Master Index of Archived Threads


Obama nominated Sotomayer to Supreme Court.

Nymr83 May 26 2009 07:34 AM

Obviously as a conservative I'm not going to agree with the views of anyone this president appoints, but I'm glad he picked someone with judicial experience rather than some Harriet Myers-esque friend. Any bets on how long it takes her to (a) get out of commitee and (b) get a vote? I'm guessing the REpublicans put up a big fight in committee but no meaningful fight on the floor, and she is confirmed almost strictly along party lines with perhaps 2-3 republicans voting for her.

Edgy DC May 26 2009 07:38 AM

She'll fly through.

Benjamin Grimm May 26 2009 07:39 AM

As long as she doesn't have "empathy." Didn't the Republicans threaten to filibuster anyone with "empathy" or "feelings."

Edgy DC May 26 2009 07:59 AM

Easy, cowboy.

metsguyinmichigan May 26 2009 08:06 AM

[url:1atszhjm]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-qUvI6WFo[/url:1atszhjm] She was tagged for making comments recently about how it's the court's job to set policy, which might be fodder for kicking up a fuss.

Nymr83 May 26 2009 08:23 AM

i can't watch youtube at work, did she say its their job or did she just admit to the reality that it happens? the former would be disturbing, the latter doesnt raise an eyebrow for me. ]As long as she doesn't have "empathy." Didn't the Republicans threaten to filibuster anyone with "empathy" or "feelings." they should filibuster anyone who makes decisions based on "feelings" rather than the law. this need not be a conservative-liberal divide either, Justice Black was a strict reader of the law and was considered "liberal", it is too bad (for the law but mainly for my personal amusement) that he and Scalia never served together.

metsguyinmichigan May 26 2009 08:32 AM

CNN - ‎ In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where "policy is made."

Frayed Knot May 26 2009 08:54 AM

If anything is going to get the backs of conservatives up it's going to be her ruling in the New Haven fire fighters test case; that's the one where she ruled the results of a promotional test could be negated based on the racial mix of the outcome.

RealityChuck May 26 2009 09:29 AM

="Nymr83"]they should filibuster anyone who makes decisions based on "feelings" rather than the law. Not so. First of all "empathy" does not mean "based on feelings." It means that you consider the effect of the ruling on the people involved. It's certainly a legitimate consideration -- the law doesn't exist in a vacuum. Otherwise you get something like the Dred Scott Decision -- legally correct, but wrong in every other respect. Or Plessy v. Ferguson. Note that empathy also includes empathy for both sides. Conservatives are using their usual tactic of redefining things for political advantage, but it would also apply to, say, the hardships a business might face by meeting pollution standards. The current court is no paragon of rationality -- we see the justices making choices on their own feelings all the time (and rationalized later). The issue is that conservatives like when justices's feelings are conservative.

Swan Swan H May 26 2009 09:39 AM

As a liberal I will tend to agree with the views of most, if not all Obama appointees, but there is a huge red flag for me regarding Sotamayor. The woman has spoken out on several occasions in support of, gasp, the Yankees. How on earth am I supposed to trust the judgment of someone so easily deluded?

batmagadanleadoff May 26 2009 09:40 AM

="Nymr83"]they should filibuster anyone who makes decisions based on "feelings" rather than the law. I thought that the Supreme Court was the law. And is the law.

Gwreck May 26 2009 10:19 AM

I think the trump card for the Democrats here is that Sotomayor was first appointed to the federal bench by Bush 41. If she was an acceptable Republican nominee in the first place...

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 26 2009 10:33 AM

="batmagadanleadoff"] ="Nymr83"]they should filibuster anyone who makes decisions based on "feelings" rather than the law. I thought that the Supreme Court was the law. And is the law. Isn't that Judge Dredd? And Sotomayor was appointed by Bush I... but that was a FAR different Republican party, and her name came from Moynihan and the Dems to begin with. Her name was bandied about when Bush II was looking to fill O'Connor's slot, but I think that, too, came from the Senate Democrats. The scuttlebutt is that, personally, she ain't the most conciliatory sort when pushed... so these could be some firework-filled confirmation hearings if Cornyn or Coburn are feeling ornery.

sharpie May 26 2009 10:42 AM

Seven current Republicans (+ Arlen Specter) voted to confirm her for the Appeals Court when Clinton nominated her despite a full-court press by Trent Lott to block her because he was afeared that she would eventually be tapped for the SC. Included in that list are Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett of Utah; Olympia Snowe; Richard Lugar; and Judd Gregg. If Alito could get by a Democratic senate than Sotomayor will have no trouble whatsoever.

Nymr83 May 26 2009 10:43 AM

it was certainly democrats who suggested her to fill o'connors spot, as republicans were already against her by the time she was elevated to the circuit court by Clinton only a couple of years after Bush nominated her to the district court. if they can get a rise out of her i'm sure they will. but i'm sure that these days nominees get VERY well coached and go threw a "mock hearing" with obama's loyalists so that things like that don't happen. the hearings will be filled with accusations, and "code words" for the abortion debate, but i doubt there will be "fireworks."

Nymr83 May 26 2009 10:46 AM

="sharpie":ju03alme]Seven current Republicans (+ Arlen Specter) voted to confirm her for the Appeals Court when Clinton nominated her despite a full-court press by Trent Lott to block her because he was afeared that she would eventually be tapped for the SC. Included in that list are Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett of Utah; Olympia Snowe; Richard Lugar; and Judd Gregg. If Alito could get by a Democratic senate than Sotomayor will have no trouble whatsoever.[/quote:ju03alme] The problem, if any*, would come not in the full senate but in committee, where the rules say that at least one (R) must vote to move her out of that committee and Specter no longer counts. Both parties complain about internal senate rules like this one but nobody wants to be the one to repeal them because they know they'll need them when they are eventually out of power. *I still don't there will be a significant hurdle to her confirmation, i'm just saying this would be the place for it metirish May 26 2009 12:55 PM How to pronounce her name http://www.slate.com/id/2219047/ sharpie May 26 2009 01:28 PM Orrin Hatch is on the Judiciary Committee and voted for her last time. Frayed Knot May 27 2009 07:24 PM And guys -- she's Single!! Farmer Ted May 29 2009 10:32 AM She's a MFY fan. Thumbs down. HahnSolo May 29 2009 10:40 AM ="Farmer Ted":3388al0c]She's a MFY fan. Thumbs down.[/quote:3388al0c] Even worse. She went to Cardinal Spellman. (we St. Raymond's guys didn't care much for Spellman). Benjamin Grimm May 29 2009 11:04 AM But Everybody Loves St. Raymond. Nymr83 Jun 29 2009 09:20 AM ]The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a group of white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision endorsed by high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor i havent read the decision yet, but it was 5-4 and written by Kennedy so everyone already knows who was where. in what i thought was a more important case, the court has ordered reargument on a case concerning free speech as it relates to actions during campaigns/elections by people other than the candidate, specifically a conservative group that looked to air a movie critical of hillary during the democratic primary season. i was hoping they'd find that portion of the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002" to be an unconstitutional violation of the 1st amendment. Edgy DC Aug 06 2009 02:41 PM Confoimed by the Senate.