Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor: Bring On the Stupid!
Posted by Bruce VanWyngarden on Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Well, that didn't take long. President Obama nominated federal judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court this morning and you'd have thought he'd named Osama bin Laden, judging from the frenzied reaction by some on the conservative side. Rush Limbaugh, the Republicans' titular party head, led the charge, saying Obama was practicing "reverse racism."
Reverse racism, in Limbaugh terms, I suppose, would be the practice of selecting someone on the basis of race who isn't white. Because, if you selected a white person, that wouldn't be racism, ever? Right? I'm so confused. On the other hand, in Limbaugh-land, the reverse of racism would be selecting a person solely on merit, who is white? Or selecting a person of color who he agreed with — like Clarence Thomas? Was that reverse racism, or can this RR only be perpetuated by someone who is not white? This is so stupid. Either Sotomayor is qualified or she isn't. Bringing in race is a straw man that can only backfire.
The bottom line is, Obama's choice will be confirmed eventually, unless there are REAL issues with Sotomayor beyond her race. The Republicans fight this losing battle at their own peril. Alienating the growing Hispanic vote without offering real, fact-based reasons (beyond alleged reverse racism), will only serve to further shrink the GOP's already shrinking base. Hailey Barbour in 2012, anyone?
Comments (13)
Showing 1-13 of 13
I want a judge who is a judge not one who wants to make policy. She admits that a judge should make policy, i.e. laws. The Supreme Court has overturned many of her rulings because they did not follow law. If she wants to make laws, she should should run for office. The Constitution calls for separation of each of the branches of government for a reason!
like
dislike
The Constitution calls for the courts to have all the power to decide all cases that arise under the laws. And the Constitution calls for each branch to provide checks and balances for on other.
As anyone who had ever read the owner's manual for this country would of course, know.
here's a fact Bruce baby....she's the most unqualified nominee ever....she has been overturned by the supremes more than any single judge in history. She has no respect for stare dicisis. Strictly a political move......white men need not apply.......by the way....white men built this country.
Well TT, to say she is the most unqualified nominee ever is kind of hard to back up. Out of the 5 rulings of hers looked at by SCOTUS, 3 were overturned, and one of those was unanimous (that alone is pretty damn impressive!). There is a another case that will probably be looked at and, you guessed it, more than likely overturned although we'll have to wait and see. Her views that women and minority judges should reach decisions based on their race and sex, and that the courts should create laws (speech at Duke Law on you tube) should be enough to get a person skipped in the selection process....damn maybe you were right TT
justme,
did you arrive at that conclusion by reading what she actually said or are you basing it on what some talking head blathered while you were hitting the treadmill at the y?
because that's not what she said.
Read this:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statem…
How many cases do you suppose she's ruled on since becoming a judge? Just the ones cited by the media? No. Hundreds.
If her reversal rate is 60 percent as claimed by some, it is still lower than the overall 85 percent reversal rate for circuit court of appeals cases that come before the court.
From WSJ, May 27:
According to 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Guido Calabresi, "such reversals are typical. 'It's standard for what we do because most of the cases that go up [to the Supreme Court] are difficult,' he said."
if haley barbour is a candidate in 2012, it'll be the first time someone waddled for President.
No repect for stare decisis? Well, that puts her in the company of thousands of other jurists.
"Stare decisis is not ... a universal, inexorable command." Justice Brandeis
She's ruled on roughly 380 cases total according to three separate web sites. I have been unable to find any overall statistics on cases that are overturned by SCOTUS. I will concede the ambiguity of the "using the bench to legislate" statement, having now seen the full text. But it is still ambiguous. I still do not believe she is best choice if for no other reason than her decisions as noted below:
Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) - decision pending
Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) - reversed 6-3
Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) - upheld but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted
Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) - reversed 8-0
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) - reversed 5-4
Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) - reversed 5-4
Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) - reversed 7-2
re Tseneau: well...it's kind of important.....people need to be able to depend on rulings......otherwise...it's all chaos......too deep for ya hot rod? The ruling needs to stand for something beyond the facts of the case at hand.....stare decisis is paramount for the appeals courts system to work
B, Always glad to have more information. I read Politifact as you suggested. Still sounds like she wants to put her own spin on laws. I'm not saying she is the only one. Just the latest. I don't want the govt. running my life. I am responsible for myself and my decisions and wish that more Americans would accept responsibility for themselves. Being politically correct is reaching new heights and is invading my rights.
Nice try TT, that is just more of your usual David Duke/Stormfront fantasies dressed up as though they had any bearing on reality.
If stare decisis were what you claim, you would have your precious 'states rights' to own slaves enshrined because Dred Scott would hold in perpetuity.
Thanks for adding yet another topic to the list of things about which you are abysmally ignorant and yet try to pretend expertise.
re Tseanu: absurd example...typical of you. however, states rights are precious and dwindling. Without states rights...your little gay friends would have no where to go to get married now would they?
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
