Did Scalia Makes Sotomayor’s Case For Her?
by Big Dog on Jun 5, 2009 at 18:28 Political
Someone at the Taylor Marsh blog has the smoking gun with regard to Sotomayor. Those not living in a cave know that she has stated that judges make law and then said she knew she should not say it. Well, someone who goes by djjl posted:
“Sotomayor needn’t worry about talking about how policy is made at the appeals level on videotape. Why, some justices on the Supreme Court have said the same thing and baked it into their judicial decisions. Like, say, noted leftist jurist Antonin Scalia, who, in the majority opinion of 2002 case Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, wrote:
This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of “representative government” might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to “make” common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States’ constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.”
I am no legal scholar but this ruling seems to be different than what Sotomayor was saying. This ruling deals with state court judges and their ability to “make” law (notice the quotes). I don’t think Scalia was agreeing with the idea that it happens. I believe he was saying that they have the power to do it and they do which is why the election of STATE judges became popular.
The issue at hand was a law that prevented judges from discussing issues while campaigning if they could come before the court the person was elected to. The decision by the SCOTUS was that the rule (known as an Announce Clause) was a violation of First Amendment right.
One would have to ask Scalia what he meant but it would be helpful to read the entire ruling to better understand this.
There is no doubt that some of the positions taken by Sotomayor have been taken by others. All people will be influenced somewhat by their experiences and there is no way to get around that. Sotomayor took it a step further by asserting her experiences would allow her to make a better decision than some white guy.
One commenter at Taylor Marsh wrote:
I’ll tell you, it’s a shame that gutter politics has stooped to a new low with this nomination. There is nothing wrong with this nomination and the right wing has to trash her. It’s beyond the boundaries of spirited politics. It’s like everyone who gets nominated better prepare to get trashed. Amazing.
I imagine this is some young easily swayed liberal with a head full of mush. Gutter politics have stooped this low with THIS nomination. Where was this person when John Roberts and Samuel Alito were being confirmed? Alito caught hell from, of all people, Ted Kennedy for belonging to a group that did not like the idea of women being at Princeton (Kennedy belonged to a a group that did not allow women while he was attacking Alito). I don’t want to rehash the issue because it was benign but will anyone make an issue of the fact that Sotomayor belongs to a group that is for women only?
Personally, I don’t care if people belong to groups that disallow certain people. If blacks want to have a group of only blacks (and they have many) then fine. If whites or Asians or anyone else wants that, fine. So long as they are not groups that try to discriminate against people then they can invite who they want.
But back to the point, where was the commenter when Judge Bork was nominated? If you want stooping to a new low, that was it. Ted Kennedy went on the Senate floor less than an hour after Bork’s nomination was announced and said this:
“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.” Wikipedia
This is an attack and it was an unfair and slimy attack. If you want unfair then this is it. The commenter laments that anyone who is nominated better be prepared because of what is happening to Sotomayor. Right, the standard was set by Ted Kennedy and it continues to this day. The commenter is upset at the right wing attack machine. Where was this commenter (and all other liberals) when Kennedy was the left wing attack machine?
I don’t want to hear liberal pukes crying about the way Sotomayor is treated. They were all at Kennedy’s feet kissing his shoes when he attacked Bork. None of them came out and cried about how unfair it was or how things had degraded.
Ted Kennedy had spoken and that was good enough for them.
If Bork were confirmed women would be forced into back alley abortions. I wonder why no one said that if Kennedy were elected women would be forced into the back seat of submerged vehicles where they would die a horrible death while he laid on a bridge in the fetal position crying why me, why me. That would be the most accurate of the two statements.
Anyway, Sotomayor needs to be taken to task for everything. Republicans in the Senate need to grow a spine and attack her on it all. This is a lifetime appointment so we need to hammer her on all points.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: judge, Obama, scalia, sotomayor, supreme court
All of her decisions should be carefully scrutinized, because she, after all has a 60% fail rate before the SCOTUS- the Ricci decision with the firefighters might come into play, but she should know that while a state judge, and even a single Federal judge can at times, venture into uncharted territory when reaching a decision, by the time it gets to SCOTUS, no law is “made”- rather the Constitution must be interpreted to find if this new law falls within these bounds. That is proper law.
1) 60% “fail rate” is better than average.
2) I had forgotten just how bad Bork was.
3) She will sail through.
4) The answer to the question is yes.
D.
—————–
ps. Typo in the title.
60% is less than a coin flip- nor good
Bork was not bad- Teddy moron is a demagogue.
Yes, she probably will, but the Repubs need to question her intensely- due diligence and all that.
I am not sure of your reference to a “question”,so I won’t attempt to answer that one, and
in your P.S.- S*** happens, does it not?
Yes it does happen. Nothing wrong with doing the favor of politely pointing it out eh?
The question, is in the title.
D.
And Scalia did not answer it. He was discussing state judges who are elected as opposed to federal judges who are appointed. I wanted to see which moonbats jumped on it.
She is qualified to be on the bench, the question is should she be and that is a no. Her 60% failure is claimed as normal by people who selected a small timeframe to compare and compared all judges as a whole in order to make her look the same. 40% had a better rate and would probably be better qualified.
They are either conservative or not the right demographic. Ethnicity and sex should never be a criteria for the court but they are at the sake of competent people.
Bork was not bad. Kennedy was bad. It is amazing you guys keep people like Ted Kennedy and demonize those like Bork. Thanks for the heads up on the typo.
BIGD: “Ethnicity and sex should never be a criteria for the court but they are at the sake of competent people.>>
DAR
You really shouldn’t be so hard on Clarence. He tries his best.
I have no problem with purposely selecting a court that reflects the constituents it serves. When we advised Iraq in making their constitution we recommended they require 25% of their positions in national and local government be set aside for women. They did it and now their “interim constitution guarantees at least a quarter of the 275 seats in Iraq’s new National Assembly to women.”
That’s a very positive change from the old ways.
And this is not uncommon, more than “eighty countries around the world, recognizing women’s exclusion from the political process, now have quotas.”
This is another lesson from Islam’s decline. Repress women at your peril. When you concentrate power in the hands of the men you throw away half of your societies intellectual capital and get a bunch of white guys doing a circle jerk and protecting the interests of their own fannies and the power structure that seated them (see Roberts blurb below). Democracy is about spreading that power around, women included.
Incidentally, Obama’s pick is polling well:
“In the new poll, half said [Sotomayor] should be seated on the court while 22 percent opposed her confirmation. About a third had a favorable view of Sotomayor while 18 percent viewed her unfavorably.
She was looked upon more positively than any of three Supreme Court nominees President George W. Bush put forward over four months in 2005: Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Harriet Miers,…”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090602/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_sotomayor
D.
————————-
“The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.”
You seem to lose sight of the fact that this nation was founded as a Republic, not a Democracy- there IS a difference, or don’t you know?
Our “republic” is a form of democracy.
D.
————–
“In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.[64] The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy…”
You just seemed to need clarification, so i thought i’d help you out.
The mainstream media wouldn’t do it. So we are trying to get your important messages to the American people. 41 This post is a suggested read at, http://aresay.blogspot.com/
A Democracy exists when majority rules. A representative government, like a republic then the elected officials represent those who elected them. Therefore, a majority might not rule.
It is important to NOT have the majority rule or 50.1% of the people can vote to tell the other 49.9% what to do like pay all the taxes.
Once again you misstate. I never said women should not be on the court. I said that should not be the criteria. And it should not.
If a good judge is a woman then fine, put her up. If it is a minority, fine put him up, if it is a good white person then put them up. But don’t play affirmative action or quotas with the court.
And it would depend on who you asked if she were viewed more favorably.
People like you assume that since Roberts has mostly sided with prosecution rather than defendant then he must be some activist. Perhaps the prosecutions had the better, CONSTITUTIONAL case.
Who do you suppose he will side with on Ricci? Who did Soto mayor side with? Oh yeah, big gubmint and the blacks who failed the test.
I am astounded that anyone could think that a 60% overturn rate is normal or acceptable. I work with judges all the time and those kinds of rates would make them hide their faces in shame! We have some seriously bad ones in Baltimore City and I mean bad from a standpoint that they do not run an unbiased or “politically correct” court but they still have much better rates than 60%. They also know that their job is to enforce laws and not to create ones or set aside those they don’t like.
I do not think the Supreme Court’s make-up should be based on anything other than the qualifications and abilities of the judge period. As long as the court is made up of Americans than that is representative of the people they are there to serve. First and foremost we should all be Americans – our gender and ethnic considerations should not be an issue. Making it one and insisting that the court hold certain seats (i.e., a Hispanic seat to represent Hispanics or whatever) is IMHO the definition of preferential (either racist or sexist, depending on the case) treatment and should never be acceptable. They should be setting the example for others to show that those characteristics are irrelevant and then perhaps everyone can start to learn that lesson – including the minorities.
I personally don’t care if she’s a woman, one legged, one eyed, and purple, as long as she interprets the law, and doesn’t “empathetically ” make law. That is where her 60% fail rate comes from- the touchy- feely side of her.
You might think, ” Oh- that poor man”, when considering a case where a homeless, hungry man held up someone to get money to eat, but in the end, HE HELD UP SOMEONE, and must be judged on his act, not his intentions or needs.