Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Obama picks Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Obama picks Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court
Tweet Topic Started: May 26 2009, 07:33 AM (479 Views)
brumdog44 May 26 2009, 04:58 PM Post #16
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
aaronk2727
May 26 2009, 02:30 PM
eelbor
May 26 2009, 02:25 PM
aaronk2727
May 26 2009, 02:20 PM
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.
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)

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.
It gets me where I want to go.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
hoosierinhogville May 26 2009, 07:51 PM Post #17
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
5,812
Group:
Members
Member
#155
Joined:
February 11, 2008
yawnzzz
May 26 2009, 04:53 PM
Is there anyone happy with this pick?
Hispanics.

I can't help but think that the only reason she was picked is because she is a hispanic woman. Surely their are better qualified liberal judges to choose from.
To me this is a sop to all the Hispanic dominated groups that turned out in force for Obama.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor May 26 2009, 08:26 PM Post #18
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
hoosierinhogville
May 26 2009, 07:51 PM
yawnzzz
May 26 2009, 04:53 PM
Is there anyone happy with this pick?
Hispanics.

I can't help but think that the only reason she was picked is because she is a hispanic woman. Surely their are better qualified liberal judges to choose from.
To me this is a sop to all the Hispanic dominated groups that turned out in force for Obama.
I think you pegged that one.
Posted Image

"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.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
boilergrad01 May 26 2009, 09:00 PM Post #19
Working on the last 5
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#135
Joined:
February 9, 2008
Ding Ding Ding called it from the start.

http://s15.zetaboards.com/Our_Hoosier_Board/topic/6663849/1/#new
Nothing beats an Astronaut
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
hoosierinhogville May 26 2009, 09:05 PM Post #20
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
5,812
Group:
Members
Member
#155
Joined:
February 11, 2008
boilergrad01
May 26 2009, 09:00 PM
Ding Ding Ding called it from the start.

http://s15.zetaboards.com/Our_Hoosier_Board/topic/6663849/1/#new
It's about time you got something right. B)
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 27 2009, 08:04 AM Post #21
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
hoosierinhogville
May 26 2009, 07:51 PM
yawnzzz
May 26 2009, 04:53 PM
Is there anyone happy with this pick?
Hispanics.

I can't help but think that the only reason she was picked is because she is a hispanic woman. Surely their are better qualified liberal judges to choose from.
To me this is a sop to all the Hispanic dominated groups that turned out in force for Obama.
yep, see my "hispanic vagina" comment above. That is SO ignorant IMO. Perhaps I should also really like her because both of us have dark hair?
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray May 27 2009, 09:00 AM Post #22
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
yawnzzz
May 26 2009, 04:53 PM
Is there anyone happy with this pick?
My guess would be sirbrian loves this pick, brum will justify it by citing something the republicans did, and dreach is researching any possible reason to like it, as he clearly isn't ready to admit to the mistake that is Obama.

ps, NLA has probably had to change his shorts every hour since the announcement.
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 29 2009, 09:31 AM Post #23
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529409,00.html

Add another one to Sonia's wonderful record with the Supreme Court. Geez....if she get's confirmed (which she will) it will be just another nail in the coffin of a fair and blind justice system.
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Jun 29 2009, 05:31 PM Post #24
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
she sucks.......
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 29 2009, 06:37 PM Post #25
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
I understand the dislike for her, and I agree. The comment about the courts making the law and how being Hispanic makes her more qualified or whatever, obviously does not put her in a good light.

But having a decision overturned? This is not a big deal. Any time there is a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court (which is almost every case) it could be considered an overturned decision. Happens all the time with every judge in history.
Edited by dreachon, Jun 29 2009, 06:39 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 29 2009, 07:05 PM Post #26
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Jun 29 2009, 06:37 PM
But having a decision overturned? This is not a big deal. Any time there is a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court (which is almost every case) it could be considered an overturned decision. Happens all the time with every judge in history.
The sad thing is cases like this one probably won't be overturned after she's on the court.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 29 2009, 09:24 PM Post #27
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Jun 29 2009, 06:37 PM
I understand the dislike for her, and I agree. The comment about the courts making the law and how being Hispanic makes her more qualified or whatever, obviously does not put her in a good light.

But having a decision overturned? This is not a big deal. Any time there is a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court (which is almost every case) it could be considered an overturned decision. Happens all the time with every judge in history.
dreach, having a few cases overturned by a slim margin is one thing, but having almost all of your rulings overturned is quite another. If the Supreme Court consistently says that your interpretation of the law of the land is flawed or incorrect, it has to make anyone seriously consider that person's qualifications for the highest court in the land.
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 30 2009, 09:51 AM Post #28
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
aaronk2727
Jun 29 2009, 09:24 PM
dreachon
Jun 29 2009, 06:37 PM
I understand the dislike for her, and I agree. The comment about the courts making the law and how being Hispanic makes her more qualified or whatever, obviously does not put her in a good light.

But having a decision overturned? This is not a big deal. Any time there is a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court (which is almost every case) it could be considered an overturned decision. Happens all the time with every judge in history.
dreach, having a few cases overturned by a slim margin is one thing, but having almost all of your rulings overturned is quite another. If the Supreme Court consistently says that your interpretation of the law of the land is flawed or incorrect, it has to make anyone seriously consider that person's qualifications for the highest court in the land.
Now that I agree with. If you want to make your argument stronger then how about a comparison of the % of cases of Sontomeyer's that were overturned with the % of dissenting opinions of the judges currently on the Supreme Court. Those would be interesting numbers to see.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jun 30 2009, 08:06 PM Post #29
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 29 2009, 07:05 PM
dreachon
Jun 29 2009, 06:37 PM
But having a decision overturned? This is not a big deal. Any time there is a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court (which is almost every case) it could be considered an overturned decision. Happens all the time with every judge in history.
The sad thing is cases like this one probably won't be overturned after she's on the court.
Actually she would replace Judge Souter who was among the dissenting opinions in this case. So at least in this example it would have no impact.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 30 2009, 08:18 PM Post #30
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
dreachon
Jun 30 2009, 08:06 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 29 2009, 07:05 PM
dreachon
Jun 29 2009, 06:37 PM
But having a decision overturned? This is not a big deal. Any time there is a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court (which is almost every case) it could be considered an overturned decision. Happens all the time with every judge in history.
The sad thing is cases like this one probably won't be overturned after she's on the court.
Actually she would replace Judge Souter who was among the dissenting opinions in this case. So at least in this example it would have no impact.
:owned:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:45 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy