In short, they are an advocacy group with unapologetic political and idealogical ties. If you’re so offended by Sotomayer’s affiliation with a race-based advocacy group, you should be equally concerned by the conserative SCOTUS members who are associated with a political advocacy group.
The fact that you (by all appearances) aren’t says more about your personal biases and double standards than any that Sotomayer may allegedly harbor.
So what we have here is a SCOTUS judge who is a member of a legal political advocacy group and whose rulings align themselves 100% with the idealogical leanings of that group. Where’s the ire? Where’s the indignation? You make all these allegations of Sotomayer based on what she might do (note, you still don’t respond to her long record of race-neutral rulings), but we have the Chief Justice doing exactly what you’re so concerned about–demonstrating a recurring bias, which was telegraphed by his association with an advocacy group–and yet…Nothing.
That’s why all your complaints about her stink of classic right-wing talking points: ignoring the evidence in lieu of disingenuous, hand-wringing hypocrisy.
No, you don’t get this one for free. So, not only don’t you mind bias, you prefer bias. Just as long as it’s your kind of bias. Nice to see the principled stand.
Then stop making such a huge point of the fact that it wasn’t just an advocacy group, but a Latino advocacy group.
How dare that brown bitch?
Oh and btw, per your belief in “Federalism”:
If you really believe this, then why are you so upset that she refused to overturn legislative action in the New Haven case?
In your post to which I responded, you said nothing about her being a lawyer. You responded to a statement about judicial decisions with a claim that you were also looking at her judicial decision when you pointed to *Martino v Ortiz *. The clear implication being that such activity was, indeed, judicial in nature. I corrected you and you are now weaseling.
This is in keeping with the rest of your odd theme, here, in which you react to quotes out of context and invent positions based on your own interpretation of the world, in direct contrast to the actual record. I’m not sure why you are digging in your heels, here, but your continued use of bumpersticker rhetoric is making you look increasingly desperate. I don’t think Rush is planning to retire, soon, and I doubt that you could take his seat if he did.
and yet you want to get rid of Sotomayor who ruled the way she did in the Ricci case because she believed that the role of an appellate judge was to NOT MAKE POLICY FROM THE BENCH!
(sorry for yelling but some times the round and rounds make me crazy. I realize he has no problem at all when judges make the policy he wants from the bench.)
No, I specifically said she was a prosecutor. I did reference the wrong post. It was post 235 not 238: The case is going before the SC. Back in her days as a prosecutor she was on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund which fronted a similar case in Marino v. Ortiz which was struck down.
I think my point is clear. You can match her statements about Latino women/white men plus her statement about legislating from the bench with her Latino activism and draw a conclusion that she will be an activist judge with a racial agenda. The case I sighted was promoted by her organization.
She was obviously chosen as a token vote magnet and that is a poor reason to continue backing her when her background is known. When the President has to publicly admit she suffers from foot-in-mouth disease it’s time to cut her loose. This is one of the most important appointments a President can make and the repercussions cannot be undone. There are certainly better judges out there who can uphold the constitution in a neutral manner.
So let me get this straight–her plan was to sit on the bench for years and years without being an activist judge (as has been cited here multiple times), all the while biding her time so when she finally gets picked for SCOTUS, she can then show her true, pernicious, activist colors.
My apologies–your position is even dumber than I thought.
My side is just doing judicial business. They are just doing the cases that come to them.
Your side is going out of the way to get cases that will fit into your agenda. Those are activist judges. From my viewpoint we have an extremely activist Supreme Court. We have had since the Repubs put in their lackeys.
Not in your response to Gangster Octopus, you did not. He pointed to her “judicial record” and you said “as did my reference to Martino v Ortiz.”
That is a clear claim that you either believe that she was acting in a judicial capacity in Martino v Ortiz or clear evidence that you will post anything to make a point even when it is unsupported by facts. Gangster Octopus called for an examination of her judicial record and you claimed that her actions as an attorney fit that bill. Just silly.
I know it is hard to keep track of what you have posted, it being out there in the thread and all, but you are simply driving around in circles making silly claims and now you are claiming things that you have not said.
Much like your claims that her single sentence taken out of context in a speech in which she explicitly noted that white male judges have been able to make good decisions, you are simply posting whatever comes to hand to wave around your opinion without actually paying much attention to what she has said, you have said, or any other poster has said.
Actually, what is very clear is that you will take any side of any issue to put forth your claims that she is not qualified–even arguing that she should have taken the activist judicial position in one case in which she voted for judicial restraint because you need to twist that inside out to make your point. Lots of sound and fury.
I twisted nothing. She has spoken clearly on how she feels about activist judges. The same woman who pushed a losing Title VII trial upheld it when it came her way on the circuit court. She stuck her foot in her mouth with a racial remark and the President had to stand in front of a camera and explain why a SC candidate misspoke. I would prefer he find another vote magnet who isn’t biased and doesn’t misspeak when rendering decisions.
That was a speech, not a decision. It’s odd that you made that mistake, because you’ve talked about it before without stripping away all of the context. Also, there is no such thing as an unbiased judge. Everyone has a bias. That’s the way people work. And, of course, you have no evidence that Sotomayor is any more biased than, say, Alito or Roberts, despite your yammering.
Yes, that was a speech BY her regarding her OPINION on the matter. To suggest that it’s impossible to be bias free, therefore we should ignore it when we see it is illogical, particularly in view of her admission of favoring activist decisions.
And the case she forwarded (as a member of a Latino activist group) hinged around the title VII excuse to racially discriminate after the fact. She then rubber stamped a similar case instead of addressing ACTUAL discrimination which the dissenting judge wanted to do. Her bias is to ignore discrimination in favor of quotas.