Two of the first three U.S. senators to commit to voting against the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor were Kansans: Sen. Pat Roberts on May 28 and Sen. Sam Brownback on June 24. The third is Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. The three have more in common than geography and party: They all voted against Sotomayor’s nomination to the federal appeals bench in 1998. Her hearings don’t start until mid-July, but Brownback said last week: “In her writings, Judge Sotomayor has rejected the principle of impartiality and embraces the novel idea that a judge’s personal life story should come into play in the courtroom. I’m not sure why Judge Sotomayor believes the law is somehow different when interpreted by people of different backgrounds. I think Judge Sotomayor is absolutely wrong, and that we do a disservice to law and society when we don’t transcend our personal sympathies and prejudices.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
52 Comments
ALITO: “Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. … And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position. [...]”
————————————————-
I suppose only in the radical right wing of the Republican party it’s okay for their man, Alito, to use his background in deciding cases, but not Sotomayer. One could call that hypocrisy of the first magnitude. But then again, I’m not surprised considering who those radical right wing senators represent.
I think it is not really okay for a judges background to influence how he or she rules. However, the reality is, it will. I don;t care how impartial you try to be, your life experiences, your background, and your political/social leanings will all influence how you make youir decision. Especially at the apellate level, and more importantly, and the SCOTUS level, where very seldom is it a matter of black letter law. If it were, it wouldn;t be in the hands of SCOTUS.
Sorry, Brownback is wrong again … as usual.
On city councils, school boards, in legislatures, diversity is valued to get thinking from as many directions as possible.
True, the law is the law but always open to intelligent interpretation. It strikes me as ludicrous to look for nine supreme court justices who look like each other, slicked back hair and black rim glasses.
Of course, Sam Brownback would like for all justices to be clones of … of Brownback! LET’S HOPE THIS DOESN’T COME TO PASS IN OUR LIFETIME NOR IN KANSAS.
“On city councils, school boards, in legislatures, diversity is valued to get thinking from as many directions as possible. ”
On deliberating bodies, and on policy setting bodies, and in the legislature, I would have to agree. On the bench, I disagree that it should be valued. THeir job is not to make law, but to see that existing law is followed, whether or not they believe it is a “just” law. Again, at the apellate level, especially SCOTUS, it is not black letter law that is being decided…However, it should be confined within the framework of the US CONSTITUTION. Where is it clearly written, there they should follow. WHere it is not, then, in my view, intent should be ascertained to the best level possible. If that is not possible, then the ruling should be aligned with the overall construction of the Constitution. Difficult job? Yes!! WHich is why the standard should be set high.
Me, I would confirm her.
She is a member of LA RAZA which is a racist organization; she should not be on the bench
“JWink” –
Just look at Iran’s “Assembly of Experts,” who will be deciding a disputed election much as the SCOTUS did in December, 2000.
That comparison Ahmadinejad made about how America is influencing the Green Revolution could be more about theme than tactics.
Sam Alito’s “…my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. … And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position. [...]” is like a mud pie to the face of Sam (the Sham) Brownback.
CON-speak may last longer in Kansas than elsewhere in the nation, but it’s getting tired and old and discredited and laughable. Brownback was and is and will be against any SCOTUS nominee that comes from President Obama only because it comes from President Obama.
“Cynical” –
Sam (the Sham) Brownback is a member of Opus Dei, a crazy organization.
He does not belong in the United States Senate.
“SCOTUS nominee that comes from President Obama only because it comes from President Obama”
In this case, I disagree. His decision to be against confirmation now, is consistent with his decision to be against previous.
Even given that I think she should be confirmed, I will be happy to see the decision (in which she participated) about the white firefighters reverse discrimination suite reversed, if it is. We will see.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_firefighters_lawsuit
YEAH!
This’ll be rich.
This’ll take up major Michael Jackson minutes on the Fakes Noise Channel.
But Sotomayor is replacing Souter.
How did Souter vote on this case?
You know the CONs are going to go into full-tilt hyena mode over this one with stuff like, “Her decision was ‘OVERTURNED!!!!’”
Uhm, no.
Souter upheld her decision.
Now, let’s sit back and watch the CONs go into a Sotomayor feeding frenzy over a zero-sum game.
It’s almost as if the poodle can’t dance ’cause he’s chasing his tail.
“Her decision was ‘OVERTURNED!!!!’”
Uhm, no.”
Umm. yes it was by the majority decision of SCOTUS
“Souter upheld her decision”
Umm. big deal. SHe was still overturned.
But, who cares. SO she was overturned. COnfirm her and move on
ANTI
Posted June 29, 2009 at 9:15 am | Permalink
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
_________________________
Well, HOO-RAY!
It’s getting so a white guy can’t get an even break anymore.
Looks like the ‘Soda Mare’ was wrong on decision – bad timing for her it seems.
From a Fox News story on the ‘Soda Mare’s’ overturned case:
The court’s more liberal members joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent which she read from the bench. “The white firefighters who scored high on New Haven’s promotional exams understandably attract the court’s sympathy,” she said. “But they had no vested right to promotion.”
What the…
No vested right because they scored higher on examinations?
According to Liberals, school children who might be a minority and failing need to be nominated for Valedictorian so things can ‘equal’ out.
Yeah…
Inhofe? We’re talking about what that wacko says? Who cares? Certainly not anyone with an ounce of brains.
And Roberts and Brownie, you have to remember, you are known by the company you keep.
Dennis
One – about seventy percent of cases before the SCOTUS are overturned.
Two – the decision was 5-4, as are most, indicating that it was not a black and white (no pun intended)issue.
Three – the SCOTUS only takes cases that are likely to be overturned, since they refuse to hear most appeals. No one has an absolute right to have their case heard before the SCOTUS.
Four – Obviously, there was disagreement on the case throughout the process since it did go through every level of appeal.
Five – to say that Sotomayor is wrong ignores the fact that FOUR Justices voted to uphold the decision of the lower court.
Six – Sotomayor did not make the Appellate decision alone, it was a panel of judges.
And Seven – This is only the fifth or sixth ruling out of 4,000 that Sotomayor has had overturned.
On this, WS and I agree. Ms. Sotamayer’s “overturned rate” is a non-issue – a red herring.
While I have differences of opinion with her apparant judicial philosophy, that is not reason not to confirm her, absent some as yet unknown major issue. Presidents get to appoint persons of their philosophy to the court; that’s why elections matter.
What is ironic about this is that Republicans routinely understand that, or at least used to. It was Democrats who “politicized” the process (and yes, I know, it is inherently political to some degree). Ginsburg, for example, was approved 97-3 despite serious reservations (born out by experience) about her philosophy – she was ACLU counsel, after all. Democrats raised the litmus test issue, grandstanding for the cameras and opposing – bitterly – clearly qualified jurists over blatently political issues, resulting in the kind of judicial battles we saw recently with Alito and Roberts, and, to go back further, Thomas (who still drives liberals batty – that is enough to like the man by itself!).
Ironically, again, the president who now encourages Sotomayer’s confirmation on “qualifications” voted against Roberts despite his acknowledged and undisputed qualifications because he disagreed with Robert’s perceived lack of “empathy;” in other words, for political considerations. Democrats created, at least in recent history, these kinds of blatently political confirmation fights, and Obama as Senator, fully joined in; it is amusing to see them – and him – hoisted on their own petards.
The right thing to do for Republicans is to confirm Sotomayer; she’s no doubt qualified. And it is unlikely to matter anyway, as she’s a wash on the court, replacing a reliably liberal judge with a reliably liberal judge. Republicans know she’ll be confirmed anyway; the fuss is for poltical reasons, positioning themselves in the eyes of various constituencies.
Do the right thing here, and save the political capital for a fight that matters.
Eight- Who cares if sotomayer is a bigot.
Nine- Who cares if she’s not qualified.
10, Brownback and Roberts are from kansas, and on top of that are Repub Senators from Ks., their opinions don’t matter! So, voting from their life experiences, who cares?
What is important about this decision in my opinion is her lack of regard for the law as it is written. We all draw on our experiences when making decisions but when you are a member of the highest court in the land you need better judgement than she has displayed.
The white firefighter that filed the suit was dylexic. He paid money out of his own pocket to prepare for this test because written tests are especially hard for him. He passed and not one black firefighter passed. Why should his enterprise and preparation be thrown out because the city wanted to promote a black firefighter?
Each black firefighter had the opportunity to prepare as this white firefighter did. Their failure to do so should not be an excuse to punish those who did prepare.
She will be confirmed but we need to know before a justice is given a job for life just what it is she believes in. In Sotomayors case it isn’t the letter of the law.
“Eight- Who cares if sotomayer is a bigot.”
How is it that she is a bigot?
“Nine- Who cares if she’s not qualified.”
In what area is she not qualified?
Back later for your answers.
Brownback and Roberts, even more irrelevant than ever.
WS her ruling made about as much sense as saying that the NFL is loaded with black players. Until the playing ground is leveled no more black will be drafted for the NFL – no matter how qualified they may be.
“WS her ruling made about as much sense as saying that the NFL is loaded with black players.”
Five to four decisions by the SCOTUS. Are you saying that the four justices that voted to uphold the ruling have no sense?
“I’m not sure why Judge Sotomayor believes the law is somehow different when interpreted by people of different backgrounds. ”
And Brownback shows his strong suit. He is absolutely right.
#
American_Way
Posted June 29, 2009 at 5:47 pm | Permalink
“I’m not sure why Judge Sotomayor believes the law is somehow different when interpreted by people of different backgrounds. ”
And Brownback shows his strong suit. He is absolutely right.
==============================================
Really amway? Then justify this:
ALITO: “Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. … And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position. [...]”
Brownback, as well as yourself, is a hypocrite, plain and simple. Deal with it.
“I’m not sure why Judge Sotomayor believes the law is somehow different when interpreted by people of different backgrounds. ”
If it were all a matter of black and white, with no interpretation, all SCOTUS decisions would be 9 – 0.
As a matter of fact, however, most decisions are 5 – 4.
Being overturned AGAIN has got to be a slap across the professional cheek.
Little Barry needs to keep looking….she is not SCOTUS material in anyway shape or form, including her decisions.
“And Brownback shows his strong suit. He is absolutely right wing.”
Fixed it for ya.
“Being overturned AGAIN has got to be a slap across the professional cheek.”
Sotomayor has been overturned 5 or 6 times out of over 4,000 cases – is that why you want to disqualify her, Box?
And the decision was 5-4 – not exactly clear cut.
How many of the 4000 cases were actually reviewable? Some cases before Judges are just affirmations, set aside (judgment withheld) or reviewed and sent back down to lower courts.
The percentage of actual cases for Supreme Court review may be quite small.
“The percentage of actual cases for Supreme Court review may be quite small.”
Three – the SCOTUS only takes cases that are likely to be overturned, since they refuse to hear most appeals. No one has an absolute right to have their case heard before the SCOTUS.
What’s your point, Regular? Is she overturned more frequently than other Appellate Judges?
The answer is no.
But to further address your point, Regular, ANY case can make it’s way to the SCOTUS if they choose to hear it. Affirmations, cases referred back to lower courts – it doesn’t matter – every case has appeal rights and any can be heard if the court so chooses.
WSClark
Posted June 29, 2009 at 7:20 pm | Permalink
“The percentage of actual cases for Supreme Court review may be quite small.”
Three – the SCOTUS only takes cases that are likely to be overturned,
————
Actually WS cases are usually taken on the basis of the criteria used to make a decision in a lower court. We know her fellow judges said she didn’t use any legal basis in her determination. She used the weight of her ‘wide and varied life’ experience.
Not a good basis for a legal opinion.
Actually, the Supreme Court reviews between 7000-8000 cases per year.
So to give some arm flailing number of 4,000 cases of the ‘Soda Mare’s’ cases up for review by the Supreme Court is not only ludicrous, but false.
“So to give some arm flailing number of 4,000 cases of the ‘Soda Mare’s’ cases up for review by the Supreme Court is not only ludicrous, but false.”
Who is arm flailing about 4,000 cases up for review by the SCOTUS?
I stated that she heard over 4,000 cases and only 5 or 6 have been overturned – how is that ludicrous?
“We know her fellow judges said she didn’t use any legal basis in her determination.”
Bullstuff – if that were the case, the PANEL of Appellate Judges would have been overturned 9 – 0, not 5 – 4.
“Actually, the Supreme Court reviews between 7000-8000 cases per year.”
Of the 7K – to 8K, how many are actually argued before the SCOTUS?
A very small percentage.
#
WSClark
Posted June 29, 2009 at 8:37 pm | Permalink
Who is arm flailing about 4,000 cases up for review by the SCOTUS?
I stated that she heard over 4,000 cases and only 5 or 6 have been overturned – how is that ludicrous?
===
WSClark
Posted June 29, 2009 at 10:50 am | Permalink
And Seven – This is only the fifth or sixth ruling out of 4,000 that Sotomayor has had overturned.
================================
You made it your point #7 that 4,000 cases were up for review when in fact that number had no relationship with the number of cases the ‘Soda Mare’ had up for review.
You were trying to make her look good by falsifying the numbers.
Sort of like calling a fighter in a boxing match six foot 1 inches tall when he is only five feet 10 inches tall.
I’m not sold on her yet either.
I’d like to be absolutely certain that she will be an activist liberal Justice.
“And Seven – This is only the fifth or sixth ruling out of 4,000 that Sotomayor has had overturned.”
And very clearly meaning that only 5 or 6 rulings by Ms. Sotomayor had been overturned, out of over 4,000 heard. In point of fact, every one of them COULD have been reviewed and possibly heard by the SCOTUS.
There is appeal rights for EVERY case heard by the Appellate Court.
“You were trying to make her look good by falsifying the numbers.”
Tell me how I falsified the numbers – which cases did she rule on were NOT ELIGIBLE to be heard by the SCOTUS?
Buttering your bread on both sides eh?
“Buttering your bread on both sides eh?”
What?
You tossed out an ad hom about arm flailing – failing to read what I had posted.
I never stated that Sotomayor had 4,000 cases appealed to the SCOTUS – I stated that she had heard over 4,000 cases and only 5 or 6 had been overturned.
Of the 4,000 cases she heard, how many COULD have been appealed to the SCOTUS – all 4,000 eventually.
Even if the case is referred back to the lower court, it still can eventually be heard by the SCOTUS, after a second Appellate review.
“You were trying to make her look good by falsifying the numbers.”
Tell me how I falsified the numbers – which cases did she rule on were NOT ELIGIBLE to be heard by the SCOTUS?
Let’s look at the numbers – of the cases heard by Ms. Sotomayor, five or six out of over 4,000 have been overturned.
Call it six, on the high side.
Call it 4,000, on the low side.
That would work out to 0.15%.
Or, flipping the numbers, she was ruled or assumed correct 99.85% of the time.
GMC70
Posted June 29, 2009 at 11:22 am | Permalink
On this, WS and I agree. Ms. Sotamayer’s “overturned rate” is a non-issue – a red herring.
While I have differences of opinion with her apparant judicial philosophy, that is not reason not to confirm her, absent some as yet unknown major issue. Presidents get to appoint persons of their philosophy to the court; that’s why elections matter.
____________________________________________
The right thing to do for Republicans is to confirm Sotomayer; she’s no doubt qualified. And it is unlikely to matter anyway, as she’s a wash on the court, replacing a reliably liberal judge with a reliably liberal judge. Republicans know she’ll be confirmed anyway; the fuss is for poltical reasons, positioning themselves in the eyes of various constituencies.
Do the right thing here, and save the political capital for a fight that matters. [GMC70]
============================================
GMC, I totally agree with your above statements… very well stated…
“You were trying to make her look good by falsifying the numbers.”
Tell me how I falsified the numbers, Regular?
The performance and qualifications of any judge shouldn’t be based on the number of rulings overturned by superior courts.
(And Sodommeijer had many.)
The performance and qualifications of any judge should be based soley on ethnic origin and sex.
Vote the Hispanic Female to the SCOTUS!!!!
“(And Sodommeijer had many.)”
Apparently, reading wasn’t one of your strong suits in elementary school, JJ.
Five or six.
Out of over 4,000.
Many?