The American Spectator

Wes| 5.26.09 @ 11:02PM

Do you ever get tired of shouting "The world is going to end," Quinn?

Sean| 5.26.09 @ 11:13PM

Democrats run to advance an agenda. You have to admire them for that. When was the last time Republicans as a whole advanced a small government agenda? This idiot was originally appointed by Bush. That is all that needs to be said.

Pete| 5.26.09 @ 11:36PM

From NRO: 2. Sotomayor is often painted as a moderate by virtue of the fact that President George H.W. Bush formally appointed her to a district-court seat. But, as I’ve explained before, when President Bush nominated Sotomayor to the district court in 1991, the New York senators, Moynihan and D’Amato, had forced on the White House a deal that enabled the senator not of the president’s party to name one of every four district-court nominees in New York. Sotomayor was Moynihan’s pick. I am reliably informed that Bush 41’s White House nonetheless resisted nominating her because she was so liberal and did so in the end only as part of a package to move along other nominees whom Moynihan was holding up.

ruth| 5.27.09 @ 12:15AM

The word 'radical' has lost its meaning now that Obama is in the White House. I don't even know what the word means anymore.

L Hand| 5.27.09 @ 12:54AM

Who is Sotomayor? Is she "unqualified"? Is she "radical"?

Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She won a scholarship to Princeton where she continued to excel, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. She was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order.

After law school, Sotomayor spent five years as Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan, trying dozens of criminal cases. Robert Morgenthau, who chose her for the position, described her as a "fearless and effective prosecutor." She entered private practice in 1984, working as an international corporate litigator handling cases involving everything from intellectual property to banking, real estate and contract law.

As Tom Goldstein writes, "Almost all of her career has been in public service -- as a prosecutor, trial judge, and now appellate judge. She has almost no money to her name."

If confirmed for the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years.

In 1998, Judge Sotomayor became the first Latina to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one of the most demanding circuits in the country. She has participated in over 3000 panel decisions and authored roughly 400 opinions, handling difficult issues of constitutional law, to complex procedural matters, to lawsuits involving complicated business organizations.

Maybe she's not so bad after all?

Murphy| 5.27.09 @ 12:55AM

What?

Sotomayor is not a "cretin"?

I guess Hillyer reserves that word only for the worst of the worst.

Alex Knepper| 5.27.09 @ 1:05AM

This is legitimately poor writing.

The content is awful, too, but what did you do, copy-paste this from an IM? C'mon, now. If you can get a job as a professional writer, I'll be able to when I graduate, though, so...there's a silver lining in this cloud.

Mike| 5.27.09 @ 1:37AM

So are we just giving up? Or stepping up? How about getting a coalition "Stop Sotomayor" campaign?

ruth| 5.27.09 @ 2:32AM

Hey, Murphy/Jeremiah--cretin beats war criminal by a mile. Creep.

Anya| 5.27.09 @ 7:16AM

I agree with your assessment of Sotomayor. Her blatant racist statement should disqualify her.....PERIOD! If a white nominee had made such a statement they would have been out the door within hours.
This is sickening!
I have NEVER felt so deeply frightened for America as I do right now.

Old Texican| 5.27.09 @ 9:28AM

Quin
This morning, I woke up reminded of Jesus' words:
"Forgive them, Father for they know not what they do."
We knew this nomination...or one like it was coming...didn't we?
Oh my my, what have we done if this woman takes the bench?

Thomas| 5.27.09 @ 9:53AM

No one should be surprised by Judge Sotomayer's appointment. It will be surprising and refreshing if the Republican members of the Senate actively oppose her nomination and, in fact, vote against it.
We'll just have to wait and see if they stand upon principle, or roll over and play dead.

Murphy| 5.27.09 @ 10:34AM

You people are hysterics.

You're reading frothing hatred on the web and accepting it as fact without any deliberation.

Why don't you look at some of her opinions?

While she is liberal (no doubts there), her decisions have not been "legislative" in nature. Every assessment I've read finds her to be a left of center but temperate jurist.

Is the hysteria because you believe any hispanic not chosen by a conservative is going to be a raving radical? If so, that's the kind of racist assumption that has hispanics fleeing the Republican party.

You can't have expected Obama to choose a conservative for the court. Remember, we won the election. That comes with stuff. Including this.

Old Texican, you sound demented. As do many others of you. Jesus, Christ, just relax, will you?

Old Texican| 5.27.09 @ 11:06AM

Murphy'
You are simply uninformed.

And Please, do not use Jesus Christ as an expletive.

JT| 5.27.09 @ 11:07AM

Of course the GOPers will appease their pitiful constituents and blah, blah, blah for 1/2 the summer, knowing that they can't do a damn thing to stop her from getting confirmed. Bush got Roberts and Alito on the court, less experienced than Sotomayor, but reliably conservative activists. Why? Because he won. And by a lot less than Obama. So it's Obama's turn to pick someone who sees the world more his way. Why? Because he won. Spare us the wailing and gnashing of teeth. You know the drill.

Tony| 5.27.09 @ 11:08AM

Sean, you call Sotomayor an "idiot." Did you know her at Princeton or Yale? Didn't think so.

tonypal| 5.27.09 @ 11:18AM

l. hand:

No one disagrees with her resume. It's her judicial temperment that's the issue. Also, the fact that she has been reversed approximately 80% of the time, which tends to indicate she's a lousy judge. Throw in her racialists rantings, which in my view automatically disqualify her. Then, for good measure, there is her stated belief that courts set policy, which they surely do not (or should not). That's why she's not qualified. There's more to life than a resume.

Rod| 5.27.09 @ 11:21AM

The rest of you, just "relax" and be good little moderates, will you. After all, this is not a policy making position, or anything, right? Get a clue, knuckleheads. Sure we knew this was coming; we either counter punch, or continue to "relax, will you."

tonypal| 5.27.09 @ 11:22AM

JT:

You use the word "activist" to describe Alito and Roberts, which indicates you don't understand what it means to be a judicial activist. One is considered an activist judge if one uses sources other than the Constitution to make decisions, or if a judge sees him/herself as a quasi-legislator. We know Sotomayor sees that as her role; she has said as much publicly. Can you provide any evidence to suggest that either Roberts or Alito view their role as a both a judge and legislator. Specific examples, such as a statement akin to the one that Sotomayor made at Duke Law School, or perhaps a judicial opinion written by either man to back up your assertion.

JT| 5.27.09 @ 11:37AM

tonypal:

Here's what I think and I'm no legal expert, but when a case lands at an appeals court, it's an indication that the law is ambiguous enough for some folks to think they need to litigate and litigate some more. So the job of the court is to eliminate the ambiguity and the result is a new policy. Alito and Roberts tend to be active for the business community at the expense of every day people - that's how they resolve the ambiguity. And that's ok, that's why Bush put them there. Now Sotomayor will tend to rule the other way when possible within the constraints of the system. That's why Obama is puitting her there. To the victor go the spoils.

I think that in order for the judicial branch to achieve parity with the other two branches, ensuring our democratic system has equal checks and balances, the judicial branc has to take some power where it can. And for the people, this is the place in our government where true justice should be able to be found. Even when your guy or gal didn't win an election, the judicial branch is supposed to see you as worthy of being equal - you won't get that from the other two more political branches of government.

Rich| 5.27.09 @ 11:56AM

Two thoughts.

1. Anya, if you weren't 'deeply frightened' for America during the Bush years, I don't think you've got a thing to worry about now.
2. Quin, so were you happy with the Harriet Miers nomination? Talk about a low bar.

GaryinFH| 5.27.09 @ 12:02PM

Quin: You're right that this is a terrible pick, one that any conservative -- nay, any moderate -- should oppose.

I presume that your reference to a dissent by "Justice Potter" was to Justice Potter Stewart's famous remark, dissenting in Griswold v. Connecticut, that the Nutmeg State's ban on a married couple's purchase of contraception was "an uncommonly silly law," one that he would vote against were he in the Connecticut state legislature, but that the wisdom of the particular law was beside the point. If Connecticut's citizens were so exercised about the unavailability of contraceptives, they could petition their legislators to repeal the law. But not every "uncommonly silly" law is, per se, unconstitutional.

Even by 1965, when Griswold was decided, Justice Stewart's view of how judges should act when confronted with a statute they find archaic -- yet not obviously in conflict with any express provision of the Constitution -- was almost quaint. No match for those penumbras and emanations...

Thomas| 5.27.09 @ 12:12PM

JT,

It is the job of a jurist to rule on whether an action is legal, or illegal, under existing law and the powers and constraints of governmental compacts, such as the Constitution of the United States and the Constitutions of the various States. It is not the job of a jurist to change laws that are not in violation of the Constitution based upon based upon some personal idea of "fairness". Jurists who do this are "activist" judges who are said to be "legislating from the bench".

At the SCOTUS level, the justices are charged only with ruling upon the constitutionality of laws or practices and with settling legal disputes between the states. In order to maintain some vestige of order, the constitutional matters should be decided upon a very strict interpretation of the Constitution. To do otherwise changes the role of the court from one of interpretation to one of legislation without representation.

JT| 5.27.09 @ 12:31PM

Thomas-

Understood. Now, if the SCOTUS ever overturns Roe v Wade, will that be seen as an activist court, one that ignores precedent? That's one of the definitions of an activist court, after all. So conservatives can be activist, too, right? More or less, whichever decision you don't like, you call activist. What you don't get is that the Constitution is made up of words and words mean different things to different people and meanings change over many years - it's sort of the way people try to get the Bible to mean only what they want it to mean and yet we have hundreds of denominations under one religion, one Bible called Christian. It's just not as black and white as you would like it to be. It's very gray in many instances and that's why we have the judges to sort it out. And I know you black/white types like "strict" everything, including your interpretations, but try flexibility sometimes, it's not so bad.

Thomas| 5.27.09 @ 12:50PM

JT,

Roe v Wade is an example of "activist" judicial action. The case granted legitimacy to the practice of abortion based upon an Constitutional "right to privacy" to women. A protection that not even the supporters of Roe v Wade can find in that document. In fact, the Court has ruled that the Constitutional "right to privacy" that applies to the practice of abortion does not apply to pornography, gambling, use of chemical agents to alter mood or perception, euthanasia, etc. This selective application of a Constitutional right or guarantee is exactly what a jurist is suppose to avoid to ensure equality.

As to precedent, it applies to cases decided upon past decisions in similar cases which have been ruled Constitutional. In the case of the SCOTUS, many of the cases that they choose to hear are either cases in which no solid Constitutional precedent exists or cases which they feel may, in fact, violate Constitutional constraints.

Yes, conservative activism does exist, right alongside of liberal activism. In answer to your Biblical questions, the Bible was written, and edited, over several centuries. Very often by people who used it to maintain their own positions of power, or to promote their own personal beliefs. It is a challenge to sift through the bulk of the writing to gain the kernels of truth within. The Constitution of the United States is not the Bible. It is very clearly written. And should be very strictly interpreted. This insures that all are protected equally.

Oldefarte| 5.27.09 @ 12:51PM

Murphy, either you're a complete moron or THINK that we aren't smart enough to see beyond your self-described garbage ["...Is the hysteria because you believe any hispanic not chosen by a conservative is going to be a raving radical? If so, that's the kind of racist assumption that has hispanics fleeing the Republican party..."]. Sotomayor's radicalism is seen in her ruling concerning the case that is now before the SC, in which she agreed with the Connecticut city that discarded the promotional test results for firefighters because no blacks score high enough to qualify for the promotion. Ther is a very good chance that her opinion will be overturned by the SC to which she is nominated, fool. That is not "RADICAL", in your opinion? Guess you think that minorities that are NOT intellectually qualified should get jobs, promotions, university student placements,etc, even though non-minorities are so qualified, and that they sould be given a carte-blanche FREE RIDE in life to the detriment of those who are smarter and more qualified, huh? What a crock of excrement! You, sir, are a FLAMING RADICAL and so is she !!!!!

Murphy| 5.27.09 @ 1:06PM

Oldefarte --

I disagree with her decision on the New Haven case. But I am interested by the narrowness of her decision. She clearly is NOT legislating from the bench. Rather, she is applying existing legal precedent to this particular case -- precisely what conservatives claim she should do.

You have to distinguish between decisions you don't like and decisions that are "activist."

It would help, as well, if you kept a standard definition of what you mean by "activist." Usually, this term means that the court overturns existing legislation (as Roe v Wade did) on Constitutional grounds.

In the past thirty or so years there have been many "activist" decisions that went the conservatives' way, and somehow we don't hear them complaining about them.

SECOND, I think you have to define what you mean by "radical." Too often conservatives use this word simply to describe things they disagree with.

The word "radical" means "root." To make a radical change would be radically to alter how the Constitution is understood. I suppose Griswald did that by establishing the "right to privacy," but that was nothing compared to what happened in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Sotomayor's decision in the New Haven case was by no means "radical." You just didn't like it. I didn't either. That's the way it goes.

Murphy| 5.27.09 @ 1:11PM

Oldefarte --

I will say your assumption that Sotomayor has been given a "free ride" smacks of racism.

When you graduate summa cum laude from Princeton, go to Yale law school, hold a competitive job as a DA, get appointed to the federal bench by George H W Bush, publish extensively in peer reviewed journals, and get appointed to the Supreme Court, you may be a "liberal," but you have not gotten a "free ride."

Did Roberts get a "free ride" too? I should think Sotomayor's ability to pull herself out of a Bronx housing projects and achieve what she has achieved would win at least a mention of praise -- even if you strongly disagree with her political philosophy.

Murphy| 5.27.09 @ 1:24PM

tonypal -

"Activist" does NOT mean that a decision is made based on sources other than the Constitution.

The word "activist" has always meant overturning legislation based upon a reading of the Constitution.

Perhaps now that conservative justices have shown themselves to be very activist -- particularly in cases involving the corporate clients of the Republican party -- they would like to change the definition of that word.

S.L. Toddard| 5.27.09 @ 1:25PM

From a *legitimate* - and consistent - conservative:

"Suppose for a moment that a conservative Catholic man in a similar position said that he hoped that the richness of his religious tradition would inform and shape his judgments that would more often than not help him to make better judgments than someone without that background. Such a person might reasonably and legitimately claim this. No doubt there would be a comparable freak-out in certain circles on the left that theocracy was on the march, while conservatives would declare it outrageous (indeed, the imposition of a religious test!) that anyone would object to a statement about the importance of the man’s faith to his formation and thinking. She is not asserting that Latinas are naturally superior judges, nor is she even saying that they are necessarily better on account of their experiences, but that she hopes that they would be. One might almost think that her recognition that impartiality is something to be pursued, but that it is never fully achievable, would be considered a refreshingly honest admission that judges have biases and are shaped by their past experiences. For a moment, imagine a pious Christian who expressed a similar hope that his faith would make him a better judge than an unbeliever. No doubt this would raise the hackles of all kinds of people, but it would no more make him a religious fanatic than Sotomayor’s rather mild comments make her a “racialist.”"

******************

Compare the inconsistent, disingenuous, neo-"conservative" faux-outrage peddled by the likes of Hillyer with the prudent, considered, logical, and truly *conservative* perspective of Daniel Larison:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/05/26/thoughts-on-sotomayor/

Darcy| 5.27.09 @ 2:11PM

Murphy,

Sorry, but regardless of whether any of your other points have merit, in common usage "activist" has *never* meant merely overturning existing legislation based on a reading of the Constitution. If that were the case, no one would use "activist" exclusively or primarily as a negative term about judges (as many people clearly do), since everyone would agree that there could be and probably are some laws that should be overturned based on a reading of the Constitution. "Activist" in the judicial context, while it may lack a precise definition, generally refers to some tendency to judge based upon one's personal view of what the law should be (and thus in effect create new law), rather than judging on the basis of a reading of the controlling law (including the Constitution) as it actually is.

Murphy| 5.27.09 @ 2:52PM

Darcy --

I suppose I'm willing to be moved on the definition of "activist," but I'm taking my definition from a talk given by Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer. In this talk (available, I believe, on CSPAN.org) the two justices debate the idea of a "living document" reading of the Constitution. Justice Scalia, in this debate, refers to the need to let social change happen by democratic movements, primarily in the legislatures. Moves to move social change (based upon readings of the Constitution) via the courts are "activist."

I can see how a liberal and a conservative might talk past one another on this issue, however.

To a conservative, a liberal reading of the Constitution by definition is not constitutional -- a view I would argue is not immune to criticism.

Again -- I would take my definition from how conservatives very often use the word, the classic case being Griswald v CT, in which a state's law banning the possession of a condom was overturned based upon a perceived "penumbra" of rights in the Constitution.
I

Murphy| 5.27.09 @ 2:57PM

Put it this way ...

This weird notion that liberal justices somehow scan the lawbooks in France or -- quelle horror! -- Sweden for ways of legitimating their decisions don't ring true to me. In one or two very difficult decisions when precedent has dictated that justices examine moral standards in "civilized nations" (a concept the founders often turned to) this has sometimes been done, but it's not exactly the hallmark of the liberal style.

It is true, I suppose, that liberals are more likely to read explicitly what they would "like" to see in the Constitution.

But conservatives do this too, especially when it comes to looking back to 1791 for the founding of a "Christian nation," a decidedly wish-based reading of what was actually believed by most of the founders.

Quin| 5.27.09 @ 4:49PM

Response to Rich (11:56 a.m. note): Dude, don't ask open-ended questions in a way that indicates you think the answer is one thing, without actually knowing the answer. You write as if I were "happy" with the Harriet Miers nomination. Well, no. In fact, I THINK I was the third person (after Manny Miranda and David Frum) to publicly blog in immediate negative response to Miers, on the grounds that she was unqualified. (Maybe there were others before me; I WAS in Central Standard Time, and thus an hour behind in getting to my computer at work.) But I was so outspoken, so consistently outspoken, and so publicly outspoken (including citations in the Post by Dana Milbank) against the wisdom of the Miers nomination (and, nearly a full year before that in favor of Samuel Alito as the best choice) that you absolutely cannot accuse me of setting a "low bar" for high court nominees.

tonypal| 5.27.09 @ 8:52PM

JT:

First of all, I want to thank you for your style. I don't know if you consider yourself a liberal; you're certainly to my left politically. But unlike many of the liberals who come here and spew emotional invective, you apparently have some thoughtful views, even if I disagree with you.

I think the problem many on the left have is they confuse the overturning of precedent as activism. There are times when stare decisis is simply uncalled for, to wit Dred Scott. As was pointed out by Thomas, Roe v. Wade was an activist decision itself. It was based on a line of cases that started with a contraception decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right to privacy. There is simply not an enumerated right to privacy in the US Constitution.

As for Alito and Roberts ruling in favor of business over individual citizens, perhaps they did so because they read the case, applied the law and concluded the individual person's rights were not being violated by the business interest. The purpose of a judge is not to dole out social justice, rather to decide if the law has been followed. That's pretty much it.

tonypal| 5.27.09 @ 9:06PM

Murphy:

You simply do not know what you're talking about, which seems to be a recurring theme with you. As I stated previously, activism refers to those instances when a judge pre-decides a case, then searches for his/her reasoning in order to justify the result. Often, that requires going to extra-constitutional sources. That has always been the definition. Judges are not required to follow the doctrine of stare decisis if the previous decision was particularly egregious (Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott) or simply incorrectly decided.

It is not activist to overturn a previous decision. Of course, as a leftist, I know you believe it is your prerogative to invent new meanings for words. I also understant the relativist world you inhabit. However, that BS doesn't fly here. Words mean things, and activist has a specific meaning.

Now, since you seem to agree with me that activism is a bad thing, then do you believe that Brown v. Board of Ed, which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, was an egregious form of activism that should not have happened? Let me know.

Brian Richard Allen| 5.28.09 @ 2:12AM

Tonypal: - JT reminds me of how close to zero satisfaction may be derived from winning an argument with a moron. Don't waste your life's energy.

(Save it instead for the sinister-Soros/Alinskyist/Svengali-operated sail-eared simpleton's Sixties pot-smokers and other elitist-crypto-fascistic aberrations' Death-to-America taxes to come)

And Almighty God, please save us all, our beloved fraternal republic and the very Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization we have for more than two hundred years now both vanguarded and guarded from the mobbed-up, modified-Marxist marijuana-mumbling murtadd Muslim who pretends to our presidency and from the Fuhrer-Youth brigades and other brown-shirt bully-boys that see to his ability to steal what passes in America any more for "elections."

And from the likes of this lawless bloody fiat "judge," given as she is to making the most easily-reversed, racist and radically-wrong calls -- and to perpetrating the most seriously cretinous and idiotic acts of tyranny since those of England's seriously stupid syphilitic, Mister George "Here-Come-dah-Judge" Three.

Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles - Califobambicated 90028
And the Far Abroad

Daisy| 5.28.09 @ 2:21AM

BRAllen--right on dude! Don't be a stranger.

AYC| 5.28.09 @ 8:41AM

Are you kidding me? Why are you so scared of a bogey man that does not exist? Get a clue and get a real, or continue to become more and more irrelevant.

cleek| 5.28.09 @ 9:09AM

"He nominates the most radical possible choice for the Supreme Court..."

If you don't know the meanings of words, why do you want to be a writer ?

LK| 5.28.09 @ 9:30AM

You might have a point. The last radical to come out of Princeton was Donald Rumsfeld, and we know how well that worked out.

cksmith| 5.28.09 @ 9:40AM

Quin...the battle is already lost. Nothing you or anyone else who thinks attacking a Latina with her credentials is going to play out good for your side is either a political hack or a denier.

She has the votes...she will be the next SCOTUS jusdge to be confirmed.

I can't help but smirk at the idiocy fundamental Replics have when it comes to winning over the Latino vote. It's going to be a wonderful sight when 2010 comes around.

lebecka| 5.28.09 @ 9:48AM

yes, please, please, you numbnuts, please keep calling this woman a radical!!!
Please say one more time that she is "not intellectual" or "not up to the job".
Everytime you do it, you win another Latino vote for the Democrats.
You win one more woman's vote for the Democrats.
You'll be in the wilderness for a good couple of decades, suckers!

Special message for Texican:
Jesus Christ, you're stupid.

lebecka| 5.28.09 @ 9:49AM

Oh, and Quin, you're such a bad writer that you make my teeth hurt.

Couch| 5.28.09 @ 9:53AM

"He nominates the most radical possible choice for the Supreme Court..."

What about Carrot Top or Richard Simmons or David Duke or Jose Canseco or Bill O'Reilly or Paris Hilton or Harriet Myers or....

/seriously - who can take you seriously?

JJ Ostinato| 5.28.09 @ 11:08AM

Re: S.L. Toddard's comment: "For a moment, imagine a pious Christian who expressed a similar hope that his faith would make him a better judge than an unbeliever."

What she said was more akin to saying, "I would hope that a wise Jew, with the richness of his experiences, would more often than not reach a better decision than a Catholic." I wonder if she thinks that a Yankee fan would make a better home plate ump than a BoSox fan....

AEJ| 5.28.09 @ 12:33PM

Wow, Quinn. I'm impressed. I don't think it's possible that you could fit one more single ounce of hyperbole than you already have in this piece.

Rob| 5.28.09 @ 1:15PM

Funny how folks like Quin forget that Scalia and Robert judge - unavoidably - from a white male point of view, which is still predominent in this society. A view which doesn't begin to reflect the complexities of our citizenry.

And blatantly racist statement? Please. Get real.

Let me clue you in. A blatantly racist statement would be "We wouldn't have had all these problems all these years." At least know how to recognize racism if you're going to throw the descriptor around.

Davy| 5.28.09 @ 1:25PM

Sotomayor is about the best we can hope for. She's eminently qualified, and frankly, not even a flaming liberal much less a "radical". She's shown in her work to be pretty moderate, some pro-business decisions, some pro-union.
Intellectually, she's brilliant; there is a huge body of excellent work behind her. If you want to cherry-pick things you don't like just to satisfy your needs, well, fine then.
OK, she's hispanic and a woman.
Take this pent-up anger and fight Obama on bailouts. This is the wrong place to expend energy - ain't gonna get anyone better, ain't gonna stop her, and she'll be a fine justice.

Davy| 5.28.09 @ 1:27PM

btw, you say I never in my life thought I could possibly see a Supreme Court pick as bad

Two words: Harriet Myers

dcswede| 5.28.09 @ 4:26PM

tonypal,
60% of the cases she ruled on that reach the SC have been overturned (3 of 5). But of the 380+ cases she wrote the opinion for, only .8% (3 of 380) have been overturned. She is NOT overturned 80% of the time, because the SC is too busy to review all her work, and because she is clearly NOT lousy.

joshua| 5.28.09 @ 11:18PM

Everybody is getting the overturn facts wrong here: 3 of 5 cases of Sotomayor's have been overturned by the SC: thats 60% not 80%.

In addition, the SC has an average of 70% overturning the lower courts, which means Sotomayor does better than average.

Also, the New Haven, Connecticut case is being grossly misrepresented. Go read about the case before listening to blowhards. I notice that nobody on the Right ever wants anybody to actually see what they are talking about (i.e.- they never provide a link).

Here is a commentary on the case by a LEFT WINGER. Note that there is a link to the decision in several spots so you can check his facts/argument:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_05/018369.php
Hilzoy, the writer, points several valid legal reasons that Ricci case went the way it did. First, was a reading of what the law required, and the plaintiff failure to make their case. Second, it the court would have had to reverse itself base on a previous decision in the same area.

I know, its hard when a left-center judge follows the written law & precedence instead of "her heart" which seems to be what Quin here thinks she will do.
It must be tough on you right-wingers to handle fights like this when there isn't any ammo in your gun.

Also, judicial activism is defined differently by different groups. On Wikipedia it is defined as looking beyond the constitution, but also as being active in overturning laws or modifying their intent from bench, while judicial restraint is about merely staying out of legislatures way. In other words, it really depends on who you talk to.

Daphne| 5.28.09 @ 11:46PM

Look at all the stinky libtard trolls bleating their complaints on behalf of the affirmative action nominee. I say BORK THE BROAD!!

Smitty| 5.28.09 @ 11:53PM

Typical false liberal response from a typical stupid liberal. You libs are all about legislating from the bench--that's activism, stooge.

jcrue| 5.29.09 @ 11:18AM

La Raza. Enough said.

JohnnyCO| 5.29.09 @ 1:05PM

Where was the outrage when Alito, in his confirmation hearings, told the panel that empathy and his experiences influenced his voting? "When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

Where was the wingnut anger when George H.W. Bush touted Alito's "empathy" during the nomination process?

Oh, wait, that's right - this attack against Sontomayor is the same typical right-wing lying hypocrisy. All you have to do is look at the wingnut responses to Hillyer's "column" to know that facts won't ever replace what they've been told to think by the RNC (Rush Newt Cheney).

Busbhot| 5.29.09 @ 1:13PM

Speaking of right-wing lying hypocrisy, here's the head of the Republican party, Rush Limbaugh, from 2005:

"I'm tired of these Democrats acting like they won the election. Somebody needs to stand up and say, "When you win the election, you pick the nominees. Until then, shut up! Just shut up! Just go away! Bury yourselves in your rat holes and don't come out until you win an election. ..... You are really irritating me."

I'm not sure which is more pathetic - the temper tantrums the wingnuts are throwing now that they're so irrelevant, or the fact that they were sure happy to dish it out during the Worst's presidency, but scream like little girls when the tables turn.

Paul| 5.29.09 @ 4:40PM

"racialist"?! Man, that's a really scary word! She's probably just dripping with racialistismational tendencies! I'm gonna go stock my fallout shelter RIGHT NOW!

pkatt| 5.30.09 @ 5:09PM

Sadly discussions like these always turn into name calling and hate mongering from both sides of the isle. All the more reason we need a third party to balance you nutty people out. As for Sotomayor, did you ever stop to think, with her background she just might be middle line enough to throw both sides into a tizzy. Now wouldnt that be fun, a wild card:) As for La Raza, its an organization very much like Dr. Kings movement ment to empower a people who feel discriminated against. Yes they have their radical faction, which is called Mecha, but I have found no evidence that Sotomayor was in that.
That said, I do not agree with her better than a white man statement.. it was a stupid thing to say. I dont agree with her policy making at the appeal level, and I would bet I would not agree with her immigration reform or gun law views. It should be interesting hearings.
Mellow out folks... stop tearing each others throats out. It is possible to discuss such things like human beings without being called a racist by either side. and just a FYI on the race card, I do believe the Dems used that one all through the Obama elections, a little turn about might be fair play. The only way to stop that is to stop already with the skin color and look at the person inside.

Violet| 6.1.09 @ 7:16PM

pkatt--Sotomayor is a hard liberal leftist--only a moron would thinks she rides the middle. Fool.

candyxiaoxiao| 8.28.09 @ 2:42AM

Cheap Ugg Boots
Ugg Boots UK

biniki| 9.1.09 @ 9:51PM

bikini
bikini swimwear