posted May 29, 2009 09:12 AM
Sotomayor has a judicial error rate far above acceptable limits. 60% of her cases which were appealed were reversed by the US Supreme Court. We don't need those who don't know the law or who ignore the law for racial bias, ideology or gender bias or for any other reason sitting on the highest court in America. We expect, and we have the right to expect judges to get the law right, get the facts of cases right and get the US Constitution right. Those who cannot or will not should be removed from federal courts by the impeachment process. That's what the impeachment process is for. Federal Judges serve in lifetime appointments..."During good behavior". Ignoring the laws, making law from the courts and ignoring the US Constitution by substituting their own biases as law IS NOT "good behavior".
This woman doesn't even understand the 1st Amendment right of free speech. I wonder at what age Sotomayor believes Americans acquire free speech rights. Like O'Bomber who can't decide at what age children acquire the right to life...after they're born. Presumably, for both of these leftists there are causal everyday reasons Americans have neither the right to free speech or the right to life.
Free speech rights under the 1st Amendment are not a privledge, they're a RIGHT which is not to be infringed...except under extrodinary circumstances and most certainly NOT in everyday mundane circumstances.
Sotomayor Ruled in "D-Bag Case"
Ruled teen's blog post created a "foreseeable risk of substantial disruption"
By YVONNE NAVA and LEANNE GENDREAU
Updated 12:16 PM EDT, Thu, May 28, 2009
President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy has yet another tie to Connecticut. She sided against a student in the infamous “douche bag” case, and that has upset some free-speech advocates.
In August 2007, Judge Sonia Sotomayor sat on a panel that ruled against an appeal in Doninger v. Niehoff.
Avery Doninger was disqualified from running for school government at Lewis S. Mills High School in Burlington after she posted something on her blog, referring to the superintendent and other officials as "douche bags" because they canceled a battle of the bands she had helped to organize.
The case went to court and in March 2008, Sotomayor was on a panel that heard Doninger’s mother’s appeal alleging her daughter’s free speech and other rights were violated. Her mother wanted to prevent the school from barring her daughter from running.
Sotomayor joined two other judges from the 2nd Circuit in ruling that the student’s off-campus blog remarks created a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption” at the student’s high school and that the teenager was not entitled to a preliminary injunction reversing a disciplinary action against her, Education Week reports.
In their opinion, the judges said they were “sympathetic" to her disappointment at being disqualified from running for Senior Class Secretary and acknowledged her belief that in this case, “the punishment did not fit the crime.”
However, the judges decided they were not called upon to determine if school officials acted wisely.
“As the Supreme Court cautioned years ago, “[t]he system of public education that has evolved in this Nation relies necessarily upon the discretion and judgment of school administrators and school board members,” and we are not authorized to intervene absent “violations of specific constitutional guarantees.” ***Note, it appears these judges, including Sotomayor did understand this students 1st Amendment rights where abridged by the school..and said."So What"?It's also clear these judges knew the student was being punished by the school for the exercise of her Constitutional free speech rights**
The ruling in this case has come under heavy criticism from some civil libertarians. Some say this case presents a solid rationale for rejecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals to fill the seat of retiring Justice David Souter.
“The continual expansion of the authority of school officials over student speech teaches a foul lesson to these future citizens,” Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, told the New Britain Herald. “I would prefer some obnoxious speech [rather] than teaching students that they must please government officials if they want special benefits or opportunities.”