It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


SC Nominee - Toobin: Sotomayor will be voice for moderate liberalism

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:38 PM
Is it true that 60% of her rulings have been overturned by a higher court? If so then that alone should disqualify her, her comments regarding White males and gun control are also very disturbing as were her comments about how the job of the judiciary is to create laws ... um no the job of the judiciary is to punish and/or interpret.

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:51 PM
They will grill the hell out of her before she gets her shot at the bench. Every poor decision she's ever made, and all her questionable trials will be thrown in her face.

I for one hope she doesn't get the appointment, but we shall see.

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 01:54 PM
Wow, it seems that Sotomayor does hold the position that states have the right to write laws that go against the second amendment.

I don't see how any judge could hold such a belief. Doesn't the Federal Constitution take precedence over State laws? I know the tenth amendment gives states power over what is not delegated by the constitution to the federal government, but it certainly does not give states the power to change laws established by our constitution. This concept is ridiculous.

If a state decides it wants to ban guns, and claims that the fed government doesn't have the right to stop them, then what if a state decides that they want to ban free speech? or institute slavery?

Oops, forgot to add link.

In a 2004 criminal case, U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Another case involved a fellow named James Maloney who was arrested in Port Washington, N.Y. for possessing a nunchaku -- typically sticks connected by rope or chain -- in his home. Maloney claimed that the Second Amendment rendered the state law banning nunchakus unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel including Sotomayor unanimously rejected his claim in January 2009, ruling that the Second Amendment "imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts." All members of the panel agreed with this sentiment, but because the opinion was unsigned, it's not clear who wrote it.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by poet1b]

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 03:37 PM
Further information in her comments in her Berkley speech in October 26, 2001.

Sotomayor's 2001 speech had similar overtones, as she conceded that white justices had made historic decisions on race and gender but emphasized that the attorneys who argued these decisions before the court were African-Americans and women.

Why would she emphasize that white justices who made historical sentences did them when minorities were arguing the cases? No white justices made historical decisions on race and gender when white males argued the cases? She doesn't seem to want to give white males much credit for anything.

I started this thread neutral, but I am starting to side against this choice.

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:09 PM
She's in favor of positive racial discrimination, and she is heavily against the ownership of firearms.

I really don't need to know much else about her, but I can certainly see why Obama likes her

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:31 PM
reply to post by Retseh

Agreed, the reverse discrimination and her gun control positions combined with her belief that it is ok to legislate beliefs make her a very dangerous enemy to the American people and our God given rights.

If this is all the damage that Obama has done in 4 months then we are truly doomed. We still have 3 years and 8 months to go!

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:38 PM

Originally posted by jd140
Personel expireance plays no role in how a judge should rule their court.

I just had to quote this and bold it. You are SO RIGHT.

Sotomayor is NOT a 'voice for moderate liberalism'. She's just a bad judge. She's got a great resume ... but she's sexist and racist AND she has admitted that she isn't impartial and that she judges by her feelings.

That makes her a lousy judge.


Originally posted by grover
I love the way the right throws around the term racist...
Most of these clowns have no idea.

It's pretty straight forward grover.
What she said was sexist.
What she said was racist - or, if you'd rather, full of bigotry.

As for 'clowns' ... those that approve of this woman being on the SCOTUS simply because she's brown and she's appointed by Obama ... now we can talk 'clowns'.

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:41 PM
reply to post by poet1b

More on that ....

Story here

Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.

[edit on 5/28/2009 by FlyersFan]

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 05:52 PM
The whole judicial system sucks! Judges are in essence able to legislate from the bench. A judges job is to APPLY the law,not INTERPURT the meaning.
Congressional laws are (with the exception of the bill of rights) are intentionally vauge,they seem to be written to allow judges to strip away the rights of the people.

A Supreme court Justice should have to decide cases by the letter of the law,and not preceedent. It shouldn't matter how liberal or conservative their political views lean,the law is not maleable!

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 06:03 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by CuriousSkeptic

Anyone who works their way up from the bottom has to beat the odds, even white males.

Considering Sotomayor's success came during an era of affirmative action, you have to wonder if she speculates about how much of her success is due to affirmative action, and how frustrating those thoughts must be. The truth is that she had to be the best and brightest among minorities. White males without connections are the ones who had to be the best and the brightest to even be given a chance in a world that had decided to stack the odds against them. In a quota system, the white males with connections were going to be given priority when only so many positions are open, minorities will be given their opportunity based on merit, and lastly, white males without connections, but with considerable merit might be given a shot.

Even with affirmative action, racial quotas and preferences and such, Sotomayor must be a very driven and intelligent person to reach the level that she has reached. Still, she has also had to learn how to play the game of politics.

Your statement just gave me pause. I had not thought about how affirmative action would affect someones self esteem. Knowing that your abilities alone were not enough to secure your position. The thought that you would owe your status to a quota system,sheesh I don't think I would be very happy with myself. This country IS skrewed up pretty bad isn't it?

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:32 AM
reply to post by daddyroo45

Unfortunately, there are a great many people without any scruples, who don't care how they got their positions, people like GW who think they are right no matter how much the consequences of their actions prove them wrong. People who will do what ever it takes to get what they want, and often do, to climb the corporate ladder.

It is the people who remain aware their positions and how they achieved their successes, and the consequences of their actions, that we want in positions of power.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:01 AM
The latest comments I am now hearing is question why minority candidate are scrutinized for racial preference. Aren't all candidates scrutinized for signs of racial preference or bias, or gender bias? It seems that there is agreement, that a large part of the reason she was chosen, is because she is a woman and Hispanic. GW did appoint two white males, but he did nominate one woman, who withdrew her candidacy due to political pressure. One of the two Bush appointees is Italian, which is not WASP, but apparently doesn't rate on the ethnic diversity scale.

Look at what they did to Justice Thomas. While I am not a fan of Justice Thomas' political views, that he might have flirted with a subordinate as a reason to keep him off the SC was way overboard. What Sotomayor said was worse than anything Thomas said. It needs to be examined. In addition, her decision on the case of the fire fighters is very questionable. What was the justification? I have yet to read one. I would like to hear Sotomayor's comments on this issue.

More troubling is her position on the right to bear arms. That doesn't seem to be getting much press coverage.

It seems that if we white males, or males of any gender apparently, protest at all, we protesteth too much.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:31 AM
reply to post by ChrisF231

I agree.

There is a lot of serious debate now about whether this woman even has adequate credentials for her current position as a Federal judge, let alone a place on the Supreme Court.

It seems now that the SC is increasingly seen as a means of allowing judges to legislate based on their own personal views and not a means of enforcing the Constitution.

Very, very dangerous.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:34 AM
Here is a good article that gives more insight on Sotomayor.

The title is negative, but I though the picture that emerges is of a very capable woman, intellectually dogged, which is a good quality in a jurist.

Judge Sotomayor’s colleagues on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit say her tough and direct questioning reflects engagement and, sometimes, an effort to persuade her colleagues. Those qualities, coupled with a gregarious personality, they said, make her a powerful force behind the scenes, where she has used her mastery of the cases to change minds, improve opinions and forge consensus.

Other colleagues said Judge Sotomayor frequently sent unusually detailed, closely reasoned and helpful memorandums critiquing their draft opinions. “She will offer substantive suggestions,” said Judge Jon O. Newman, “but she will not be tenacious in making sure the language comes out exactly her way.”

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by ChrisF231

It is a gross distortion of the facts to claim that Sotomayor has a 60% rate of cases overturned by the SC.

But secondly, a 60 percent reversal rate is actually below average based on the Washington Times' criteria. According to, the Supreme Court typically reverses about 75 percent of circuit court decisions that it chooses to rule upon.

The reason that the reversal rate is so high, of course, is that the Supreme Court has a lot of discretion about which cases it chooses to review and rule upon, and is generally not going to be inclined to overturn law dictated by a lower court unless the legal reasoning is substantially questionable and has a strong chance of reversal. The better metric would probably be the number of decisions that the Supreme Court overturned out of all of Sotomayor's majority opinions — whether the Court elected to review them in detail or not.

Since joining the Second Circuit in 1998, Sotomayor has authored over 150 opinions, addressing a wide range of issues, in civil cases. To date, two of these decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court; a third is under review and likely to be reversed. In those two cases (and likely the third), Sotomayor's opinion was rejected by the Supreme Court's more conservative majority and adopted by its more liberal dissenters (including Justice Souter). Those outcomes suggest that Sotomayor's views would in many respects be similar to those of Justice Souter.

It is always a good idea to check the information you are being given.

I would add that those cases overturned are situations where the conservative judges on the SC put corporate rights above individual rights. A position which I find to be an indication of very bad precedence.

I believe the third case they are referring to is the one on second amendment rights and the ability of states to take them away.

Personally, I think the decision on the case of discrimination against the firefighters is wrong as well.

However, the record shows that Sotomayor is very qualified for the job.

The question is, can she be counted on to be unbiased as a jurist?

[edit on 29-5-2009 by poet1b]

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:11 AM
Graham Calls on Sotomayor to Apologize for 'Wise Latina' Statement

"What she said is that based on her life experiences is that she thought a Latina woman, somebody with her background, would be a better judge than a guy like me -- a white guy from South Carolina," Graham said. "It is troubling, and it's inappropriate and I hope she'll apologize."

With Sotomayor's confirmation set to dominate the summer months, Graham said the nominee will have to "prove" that she could give somebody like him a "fair shake" in court. He said her controversial statement suggests she feels her life experiences give her a "superiority" over others.

"I don't want that kind of person being a judge in my case," he said. But he dismissed claims from conservatives like talk show host Rush Limbaugh and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich that Sotomayor is a "racist."

While I think that Sotomayer's position on State's rights being able to restrict gun control is probably the biggest concern, this issue on reverse discrimination would be highly served by being made an issue in a SCJ confirmation hearing. This is an issue that the Democratic party, and liberals in general need to start recognizing.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in