Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

At this point I don't even know what you're getting at. Justice is about fairness for both the majority and minority. The blindness of justice is a mater of fairness and I don't see what the issue is with respect to weather her Hispanic heritage should or shouldn't be considered an asset.

Based on her own statement about a Latina woman making a better judgement than a white male she is alleging that her sex & heritage makes her better qualified. I disagree with that premise.

As for the broader notion that justice should be blind to race and sex you are absolutely wrong on the matter -- with prejudice.

Here we have a fundamental disagreement -- with prejudice.

We are a Constitutional Republic is to combat majoritarianism. Protecting the minority from the majority is at the core of this nations and the single most important job carried out by our judicial branch.

Interpreting the laws and Constitution of the U.S., with regards to the cases presented to it, is the single most important job of the judicial branch not to protect a minority, majority, or certain race/sex/creed.

Race and sex (the minority requiring protection) can be and are a factor in decision making because their social standing is still below that of white males (the majority that wields power). This isn't intended to be an indictment of white males, it's just the current fact of life. You still got the best hands in the deck bro even if Obama is president.

I don't think I've ever mentioned my ethnicity....but yes I'm a white male. I'm not sure what "best hands" I'm supposed to be holding. I grew up lower-middle class, went to public school, financed my own education, served in the military, haven't received any promotions because I'm a white male. I haven't received any government assistance or loans because of being a white male. So I disagree with the premise that the "deck is stacked" in my favor. On the contrary, I've been involved in Federal contracting for over 15 years and if I was a minority based on my contacts and knowledge, I would've started my own 8(a) company and be significantly better off financially than I am now.

Is the country completely color-blind, of course not, but we have made tremendous strides in the last 50 years.

The truth is the Supreme Court never takes on a case unless it deems the findings of the lower court questionable. This is their function so the 83% is meaningless. If you really are interested in numbers the number that should interest you is what percentage of all the cases heard by Sotomayor did the Supreme Court review. One has to wonder about Roberts and Alito disagreements with the Supreme Court as appellate judges.

The 83% number isn't meaningless, unless you can show that the number is consistent among other SC nominees. You are right and I thought about this also, is that the number of her cases reveiwed by the Supreme Court should be referenced against other SC nominees. If the numbers are in-line than they are of no consequence, if the numbers are skewed then they need to be taken into consideration.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Based on her own statement about a Latina woman making a better judgement than a white male she is alleging that her sex & heritage makes her better qualified. I disagree with that premise.

Here we have a fundamental disagreement -- with prejudice.

Interpreting the laws and Constitution of the U.S., with regards to the cases presented to it, is the single most important job of the judicial branch not to protect a minority, majority, or certain race/sex/creed.

I don't think I've ever mentioned my ethnicity....but yes I'm a white male. I'm not sure what "best hands" I'm supposed to be holding. I grew up lower-middle class, went to public school, financed my own education, served in the military, haven't received any promotions because I'm a white male. I haven't received any government assistance or loans because of being a white male. So I disagree with the premise that the "deck is stacked" in my favor. On the contrary, I've been involved in Federal contracting for over 15 years and if I was a minority based on my contacts and knowledge, I would've started my own 8(a) company and be significantly better off financially than I am now.

Is the country completely color-blind, of course not, but we have made tremendous strides in the last 50 years.

The 83% number isn't meaningless, unless you can show that the number is consistent among other SC nominees. You are right and I thought about this also, is that the number of her cases reveiwed by the Supreme Court should be referenced against other SC nominees. If the numbers are in-line than they are of no consequence, if the numbers are skewed then they need to be taken into consideration.

This is where deep understanding of the founding of our governmental structure is and the reasoning behind it is required. You won't get this information for the Levins of the world for they betray you at the expense of making a buck. Me, I go straight to the source...the writings of John Adams a.k.a. Marchmont Nedham and James Madison.

If by the people is meant all the inhabitants of a single city they are not in a general assembly at all times the best keepers of their own liberties nor perhaps at any time unless you separate from them the executive and judicial power and temper their authority in legislation with the maturer counsels of the one and the few If it is meant by the people as our author explains himself a representative assembly such as shall be successively chosen to represent the people still they are not the best keepers of the people's liberties or their own if you give them all the power legislative executive and judicial They would invade the liberties of the people at least the majority of them would invade the liberties of the minority sooner and oftener than an absolute monarchy such as that of France Spain or Russia or than a well checked aristocracy like Venice Bern or Holland.

An excellent writer has said somewhat incautiously that a people will never oppress themselves or invade their own rights This compliment if applied to human nature or to mankind or to any nation or people in being or in memory is more than has been merited If it should be admitted that a people will not unanimously agree to oppress themselves it is as much as is ever and more than is always true All kinds of experience show that great numbers of individuals do oppress great numbers of other individuals that parties often if not always oppress other parties and majorities almost universally minorities All that this observation can mean then consistently with any color of fact is that the people will never unanimously agree to oppress themselves But if one party agrees to oppress another or the majority the minority the people still oppress themselves for one part of them oppress another.


-John Adams

The essence of Government is power and power lodged as it must be in human hands will ever be liable to abuse In monarchies the interests and happiness of all may be sacrificed to the caprice and passions of a despot In aristocracies the rights and welfare of the many may be sacrificed to the pride and cupidity of the few In republics the great danger is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority Some gentlemen consulting the purity and generosity of their own minds without adverting to the lessons of experience would find a security against that danger in our social feelings in a respect for character in the dictates of the monitor within in the interests of individuals in the aggregate interests of the community But man is known to be a selfish as well as a social being Respect for character though often a salutary restraint is but too often overruled by other motives When numbers of men act in a body respect for character is often lost just in proportion as it is necessary to control what is not right We all know that conscience is not a sufficient safe guard and besides that conscience itself may be deluded may be misled by an unconscious bias into acts which an enlightened conscience would forbid As to the permanent interest of individuals in the aggregate interests of the community and in the proverbial maxim that honesty is the best policy present temptation is often found to be an overmatch for those considerations These favourable attributes of the human character are all valuable as auxiliaries but they will not serve as a substitute for the coercive provision belonging to Government and Law They will always in proportion as they prevail be favourable to a mild administration of both but they can never be relied on as a guaranty of the rights of the minority against a majority disposed to take unjust advantage of its power The only effectual safeguard to the rights of the minority must be laid in such a basis and structure of the Government itself as may afford, in a certain degree directly or indirectly a defensive authority in behalf of a minority having right on its side.

To come more nearly to the subject before the Committee viz that peculiar feature in our community which calls for a peculiar division in the basis of our government I mean the coloured part of our population It is apprehended if the power of the Commonwealth shall be in the hands of a majority who have no interest in this species of property that from the facility with which it may be oppressed by excessive taxation injustice may be done to its owners It would seem therefore if we can incorporate that interest into the basis of our system it will be the most apposite and effectual security that can be devised Such an arrangement is recommended to me by many very important considerations It is due to justice due to humanity due to truth to the sympathies of our nature in fine to our character as a people both abroad and at home that they should be considered as much as possible in the light of human beings and not as mere property As such they are acted upon by our laws and have an interest in our laws They may be qonsidered as making a part though a degraded part of the families to which they belong <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=B0waAAAAYAAJ&dq=James%20Madison%20minorit y%20majority&pg=PA362&ci=185,209,793,644&source=bo okclip">The Writings of James Madison : 1819-1836. comprising his public papers and his private correspondence, including numerous letters and documents now for the first time printed By James Madison, Gaillard Hunt</a>

-James Madison

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

This is where deep understanding of the founding of our governmental structure is and the reasoning behind it is required. You won't get this information for the Levins of the world for they betray you at the expense of making a buck. Me, I go straight to the source...the writings of John Adams a.k.a. Marchmont Nedham and James Madison.

I wouldn't consider Levin a sell-out. You may not agree with his views but to label him as a sell-out is incorrect. A lot more substance to Levin than most of the talking heads.

Good read on your quotes, but as I knew they would, they refer to the overall structure of government, not the judical branch in particular. I agree that the primary function of the overall structure of our government is to protect the rights of the few against the will of the many. Lately, this appears to be good news for us poor conservatives

To my point: "Interpreting the laws and Constitution of the U.S., with regards to the cases presented to it, is the single most important job of the judicial branch"

from whitehouse.gov: ".....The courts only try actual cases and controversies — a party must show that it has been harmed in order to bring suit in court. This means that the courts do not issue advisory opinions on the constitutionality of laws or the legality of actions if the ruling would have no practical effect....
.....Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. "

The Judicial Branch

[saden1]

A little research goes a long way. Sotomayor is good to go.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

A little research goes a long way. Sotomayor is good to go.

Curious which case MM is not considering based on the list below from CNN. I'm assuming they're not including Ricci. Also which is the second upheld case?

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)

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Curious which case MM is not considering based on the list below from CNN. I'm assuming they're not including Ricci. Also which is the second upheld case?

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)

60% reversal rate is not from MM but rather the ultra conservative Washington Times and one of the perpetrators of the "reversal rate should be a concern" talking point. They don't even cite where they come up with that number (no surprise there) and MM is simply pointing out the reversal rate of the high courts over the last 5 years. Honestly though, one doesn't need to do much research to formulate a rough estimate of high court reversal rate of lower court decisions.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

60% reversal rate is not from MM but rather the ultra conservative Washington Times and one of the perpetrators of the "reversal rate should be a concern" talking point. They don't even cite where they come up with that number (no surprise there) and MM is simply pointing out the reversal rate of the high courts over the last 5 years. Honestly though, one doesn't need to do much research to formulate a rough estimate of high court reversal rate of lower court decisions.

The one that is of concern is the one that says "reason unanimously faulted". Everyone knows that judges make decisions based on their biases, but the good ones find a legal argument to back it up. She doesn't seem to think that's necessary.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The one that is of concern is the one that says "reason unanimously faulted". Everyone knows that judges make decisions based on their biases, but the good ones find a legal argument to back it up. She doesn't seem to think that's necessary.

No because she has a richness of heritage and diversity that provides her magical wisdom unencumbered by silly legal reasoning.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The one that is of concern is the one that says "reason unanimously faulted". Everyone knows that judges make decisions based on their biases, but the good ones find a legal argument to back it up. She doesn't seem to think that's necessary.

I have stated just as much. The irony is, of course, that those who advocate for state rights have forgone such sentiments with respect to Sotomyors ruling in Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch because it does not suite their current desire to justify her deficiency as a Supreme Court candidate.

In times of war one must be willing to use the ammunition of the enemy and fire at will!

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Curious which case MM is not considering based on the list below from CNN. I'm assuming they're not including Ricci. Also which is the second upheld case?

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)

Not sure how CNN got this information, but FactCheck.org says that she has been overturned just three times by the Supreme Court. Three of her appellate opinions have been overturned, which is 1.3 percent of all that she has written and 60 percent of those reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Normally, the Supreme Court reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Not sure how CNN got this information, but FactCheck.org says that she has been overturned just three times by the Supreme Court. Three of her appellate opinions have been overturned, which is 1.3 percent of all that she has written and 60 percent of those reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Normally, the Supreme Court reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears.

I heard she has had 5 or 6 cases go to the SC and either 2 or 3 over turned and one is still pending.