Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Supreme Court - Sonia sotomayor
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=13037
Page 1 of 2

Author:  kpaul [ Wed May 27, 2009 1:34 am ]
Post subject:  Supreme Court - Sonia sotomayor

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."

Author:  Dick Unger [ Wed May 27, 2009 4:57 am ]
Post subject: 

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. :roll:

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. 8)

Author:  joelr [ Wed May 27, 2009 5:48 am ]
Post subject: 

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.

Author:  DeanC [ Wed May 27, 2009 7:30 am ]
Post subject: 

Do you know what Sotomayor mean in Yiddish?
















Status quo






or Souter - take your pick

Author:  jdege [ Wed May 27, 2009 8:48 am ]
Post subject: 

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.

Author:  djeepp [ Wed May 27, 2009 10:38 am ]
Post subject: 

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.

Author:  BigBlue [ Wed May 27, 2009 12:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Supreme Court - Sonia sotomayor

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

Author:  sigman [ Wed May 27, 2009 3:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

You can bet your ass that she is anti-gun.

Author:  kecker [ Wed May 27, 2009 5:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

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.

Author:  mmcnx2 [ Wed May 27, 2009 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Please help me understand

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.

Author:  usmarine0352 [ Wed May 27, 2009 7:38 pm ]
Post subject:  How bad is Sonia Sotomayor for the 2nd Amendment?

.
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.

.

Author:  djeepp [ Wed May 27, 2009 7:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Please help me understand

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.

Author:  Rip Van Winkle [ Wed May 27, 2009 8:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

Does it mater? The Republican party doesn't have the votes or political courage to stop her.

Author:  kecker [ Wed May 27, 2009 10:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

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.

Author:  joelr [ Wed May 27, 2009 10:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

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.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/