LINK

 

The judge who was on camera saying judges make law from the bench.

 

Are you surprised?

Joke of a pick.

"I would hope 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." -- Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

 

As a champion of identity politics, the left will love her.

Is the nominee wrong when she says the COA is where law is made?

Allegedly Sotomayor is a Roman Catholic. If this is true, she will be the sixth (out of nine) Roman Catholic on the US Supreme Court. However, her record indicates that she will rarely join with the other five in making decisions.

 

I just took a look at the seal of the Kentucky Bar Association which features Lady Justice holding the scales and a sword. She is blindfolded. Her blindfold carries great symbolism. Justice is to be blind. Decisions are not made with empathy and the heart. It may sound good to be aware of the personal circumstances and background of litigants but it is not the purpose of the law.

 

Over and over, through her decisions and through her statements, Sotomayor has shown her willingness to remove Lady Justice's blindfold. She will be popular with the media and the administration but she is wrong.

 

Much of her judicial philosophy can be summed up in her decision in the New Haven firefighters case (pending in US Supreme Court as Ricci v DeStefano). In this case, she voted to uphold the "right" of the city to disregard test scores used for the promotion of firefighters in the city because almost no minorities qualified for promotion based on the scores of that test.

 

Subjectivity has no place in the courts. However, I feel sure that this is merely the beginning of reshaping the federal courts in a way not remotely intended or anticipated by the framers of the US Constitution. I just hope and pray that God will protect the other five Roman Catholics presently on the Court.

Is the nominee wrong when she says the COA is where law is made?

 

Yes.

Yes.

 

Really? What is the purpose of the COA? For the layman like me it seems that when the legislators produce legislation that is unclear it gets "clear" at the COA level. It would seem to me then that they "make" law.

 

What am I missing?

Really? What is the purpose of the COA? For the layman like me it seems that when the legislators produce legislation that is unclear it gets "clear" at the COA level. It would seem to me then that they "make" law.

 

What am I missing?

 

When legislators enact legislation that is unclear, the trial court, appeals court, and supreme court, interpret that legislation in accordance with well-established and defined rules of legislative interpretation.

 

The Court of Appeals is neither the first, nor the last, level of review on any given matter and therefore should be in the least position to interpret legislation. Unfortunately, because of the limitations of review of the SCOTUS, Courts of Appeals are often the last court to rule.

When legislators enact legislation that is unclear, the trial court, appeals court, and supreme court, interpret that legislation in accordance with well-established and defined rules of legislative interpretation.

 

The Court of Appeals is neither the first, nor the last, level of review on any given matter and therefore should be in the least position to interpret legislation. Unfortunately, because of the limitations of review of the SCOTUS, Courts of Appeals are often the last court to rule.

 

Ex: School strip searches kid for aspirin. Kid's family wants to sue. Law is unclear. Isn't it likely that the COA is going to get involved and make a decision to clarify the rights?

 

The bigger issue seems to be the concept of "making law." Isn't that what ultimately happens at the SCOTUS level?

The bigger issue seems to be the concept of "making law." Isn't that what ultimately happens at the SCOTUS level?

In today's political climate, that often depends on what side of the fence you're on.

It didn't matter who he picked, a lot of people would have complained no matter what.

 

I do not know much about her to form a good opinion though.

Ex: School strip searches kid for aspirin. Kid's family wants to sue. Law is unclear. Isn't it likely that the COA is going to get involved and make a decision to clarify the rights?

 

The bigger issue seems to be the concept of "making law." Isn't that what ultimately happens at the SCOTUS level?

 

Now, I had to pay for my education on this so I'm not just going to hand it to you.:lol:

 

However, in your example, there is nothing "unclear" about the law. The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the 10th Amendment to the Kentucky Constitution, prohibit unreasonable search and seizure of a person or their affects. The law is clear.

 

The question (and this is where the issue about "making law" comes into play) is 1) is there a state law (school law?) that permits a strip search of a student for the purpose of seizing illegal narcotics; 2) if so, does the law have a rational basis, and 3) was the law evenly applied to the facts in this case?

 

The procedure for reviewing the law under the 4th Amendment is also clear.

 

Where the talking heads get into debates is where the opinion is written as narrowly-tailored to that fact circumstance, but lower courts or police departments or whoever decides that it is some sweeping reform. It rarely is. However, they are not 'making law' they are simply applying eixsting law and precedent to a new fact circumstance.

 

That is where I depart from my more conservative brethren.

As predicted, the usual media sources are ecstatic over the choice of Sotomayor. CNN and MSNBC have already run out of superlatives. It would make one wonder why this truly special woman was not elevated to royalty long ago.

 

Why should no one be surprised?

As predicted, the usual media sources are ecstatic over the choice of Sotomayor. CNN and MSNBC have already run out of superlatives. It would make one wonder why this truly special woman was not elevated to royalty long ago.

 

Why should no one be surprised?

 

I think you're guilty of "selective viewing." I've watched MSNBC and CNN as well as CBS and FOX criticize her just today.

 

I know that doesn't fit well with the popular line of talking points but....