Supreme Court Nominee

[SubGod22]

S.E. Cupp: Sotomayor - Obama's Nominee Spouts Biased Views on Race and Gender... She's not a fan

[SubGod22]

Sotomayor Video: Judges Make Policy, Latinas Better Than Whites

Case Against Sotomayor: Bully on the Bench?

[Maggie]

As I am on a long, and largely unnecessary conference call, I decided to do some poking around. What follows, based upon my own personal knowledge, is a fairly good breakdown of some “issues” concerning Judge Sotomayor complied by Ed Whelan at National Review:

The first is related to the Ricci v. DeStefano case:

In Ricci, 19 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter charged that New Haven city officials engaged in racially discriminatory practices by throwing out the results of two promotional exams. As Cabranes puts it, “this case presents a straight-forward question: May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination, which was carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality, on the ground that the results of that examination yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another?”

At the District Court level the Court issued a lengthy Summary Judgment Order ruling against the firefighters. Judge Cabranes (and I agreed with him at the time the Order was issued) found it odd that the opinion was not published. At the appellate level, the submissions by counsel were also lengthy and oral argument before the panel went long. The panel (which included Judge Sotomayor) initially issued simple Order affirming the lower court. Subsequently, the panel withdrew its Order and issued a per curiam Opinion which Whelan quotes Judge Cabranes as summarizing as follows (which I recall):

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reasoning of the District Court, without further elaboration or substantive comment, and thereby converted a lengthy, unpublished district court opinion, grappling with significant constitutional and statutory claims of first impression, into the law of this Circuit.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.

Whelan opines:

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.”

I agree.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzI4ODU1MjIxMThiNGQzODUwYTFlYzNlNWNlOWMzOTc=

Whelan, in a later post, lists a few of Judge Sotomayor’s cases that have been reviewed by the Supreme Court. While I am familiar with some of the cases, I hesitate to offer my own opinion (although I hold Ed Whelan in high regard) without reading the opinions themselves. However, one point he does make I think should be highlighted:

Sotomayor is often painted as a moderate by virtue of the fact that President George H.W. Bush formally appointed her to a district-court seat. But, as I’ve explained before, when President Bush nominated Sotomayor to the district court in 1991, the New York senators, Moynihan and D’Amato, had forced on the White House a deal that enabled the senator not of the president’s party to name one of every four district-court nominees in New York. Sotomayor was Moynihan’s pick. I am reliably informed that Bush 41’s White House nonetheless resisted nominating her because she was so liberal and did so in the end only as part of a package to move along other nominees whom Moynihan was holding up.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MThhNDQ0MTgyYTMxYWUwYzNjMmNmMzE2OGFiMDg5M2M=

[BenWSU]

Of her rulings that were appealled to the Supreme Court, 80% were overturned.

Highly doubt she`ll follow the Constitution & be a sentimental person for poor hispanics that bring cases to the court.

[Maggie]

Here it is

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.

For context, here is the full text of the speech:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1

[Maggie]

More on Sotomayor, without comment for now:

Sotomayor is just as liberal as Souter on social issues like affirmative action and abortion, but far more liberal even than Souter on economic issues, such as punitive damages, preemption, and employment law. The Supreme Court, including Justice Souter, unanimously reversed her decision in the Dabit case, where she allowed lawsuits that were preempted by a federal law (SLUSA).

Business will likely lose billions of dollars over time as a result of her replacing Souter. That probably won’t bother Obama, given that “Obama has regretted that the Supreme Court ‘didn’t break free’ from legal constraints to bring about ‘redistribution of wealth.’”

Judge Sotomayor has managed to take already liberal, redistributionist areas of the law and push them even further down the road in the direction of redistributing wealth to constituencies favored by government offficials. The Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case that governments can take private property and give it to developers as part of a general redevelopment plan that they rationally believe will benefit the public good (My colleague Hans Bader argued at the time that that violated basic axioms of constitutional construction, and rendered the Constitution’s “public use” clause redundant).

But Judge Sotomayor went well beyond that, to hold that property owners have no legal redress even in the face of what legal commentators have called extortion, in Didden v. City of Port Chester. (emphasis added) In that case, a developer told a property owner to either give him $800,000 or half his property, or he would seize it by having the Village of Port Chester condemn it. When the property owner refused, the developer promptly had the town condemn it and transfer it to him. Judge Sotomayor and two of her colleagues upheld this seizure against a constitutional challenge in an unpublished opinion. George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin called this case an example of judicially sanctioned extortion.

Judge Sotomayor has also sided with environmental extremists against businesses, trying to stop the EPA from considering cost-benefit analysis in permitting decisions, another decision that the Supreme Court overturned. See Steve Milloy's Green Hell blog for the full story.

In short, Judge Sotomayor will be much more liberal than Justice Souter when it comes to cases involving business.

This quote is from the following site and the applicable links are contained therein:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTY0NmMwYjdhODdhNWM0N2NjYWIyZmQyMjU1ODBiZmU=

[SubGod22]

:banghead:

[SubGod22]

Sotomayor Ruling Could Have Cost Consumers Billions

Sotomayor Hostile to Gun Rights, Scholar Says

Sen. Sessions: Sotomayor Must Explain Policy Remark

Sotomayor Majority Opinions Reversed 60% by Supreme Court

Analysis: Race Politics Boost Sotomayor Chances

Sotomayor — Obama’s Latino Strategy Revealed

Sotomayor's Liberal Rulings Face Tough Scrutiny

[shocklight]

Here it is

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.

For context, here is the full text of the speech:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...text.html?_r=1

Now that I have read this entire article, I hold more of an opinion that she is an activist. She has a very strong bias against the fact that there are so few Latino/Latina and black judges. She seems appauled by this. I will admit she seems to be just as appauled by a lack of female judges. Having said that, she is an activist for women judges too.

I am not saying that these are necessarily bad. But, they are centered in her heart, which comes to the root of the problem. Are you going to judge blindly, without preconcieved judgements that might tip the scales of justice.

I submit that the reason for imbalance of color or gender, is not white men keeping people down. It is the lack of people who are educated and capable, to preform the duties required. As was the case of the firefighters.

It is my opinion if we keep the arguement on blind fairness, everyone no matter what race, color or creed will rise above all bias.

JMHO

[martymoose]

:banghead:

I assume the reason for banging your head against the wall is the fact that the GOP went from holding all the marbles to f'ing everything up so bad that they now have zero power. They can't even stop a Supreme Court nomination, that's bad... Dems can do whatever they want now.

[SubGod22]

Either party doing whatever they want is bad. The GOP sucks. Almost as much as the Dems. But what the Dems have been pushing on all different fronts is cause for :banghead:

[Maggie]

With regard to the Ricci v. DeStefano case, that we will be hearing much more about I’m sure, the en banc opinions and the District Court’s opinion are available together here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/064996pv2.pdf

From the dissent:

It is arguable that when an appeal raising novel questions of constitutional and statutory law is resolved by an opinion that tersely adopts the reasoning of a lower court – and does without further legal analysis or even a full statement of the questions raised on appeal – those questions are insulated from further judicial review. (emphasis added) It is arguable also that the decision of this Court to deny en banc review of this appeal supports that view. (emphasis added) What is not arguable, however, is the fact that this Court failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal. If the Ricci plaintiffs are to obtain such an opinion from a reviewing court, they much now look to the Supreme Court. Their claims are worthy of that review.

[Maggie]

An editorial from the Washington Times:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/28/courting-controversy/

[RoyalShock]

Not surprisingly, our Kansas senators aren't wild about her either.

http://www.hutchnews.com/Localregional/sotomayor

The question is, can enough Dems be convinced to block her confirmation?

[SubGod22]

I doubt it. Most seem to do whatever Pelosi wants and I'm pretty sure she loves this pick.