Obama Nominates A New Supreme Court Justice

[emmitt01]

Discuss

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

------ I think it is a good choice… lot of experience, first Hispanic, and will be the only woman on court when Ginsberg soon leaves (very ill) . Sotomayer has been involved in many high profile cases. Has been appointed to positions by both Bush Sr., and Clinton – [but not Bush Jr., who always tried to please the religious right on everything... still can’t believe he first picked Harriet Meyers (SMU) who had never been a judge and maybe never even made an appearance in a courtroom… was a paper-pushing lawyer only…how dumb to appoint her to ANY court position …much less to the Supreme Court.. ]

--- She looks pretty even on things… not radical right or left. Has decided in favor of “money” at times and sometimes against them. I expect the religious right will oppose her but the right in general (true conservatives) should not.

Edited May 26, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[eulesseagle]

Totally left wing like Ginsburg who is ACLU.

I am not a big Rush fan because he likes to idolize himself too much but I think he is on target with this nominee.

In my opinion she will be in the S.C. because there is no way that the Republicans can stop this nominee.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/26/vide...cist-in-return/

[GreenBat]

She appears to be qualified. Good choice, she should be approved by the Senate unless she has a skeleton in the closet.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Read this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090526/pl_nm/...ourt_nominee_14

Rush opposes everything any Democrat does...especially eat. He would prefer they all starve and just disappear. Of course by noon the next day he would have picked out someone else to pick on so he can make his fortune on radio.

Edited May 26, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[untbowler]

her ruling on the New Haven, CT v Fire fighters tells me verything I need to know about her.

I am sure the evil Right-wingers are just going to dig up stuff anyways so Screaming Eagle will have more fodder to blame on Bush Jr.

She will get the votes and just like Obama wants she will rule towards empathy rather than the rule of law.

[UNTflyer]

------ I think it is a good choice… lot of experience, first Hispanic

She might not be the first hispanic. There is debate that Benjamin Cardozo was the first.

[Guest JohnDenver]

------ I think it is a good choice… lot of experience, first Hispanic, and will be the only woman on court when Ginsberg soon leaves (very ill) . Sotomayer has been involved in many high profile cases. Has been appointed to positions by both Bush Sr., and Clinton – [but not Bush Jr., who always tried to please the religious right on everything... still can’t believe he first picked Harriet Meyers (SMU) who had never been a judge and maybe never even made an appearance in a courtroom… was a paper-pushing lawyer only…how dumb to appoint her to ANY court position …much less to the Supreme Court.. ]

--- She looks pretty even on things… not radical right or left. Has decided in favor of “money” at times and sometimes against them. I expect the religious right will oppose her but the right in general (true conservatives) should not.

Hint: Harriet Miers, sound familiar to Harry Miers (of gmg stock)? True story. His aunt.

[UNTflyer]

Has been appointed to positions by both Bush Sr., and Clinton – [but not Bush Jr., who always tried to please the religious right on everything... still can't believe he first picked Harriet Meyers (SMU) who had never been a judge and maybe never even made an appearance in a courtroom… was a paper-pushing lawyer only…how dumb to appoint her to ANY court position …much less to the Supreme Court.. ]

It is not unprecedented to appoint a non-judge.

FDR appointed 3 to the court, a Senator, the Attorney General, and the SEC Commissioner. Nixon appointed a little known assistant AG by the name of William Rehnquist. In fact, until the mid 1960s it was quite common to appoint non-judges to the court.

Harry Reid was the one who suggested Harriet Miers to President Bush, and it was outrage from the conservative base that forced his hand to withdraw her nomination.

BTW, Bush was not a "Jr".

Edited May 27, 2009 by UNTflyer

[emmitt01]

Totally left wing like Ginsburg who is ACLU.

I am not a big Rush fan because he likes to idolize himself too much but I think he is on target with this nominee.

In my opinion she will be in the S.C. because there is no way that the Republicans can stop this nominee.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/26/vide...cist-in-return/

Not sure Rush Limbaugh is the person to look to for questions of who is/isn't a racist.

http://newsone.blackplanet.com/obama/top-1...imbaugh-quotes/

[UNTflyer]

Not sure Rush Limbaugh is the person to look to for questions of who is/isn't a racist.

http://newsone.blackplanet.com/obama/top-1...imbaugh-quotes/

Every single one of those quotes is bullshit. Been floating around the Internet for years, and nobody can cite a source other than another website that has the same list.

[UNTflyer]

Every single one of those quotes is bullshit. Been floating around the Internet for years, and nobody can cite a source other than another website that has the same list.

Check that, number 9 is true. And I agreed with this particular comment.

His comment had nothing to do with McNabb, and everything to do with the media's coverage of his career.

Edited May 27, 2009 by UNTflyer

[oldguystudent]

Hint: Harriet Miers, sound familiar to Harry Miers (of gmg stock)? True story. His aunt.

I noticed that before and thought, "Nah. Couldn't be."

[eulessismore]

It is not unprecedented to appoint a non-judge.

FDR appointed 3 to the court, a Senator, the Attorney General, and the SEC Commissioner. Nixon appointed a little known assistant AG by the name of William Rehnquist. In fact, until the mid 1960s it was quite common to appoint non-judges to the court.

Harry Reid was the one who suggested Harriet Miers to President Bush, and it was outrage from the conservative base that forced his hand to withdraw her nomination.

BTW, Bush was not a "Jr".

Just following conservative internet forums convinced me that many of those same conservatives are not the fair minded nonbigoted individuals that the right has been trying to portray its constituents as in recent years. If they had differences with Harriet Miers on issues, fine, point those out, but the personal attacks from Republican conservatives was, in my opinion, outrageously hypocritical. So much for the idea of a nominee getting an up or down vote. And, uh yeah, I had suspected the Miers family connection.

Edited May 27, 2009 by eulessismore

[Censored by Laurie]

Just following conservative internet forums convinced me that many of those same conservatives are not the fair minded nonbigoted individuals that the right has been trying to portray its constituents as in recent years. If they had differences with Harriet Miers on issues, fine, point those out, but the personal attacks from Republican conservatives was, in my opinion, outrageously hypocritical. So much for the idea of a nominee getting an up or down vote. And, uh yeah, I had suspected the Miers family connection.

If Anton Scalia quit...then Obama appointed Anton Scalia...Fox, Worldnet and Hotair would still find fault. How do you people not realize the inane mind-f that is politics today?

[UNTflyer]

Just following conservative internet forums convinced me that many of those same conservatives are not the fair minded nonbigoted individuals that the right has been trying to portray its constituents as in recent years.

Well, yeah... you have to donate at least $1000 and attend three meetings before you get your GOP code word decoder ring and ceremonial white hood.

[eulessismore]

Well, yeah... you have to donate at least $1000 and attend three meetings before you get your GOP code word decoder ring and ceremonial white hood.

My wife says I have to buy season tickets for this year's football season, and otherwise contribute more substantially, so I'll have to forgo said $1000 donation in favor of (mean) green power.

[FirefightnRick]

This nomination reflects Obama's beliefs and it should come as no surprise to anyone. In 2001 before he knew he would become president and before he was so careful with his words, B.O. went on WBEZ radio and revealed himself as the extreme radical that he is when it comes to judicial activism.

3VctiYQplw8

During the interview he admits how troubled he was that during the Civil Rights movement that the Warren Court didn't do enough, was not radical enough in regards to redistribution of Wealth...ie....Private property and your labor. He firmly believes in what is being taught in law schools today, a philosophy that argues that the constitution should not be viewed as a document of something referred by "Realists" law professors as "Negative Rights". Negative Rights as I understand it is that which denies certain powers of the government over the people. What the realists want are "Positive Rights" in that the constitution should be interpreted by the court as giving things to the people, not simply denying certain power over the people by the government. This is an extension of FDR's second bill of rights he spoke of during his state of the union address to congress in 1944, which are not really rights at all but false promises of Utopianism which statists like FDR and now Obama uses to tresspass on the individual and private property. And since private property and Liberty go hand in hand, Obama intends on denying your Liberty. And Sotomayor should be the absolute best at helping Obama push through his Utopian Ideologies. Her handling of the New Haven Firefighters case in Ricci vs DeStafano was appalling when she did her very best to bury her court's ONE PARAGRAPH ruling. As Clinton appointee Jose Cabranes summed it up:

This per curiam opinion adopted in toto the reasoning of the District Court, without further elaboration or substantive comment, and thereby converted a lengthy, unpublished district court opinion, grappling with significant constitutional and statutory claims of first impression, into the law of this Circuit. It did so, moreover, in an opinion that lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal. Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at he core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination.

This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.

As the NRO article linked above continues:

Cabranes and his five colleagues clearly believe that Sotomayor and her panel colleagues acted as they did in order to bury the firefighters’ claims and to prevent en banc and Supreme Court review of them. Cabranes’s opinion expresses his “hope that the Supreme Court will resolve the issues of great significance raised by this case” and his judgment that plaintiffs’ claims are “worthy of [supreme Court] review.”

Quite an indictment—by a fellow Clinton appointee, no less—of Sotomayor’s unwillingness to give a fair shake to parties whose claims she evidently dislikes. Hardly the mark of a jurist worth serious consideration for the nation’s highest court.

This is just the beginning folks. As Alan Keyes bluntly put it, "Barack Obama is going to destroy this nation". I firmly believe that IF he gets his way in regards to some of the more pressing issues facing this country that he will do just that.

Rick

[meanrob]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!

[FirefightnRick]

“I would hope 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,” said Judge Sotomayor,

So she plans on judging cases based on personal experiences, rather than based on the constitution. Since she's never had a child(as far as we know so far?) it should be interesting when B.O. starts to push his abortion free for all's down the road.

Rick

[CMJ]

“I would hope 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,” said Judge Sotomayor,

So she plans on judging cases based on personal experiences, rather than based on the constitution. Since she's never had a child(as far as we know so far?) it should be interesting when B.O. starts to push his abortion free for all's down the road.

Rick

Perhaps she's no different than justices have been for over a century. Oliver Wendell Holmes ------

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.”

Is that so different?

Also it might be fair to note that her next line after the one quoted by the NYT was "Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society"

Edited May 27, 2009 by CMJ

[UNT90]

I would love to say that no one knows how she will rule on the court, but I think both parties learned a lesson from the justice she is replacing (Souter) and the dissappointment he became as GHW Bush appointment. Niether side will make the mistake again of accepting "no comment" when questioning potential SC Justices about thier politics. So if you like Pres. Obama's agenda, you will like this appointment.

I was only able to read a yahoo article on her, which concentrated on her decisions regarding the baseball strike as an example of her experience. Indicates she may not be that experienced, and a more political, race, gender appointment. But, haven't had time to research her. One thing to be thankful for, she is not a member of the 9th Curcuit Court of Appeals!

Pres. Obama will appoint liberal judges, just like Bush appointed conservative judges, as was/is both thier right. The judges on the court know this, which is why the liberal judges retire when there is a liberal president and the conservative judges retire under a conservative president. No big deal.

[Harry]

------ I think it is a good choice… lot of experience, first Hispanic, and will be the only woman on court when Ginsberg soon leaves (very ill) . Sotomayer has been involved in many high profile cases. Has been appointed to positions by both Bush Sr., and Clinton – [but not Bush Jr., who always tried to please the religious right on everything... still can't believe he first picked Harriet Meyers (SMU) who had never been a judge and maybe never even made an appearance in a courtroom… was a paper-pushing lawyer only…how dumb to appoint her to ANY court position …much less to the Supreme Court.. ]

--- She looks pretty even on things… not radical right or left. Has decided in favor of "money" at times and sometimes against them. I expect the religious right will oppose her but the right in general (true conservatives) should not.

Since when did being a judge be a prerequisite to serving on the highest court? I don't think the founding fathers intended it to be that way, they certainly didn't put those requirements in the job description. BTW, Harriet has been in plenty of courtrooms all over the country, even though you could argue many of the biggest cases never see a courtroom anymore. I won't go down her list of accolades that I and many others much more qualified than me believe made her very qualified for the position she was nominated for. Nor will I delve into the reasons she did not ask for or ultimately accept the nomination. I would only ask that you not pass judgement on someone you clearly know nothing about.

What concerns me about this process is you basically have to be a high level judge (with no true business experience) and educated at Harvard or Yale to be on the Supreme Court. I don't believe the founding fathers intended it to be this way.

[eulesseagle]

emmit-

do you really think "if" a white man said what she said about a hispanic it would not be racist???....... a white man can make better decisions that hispanic women?? would you consider that racist??? of course you would but it is NOT racist when a liberal socialist says that of individuals of european origin.

how about the reverse discrimination case she is arguing that is, currently, before the u.s. supreme court?? disallowing more qualified new haven, conn. firemen to be passed over for a minority. (maybe rick can identify with this) well, that has happened all over the country with other civil servants and in various law schools....... including police.....case in point chief bolton (of the dallas pd....sergent who became captain (how many better qualified officers were passed over?). well, at least you do not have to personally worry about that since that works in your favor.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/arti...px?RsrcID=47838

what this is leading to is how much the 1964 civil rights act and its subsequent amendments have destroyed equal protection/job guarantees under the law. basically she has favored discriminatory laws from her "personal opinions and making law from the bench (really not too unusual since other federal judges have done the same, especially over ruling popular vote to enact gay marriages in states).......and.........not the law how it has been written constitutionally. This is what people are worried about......and......it has nothing to do with her being p.r..

Edited May 27, 2009 by eulesseagle

[eulessismore]

Since when did being a judge be a prerequisite to serving on the highest court? I don't think the founding fathers intended it to be that way, they certainly didn't put those requirements in the job description. BTW, Harriet has been in plenty of courtrooms all over the country, even though you could argue many of the biggest cases never see a courtroom anymore. I won't go down her list of accolades that I and many others much more qualified than me believe made her very qualified for the position she was nominated for. Nor will I delve into the reasons she did not ask for or ultimately accept the nomination. I would only ask that you not pass judgement on someone you clearly know nothing about.

What concerns me about this process is you basically have to be a high level judge (with no true business experience) and educated at Harvard or Yale to be on the Supreme Court. I don't believe the founding fathers intended it to be this way.

Well, I'm no fan of SMU, but one of my friends from the UNT College of Music went on to SMU Law School, and eventually was president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, so I guess he reached the top of his specialty. When I saw some of the conservative bloggers attaching Harriet Miers because she went to SMU instead of one of the Ivies, I just became further convinced of the intellectual emptiness of many on the right; quite disappointing after them having such heavyweight thinkers as William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman.

Some members of this board will live long enough for a graduate of UNT Law School, nominated for a prominent judicial position, to be attacked based on the law school they attended.

It seemed like those who knew Harriet Miers praised her qualifications; those who knew nothing of her attacked her for the thinnest of reasons: that they didn't know enough about her. That said more about them than her; that they really wanted someone whose views on controversial issues were known to them, and had a record of judging on those issues that reflected their own "activist" agenda.