Sotomayor

So, has anybody else watched any of the confirmation hearings? Is it just me or does she take the cake for refusing to answer more questions than anybody ever in her position?

She would not give opinion, even when asked for opinion, because the question was not regarding some case in front of a court. Then she would not answer any question that may sometime come in front of a court because it may sometime come before the court and she did not want to give any idea how she would see such a case.

Simply a continual rambling of; I cannot answer the question because it is too abstract. I would have to know what states law was concerning the issue.


I think we need to look for another justice because I do not believe justice will come from her.

It was pretty much standard fare for the confirmation process.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Simply a continual rambling of; I cannot answer the question because it is too abstract. I would have to know what states law was concerning the issue.


I think we need to look for another justice because I do not believe justice will come from her.

---

I expect it was the same from her when she was being considered for her Appeals court position, although I have never seen one of those televised?

I did watch when Rehnquist was in front of the Judiciary committee when being considered for his CJ promotion, also Bork and Thomas' hearings. The Senate knows and expects certain answers of direct avoidance.

Aaron, have you ever been to/toured the SC building in DC?

I've been outside of the building, for what that's worth, but haven't yet made it inside.

My idea for questioning Supreme Court nominees would be, rather than asking them how they would rule on a particular issue, asking them to state the strongest arguments for each side of a particular legal issue without stating which they would prefer. (At the same time, had I been around way back when and somehow a member of the Senate, I would have energetically opposed allowing this status quo to develop, where a nominee could avoid addressing any controversial issue merely by pretending that it may come before the court at some time in the future.)

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

I've been outside of the building, for what that's worth, but haven't yet made it inside.

---

You have got to tour inside someday.

I had the unique pleasure to sit in on an oral argument during the Burger Court. I saw some greats on the court. I will never forget it as long as I live!

Yeah, I don't much care for her...

I was having an Ollie North flashback.........she produced more ducks than the pond in the city park down the street!

I understand WHY she was picked, but there are other Federal judges who are minority and left leaning who would be a better choice.

Perhaps none who are for identity politics, though.

I'm not sure about Sotomayor. The fact her father was one of them damn illegals gives me great cause for concern. Is she going work to overturn our immigration laws? Will she make it easier for illegal aliens to continue stealing jobs from the poorest Americans? I fear Obama has made a mistake in appointing her.

We need judges and politicians who will deport the 12-20 million invaders currently residing on American soil, make English the official language, and quit giving out OUR social programs to their children!

WTF are you talking about. People from Puerto Rico are U.S. Citizens.

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

WTF are you talking about. People from Puerto Rico are U.S. Citizens.

---

Her father is not from Puerto Rico! He's from Mexico! Look it up!

if this was typical, then why bother? I saw absolutely nothing that would have allowed me to make any decision to support her.

Her now well publicized comment from several years ago stating the she believed a latina judge may arrive at a better decision than a white male one gives me reason to pause. That, and the fact she has represented herself as a Newyorkrican so strongly, I cannot imagine her being impartial.

Obviously, Obama is scurrying around and attempting to explain the comment away with the "I am sure if she would have restated it" comment. That is why his choice is simply wrong. As a SCJ, she will not have a chance to restate things simply because she plain screwed up awhile back. What is more distressing is; she said it to begin with and now does not want to stand by her statement. As a SCJ, she needs to stand by her statements. Anything less will erode her position as a SCJ. How is one to stand with her if she keeps moving?



Along with those problems, the recent situation where her decision was overturned by the SCOTUS. It's not just that one of her decisions was overturned but her ruling was via the granting of summary judgement. She did not even hear all of the arguments that would have been presented. I believe that says so much more than had she heard the totality of the arguments and still made the decision. This makes it kind of a "quick draw" ruling on her part and apparently, her aim is not all that good.


. I suggest the greatest reason she will be confirmed is the fact she is a latina. Given a different time, possibly one where race was not at such the forefront, things would be different. I see more of a political justification for the appointment than one of ability.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Her father is not from Puerto Rico! He's from Mexico! Look it up!

---

Wikipedia:


Sonia Maria Sotomayor[3] was born in the Bronx, a borough of New York City.[4] Her father, Juan Sotomayor, had a third-grade education and did not speak English.[5] He was from the Santurce area of San Juan.

Aren't you the one who's always criticizing wikipedia?

Whatever. She may be from Porto Rico, but she's still going to by sympathetic to the 12-20 million invaders!

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Aren't you the one who's always criticizing wikipedia?

Whatever. She may be from Porto Rico, but she's still going to by sympathetic to the 12-20 million invaders!

---

ya but considering the discussion, and that every other site I reviewed stated he was "from Puerto Rico" (yet accepting they did not actually say "born in"), I figured that would be acceptable.

blueeagle doesn't appear to care about the stinkin' facts.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

ya but considering the discussion, and that every other site I reviewed stated he was "from Puerto Rico" (yet accepting they did not actually say "born in"), I figured that would be acceptable.

---

The 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to PR also, that I do know, so they are more than a possession/territory.

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

blueeagle doesn't appear to care about the stinkin' facts.

---

Damn it, Aaron, I do to! I'm just tired of our government catering to illegal aliens. You should feel the same way I do! Do you really think it's fair for your kids to be forced to learn Spanish? Or for your tax dollars to pay welfare benefits to an illegal who refuses to work while poor Americans are unable to feed their family? What about all the American farmers, construction workers, and retail employees who lost their job to some illegal just because he/she will work for a nickel an hour less? Do you not care about your county? Have you no concern for working Americans?

Quote:

---

Do you really think it's fair for your kids to be forced to learn Spanish?

---

In what school district is this happening, BE? It was not required that I learn Spanish when I was in school, it wasn't when I was teaching, and it isn't in my son's schools now.

Sure, some high schools require one or two years of A foreign language to graduate, and many Universities require two or three years of A foreign language for admission, but I am unaware of these requirements being explicitly Spanish only for any school.

Quote:

---

What about all the American farmers, construction workers, and retail employees who lost their job to some illegal just because he/she will work for a nickel an hour less?

---

Your strawman needs attending. His clothes are filthy and need a washing.

In other words, horsepuckey.

Quote:

---

Quoting LawResearcherMissy

---

In what school district is this happening, BE? It was not required that I learn Spanish when I was in school, it wasn't when I was teaching, and it isn't in my son's schools now.

---

In many Texas school districts! My little cousin is currently in highschool. He, like your kids, is required to take 2 years of a foreign language in order to graduate. But guess what? Spanish is the only language they offer!!!


[QUOTE]Your strawman needs attending. His clothes are filthy and need a washing.

In other words, horsepuckey.[/QUOTEOk ,let me ask you this: Who worked American farmland before the 12-20 million illegals invaded our soil? American citizens, that's who! My grandfather was a farmer. And guess what? So don't give me that bull crap about illegals "taking jobs Americans refuse to take". I know what it's like to be unemployed. Three years ago I would have sold my soul for a job making 8 bucks an hour picking strawberries! Some money is better than nothing!

Besides, you live in Michigan. Less than 4% of your population are illegal aliens. In Texas it's closer to 35%!

While I disagree with Sotomayor's identity politics, I have seen no proof that her father was an illegal, and even if he were, that is not enough to Constitutionally bar her from the court.

BTW_ The county I live in is over 50% Hispanic, and no one here is making anyone take Spanish.

Look, I don't have anything against her social policies. In fact, I'm tired of the religious-right getting involved in peoples personal lives. W need somebody who will defend civil liberties. I don't care if a woman decides to have an abortion. Nor am I offended by gays getting married. Peoples private life is none of the governments concerns. Hell, I even support legalization of marijuana.

Quote:

---

Spanish is the only language they offer!!!

---

That's a problem with the district's funding, not dem damned dirty brown people. Maybe his district should look to better school funding.

Quote:

---

Who worked American farmland before the 12-20 million illegals invaded our soil? American citizens, that's who! My grandfather was a farmer. And guess what? So don't give me that bull crap about illegals "taking jobs Americans refuse to take". I know what it's like to be unemployed. Three years ago I would have sold my soul for a job making 8 bucks an hour picking strawberries! Some money is better than nothing!

---

Strawman gets filthier by the minute. You should groom him better. Or do him the courtesy of giving him a proper send-off.

No one is firing white Americans so they can hire illegal workers. Too much paperwork to falsify.

Quote:

---

Besides, you live in Michigan.

---

I live in OHIO. Not that it matters. No one is forcing anyone to take Arabic even though our Middle Eastern population in my city is pretty gigantic.

Quote:

---

Quoting LawResearcherMissy

---

No one is firing white Americans so they can hire illegal workers. Too much paperwork to falsify.

---

Bull crap. Just drive to Texas and ask around, you'll find plenty of people who disagree with you.

Quote:

---

I live in OHIO. Not that it matters. No one is forcing anyone to take Arabic even though our Middle Eastern population in my city is pretty gigantic.

---

At least middle eastern are over here legally!

Quote:

---

Quoting LawResearcherMissy

---

No one is firing white Americans so they can hire illegal workers. Too much paperwork to falsify.

.

---

I'm sorry but you are quite naive if you truly believe what you are saying here. I was doing some service work in a company that makes mattresses. One of the management and I were on pretty good terms. He told me they just let go 5 employees because they all had the same SS# and they were called on it by the gov. The administration in the county this was in stopped raiding businesses for illegals because the owners of the companies were tired of losing so many employees. Since the businesses were where the county got their money, they complied.

Dang, I know one business that had to close for a couple weeks because well over 20 of their 30 some employees got deported from one raid on the place. They did not have enough employees to operate and had to hire more (or wait until the old ones made their way back)

The truth is; illegals are hired quite frequently and often with knowledge of the fact (although plausible deniability is quite important). They are often abused because they and the employer know the worker cannot report the situation without jeopardizing their stay here in the US. This way, the employer gets away without following OSHA regs as well as refusing to pay overtime (remember Wal-Marts situation with the illegals?), and many other cost saving methods.


It is very easy to employ an illegal. The company can pretty much turn a blind eye to the possibility of the employee being illegal as long as the very easily defrauded I9 appears to be legit.

time to wake up Missy.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

He told me they just let go 5 employees because they all had the same SS# and they were called on it by the gov. The administration in the county this was in stopped raiding businesses for illegals because the owners of the companies were tired of losing so many employees. Since the businesses were where the county got their money, they complied.

---

I hope they get deported!

Wait, doesn't your county have a high unemployment rate? I think the county should INCREASE raiding business! Hiring an illegal steals a job from an American!

Quote:

---

Dang, I know one business that had to close for a couple weeks because well over 20 of their 30 some employees got deported from one raid on the place. They did not have enough employees to operate and had to hire more (or wait until the old ones made their way back)

---

The business owner needs to be fine Thats 20-30 jobs he stole from his own countrymen. Can anybody say treason?

Quote:

---

time to wake up Missy.

---

Thanks JK. You're not such a jerk afterall.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Thanks JK. You're not such a jerk afterall.

---

thanks, I think.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

At least middle eastern are over here legally!

---

You mean, unlike U.S. Citizens from Puerto Rico?

This could get even more amusing... pray tell, what do you think about people from New Mexico "taking our jobs"?

blueeagle is making himself sound like the sort who, a generation ago, would have been ranting about the I-talians and Papists on the court, or before that complaining that the Irish were "taking our jobs", or before that complaining that low-wage Chinese workers were taking railroad jobs away from hard working Americans....

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

It is very easy to employ an illegal. The company can pretty much turn a blind eye to the possibility of the employee being illegal as long as the very easily defrauded I9 appears to be legit.

time to wake up Missy.

---

JK, I never said no one was hiring illegals. I said no one was firing white Americans in order to do so.

Perhaps that difference is too subtle for you, but there IS a difference.

Actually, Americans (white, brown, yellow, black, or otherwise) ARE getting fired to be replaced by illegals. A certain large theme park is big with that here in Central Florida. They are getting rid of full time employees, because benefits are expensive, and replacing those positions using labor contract employees.

The contractor is contracted to provide staffing for a given location, and then in turn hires illegals to staff the location. This allows the theme park to save money in benefits, and still claim that they have no knowledge of illegals working there. The customer service positions are usually staffed with European illegals from the Czech Republic and other former East Bloc countries. (Not all illegals are Hispanic, and many do not sneak across the border)

The construction industry and the agriculture industry are riddled with illegals from Mexico and South America, who are also stealing American jobs.

All of this has nothing to do with Puerto Rico OR with Sotomayor. I just resent her for saying that a court case should have a different outcome, depending on the race of the defendant. Identity politics, who needs it?

(I don't care that she is liberal- I don't much like liberals OR conservatives.)

I'm not sure what Sotomayor said in that regard, but the Supreme Court has long imposed different standards of review based upon a history of discrimination against members of a litigant's ethnic group. Depending upon the subject matter of a discrimination case the Court might apply strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, the "rational basis" test, or declare that it's not a form of discrimination subject to recourse in the courts. How is it "identity politics" to recognize that fact?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

The truth is; illegals are hired quite frequently and often with knowledge of the fact (although plausible deniability is quite important). They are often abused because they and the employer know the worker cannot report the situation without jeopardizing their stay here in the US.

---

Any of them firefighters in New Haven? Too much paperwork to falsify.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what Sotomayor said in that regard, but the Supreme Court has long imposed different standards of review based upon a history of discrimination against members of a litigant's ethnic group. Depending upon the subject matter of a discrimination case the Court might apply strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, the "rational basis" test, or declare that it's not a form of discrimination subject to recourse in the courts. How is it "identity politics" to recognize that fact?

---

To reward someone to correct a wrong perpetrated against an ancestor is to punish someone for a transgression carried out by an ancestor. That is ridiculous. A white man is to be punished because another white man discriminated against a black man 100 years ago, even if the black man's ancestors didn't arrive in the country until AFTER the segregation and discrimination laws put an end to that practice? What happened to the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? Or is it Equal Protection only if you are a member of a certain class?

There was a time when SCOTUS had a "seperate but equal" philosophy, and a time when the Dred Scott decision was the law of the land. Doesn't mean that the SCOTUS was right then, and discriminating the other way doesn't fix it.

Sotomayor, takes this line of reasoning a step further, questioning whether it is possible for judges to overcome personal sympathies or biases "in all or even in most cases." She even seems to think that ruling based upon these biases is somehow patriotic: "I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."

And apparently she finds the differences between ethnicities to be profound, in a way that most reasonable people will find profoundly disturbing. She infamously claimed that she "hope[s] that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." She also stated that physiological differences based on national origins "will make a difference in our judging," and grants some credence to the idea that race or ethnicity may lead to "basic differences in logic and reasoning."

As U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Todd Gaziano, responding to these claims, has stated: "[T]his is not a potential example of 'reverse discrimination.' At issue is the same, old, ugly racial discrimination and stereotypes as before--just in furtherance of different groups."

If you think judges' biases don't factor into court rulings, you've never been to court. ;) I would be - I am - more suspicious of a judge who pretends to be a robot than one who admits to having to reflect and consider how her prejudices affect her rulings, before she rules (to the best of her ability) in accord with the law.

I recognize that it's fun to play games with (ill-considered) quotes pulled out of inspirational speeches, and doubt that Sotomayor would have made some of her statements had she believed she would ever make it this far, but what planet am I to pretend to be from where people can make decisions free of influence from their personal background? Alito admitted his Italian immigrant heritage influenced his philosophy - why aren't you all over his back? Thomas has written extensively about how his childhood has influenced him - once again?

But that has nothing to do with the prior point you raised - that different legal standards apply to different cases based upon such factors as ethnicity. Even if you disagree with the statutes and jurisprudence that led to the status quo, if a nominee didn't know that such a nominee would not be qualified to serve.

Really, for all the apocalyptic fervor, the Supreme Court battles haven't been much to watch. O'Connor's replacement should have been a major battle, because when she resigned, the right really did have a chance to shift the median justice to the right. They took advantage of it, and succeeded. The court is more conservative today than it was when O'Connor sat on it.

That, I suppose, is because the left just didn't wield as much power as it wanted to. The right is no doubt picking its battles. We won't see much of a fight over Sotomayor. But should Kennedy, Scalia, or Thomas require replacing in coming years, that's when I think we'll see the kind of Armageddon people have been expecting. That's when the left will have the opportunity not only to shift the median justice one to the left, but to actually restore a progressive court majority.

Quote:

---

If you think judges' biases don't factor into court rulings, you've never been to court. I would be - I am - more suspicious of a judge who pretends to be a robot than one who admits to having to reflect and consider how her prejudices affect her rulings, before she rules (to the best of her ability) in accord with the law.

---

So if the situation were different, and a white nominee stated that whites deserved more consideration that other races, what would this debate look like?

Quote:

---

Alito admitted his Italian immigrant heritage influenced his philosophy - why aren't you all over his back? Thomas has written extensively about how his childhood has influenced him - once again?

---

Because they are not the ones facing nomination right now.

Quote:

---

Quoting divemedic

---

So if the situation were different, and a white nominee stated that whites deserved more consideration that other races, what would this debate look like?

---

No attributions or paraphrases, please - what exact statement are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Quoting divemedic

---

Because they are not the ones facing nomination right now.

---

Oh, forgive me. I somehow completely forgot about the thread where you were all over Alito's back during his nomination. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Oh, forgive me. I somehow completely forgot about the thread where you were all over Alito's back during his nomination.

---

I wasn't a member here then. Justice Alito began his stint with COTUS in January of 2006. I did not become a member here until July 2008.

Quote:

---

No attributions or paraphrases, please - what exact statement are you talking about?

---

The speech was a paraphrase by Sotomayor of the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases. Instead, she chose to warp the saying and change it to “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

I have much more respect for Ginsburg than Sotomayor. She also said in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.”

Sotomayor is also a member of La Raza, which is a terrorist front group intent on returning Aztlan to Mexico.

I am not paraphrasing. The fact that this is a minority judge who is expressing a desire to support (in her own words, along with the words of the President who nominated her) identity politics. That is, she has openly stated that minorities deserve different decisions based not on the law, but on their race.

I am asking what the Congressional and Public debates would look like if a white justice had said that a white judge could make better decisions than a Hispanic woman, because a white judge has more experience in life.

You can keep on keeping on with the accounts of why you haven't complained on the record about similar statements by past nominees or sitting Justices. But just so you know, you've reached the point of "divemedic dost protest too much".

You're going back to the "wise Latina" comment, already discussed? I thought you were implying that you had something new, and was looking forward to hearing it. Oh well. If you're going to try to rehabilitate yourself by dragging the conversation in circles, that too seems like a lost cause.

I suggest you look into the past statements of certain Senators, like Jeff Sessions, who also carried on ad nauseum about the "wise Latina" comment. Was he cast out of office?

Quote:

---

Quoting divemedic

---

The speech was a paraphrase by Sotomayor of the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases. Instead, she chose to warp the saying and change it to “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

---

You implied that she said that Latinos deserved more consideration than other candidates. The "wise Latina" comment doesn't fit that bill.

Quote:

---

Quoting divemedic

---

She also said in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.”

---

I've already addressed that. You truly don't think appellate courts make policy? This entire discussion is predicated upon the obvious fact that they do.

Quote:

---

Quoting divemedic

---

Sotomayor is also a member of La Raza, which is a terrorist front group intent on returning Aztlan to Mexico.

---

This La Raza? If you're reduced to posting slurs you pull from right-wing talk radio, what's the point....