Souter to retire from Supreme Court

[southsider2k5]

Considering the attack campaign against Justice Sotomayer started the moment Souter announced his retirement, I think you're right, and I think that she'll have hte hardest time of any potential nominee. If she doesn't put on a Roberts-like performance in her confirmation hearings, then we're going to get the beautiful spectacle of 40 or so white males lecturing a hispanic woman for hours on end about the evils of abortion on the floor of the Senate. I think this will genuinely be a 58-41 cloture vote.

 

 

The appellate court judge who ruled against the MLB owners and helped bring an end to the strike of 1995? Sonia Sotomayer.

 

Sounds like the sanctification process started at about the same time.

[StrangeSox]

Already digging out the quotes:

 

"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[...]"

 

“court of appeals is where policy is made.”

[Texsox]

Sounds like the sanctification process started at about the same time.

great point . Nothing like watching our two biggest brands, and no that is not Coke and Pepsi or McDonalds and Burger King square off.

 

As Kap would say

/popping some corn, watching the show.

[NorthSideSox72]

Already digging out the quotes:

 

"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[...]"

 

“court of appeals is where policy is made.”

I saw that first quote earlier, and I have to say it does bother me a bit.

 

The second quote I hadn't seen, but the word "policy" is fuzzy anyway. She didn't say law, but she also didn't say precedence or jurisprudence.

 

So here is one that threw me for a loop... the articles I've read are saying she would be the first Hispanic named to the court. I actually thought Alito was hispanic, but I guess he's not.

 

 

 

[lostfan]

I saw that first quote earlier, and I have to say it does bother me a bit.

 

The second quote I hadn't seen, but the word "policy" is fuzzy anyway. She didn't say law, but she also didn't say precedence or jurisprudence.

 

So here is one that threw me for a loop... the articles I've read are saying she would be the first Hispanic named to the court. I actually thought Alito was hispanic, but I guess he's not.

Before he picked Roberts, I remember a press conference where Bush jokingly nodded towards Alberto Gonzalez. Holy s*** that would have been awful.

[Chet Lemon]

Probably less than the Democratic filibuster of Hispanic Judge Miguel Estrada. Mainstream Media= The Republicans dare not filibuster an hispanic woman!

 

Miguel Estrada successfully filibustered by the Dems= MSM SHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

Trent Lott delayed any up or down vote on Sotomayor's nomination for well over a year. As the '98 mid-terms got closer, they broke and let her have a vote b/c some Republicans didn't want to look hostile/obstructionist before voters back home. Democrats delayed Estrada's vote, and unlike Sotomayor, he chose to withdraw his nomination.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Before he picked Roberts, I remember a press conference where Bush jokingly nodded towards Alberto Gonzalez. Holy s*** that would have been awful.

Yes, as bad as Alito is (and he is by far the worst on that court IMO), Gonzalez would have been like making Andy Gonzalez your everyday leadoff hitter.

 

[Texsox]

Yes, as bad as Alito is (and he is by far the worst on that court IMO), Gonzalez would have been like making Andy Gonzalez your everyday leadoff hitter.

 

a tip of the cap to that analogy

[Heads22]

Things I've also heard:

 

Sotomayor was actually a policy director under Stalin.

She's been arrested 4 times for trying to break in and burn the Constitution.

Every morning, she sprinkles her cereal with burnt babies.

 

Not to mention she supports Brian Anderson in CF.

[StrangeSox]

She was involved in this case:

 

http://www.reason.com/news/show/119481.html

On January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Bart Didden, an entrepreneur in Port Chester, New York. It thus let stand one of the more egregious abuses of eminent domain authority since the court's infamous Kelo v. New London case of 2005, which upheld the government's right to seize property from one private party and give it to another in the name of economic development.

 

In 2003 Bart Didden set out to build a CVS drugstore on property he owned in Port Chester, New York. Unfortunately, a developer hired by the town had other plans for Didden's land. The developer wanted to put up a Walgreens drugstore on the same property, so he demanded that Didden either pay $800,000 to "make him go away" or pony up a 50 percent stake in the CVS. Didden refused.

 

Just a day later, the Village of Port Chester condemned Didden's land, which it planned to hand over to the developer. Didden sued, but last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled the condemnation was consistent with Kelo.

 

"It took me years of hard work to buy that property, pay off my mortgages and really feel like I own it," Didden said in a December press release issued by his attorneys at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm that frequently handles eminent domain cases.

 

"Kelo did spark a massive public backlash," says Institute for Justice attorney Dana Berliner, "but at the same time it emboldened local governments to further abuse of eminent domain for private purposes. And it emboldened courts to approve these abuses."

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0324/040.html

This is America. People can't just snatch your property, can they? They can if the Supreme Court lets them.

 

Hamlet condemned "the law's delay." He might have had second thoughts had he lived today in the Village of Port Chester, northeast of New York City. There the sharp-elbowed world of real estate development shows why moving too fast can be just as dangerous as moving too slowly.

 

In 1999 Port Chester established a redevelopment area, in which new projects could be built only after getting approval from a village-designated private individual, Gregory Wasser, to whom the municipality inexplicably delegated its regulatory authority. In 2003 two owners of a plot within the redevelopment zone, Bart Didden and Domenick Bologna, asked Wasser for permission to build a CVS pharmacy. According to Didden and Bologna, Wasser responded: Either pay me $800,000 to build, give me a piece of the action, or I'll have the village take the property. The day after they spurned the offer, Port Chester did indeed start the takings process. Wasser then arranged for Walgreen (nyse: WAG - news - people ) to develop the site.

 

This little episode represents a sorry example of what political actors can legally do with unchecked condemnation power. Why, one might ask, wasn't Wasser's land grab an unconstitutional taking for private purposes? (Didden sees it as extortion; Wasser defends his actions as promoting urban renewal.) This constitutional question of when takings are "for public use" has been front and center since the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allowed the city to take private homes for private development.

 

Didden and Bologna lost a federal case to block the taking. The Supreme Court, duly burned by the public backlash against its decision in Kelo, refused to hear the case. Of course, Didden and Bologna are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to just compensation for the property taken and are litigating in state court over the amount. How much will they get? Here lies another open wound in the modern takings system.

 

In theory, just compensation should make the property owner as well off as he was before his property was taken. But in practice that never happens. Didden and Bologna won't get any compensation for the work they did to put together the CVS deal. Nor will they recover their legal, expert or appraisal fees. The village, for its part, has paid undisclosed legal fees to fight Didden. It has also, so far, paid Didden and Bologna $975,000 for their parcel. Didden terms that a "down payment" on the final sum, which could equal or exceed the property's assessed valuation of $1.6 million.

 

It takes no financial wizardry to see that the expenses on both sides of this high-priced battle are a social waste if all they do is replace a CVS pharmacy with a Walgreens. The Port Chester saga reveals the institutional flaw of modern takings law. Undue judicial deference creates large amounts of government discretion that in turn invites self-interested actors to game the system. Current constitutional law subjects most development rights to government vetoes, which invite perpetual intrigue and personal favoritism.

 

Yet our Supreme Court remains on a constitutional holiday. Over and over the justices blithely assume that conscientious planners acting in good faith are entitled to ample discretion in allocating the costs and benefits of our social life. Sounds great on paper, but the sorry saga of Port Chester shows that when it comes to real estate, we have a government not of laws but of politicians. In matters that they really care about, like race and free speech, judges are quite capable of seeing through airy abstractions to harsh realities. Why can't they do the same for property rights?

 

This plea will not sound out of place to those who recall that our Constitution historically rested on the proposition that private property was the guardian of every other right. Having lost that vision, we can count on more Port Chesters in our future--more official abuses of the state's eminent domain power.

 

[mr_genius]

Considering the attack campaign against Justice Sotomayer started the moment Souter announced his retirement, I think you're right, and I think that she'll have hte hardest time of any potential nominee. If she doesn't put on a Roberts-like performance in her confirmation hearings, then we're going to get the beautiful spectacle of 40 or so white males lecturing a hispanic woman for hours on end about the evils of abortion on the floor of the Senate. I think this will genuinely be a 58-41 cloture vote.

 

everyones racist except you

[Texsox]

everyones racist except you

 

impossible to pull that out. Especially when it is a "first".

[mr_genius]

i don't see why the GOP would bother to protest the nomination, but they probably will anyways.

[lostfan]

i don't see why the GOP would bother to protest the nomination, but they probably will anyways.

Campaign funding

[Texsox]

Campaign funding

 

Energize their base, etc etc etc

 

Same for the other side

[Balta1701]

i don't see why the GOP would bother to protest the nomination, but they probably will anyways.

I don't see why they wouldn't. They haven't had a chance to genuinely make the abortion arguments in years. Decades even.

[mr_genius]

I don't see why they wouldn't. They haven't had a chance to genuinely make the abortion arguments in years. Decades even.

 

If she totally bombs I guess it could be funny to see her get asked questions and totally flop. I suppose that would be a personal bonus for the Senate GOP. Not sure it will help them politically, but they really don't have much to lose. Almost everyone already hates the Republicans

Edited May 26, 2009 by mr_genius

[BearSox]

Hate the Sotomayer nomination for several reasons, but that should be no surprise for anyone who's come to know me on here.

 

Nice, according to her, white males can't interpret the laws and consitution like a latino female. Yeah, that makes sense.

Edited May 27, 2009 by BearSox

[GoSox05]

Hate the Sotomayer nomination for several reasons, but that should be no surprise for anyone who's come to know me on here.

 

Nice, according to her, white males can't interpret the laws and consitution like a latino female. Yeah, that makes sense.

 

 

Poor white males. Always getting s*** on.

[Controlled Chaos]

Poor white males. Always getting s*** on.

Especially if we're talking about white dyslexic males...

[NorthSideSox72]

I think Sotomayor is clearly well qualified, and her jurisprudence from what I have seen has stood up pretty well. She's a far better candidate than that hack Alito.

 

But... and I can't believe I am going to do this...

 

Nice, according to her, white males can't interpret the laws and consitution like a latino female. Yeah, that makes sense.

 

I tend to agree with BearSox here, in that her statement about her background making her more able to interperet law is disturbing. I'd like to see the context (I actually looked around and can't find it), but as it stands, its a haunting and racist message, IMO.

 

[kapkomet]

All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. (laughing) Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it and I'm not advocating it. I'm -- you know. (laughing)

 

and

 

...Sotomayor stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their 'experiences as women and people of color,' which she believes should 'affect our decisions.'" ...

 

...She went on to say in that same speech at Berkeley, "'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 hasn't lived that life.'...

 

She's perfect! Living and breathing, you know.

 

[lostfan]

Please explain to me how an appellate judge or a Supreme Court justice does not make policy.

 

Plain and simple, yes, they do. Whether they are liberal or conservative. When an appellate court makes a ruling it sets a precedent for the lower courts to follow, likewise for the Supreme Court. The case wouldn't go up if it was clearly and easily defined (because of $$$).

 

To pretend otherwise is pretty much trying to bulls*** yourself because it's simply not true.

Edited May 27, 2009 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

Please explain to me how an appellate judge or a Supreme Court justice does not make policy.

 

Plain and simple, yes, they do. Whether they are liberal or conservative. When an appellate court makes a ruling it sets a precedent for the lower courts to follow, likewise for the Supreme Court. The case wouldn't go up if it was clearly and easily defined (because of $$$).

 

To pretend otherwise is pretty much trying to bulls*** yourself because it's simply not true.

No they don't - at least they are not supposed to. They are supposed to INTERPRET the law, and if the law is f***ed up, they (legislative branch) go back and re-write it to pass Constitutional muster. PERIOD. What is all this relativism for? Why do libs love to hang themselves on everything being relative?

[lostfan]

No they don't - at least they are not supposed to. They are supposed to INTERPRET the law, and if the law is f***ed up, they (legislative branch) go back and re-write it to pass Constitutional muster. PERIOD. What is all this relativism for? Why do libs love to hang themselves on everything being relative?

Constitutional interpretations of the law = legal rulings = policy. Outside of that I have no idea what you're talking about.