Sonia Sotomayor: Supreme Empathizer?

[Carole]

With President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court we now know for sure what he meant at that press briefing at the beginning of the month. The president said "I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."

Several days later I wrote in this space: "While a Supreme Court Justice is identifying with the people's hopes and struggles will they truly be dedicated to the rule of law? Or is this yet another way Mr. Obama plans on remaking America? Is he hoping to stack the deck for or against certain people or groups? Each case before the court has at least two parties. Which side will the new justice empathize with? Which side's hopes and struggles will he or she identify with?"

We now know the answer to those questions as well.

post shortened and link inserted to comply with board copyright rules

http://www.talkingsides.com/blogs/2009/05/26/sonia-sotomayor-supreme-empathizer#more182

 

[WillowTree]

With President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court we now know for sure what he meant at that press briefing at the beginning of the month. The president said "I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."

Several days later I wrote in this space: "While a Supreme Court Justice is identifying with the people's hopes and struggles will they truly be dedicated to the rule of law? Or is this yet another way Mr. Obama plans on remaking America? Is he hoping to stack the deck for or against certain people or groups? Each case before the court has at least two parties. Which side will the new justice empathize with? Which side's hopes and struggles will he or she identify with?"

We now know the answer to those questions as well.

One need only look at the case of Ricci v. DeStefano in which white New Haven, Connecticut firefighters were denied promotions after passing a qualifying exam. New Haven threw out the results of the exam because no African Americans passed the test. The case made its way to a three judge panel in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals where the decision of a lower court to dismiss the suit was upheld without any mention of the Constitutional issues. One of those three judges on that pane was Sonia Sotomayor. The full Second Circuit Court of Appeals voted against hearing the case by an ultra-slim 7-6 vote and Ricci v. DeStefano is now on it's way to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court to which Judge Sotomayor has just been nominated. (source)" target="_blank">source)

If her nomination is confirmed, is there any doubt which side she will empathize with on this one? At least this time around she will have to deal with those pesky Constitutional issues.

no she won't,, they just write their opinions, they don't have to justify them and as she is on record as saying. "we make the policy" interesting innit?

 

[WillowTree]

A Judicial Review: Justice Sonia Sotomayor | PoliticsUnlocked.com






President Barack Obama will soon name a Supreme Court nominee to fill the shoes of Justice David Souter.

Mr. Obama has stirred the pot in explaining what he is looking for in a justice, saying, “I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind, and a record of excellence and integrity. . . I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

This is more a working man’s justice than an ivory tower intellectualism. Critics have already attacked Mr. Obama’s statement as though it sacrifices legal principles in favor of emotional sympathy. This is hardly likely, given Mr. Obama’s own background in education, role as a constitutional law professor and keen intellect, but it remains to be seen whether the issue will play into the selection of a candidate or the argument at hearings on confirmation. The overwhelming Democratic majority in the Senate may finally reduce the hearings to the pro-forma confirmation of years gone by.






A Judicial Review: Justice Sonia Sotomayor | PoliticsUnlocked.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

A Judicial Review: Justice Sonia Sotomayor | PoliticsUnlocked.com






President Barack Obama will soon name a Supreme Court nominee to fill the shoes of Justice David Souter.

Mr. Obama has stirred the pot in explaining what he is looking for in a justice, saying, “I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind, and a record of excellence and integrity. . . I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

This is more a working man’s justice than an ivory tower intellectualism. Critics have already attacked Mr. Obama’s statement as though it sacrifices legal principles in favor of emotional sympathy. This is hardly likely, given Mr. Obama’s own background in education, role as a constitutional law professor and keen intellect, but it remains to be seen whether the issue will play into the selection of a candidate or the argument at hearings on confirmation. The overwhelming Democratic majority in the Senate may finally reduce the hearings to the pro-forma confirmation of years gone by.






A Judicial Review: Justice Sonia Sotomayor | PoliticsUnlocked.com

There is no debate here as to the quality of Justice Sotomayor,and as to the compelling personal history that she brings.

Clearly the Democrat majority has made the confirmation a rubber stamp, but we can still use this exercise as a lesson, a further enlightenment, of the differences between liberal perspective and conservative perspective.

Compare the 'empathy' component in selection of a candidate, and in the judgement as to cases before the court, and the statement of Justice Roberts, who was asked a question in Senate hearings, along the lines of his empathy:
""If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."

Over and over, he has assured lawmakers his rulings would be guided by his understanding of the facts of cases, the law and the Constitution, not by his personal views.

This should be the defining question in any confirmatin hearing.

 

[WillowTree]

A Judicial Review: Justice Sonia Sotomayor | PoliticsUnlocked.com






President Barack Obama will soon name a Supreme Court nominee to fill the shoes of Justice David Souter.

Mr. Obama has stirred the pot in explaining what he is looking for in a justice, saying, “I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind, and a record of excellence and integrity. . . I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

This is more a working man’s justice than an ivory tower intellectualism. Critics have already attacked Mr. Obama’s statement as though it sacrifices legal principles in favor of emotional sympathy. This is hardly likely, given Mr. Obama’s own background in education, role as a constitutional law professor and keen intellect, but it remains to be seen whether the issue will play into the selection of a candidate or the argument at hearings on confirmation. The overwhelming Democratic majority in the Senate may finally reduce the hearings to the pro-forma confirmation of years gone by.






A Judicial Review: Justice Sonia Sotomayor | PoliticsUnlocked.com

There is no debate here as to the quality of Justice Sotomayor,and as to the compelling personal history that she brings.

Clearly the Democrat majority has made the confirmation a rubber stamp, but we can still use this exercise as a lesson, a further enlightenment, of the differences between liberal perspective and conservative perspective.

Compare the 'empathy' component in selection of a candidate, and in the judgement as to cases before the court, and the statement of Justice Roberts, who was asked a question in Senate hearings, along the lines of his empathy:
""If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."

Over and over, he has assured lawmakers his rulings would be guided by his understanding of the facts of cases, the law and the Constitution, not by his personal views.

This should be the defining question in any confirmatin hearing.

I'm certain that it will be,, but in today's atmosphere it won't apply.. clearly the totus has chosen a judge who will do exactly the opposite,, she will rule not based on law and constitution but through "empathy" hence Conn.

 

[DavidS]

A Judicial Review: Justice Sonia Sotomayor | PoliticsUnlocked.com






President Barack Obama will soon name a Supreme Court nominee to fill the shoes of Justice David Souter.

Mr. Obama has stirred the pot in explaining what he is looking for in a justice, saying, “I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind, and a record of excellence and integrity. . . I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

This is more a working man’s justice than an ivory tower intellectualism. Critics have already attacked Mr. Obama’s statement as though it sacrifices legal principles in favor of emotional sympathy. This is hardly likely, given Mr. Obama’s own background in education, role as a constitutional law professor and keen intellect, but it remains to be seen whether the issue will play into the selection of a candidate or the argument at hearings on confirmation. The overwhelming Democratic majority in the Senate may finally reduce the hearings to the pro-forma confirmation of years gone by.






A Judicial Review: Justice Sonia Sotomayor | PoliticsUnlocked.com

There is no debate here as to the quality of Justice Sotomayor,and as to the compelling personal history that she brings.

Clearly the Democrat majority has made the confirmation a rubber stamp, but we can still use this exercise as a lesson, a further enlightenment, of the differences between liberal perspective and conservative perspective.

Compare the 'empathy' component in selection of a candidate, and in the judgement as to cases before the court, and the statement of Justice Roberts, who was asked a question in Senate hearings, along the lines of his empathy:
""If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."

Over and over, he has assured lawmakers his rulings would be guided by his understanding of the facts of cases, the law and the Constitution, not by his personal views.

This should be the defining question in any confirmatin hearing.

One of the best reasons why you are my favorite Right-Wing poster on here. Thank you.

 

[Vel]

A Judicial Review: Justice Sonia Sotomayor | PoliticsUnlocked.com






President Barack Obama will soon name a Supreme Court nominee to fill the shoes of Justice David Souter.

Mr. Obama has stirred the pot in explaining what he is looking for in a justice, saying, “I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind, and a record of excellence and integrity. . . I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

This is more a working man’s justice than an ivory tower intellectualism. Critics have already attacked Mr. Obama’s statement as though it sacrifices legal principles in favor of emotional sympathy. This is hardly likely, given Mr. Obama’s own background in education, role as a constitutional law professor and keen intellect, but it remains to be seen whether the issue will play into the selection of a candidate or the argument at hearings on confirmation. The overwhelming Democratic majority in the Senate may finally reduce the hearings to the pro-forma confirmation of years gone by.






A Judicial Review: Justice Sonia Sotomayor | PoliticsUnlocked.com

There is no debate here as to the quality of Justice Sotomayor,and as to the compelling personal history that she brings.

Clearly the Democrat majority has made the confirmation a rubber stamp, but we can still use this exercise as a lesson, a further enlightenment, of the differences between liberal perspective and conservative perspective.

Compare the 'empathy' component in selection of a candidate, and in the judgement as to cases before the court, and the statement of Justice Roberts, who was asked a question in Senate hearings, along the lines of his empathy:
""If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."

Over and over, he has assured lawmakers his rulings would be guided by his understanding of the facts of cases, the law and the Constitution, not by his personal views.

This should be the defining question in any confirmatin hearing.

Actually PC, this is not necessarily a rubber stamp type situation. At least 1 republican on the Judiciary committee has to vote for her to get her nomination out of committee. With Arlen Specter gone, Jeff Sessions is now the ranking republican on the committee. I really like and respect Sessions, but since Lyndsey Graham is also on the committee, I don't hold out much hope of having her nomination stopped.


We confirmed the Senate Judiciary Committee's rule that the blog cited. Rule IV states, "The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority."
PolitiFact | Rush is right about Judiciary Committee rules

 

[oreo]

So basically according to the OPT's post this woman is in favor of "reverse" discrimination because no blacks passed the examination for the fire department?

This is scary--very scary!

It looks like we have a judge that will be ruling out of personal opinion & personal "empathy" versus constitutional law. Therefore, she will be writing legislation versus following it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A Judicial Review: Justice Sonia Sotomayor | PoliticsUnlocked.com






President Barack Obama will soon name a Supreme Court nominee to fill the shoes of Justice David Souter.

Mr. Obama has stirred the pot in explaining what he is looking for in a justice, saying, “I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind, and a record of excellence and integrity. . . I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

This is more a working man’s justice than an ivory tower intellectualism. Critics have already attacked Mr. Obama’s statement as though it sacrifices legal principles in favor of emotional sympathy. This is hardly likely, given Mr. Obama’s own background in education, role as a constitutional law professor and keen intellect, but it remains to be seen whether the issue will play into the selection of a candidate or the argument at hearings on confirmation. The overwhelming Democratic majority in the Senate may finally reduce the hearings to the pro-forma confirmation of years gone by.






A Judicial Review: Justice Sonia Sotomayor | PoliticsUnlocked.com

There is no debate here as to the quality of Justice Sotomayor,and as to the compelling personal history that she brings.

Clearly the Democrat majority has made the confirmation a rubber stamp, but we can still use this exercise as a lesson, a further enlightenment, of the differences between liberal perspective and conservative perspective.

Compare the 'empathy' component in selection of a candidate, and in the judgement as to cases before the court, and the statement of Justice Roberts, who was asked a question in Senate hearings, along the lines of his empathy:
""If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."

Over and over, he has assured lawmakers his rulings would be guided by his understanding of the facts of cases, the law and the Constitution, not by his personal views.

This should be the defining question in any confirmatin hearing.

Actually PC, this is not necessarily a rubber stamp type situation. At least 1 republican on the Judiciary committee has to vote for her to get her nomination out of committee. With Arlen Specter gone, Jeff Sessions is now the ranking republican on the committee. I really like and respect Sessions, but since Lyndsey Graham is also on the committee, I don't hold out much hope of having her nomination stopped.


We confirmed the Senate Judiciary Committee's rule that the blog cited. Rule IV states, "The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority."
PolitiFact | Rush is right about Judiciary Committee rules

Republican policy through the Bush Administration was that every judge deserved an up or down vote. If this policy is continued, then clearly Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed.

 

[Annie]

Her story is compelling and inspirational, that however doesn't equate with SOCTUS mindframe. Much more at site, including links:

The Volokh Conspiracy - -

My general sense is that she is very liberal, and thus likely to take what I consider to be mistaken positions on many major constitutional law issues. I am also not favorably impressed with her notorious statement 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." Not only is it objectionable in and of itself, it also suggests that Sotomayor is a committed believer in the identity politics school of left-wing thought. Worse, it implies that she believes that it is legitimate for judges to base decisions in part on their ethnic or racial origins. Stuart Taylor's comments on Sotomayor's speech are telling:
Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.
Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: "I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life" — and had proceeded to speak of "inherent physiological or cultural differences."

Of course it is inevitable that personal background will influence judicial decisionmaking to some degree. Sotomayor is right to imply that it often had a negative effect on the decisions of white male judges in the past. But there is a difference between recognizing an inevitable source of bias while striving to constrain it and actually embracing it. I much prefer a jurist who strives to get beyond his or her ethnicity in making decisions than one who rejects the view 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" and instead believes that we should embrace the fact that "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."....

 

[WillowTree]

The Judicial Confirmation Network



Judge Sotomayor will allow her feelings and personal politics to stand in the way of basic fairness. In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor sided with a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. The percuriam opinion Sotomayor joined went so far out of its way to bury the firefighters' important claims of unfair treatment that her colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her.










“Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.

“She reads racial preferences and quotas into the Constitution, even to the point of dishonoring those who preserve our public safety. On September 11, America saw firsthand the vital role of America’s firefighters in protecting our citizens. They put their lives on the line for her and the other citizens of New York and the nation. But Judge Sotomayor would sacrifice their claims to fair treatment in employment promotions to racial preferences and quotas. The Supreme Court is now reviewing that decision.

 

[Vel]

There is no debate here as to the quality of Justice Sotomayor,and as to the compelling personal history that she brings.

Clearly the Democrat majority has made the confirmation a rubber stamp, but we can still use this exercise as a lesson, a further enlightenment, of the differences between liberal perspective and conservative perspective.

Compare the 'empathy' component in selection of a candidate, and in the judgement as to cases before the court, and the statement of Justice Roberts, who was asked a question in Senate hearings, along the lines of his empathy:
""If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."

Over and over, he has assured lawmakers his rulings would be guided by his understanding of the facts of cases, the law and the Constitution, not by his personal views.

This should be the defining question in any confirmatin hearing.

Actually PC, this is not necessarily a rubber stamp type situation. At least 1 republican on the Judiciary committee has to vote for her to get her nomination out of committee. With Arlen Specter gone, Jeff Sessions is now the ranking republican on the committee. I really like and respect Sessions, but since Lyndsey Graham is also on the committee, I don't hold out much hope of having her nomination stopped.


We confirmed the Senate Judiciary Committee's rule that the blog cited. Rule IV states, "The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority."
PolitiFact | Rush is right about Judiciary Committee rules

Republican policy through the Bush Administration was that every judge deserved an up or down vote. If this policy is continued, then clearly Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed.

Being that current Republican policy has cost Republicans the House, the Senate and the Whitehouse, perhaps it's time to re-examine the policies. This woman is on record supporting racism and judicial activisism and should not be rewarded with a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Especially since her interpretation of the law has been weak enough that several of her opinions have been overturned by the SCOTUS.

 

[DavidS]

Judicial confirmation network... hmmm... let's see how "nonpartisan" they are.

Gar Marx, their executive director, worked on the Bush-Cheney election campaign where he spearheaded an outreach to conservatives, was a lobbyist for the Family Foundation, a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage organization.

So, let's look at their website:

Link to Wall Street Journal, link to National Review Online, some kind of pro-conservative poll, something from Fox News...

So it looks like this website is very pro-conservative views and they're calling someone who is a moderate or pretty much a centrist, a "liberal activist."

I guess with how far the right is moving these days, anything that isn't extreme right IS a liberal!

 

[WillowTree]

Judicial confirmation network... hmmm... let's see how "nonpartisan" they are.

Gar Marx, their executive director, worked on the Bush-Cheney election campaign where he spearheaded an outreach to conservatives, was a lobbyist for the Family Foundation, a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage organization.

So, let's look at their website:

Link to Wall Street Journal, link to National Review Online, some kind of pro-conservative poll, something from Fox News...

So it looks like this website is very pro-conservative views and they're calling someone who is a moderate or pretty much a centrist, a "liberal activist."

I guess with how far the right is moving these days, anything that isn't extreme right IS a liberal!

so aside from your views about the partisanship of the site,, do you agree or disagree with what was said? and you may of course post a left wing site to back up your opinion..

 

[DavidS]

Judicial confirmation network... hmmm... let's see how "nonpartisan" they are.

Gar Marx, their executive director, worked on the Bush-Cheney election campaign where he spearheaded an outreach to conservatives, was a lobbyist for the Family Foundation, a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage organization.

So, let's look at their website:

Link to Wall Street Journal, link to National Review Online, some kind of pro-conservative poll, something from Fox News...

So it looks like this website is very pro-conservative views and they're calling someone who is a moderate or pretty much a centrist, a "liberal activist."

I guess with how far the right is moving these days, anything that isn't extreme right IS a liberal!

so aside from your views about the partisanship of the site,, do you agree or disagree with what was said? and you may of course post a left wing site to back up your opinion..

I have no interest in posting partisan websites' views - why bother? You already know what they're going to say.

Why don't you find her entire Judicial record and post it on here for all of us to see and let us judge for ourselves?

From what I heard, watching FoxNews, she is nothing short of a moderate. And I purposfully watched FoxNews to listen to anything negative that could come up... heard a few things here and there, but didn't hear and no one even came close to suggesting that she was some kind of ultra liberal judge!! lol:

Get your head out of the sand and stop letting partisan hack websites do the thinking for you, Willow. You're too smart for that.

 

[WillowTree]

Judicial confirmation network... hmmm... let's see how "nonpartisan" they are.

Gar Marx, their executive director, worked on the Bush-Cheney election campaign where he spearheaded an outreach to conservatives, was a lobbyist for the Family Foundation, a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage organization.

So, let's look at their website:

Link to Wall Street Journal, link to National Review Online, some kind of pro-conservative poll, something from Fox News...

So it looks like this website is very pro-conservative views and they're calling someone who is a moderate or pretty much a centrist, a "liberal activist."

I guess with how far the right is moving these days, anything that isn't extreme right IS a liberal!

so aside from your views about the partisanship of the site,, do you agree or disagree with what was said? and you may of course post a left wing site to back up your opinion..

I have no interest in posting partisan websites' views - why bother? You already know what they're going to say.

Why don't you find her entire Judicial record and post it on here for all of us to see and let us judge for ourselves?

From what I heard, watching FoxNews, she is nothing short of a moderate. And I purposfully watched FoxNews to listen to anything negative that could come up... heard a few things here and there, but didn't hear and no one even came close to suggesting that she was some kind of ultra liberal judge!! lol:

Get your head out of the sand and stop letting partisan hack websites do the thinking for you, Willow. You're too smart for that.

so it is beyond your capabilities to read this one then search and find counter opinions?? Is that what you are saying????

 

[Nik]

With President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court we now know for sure what he meant at that press briefing at the beginning of the month. The president said "I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."

Several days later I wrote in this space: "While a Supreme Court Justice is identifying with the people's hopes and struggles will they truly be dedicated to the rule of law? Or is this yet another way Mr. Obama plans on remaking America? Is he hoping to stack the deck for or against certain people or groups? Each case before the court has at least two parties. Which side will the new justice empathize with? Which side's hopes and struggles will he or she identify with?"

We now know the answer to those questions as well.

One need only look at the case of Ricci v. DeStefano in which white New Haven, Connecticut firefighters were denied promotions after passing a qualifying exam. New Haven threw out the results of the exam because no African Americans passed the test. The case made its way to a three judge panel in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals where the decision of a lower court to dismiss the suit was upheld without any mention of the Constitutional issues. One of those three judges on that pane was Sonia Sotomayor. The full Second Circuit Court of Appeals voted against hearing the case by an ultra-slim 7-6 vote and Ricci v. DeStefano is now on it's way to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court to which Judge Sotomayor has just been nominated. (source)" target="_blank">source)

If her nomination is confirmed, is there any doubt which side she will empathize with on this one? At least this time around she will have to deal with those pesky Constitutional issues.

Yes...her problem is that she is too empathetic...and her problem is also that she didn't empathize enough with Ricci

Consistency fail.

 

[Yurt]

a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a hispanic female who hasn't lived that life.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually PC, this is not necessarily a rubber stamp type situation. At least 1 republican on the Judiciary committee has to vote for her to get her nomination out of committee. With Arlen Specter gone, Jeff Sessions is now the ranking republican on the committee. I really like and respect Sessions, but since Lyndsey Graham is also on the committee, I don't hold out much hope of having her nomination stopped.


We confirmed the Senate Judiciary Committee's rule that the blog cited. Rule IV states, "The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority."
PolitiFact | Rush is right about Judiciary Committee rules

Republican policy through the Bush Administration was that every judge deserved an up or down vote. If this policy is continued, then clearly Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed.

Being that current Republican policy has cost Republicans the House, the Senate and the Whitehouse, perhaps it's time to re-examine the policies. This woman is on record supporting racism and judicial activisism and should not be rewarded with a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Especially since her interpretation of the law has been weak enough that several of her opinions have been overturned by the SCOTUS.

I hope that you are not assuming that I am in favor of the confirmation. But the reality is that the President is even more liberal than the nominee, and could have selected an even more objectionable candidate. Your statements about Justice Sotomayor are correct.

I had predicted that this would be his pick, as the President has always been up front about his views, and the key word was 'empathy.'

We will not get a conservative choice here. Supreme Court picks were my primary reason for voting for President Bush, and he may have saved the country by same. Our friends on the left felt the same way then as we do now.

That is the system.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Republican policy through the Bush Administration was that every judge deserved an up or down vote. If this policy is continued, then clearly Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed.

Being that current Republican policy has cost Republicans the House, the Senate and the Whitehouse, perhaps it's time to re-examine the policies. This woman is on record supporting racism and judicial activisism and should not be rewarded with a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Especially since her interpretation of the law has been weak enough that several of her opinions have been overturned by the SCOTUS.

I hope that you are not assuming that I am in favor of the confirmation. But the reality is that the President is even more liberal than the nominee, and could have selected an even more objectionable candidate. Your statements about Justice Sotomayor are correct.

I had predicted that this would be his pick, as the President has always been up front about his views, and the key word was 'empathy.'

We will not get a conservative choice here. Supreme Court picks were my primary reason for voting for President Bush, and he may have saved the country by same. Our friends on the left felt the same way then as we do now.

That is the system.

Could not have said it better. Would only add that Bush 43 and his predecessors pushed the envelope on enrichment of the well positioned to the breaking point. This crowd appears to be headed toward doing the same thing on the social and governemt spending side. I hope eventual reaction to it will be limited to states asserting their rights.