Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor for SCOTUS

[akhhorus]

She's been the frontrunner for awhile, but an interesting pick.

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052600889.html)

[CNYSkinFan]

Sources are saying Obama is picking her for Supreme Court at 10:15 today:


President Barack Obama tapped federal appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, officials said, making her the first Hispanic in history picked to wear the robes of a justice.

If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor, 54, would succeed retiring Justice David Souter. Two officials described Obama's decision on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.

Administration officials say Sotomayor would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice confirmed in the past 70 years.

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/ap_on_go_su_co/us_obama_supreme_court)

interesting putting Republicans in a box because if they try and filibuster they risk offending the fastest growing voting block in the country, the hispanic.

[akhhorus]

http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=48931

Ahem lol.

[CNYSkinFan]

oh man i must have been typing while you posted...crap...MERGE!!!!

[skinguy]

she WILL be confirmed :sun:
i seriously doubt she has any " skeletons " in her closet.



p.s. & yes , she is a ny yankees fan . . :beer:

[RedskinsDave]

interesting putting Republicans in a box because if they try and filibuster they risk offending the fastest growing voting block in the country, the hispanic.

Is this a sideways admission that the pick is pandering to that same group?

[Keino]

Is this a sideways admission that the pick is pandering to that same group?

Pandering for a SCOTUS appointment? Did you just ignore the judicial experience point?

[shally]

a solid pick.. the woman definitely has the right credentials, regardless of whether you agree with her politics..

she should sail through the process with only token opposition unless something else is not known..

cementing Obama's genius as a politician by picking a woman and a Latina..
as well as a worthy candidate..

[Ibleedburgundy]

If the comments under the washington post article are any indicator, it looks like the Republican base is not going to help itself here. It's getting pretty ugly. They seem to be playing the race card while completely ignoring her qualifications.

[RedskinsDave]

Pandering for a SCOTUS appointment? Did you just ignore the judicial experience point?

No. He said by vetting her the GOP would alienate a voting base. That makes me think its quite possible that the pick was pandering. Its not like it would be the first time a Dem did that.

[CNYSkinFan]

No. He said by vetting her the GOP would alienate a voting base. That makes me think its quite possible that the pick was pandering. Its not like it would be the first time a Dem did that.
I was just pointing out that it will be hard for the GOP to filibuster this pick without upsetting a large voting block they have previously alienated by their immigration and english-only stances in the late 90's.

Some would say the loss of the hispanic voting block is where the GOP started to lose it's electoral hold on the country. States like California went from tossup to solid blue and the southwest from solid red to lean blue in the matter of a decade.

[fent]

I was just pointing out that it will be hard for the GOP to filibuster this pick without upsetting a large voting block they have previously alienated by their immigration and english-only stances in the late 90's.

Some would say the loss of the hispanic voting block is where the GOP started to lose it's electoral hold on the country. States like California went from tossup to solid blue and the southwest from solid red to lean blue in the matter of a decade.

exactly how far back are you looking?? CA hasn't been a tossup for 2 decades.

[shally]

exactly how far back are you looking?? CA hasn't been a tossup for 2 decades.

nor will it likely be "in play" for any time into the forseeable future.. the demographics are just incredibly bad for the GOP there..

[BurgundyNGold]

she WILL be confirmed :sun:
i seriously doubt she has any " skeletons " in her closet.



p.s. & yes , she is a ny yankees fan . . :beer:
But she's also a liberal, no? Liberal, Yankee fan... Tough split for you. You must must be high-fiving yourself with one hand while trying to choke yourself with the other, lmao.

[FanFromArizona]

a solid pick.. the woman definitely has the right credentials, regardless of whether you agree with her politics..

she should sail through the process with only token opposition unless something else is not known..

cementing Obama's genius as a politician by picking a woman and a Latina..
as well as a worthy candidate..

you should read what they are saying out here:

For Sotomayor, discrimination case will likely be issue (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/05/26/20090526sotomayor-firefighters0526-ON.html)

[shally]

i think it is absolutely wrong to disqualify someone on the basis of how they rule on ONE case... look for a pattern before one should make a dtermination

this smacks of Borking a nominee, and we have seen far too much of this..

i would rather have a qualified judge that i disagree with occasionally than a boob who has little or no record, or who seems to hew to political orthodoxy of one stripe or another..

[hogskins]

i think it is absolutely wrong to disqualify someone on the basis of how they rule on ONE case... look for a pattern before one should make a dtermination

this smacks of Borking a nominee, and we have seen far too much of this...

Let the detailed scrutiny begin--fair is fair. It's disingenuous for the lefties on TV to start screaming about sexism and cultural bias as they are, although many I know on the right have already walked into the "she's only a nominee due to gender and ethnic background" trap. The woman has a lengthy CV to examine, but folks are immediately jumping on the political/electoral ramifications. I hope that she succeeds or fails the nomination based on her fitness for the position.


i would rather have a qualified judge that i disagree with occasionally than a boob who has little or no record, or who seems to hew to political orthodoxy of one stripe or another..

aka, Harriet Miers or Clarence Thomas

[Ibleedburgundy]

I would like to hear her response to the quote from the washington post editorial today:

"The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. . . . Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases . . . . I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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."


I agree about the point that judges do decide cases based on their experience and political leanings, particularly on the supreme court. If those differences didn't exist, cases would never be overturned and appeals would never happen because they would be futile. Otherwise you would have to assume there are simply a lot of unwise judges out there, and that in every split decision there are "wise" judges and bad judges. With the exception of the pants suit guy, I doubt that's the case. And how would you reconcile that with all the 5-4 and 6-3 supreme court cases?

I've always rejected the notion that you can't possibly understand something unless you've lived it, experienced it first hand, or it pertains to your race. I don't care what the subject is, racism, immigration, slavery, religion, the holocaust, native american heritage, poverty, whatever. To state that someone can't understand something based on their skin color, or that someone else is a better judge because of their skin color, IMO, is a fallacy. But that's not all she appears to be saying here, she also seems to be saying if you haven't been impoverished than you can't come to the best conclusion for the impoverished-which I also think is complete nonsense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602846.html

[fent]

aka, Harriet Miers or Clarence Thomas

I'll agree with you on Miers, but the general concensus in the legal community is that Thomas is as smart as they come. you may not agree with him, but his intellect is on par with the rest of the court.

[fent]

I would like to hear her response to the quote from the washington post editorial today:



I agree about the point that judges do decide cases based on their experience and political leanings, particularly on the supreme court. If those differences didn't exist, cases would never be overturned and appeals would never happen because they would be futile. Otherwise you would have to assume there are simply a lot of unwise judges out there, and that in every split decision there are "wise" judges and bad judges. With the exception of the pants suit guy, I doubt that's the case. And how would you reconcile that with all the 5-4 and 6-3 supreme court cases?

I've always rejected the notion that you can't possibly understand something unless you've lived it, experienced it first hand, or it pertains to your race. I don't care what the subject is, racism, immigration, slavery, religion, the holocaust, native american heritage, poverty, whatever. To state that someone can't understand something based on their skin color, or that someone else is a better judge because of their skin color, IMO, is a fallacy. But that's not all she appears to be saying here, she also seems to be saying if you haven't been impoverished than you can't come to the best conclusion for the impoverished-which I also think is complete nonsense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602846.html

i've been trying to get a feel for this as well. Akh sent me a link yesterday which offers an opinion on it, but also a link to the transcript of the speech so you can read it yourself and make your own decision. i haven't gotten the chance to read it yet, but plan to sometime today.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/conservatives-wrongly-claim-sotomayor-said-latinas-are-better-than-white-men/

[akhhorus]

i've been trying to get a feel for this as well. Akh sent me a link yesterday which offers an opinion on it, but also a link to the transcript of the speech so you can read it yourself and make your own decision. i haven't gotten the chance to read it yet, but plan to sometime today.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/conservatives-wrongly-claim-sotomayor-said-latinas-are-better-than-white-men/

The problem is that quote thats floating around clips off the final 5 words:
Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Thats a much different quote in context.

[fent]

The problem is that quote thats floating around clips off the final 5 words:


Thats a much different quote in context.

agreed, but there's still a potentially serious issue to be discussed if she believes that a white justice (or any justice for that matter) is not as qualified to rule on a matter simply because he or she didn't grow up in a certain setting.

[shally]

Let the detailed scrutiny begin--fair is fair. It's disingenuous for the lefties on TV to start screaming about sexism and cultural bias as they are, although many I know on the right have already walked into the "she's only a nominee due to gender and ethnic background" trap. The woman has a lengthy CV to examine, but folks are immediately jumping on the political/electoral ramifications. I hope that she succeeds or fails the nomination based on her fitness for the position.




aka, Harriet Miers or Clarence Thomas

at least with roberts and alito the decision seemed to be fairly reached

[shally]

agreed, but there's still a potentially serious issue to be discussed if she believes that a white justice (or any justice for that matter) is not as qualified to rule on a matter simply because he or she didn't grow up in a certain setting.


that sets a horrendous precedent.. it should never come to that, although i would suspect it does more often than we realize

[shally]

I'll agree with you on Miers, but the general concensus in the legal community is that Thomas is as smart as they come. you may not agree with him, but his intellect is on par with the rest of the court.

you are the FIRST person i have actually read taking that position

[fent]

you are the FIRST person i have actually read taking that position

really? amongst the lawyers in DC i know, they really were all of the opinion that the label was unfairly earned because he doesn't ask many questions in the actual hearing. he gets the information he needs to come to his decision via other means in the process.

[akhhorus]

agreed, but there's still a potentially serious issue to be discussed if she believes that a white justice (or any justice for that matter) is not as qualified to rule on a matter simply because he or she didn't grow up in a certain setting.

Read the full article, I don't think she's saying that. She's taking issue with past comments by justices ruling on discrimination cases who are saying that they can appreciate the full weight of discrimination despite never experiencing it from a minority or a woman's perspective.

[hogskins]

really? amongst the lawyers in DC i know, they really were all of the opinion that the label was unfairly earned because he doesn't ask many questions in the actual hearing. he gets the information he needs to come to his decision via other means in the process.

That could be true. I don't hang around any DC lawyers that I can check with ..

My original reference was to Thomas' very limited experience as a jurist (15 months?) when he was tapped in 1991. His credentials certainly didn't compare to Sotomayor's.

[akhhorus]

That could be true. I don't hang around any DC lawyers that I can check with ..

My original reference was to Thomas' very limited experience as a jurist (15 months?) when he was tapped in 1991. His credentials certainly didn't compare to Sotomayor's.

You can say the same thing about Souter. I believe he was a Federal judge for a few weeks before Papa Bush nominated him for SCOTUS.

[fent]

That could be true. I don't hang around any DC lawyers that I can check with ..

My original reference was to Thomas' very limited experience as a jurist (15 months?) when he was tapped in 1991. His credentials certainly didn't compare to Sotomayor's.

he was definitely lacking in experience in comparison to Sotomayor. i was too young to remember anything about his nomination, but the overall message i heard about him was that the attacks on his intelligence were left overs from the fight over his confirmation that have proven to be based in something other than fact but linger on thanks to the knock-down, drag-out fights we have over seemingly every judicial nominee.

[shally]

really? amongst the lawyers in DC i know, they really were all of the opinion that the label was unfairly earned because he doesn't ask many questions in the actual hearing. he gets the information he needs to come to his decision via other means in the process.

not doubting you for an instance, Fent, just saying that over the years i have heard lots and lots of comments on him.. some by lawyers i knew (admittedly they were onthe left side of the Bar) and i cannot recall anyone commenting upon his intellectual prowess.. doesnt mean anything per se, except that was my own personal experience

of course, we all know that every conservative is stupid, and most, if not every, liberal is a genius...lol

[skinguy]

But she's also a liberal, no? Liberal, Yankee fan... Tough split for you. You must must be high-fiving yourself with one hand while trying to choke yourself with the other, lmao.
yes , she is a liberal ( the dems will say that she is a " centrist " ) :smash:

p.s. fyi : the US supreme court is one of the few places that i want a LIBERAL.

cheers ~ ~
:beer:

[BurgundyNGold]

yes , she is a liberal ( the dems will say that she is a " centrist " ) :smash:

p.s. fyi : the US supreme court is one of the few places that i want a LIBERAL.

cheers ~ ~
:beer:
Really? With all other parts of government currently dominated by the left, doesn't it make better sense to have a conservative court? Actually, considering that the courts are usually the last (and, sadly, sometimes the first) line of defense for folks wanting to carve away individual liberties, doesn't it make sense that of all branches, the courts should be more conservative?

[skinguy]

i think that there is no greater role for the president of the U.S. than those of commander in chief & the appointer of federal judges. the most enduring mark a U.S. president leaves on the nation is with the federal judiciary.

economic policies , defense policy & education policy can be readdressed & so on. however, federal judicial appointments are for life. thus, it can literally take decades to reverse bad judicial rulings at the federal level.

[fent]

Really? With all other parts of government currently dominated by the left, doesn't it make better sense to have a conservative court? Actually, considering that the courts are usually the last (and, sadly, sometimes the first) line of defense for folks wanting to carve away individual liberties, doesn't it make sense that of all branches, the courts should be more conservative?

my guess is that he/she realizes that to be "conservative" right now a justice must be liberal with the law. after a quarter century of legal rulings upholding Roe v. Wade, any decision to overturn would be decidedly liberal by definition.

[BurgundyNGold]

i think that there is no greater role for the president of the U.S. than those of commander in chief & the appointer of federal judges. the most enduring mark a U.S. president leaves on the nation is with the federal judiciary.

economic policies , defense policy & education policy can be readdressed & so on. however, federal judicial appointments are for life. thus, it can literally take decades to reverse bad judicial rulings at the federal level.
I couldn't agree more with what you just posted here. That's why Congress usually goes so batty over the confirmation hearings. A lot of folks pull out of the process if it looks like they're not going to get the votes. Nobody wants to be Robert Bork redux -- 3 months of brutal hearings and then a ball of flames.

Personally, I want to see more conservatism on the Court when it comes to Constitutional issues. That is to say that I prefer judges to interpret the Constitution and the precedence of case law as written and established as opposed to actively making the law.

As you say, the President and Congress can work together or apart to make whatever laws they want but they can be rolled back if ineffective, outdated or just plain wrong. SCOTUS rulings aren't as easy to change. Besides, we only have one Constitution. When its been sufficiently cut up, there isn't another one in the back room as a backup. If for no other reason, whether you're liberal or conservative, you should want the rights granted to Americans in that Constitution to be chipped away as slow as is humanly possible.

[BurgundyNGold]

my guess is that he/she realizes that to be "conservative" right now a justice must be liberal with the law. after a quarter century of legal rulings upholding Roe v. Wade, any decision to overturn would be decidedly liberal by definition.
I don't think that more liberal judges on SCOTUS is going to make that happen any sooner. In fact, I don't think any SC judge is going to make a point of upsetting that apple cart when it seems that advances in medicine might solve the problem for them before too much longer.

[akhhorus]

I don't think that more liberal judges on SCOTUS is going to make that happen any sooner. In fact, I don't think any SC judge is going to make a point of upsetting that apple cart when it seems that advances in medicine might solve the problem for them before too much longer.

If SCOTUS was going to change its mind on Roe v Wade, it would have happened when a very conservative court heard Casey v Planned Parenthood, and they decided to further enshrine the legal arguments of Roe v Wade. Ive said for awhile that the only way Roe v Wade is reversed is if you get 6 militant interventionist liberals on the court and try to claim its a human rights issue.

[shally]

I don't think that more liberal judges on SCOTUS is going to make that happen any sooner. In fact, I don't think any SC judge is going to make a point of upsetting that apple cart when it seems that advances in medicine might solve the problem for them before too much longer.

i dont think they want to unleash anarchy on the streets.. which is exactly what would happen if they reversed R v W

this country would suffer a complete meltdown

[akhhorus]

i dont think they want to unleash anarchy on the streets.. which is exactly what would happen if they reversed R v W

this country would suffer a complete meltdown

In order to do it, they would have to rule that there's no right to privacy, and that would make everyone from the far right libertarians to the movement liberals howl. Ain't happening.

[shally]

In order to do it, they would have to rule that there's no right to privacy, and that would make everyone from the far right libertarians to the movement liberals howl. Ain't happening.

i think to be on the supreme court, you have to have a sense of history.. there is NO WAY that this is the right time to even re-visit RvW.. i cannot think of anything that would be more destructive to this nation as a whole

as you say, Aint Happening

[akhhorus]

i think to be on the supreme court, you have to have a sense of history.. there is NO WAY that this is the right time to even re-visit RvW.. i cannot think of anything that would be more destructive to this nation as a whole

as you say, Aint Happening

I don't know if it would be destructive, but opponents of it don't realize what they would have to do to accomplish. Its like gay marriage: if you oppose gay marriage entirely, and want SCOTUS to rule for you, you're opening up a pandora's box that will be shocking to those who want it.

[shally]

I don't know if it would be destructive, but opponents of it don't realize what they would have to do to accomplish. Its like gay marriage: if you oppose gay marriage entirely, and want SCOTUS to rule for you, you're opening up a pandora's box that will be shocking to those who want it.

i think you would have massive protests, if not open rebellion in many liberal states.. that would bring out the crazies on both sides.

we just had someone killed this week.. i cant imagine the amount of carnage that would ensue if this issue was brought back to the foreground of our national stage

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't know if it would be destructive, but opponents of it don't realize what they would have to do to accomplish. Its like gay marriage: if you oppose gay marriage entirely, and want SCOTUS to rule for you, you're opening up a pandora's box that will be shocking to those who want it.
I think the problem is in the word "marriage". I think that there is a middle ground that believes that "marriage" is between a man and a woman and, therefore, cannot be between two men or two women. Gay rights activists should be shooting for nationwide, legal recognitions of civil unions as a parallel institution for same sex relationships. As long as they insist on it being defined as "marriage", I think they're going to get a lot of resistance, most of which is probably deserved.

[akhhorus]

I think the problem is in the word "marriage". I think that there is a middle ground that believes that "marriage" is between a man and a woman and, therefore, cannot be between two men or two women. Gay rights activists should be shooting for nationwide, legal recognitions of civil unions as a parallel institution for same sex relationships. As long as they insist on it being defined as "marriage", I think they're going to get a lot of resistance, most of which is probably deserved.

Agreed, but it is a bit absurd to say to them: "Hey guys, we'll give you all the rights of a married couple, but just you just can't call it a marriage." Shades of "separate, but equal" lol. If SCOTUS follows precedent, they have to allow it(and strike down DOMA). I have a feeling they'll just keep punting it back to the Appeals courts because the right leaning judges don't want to choose between striking down Loving v Virginia(and pandora's box that would open) and being condemned by the Federalist society for voting for Gay marriage.

I think this was the best discussion of the potential loopholes in the marriage argument though: Link (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/conservatives_warn_quick_sex?utm_source=a-section)

[shally]

I think the problem is in the word "marriage". I think that there is a middle ground that believes that "marriage" is between a man and a woman and, therefore, cannot be between two men or two women. Gay rights activists should be shooting for nationwide, legal recognitions of civil unions as a parallel institution for same sex relationships. As long as they insist on it being defined as "marriage", I think they're going to get a lot of resistance, most of which is probably deserved.

again, i think that the more aggressive wing is driving that argument as well..

[shally]

took me a second to see that it was the onion..lol

nice looking info-babe

[ryflan47]

Not a fan of her, but with all of the scrutiny that she's currently under for those comments, I feel like there's no way she could make a decision based on race now, or she would get fried.

[akhhorus]

Not a fan of her, but with all of the scrutiny that she's currently under for those comments, I feel like there's no way she could make a decision based on race now, or she would get fried.

If you read the full quote she made, she clearly isn't talking about deciding cases on race(and her record suggests shes rather tough on discrimination claims). My problem with her is that she's not particularly imaginative with her ruling in the sense that when presented with an issue that merits new law, she might struggle with conflicting precedents(not an intelligence issue, but just how she sees what being a judge is about).

[shally]

Not a fan of her, but with all of the scrutiny that she's currently under for those comments, I feel like there's no way she could make a decision based on race now, or she would get fried.

once she is on the court, she can do any thing she damn well pleases- FOR-EVER !!.. everybody knows this and that is why all those panties are getting bunched up...

[skinguy]

I couldn't agree more with what you just posted here. That's why Congress usually goes so batty over the confirmation hearings. A lot of folks pull out of the process if it looks like they're not going to get the votes. Nobody wants to be Robert Bork redux -- 3 months of brutal hearings and then a ball of flames.

Personally, I want to see more conservatism on the Court when it comes to Constitutional issues. That is to say that I prefer judges to interpret the Constitution and the precedence of case law as written and established as opposed to actively making the law.

As you say, the President and Congress can work together or apart to make whatever laws they want but they can be rolled back if ineffective, outdated or just plain wrong. SCOTUS rulings aren't as easy to change. Besides, we only have one Constitution. When its been sufficiently cut up, there isn't another one in the back room as a backup. If for no other reason, whether you're liberal or conservative, you should want the rights granted to Americans in that Constitution to be chipped away as slow as is humanly possible.
" . . . you should want the rights granted to Americans in that Constitution to be chipped away as slow as is humanly possible. "

- actually i do NOT want " . . . the rights granted to Americans in that Constitution to be chipped away . . . " at all.

- that is why i want LIBERALS on the US supreme court.


p.s. & make no mistake here fellas ; she is a liberal :sun:


fyi :

~ ~ June 19, 2009
Ken Starr backs Sotomayor court bid
Posted: 03:30 PM ET

From CNN Political Research Director Robert Yoon

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) — Although several prominent conservatives such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and talk show host Rush Limbaugh have been sharply critical of Sonia Sotomayor and her nomination to the Supreme Court, President Obama's first high court pick has won the support of at least one high-profile conservative legal figure: Kenneth Starr, the former federal judge who led the investigation that ultimately lead to the impeachment and trial of President Bill Clinton.

"I'm very much an admirer of her, and I'm supporting the nomination," Starr said Thursday at a law and journalism conference at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "I think that's a very wise and sound nomination of our president."Starr, the former independent counsel for the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky investigations of the 1990s, told reporters after the event that he has voiced his support to at least two U.S. senators, whom he declined to name, but has not been asked to write an official letter of endorsement. . .

rest of article > http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/19/ken-starr-backs-sotomayor-court-bid/

[shally]

" . . . you should want the rights granted to Americans in that Constitution to be chipped away as slow as is humanly possible. "

- actually i do NOT want " . . . the rights granted to Americans in that Constitution to be chipped away . . . " at all.

- that is why i want LIBERALS on the US supreme court.


p.s. & make no mistake here fellas ; she is a liberal :sun:


fyi :

~ ~ June 19, 2009
Ken Starr backs Sotomayor court bid
Posted: 03:30 PM ET

From CNN Political Research Director Robert Yoon

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) — Although several prominent conservatives such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and talk show host Rush Limbaugh have been sharply critical of Sonia Sotomayor and her nomination to the Supreme Court, President Obama's first high court pick has won the support of at least one high-profile conservative legal figure: Kenneth Starr, the former federal judge who led the investigation that ultimately lead to the impeachment and trial of President Bill Clinton.

"I'm very much an admirer of her, and I'm supporting the nomination," Starr said Thursday at a law and journalism conference at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "I think that's a very wise and sound nomination of our president."Starr, the former independent counsel for the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky investigations of the 1990s, told reporters after the event that he has voiced his support to at least two U.S. senators, whom he declined to name, but has not been asked to write an official letter of endorsement. . .

rest of article > http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/19/ken-starr-backs-sotomayor-court-bid/

well, that just settles everything..:rolleyes:

[skinguy]

well, that just settles everything..:rolleyes:
no , it does NOT settle " . . everything . . " .

sotomayor is gonna be confirmed by the senate.
i believe she will do a good job.
she will prove beyond any doubt that she is one of the most liberal judges ever to serve on the US supreme court.

cheers ~ ~
:beer:

[RedskinsDave]

The decision that the New Haven, Conn., firefighters were unfairly denied promotions because of their race comes two weeks before Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings and is an unwelcome distraction for the White House from what had seemed like a relatively smooth confirmation process. It is also somewhat of an embarrassment, forcing administration officials to explain why the court overturned a controversial decision backed by its prospective next member.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062903983.html?hpid=topnews

Nice to see equality isn't a one-way street. I'd be insulted if I was black and someone felt they needed to lower the standards for me.

This is an example of Sotomayor's bias in cases where she can be an activist for Hispanics.

[dj_stouty]

What a way to welcome Sonia to the new gig. lol

[akhhorus]

What a way to welcome Sonia to the new gig. lol

It must be tradition, I think Roberts and Alito got reversed by SCOTUS in the term before they joined lol.

[Ibleedburgundy]

It was a 5-4 decision and Sotomayor is agreeing with the guy she will be replacing. I don't see how that could even remotely be construed as embarrassing. All it really says is she doesn't side with the Republicans. Shocker.

[shally]

It was a 5-4 decision and Sotomayor is agreeing with the guy she will be replacing. I don't see how that could even remotely be construed as embarrassing. All it really says is she doesn't side with the Republicans. Shocker.

all judges get reversed.. big deal

[RedskinsDave]

She and two other judges made a decision to uphold a decision that discriminated against some firefighters because there were some who couldn't make the grade. Discrimination is discrimination, except when some white guys get screwed. Nice to know she will be sitting on the High Court.

[Ibleedburgundy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062903983.html?hpid=topnews

Nice to see equality isn't a one-way street. I'd be insulted if I was black and someone felt they needed to lower the standards for me.

This is an example of Sotomayor's bias in cases where she can be an activist for Hispanics.

If you were a veteran who owned a small business would you be insulted that the Federal Government lowers its standards to award you contracts?

[RedskinsDave]

If you were a veteran who owned a small business would you be insulted that the Federal Government lowers its standards to award you contracts?

If you think that is the same thing as fire fighters who work side by side and take the exact same test, then you need help.

[Ibleedburgundy]

If you think that is the same thing as fire fighters who work side by side and take the exact same test, then you need help.

Contractors work side by side and respond to the same RFPs.

I support affirmative action for veterans as well as minorities. There is nothing insulting about it at all IMO so I don't need to make the distinction as to why monorities should be offended and veterans should not.

[RedskinsDave]

That analogy doesn't work so stop. This was a case where there were a whole group who took a test and the results were tossed because not enough minorities passed. If you think that's fair then it makes sense why you would choose an analogy that isn't remotely close. Address the issue and stay away from dumb comparisons.

[shally]

She and two other judges made a decision to uphold a decision that discriminated against some firefighters because there were some who couldn't make the grade. Discrimination is discrimination, except when some white guys get screwed. Nice to know she will be sitting on the High Court.

actually, in this case, whites AND hispanics...

[akhhorus]

That analogy doesn't work so stop. This was a case where there were a whole group who took a test and the results were tossed because not enough minorities passed. If you think that's fair then it makes sense why you would choose an analogy that isn't remotely close. Address the issue and stay away from dumb comparisons.

I'm not 100% sure about the law here, but: I think the city was trapped between 2 federal laws with this, and chose the one that wouldn't get them sued for unintentional discrimination(and the fed courts agreed, which is the law). The Plantiffs sued claiming that the city just wanted to avoid any appearance of discrimination, and thats why they threw out the test results(and the entire test). SCOTUS didn't agree with that, and decided that Title 7 Federal law was applicable and overrode the other federal law that the Federal courts used as their guideline for their decisions. The ruling basically said that if the test for a promotion is legally sound, you can't throw out the results and the test because you're afraid of a lawsuit over unintentional discrimination from the results of the test--but the city is allowed to throw out the test(and results) as long as no-one is promoted(and they don't use a similar test again). Now, Ricci and the plantiffs don't get those promotions they tested for, they're going to have to sue New Haven again(and claim damages) if the city tries to administer a similar test.

[RedskinsDave]

What is wrong with this country? Yes you passed thr promotion exam but you don't get your promotion because other guys failed. Tell your kids that trip to Disney will have to wait until they pass. What an insult.

[akhhorus]

What is wrong with this country? Yes you passed thr promotion exam but you don't get your promotion because other guys failed. Tell your kids that trip to Disney will have to wait until they pass. What an insult.

Its a total mess of a case: from the city's screw up(they should have just promoted the guys, then announced that the test would be discontinued), to the plantiffs suing over the wrong issue(they should have sued specifically over their promotions and not over the city's fear of being sued). The courts(state and fed) were bound by what the law is, and it took SCOTUS to basically create new law to define this conflict.

[dj_stouty]

I was born in New Haven and I actually know people close to the situation. This type of thing has been going on for years in the fire department.

[shally]

I was born in New Haven and I actually know people close to the situation. This type of thing has been going on for years in the fire department.

we need to get past this as a nation

[skinguy]

we need to get past this as a nation
here we gooooo ~ ~ :smash:

[akhhorus]

Sotomayor passes the Senate 68-31.

edit: Voinovich, Gregg, Martinez, Graham, Lugar, Alexander, Snowe, Collins and Kit Bond all voted for her. Kennedy didn't vote.

[CNYSkinFan]

wow...3/4 of the republicans want to piss off latina women in a "principled" vote. Interesting going into mid term elections next year.

[Fathead]

McCain is a bitter, bitter man.

[innovoppy]

The economy was already dead. Its Obamas fault for the recession he inherited?