Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

[FRPLG]

I don't have time to educate myself on the case this morning...did she argue it was a states rights type issue and get overturned?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I don't have time to educate myself on the case this morning...did she argue it was a states rights type issue and get overturned?

The crust of her argument was that people should be able to sue under state law. She (they really) also asked the Supreme Court for clarification. You can find the legal grounds for the opinion here.

Dabit filed a "breach of fiduciary duty" claim under Oklahoma state law in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under "diversity grounds" because the parties in the case were from different states. His complaint was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York where more than 120 additional cases against Merrill Lynch were consolidated.

In the suit, Dabit claimed that Merrill Lynch's practices caused certain stocks to trade at "artificially inflated" prices through the use of deceptive devices alleged to be the "hallmarks of stock manipulation."


Section 10(b) of the federal Securities Exchange Act makes it unlawful for any person to use deceptive or manipulative devices "in the connection or sale of any security." Because of a perceived flood of frivolous lawsuits regarding security fraud through state courts, Congress enacted the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) in 1998, which provides that people must file suits charging securities fraud in federal court where there are stringent, uniform standards.


SLUSA states that any class action lawsuit based on state or local law alleging fraud "in connection with the purchase or sale" or of a stock must be governed by federal law.


...


Judge Sonia Sotomayor [in agreement with her colleagues], wrote that SLUSA should be interpreted very narrowly to apply to only purchasers and sellers.


"We see no clear indication either in the text or the legislative history of SLUSA of a congressional intent to abolish nonpurchaser and nonseller state class action claims," wrote Sotomayer.


Sotomayer seemed to ask for definition of the "in connection with" phrase from the U.S. Supreme Court, writing that the high court has "not yet interpreted this phrase in the context of SLUSA."

[firstdown]

My problem with her is I know she is a liberal and thats how she will come down on the issues.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by firstdown

My problem with her is I know she is a liberal and thats how she will come down on the issues.

She's replacing a liberal...why care? He isn't going to nominate a conservative. We elected him and this is what he gets to do...just like Bush got to nominate Roberts and Alito.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

She's replacing a liberal...why care? He isn't going to nominate a conservative. We elected him and this is what he gets to do...just like Bush got to nominate Roberts and Alito.

Well da, and the left bitched about those. Doesn't mean I have to like it. You were suppose to ask me how I knew she was a liberal.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

She's replacing a liberal...why care? He isn't going to nominate a conservative. We elected him and this is what he gets to do...just like Bush got to nominate Roberts and Alito.

The Senate must perform it's advise and consent duty. After all we don't live in a dictatorship. Just ask Robert Bork.

My only hope for this nomination process is that it might dawn on somebody that an organization called "The National Council of The Race", might have some views that are at odds with American values. But then I'm probably hoping beyond hope.

[firstdown]

Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Case - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com
WASHINGTON — 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.

Not sure if this will change anything.

[Beemnseven]

Here's what will be interesting to me... When the democrats were the minority and the last two Supreme Court spots opened up, they voted along party lines with John Roberts receiving a 78-22 vote, and Samuel Alito managing just a 58-42 vote.

Even though Republicans disagreed with the philosophy of both Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who got a 96-3 vote, and Stephen Breyer who garnered an 87-9 vote, they understood that both nominees were qualified and voted accordingly.

I wonder if the Republicans will return the favor this year, and play hardball just like the democrats have? Or will they vote for Sotomayor even though they differ with her judicial views?

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Here's what will be interesting to me... When the democrats were the minority and the last two Supreme Court spots opened up, they voted along party lines with John Roberts receiving a 78-22 vote, and Samuel Alito managing just a 58-42 vote.

Even though Republicans disagreed with the philosophy of both Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who got a 96-3 vote, and Stephen Breyer who garnered an 87-9 vote, they understood that both nominees were qualified and voted accordingly.

I wonder if the Republicans will return the favor this year, and play hardball just like the democrats have? Or will they vote for Sotomayor even though they differ with her judicial views?

Will it make a difference if they play "hardball," as you say the Democrats did? Roberts and Alito were nominated while Republicans had a Senate majority, and Sotomayor will face a Democratic-majority Senate. Republican "hardball" will still undoubtedly not be enough to block a confirmation, especially if Sotomayor garners Republican votes as both Roberts and Alito garnered Democratic votes.

By the way, I'm pretty sure Scalia was confirmed by a vote of 98-0.

[FRPLG]

why would it?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

why would it?

Well it can call into question her interpretation of law and this is the same court she is nominated that has struck down a hand full of her rulings.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

why would it?

Indeed. No reason why it would. The case had already been flagged as one that Republicans were expected to challenge her on during her confirmation hearings anyway, and a 5-4 decision overruling the opinion (one she joined but did not write) doesn't exactly give the Republicans an "ah-ha!" moment.

[JLee9718]

I don't see aything wrong with Sotomayor's statement, "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." I agree with her completely.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JLee9718

I don't see aything wrong with Sotomayor's statement, "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." I agree with her completely.

Well couldn't you say that a white males would reach a better conclusion than a latino female who hasn't lived that life style?

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by JLee9718

I don't see aything wrong with Sotomayor's statement, "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." I agree with her completely.

Turn that statement around and it's racist. I hate limbaugh and the rest of those clowns, but there is a double standard when it comes to this kind of thing. When a minority says something of this nature, it's just "pride," when it's a white guy, it's racist. It's all so damn boring. Wish we could all get past it.