Sotomayor nominated to SCOTUS

[CockySOB]

Sonia Sotomayor was officially announced by Pres. Obama as his first nominee to SCOTUS today (5/26/2009). Her professional credentials fairly mirror Justice Alito's, and from what I can tell, her rulings from the bench are fairly close to those of Justice Souter. My biggest problem with her is that she seems to believe that empathy and identity politics have some place in making judicial determinations and rulings of law.

Here's a roundup from SCOTUSblog of some of her rulings and the relevant dissenting opinions as well.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/?s=sotomayor

I also recommend keeping an eye on the Volokh Conspiracy for more legal analyses of Sotomayor.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_24-2009_05_30.shtml#1243349566
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_24-2009_05_30.shtml#1243348317
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_24-2009_05_30.shtml#1243346531
and more.

[Insein]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html


This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”


Instills some confidence there. :rolleyes: This woman is going to to be a SC justice? I mean there's no question with the current structure of the congress.

[Kathianne]

Sonia Sotomayor was officially announced by Pres. Obama as his first nominee to SCOTUS today (5/26/2009). Her professional credentials fairly mirror Justice Alito's, and from what I can tell, her rulings from the bench are fairly close to those of Justice Souter. My biggest problem with her is that she seems to believe that empathy and identity politics have some place in making judicial determinations and rulings of law.

Here's a roundup from SCOTUSblog of some of her rulings and the relevant dissenting opinions as well.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/?s=sotomayor

I also recommend keeping an eye on the Volokh Conspiracy for more legal analyses of Sotomayor.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_24-2009_05_30.shtml#1243349566
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_24-2009_05_30.shtml#1243348317
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_24-2009_05_30.shtml#1243346531
and more.

The last one is very telling:


...I am also not favorably impressed with her notorious statement 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." Not only is it objectionable in and of itself, it also suggests that Sotomayor is a committed believer in the identity politics school of left-wing thought. Worse, it implies that she believes that it is legitimate for judges to base decisions in part on their ethnic or racial origins. Stuart Taylor's comments on Sotomayor's speech are telling:
Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.
Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: "I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life" — and had proceeded to speak of "inherent physiological or cultural differences."

Of course it is inevitable that personal background will influence judicial decisionmaking to some degree. Sotomayor is right to imply that it often had a negative effect on the decisions of white male judges in the past. But there is a difference between recognizing an inevitable source of bias while striving to constrain it and actually embracing it. I much prefer a jurist who strives to get beyond his or her ethnicity in making decisions than one who rejects the view that "judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law" and instead believes that we should embrace the fact that "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

...

Finally, this may be a good time to remind readers that I have long argued that judicial philosophy and ideology are legitimate considerations for senators to take account of in deciding whether or not to oppose a Supreme Court nominee. Unlike some on the right, I took that view during the Bush Administration, and I hold the same position today. On that point, I agree with Barack Obama, who opposed John Roberts' nomination based on his judicial philosophy despite conceding that "[t]here is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge." Obama was, in my view, wrong in his specific objections to Roberts, but absolutely right in concluding that judicial philosophy should be considered in addition to professional qualifications when assessing judicial nominees.

UPDATE: Some commenters understandably question whether Sotomayor's credentials are really worse than Alito's were. Both of them spent comparable amounts of time as judges on a circuit court, and both had similar educational credentials at elite institutions. In addition, this post by Eric Posner (relying on methodology developed in this article by Stephen Choi and Mitu Gulati), shows that Alito's opinions and Sotomayor's have similar citation counts.

Nonetheless, I think that Alito's record is on the whole better than Sotomayor's was. In their composite ranking of federal circuit court judges (incorporating measures of quantity of output, quality, and "independence"), Choi and Gulati ranked Alito 16th out of 98 judges included in the study. Sotomayor was not included for technical reasons, but Eric reports that she would have ranked in "the bottom half." Eric cites data showing that Sotomayor's opinions are cited slightly more frequently than Alito's in court decisions and law reviews. But that difference is almost surely due to the fact that Second Circuit opinions are generally cited more frequently than Third Circuit ones (in large part because the Second Circuit includes New York City, which is the nation's most important center for commercial litigation and many types of white collar criminal litigation). I also base my view in part on a qualitative judgement. For years prior to his appointment, I often heard legal scholars and other experts describe Alito as one of the top conservative circuit court judges. Prior to her appointment, I rarely if ever heard Sotomayor described as one of the top liberal ones.

I may have been wrong in suggesting that Alito's preappointment record was "far" more impressive than Sotomayor's. But I still do think that he had a significant edge. That said, I reiterate my view that Sotomayor's credentials are good enough that she should not be rejected on qualifications grounds. The real objection to her is based on judicial philosophy....

[mundame]

Sotomayor is a threebie ---- woman, Hispanic, and disabled (lifelong diabetic). We're supposed to have some of each on the Court these days, so that's a portmanteau choice, cramming it all into one, Obama's first pick.

So after this one, he has some leeway.

[emmett]

Sotomayor is a threebie ---- woman, Hispanic, and disabled (lifelong diabetic). We're supposed to have some of each on the Court these days, so that's a portmanteau choice, cramming it all into one, Obama's first pick.

So after this one, he has some leeway.


I disagree my dear....his next choice will have to be a female African American.

[avatar4321]

He has everyone in the United States to pick from, and he picks a racist? Why am I not surprised?

I disagree with the article above. I think there is more than enough evidence to oppose her on qualifications alone.

[FSUK]

offcourse, she isnt white. I knew this appointment would raise a few eye brows on this racist forum.

[avatar4321]

offcourse, she isnt white. I knew this appointment would raise a few eye brows on this racist forum.

How on earth can opposing an open racist for the Supreme court be racist?

[Silver]

"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."

Proof the Sotomayer is a racist...
=======
She is a hack in the sense that she believes the court is a place to be used to make policy, not to adjudicate cases, not to adjudicate constitutional law but to make policy.

Proof that Sotomayer is an activist....
=======
Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case."

Proof that Sotomayer is ignorant of Constitution..(equal treatment)
=======
She has been overturned 80% by the Supreme Court. She may as well be on the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, given all the time she's overturned. She has been reprimanded by a truly strong Hispanic judge, Jose Cabranes. She has been rebuked in writing by Cabranes for opinions that she wrote that had no bearing on the constitutional issues before her in the case that was being decided.
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/05/26/rush-on-sotomayer
=======

So I can firmly predict this pinhead will be confirmed by fellow pinheads on the left, along with some cowardly meatheads on the right....

[Trigg]

offcourse, she isnt white. I knew this appointment would raise a few eye brows on this racist forum.

Yep it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that she threw out the claim of 19 firefighters (one of whom was hispanic), and supported her oppinion with a HUGH 1 paragraph.


The case, Ricci v. DeStefano, involved a group of 19 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who filed suit in 2003 claiming that the city of New Haven, Conn., engaged in racial discrimination when it threw out the results of two promotion tests because none of the city’s black applicants had passed the tests.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47838

Were the dems racist when they went after Clarence Thomas????? Or, was it because of his politics???????

[mundame]

I disagree my dear....his next choice will have to be a female African American.


No, no, he's got two women now -- the next one has to be a transvestite Asian. ;)

[Kathianne]

So will she be approved? My guess is yes.

[emmett]

No, no, he's got two women now -- the next one has to be a transvestite Asian. ;)

I resist the urge to laugh at that statement for the obvious reasons. We're screwed.

[mundame]

I resist the urge to laugh at that statement for the obvious reasons. We're screwed.


Things are not going well, no.

[jimnyc]

I have a serious issue with this nomination. I've known of this woman for quite a few years since I'm from NY.

There is a reason that every court house in America has a statue of Lady Justice - who is always wearing a blindfold. I believe the blindfold needs to be removed and placed across Obama's eyes.

I have no issue with a woman being nominated. I have no issue with a hispanic being nominated. I have an issue with someone being nominated for those 2 reasons and nobody can convince me that those weren't the 2 main reasons Obama chose her. A nominee should go forth solely based on their experience and knowledge. IMO, her track record and own words make her a very poor choice. Her own history as a judge shows her to be a bit leaning on cases based on ethnicity, based on gender and based on emotions. These should NEVER come into play when judging a case.

Many are cheering in the streets, and not because they are happy with the knowledge and experience of the nominee but rather because of her gender and ethnicity.

I'm saddened by this choice, and not because of her gender or ethnicity, but because of her own damn track record and words.