Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Have you read about the latest choices president Obama is considering for the Supreme Court?
Who would you pick?
Why?
What do you like or dislike about the potential nominees?
From what I have read thus far I like Sonia Sotomayor. Anything I should know about her?
I have missed any articles where Sonia Sotomayor is looking out for the little guy. I did notice several articles that others reflect that she is very capable.I think it should make your stomach turn that the focus will be on judges "looking out for the little guy" rather than upholding the law.
I don't know about Sonya, but Barack Obama has not been bashful about that being his criteria.
Lots of articles on that.
Want I should find you some?
There will be a new Supreme Court Justice like it or not. "Deal with that".I don't care about Sonia. She is a accessory after the fact.
Obama is on the record as stating he believes a SCOTUS has to look out for the little guy.
Deal with that.
Whoever Obama and the socialists place on the bench will only add to the demoralization of our nation!
Sotomayor's former clerks sing her praises as a demanding but thoughtful boss whose personal experiences have given her a commitment to legal fairness. "She is a rule-bound pragmatist--very geared toward determining what the right answer is and what the law dictates, but her general approach is, unsurprisingly, influenced by her unique background," says one former clerk.
I think it should make your stomach turn that the focus will be on judges "looking out for the little guy" rather than upholding the law.
Obama Makes Empathy a Requirement for Court
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
CHICAGO -- When President Obama talks about the traits he admires in a Supreme Court justice, he ticks the predictable boxes -- intellect, integrity, respect for the Constitution and the law. And sometimes he talks about Lilly Ledbetter and the quality he defines as empathy.
Ledbetter is the former Alabama tire company worker who learned through a furtive note from a colleague that she had long been earning less than her male counterparts. When her discrimination case reached the Supreme Court, five justices denied her claim, ruling that she sued too long after the pay decision was made.
Many conservatives welcomed the ruling as a strict and proper interpretation of the law: The statute of limitations had expired. But Obama considered the ruling heartless and said Ledbetter had been treated unfairly. "The court has to stand up," he said, "if nobody else will."
Obama, preparing to nominate a successor to Justice David H. Souter, has often said that the best judges take note of the real world. By making empathy a core qualification, he is uniting his own eclectic experience as a community organizer and constitutional-law professor while demanding what he has called "a broader vision for what America should be."
Six months after he was elected on a promise to change the country's direction, Obama will be the first Democrat since 1994 to name a new justice. His choice will be informed by his conviction that the United States has become a meaner, less fair society and his belief that the court should play a "special role."....
The Moment of Empathy Nears [Andy McCarthy]
The New York Times reports this afternoon, based on remarks by President Obama in a C-SPAN interview today, that the president will soon announce his nominee to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. The only candidate mentioned in the article is Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Wood, whom the president met with this week, but the report also indicates that another finalist not identified remains in the mix.
This excerpt from the Times report underscores the incoherence and perniciousness of Obama's focus on "empathy":
In discussing the quality of empathy, Mr. Obama often cites the case of Lily Ledbetter, a former Goodyear Tire supervisor who sued her employer for discrimination but was denied back pay after the Supreme Court ruled she failed to file her suit within the statute of limitations. He cited the case again in the interview, saying it is an example of how he wants judges to understand the law as a practical matter. Conservatives have viewed Mr. Obamas remarks on the Ledbetter case and use of the word empathy as code for a liberal, activist judiciary with an anti-business bent. Mr. Obama seemed to be trying to counter that criticism in the interview, saying his emphasis on practicality might cut the other way. I want a judge who has a sense of how regulations might affect the businesses in a practical way, he said.
Ed Whelan has written a lot at Bench Memos about the Ledbetter case (see, e.g., here and here). In his remarks today, Obama is suggesting that more empathy would have led the Court to ignore the statute of limitations. Got that? When George Bush ignores FISA's statutory limits to protect American lives, that's a violation of "the rule of law," but when activist judges do it to save a discrimination claim, it is empathy worthy of promotion to the Supreme Court.
Obviously, it's actually an invitation to judicial lawlessness. Yet, simultaneously, Obama absurdly claims such empathy might be helpful to businesses in dealing with the labyrinth of regulations. But what businesses need to conduct their affairs "in a practical way" is certainty: if the new rule of the road is to be that judges will decide which regulations get enforced and which don't based on their subjective sense of result-oriented fairness, what we get is economic chaos and paralysis.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the Ledbetter decision, a faithful reading of the applicable statute, resulted in congressional action to expand the ability of women to bring discrimination suits thanks to some unseemly judicial politicking by Justice Ginsburg. I don't like the statute, but at least it has democratic legitimacy and it can be changed or repealed if the people's representatives see that it is not practical. If, on the other hand, the Court had ignored the law, we'd have illegitimacy to go along with the chaos the justifiable sense that the Court's role is to reward favored groups, not follow the law. It's clear how that helps the favored groups, but how does it help the rest of us?
I have read about the Ledbetter case. Talking about fairness in the judicial system president Obama is correct in saying, "The court has to stand up if nobody else will"... I say that with a little tiny experience in a long court case. Court cases are not all cut and died when evidence or testimony is twisted, stricken or ignored by a lower court. Judges make rulings according to their own precepts, prejudices, payoffs and property holdings. When a court is aware of fraud the court is bound to award in favor of the victim. Surely though any justice can fully ignore that little court rule if they feel like it. I know I've been there.
Let's just say the Constitutional law professor, doesn't hold the constitution in very high regard:
washingtonpost.com
Obama Makes Empathy a Requirement for Court
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
CHICAGO -- When President Obama talks about the traits he admires in a Supreme Court justice, he ticks the predictable boxes -- intellect, integrity, respect for the Constitution and the law. And sometimes he talks about Lilly Ledbetter and the quality he defines as empathy.
Ledbetter is the former Alabama tire company worker who learned through a furtive note from a colleague that she had long been earning less than her male counterparts. When her discrimination case reached the Supreme Court, five justices denied her claim, ruling that she sued too long after the pay decision was made.
Many conservatives welcomed the ruling as a strict and proper interpretation of the law: The statute of limitations had expired. But Obama considered the ruling heartless and said Ledbetter had been treated unfairly. "The court has to stand up," he said, "if nobody else will."
Obama, preparing to nominate a successor to Justice David H. Souter, has often said that the best judges take note of the real world. By making empathy a core qualification, he is uniting his own eclectic experience as a community organizer and constitutional-law professor while demanding what he has called "a broader vision for what America should be."
Six months after he was elected on a promise to change the country's direction, Obama will be the first Democrat since 1994 to name a new justice. His choice will be informed by his conviction that the United States has become a meaner, less fair society and his belief that the court should play a "special role."....
The Moment of Empathy Nears - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online
The Moment of Empathy Nears [Andy McCarthy]
The New York Times reports this afternoon, based on remarks by President Obama in a C-SPAN interview today, that the president will soon announce his nominee to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. The only candidate mentioned in the article is Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Wood, whom the president met with this week, but the report also indicates that another finalist not identified remains in the mix.
This excerpt from the Times report underscores the incoherence and perniciousness of Obama's focus on "empathy":
In discussing the quality of empathy, Mr. Obama often cites the case of Lily Ledbetter, a former Goodyear Tire supervisor who sued her employer for discrimination but was denied back pay after the Supreme Court ruled she failed to file her suit within the statute of limitations. He cited the case again in the interview, saying it is an example of how he wants judges to understand the law as a practical matter. Conservatives have viewed Mr. Obamas remarks on the Ledbetter case and use of the word empathy as code for a liberal, activist judiciary with an anti-business bent. Mr. Obama seemed to be trying to counter that criticism in the interview, saying his emphasis on practicality might cut the other way. I want a judge who has a sense of how regulations might affect the businesses in a practical way, he said.
Ed Whelan has written a lot at Bench Memos about the Ledbetter case (see, e.g., here and here). In his remarks today, Obama is suggesting that more empathy would have led the Court to ignore the statute of limitations. Got that? When George Bush ignores FISA's statutory limits to protect American lives, that's a violation of "the rule of law," but when activist judges do it to save a discrimination claim, it is empathy worthy of promotion to the Supreme Court.
Obviously, it's actually an invitation to judicial lawlessness. Yet, simultaneously, Obama absurdly claims such empathy might be helpful to businesses in dealing with the labyrinth of regulations. But what businesses need to conduct their affairs "in a practical way" is certainty: if the new rule of the road is to be that judges will decide which regulations get enforced and which don't based on their subjective sense of result-oriented fairness, what we get is economic chaos and paralysis.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the Ledbetter decision, a faithful reading of the applicable statute, resulted in congressional action to expand the ability of women to bring discrimination suits thanks to some unseemly judicial politicking by Justice Ginsburg. I don't like the statute, but at least it has democratic legitimacy and it can be changed or repealed if the people's representatives see that it is not practical. If, on the other hand, the Court had ignored the law, we'd have illegitimacy to go along with the chaos the justifiable sense that the Court's role is to reward favored groups, not follow the law. It's clear how that helps the favored groups, but how does it help the rest of us?
Let's just say the Constitutional law professor, doesn't hold the constitution in very high regard:
washingtonpost.com
Obama Makes Empathy a Requirement for Court
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
CHICAGO -- When President Obama talks about the traits he admires in a Supreme Court justice, he ticks the predictable boxes -- intellect, integrity, respect for the Constitution and the law. And sometimes he talks about Lilly Ledbetter and the quality he defines as empathy.
Ledbetter is the former Alabama tire company worker who learned through a furtive note from a colleague that she had long been earning less than her male counterparts. When her discrimination case reached the Supreme Court, five justices denied her claim, ruling that she sued too long after the pay decision was made.
Many conservatives welcomed the ruling as a strict and proper interpretation of the law: The statute of limitations had expired. But Obama considered the ruling heartless and said Ledbetter had been treated unfairly. "The court has to stand up," he said, "if nobody else will."
Obama, preparing to nominate a successor to Justice David H. Souter, has often said that the best judges take note of the real world. By making empathy a core qualification, he is uniting his own eclectic experience as a community organizer and constitutional-law professor while demanding what he has called "a broader vision for what America should be."
Six months after he was elected on a promise to change the country's direction, Obama will be the first Democrat since 1994 to name a new justice. His choice will be informed by his conviction that the United States has become a meaner, less fair society and his belief that the court should play a "special role."....
The Moment of Empathy Nears - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online
The Moment of Empathy Nears [Andy McCarthy]
The New York Times reports this afternoon, based on remarks by President Obama in a C-SPAN interview today, that the president will soon announce his nominee to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. The only candidate mentioned in the article is Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Wood, whom the president met with this week, but the report also indicates that another finalist not identified remains in the mix.
This excerpt from the Times report underscores the incoherence and perniciousness of Obama's focus on "empathy":
In discussing the quality of empathy, Mr. Obama often cites the case of Lily Ledbetter, a former Goodyear Tire supervisor who sued her employer for discrimination but was denied back pay after the Supreme Court ruled she failed to file her suit within the statute of limitations. He cited the case again in the interview, saying it is an example of how he wants judges to understand the law as a practical matter. Conservatives have viewed Mr. Obamas remarks on the Ledbetter case and use of the word empathy as code for a liberal, activist judiciary with an anti-business bent. Mr. Obama seemed to be trying to counter that criticism in the interview, saying his emphasis on practicality might cut the other way. I want a judge who has a sense of how regulations might affect the businesses in a practical way, he said.
Ed Whelan has written a lot at Bench Memos about the Ledbetter case (see, e.g., here and here). In his remarks today, Obama is suggesting that more empathy would have led the Court to ignore the statute of limitations. Got that? When George Bush ignores FISA's statutory limits to protect American lives, that's a violation of "the rule of law," but when activist judges do it to save a discrimination claim, it is empathy worthy of promotion to the Supreme Court.
Obviously, it's actually an invitation to judicial lawlessness. Yet, simultaneously, Obama absurdly claims such empathy might be helpful to businesses in dealing with the labyrinth of regulations. But what businesses need to conduct their affairs "in a practical way" is certainty: if the new rule of the road is to be that judges will decide which regulations get enforced and which don't based on their subjective sense of result-oriented fairness, what we get is economic chaos and paralysis.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the Ledbetter decision, a faithful reading of the applicable statute, resulted in congressional action to expand the ability of women to bring discrimination suits thanks to some unseemly judicial politicking by Justice Ginsburg. I don't like the statute, but at least it has democratic legitimacy and it can be changed or repealed if the people's representatives see that it is not practical. If, on the other hand, the Court had ignored the law, we'd have illegitimacy to go along with the chaos the justifiable sense that the Court's role is to reward favored groups, not follow the law. It's clear how that helps the favored groups, but how does it help the rest of us?
Let's just say the Constitutional law professor, doesn't hold the constitution in very high regard
Lets just say you are a neo con duped tool.
John Roberts was one of those "local" floridians pounding on the doors of the building holding the recount.
Your protection of the constitution is hypocritical..yet touching.
