Wednesday, May 27, 2009

AN ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF OBAMA'S SUPREME COURT NOMINATION FROM A SURPRISING SOURCE

If you read this essay from today's NY Times to the end, I think you'll be surprised, and also have a strong argument against the righwing pitbulls who had ads already prepared for Obama's possible Supreme Court nominations before he actually chose one, making it clear it wouldn't matter who he chose, they would be prepared to sling mud.

34 comments:

JIm said...

From one pit-bull to another, I believe Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed if you think it is good for a nominee to the Supreme Court:

-To have been reversed 60% of the time by a higher court
-To have favored one group over another, as she has done and said, as in the current case before the Supreme Court, that is there on appeal from her court, where blacks were favored over white firemen.
-To have said and acted to support the proposition that courts should legislate from the bench contrary to what powers are given the court in the Constitution.
-That her life story is so compelling that she should be shown deference like Justice Thomas was shown deference by Democrats. NOT!

Or if you believe justice should be blind and each case should be weighed on the merits and not in a way to favor one group over another as is prescribed in the Constitution. And if you think that Courts should follow the Constitution and interpret but not legislate from the bench, than Judge Sotomayor is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

TRADEBUM said...

Thats because she's a strict constructionist.

JIm said...

The statement from the linked article on saving baseball is untrue or at the least suspect. In fact the judge intervened on the side of the players or labor and trashed nearly a years worth of negotiation with management.

"Chief Justice John Roberts said in his confirmation hearings that a judge should behave like an umpire. Now President Obama wants to give the court the judge who actually saved baseball.

Gerard N. Magliocca is a law professor at Indiana University at Indianapolis.

Maureen Dowd and Thomas L. Friedman are off today.

okiepete said...

Well said, Jim. Of course, will have to wait for the full process to work out- only fair. Is the pick any surprise? No- Mr. Obama is tacking to his course as planned. My biggest complaint would be on the "experience" comment (& the mindset behind it)-qualifying her abilities based on ethnicity & gender- c'mon, if any white male had on record said ANYTHING CLOSE to that, he would have been an absolute non-starter. As a staunch conservative, I am 100% for equal rights, for all people- that means equal criteria for assessing credentials, ESPECIALLY for a position as this. "What is good for the goose, is good for the gander"- along with equal rights comes equal responsibilites, in all phases.
Mr Obama & crew are certainally in the drivers' seat right now, there is absolutely no doubt 'bout that- BUT, America is still pre-dominately conservative, & hopefully that will again gain centerstage. The "pitbulls" are weak right now, it is true, but they will be back- we can only offer timid resistance now, but we still have to oppose when we can.

JIm said...

okiepete,
I did know you were out there. I believe you have just increased the percentage of Conservatives on this blog by 100%.

Lally said...

She's got more experience as a judge than any member of the Supreme Court (or nominee) in over a hundred years! She graduated Summa Cum Laude (or however you spell it) from Princeton! She's not inexperienced or a dummy (like some now sitting on the court whose names don't even need mentioning). She is an ethnic minority educated at Catholic schools (much like Scalia) and seasoned court watchers say it's impossible to determine how she might vote on abortion and on cases involving business questions (she has been as much pro-business as pro-consumer or worker etc.). What exactly are these rightwingers so frightened of? She sounds like she'll be even more conservative than the judge she's replacing. Give it a rest boys.

JIm said...

Can you imagine if Scalia had said, "because of my life experience as a white Italian I will be better able to judge more fairly than a Puerto Rican or a black would be able to."
Do you think Scalia would have been confirmed? She may not be inexperienced or a dummy, but she gets reversed by higher courts more than 60% of the time. The higher courts seem to find her opinions something less than learned or Constitutionally sound.

Butch in Waukegan said...

Right on Jim & okiepete!

Sonia Sotomayer is just another symptom of the white man getting the short end of the stick.

Why are all the big city police and fire departments overflowing with blacks and hispanics, especially in the top ranks? Discrimination for sure. That’s one of the reasons for the rampant brutality white men face every day.

And every time a man throws his wife off a bridge, or a woman fakes her abduction, who do they blame? White men. Why? Because they know our society was built on the negative stereotypes of white men ingrained into our culture.

Don’t give up hope, Jim and pete. Just today Sen. Jeff Sessions (R, AL) expressed his concern about the biased utterances of Sotomayer. And Sessions certainly knows something about racists remarks.

http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/more-on-sen-sessions-racist/

Things will change. Through the efforts of men like Sessions, Jim and okiepete our country will soon be ruled the way God intended - by white men in robes.

JIm said...

Butch,
Tell it to sheets Bobby Byrd, that revered Democrat.

Racism is always ugly no matter who practices it.

Butch in Waukegan said...

If your point is US society has been, and still is, infected with racism, and it is reflected both parties - agreed. (Remember when Biden was still running for President and he said he really, really admired Obama because he was so smart, and so darn “clean”.)

If, as I suspect, you are saying that white people are currently the primary target of that racism, your full of . . . well it’s too early in the morning to say what needs to be said.

But hey, you and Rove and Sessions can ride that pony until the Republicans are the one, true, White Man’s Party. And here are some people you all might have more affinity with:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=604223

JIm said...

Butch, Are you familiar with the names Clarence Thomas, Michael Steel, Ward Connerly, Linda Chavez, Guiterez etc, etc, I would say it is at least a herd of multi cultural ponies.

JIm said...

Should Sotomayor have recused herself in the New Haven Firemen case? She was a director of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund which brought similar legal actions against cities for discrimination against minorties in the early eighties. I would think a most judges with a judicial sense of fairness would have recused themselves.

John M. Lally said...

Jim:
If a Judge was a former prosecutor, should she recuse herself as judge on all criminal cases? If a Judge is a former corporate attorney, should she recuse herself from all cases against corporations?

Most judges would have recused themselves? That would mean that no judge could practice as an attorney in the same legal field as the cases that come before them.

As is typical of right-wingers, you are taking one of her strengths and citing it as a weakness. Sotomayer has experience in bringing legal actions for discrimination. Most people would think that legal experience would be a plus.

The Republican Party should be very careful about how it treats this nominee. She is a very qualified candidate. She has crucial understanding of Criminal law, and has a corporate law background as well. Obama's next choice may just well be another political hack.

JIm said...

John,
She certainly should not recuse herself in all cases. However she was intimately involved with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund as a director. She participated in decisions to sue cities for racial discrimination, similarly to the Firemen's suite in New Haven. I believe that is an obvious case for recusal.

John M. Lally said...

Jim:

Why?

JIm said...

John,
She should have recused herself because the case that was bought before her was exactly the type of case that she advocated for many times when she was a director of the Puerto Rican group. It was unlikely that she could have been objective since she advocated against people like the white Firemen. In fact the decision was a summary judgement with little or no explanation of law. I understand it is somewhat unusual for summary judgements to be successfully appealed. Thus the Supreme Court probably thinks there was something faulty in the reasoning of the court to take it up.

Butch in Waukegan said...

Jim writes:

She certainly should not recuse herself in all cases. However she was intimately involved with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund as a director. She participated in decisions to sue cities for racial discrimination, similarly to the Firemen's suite in New Haven. I believe that is an obvious case for recusal.Did you apply your high standards to Tony Scalia when he refused to recuse himself in a case where he had a direct conflict of interest?

Scalia [Eugene, Judge Anthony Scalia’s son] also became a source of controversy when his law firm represented George W. Bush in the 2000 Supreme Court case that halted the Florida presidential ballot recount and resulted in Bush becoming president of the US. While Eugene Scalia was not directly involved in the case, the federal statute on recusal requires that a justice recuse himself from any case in which their spouse or child is "known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding." [16] As a partner in the law firm [litigating Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court], Eugene Scalia profited directly from the case both financially and professionally, yet his father Antonin Scalia refused to recuse himself from the case, casting a vote that helped determine who would become the next president of the United States. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Eugene_Scalia

I bet not.

I have no opinion yet on Sonia Sotamayer, but it seems that the only thing that opponents to her can do is spout racist and sexist bullshit.

And Jim is all hot and bothered that maybe, just maybe, sometime in the future, some black or hispanic might catch a break.

John M. Lally said...

Judges don't recuse themselves just because it's the same kind of case they practiced as an attorney. It just doesn't work that way.


It's amazing in this day and age that white males can come to court whining that they have been discriminated against for being white males. These white males are born with an advantage just by virtue of their white penises. Almost by definition, a white male cannot be the victim of racism or sexism. Somehow in the upside-down world, we've come to believe that you can only be a victim of discrimination if you are a white male.

There's a fundamental difference in the philosophy of affirmative action. There is very little support for affirmative action on the Supreme Court as it is now constituted. Obama won the election because people agree with him. He should get his Justice appointed.

JIm said...

Women and minorities have caught a break from Republican administrations by being named Supreme Court Justices, Secratary of State, Attorney General etc. I am not keeping score, but I suspect higher positions first went to minorities and women in Republican administrations.

A supreme court justice's prime responsibility is to interpet the law without reqard to the parties. The most important duty is to rule impartially in conformity with the Constitution. Sotomayor has failed that test more than once.

Butch in Waukegan said...

Answer the question, Jim.

Did you then, and do you now, condemn Anthony Scalia’s refusal to recuse himself from Bush v. Gore, a clear and blatant conflict of interest?

Also, it’s just pathetic that you cite the appointment of black Republican apparatchiks (eg Powell, who attempted to suppress My Lai) as proof of anti-racism.

Lally said...

And Renquist's having worked for the Republican Party (and by the way as an activist attempting to disqualify Hispanics and African-Americans from voting) had no impact on his vote in determining the Bush vs. Gore case (or any other), he just happened to reverse his every pronouncement that states' rights trump the feds in the case where Gore beat Bush in which he sided with the Republican Party (oh my). And Roberts, the supposed "umpire" who just calls'em as he sees him but has no political ax to grind has yet to side with a consumer over a corporation, or any position favored by the Democratic Party over one favored by the Republican Party, et-endlessly-cetera. Give it a break Jim.

JIm said...

It is important that Republicans point out Sotomayor's liberal bias and delay the inevitable if only to set up the 2010 election. Judges are a big deal and elections have consequences. Hopefully,we will will have a Conservative landslide in reaction to the excesses of Obamaism.

JIm said...

To Bork or not to Bork.

Republicans are usually too squemish to get down and dirty like Democrats. Call her a racist. Check into the divorce. Sift through her garbage. Democrats do it reguarly and they were successful in defeating Bork, Migues Estrada etc, etc.

Definition:"to describe someone who is denied something earned simply because they either aren't politically correct enough or aren't trusted - usually without cause. The usage is derived from Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork who though eminently qualified was deemed too "conservative" to serve as a Supreme Court judge. "

JIm said...

Abortion and Sotomayor.

Supposedly she is not a solid abortion supporter like late term and baby born alive killer Democrats, like Obama. I wonder if she would withhold the death penalty on Tiller the Killer's murderer. Hopefully Tiller felt as much pain and suffering as the babies whose heads he crushed in late term abortions.

John M. Lally said...

Dr. Tiller's another notch in Randall Terry's belt. It's good to see Jim already dancing on Tiller's grave. It gives me a sense of who Jim really is.

When the Department of Homeland Security issued it's warning about the escalation of right wing extremist group violence, it was this kind of thing they were warning about. It is the reason why right-wingers were so incensed with the report. They claim a right to vigilantism.

JIm said...

There is a concept of justfiable murder in American law. Unfortunately, this does is not one of those instances. Rather than mourn for Tiller I mourn more for the last baby, whose skull was crushed by Tiller. I also mourn for American justice that allowed this baby killer to act with impunity, and even cover from mostly Democrats like former governor Sibelius.

PS John, Who is Randall Terry?

John M. Lally said...

A domestic terrorist.

JIm said...

John,
Thanks. I looked him up. I did not find where he was convicted of terrorism. Possibly I missed something. His movement sounds more like a civil rights movement for the unborn and about to be murdered. Maybe they will have an effect similar to Dr. King's civil rights movement.

"Operation Rescue National's activities gained attention again in 1991 during the “Summer of Mercy” in Wichita, Kansas, led by Keith Tucci. Thousands of pro-life protesters flocked to Wichita and were arrested at sit-ins (known as “rescues”). The protests were held at an abortion clinic owned and operated by George R. Tiller, and at what was then known as Wichita Family Planning, where a large “rescue” involving members of the clergy took place. Over 1,600 arrests took place during the first three weeks, with thousands of locals gathering and dozens of clergy people becoming involved.[1] The event lasted six weeks, with 2,600 arrests[3] and culminated in a rally that filled Cessna Stadium, featuring Dr. James Dobson. The New York Times ran an article on August 4, 1991, quoting John Snow, a retired accountant who sat on the sidewalk across from Tiller's clinic in Wichita, dispensing Kool-Aid and saying the rosary. "'They're in there killing babies, nothing else, ma'am,' Mr. Snow said."[1] Keith Tucci departed as director after the Summer of Mercy."

Butch in Waukegan said...

Jim writes: “There is a concept of justfiable murder in American law”. Another fallacy blown out of the sphincter of the Alley’s own member of the nutty right.

I would ask Jim to cite something, anything, in United States law that sanctions “justifiable murder”, but that’s not how he plays the game.

Bluster, rant, cut and paste and, when challenged, change the subject and begin the bluster all over again.

Early on in this thread Jim asserted that Sotomayer should have recused herself in the Ricci case for affiliations dating back over 20 years.

Several challenged him on this. For myself, I cited Scalia and his conflict of interest in Bush v. Gore and asked Jim to state his position. The article I linked to cites actual federal code - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/455.html - that indicates Scalia clearly should have recused himself.

Jim has posted a half a dozen times since I asked him about Scalia and Bush v. Gore.

What has been his response? Change the subject, bluster and rant.

JIm said...

Justifiable Murder-

In Colorado we have a "make my day law". If an intruder is killed in a break in it is Tough sh*t for the intruder. In the process of a mugging if the muggee fights back and kills, in a lot of states that is TS for the mugger. In the process of performing his justifiable duties a policeman kills a "perp" that is TS for the "perp". The murder of abortionists is illegal and the murderer should pay the penalty. That does make the doctor who crushes a babies skull or who leaves a born alive baby to die, innocent of murder. It only means in pro choice America he or she can not be charged. Obama is the poster child for politicians who advocate abortion in its most extreme form. I would be ashamed if I had voted for him. I will work for his defeat for this and many other reasons.

Butch in Waukegan said...

Justifiable murder?

Words have meaning and law is based on the precise use of words.

Here are a few dictionary definitions of the word murder:
To kill (a human being) unlawfully and under circumstances constituting murder.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Scratch most modern self-described “conservatives” and you’ll find an authoritarian. Law, like words, means what they say.

Consequently Jim says he “believes” Sotomayer should have recused herself in the Ricci case, in his mind that’s all that’s required. For authoritarians like Jim something is unlawful if he doesn’t agree with it.

Scalia and Gore v. Bush?

Ignore, change the subject, bluster and rant.

JIm said...

In Gore v Bush the Supremes got it right. The Florida Supreme court ignored their own laws and procedures to attempt to hand the election to Gore. There have been numerous recounts run by Florida newspapers many of who are rabidly Democrats. Bush won in every recount.

Sotomayor should have recused her self in the Ricci case. I believe that is self evident based on her activist role. I also fully understand that slow and nasty people like Butch do not recognize it.

Your definition of murder seems to describe Tiller. I have 15 yr old twins who were born premature. They tipped the scales at 2 lbs and change at birth. Tiller would have had no problem crushing their skulls or maybe twisting their heads in his hands or with his instrument of murder, forceps. They have grown and are mature teenagers. This weekend Shannon's softball team made the championship game in a tournament in Breckenridge. All 95 lbs of her stepped to the plate in the first inning and cracked a home run which started a land slide of runs resulting in the first place trophy. She and her brother made honor roll in the toughest academic public high school in the state. All that could have been snuffed out if Tiller had gotten to them.

JIm said...

Imagine Socrates examining Tiller’s life.

Dr. Tiller: Who will mourn your causalities?

________________________________________
Posted: June 03, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009
The unexamined life is not worth living.
~ Socrates
Socrates (470-399 B.C.) was a famous Greek philosopher from Athens who taught Plato, and Plato taught Aristotle, and Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. Socrates used a method of teaching by asking questions. The Greeks called this form "dialectic" – starting from a thesis or question, then discussing ideas and moving back and forth between points of view to determine how well ideas stand up to critical review with the ultimate principle of the dialogue being Veritas – Truth.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99991

Postlude
Guardian Angels: This host of 72,000 are the vigilant Guardian Angels, one for each of Dr. Tiller's causalities. These holy and powerful Angels desire nothing more than to visit due justice and unspeakable retribution upon Dr. Tiller for his numerous crimes against humanity, but instead are commanded by God to stay their swords in their sheaths, to sit in profound silence.
Therefore, these Guardian Angels only stare at Dr. Tiller with a mixed expression of righteous indignation and exceeding lachrymose.
Aborted Souls: These are the innocent preborn babies, the 72,000 causalities who sit here in heaven in profound silence, who gaze inquisitively at their zealous tormentor. Their solitary, unspoken expression is fixed for eternity inside the intense sadness of their black, brown, blue and green eyes – eyes that beg an answer to this singular question …Why, Dr. George Tiller? … why?

JIm said...

Excerpt from Slate-Racial and Gender prejudice not new

"More Better Judging
The White House's attempt to end the debate about a Sotomayor speech will end up prolonging it.
By John DickersonPosted Wednesday, June 3, 2009, at 6:07 PM ET

Read more from Slate's coverage of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination.
Sotomayor didn't misspeak in 2001. She apparently just repeated her stump speech. The passages from the speeches, given seven years apart, are nearly identical. The only thing that's different between the two speeches is that in 1994, Sotomayor believed that it was merely her gender that made her better—not her gender and her ethnicity, as she claimed in 2001."