DescentBB

tunnelcat wrote:Well, what does everyone here think of her nomination for the Supreme Court? She seems to be a VERY middle-of-the-road type of judge in her rulings. She may get hits from both parties, but Republicans may have to tiptoe lightly to not infuriate the Hispanic vote.

Sonia Sotomayor

\"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice 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. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement,\" -Sonia Sotomayor

CUDA wrote:last time I checked it was the legislature's job to make to law (policy) and it was a judge's job was to enforce the law (policy).

DCrazy wrote:

CUDA wrote:last time I checked it was the legislature's job to make to law (policy) and it was a judge's job was to enforce the law (policy).

This is an amazing misinterpretation of the separation of powers... the legislature writes law, the executive enforces the law, and the judiciary interprets the law. This is first-grade civics.

CUDA wrote:the point still stands it is not the judiciary's job to make law.

DCrazy wrote:

CUDA wrote:the point still stands it is not the judiciary's job to make law.

The judiciary is well within its rights to discard, constrain, contextualize, or reinterpret laws in its jurisdiction. The biggest power the Supreme Court has is to discard unconstitutional laws, after all. There is a lot of freedom intentionally left to the judiciary.

CUDA wrote:So what your implying is that there is no law.

CUDA wrote:And "if" a law current is not written to the Judges liking that he can do what ever he feels like doing, even to the point of making a new one up on the spot.

CUDA wrote:but what you are advocating are god like powers to judges

DCrazy wrote:But what you seem to be suggesting is that judges are not the final arbiters of law. In that case you are incorrect.

United States
All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader.

Wiki wrote:The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, is a general legal maxim according to which decisions should be made by applying known principles or laws, without the intervention of discretion in their application.[2] This maxim is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance. The word "arbitrary" (from the Latin "arbiter") signifies a judgment made at the discretion of the arbiter, rather than according to the rule of law.[3][4]

Generally speaking, law is a body of rules prescribed by the state subject to sanctions or consequences.[5] The predominant view is that the concept of "rule of law" per se says nothing about the "justness" of the laws themselves, but simply how the legal system operates.[6][7] As a consequence of this, a very undemocratic nation or one without respect for human rights can exist with a "rule of law" — a situation which may be occurring in several modern dictatorships. The "rule of law" or Rechtsstaat may be a necessary condition for democracy, but it is not a sufficient condition.[8]

Wiki wrote:Judicial discretion is the power of the judiciary to make some legal decisions according to their discretion. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the ability of judges to exercise discretion is an aspect of judicial independence. Where appropriate, judicial discretion allows a judge to decide a legal case or matter within a range of possible decisions.

However, where the exercise of discretion goes beyond constraints set down by legislation, by binding precedent, or by a constitution, the court may be abusing its discretion and undermining the rule of law. In that case, the decision of the court may be ultra vires, and may sometimes be characterized as judicial activism.

Concerns with regard to recidivism and other law and order issues have led to the introduction of mandatory sentencing laws which significantly limit judicial discretion in sentencing, particularly in the United States.

DCrazy wrote:All of your sources agree with me. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

DCrazy wrote:


I am describing the power we have given to judges as the final arbiters of the worth of law. That is their stated purpose: to give individuals or a small panel of individuals in whose faculties we trust the power to interpret or discard legislation as it pertains to the case at hand. Judges have to restrict their decisions as narrowly as applicable, based on the reason for the decision (for example, if a judge thinks that the law doesn't cover a particular corner case, that judge's opinion applies *only* to that corner case). And other judges are free to interpret such precedent-setting opinions as they believe they apply to the situation at hand.

CUDA wrote:OMG!!!! I AGREE WITH TC

CUDA wrote:apparently 60% of her rulings have been overturned by the Supreme court. makes me wonder if she understands the Constitution that she will be asked to rule on

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/ma ... dder-to-f/

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 - CUDA's link

In three of the cases where Sotomayor was overturned, the newest Supreme Court nominee had the same or similar position as the jurist she hopes to replace, Justice David Souter.

CNN

AlphaDoG wrote:Most judges (in the circuit court) are elected, if you don't like or agree with their rulings, vote them out.

AlphaDoG wrote:Most judges (in the circuit court) are elected, if you don't like or agree with their rulings, vote them out.

Gooberman wrote:..
In three of the cases where Sotomayor was overturned, the newest Supreme Court nominee had the same or similar position as the jurist she hopes to replace, Justice David Souter...

CUDA wrote:the supreme court and even the appelate courts have certain safeguards which prevent activist judges.

CUDA wrote:apparently 60% of her rulings have been overturned by the Supreme court. makes me wonder if she understands the Constitution that she will be asked to rule on

Since joining the Second Circuit in 1998, Sotomayor has authored over 150 opinions, addressing a wide range of issues, in civil cases". Even if we do not count the opinions she has authored in criminal, rather than civil, cases, that means the Supreme Court's reversal rate is not 60 percent, but at most 2 percent -- 3 cases out of 150.

Pandora wrote:

CUDA wrote:apparently 60% of her rulings have been overturned by the Supreme court. makes me wonder if she understands the Constitution that she will be asked to rule on

this is a totally misleading soundbite. The supreme court generally tends to overturn 75% of the rulings it chooses to hear, so her reversal rate is actually below average.

So, what this number reflects is only the percentage of her decision the supreme court chose to look at. Of course she made many more rulings. How does her percentage fare there?

Since joining the Second Circuit in 1998, Sotomayor has authored over 150 opinions, addressing a wide range of issues, in civil cases". Even if we do not count the opinions she has authored in criminal, rather than civil, cases, that means the Supreme Court's reversal rate is not 60 percent, but at most 2 percent -- 3 cases out of 150.

(emphasis mine}

Mrs. Robert A. Taft wrote:I always find that statistics are hard to swallow and impossible to digest. The only one I can ever remember is that if all the people who go to sleep in church were laid end to end they would be a lot more comfortable.

tunnelcat wrote: but Republicans may have to tiptoe lightly to not infuriate the Hispanic vote.

Of the [race-related] 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times. [...] Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous. [...] Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.

Of the roughly 75 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor dissented 2 times. [...] In Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2002), she dissented from the majority’s holding that the NYPD could fire a white employee for distributing racist materials.

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She particulated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote: but Republicans may have to tiptoe lightly to not infuriate the Hispanic vote.

But it is OK for her to say she will give better opinions than a white male could? I hope the republicans and yes the democrats hit her hard on this opinion and bar her from the bench

Pandora wrote:Because she said something? Because she said something that is (or may be interpreted as) not PC? And this is coming from you, Woodchip?

tunnelcat wrote:
I think we really NEED a woman replacement on the Supreme Court. Maybe or maybe not Sotomayor, I'm not totally in favor of her, but at least a WOMAN and I agree with her statement, it's valid. Male Judges just can't or shouldn't represent the female population of this country and it would scare me to see an all-male Supreme Court again.

I can just see it, my hard won freedoms from the struggles of the sixties squelched in an instant by an all-male paternalistic Supreme Court. But I'm just not on board for her very much at the moment. She's a staunch Catholic and I don't think she'll keep THAT from coloring her opinions either.