Question: For those in favor of the selection... Why do you think she is the best choice?

 

 

Honestly, I haven't had any time to think about whether I'm for or against her seclection. I've been more interested in the tangents that keep occurring to me when I read posts slamming her selection....like can justice realistically be blind; can any justice at any level truely leave their life experiences at the door; do people really want a SCOTUS justice that is that ideal-able to leave that life experience at the door and rule based upon the constitution/current laws; how did such issues of civil rights eventually become determined unconstitutional, if there was no personal interpretation by judges; why were such issues constitutional prior to such a point.

 

One other question I have is, if this is NOT a great selection, who would the posters here select, why, and what makes them eminently more qualified than Ms. Sotomayor.

 

I don't have any objection to her for the simple reason that I don't personally feel that justice is blind, and I actually don't have issue with any of her previous examples given of rulings/opinions. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but none of them are outrageous to me.

Edited May 28, 200917 yr by rockmom

I just get bored with these Justices who have their mind made up before reading a brief or hearing an argument.

 

Are there no more jurists in the mold of Kennedy or O'Connor?

How does one even determine whether a judge is the best choice?

 

I don't know if you can tell if an individual is the single best choice, but I think you can determine if a person is qualified and worthy of the position. I also believe you can see some gradations in how qualified and how worthy and individual is.

 

For example, John Roberts had impeccable credentials and was extraordinarily impressive in his confirmation hearings. I believe it would have been extremely difficult to find a more qualified, better legal mind than his. I also believe it says a lot about Obama that as qualified and impressive as Roberts was, Obama found it in himself to vote against Robert's confirmation. The obvious conclusion is that Obama was more than willing to vote against a candidate because of ideology regardless of the qualifications or capabilities of that individual.

Honestly, I haven't had any time to think about whether I'm for or against her seclection. I've been more interested in the tangents that keep occurring to me when I read posts slamming her selection....like can justice realistically be blind; can any justice at any level truely leave their life experiences at the door; do people really want a SCOTUS justice that is that ideal-able to leave that life experience at the door and rule based upon the constitution/current laws; how did such issues of civil rights eventually become determined unconstitutional, if there was no personal interpretation by judges; why were such issues constitutional prior to such a point.

 

One other question I have is, if this is NOT a great selection, who would the posters here select, why, and what makes them eminently more qualified than Ms. Sotomayor.

 

I don't have any objection to her for the simple reason that I don't personally feel that justice is blind, and I actually don't have issue with any of her previous examples given of rulings/opinions. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but none of them are outrageous to me.

 

I was hoping for Elena Kagan to get nominated. I believe she would have been about as good as a conservative could expect from the ultra-liberal Obama. She's got and undergrad degree from Princeton and a law degree from Harvard. She's been Dean of Harvard Law School.

Edited May 28, 200917 yr by rockmom

I was hoping for Elena Kagan to get nominated. I believe she would have been about as good as a conservative could expect from the ultra-liberal Obama. She's got and undergrad degree from Princeton and a law degree from Harvard. She's been Dean of Harvard Law School.

 

 

So, her academic background is a plus over a background of application? I can see that. Generally, one would think that one who teaches or studies the law may be more "versed" than those responsible for actually making the ruling. I guess the reverse could be said though, that acadamia has no practical knowledge.

 

It does present yet another long list of questions for me. :lol:

I don't know whether or not that Sotomayor's rulings will generally mesh with mine, but it does seem that she is eminently qualified for the position.

I don't know if you can tell if an individual is the single best choice, but I think you can determine if a person is qualified and worthy of the position. I also believe you can see some gradations in how qualified and how worthy and individual is.

 

For example, John Roberts had impeccable credentials and was extraordinarily impressive in his confirmation hearings. I believe it would have been extremely difficult to find a more qualified, better legal mind than his. I also believe it says a lot about Obama that as qualified and impressive as Roberts was, Obama found it in himself to vote against Robert's confirmation. The obvious conclusion is that Obama was more than willing to vote against a candidate because of ideology regardless of the qualifications or capabilities of that individual.

I don't have a major argument with your position ...

Question: For those in favor of the selection... Why do you think she is the best choice?

I don't know that she has to be the best choice, only that she is a good choice.

I don't know if you can tell if an individual is the single best choice, but I think you can determine if a person is qualified and worthy of the position. I also believe you can see some gradations in how qualified and how worthy and individual is.

 

For example, John Roberts had impeccable credentials and was extraordinarily impressive in his confirmation hearings. I believe it would have been extremely difficult to find a more qualified, better legal mind than his. I also believe it says a lot about Obama that as qualified and impressive as Roberts was, Obama found it in himself to vote against Robert's confirmation. The obvious conclusion is that Obama was more than willing to vote against a candidate because of ideology regardless of the qualifications or capabilities of that individual.

 

That is a good question on Roberts. I wonder what Obama's reasoning was behind voting against him? Does anyone have a link to where he might have commented on this?

I saw this article on Huffington post and thought it would add to the debate a little....

 

Antonin Scalia, who, in the majority opinion of 2002 case Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, wrote:

 

This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of "representative government" might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.

In footnote 12, Scalia elaborated (emphasis added):

 

Although Justice [John Paul] Stevens at times appears to agree with Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg's premise that the judiciary is completely separated from the enterprise of representative government, post, at 3 ("[E]very good judge is fully aware of the distinction between the law and a personal point of view"), he eventually appears to concede that the separation does not hold true for many judges who sit on courts of last resort, post, at 3 ("If he is not a judge on the highest court in the State, he has an obligation to follow the precedent of that court, not his personal views or public opinion polls"); post, at 3, n. 2. Even if the policy making capacity of judges were limited to courts of last resort, that would only prove that the announce clause fails strict scrutiny. "f announcing one's views in the context of a campaign for the State Supreme Court might be" protected speech, post, at 3, n. 2, then-even if announcing one's views in the context of a campaign for a lower court were not protected speech, ibid.-the announce clause would not be narrowly tailored, since it applies to high- and low-court candidates alike. In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law," since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed. Justice Stevens has repeatedly expressed the view that a settled course of lower court opinions binds the highest court. See, e.g., Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 74 (1990) (concurring opinion); McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 376--377 (1987) (dissenting opinion).

 

ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. ... And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. [...]

 

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

 

So Scalia is on record of saying judges make law and Alito is on record of saying his ethnic background and associated experiences is taken into account when deciding those cases. So is it still a problem that Sotomayer made these statements?

So Scalia is on record of saying judges make law and Alito is on record of saying his ethnic background and associated experiences is taken into account when deciding those cases. So is it still a problem that Sotomayer made these statements?

Yes, because she is Barack Obama's nominee ...

They weren't considered violations of the constitution until ruled so, correct? That means until it was determined that they were violations, they weren't violations. Someone "felt" they were violations...someone interpreted them as vioaltions, WELL after the Constitution was written.

 

I have no idea what you just said. They interpreted that they were violations of the constitution. They overturned them. There is no "felt" about it.

I have no idea what you just said. They interpreted that they were violations of the constitution. They overturned them. There is no "felt" about it.

 

Yet, there are varying interpretations of the Constitution and the law. Something influences those interpretations. I don't believe any human to be entirely objective. In that case, I agree with rockmom's post and Sotomayor's Berkeley speech.

Edited May 28, 200917 yr by Habib

Yet, there are varying interpretations of the Constitution and the law. Something influences those interpretations. I don't believe any human to be entirely objective. In that case, I agree with rockmom's post and Sotomayor's Berkley speech.

 

That's ok, you can be wrong too.

I have no idea what you just said. They interpreted that they were violations of the constitution. They overturned them. There is no "felt" about it.

 

 

Interpretations are influenced by something. Whether you want to call it a "feeling", or not, is immaterial. There is some factor that caused the judges to say "Hey! This ain't right!" The constitution hadn't changed (at that point on that issue). The laws hadn't changed. The lack of rights hadn't changed. The JUSTICES changed. THEY are the ones who interpreted the constitution differently then apparently all justices before them. Why do you think that was?