Busting Judge Sotomayor

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by PoliticalChic, Jul 16, 2009.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,829
    Thanks Received:
    15,655
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,973
    Judge Sotomayor has the enviable advantage of being the nominee of a Democratic President, and an overwhelmingly Democrat Congress. As such, her success has been a foregone conclusion.
    But simply arguendo, let me outline reasons why this judge should not be elevated to the Supreme Court.

    1.) Judicial intellect

    a. During the Senate hearings, the judge used malaprops such as the following: “…[foreign law] increased our ‘story’ of knowledge.” The word is ‘store,’ or ‘storehouse.’ The judge, in discussing the use of deadly force, used the phrase ‘faced with ‘eminent’ death.’ The correct term is ‘imminent’. Her use of language seems somewhat below what we have come to expect from a Supreme Court Justice. For comparison, imagine the response if former President Bush had used incorrect terminology.

    b. Judge Sonia Sotomayor once described herself as "a product of affirmative action" who was admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than many classmates, which she attributed to "cultural biases" that are "built into testing."
    The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an "affirmative action baby" whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Latino and had grown up in poor circumstances.
    Videotaped remarks shed light on Sotomayor

    c.“The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue… Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees.”
    The Case Against Sotomayor

    2.) Judicial temperament

    a. Championed racial supremacy, claiming many times that someone of her background, a “ wise Latina" judge will make better decisions than, say, a white male judge.

    b. . Judge Sotomayor does not feel that she may be able to put aside personal sympathies or prejudices. This, form a Berkeley speech in 2002, published by La Raza: “While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.”

    c. Judge Sotomayor feels that she has the right to ignore some facts: “…….Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. .. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.” (ibid.)

    d.” …according to the current Almanac of the Federal Judiciary -- a kind of Zagat's guide to federal judges.
    The withering evaluation of Judge Sotomayor's temperament stands in stark contrast to reviews of her peers on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Of the 21 judges evaluated, the same lawyers gave 18 positive to glowing reviews and two judges received mixed reviews. Judge Sotomayor was the only one to receive decidedly negative comments. Judge Sotomayor was the only member of the 2nd Circuit to receive a universally negative review of her temperament.
    "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts," one lawyer told the almanac. Another said she "abuses lawyers."
    Lawyers tag nominee as 'terror on the bench' - Washington Times

    d. Although the use of ‘foreign law’ in judicial consideration has been popular in recent decades, there are many who see marked differences between European civil law, and Anglo-American concepts known as common law. Although space does not allow a full discussion here, their import is very different. “ Judge Sonia Sotomayor says it is worthwhile to "learn from foreign law and the international community when interpreting our Constitution ..."
    Letter: Sotomayor's views on international law disturbing - EagleTribune.com, North Andover, MA

    e. Supreme Court reversals

    i. Ricci decision: all nine Supreme Court Justices criticized her decision, saying that summary judgment was inappropriate, and should have been judged on the facts.
    All nine justices rejected Sotomayor's holding that different test results alone give the government a green light to engage in race discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg's opinion for the dissent clearly stated that "an employer could not cast aside a selection method based on a statistical disparity alone." None adopted Sotomayor's position that unequal test results alone prove discrimination. This suggests that a wise Jewess, due to the richness of her life experiences, might come to a better judgment than a Latina judge would.
    So Much For Wise Latinas - HUMAN EVENTS

    ii. “Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed,…”
    Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court - Washington Times
    Including the Ricci case, that would be 66%.

    g. Judical decisions

    i. Voting rights should not be denied to felons.
    The guiding case law currently is Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974). In that case, a majority of the Supreme Court found that the 14th Amendment gives the states clear permission to deny the vote to felons. The second part of the amendment essentially reduced
    ii. Gun rights are not incorporated to the states. “ In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.
    The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.
    Sotomayor, however, said that even though the Heller decision held that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right--and therefore could not be justly denied to a law-abiding citizen by any government, federal, state or local--the Second Circuit was still bound by the 1886 case, because Heller only dealt indirectly with the issue before her court.
    CNSNews.com - Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment
    And, from the hearings: "When Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma asked her, point blank, "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense?" Sotomayor said that was an "abstract question" and that she couldn't think of a Supreme Court case that addressed that issue."

    4 Were some of her actions unethical, bordering on illegal? “ Now Sotomayor was a prosecutor up until 1984 and started in April of that year with Pavia & Hartcourt, according to the questionnaire. That means she had her private law firm, likely a home office based on her modest description of the practice, that overlapped both her prosecutor's position and her associate's position at Pavia & Hartcourte. So the question here is not whether she had permission to have that private firm, as I suspect she must have, but rather, why she called it "Sotomayor & Associates"?

    Did she have any associates when she was advertising herself in that manner? My guess is no, given that this was a side business that she says was devoted to consulting for family and friends. And if she had no associates, then it is a no-no to tell the world that you do. That's misleading.

    From the American Bar Association comes this all-inclusive statement that such conduct is prohibited in every state:
    Are there any Associates (or "Law Groups") in the House?

    There are several state bar opinions that address a lawyer's use of terms in a firm name that carry with them the implication that there is more than one lawyer in the firm. Examples of such terms include "X and associates" or "The X law group". Citations to these opinions, along with digests of them as they appear in the ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct follow.

    All State bar opinions are in agreement that a lawyer may not use the term, "and Associates" if there are in fact no associates in the firm. See, South Carolina Opinion 05-19 (2005) (A lawyer seeking to open a governmental affairs and lobbying firm consisting of the lawyer and two nonlawyer employees may not name the firm "John Doe and Associates, P.A." The name violates Rules 7.1 and 7.5(a) because it misleadingly implies that the firm has more than one lawyer.), Ohio Opinion 95-1 (1995) (A lawyer who is in solo practice may not use the phrase "and Associates" in the firm name to indicate that the lawyer shares space with other lawyers, acts as co-counsel with other lawyers, or has non-lawyer employees. A lawyer who is the sole shareholder in a professional corporation may not use the phrase "and Associates" in the firm name when the lawyer in fact has no employees.)
    In New York, the conduct would fall under DR 2-102, which bars misleading advertising on a letterhead. [See Comment 2] If in fact Sotomayor had no associates at her firm, it would appear she overstepped the bounds of self-promotion by making her firm seem bigger than it was.
    New York Personal Injury Law Blog: Did Sotomayor Violate NY Ethics Rules in Private Solo Practice with "& Associates" Name?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285
    a Democratic President, and an overwhelmingly Democrat Congress

    You gloss over this point like you didn't lose the election and the result was a choice of americans to reject your policies. The majority of americans were thoroughly done with stupidity in government. Do you remember Harrriet Meyers? A study in mediocrity if anything.

    The accumulated neo con babble you have assembled sheds light only on your bitterness and vitriol over losing the confidense of americans in the ability of neo con control over thier lives.
     
  3. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,829
    Thanks Received:
    15,655
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,973
    There is nothing bitter, nor vitriolic in the post.

    Clearly documented and substantiated, the post accepts that Judge Sotomayor will be elevated to the post.

    Although your response is insipid, superficial, and lacking a defense against any of the many cogent points, made, I must thank you for having read what is clearly a far too long critique.

    Once I started to organize it in my mind, I found it difficult to leave out critical points.
     
  4. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    You'll forgive me perhaps for thinking that you are not the person to evaluate Sotomayor's qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court, won't you?

    As far as I know your ability to evaluate her legal decisions is that of a layman.

    Not that my qualifications are any better than yours, of course.
     
  5. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,829
    Thanks Received:
    15,655
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,973
    As ealier, I thank you for reading the post.

    But your response appears to be simply an attempt, a failed one, to take a shot at me, rather than responding in any way to the post.

    Any time.
     
  6. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285
    I found them untrue..therefore in no need of defending leaving only the question unanswered as to why you would post a whole page plus of nonsense like this. My conclusion...ok..speculation.. was bitterness on your part.

    I am sure you believe what you offer..that's the troubling part. Perhaps you should expand your searches to include sources other than those you normally rely on. Just a thought.
     
  7. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,829
    Thanks Received:
    15,655
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,973

    Oh, my. Do I sense that I must have spanked you?

    Now you defend your bloviation, er, post with the empty "no need of defending..."

    " I found them untrue..." Each and every one is true, and documented. Your turn.

    "why you would post a whole page plus ..." I have watched, and even taken notes, as is my wont, on the Senate hearings. I thought the topic was worthy of discussion, and noted that there was no such discussion of the topic on the board. Offhand, I cannot recall any of my post that fit your definition of bitter and venomous; they are clear and well defended.

    Further, I thought that there were some members of the board who might like, no matter which side they were on, a critical review.

    I looked forward to the opposite view. Intellectually.

    Sorry to say, that you have not yet lived up to this goal.

    Should you have the interest, take another shot. Be explicit. Name and counter those that you claim are untrue.

    I would be happy to explain any of the terms that are unfamiliar. Although I am not a lawyer, I make it a habit to find out the meanings of any terms with which I am not familiar, and would be happy to share the info that I have found. This is not a criticism, don't take it other than the way I mean it.
     
  8. PLYMCO_PILGRIM
    Offline

    PLYMCO_PILGRIM Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    17,416
    Thanks Received:
    2,855
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    America's Home Town
    Ratings:
    +2,863
    They are swapping a liberal SCJ for another liberal SCJ....why are people wasting all their energies on this when in the near future a conservative SCJ will be stepping down while obama is still president.

    Save your fire for that nominee people.....STOP PLAYING CHECKERS AND START PLAYING CHESS!!!!
     
  9. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,829
    Thanks Received:
    15,655
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,973
    I suppose motivation is perspective.

    I'm not "wasting all their energies on this..."

    It is in my nature to have fully vetted opinions. I consider it part of my goal of life-long education.

    Have you not seen how the Democrats used the hearings of Judges Bork, or Thomas?

    Do you not recall the statements of then-Senator Obama as to how Judges Roberts and Alito should be filibustered?

    To be educated is to be prepared. The media will never put these things in perspective, nor show the sleazy tactics of the left, and how different are the hearings of a Democrat nominee.

    My post was geared toward showing what should be known about Judge Sotomayor.
     
  10. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,741
    Thanks Received:
    892
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +938
    I'll leave her judicial qualifications up to others; but what about her words? Correctly used words are a must for any standard of accuracy for communications:

    Sotomayor has been called by her Senate sponsors, “...the most qualified nominee for the Supreme Court in 100 years”

    So lets examine some of her testimony before the U.S. Senate - Here are some word tangles by this brilliant woman:

    “provincial” when she means ‘province’ (as in a realm of)

    “eminent” when she means ‘imminent’ (as in just in time)

    “story of knowledge” when she means ‘store’ (as in store of knowledge)

    “vagrancies” when she means “vagaries’ (as in without reason or cause)

    Wow, where’s the media now, that so ranked over Dan Quayle's “archaic” spelling of tomato in a single public appearance? It’s so interesting how the Media so consistently calls people on the left “brilliant” “articulate” or (the most) “eloquent public speaker” when they actually seem to be afraid the public will learn just the opposite to be the case”

    Edit: for Sotomayor there are others - these are just those confined to the ongoing hearings.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2009

Share This Page