Nominee: Sonia Sotomayor

**signerror** · May26-09, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama announced on Tuesday that he will nominate the federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, choosing a daughter of Puerto Rican parents raised in Bronx public housing projects to become the nation’s first Hispanic justice.

...Conservatives quickly pointed to such statements after word of her selection on Tuesday.

“Judge Sotomayor is a liberal activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written,” said Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, an activist group. “She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.”

Interesting opinions - some disturbing to me:

Sotomayor’s Notable Court Opinions and Articles

Judge Sotomayor rejected a claim that a New York ban on a martial arts weapon (a nunchuka) violated a man's Second Amendment rights, explaining the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government.

What? I don't understand this at all - if it's a Constitutional right to bear arms, how can that be infringed by state governments? By this reasoning, you could have all 50 states ban guns categorically, without "infringing" on 2nd amendment rights.

Or: what possible reasoning says the 2nd amendment only applies to the fed, and not the 1st? This exact reasoning would say that Tinker v. Des Moines (classic free speech case) is obviously wrong, because free speech "only applies to the fed": schools, regional government can ban speech all they want. You could have states ban political speech, which is obviously ridiculous. But I'm not claiming a slippery-slope: I'm claiming the reasoning is exactly the same in each. So either we have no free speech rights w/respect to state governments, or there is an intellectually-dishonest double standard.

Another interesting decision:

Judge Sotomayor's most high-profile case, Ricci v. DeStefano, concerns white firefighters in New Haven who were denied promotions after an examination yielded no black firefighters eligible for advancement. Joining an unsigned opinion of a three-judge panel of the appeals court, Judge Sotomayor upheld the rejection of a lawsuit by white firefighters, one of them Hispanic, claiming race discrimination and, as part of the full appeals court, she declined to rehear the case.

Sotomayor wrote:

To the contrary, because the board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.

http://documents.nytimes.com/selecte...-sotomayor#p=2

Outright racism! I'm disgusted that a government employer can deny promotion, explicitly on a person's race as the sole deciding factor, and have that validated. This doesn't even fit the conventional (if tenuous) affirmative-action context where, there are equally qualified candidates of different ethnicity/gender/orientation applying for a position: in this case, they are clearly not equally qualified. Race is the deciding factor, and qualifications are systematically ignored.

**Flat** · May26-09, 03:28 PM

Here's a quote from Romney

The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is troubling. Her public statements make it clear she has an expansive view of the role of the judiciary. Historically, the Court is where judges interpret the Constitution and apply the law. It should never be the place "where policy is made," as Judge Sotomayor has said. Like any nominee, she deserves a fair and thorough hearing. What the American public deserves is a judge who will put the law above her own personal political philosophy."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...tion-troubling

To be honest I know nothing on Sotomayor, so once I get some free time to read about her more indepth, i'll comment.

**Chi Meson** · May26-09, 04:34 PM

Who cares what Mitt Romney has to say on Sotomayor? Romney is one of the GOP conservatives who has been prepped for the past several weeks to come out swinging no matter who was nominated. It's the way politics goes, of course, and it's the same view from both sides of the fense, I'm sure. But really, Romney is not going to make any reasoned, objective observation. The quote he put in about "where policy is made" was from a line where Sotomayor clearly misspoke during a speech at a Law school recently. She immediately backtracked from that statement, but hey fodder is fodder.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...house-off.html
"Conservatives point to remarks Sotomayor made at Duke University Law School in 2005, where she said “the Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”

Catching herself, she said, “I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know.”

As the audience laughed at her comment, Sotomayor said, “I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it…Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. It’s interpretation, it’s application."

**CRGreathouse** · May26-09, 04:46 PM

Concerns about activism notwithstanding, conservatives should be pleased that Obama didn't nominate a younger, harder-left judge. They certainly have the numbers for that.

~~ExactlySolved~~ · May26-09, 09:09 PM

Nominating partisans to the supreme court sucks, no matter whose side your on (and I'm on Obama's side). Activist partisans are even worse.

It's like an arm's race, ...and then Bush nominated partisans so Clinton nominated partisans so Bush nominated partisans so Obama nominated partisans. Obviously it is just as difficult to trace the ... backwards in time as it is to trace (...chicken then egg then chicken) backwards. It doesn't matter who started it, it matters who will end it. And it looks like that won't be Obama, unfortunately for all of us.

**Chi Meson** · May26-09, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Concerns about activism notwithstanding, conservatives should be pleased that Obama didn't nominate a younger, harder-left judge. They certainly have the numbers for that.

Conservatives would have been much more pleased if the nominee had truly been a hard-left activist. This would have given them more ground in the next election cycle.

**russ_watters** · May26-09, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by signerror

Interesting opinions - some disturbing to me:

Agreed....

On the 2nd amendment, I don't understand how that can be justified in light of the 14th amendment. Sounds like she's thumbing her nose at it.

In the quote about the racial discrimination, it sounds like she is saying that the law takes precedence over the constitution! And saying that the law says it isn't racism so it isn't racism? Would she have ruled that 'separate but equal' really was equal because the law said it was?

Very odd rulings and logic.

**russ_watters** · May26-09, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Chi Meson

Conservatives would have been much more pleased if the nominee had truly been a hard-left activist. This would have given them more ground in the next election cycle.

Well that and they might have been able to torpedo the nomination.

**LowlyPion** · May26-09, 11:35 PM

I'd say after nominating Harriet Miers the Republicans have little standing to be fussing about credentials.

(Then of course there was Haynsworth and Carswell that Nixon tried to slip on the bench. And later Reagan offered the unfortunate Bork.)

**Gokul43201** · May26-09, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by signerror

What? I don't understand this at all - if it's a Constitutional right to bear arms, how can that be infringed by state governments? By this reasoning, you could have all 50 states ban guns categorically, without "infringing" on 2nd amendment rights.

As weird as it sounds, there appears to be precedent for this, and Sotomayor et al refer to that precedent.

http://documents.nytimes.com/selecte...-sotomayor#p=1

Quoting from Judges' opinion:

It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right. See, e.g., Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) (stating that the Second Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state"); Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding "that the Second Amendment's `right to keep and bear arms' imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts" and noting that this outcome was compelled by Presser), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1174 (2006). Heller, a case involving a challenge to the District of Columbia's general prohibition on handguns, does not invalidate this longstanding principle. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2813 n.23 (noting that the case did not present
the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states). And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we "must follow Presser" because "[w]here, as here, a Supreme Court precedent `has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.'" Bach, 408 F.3d at 86 (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989)) (alteration marks omitted); see also State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997). Thus, N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.00 through 265.02 do not violate the Second Amendment.

I find the New Haven firefighters case more troubling, but having not yet read though it properly, will hold my judgment.

**russ_watters** · May26-09, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by LowlyPion

I'd say after nominating Harriet Miers the Republicans have little standing to be fussing about credentials.

Has anyone anywhere "fuss[ed] about her credentials"? The only "fussing" I see is about her activism.

**lisab** · May27-09, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by russ_watters

Has anyone anywhere "fuss[ed] about her credentials"? The only "fussing" I see is about her activism.

Well I'm watching Pat Robertson on Hardball right now, questioning her intellectualism. I'll get a link when it comes up...I'm watching it live now.

Dang, she was Phi Beta Kappa out of Princeton...not only that, but *the* top student...what better evidence of intellectual prowess does she need?

**LowlyPion** · May27-09, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by russ_watters

Has anyone anywhere "fuss[ed] about her credentials"? The only "fussing" I see is about her activism.

So what if she is an activist? There's nothing wrong with that. The court could use a little empathy. I'd say maybe it needs a little liberal activism after suffering under the boot of Conservatives the last few years. Without activism blacks might still have to drink from their own water fountains and go to their own segregated schools. There might not have even been a President Obama.

Besides if you want to strictly construct the Constitution, it doesn't prohibit activism. It doesn't forbid empathy.

Republicans lost the election. Maybe they ought to accommodate themselves to this reality a little more gracefully?

**LowlyPion** · May27-09, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by lisab

Well I'm watching Pat Robertson on Hardball right now, ...

Pat Buchannan. Natural confusion. Both ideologues.

**lisab** · May27-09, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by LowlyPion

Pat Buchannan. Natural confusion. Both ideologues.

Yup, you're right, haha, my mistake

.

**CRGreathouse** · May27-09, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by russ_watters

Well that and they might have been able to torpedo the nomination.

They don't have the political capital to do that.