Global Unity 2.0
  Flawed Legal Reasoning

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Flawed Legal Reasoning

Posts: 231
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 27, 2009 09:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
So, O'Bomber has nominated a racist Latina woman for the US Supreme Court. This woman has been reversed by higher courts at the rate of 60% on appeals from her court rulings. One of her racist decisions is before the US Supreme Court now.

But, she's a woman and she's a minority. Surely, that is sufficient to get her confirmed to the US Surpeme Court...or so demoscats would have us believe.

Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court
By Stephen Dinan
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

But opponents have an uphill battle.

Judge Sotomayor already has been confirmed for the federal bench twice: unanimously in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush nominated her to a district court, and by a vote of 67-29 in 1998, after President Clinton nominated her to the appeals court. Seven Republicans who voted for her in 1997 are still in the Senate, and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said "they're certainly well positioned to support her again."

Mr. Gibbs dismissed questions about Judge Sotomayor's reversal rate, saying she wrote 380 majority opinions during her 11 years on the appeals court. Of those 380 opinions, the Supreme Court heard five of the cases and overturned her on three.

"The totality of the record is one that's more important to look at, rather than, like I said, some out-of-context or clipped way of looking at it," Mr. Gibbs said.

While Democratic senators were quick to back Judge Sotomayor, Republicans took a wait-and-see approach, saying they will judge her by her answers at her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Still, Republicans will be under pressure from conservative and libertarian activist groups, who say the questions are mounting. The activists are looking forward to the Supreme Court's expected ruling next month in the Ricci case on race-based employment promotions.

Court watchers predict a majority of justices will rule in favor of New Haven, Conn., firefighters who said the city discriminated against them after it tested them for promotions, then scrapped the results after it realized a disproportionate number of whites would be promoted. Judge Sotomayor was part of a unanimous three-judge panel that issued an unsigned opinion ruling against the firefighters and in favor of the city.

"Given the way she recently all but dismissed the Ricci case ... and the expectation, based on oral argument, that the Supreme Court will reverse the 2nd Circuit decision, there will likely be an extremely contentious confirmation battle ahead," said Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute. "If confirmation hearings are scheduled for summer, they will follow shortly upon the Courts decision in that explosive case."

The White House was cognizant of the danger that case could present. An administration official, briefing reporters after the announcement, said Judge Sotomayor was not specifically asked about the case since it may come back before the Supreme Court with her as a member.

But the official said Judge Sotomayor's reading of the law in the case was well founded and defendable.

"It was a unanimous decision by the panel that she sat on, it applied 2nd Circuit law***There is no such thing as 2nd Circuit Law*** very faithfully and did rely upon what was a very thoughtful, well-written district court opinion and adopted that opinion," the administration official said. The White House refused to allow the official to be quoted by name.

Maybe more so than her judicial rulings, Judge Sotomayor can expect to be asked about her temperament as a judge and about her remarks during speeches and conferences.

The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary lists a series of quotes from lawyers praising her legal ability, but she also drew barbs from lawyers who said she is abusive in the courtroom: "She really lacks judicial temperament," one lawyer told the publication.

In 2002, in a speech in California, Judge Sotomayor said race or sex does affect a judge's rulings, and said because of that, a minority woman is a better decider than a white man: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life."

Three years later, at a panel discussion at Duke Law School, she seemed to endorse judicial activism on the appeals courts, telling students considering clerkships: "Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know - I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know."

A clip of the Duke comment on YouTube has been widely accessed by conservative activists.

Mr. Gibbs said the YouTube clip does not do justice to the context of Judge Sotomayor's comments, and said her record on the courts will be her answer to critics.

"The president is very convinced that people will look at the full context of this and not rely on, as I said, a small, short, out-of-context YouTube clip, and more importantly look at the basis of her entire record. I think you come to a broader understanding of who she is and what she meant," Mr. Gibbs said.

Kara Rowland and Tom LoBianco contributed to this

IP: Logged


Posts: 231
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 27, 2009 09:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message
May 27, 2009
Supreme Contortions
By Sally Zelikovsky

With the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor comes yet another democrat sleight of hand--ignoring one reality and twisting another.

Obama calls for a Supreme Court justice who "understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."

In addition to experience, competence, intelligence and a law degree, Mr. Obama is seeking a resume with the added virtues of empathy and the experience of having overcome life's obstacles.

A close examination of a few of the sitting Supreme Court justices should shed some light on Obama's expectation that empathy and a tough life will necessarily translate into the kind of justice Obama would like to see on the bench.

If, indeed, overcoming life's hardships is critical to one's nomination and somehow perceived as an indication of how a justice will rule from the supreme bench, then Clarence Thomas, would surely win the prize. Having come from probably the poorest background of any of the sitting justices, no father in the family picture, raised by his grandparents and having clawed his way through schools and life with only his intellect as a guide, he should be revered by the left.

Instead, he was reviled and maligned before stepping foot onto the bench and has been anything but lauded for his Supreme Court decisions. Clearly misguided, the left perceives Thomas as a sell-out, an Uncle Tom, who, because of his conservative viewpoint, does not rule from his heart and is not driven by the empathy and compassion he should possess based on his personal experiences. (Ironically, Thomas is more or less the conscience of the Court, often reminding his brothers and sisters of the Court's proper role, ever toeing the line that judges should not legislate from the bench. He has often expressed discomfort with the outcome of some of the decisions but has made clear that they are issues to be resolved by the legislature and not the Court.)

Had life's hardships and Thomas' ability to relate to the average guy on the street been requirements for his nomination and accurately predicted his popularity as a justice, he would be batting 1000 in the eyes of the left. But the left perceives the second black man on the bench, who is from the poorest most dysfunctional background, as a big zero. Plugging Thomas' life experience into the Obama equation proves that background does not equal satisfactory performance.

When the Thomas story is contrasted with that of Justice Stevens, a veritable jurisprudential icon of the left, the sheer inanity of Obama's reasoning emerges. Stevens, who is white, comes from probably the most affluent background of all of the sitting justices--the son of a man who made a fortune in the insurance and hotel business. He led a life of privilege and, according to the left, a life which should immediately disqualify him from a seat on the Supreme Court because a white man of such wealth and prominence could never possess the empathy or understanding to relate to the common man.

And yet, this white man of status, has proven to be one of the most liberal justices on the Court, whose opinions are praised by progressives. While he should be a big zero, he is batting 1000 in the eyes of the left (and is still going strong at 89). Again, plugging Stevens' life experience into the Obama equation proves that background does not equal satisfactory performance.

In reality, sitting on the Supreme Court is a man of little means and comfort, who grew up black and poor, and should, by all meaningful liberal calculations, be a superb Supreme Court justice, yet his opinions are condemned by the left. In stark contrast to this is a man on the bench of considerable means and comfort, who grew up white and wealthy and should stand in complete contradiction to everything the left stands for, yet is the standard-bearer for the liberal jurisprudential mantra of legislating from the bench.

We are left with a nomination process that has no bearing whatsoever on reality (the reality being that each nominee's judicial philosophy and actual record are paramount), but on a perceived reality that a nominee's past personal history is tantamount to his/her decision-making abilities as, it is hoped, will be the case with Sonia Sotomayor--even though it is certainly not the reality among those currently sitting on the bench.

Simply put: there is no guarantee that one's background or station in life, let alone color, gender or ethnicity will dictate one's judicial philosophy and, while interesting, should not factor into a Supreme Court nomination. Supreme Court case law is rife with rulings that benefit Americans of all shapes and sizes and were handed down by...white men. If we accept as true the fact that white men are incapable of handing down legal decisions that benefit minorities, then, taken to its logical extreme, we would have to go through the contortions of doing away with Brown v. Board of Education given that all of the Supreme Court justices in 1954 were white men. That's how twisted Obama's reasoning is.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us |

Copyright 2008

Powered by Infopop © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a