Sotomayor is Obama's SCOTUS pick

[Tsukasa Buddha]

God, it is so annoying that conservatives bemoan the liberal media, yet every news station accepts the "racist" comment as if it is fact. In context, she really was talking about race and sex related cases. I don't know of any way that conservatives could claim she was talking in general except if they were lying or didn't read the context they claimed to know.

 

[KingMerv00]

In my ideal world, she would get some cursory questions and then a gavel. Better yet, answer the questions in private interviews and just band the gavel.

Putting SCOTUS nominees through the wringer doesn't bother me at all. They are lifetime appointees after all. To get fired, they'd have to beat a congressional page to death with their bare hands. Better too much scrutiny than too little.

 

[Tricky]

I don't the GOP are going to be the ones to "cease fire" however since they've gotten the short end of the stick for so long on nominations.

LOL. They've gotten to pick eight of the last ten justices. If that's the short end of the stick, then that's the end I want.

 

[maddog]

Did you read the piece I linked to? It wasn't just that judges draw on their life experiences and beliefs, but that the role of a judge is more than the mechanical application of settled law. As the essay pointed, the very reason these cases reach the Supreme Court (and even the decision of the S.C. to hear them) is that they often hinge on law that isn't very settled or clear, or that is overdue for change.

We're not interested in having machines take the place of the Supreme Court.

Of course who a person is matters wrt making law. If you care to test this idea, ask if a Congress composed of black people would have allowed slavery to continue for the first nearly 100 years of the existence of our country.

Yes, I read your link. It says what some naive people (read: DDWW) are forgetting, but to most people should be a big yawner. The problem with what you added in this post is "law ... that is overdue for change" and "making law". That is not the SC's job. The legislative branch makes laws; the judicial branch enforces laws, and when necessary, interprets the meaning, intention, and legitimacy of those laws. Changing and making laws is not for judges to do.

Putting SCOTUS nominees through the wringer doesn't bother me at all. They are lifetime appointees after all. To get fired, they'd have to beat a congressional page to death with their bare hands. Better too much scrutiny than too little.

I agree. Not to mention that part of the wringer process is making sure that the nominee can handle the pressure.

 

[corplinx]

LOL. They've gotten to pick eight of the last ten justices. If that's the short end of the stick, then that's the end I want.

They just happened to be in power when they stepped down. If you look at the circus atmospheres to confirmations as well as the overall obstructionism of non-supreme nominations during the past two presidential terms, they indeed got the short end of the stick.

 

[Tricky]

They just happened to be in power when they stepped down.

That's not pure luck, of course. Judges tend to step down when a president they like is in office, unless they are just too sick to carry own. I think O'Conner definitely wanted to retire before Bush was out of office.

If you look at the circus atmospheres to confirmations as well as the overall obstructionism of non-supreme nominations during the past two presidential terms, they indeed got the short end of the stick.

I don't recall any great circus for Alito or Roberts. Certainly there was contentiousness, as one would expect for so important an appointment, but it was nothing like Thomas or Bork.

 

[corplinx]

I don't recall any great circus for Alito or Roberts. Certainly there was contentiousness, as one would expect for so important an appointment, but it was nothing like Thomas or Bork.

Alito and Roberts didn't turn into Circuses. However, remember that hispanic guy? I am talking about the overall judicial nomination racket.

Like I said though, in my ideal world, we have to live with the justices (supreme and lower) we get to encourage more due diligence at the ballot box. Unless there is some major malfunction with the person.

I can see no reason to hold up the Sotomayer nomination based on that.

 

[DDWW]

Yes, I read your link. It says what some naive people (read: DDWW) are forgetting, but to most people should be a big yawner. The problem with what you added in this post is "law ... that is overdue for change" and "making law". That is not the SC's job. The legislative branch makes laws; the judicial branch enforces laws, and when necessary, interprets the meaning, intention, and legitimacy of those laws. Changing and making laws is not for judges to do.


Are we both naive then if that was the point I was making?

DDWW

 

[maddog]

Are we both naive then if that was the point I was making?

DDWW

I'm sorry, then, I must have misunderstood your point. It seemed to me, perhaps in error, that you were oversimplifying the situation -- that your point was that the court simply clarifies the laws and mechanically, robot-like (as others have also implied) omits any relevant personality, experience, character, etc. from themselves in the process.

The article is different in that it acknowledges, even emphasizes, that a person's background informs all of their decisions and viewpoints on the laws concerned, as well as their applications.

At least, that was how I read it. And again, I apologize if I misunderstood you.

 

[Beerina]

Whatever else one might say of Sotomayor, no one disputes that she's an experienced federal judge. She's not an Obama crony being rewarded with a Supreme Court nomination in exchange for her loyal service. I fail to see how a comparison to Harriet Miers can stand up to the tiniest amount of scrutiny.

Many conservatives like George Will were disgusted with the Miers nomination. Left or right, the judges are always judges with a high interest in Constitutional law and Constitutional reasoning. She didn't even come close to that, if she even was a judge at all.

 

[fishbob]

The only POTUS who actually tried to "stuff" the court was FDR. He wanted to raise the number of SCOTUS justices to 15. But you prove the point in that the Dems went ballistic over Meirs, Alito and Roberts.

Response to sentences in order:

1 - I seriously doubt that FDR was the only one. Also, I said that Bush wanted to stuff the court with toadies and idealogues instead of justices.

2 - And rightly so - did you miss the part about the idealogues instead of justices? Focus on that part for a minute. . . . . there - all better now?

 

[linusrichard]

I wonder if Sotomayor will trouble conservatives by saying something like this in her confirmation hearings, suggesting that her judgment might be in some way shaped by her life experience:

Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.

I don’t come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn’t experience those things. I don’t take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.

 

[pgwenthold]

I wonder if Sotomayor will trouble conservatives by saying something like this in her confirmation hearings, suggesting that her judgment might be in some way shaped by her life experience:

So who did say that? Alito?

 

[linusrichard]

So who did say that? Alito?

Ding ding ding!

 

[maddog]

I wonder if Sotomayor will trouble conservatives by saying something like this in her confirmation hearings, suggesting that her judgment might be in some way shaped by her life experience:

FWIW, I consider myself to be a conservative, and I'm not troubled by this. That judgment is shaped by life experience is a simple truism. If she expressed a desire to change laws or base her decisions primarily on her own experiences and opinions, that would trouble me. But to base decisions on the law, as judged through her own eyes, shaped as she is by her experience (as we all are), that's fair enough -- in fact, honest.

 

[maddog]

So who did say that? Alito?

Ding ding ding!

Phew! At least I'm safely consistent!

 

[Ziggurat]

Response to sentences in order:

1 - I seriously doubt that FDR was the only one.

You would be wrong. FDR was the only president who tried to radically expand the size of the court in order to fill it with his own appointees.

Also, I said that Bush wanted to stuff the court with toadies and idealogues instead of justices.

That's not stuffing. You don't seem to understand what FDR really tried to do.

2 - And rightly so - did you miss the part about the idealogues instead of justices? Focus on that part for a minute. . . . . there - all better now?

The real problem with Meiers wasn't that she was an ideologue, but that she was unqualified. And I've seen nothing from Alito or Roberts on the bench to suggest that they are ideologues. They are conservatives, to be sure, but why is it a problem for a republican president to appoint conservative judges? It's not, just as it's not a problem for a democrat president to appoint liberal judges.

 

[Cicero]

You would be wrong. FDR was the only president who tried to radically expand the size of the court in order to fill it with his own appointees.



That's not stuffing. You don't seem to understand what FDR really tried to do.



The real problem with Meiers wasn't that she was an ideologue, but that she was unqualified. And I've seen nothing from Alito or Roberts on the bench to suggest that they are ideologues. They are conservatives, to be sure, but why is it a problem for a republican president to appoint conservative judges? It's not, just as it's not a problem for a democrat president to appoint liberal judges.

You don't understand. Liberal SCOTUS nominees are never ideologues; they're just liberals.....

 

[maddog]

I'm more troubled by this:

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."

Link

and

Gun rights groups also have a problem with Sotomayor's views, and in this case it's because of her substantive record, not her lack thereof. In particular, they cite a 2004 ruling in which Sotomayor joined two other judges to declare that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Link

 

[rwguinn]

I'm more troubled by this:

Link

and

Link

Links don't work for me.
I caught some of that on TV at lunch. If one were of a CT mind-set, one might think that, since the recent affirmation of the 2nd Amendment by the SCOTUS, since the Dems cannot expect to get a Constitutional Amendment modifying the 2nd, they will simply Judiciate it into place--except the guy she is replacing was of like mind to her opinion, so the vote remains. There will be more, however, during the next 4-8 years...