Sotomayor nominated to high court - good? bad?

[RRD3]

Two words.

Unqualified Cunt.

[Irving]

I don't like how people call her unqualified. If you can read the Constitution, and make decisions based on what it says, then you are qualified to be a supreme court justice. A high school student can do that.

[Irving]

Here is a her Wikipedia page. It lists several cases that she has decided on. I still can't make up my mind. I'd have to read each case's page to make a decision I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

[RRD3]

I don't like how people call her unqualified. If you can read the Constitution, and make decisions based on what it says, then you are qualified to be a supreme court justice. A high school student can do that.

I call her unqualified because she has already stated that she would go against the constitution. When you are sworn in a judge at that level it says that you will hold up the word of the constitution. If she doesn't, or if she takes the oath knowing that she will go against it then she is an "unqualified cunt"

[Mtn.man]

I seem to have heard somewhere that alot of her cases were returned to another court? maybe i be wrong..
her quote though on we make the law, then jokingly recanting during an interview at some college is a little scary.

[Irving]

Keep posting things you guys have heard, because I've heard nothing of her except for what the media says.

Looking through the list of he cases on Wikipedia, I noticed some of them were over turned by other courts, but that doesn't seem to be anything important. All kinds of court cases get appealed and sent to other courts. I'm sure that there probably isn't a judge in existence who has never had a higher court rule differently than they did. With that in mind, I don't think that is much of an issue.

RRD3, I wasn't picking on you for calling her unqualified, but I'd heard that before from other people. I still think that unqualified is the wrong word. If she publicly stated that she would go against the constitution, that makes her unwanted, more than it does unqualified in my opinion. Do you remember where you heard her say that?

[RRD3]

Sotomayor's personal story and her academic and legal credentials earn her respect from all quarters, but conservatives see plenty to criticize in her rulings and past statements. They describe her as a judicial activist who would put her feelings above the Constitution.


"I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging," she said in a speech in 2001. "But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, called Sotomayor's nomination "a monumental day for Latinos. Finally, we see ourselves represented on the highest court in the land."

In addition to Knight and Dabit, another case that supports this view, and in which Sotomayor's approach was rejected by the Supreme Court, was Malesko v. Correctional Services, in which Judge Sotomayor adopted an expansive view of Bivens actions to find an implied cause of action for damages against a private company operating a halfway house under a contract with the federal Bureau of Prisons. Another case in which she was reversed for adopting a "anti-business" position was Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, in which she had held that the EPA impermissibly considered cost-benefit analysis when setting a standard under the Clean Water Act.

It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions based upon a handful of cases. As one would expect, most of Judge Sotomayor's opinions are unremarkable and involve clear applications of applicable law and precedent; only a small fraction are even potentially controversial. Few of her decisions have been reviewed by the Supreme Court. Her record of reversal in such cases seems high, but is that significant? The Supreme Court reverses appellate courts more often than not, so the reversal rate, by itself, may nor mean all that much. Still, it is interesting that Judge Sotomayor has been reversed more than once for adopting an excessively permissive standard for suits by anti-corporate plaintiffs.




Who wooo for more "Illegal" Immigrant rights, and a liberal socialist slant

[Irving]

A couple things about that article.

First, her quote is troubling for sure. Being a judge isn't about your experiences, it is about what is right and wrong with respect to the law.

Second, the quote about a latino finally representing hispanics in the highest court of the land is also troubling. As much as I despise the term, ALL courts should be "color blind" and rule based on the law. However, at the same time, perhaps we need to shuffle through some minorities on the bench so the lamen public feels represented, and they won't bitch and complain so much when justice is served correctly.

This article seems to say the same thing that I did about it probably not mattering that she has had decisions over turned.

Lastly, I don't see anything in that article that suggests that she has a weak spot for illegals, other than the fact that she is Hispanic.

[ryanek9freak]

I second the unqualified cunt.

[Irving]

Neither one of you have provided a single shred of evidence that she is a bad judge except a one sentence quote that is presented out of context. At least read the court case results on her Wikipedia page and tell us why you disagree with her rulings.

I'm not trying to stand up for this lady, but I want a good reason to get my hate on if I decide that she should not have been nominated.