Supreme Court - Sonia sotomayor
Author |
Message |
kpaul
|
Post subject: Supreme Court - Sonia sotomayor Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 1:34 am |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:27 pm Posts: 144
|
Anyone know how she stands on gun control-- From what I have all ready heard things don't look to good-- So how safe is the Heller Ruling? I would hope that with the recent Heller Ruling that things are somewhat safe for a while at least as far as the Supreme Court but...
Thoughts please
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05 ... sotomayor/
Below copied from Fox news
But Sotomayor's work as a judge is not without controversy. During a speech at the University of California at Berkeley, Sotomayor said, "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."
And in 2005, when Sotomayor spoke on a Duke University forum, she said, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience" because " the court of appeals is where policy is made."
_________________ K. Paul
Semper Fi
|
|
|
|
|
Dick Unger
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 4:57 am |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am Posts: 2444 Location: West Central MN
|
She apparently has no special interest in 2A one way or the other. She's been pretty careful not to expose her biases. A brilliant student at Princton and Yale, popular with the big city liberal crowd, just like the guy who is nominating her.
The Right has apparently investigated her, and based on what I saw on Fox there is nothing of substance against her. The Republicans will oppose her generally as a liberal, and the Dems will be able to cast Reps as racist and sexist and the party of the rich.
The argument over her confirmation will give politicians a chance to rev up their supporters and the media another opportunity to provide entertainment while further dumbing down their audiences, I think.
Policy is in fact made in appeals courts, despite the legal fiction that "the law has always been there and the appeals courts simply uncover it for us."
That's the whole reason we care about the appointments.
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 5:48 am |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
Dick Unger wrote: She apparently has no special interest in 2A one way or the other. Depends on the meaning of "special interest," I guess. She joined in the decision on Maloney v. Cuomo (2d Cir., No. 07-0581-cv, 1/28/09), and was on the side that held that the 2A doesn't apply against the states.
_________________ Just a guy.
|
|
|
|
|
DeanC
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 7:30 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am Posts: 5270 Location: Minneapolis
|
Do you know what Sotomayor mean in Yiddish?
Status quo
or Souter - take your pick
_________________ I am defending myself... in favor of that!
|
|
|
|
|
jdege
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 8:48 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm Posts: 1419 Location: SE MPLS
|
If there's a decision that's going to sink her nomination, it will be Ricci v. DeStefano.
Not in how she ruled. The problem is that the district court judge issued a summary judgment without allowing the plaintiffs' case to be heard, and Sotomayor issued a one-paragraph opinion that provided no explanation of the facts or controversy.
It smells like a judicial setup, for the specific purpose of sweeping the New Haven case under the rug in a way that would keep the en-banc Circuit or SCOTUS from noticing what the claims were.
http://www.cnsnews.com/PUBLIC/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=47838
In other words, it's pretty much the same sort of under-handed collusion that got us US v. Miller.
|
|
|
|
|
djeepp
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:38 am |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:14 pm Posts: 203
|
If the Repubes know what's good for them, they will "bork" this woman. Except this time it will be a legitimate protest and minus the racist screed from Teddy. She's not just a legislator in a robe, she uses class warfare as a basis for her decisions. Like I said, this woman will make Souter look like a moderate.
_________________ "It's a piece of cake to bake a pretty cake"
|
|
|
|
|
BigBlue
|
Post subject: Re: Supreme Court - Sonia sotomayor Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 12:40 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:55 am Posts: 151
|
kpaul wrote: [snip] Below copied from Fox news
But Sotomayor's work as a judge is not without controversy. During a speech at the University of California at Berkeley, Sotomayor said, "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." [/snip]
Sexist and racist in one sentence. Very nice. If a white male said that (reversing the 'latina woman' and 'white male' parts) he would be soundly beaten up by every group out there that hawks over the race & gender stuff. But it's OK because she said it.
BB
|
|
|
|
|
sigman
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 3:21 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:20 am Posts: 1317 Location: Racine, MN
|
You can bet your ass that she is anti-gun.
|
|
|
|
|
kecker
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 5:17 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:57 am Posts: 818 Location: Apple Valley, MN
|
Doesn't really matter does it?? The judge she is replacing voted against Heller as well. So at worst, she'd case the same vote that was already being cast. At best, she at least considers voting the other way.
I don't get as worked up over the judicial nominations. Most judges tend to retire during the administration of a president of "their" party. So judges of one ideology tend to be replaced by Presidents of the same ideology.
Exceptions being when a judge dies unexpectedly or when a judge was thought to be of one ideology and turns out not to be, such as Stevens and Souter.
_________________ http://www.eckernet.com My mind is like a steel trap - rusty and illegal in 37 states.
|
|
|
|
|
mmcnx2
|
Post subject: Please help me understand Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 5:53 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:52 pm Posts: 211 Location: Greenfield, MN
|
In the world I work in we hire the most qualified person, indifferent if they are male/female, black/white/hispanic/american indian or any thing else.
How in the heck did we get to point in this country that we prequalify the candidates based on gender and race. So we are now looking for the best female hispanic to be a supreme court judge.
Sounds like reverse discrimination and we better get our head out of our backside or we'll end up with some idoit that has no real life expereince doing anything of substance in the white house.
Oh wait--to late.
Last edited by mmcnx2 on Wed May 27, 2009 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
usmarine0352
|
Post subject: How bad is Sonia Sotomayor for the 2nd Amendment? Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 7:38 pm |
|
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 8:53 am Posts: 239
|
.
If Sonia Sotomayor wins the Supreme Court nomination, how bad can she be for 2nd Amendment?
The fact that she would be replacing an anti-2nd Amendment judge has to temper her ability to do damage.
.
|
|
|
|
|
djeepp
|
Post subject: Re: Please help me understand Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 7:48 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:14 pm Posts: 203
|
mmcnx2 wrote: In the world I work in we hire the most qualified person, indifferent if they are male/female, black/white/hispanic/american indian or any thing else.
How in the heck did we get to point in this country that we prequalify the candidates based on gender and race. So we are now looking for the best female hispanic to be a supreme court judge.
Sounds like reverse discrimination and we better get our butt out of our backside or we'll end up with some idoit that has no real life expereince doing anything of substance in the white house.
Oh wait--to late.
Ziiiiiiiinnnnnggg!!
Careful, you're going to upset some of those gun-toting liberals around here.
_________________ "It's a piece of cake to bake a pretty cake"
|
|
|
|
|
Rip Van Winkle
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 8:10 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:36 pm Posts: 440 Location: W. St. Paul
|
|
|
|
|
kecker
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:17 pm |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:57 am Posts: 818 Location: Apple Valley, MN
|
Rip Van Winkle wrote: Does it mater? The Republican party doesn't have the votes or political courage to stop her.
Well you could also make the argument that they shouldn't.
What was the biggest argument by conservatives when Bush was trying to nominate judges and the Democrats were blocking?? That it was the President's prerogative to appoint judges and he didn't need Congress' permission, just needed to consult them....and ignore their advise if he wants.
If you want to maintain intellectual integrity, that also applies here. Obama has appointed someone that certainly is qualified for the job. Whether she is the best person for the job is another question entirely and certainly up for debate. But it's not the fundamental question.
_________________ http://www.eckernet.com My mind is like a steel trap - rusty and illegal in 37 states.
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:22 pm |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
kecker wrote: Rip Van Winkle wrote: Does it mater? The Republican party doesn't have the votes or political courage to stop her. Well you could also make the argument that they shouldn't. What was the biggest argument by conservatives when Bush was trying to nominate judges and the Democrats were blocking?? That it was the President's prerogative to appoint judges and he didn't need Congress' permission, just needed to consult them....and ignore their advise if he wants. If you want to maintain intellectual integrity, that also applies here. Obama has appointed someone that certainly is qualified for the job. Whether she is the best person for the job is another question entirely and certainly up for debate. But it's not the fundamental question. I think the New Haven case raises some serious issue. Maybe she just had her (demonstrably) fine mind turned off when she signed off on the per curiam; maybe it was just that she let her own prejudices rule. I dunno, either way.
She will be confirmed -- unless some smoking gun in her private life turns up, a la Ginsberg, except it was a joint, there -- but I'm not sure that she should.
_________________ Just a guy.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|