How about chosing the BEST PERSON for the job, be them man, woman, black, white, yellow, red, purple, alien, Sasquatch, etc.--Novel concept??

 

"Best" according to whom? Whose saying that Obama hasn't picked the person he feels is the best? She has quite a lot of experience as a judge and has bipartisan appointments.

As long as the nominee isn't, as my dad used to say, just to the right of Atilla the Hun, the same folks would be complaining.

 

This nominee is gonna be tough to oppose. Horatio Alger-type story, more bench experience than any nominee in recent memory, appointments by GWB and WJC. Almost enough to make me feel sorry for the folks that the Cons have to trot out there to make their case.

 

Almost.

 

This one might be "just the left of Bill Ayers", so I think we're safe there?? Great story, but a little scary if you're against judges making policy, instead of interpreting the Constitution? The "fire-fighter lawsuit" total disregard is a little worrysome to me--At least consider that it had some merit!!

"Best" according to whom? Whose saying that Obama hasn't picked the person he feels is the best? She has quite a lot of experience as a judge and has bipartisan appointments.

 

Best as in doesn't matter their sex, race, political leaning, etc.--Not only the best "Hispanic woman", so I can get more Hispanic/Women votes next time??

Best as in doesn't matter their sex, race, political leaning, etc.--Not only the best "Hispanic woman", so I can get more Hispanic/Women votes next time??

 

Again, who is to say that she is not the best candidate?

Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, viewed by some as the front-runner, may already feel as if she has been through the confirmation wars, given all the attention she has already gotten. Late last week Sotomayor's health -- she has diabetes -- was also raised as a possible issue. "She's a very good target," said Curt Levey of the conservative Committee for Justice, a veteran of confirmation battles.

 

The latest criticism is for Maloney v. Cuomo, a per curiam January decision she joined that upheld a New York law barring possession of nunchakus. A nunchaku is a weapon consisting of two sticks joined by a cord, used to choke or hit victims. A man arrested for possessing one said the law violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. But the curiam opinion said the Second Amendment does not apply to states, an issue that is pending in other cases. If she is nominated, said Levey, gun rights advocates will be energized against her.

 

Another per curiam opinion, this one in a Connecticut case, has also gotten Sotomayor into trouble with conservative commentators. She was on the panel that issued a brief, unpublished opinion that approved the city of New Haven's decision to withdraw an exam for firefighters because no African-Americans who took the test made the cut for promotion. The ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court by the white firefighters (and one Hispanic) who were not promoted in Ricci v. DeStefano and is now pending.

 

"The firefighters whose claims she tried to bury would make powerful witnesses against her," said Ed Whelan, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia who has picked apart the rulings of several potential nominees on the conservative National Review Online blog.

 

Karen Torre, who argued for the firefighters before the appeals panel, said Sotomayor dominated the questioning. "It seemed to me and to the clients, all of whom were present ... that Judge Sotomayor held strong favorable views of New Haven's decision."

 

Sotomayor has also been attacked for a video, widely watched on YouTube, in which she said the "court of appeals is where policy is made." Shown the clip during a Fox News interview, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, pronounced, "That's a problem."

 

Seen in context, the quote may seem less so. She made the remark at Duke University in 2005, offering advice for law students seeking jobs with public interest or civil rights groups. Such groups, she said, would be interested in students with appeals court experience -- presumably as law clerks -- because of the courts' policy role. Unlike fact-bound district court cases, Sotomayor said appeals courts' disputes require appeals judges to consider "the ramifications of the ruling on the next step of the development of the law." In other words, policy.

 

Sotomayor has ardent supporters, as well. Robin Kar, a former clerk who teaches at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, wrote an impassioned defense of her on PrawfsBlawg on May 5, asserting that Sotomayor "would be the ideal justice to help move the Court into a saner, more thoughtful, and more unified era."

 

 

http://www.law.com/jsp/scm/PubArticleSCM.jsp?id=1202430810511

 

 

 

Sounds like exactly what we don't need....................

As long as the nominee isn't, as my dad used to say, just to the right of Atilla the Hun, the same folks would be complaining.

 

This nominee is gonna be tough to oppose. Horatio Alger-type story, more bench experience than any nominee in recent memory, appointments by GWB and WJC. Almost enough to make me feel sorry for the folks that the Cons have to trot out there to make their case.

 

Almost.

 

Very, very few nominees are tough to oppose, particularly those with a lot of bench experience.

As long as the nominee isn't, as my dad used to say, just to the right of Atilla the Hun, the same folks would be complaining.

 

This nominee is gonna be tough to oppose. Horatio Alger-type story, more bench experience than any nominee in recent memory, appointments by GWB and WJC. Almost enough to make me feel sorry for the folks that the Cons have to trot out there to make their case.

 

Almost.

 

I agree with the bolded, this will be a challenge for the Republicans to oppose effectively. I don't see it happening.

I never thought he was going to unite us because I don't believe it can be done except for very short periods of time, mostly in response to a national crises.

 

And that's not a bad thing!!!!!!!! I think it's great that people can go in whatever direction they wish. The problem with "being united" is that rarely are (nearly) everybody's interests the same. In normal times "being united" is often a euphemism for being forced to support what those in power wish.

I've now read several of her opinions. Her record of judicial experience is less impressive than Roberts, Thomas, and Ginsburg; more impressive than Kennedy, Alito, and Stevens. She is not an exceptionally good writer, but she relies much more on precedent than Ginsburg and Stevens, and with the exception of a couple of notable cases. I actually agreed with her opinion written in the Malesko case, where she held that private individuals should be able to sue private entities contracting with the federal government. Her opinion was reversed by the Supremes in an opinion I disagreed with. I read the City of New Haven firefighter's case, and frankly it really didn't say much at all, simply affirmed the lower trial court's ruling. If something went on with her behind the scenes, I can't say, but there was nothing in what was written that betrayed anything problematic.

 

The bottom line to me is this: I had a severe, severe problem with the ridiculously partisan manner in which the Democrats challenged Justice Roberts' appointment. Roberts' was clearly the most sagacious person in the room during his hearing, he was head-and-shoulders smarter than anybody else around, and he made Schumer & Co. look like absolute idiots. He has been a very good Chief Justice thus far, and the Court is better for it, in tough times.

 

That type of partisanship should never occur in the appointment process. It shouldn't occur here. WE LOST. The President gets to pick who he likes. Unless there is something earth-shattering in her background, and in my 24 hours of research there isn't, this is an opportunity for Senate Republicans to conduct a solid, routine investigation, conduct a solid, one-day confirmation hearing (I would note it should be on the Senate's schedule, not the President's), and then put the matter to a vote.

 

Obama has nominated a left-of-center, Hispanic, woman, educated at the Ivy's in the 70's, teaching at NYU, and serving on northeastern courts. It should come as a shock to absolutely noone (including, by the way, Orrin hatch, who apparently confirmed her as a 2nd Circuit Judge when he was the Judiciary Chair in 1997?). Sit back, drink your coffee, and look forward to the next election.

I found this 2005 study on the issue of "judicial activism."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html?ex=1278302400&en=0e5fac7774080327&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

 

Since its a nebulous term for most of us the people doing the study narrowed it down to justices overturning congressional statutes.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html?ex=1278302400&en=0e5fac7774080327&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

 

How often?

 

Thomas 65.63 %

Kennedy 64.06 %

Scalia 56.25 %

Rehnquist 46.88 %

O’Connor 46.77 %

Souter 42.19 %

Stevens 39.34 %

Ginsburg 39.06 %

Breyer 28.13 %

The WSJ would disagree with those on here and the talking heads who say she is a "radical." Their assessment is that she falls into the mainstream of Dem justices.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124338260937756559.html

I've now read several of her opinions. Her record of judicial experience is less impressive than Roberts, Thomas, and Ginsburg; more impressive than Kennedy, Alito, and Stevens. She is not an exceptionally good writer, but she relies much more on precedent than Ginsburg and Stevens, and with the exception of a couple of notable cases. I actually agreed with her opinion written in the Malesko case, where she held that private individuals should be able to sue private entities contracting with the federal government. Her opinion was reversed by the Supremes in an opinion I disagreed with. I read the City of New Haven firefighter's case, and frankly it really didn't say much at all, simply affirmed the lower trial court's ruling. If something went on with her behind the scenes, I can't say, but there was nothing in what was written that betrayed anything problematic.

 

The bottom line to me is this: I had a severe, severe problem with the ridiculously partisan manner in which the Democrats challenged Justice Roberts' appointment. Roberts' was clearly the most sagacious person in the room during his hearing, he was head-and-shoulders smarter than anybody else around, and he made Schumer & Co. look like absolute idiots. He has been a very good Chief Justice thus far, and the Court is better for it, in tough times.

 

That type of partisanship should never occur in the appointment process. It shouldn't occur here. WE LOST. The President gets to pick who he likes. Unless there is something earth-shattering in her background, and in my 24 hours of research there isn't, this is an opportunity for Senate Republicans to conduct a solid, routine investigation, conduct a solid, one-day confirmation hearing (I would note it should be on the Senate's schedule, not the President's), and then put the matter to a vote.

 

Obama has nominated a left-of-center, Hispanic, woman, educated at the Ivy's in the 70's, teaching at NYU, and serving on northeastern courts. It should come as a shock to absolutely noone (including, by the way, Orrin hatch, who apparently confirmed her as a 2nd Circuit Judge when he was the Judiciary Chair in 1997?). Sit back, drink your coffee, and look forward to the next election.

 

As usual, a well-reasoned post. And I appreciate the fact that you took the time to do some research.:thumb:

As usual, a well-reasoned post. And I appreciate the fact that you took the time to do some research.:thumb:

 

I'm still looking up "sagacious.":laugh:

That type of partisanship should never occur in the appointment process. It shouldn't occur here. WE LOST. The President gets to pick who he likes. Unless there is something earth-shattering in her background, and in my 24 hours of research there isn't, this is an opportunity for Senate Republicans to conduct a solid, routine investigation, conduct a solid, one-day confirmation hearing (I would note it should be on the Senate's schedule, not the President's), and then put the matter to a vote.

 

Obama has nominated a left-of-center, Hispanic, woman, educated at the Ivy's in the 70's, teaching at NYU, and serving on northeastern courts. It should come as a shock to absolutely noone (including, by the way, Orrin hatch, who apparently confirmed her as a 2nd Circuit Judge when he was the Judiciary Chair in 1997?). Sit back, drink your coffee, and look forward to the next election.

Exactly. I never had a problem with the nominations of Alito and Roberts, simply because Bush was the President and he had a right to nominate who he wanted, as long as they were eminently qualified for the position.

 

It works both ways.

Can you cite some examples from MSNBC and CNN? If you heard anything negative, it wasn't from one of their anchors, analysts, or reporters. It had to be from some token Republican who was thrown in to give an appearance of "balance".

 

I'll bet no one mentioned that Sotomayor has had six decisions in which she wrote the majority opinion appealed to the US Supreme Court? She was reversed in five of the six.

 

I mention that in the spirit of full disclosure.

 

She will obviously be confirmed easily. She is the stereotypical BO type of judicial appointment. Still, I can hope that her Catholic foundation occasionally wins out over her liberal bias.

 

I'm finding discrepency in the numbers of decisions reversed.

 

This article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/

 

states that 3 out of 5 have been overturned. That's 60% but not a horrific number.

 

I also found it interesting that the first George Bush was who appointed her to the Federal Bench before Clinton appointed her to the Court of Appeals. I also heard on North Carolina talk radio this morning that even Jesse Helms voted for her on the two prior appointments.