Not sure what this means, but if you think there’s any kind of real battle going on, there isn’t. The hearings are just going to be a formality. The Senate Republicans will try to make a show of it for their more sagittally crested constituents, but it’s not like there’s any genuine controversy, or public division or doubt about the outcome. She will handle the questioning, and staged Republican posturing perfectly well since the issues are bogus to begin with, and she will be easily confirmed. This is a very smart pick for Obama politcally, and the more she’s attacked by the Newts and Tancredos of the world, the more it redounds to his favor. the Republicans are getting their asses handed to them in the polling over this. Obama would have to be an absolute idiot to cave into this bit of irrelevant partisan theater, and we know he’s anything but an idiot.
What you’re seeing from some Republicans right now is not a reflection of any kind of authentic, national controversy, but performances for a few of the more hard right local constituencies. These are guys who are terrified of getting challenged from their right in their next primaries, so they don’t want to appear as though they’re collaborating or cooperating with Obama in any way. Like Tip O’
Neil famously said, all politics is local.
The downside for the Democrats is that the wingnuttery is so bad (have you heard this Liddy bit? “I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, ‘the race.’ … Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.”) that the mainstream GOPers (and yes they still exist) may be forced to distance themselves even if Rush disapproves. And that would be the first step back to them being competitive! Heaven forbid!
Nice straw man you’ve built there. So far, with all the quotes, even many out of context, attributed to the judge, we have seen no indication that Judge Sotomayor has made any reference to racial differences, yet here you are proposing a question based on things she never said.
And I note that having introduced that error, it is now cluttering up later discussion in this thread.
There is now some criticism by Obama supporters of Robert Gibbs and Obama himself making statements about the quote being “unfortunate” or “misspoken,” which they (the supporters) argue is playing into the hands of those on the other side of the aisle who attack her. Given the characterization being given to their (Gibbs’, in particular) statements by conservatives, I’m starting to agree.
If you’re referring to my post, thanks for reminding me to find the cite. (Though granted, it doesn’t show how the other side of the aisle is playing it up; I thought that’d be self-evident.) Even then, I might need more clarification.
Given that Obama has had to distance himself from her with a statement saying she should have restated her opinion I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Obama is displaying as President not half of the nerve, tenacity, and (frankly) balls as he did as a Presidential candidate, both in the primary and general elections. I would hope that in the near future, he will develop a, “Y’know, I’m the one that won the fucking election” attitude, and throw this bipartisan nonsense that only enables backstabbing from the loyal opposition to the wind.
As I stated earlier, if a legal decision is clear-cut it won’t make it to the the Supreme Court. We pay these people WELL below what they would make in private practice to gather all the various and sometimes contradictory laws and rulings and INTERPRET their meaning as it regards the current case. Strict construction is a conservative canard; a lie; a means to deny the value of other opinions. Supreme Court justices are not called “judges” because they can parrot the Constitution, but because they bring their JUDGEMENT to the table.
Sotomayor brings judgement to the bench. To deny its value not only denies the value of not having a robot on the bench, it also makes nonsensical the roles of of the conservative justices, who also bring their beliefs and life experiences to the court.
The right-winger bullcookies aside, Obama should not withdraw the nomination. This is the sort of thing that gave Clinton a reputation as a waffler, which killed his first year as President and enabled the Republicans to take over Congress.
Read your own cite. Her “racially biased comment” was only to add more varied background experience to the Court, that a Hispanic Female adds more varied background than another white male does (to a court already dominated by white males). And that is certainly true. She was not claiming that a Hispanic or female background was better, just different, and that different adds diveristy and thus a richness of background.
The next cite is bogus. Sotomayer made no such ruling. The 2nd Cir court made the ruling, and she joined with SEVEN other judges in supporting the ruling of three other Judges.
And it was certainly not “along the same lines of her bias” as the 2nd Cir Court ruled *against *a Hispanic firefighter (and a bunch of white dudes). Nor was it a ruling “in favor of racial discrimination” as that is exactly the issue which is being decided- is the decision made by the City of NY a racially biased ruling or not. It’s nice to know that you have decided it is, but twl levels of appeals courst have ruled that it isn’t, thus the question is certainly in doubt. It is a really fucked up problem, no doubt, but there doesn’t seem to be any “right side” here.
Here’s a good summation of what is going to SCOTUS on this. Sotomayer would likely recuse herself. scotuswiki.com.
From my cite:
**But according to dissenting Judge Jose Cabranes, the single-paragraph order issued by Sotomayor and her colleagues ignored over 1,800 pages of testimony and more than an hour of argument–ignoring the facts of the case.
“(T)he parties submitted briefs of 86 pages each and a six-volume joint appendix of over 1,800 pages; plaintiffs’ reply brief was over thirty pages long," Cabranes wrote.
"(O)ral argument, on December 10, 2007, lasted over an hour,” Cabranes explained, adding that more than two months after oral arguments, Sotomayor and the majority panel upheld the lower court in a summary order “containing a single substantive paragraph.”
Cabranes criticized Sotomayor and the majority for not explaining why they had sided with the city in their new opinion.
“This per curiam opinion adopted in toto the reasoning of the District Court, without further elaboration or substantive comment, and thereby converted a lengthy, unpublished district court opinion, grappling with significant constitutional and statutory claims of first impression, into the law of this Circuit,” Cabranes wrote in his dissent.
Judge Cabranes also said that Sotomayor’s opinion failed to address the constitutional issues of the case, saying the majority had ignored the facts of the case as well.
“It did so, moreover, in an opinion that lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal. Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case,” the judge criticized.
“This Court has failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal,” Judge Cabranes concluded. “If the Ricci plaintiffs are to receive such an opinion from a reviewing court they must now look to the Supreme Court. Their claims are worthy of that review.”**
She dismissed evidence outright and then didn’t back up her decision with anything meaningful. This case is a big deal and she blew it off. She is not SC material.
OMG, that has to be the most stupid argument against someone I have ever heard.
First of all, to attribute the action to Judge Sotomayor, as opposed to all the other judges of that Circuit who were involved, is ludicrous in the absence of some indication that Judge Sotomayor had a significant hand in deciding that a per curiam opinion should issue. Secondly, the fact that mountains of evidence, commentary, briefing, etc. were obtained or filed doesn’t mean that the original District Court opinion isn’t worthy of being referred back to. That’s done from time to time; usually it’s done because a very thoughtful analysis was given in that opinion and nothing truly important has been added to the issue by the appeal. The fact that Judge Cabranes disagrees that this is the case doesn’t mean that he’s any more right than the Circuit majority was.
Thirdly, to use one case, ANY one case to say, " this person isn’t worthy of being on the Supreme Court" is just plain ridiculous. To choose for the case a case in which the judge in question is only one of a group of anonymous judges in a per curiam opinion stretches the whole thing beyond the pale of reasonableness.
My understanding of the Ricci case was that it was not decided as a racial case at all. The judges saw this as a local control case. The question was not about race it was “Do local communities have the right to reset hiring practices?” The fact the community wanted to look at the test again was related to race was related, but the pages and pages of paper were not germane to the issue. It is like in University when you wrote a 20 page paper and never addressed the topic of discussion. The professor doesn’t have any obligation to give you points for volume.
I would suggest in this argument that we all have assumptions and biases. As a white teacher in a school where the students are mostly not white, I have learned the depth of some of mine. Had I stayed teaching white middle class kids I would never had even been faced with many of those assumptions. Ms. Sotomayor has lived her entire adult life dealing with a culture she was not brought up to. I suspect that she is far more aware of what she is assuming than anyone on the bench other than possibly Clarance Thomas. It doesn’t mean that the others are not capable of looking at their own assumptions, it just means that she probably has those assumptions pushed in her face more often.
These people decide issues that can affect our lives on fairly basic ways. The more viewpoints that are represented, the more likely there will not be unintended consequences.
It doesn’t matter how huge the amount of the evidence it, it matter how good it is. 10 million pages of crap is not worth as much as one good cite.
**Sotomayer **did not do anything here. Nothing. The 2nd Cir COURT, of which she was one of 3 Judges, affirmed a decision of a another Judge panel. In other words, 3 judges (of which Sotomayer was one) upheld a dec by another Judge. So Sotomayer was just one of 4 judges here none one of which thought Sotomayer was wrong, they all agreed.
Later the Plaintiffs asked for a rehearing en banc (by the entire panel of Judges) and this was refused by a vote of 7-6. So again, a majority of the Judges made the dec, not Sotomayer alone.
If Sotomayer is so wrong here, she has plenty of company. The case is very complex and neither side is really the side for or against discrimination.
Google the case name and then my cite is the first that comes up.
Ricci, et al. v. DeStefano, et al. - ScotusWiki
Apr 28, 2009 … On Wednesday, April 22, in Ricci v. DeStefano (07-1428 & 08-328), the Court will consider questions relating to the operation and … scotuswiki.com. - 48k -
Or you can just try Wiki itself: Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
If court decisions were only that simple. You just take the facts and affirm them. But many decisions are 5 to 4 suggesting that argument is ridiculous. We could just use a computer if it were that easy. Supreme court cases are usually very complicated. There are contradictions in evidence which are weighed by the judges. They have been viewed by other courts and often have resulted in conflicting decisions. The danger is that Sotomayor will lean toward the small man. That would be fair since Roberts is 100 % for the big powers. Kinda evens out and gives a guy a slim chance. She should be confirmed easily.
