear issues of Law or Procedure. In this case, the Plaintiffs appeal was based upon the fact that they claimed that the City could not be sued, as the City claimed. This was their sole and only grounds for appeal and it was the sole and only issue that Sotomayer and associates heard. All the other stuff you talk about, the “core of the case” as you call it, was heard at the Distrct Ct level. It was not part of the Appeal.
In order to go beyond their scope, in order to hear the evidence about discrimination, in order to hear what you call “the core of the case” the 2nd Circuit Ct would have to go beyond the scope of their strict authority, which is called “judicial activism”. Yes, a minority of the 2nd Ct did want to go beyond the strict scope of the Courts purview, which is exactly what “judicial activism” is. Generally, it is frowned upon at any level lower than SCOTUS. Thus,if you want the issue heard at another level, then you want the lower Appelate Ct to do exactly what Sotomayer did- bump the issue up to SCOTUS.
We have explained this over and over. Is it that you refuse to listen or you dont understand?
- No she doesn’t: she didn’t say anything at all about Title VII, as many folks have explained to you.
- You have a very peculiar definition of discrimination.
Just because there’s no concrete evidence that doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
By it’s nature, subtle bias in judging does not lend itself to evidence in the specific decisions themselves. Perhaps a broad analysis of her decisions as a whole would support bias. Perhaps not. But in any event, calling for evidence in the form of specific biased decisions is not valid.
Denying someone a promotion because of the color of their skin isn’t a peculiar definition of discrimination. Sotomayor has used Title VII to do this as a lawyer and turned a blind eye to it when it came before her. She does not belong on the SC.
It didn’t come before her. That’s what other posters have been trying, in vain it would seem, to explain to you about the appeals process. To rule on the Title VII issue, Sotomayor would have had to go beyond the issue that was actually before her on appeal. That would have made her the classic “judicial activist,” to which the right so strenuously objects.
And for the 10th time I’ve quoted the dissenting judge who says you’re wrong.
No, you’re simply wrong. The verdict and issues going back to the original trial were up for review by each court. Not only is this process not an activist one, you could just as easily say that NOT reviewing the entire case was the act of an activist if it is based on the loose interpretation of a law or if that law conflicted with another.
If I believed that, I never would have passed the bar exam.
Of course, this is all just mental masturbation. Let me sum it up:
Sotomayor has better legal qualifications than any sitting Justice did, when he or she was nominated.
She’s less of an ideologue than Roberts, Scalia, Alito, or Thomas.
The notion that she’s “too liberal” seems to come only from opponents who willfully disregard the fact that there was an election in 2008 in which the American voters made it pretty clear that they had had a bellyful of conservatism, at least as practiced by the G.O.P.
Her opponents can come up with only one poorly-worded comment taken out of context, one decision that doesn’t indicate what they claim it does (in fact, it demonstrates the opposite, and shows Sotomayor to be a model of judicial restraint), and a handful of objections that range between silly (“OMG, she likes ethnic food!”) and unbelievably insulting (“What is she’s menstruating during oral arguments?!”).
She will be confirmed without any drama. If we’re lucky, she’ll be subjected to some questioning by Sen. Sessions (R-KKK), which would be good for a laugh.
Frankly, I’m enjoying seeing the G.O.P. continuing to rip itself apart in this lost cause. They really are turning into the Donner Party.
You don’t know what you are talking about. The issues are not up for review by the appeals court.
No, like I said, there was a minority few that did want to Court to make an activist ruling on this. However, it was a MINORITY. That’s what the dissenting judge was asking for.
There is a solid portion of judges and lawmakers that want activist courts, and so that dissenting Judge wasn’t on some weird far out position. However, the right wing, those that are opposing Sotomayer, hate activist courts and think that they are WRONG. Which is hypocritical of them to condemt Sotomayer for this, as if she had went for an activist ruling, they would have condemned her for that. Damnd if you do and damnd if you don’t.