Supreme Court Replacement

[Bodo]

I read this today and I'm a bit shocked!

"You have to have not only the intellect to be able to effectively apply the law to cases before you," Obama said in an interview carried Saturday on C-SPAN television. "But you have to be able to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living."

Obama also has said he wants someone who employs empathy, "understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles," when arriving at decisions that could influence the nation for decades

The way I understand the Constitution is that the Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court determines if they are Constitutional.   How does one "employ empathy" when your job is to apply the law?  Either it's legal or illegal.  There really is no grey area when it comes to the highest court of the land.

What am I missing here?

[kathyp]

you aren't missing anything.  i am in the middle of reading Liberty and Tyranny.  one of the points made in this book is that liberals use the courts to enhance the power of the federal government.  while the people might reject the increased power of the feds, and the states might reject their power being diminished, the courts can end up over ruling the will of the people. 

look how many times the supreme courts of states have overruled the will of the voters.  look at the history of supreme court rulings and how often then have taken what should have been state powers and made them federal powers.  if you are a "statist" you do not want the constitution to be the last word.  that limits your power.  you want the courts to be able to make law according to how they feel....to be progressive....and making law is exactly what they often do.

[Bodo]

Sotomayor is Obama's choice.

Even if I can over look this statement that she made: “court of appeals is where policy is made.”

I have an issue with her, at first glance.

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Again.  How can your upbringing change interpretation of the law?  The Law is the Law 

[reinbeau]

Yea, she sounds real impartial, doesn't she?  Her own racism won't cloud her interpretation of law, obviously. 

[kathyp]

she will be confirmed.  the good thing is that she will not substantially change the balance of the court.

[Bee Happy]

I hate to say it, but I think the balance of power was messed up in creating a supreme court who could "interpret" the laws, and declare laws limiting their power unconstitutional. I need a quick overview - how is the supreme court "balanced" (By Executive and Legislative branches)?
I just read the quote about latina vs white judicial perception. - the LAW is what declares us equal.

[Vibe]

I hate to say it, but I think the balance of power was messed up in creating a supreme court who could "interpret" the laws, and declare laws limiting their power unconstitutional. I need a quick overview - how is the supreme court "balanced" (By Executive and Legislative branches)?
I just read the quote about latina vs white judicial perception. - the LAW is what declares us equal.

I tend to agree. I would have rather have seen a Court whose job it was to challenge the Constitutionality of all actions of the Executive and Legislative branches before allowing the laws and directived to be enacted in the first place.
She was one of the judges on the 2nd Circuit who rulled that the promotions testing for firemen in Conneticut could be thrown out becasue none of the 17 african americans scored high enough for promotions. Which meant that the 18 or so white males and hispanic males that did score high enough still did not receive the promotions that they had worked hard to earn.

[SgtMaj]

Many issues that come before the Supreme Court are not defined in law.  Just to name one example off the top of my head... the issue of when is a person considered alive... is it at conception, viability, or birth?  It's never been defined in law, but it is a key issue with regard to the legality of abortion.  Another example that comes to mind is when the court had to decide whether increasing government revenue could be defined as serving public interest with regard to eminent domain cases.  These and many more cases come before the Supreme Court so that they can interpret not only the constitutionality of the law, but also it's range and scope.

I think that's pretty much all you were missing.

[kathyp]

the issue of when is a person considered alive

it should not have been heard by the supreme court.  it fell under the 10th amendment.

Another example that comes to mind is when the court had to decide whether increasing government revenue could be defined as serving public interest with regard to eminent domain cases

again, probably should have been left in the state, however, using the writings of the founders if not the specifics of the constitution, they should be able to figure out that property rights were pretty much sacred.  taking private property from one person and giving it to another private party is pretty wrong.

[SgtMaj]

the issue of when is a person considered alive

it should not have been heard by the supreme court.  it fell under the 10th amendment.

Well yes and no... While the issue of the legality of abortion of a non-person should have been a state issue...  the issue of when a person is considered a person and thus is granted the rights guaranteed to all people in the US (like the right to life which is among the "inalienable rights" of man written about in the declaration of independance) is not an issue to be determined by individual states and is a prime example of a judgement that would be aided by employing empathy, understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles (or at least the general concensus).

Another example that comes to mind is when the court had to decide whether increasing government revenue could be defined as serving public interest with regard to eminent domain cases

again, probably should have been left in the state, however, using the writings of the founders if not the specifics of the constitution, they should be able to figure out that property rights were pretty much sacred.  taking private property from one person and giving it to another private party is pretty wrong.

Well clearly they came to the wrong decision in that case, but I don't think you can leave something like that up to the states when the state itself is a party to the case.  That would be like allowing a judge standing trial for a crime he committed to preside over his own trial.  It needs to at least be heard by an impartial court... not that it helped in this case.

[Vibe]

the issue of when is a person considered alive

it should not have been heard by the supreme court.  it fell under the 10th amendment.

I don't recall that it has been heard on those grounds. Row v. Wase was decided as a Dr./Patient privacy issue. Has the "Partial Birth Abortion" issue even reached SCOTUS yet?

[BeeHopper]

Sotomayor is Obama's choice.

Even if I can over look this statement that she made: “court of appeals is where policy is made.”

I have an issue with her, at first glance.

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Again.  How can your upbringing change interpretation of the law?  The Law is the Law 

If that remark does not sink her, I don't know what will. She's just another narcissistic individual ( just like Obama ).

[kathyp]

i don't think she will be sunk.

we have a chance to  change some of the balance of power with the next local and congressional elections.  we need to focus there.

[Vibe]

i don't think she will be sunk.

we have a chance to  change some of the balance of power with the next local and congressional elections.  we need to focus there.

And let your Senators and Reps know that you are focusing upon that. I'm pretty surethat mine know that I have never and will never vote for them...but it still doesn't hurt to let them know it on a regular basis.

[SgtMaj]

And let your Senators and Reps know that you are focusing upon that. I'm pretty surethat mine know that I have never and will never vote for them...but it still doesn't hurt to let them know it on a regular basis.

Really?  Ensuring that your representatives always write you off and never give you any consideration doesn't hurt?  I mean, what good could it possibly do you to let someone know that you would never vote for them?  Even if you wouldn't, I would at least let them think that I might if they were to go my way on an issue.  Otherwise you're giving them no motivation to vote your way.

[dragonfly]

If that remark does not sink her, I don't know what will. She's just another narcissistic individual ( just like Obama ).

Liberals don't sink. They have a high ratio of hot air relative to  mass.

[kathyp]

 

i always thought it was the adipose tissue between their ears, but the hot air thing works.............

[Vibe]

i always thought it was the adipose tissue between their ears, but the hot air thing works.............

It certainly helps explain the "survival at Chappaquiddick".

[blckoakbees]

I am reading this and it sounds like a bunch of sound bites.  Let's look at the facts.  The lady's educational background it super.  She was appointed to the Federal bench by the First President Bush and her opinions are not radical or inconsistent with the standard interpretations of the law.  The writer has taken the firefighter discrimination case out of context.  If you read the decision you will find, she was one of a panel and they were redirecting it to the lower court for further actions.  There had been a history of discrimination in the department and the test was continuing that history.

I hate the extreme politicism when it comes to judges.  Her record is a good one. Spin doctors of radical conservative groups are not the best source of information on the courts or judges. President Bush's appointed this judge to the Federal Bench. she is just being promoted to the Supreme Court. Would a male judge be attacked like this?

[indypartridge]

Would a male judge be attacked like this?

Absolutely. One word: Bork

Want a Hispanic male example? Remember when Bush II nominated Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Court of Appeals? The Libs went ballistic, despite his unanimous "well qualified" recommendation from the ABA.

By the way, (conservative) Ken Starr had a number of very complimentary things to say about Sotomayor, among them: "And her record as a judge, from everything that I've seen, is a very fine record."

[eri]

>Would a male judge be attacked like this?

From the tenor of the remarks here, yes. Male, female, white, black, brown, yellow or green, as long as it is an Obama appointee.

I believe she is an appropriate, qualified choice, based on her education, record, and background. The fact that she is female and 1st generation Hispanic are pluses in terms of adding a variety of life experiences to the current mix and the opportunity to provide yet another admirable role model for women and ethnic minorities.

The "law is the law?" Well, then. Women and non-landowners can't vote. Slavery is OK. Going back further, taxation without representation is just the way it is. The law giveth, and the law taketh away.

Who among you will say that your "upbringing" had no effect on your point of view of the world around you, including your discernment?

Change is a process. If any one of us were prescient, the rest of us might as well sit back and watch.

[Scadsobees]

>Would a male judge be attacked like this?

Attacked?

Why should anything Mr. President does or anybody he appoints be passed through without rigourous questioning?  No president yet has had that luxury, thank God, and this president should be no exception.

When recent statements are made by a person which puts their integrity at question, should they not be called out on it?

I think it is good to put the prospective justices under the microscope.  The second black justice is the first one that I remember, and he was excoriated by the left from what I remember.  And all the justices that followed were too.

I find the response of the Democrats interesting...we shouldn't question what Obama does.

-Rick

[kathyp]

Her record is a good one

her record is important, but not as important as her view of the constitution.  if she believes the constitution is a "living document", that's a problem.  if she believes that the judaical branch has the obligation to right wrongs by legislating from the bench, that's a problem.  the job of the supreme court is pretty narrow.  it is not the place for social activism. 

since we know that obama is extremely liberal, we can be reasonable sure that he will appoint very liberal judges.  since we know that he views the courts as a way to redistribute wealth and redress wrongs, we can bet that his appointments will feel the same.

once again, the left makes a big deal out of gender and race.  when will they get over it and base decisions on quality of the individual?  i am not saying she is not a quality person, only that she was chosen for other than personal qualities.....and that will be the main point of every single conversation or argument in her favor against the scrutiny from the right.

[Vibe]

She has been quoted as saying that her decisions are of the "some are more equal than others" (to use a reference from Orwells 1984) in that her decisions are "better" due to her being a Latina Female as opposed to a White Male. Anyone who thinks that is relevant to Constitutional Law, I have a problem with.

[Scadsobees]

She has been quoted as saying that her decisions are of the "some are more equal than others" (to use a reference from Orwells 1984) in that her decisions are "better" due to her being a Latina Female as opposed to a White Male. Anyone who thinks that is relevant to Constitutional Law, I have a problem with.

Oh please.  That is just one statement taken out of context and says nothing about her.  Duh. 

She's Latina!  Hooray!

Too bad.  I'd rather have somebody who's first American and of some racial heritage second (or third).  Any good american male justice will come to the same conclusion as any good american female justice.

[Vibe]

She has been quoted as saying that her decisions are of the "some are more equal than others" (to use a reference from Orwells 1984) in that her decisions are "better" due to her being a Latina Female as opposed to a White Male. Anyone who thinks that is relevant to Constitutional Law, I have a problem with.

Oh please.  That is just one statement taken out of context and says nothing about her.  Duh. 

One of many (you should read a few of her 2nd Circuit decisions), in exactly the context that she had it, and it says quite a lot about her. Duh - back atcha.

She's Latina!  Hooray!

yep, I have no problem with that part of her at all. She at least is a legally qualified candidate.

Too bad.  I'd rather have somebody who's first American and of some racial heritage second (or third). 

I agree. She doesn't.

 

Any good American male justice will come to the same conclusion as any good American female justice.

Again, I agree. But she "says" that she doesn't.

[eri]

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to
invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment,
conflict with the Constitution. This power of “judicial review” has given the Court a crucial
responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution”
whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

[Jerrymac]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klwWcp9eiPw&feature=related

[SgtMaj]

Now here's a good article:

http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d1-Giving-Judge-Sotomayor-a-fair-hearing