Obama picks Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by clevin, May 26, 2009.

  1. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #1
  2. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    Link
     
  3. SilentPanda Moderator emeritus

    SilentPanda

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Bamboo Forest
    #3
    Here is a link to the wiki from a few days ago, prior to any mention of nomination. Unless somebody edited it for ill prior to the nomination...
     
  4. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #4
    A bit more on her...

    A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, a former prosecutor and private attorney, Sotomayor became a federal judge for the Southern District of New York in 1992.

    As a judge, she has a bipartisan pedigree. She was first appointed by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, then named an appeals judge by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

    Sotomayor's elevation to the appeals court was delayed by Republicans, in part out of concerns she might someday be selected for the Supreme Court. She was ultimately confirmed for the appeals court in 1998 on a 68-28 vote, gathering some Republican support.

    Among those voting against her was Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, now the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee that will hold sway over her confirmation.


    If the Republicans filibuster her nomination, they can kiss the Spanish vote goodbye for a decade or more.
     
  5. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #5
    Jeff Sessions has never been my favorite, but since now he is the ranking member, lets hope he understand what he is doing, if they want to destroy GOP forever by filibustering the 1st Hispanic nominee, let me say, they will fail epically in this case, and doom GOP forever.
     
  6. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #6
    I wouldn't go that far. She seems like a good pick, and I'm a GOPer.

    I actually don't think she's going to have a hard time getting confirmed. This should be a pretty smooth process getting her confirmed and sworn in.
     
  7. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #7
    Ricci v. DeStefano

    Don't let her in. She is a mental lightweight who made a boneheaded decision recently. What is interesting is that this case which her panel knocked down may have her ruling over turned.

    The case should have been a slam dunk except for idiots like her.

    We also don't need judges who believe they make law, her quote about sitting on the appeals court. She even joked about when she made the comment but that is exactly what is wrong about her, she does believe she is the law.
     
  8. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #8
    I'm reading that they "affirmed the district court's ruling"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano) but added that it go to the Supreme Court.




    As far as you're personal attack against her, they aren't needed, and certainly don't add anything to the thread unless you back them up with some facts.





    I'm was tad concerned with her support of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush case, were she said the US government can keep its "mexico city policy", but admittedly, the legal backing was there, so I can survive with her.
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    This has become so typical for you, I'm beginning to think you're Swarmlord (a member who was banned) under a different screen name.
     
  10. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #10
    Princeton must be a pretty easy place to get a degree and to place number one in a class, which Sotomayor did (if she's a lightweight, that is)

    She won a major prize as the best undergraduate upon her graduation from Princeton as well. According to an article from the Daily Beast, she's considered a judge who forces lawyers to answer questions and not just rely on prepared remarks. That should be a good thing for the Court.

    Also, the GOP lost the hispanic vote some time ago, and it's one of the biggest reasons that they are approaching a death spiral. The demographics of this country are increasingly against them, and they won't be doing themselves any favors by opposing a strong nominee who happens to be hispanic.
     
  11. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #11
    John Roberts also got his appeal court opinion slammed in supreme court, that didn't stop him, did it?

    mental lightweight? Its laughable for any of us sitting here knowing next to nothing about her to make that statement. She went to Yale and Princeton, she edited the Yale law journal, she sits on appeal court.

    You can make that statement when you archived what she already earned.
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    It's more an issue of how hard the GOP is willing to fight this. The overwhelming concensus so far seems to be that the GOP won't be able to stop this nomination, so it becomes a political calculus issue for the GOP. They need to balance the resistance demanded by their base with some level of respect and tolerance toward the Hispanic community. The base is going to demand an all-out to-the-mat opposition. Anything less, to them, will be considered apostasy. Yet if they go to the mat against the first Hispanic SCOTUS nominee, they risk further alienating the Hispanic voter demographic; which they desperately need.

    Oh, and the 2012 nominees will take this opportunity to appeal to the hard-right of the GOP. Which won't make it any easier for the Senate GOoPers to acquiesce.
     
  13. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #13
    I'm not sure there's going to be much resistance at all. I suspect there will be a handful of people who try to rouse up some support for turning her nomination down, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if she sailed in with 90+ percent of the vote.
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    Are you kidding? Rush Limbaugh is already calling her and Obama a reverse racist. And when the leader of the Republican party speaks, Senators listen!

    I don't see her getting much more than 60-70 votes. What I suspect will happen is that Republicans will quietly allow her vote to proceed to the floor, and then many -- if not most -- will publicly vote against her.
     
  15. John Jacob macrumors 6502a

    John Jacob

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2003
    Location:
    Columbia, MD
    #15
    I don't know what made me think so, but I was under the impression that Justice Alito is hispanic. I must have been wrong. But this misunderstanding on my part caused me surprise when I saw the news articles mentioning Justice Sotomayor is the first hispanic nominee for the SCOTUS.
     
  16. Eanair macrumors 6502

    Eanair

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    #16
    I thought Benjamin Cardozo was the first Hispanic supreme court justice. Or does Portugal not count?
     
  17. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #17

    Nope.

    Hispanic |hiˈspanik|
    adjective
    of or relating to Spain or to Spanish-speaking countries, esp. those of Latin America.
    • of or relating to Spanish-speaking people or their culture, esp. in the U.S.
     
  18. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #18
    Benjamin was born in 1870, his earliest ancestors in American arrived in the 1740s or so, according to Wikipedia. Unless his ancestors married only other Portuguese in the intervening 230 years, it's doubtful that much of his Portuguese ancestry remained.

    What's compelling about Sotomayor is that her parents are from Puerto Rico, therefore she's able to claim a more recent connection with her parents' ancestry.
     
  19. elcid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #19
    I am cautious when it comes to how her rulings have been judged by the SC. In the "important cases" part of the article on CNN and in other places I have seen them, it appears she gets overturned an awful lot. And in several cases along a unanimous or bipartisan ruling from the court.

    Also, her comments on using the bench to make policy is a bit iffy in my book.

    Along with most of you I'd imagine she is going to get confirmed. This whole process is so annoyingly political.
     
  20. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #20
    unanimous means nothing in my book. The action of several smart people come to same conclusion has nothing to do with correctness or justice. Considering there are hundreds, thousands of just as smart people who just happen not to in that position to declare their opinion. And I think its fair to say, the lack of the diversity of the court probably has something to do with some unanimous decisions.

    She probably ruled on hundreds to thousands of cases, arbitrarily picking several "important" is even less than useless.
     
  21. elcid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #21
    Do you know anything about this current court? It is hard to get these people to decide on where to order lunch, let alone a decision stating that consumers have no ability to sue investment banks in state court.

    Granted you were speaking in hyperbole, but I doubt she has ruled on 1900 cases a day since she was born. If she has ruled a case a day since she was nominated to the bench, she would only get to 6k. And even given the history of the SC I think you could come up with 15-20 notable cases.
     
  22. That-Is-Bull macrumors 6502

    That-Is-Bull

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
    Location:
    Edmond, Oklahoma
    #22
    Hundreds to thousands.
     
  23. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #23
    you argument is interesting, u picked several arbitrary cases to accuse Sonia's opinions being opposite of all other current justices, and here you picked another several cases to say the court is not unanimous.

    Exactly how can anybody draw anything from 1-2% of cases, and how can anybody make a comprehensive judgment based on a narrow spot view of a muti-sides object?

    Its like everybody saying, that you can basically use statistics to prove anything.
     
  24. MacHipster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago/London/Sydney
    #24
    Where do you think Common Laws originate? :rolleyes: Or do you only follow Consitutional, Statutory, and Administrative Laws? Feel free to ignore this post as it destroys the myth of your GOP talking point. As to her quote about the appellate court and making policy, she's correct. But you'd have to understand how the courts actually work, which you obviously don't, to understand her point. A court of appeals only hears cases in which the circuit court made an error and can, therefore, make amends or stay. Even a mental lightweight could understand that.
     
  25. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #25
    Some of her comments make me wonder if she knows her place in the judiciary branch of government. Sounds to me like she is going to be trying to legislate from the bench, which I guess is what Obama wants so it works well for him.

    “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.”

    :rolleyes:

    "She also was quoted as saying “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"."

    Im not sure in what context she is talking here, but it seems a little :confused: also. We don't interpret the constitution for any particular class of people.
     

Share This Page