Scott Allan's World

6 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

1. Sotomayer’s statement is not politically correct.
    
   Here is the edited version, which fixes the problem:
    
   “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 only experiences the richness of a life of unearned wealth born of generational shame and inheritance, borne from a shameful legacy of slavery, racism, and economic subjugation of entire classes of people who may or may not be able to complete a provisional ballot without the assistance of community organizers.”
    
   Thanks for the opportunity to clarify the matter.

   Ikes last blog post..Truly Powerful Addiction

   1. Ike on May 26th, 2009 at 2:43 pm

2. Rush:
   She is a horrible pick. She is the antithesis of a judge, by her own admission and in her own words. She has been overturned 80% by the Supreme Court…She has been reprimanded by a truly strong Hispanic judge, Jose Cabranes. She has been rebuked in writing by Cabranes for opinions that she wrote that had no bearing on the constitutional issues before her in the case that was being decided. Details on that coming up.
   None of this is surprising, considering who nominated her.
   

   2. Julie on May 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pm

3. I disagree with Judge Sotomayor’s statement and I’m surprised she said it.   Had a white male judge said this about white males it probably would have disqualified him from selection.
   It’s unlikely this will stop her confirmation so the question now is, is this attitude reflected in her court decisions?

   3. Silke on June 5th, 2009 at 8:39 pm

4. Wow, Silke, I almost would have expected you to defend her.   I don’t know when we stop following the rule of law and started following the rule of empathy.   I’m starting to question the wisdom in appointing someone for life who is accountable to no one.  The people voting for her are the same people who voted for the “stimulus package” without reading it.  I hate to see a decision of this magnitude get a political rubber stamp.  There seems to be some reported difference between her rulings and her personal statements, however with 3 of 5 decisions already overturned by the Supreme Court and another that will probably be overturned, I am worried.   Her latest case being challenged about the New Haven firefighters not getting their promotions speaks volumes to me.  I seriously hope we don’t end up with two branches of government creating law.

   4. Scott Allan on June 5th, 2009 at 9:17 pm

5. Congress will have at least two months to review her record and question her in depth so I doubt this will be a “rubber stamp.”
   Also, as I understand it Sotomayor’s decision in the Ricci case was actually in support of State which was trying to comply with the law.  So if you’re worried about her creating law, the Ricci case may not be the best example.  You may disagree with the law itself or with the State’ interpretation of how to comply with the law but Sotomayor was not creating new law with her decision not to consider the case.
   Regarding her reversal rate by the Supreme Court, in an eleven-year career she issued 380 opinions.  Five were appealed to the Supreme Court and only three were reversed.  Samuel Alito had two decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court and both were reversed.  Should that have disqualified him from consideration?
    

   5. Silke on June 6th, 2009 at 6:55 am

6. I look for patterns of behavior and although the Ricci case may not seem to be creating law on the surface, Sotomayor is actually supporting a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Act.  This creates a precedent which essentially creates a Super-law that is allowed to violate the Constitution. Supporting a state decision does not mean she supports states rights, but is allowing the state to disregard the Constitution to achieve a political goal.  Couple that with her statements about empathy and racial bias and preference, and a pattern emerges.  Then, add in that a majority of her decisions run contrary to the opinions of the current court and I see cause for concern.

   6. Scott Allan on June 6th, 2009 at 9:49 am