Newest Supreme Court nominee is out...and it's another pander choice - New England Patriots Forums

efin98 · 05-26-2009, 10:47 AM

Instead of going with the most qualified or the best legal mind the newest Supreme Court justice nominee is a pander choice- pleases women and pleases minorities...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us...a95&ei=5087%0A

Heaven forbid they get it right and choose someone with more experience in federal courts and who hasn't had as many cases as her overturned by her future colleagues...and someone whose own case is not up for review by the same people she will be working alongside.

Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases - CNN.com

***Harry Boy*** · 05-26-2009, 10:56 AM

The Jeanne Garafools & the Phil Donahues of America will be very pleased with this choice but I don't know what Jessie Jackoff or Charlie Rangel will think about it.

***Mabeyitstrue*** · 05-26-2009, 11:01 AM

Thought it was a great choice!

She's a chick and we need more of thouse in the high courts.
First Hispanic, great day to be an American!!!

***BelichickFan*** · 05-26-2009, 11:31 AM

From reading the articles about her, it's a very disappointing choice. She sounds intelligent but not overly so, competent, but not overly so and it sounds like she has an agenda that will not go well for equal rights for all (talking about the majority there).

Not that I expected a better choice.

Stokes · 05-26-2009, 11:40 AM

From what I've read she's pretty rough on lawyers (which I kind of like), but shows little depth in her questioning. From a conservative standpoint she's actually a good choice if it is true that she isn't the most intelligent choice, as she would be less likely to swing votes to her side with a well-reasoned argument. The overturn rate is troubling, but she certainly has the education chops to be an appropriate choice. I say she gets confirmed 79-20 (1 abstains).

wistahpatsfan · 05-26-2009, 12:17 PM

No one will know what kind of Justice she will be for another 10 years (assuming she's confirmed). We've been here before. The COurt should have more women, though. They're smarter and more thoughtful, (according to Mrs. Wistah).

***DarrylS*** · 05-26-2009, 02:53 PM

There will be a lot of posturing, innuendo, hysteria and hyperbole and in the end Sotamayer, who was originally appointed by George H. Bush.. will be on the Supreme Court.. I hope she paid her taxes.

Patriot_in_NY · 05-26-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mabeyitstrue

Thought it was a great choice!

She's a chick and we need more of thouse in the high courts.
First Hispanic, great day to be an American!!!

Identity Politics at its finest. I don't give a crap who she "identifies with", but I would like her to be able to interpret the rule of law, which she has apparently struggled with.

Another "Legislator from the bench" swell

Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

In her own words.

Quote:

Um, all of the legal defense funds out there, um, they’re looking for people out there with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. Um, um — [laughter] — I know. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, and, I’m … you know. [laughter]

So much for a constitutional scholar.

efin98 · 05-26-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

There will be a lot of posturing, innuendo, hysteria and hyperbole and in the end Sotamayer, who was originally appointed by George H. Bush.. will be on the Supreme Court.. I hope she paid her taxes.

She better hope she doesn't have any other quotes, remarks, video, sound bites, etc. that are damaging as the policy maker remarks...

Patriot_in_NY · 05-26-2009, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

No one will know what kind of Justice she will be for another 10 years (assuming she's confirmed). We've been here before. The COurt should have more women, though. They're smarter and more thoughtful, (according to Mrs. Wistah).

Huh, she's been on the bench 30 years. We have a pretty good idea of what kind of justice she'll be by looking at her record.

Which I might add includes MANY REVERSALS;

Quote:

The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored. In three of these reversals, the Court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation.

In Knight v. C.I.R., (128 S.Ct. 782, 2008.), the Court found that, based on an erroneous interpretation of the tax code, Judge Sotomayor applied an incorrect standard.
In Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, (547 U.S. 71, 2006), the Court found that Judge Sotomayor failed to apply precedent correctly in interpreting a scope of preemption provision of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.
In New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, (533 U.S. 483, 2001), the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s reversal of Judge Sotomayor’s district court ruling that the Copyright Act permitted electronic publishers to reproduce all articles in a periodical under a “collective works” privilege, concluding that Sotomayor erred in her interpretation of “revision of [that] collective works” privilege in the Act.
In Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, (534 U.S. 61, 2001), the Court reversed Sotomayor for allowing an inmate to sue a halfway house operator for negligence based on a Bivens claim. After the trial court dismissed the case, Judge Sotomayor reversed and reinstated the litigation. The Supreme Court reversed Judge Sotomayor’s decision, holding that the former inmate did not lack effective remedies and that he had full access to remedial mechanisms established by the Bureau of Prisons. The Court also held that the former inmate’s suit would not have advanced Bivens’ core purpose of deterring individual officers from engaging in unconstitutional wrongdoing.
In Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA (475 F.3d 83, 2007) The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the "best technology" rule was too narrow. Sotomayor orginally ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the "best technology available" must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor's position[39].
In Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh (396 F.3d 136, 2005) In 2005, the United States Supreme Court reversed in a 5-4 decision a ruling in which Madam Appeals judge Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from the respective insurance company where she claimed caused her husband's injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party[39]. The Supreme Court in its ruling that under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (FEHBA), state courts and not federal courts are the proper forum for a lawsuit by a plan administrator seeking reimbursement for medical costs paid by the plan on behalf of a beneficiary when the beneficiary recovers damages in a tort action against a responsible third party[40]. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented

She has not had a very good track records at interpreting the Constitution in the fair and balanced way you would expect from someone elevated to that level.

She also has a reputation of being somewhat of a judicial bully among law clerks that work for her. Of course, that might help push Kennedy back over to the right as his left drift seems to be a response to Scalia supposed bulldog approach.