Wednesday, May 27, 2009

SHE'S A RACIST


The "Apoligizer in Chief" has now placed in nomination Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a Latino Woman who puts feelings above law. She has an over 60% reversal rate and has been reprimanded by higher court judges for her lack of dedication to law and focus of feelings. 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. This is the biggest joke since Harriet Myers got the nod from George W. Bush 4 yrs ago. But this nomination is far more damaging then that. This is a woman hell bent on emotion over law and racial payback over revers discrimination.

In a speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, Judge Sotomayor offered her own interpretation of this jurisprudence. "Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases," she declared. "I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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 hasn't lived that life."

I quote at such length because, even more than her opinions, these words are a guide to Ms. Sotomayor's likely behavior on the High Court. She is a judge steeped in the legal school of identity politics. This is not the same as taking justifiable pride in being the first Puerto Rican-American nominated to the Court, as both she and the President did yesterday. Her personal and family stories are admirable. Italian-Americans also swelled at the achievement of Justice Antonin Scalia, as Jewish-Americans did at the nomination of Benjamin Cardozo.

But these men saw themselves as judges first and ethnic representatives a distant second. Judge Sotomayor's belief is that a "Latina woman" is by definition a superior judge to a "white male" because she has had more "richness" in her struggle. The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn't what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the "richness" of her experience comes to believe it should be.

There are signs of what this means in practice in her lower court decisions. One of them is Ricci v. DeStefano, involving the promotion of white firefighters in New Haven and now pending before the Supreme Court. In the case, heard by a three-judge panel including Judge Sotomayor, the city refused to certify promotion exams when the results of the exam would have elevated 18 white firefighters and one Hispanic -- an outcome that would have underrepresented minorities. The firefighters sued, charging discrimination.

After the three judge panel issued a brief opinion repeating the district court's decision, the appeals court declined to rehear the case en banc, an outcome which infuriated Ms. Sotomayor's colleague and fellow Clinton appointee Jose Cabranes. In a dissent joined by five of his colleagues, Judge Cabranes criticized the slip-shod handling of the case by a majority that lacked the courage of its racial preference convictions. The "perfunctory disposition" of the opinion, he noted, "lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal."

Judge Cabranes added that the discrimination issues raised by the case were "worthy of review" by the Supreme Court, which took the case and may well overturn the Sotomayor panel's ruling. The case raises the question of whether a judge with an avowed commitment to applying her own "experience" to cases was disinclined to an argument made by those not sharing that personal experience.

Or consider the result last year in Knight v. Commissioner, in which the Supreme Court unanimously upheld her ruling in a tax case involving individual tax deductions, even as her reasoning drew a rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts. The Second Circuit opinion "flies in the face of the statutory language," he wrote for the Court.

In April, the Supreme Court overturned 6-3 her 2007 ruling in Riverkeeper v. EPA in which she found that the EPA could not consider cost-benefit analysis in judging whether companies need to upgrade to the best technology available, even when the costs were wholly disproportionate to the benefits. And in the 2006 case of Merrill Lynch v. Dabit, the Court ruled 8-0 to overturn her position that a state class-action lawsuit against Merrill Lynch was not pre-empted by federal law.

Even the best judges get overturned, of course, but the issue here is less the result than Judge Sotomayor's legal reasoning. As a lower court judge, she was restrained by a higher authority. On the Supreme Court, she is limited only by the other Justices she can win over to her arguments.She's only winning over criminals and loonie lefties. But of course she is entitled to be PATHETICALLY INCORRECT... But you be the judge. But be careful, she's a racist.

17 comments:

Diogenes said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Eman said...

Diogenes, you have a real hard time staying on subject. You either have ADD or you have it out for me, the blogger, who is presenting opinion after discovery. This is a prime example of why liberals fail in the arena of ideas: they make personal attacks and can't stay on subject.

In any case, keep your responses to the subject matter and off of me if you want to be relivant here.

Nameless Cynic said...

"She has an over 60% reversal rate"You know, I love how that number is being bandied about by unhinged right-wingers. You know, since only 5 cases have gone to the Supreme Court, it's strange that it's even expressed in percentages, which are only useful when discussing significantly more than 5 of anything.

And, weirdly enough, since the reversal rate of SCOTUS actually runs about 75%, doesn't that mean that she's doing better than average? If you're going to play with numbers, at least stick to the ones you understand.

As for her "wise Latina woman" quote, let's look at this thing we call "context." It's used in legal circles sometimes, so it's almost related to the meta-subject here. But in a more specific way, it relates to your use of Judge Sotomayor's quote, "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 hasn't lived that life."

Wow. That sounds almost like she's answering a question, doesn't it? In fact, she was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining race and sex discrimination cases. Which is what the panel discussion was about. But I'll bet you knew that, didn't you?

And incidentally, looking back over your blog, I don't see where you mention that it was something out of "the legal school of identity politics" when John Yoo wrote the following:

As his memoir shows, Justice Thomas's views were forged in the crucible of a truly authentic American story. This is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience than most of the upper-class liberals who take potshots at him. A man like this on the Court is the very definition of the healthy diversity his detractors pretend to support.Ooh, look at that. John Yoo is a radical liberal! For that matter, let's look at the confirmation hearing for little Sammy Alito.

U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?

ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point...
I mean, you're welcome to complain, but you probably ought to at least pretend to be consistent. And maybe stick to stuff you know.

Eman said...

"If you're going to play with numbers, at least stick to the ones you understand."

I understand them just fine Diogenes, in fact she has a case in front of the court now which could in all probability raise that percentage substantially. We’ll have to wait on this but she still has a very high rate.

"In fact, she was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining race and sex discrimination cases."

Since when has judicial diversity ever been needed in findings of fact? This judge has consistently sided with minorities in discrimination cases and been reversed over 80% of the time in those cases throughout her judicial career. She has an affinity to cite feelings and folklore instead of LAW! Law is not emotion sir. It is moral stability based on known standards of behavior, which you must have missed in all those days you were absent from Sunday school. You have stated Jesus never lived. So you obviously have no moral standard and seek not truth but a template that fits your agenda. We conservatives base our principles in biblical laws and known standards. Since liberals have no standards of behavior and constantly push for more outrageous conduct, you would be no such person which anyone here would agree with.

U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?

This question comes from a liberal senator. He's a "RINO" and in no way reflective of conservative views. You confuse Republican with Conservative Diogenes, and you can't know the difference if you insist that this man speaks for the party.

You quote people who desire a litmus test. There is none. There should only be questions of how the Constitution and the laws therein are interpreted. John Woo speaks not of either.

Thanks for taking my advice though and sticking to the subject. You get an “A” for effort but a “D” on content.

Diogenes said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Nameless Cynic said...

Well, not to go out on a limb here, but you really need to study your philosophy.

Although I'll admit that Diogenes, the Greek who searched for an honest man, was also known as "Diogenes the Cynic," I've got to point out the ironic differences between "Diogenes the Cynic" and "the Nameless Cynic"? I mean, it seems obvious to me, but maybe I'm too close to the subject.

Let me add a littl fuel to the fire, though.

"Since when has judicial diversity ever been needed in findings of fact?" Well, let's tackle that, and the related question "How can we have activist judges legislating frm the bench?" all at once.

Republicans like to pretend that the law is clear and clean, and we don't have to add anything to it. But in reality, life doesn't work like that.

Let me just point out that until the Eighties, there was no such thing as "marital rape" - a husband could force sex on his wife whenever he wanted, because, by marrying his ignorant ass, she had automatically consented to sex. Whatever sex he wanted, whenever he wanted it.

Sometimes, despite what we want to believe, the law isn't clear.

Diogenes said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Eman said...

I stand by my original blog. This person is a racist and by saying what she said, disqualifies herself from the bench. One thing a judge, ANY judge, needs to do is watch what they say. If we are to make choices by the content of ones character, this character needs to stay where she is and out of the Supreme Court.

I'm not a judge. So I can say what I wish, and in this case, I say she has displayed herself to be racist.

Eman said...

She said it. She should not have but she did. How in any way are you going to say she didn't? What Alito or anyone else said is moot. SHE SAID IT!!

Eman said...

I won't

Eman said...

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.

She's RACIST!!!!!!!!!!

Eman said...

The libs of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one.

Diogenes said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Eman said...

A little FYI here... I am not Rush or Glen or Sean... And they are not nominated to be one of nine lifetime members of the highest court in the greatest nation on the planet. I do not espouse to be like them or to do what they do. But it's nice of you to put me in the same club. You know, if everyone thought the same thing, then someones not thinking.

I can handle the pressure. Pressure makes Diamonds<>

Nameless Cynic said...

"Pressure makes diamonds."

Yup. And pressure also makes roadkill. A diamond takes thousands of years; roadkill takes less than a second.

The National Council of La Raza , despite all the blatherings of that useless, pinheaded moron Tancredo, is not "a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses." They're a support group, fighting poverty and discrimination in the Hispanic community. (You can read about them here - I doubt you will, though. Sounds like you have your mind made up already.)

I love this "racist talk - let's look at the sources. There's that useless gasbag Tom Tancredo, who sings Dixie with the white supremacist "League of the South," and whose entire presidential candidacy was built on bashing Latinos. Rush Limbaugh (can I just say "Donovan McNabb and leave it there, or do I have to go on?); Glenn Beck (who links illegal aliens to everything that's ever gone wrong with the country, probably to include the shooting of Lincoln); Ann Coulter (whose latest book tries to pass off the racist Council of Conservative Citizens as unfairly-labeled victims, and who once wrote an article on immigration called "Bush's America: Roach Motel"); Newt Gingrich (who campaigned in 2004 on the theme that the "war here at home" against illegal immigrants is "even more deadly than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan"); and Pat Buchanan (whose recent books just rehashed old white-supremacist eugenics from the early 20th century, whining about white privilege being overturned by the evil brown tide).

(Oh, and notice how I did that: not only did I give specific examples of these people's racism, but for the most part, it's specifically the racism that NCLR is set up to fight.)

Now, in case you're curious, the difference between a hate group and a support group is pretty obvious to most of us. (And to be honest, not to be insulting or anything, but you're showing yourself to be remarkably incurious in this post. "She's a racist! I don't care what evidence you show me, I know it's the truth!")

Hate groups like the KKK focuses on the loss of power by the white race because of all these brown people and "mongrel races." They use violence to promote their ends, and tend to break a lot of laws: as I'm sure you're aware, thousands of blacks have been killed, and hundreds of thousands attacked, injured or intimidated by the Klan since their inception after the Civil War.

Support groups like the NCLR are completely unrelated. The closest similarity that can be drawn has to do with the fact that they're fighting poverty and discrimination against a specific ethnic group. But, since that particular group does, in fact, suffer discrimination (for example, look at the specific examples up above), they have every right (and perhaps even the obligation) to do so.

They don't ue violence to achieve their aims, they use financial assistance, education and mutual support.

(And, incidentally, you can ignore that whole "Reconquista!" argument - that's a conspiracy theory made up by noted lying gasbag Michelle Malkin.)

Diogenes said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Diogenes said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.