Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Our Hoosier Board! Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions. Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful. Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine! Cheers, sirbrianwilson Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Obama picks Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 26 2009, 07:33 AM (477 Views) | |
| Mr Gray | May 26 2009, 07:33 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Coach
|
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10421682&nav=menu36_2 This just came in as I was watching the news, so I don't have any bigger articles at this time. The official announcement is coming at 10:15, but MSNBC is already reporting it. What do you guys think of this pick? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| thePhilosopher | May 26 2009, 09:33 AM Post #2 |
![]()
All-Star
|
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others... “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 Source: NYT |
| |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | May 26 2009, 09:46 AM Post #3 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
Sounds like she is saying everyone is equal. A Latina woman with more experience is better than some random white dude? Isn't that obvious? I don't really know enough about her to comment yet. I'll do some more research later. |
| |
![]() |
|
| troubleatiu | May 26 2009, 09:46 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Coach
|
BG told us this was coming a couple weeks ago. ive since seen articles for and against her. im not sure what i think about it. |
![]() "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."--Henry Kissinger "What luck for rulers that men do not think."- Adolph Hitler "Terrorists don't want your freedoms--they want your life. It's dictators and tyrants who want your freedoms."-author unidentified | |
![]() |
|
| thePhilosopher | May 26 2009, 10:00 AM Post #5 |
![]()
All-Star
|
Are you being serious? The way I understand this statement is that the "richness of her experiences" is predicated on her being a "wise Latina woman" rather than being a "white male." Not that the Latina woman has more experience, but a qualitatively different experience than a white male. So, in this way, because of her race and experiences related to her race, she will "reach a better conclusion" than the white man. And I'm sure she got a fair shake at the NYT interview, so this being taken out of context could not be an issue. Again, as Orwell said about people like this, they believe that all are equal, but some are more equal than others. |
| |
![]() |
|
| thePhilosopher | May 26 2009, 10:06 AM Post #6 |
![]()
All-Star
|
And, for the record, she seems to be very well qualified both academically and professionally. I don't know anything about how far left she is, but the quote from the NYT is troubling. |
| |
![]() |
|
| eelbor | May 26 2009, 10:27 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Zen Master
|
"Judge Cedarbaum [of the federal District Court in New York]... believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons... we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning.... Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.... Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.... I am... not so sure that I agree with the statement. First... there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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." Her comments above do smack at Racism. Why would she choose to stereotype white males as inferior beings? Have we really become the bogey man? She also sided with the majority in this case. A bad decision if I ever read one. http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20081213_3739.php All in all though, it is not going to change much in the Supreme Court. You are replacing one fairly liberal justice with another failrly liberal justice. The cases we really care about will be decided 5-4. They all seem to be 5-4 lately. |
![]() "Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder. | |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | May 26 2009, 12:44 PM Post #8 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
Ahh ok. I didn't read the quote in context. I definitely disagree that she is more experienced or has a richer experience simply because she is latino. That sounds like a pretty ignorant thing to say. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Unbiased | May 26 2009, 01:01 PM Post #9 |
|
Coach
|
This Burrito is past peak. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | May 26 2009, 02:18 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Coach
|
This is concerning, but not surprising for a liberal pick. It is my impression that liberals no longer even deny the belief that judges have the ability to legislate from the bench and create policy |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | May 26 2009, 02:20 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Coach
|
http://yaledailynews.com/blogs/crosscampus/2009/05/26/sotomayor-nomination-throws-spotlight-on-firefighters-case/ This is even more concerning to me, as it seems to go to her potential race-biased views of issues. I am 100% certain that she would not have ruled the same way had this been 19 Hispanic or black firefighters. I also heard on the radio today that she has a terrible record of her ruling being upheld at the Supreme court level. I haven't researched to confirm, but if that is the case, I would say that goes against her qualifications. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| eelbor | May 26 2009, 02:25 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Zen Master
|
From CNN Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court • Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009 • Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg) • Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted • Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0 • Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito) • Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) • Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer) • Affirmative Action (New Haven firefighter case): Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of an exam to determine promotions within the city's fire department. Only one Hispanic and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam; the City subsequently decided not to certify the results and issued no promotions. In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral arguments in April 2009. Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) • Environment (Protection of fish at power plants): Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the "best technology available" must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the "best technology" regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the "best technology" rule was too narrow. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor's position. Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) • Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductable. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach "flies in the face of the statutory language." Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) • Finance (Rights of investors to sue firms in state court): In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch's argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor's ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to "wasteful, duplicative litigation." Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) • Health Insurance (Reimbursement of insurance benefits): In 2005, Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from those whom she claimed caused her husband's injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 opinion. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented. Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) • Civil Rights (Right to sue federal government and its agents): Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual's constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as "Bivens," which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling. Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) • Intellectual Property (Distribution of freelance material): As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers' work on electronic databases and archives such as "Lexis/Nexis" without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor's decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor's original ruling). Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, taking Sotomayor's position. Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) |
![]() "Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder. | |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | May 26 2009, 02:30 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Coach
|
Not a great record there....geez, I guess having a hispanic vagina counts for a lot more in this country than I thought it did. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| Unbiased | May 26 2009, 02:31 PM Post #14 |
|
Coach
|
look for Taco Bells to pop up all over DC |
| |
![]() |
|
| yawnzzz | May 26 2009, 04:53 PM Post #15 |
|
Coach
|
Is there anyone happy with this pick? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:45 PM Jul 10
|














7:45 PM Jul 10