May 27, 200917 yr 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 was waiting to read your opinion and you certainly did not disappoint. Very solid observation of the process and how it should be. :thumb:
May 27, 200917 yr 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 % Why would it be activism to strike down a congressional reg that violates the constitution? I would think it would be just the opposite, that is to allow a law that violates the constitution would be activism, wouldn't it?
May 27, 200917 yr 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 That would make her a radical, wouldn't it? Gotcha!
May 27, 200917 yr 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'm really interested to see what Wyrostek's source was for his claim. 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.Very interesting ...
May 27, 200917 yr Why would it be activism to strike down a congressional reg that violates the constitution? I would think it would be just the opposite, that is to allow a law that violates the constitution would be activism, wouldn't it? Isn't the "violates the constitution" part subjective decision-making?
May 27, 200917 yr 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. . What is average?
May 27, 200917 yr What is average? Would be a great thing to know so we could have some barometer to gauge this aspect on. To paraphrase the mayor from the old TV show "Carter Country" "Why don't you look that one up for us Clyde? Handle it Clyde, Handle it."
May 27, 200917 yr 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. Interesting in light of the Washington Times report that the numbers are actually three out of five cases. I did a Google search to see where the "five out of six" claims were coming from ... interesting that the first three I found were right-wing blogs that characterized Sotomayor as an "incompetent radical" and used the terms "unfit," "racist" and "sexist" to describe her. Really unbiased sources ...
May 27, 200917 yr I'm really interested to see what Wyrostek's source was for his claim. Very interesting ... I think the 4th was a per curium appeals opinion that technically was not hers. Orrin Hatch also confirmed her to the 2nd Circuit. Orrin has been on TV the last 24 hours, saying he has "severe questions." Now, in fairnes to Orrin, he confirmed her before she made a lot of these objectionable statements, but I think he could have foreseen that from her District Court work.
May 27, 200917 yr I'm not saying I like the selection, mind you, I'm simply saying that you fight the battles that are worth fighting for, and that have some merit. I will say, I have not seen a lot of Republican officeholders on TV that are actually speaking out against her. McConnell was even somewhat complimentary. I think any perception of some right-wing "showdown" is more media and blog-driven. I even listened to Rush yesterday and while he dislikes her, he says that this is a "to the winner goes the spoils" issue.
May 27, 200917 yr I'm not saying I like the selection, mind you, I'm simply saying that you fight the battles that are worth fighting for, and that have some merit. I will say, I have not seen a lot of Republican officeholders on TV that are actually speaking out against her. McConnell was even somewhat complimentary. I think any perception of some right-wing "showdown" is more media and blog-driven. I even listened to Rush yesterday and while he dislikes her, he says that this is a "to the winner goes the spoils" issue. Precisely. One of the most important considerations when voting for POTUS, obviously. Do you see this (probable) appointment as fundamentally changing the balance of the Court?
May 27, 200917 yr Precisely. One of the most important considerations when voting for POTUS, obviously. Do you see this (probable) appointment as fundamentally changing the balance of the Court? A little. Souter tended to align himself liberally, but Souter still wrote conservatively on certain business issues where he had a background. Souter was also an extreme intellectual, was extraordinarily hard-working, and did not like to be in Washington when court was not in session. For that reason, he was not assigned as many of the black-letter opinions, he did not have the same type of allegience to or from other Justices, did not "hang out" with them or their spouses, was less social. If I were taking a snapshot, I would say that Sotomayor will lobby to write more opinions than Souter, her law clerks will be very active, will be very tuned in to D.C. and D.C. politics, will probably become very social with Ginsburg, Scalia, and Alito due to their common New York background, and possibly eventually bear influence on the granting of cert and issuance of Opinions. The Supreme Court is as much about internal relations as it is political alignment, and Sotomayor will bring something to bear there.
May 27, 200917 yr A little. Souter tended to align himself liberally, but Souter still wrote conservatively on certain business issues where he had a background. Souter was also an extreme intellectual, was extraordinarily hard-working, and did not like to be in Washington when court was not in session. For that reason, he was not assigned as many of the black-letter opinions, he did not have the same type of allegience to or from other Justices, did not "hang out" with them or their spouses, was less social. If I were taking a snapshot, I would say that Sotomayor will lobby to write more opinions than Souter, her law clerks will be very active, will be very tuned in to D.C. and D.C. politics, will probably become very social with Ginsburg, Scalia, and Alito due to their common New York background, and possibly eventually bear influence on the granting of cert and issuance of Opinions. The Supreme Court is as much about internal relations as it is political alignment, and Sotomayor will bring something to bear there. Wasn't there a book published a while back about the inner workings of the Court that you recommended, or am I imagining things? I'm headed to the library after a while, and I'd like to see if there's a copy there.
May 27, 200917 yr A little. Souter tended to align himself liberally, but Souter still wrote conservatively on certain business issues where he had a background. Souter was also an extreme intellectual, was extraordinarily hard-working, and did not like to be in Washington when court was not in session. For that reason, he was not assigned as many of the black-letter opinions, he did not have the same type of allegience to or from other Justices, did not "hang out" with them or their spouses, was less social. If I were taking a snapshot, I would say that Sotomayor will lobby to write more opinions than Souter, her law clerks will be very active, will be very tuned in to D.C. and D.C. politics, will probably become very social with Ginsburg, Scalia, and Alito due to their common New York background, and possibly eventually bear influence on the granting of cert and issuance of Opinions. The Supreme Court is as much about internal relations as it is political alignment, and Sotomayor will bring something to bear there. From my reading of profiles of Sotomayor it seems she is sort of asocial, in a sense. In that regard, perhaps she is more like Souter than not.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.