It’s a big day for big judicial news that really isn’t news at all to court observers.
Earlier this morning President Barack Obama announced his first US Supreme Court nominee, federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor, surprising absolutely no one. Sotomayor had been on the short list since before there was a short list, and many had handicapped her the frontrunner.
Republicans have been desperately bucking for a filibuster, but this would be an awfully tough moment to go nuclear. If confirmed Sotomayor would be only the third woman to serve on the Court, and the first Hispanic… two constituencies the GOP can’t afford to alienate any further. Sotomayor’s bipartisan pedigree also presents an interesting obstacle to placing obstacles: she was appointed to the federal bench by the first President Bush, and to the appeals court by President Clinton; seven currently serving Senate Republicans voted to confirm her back in 1998.
One other curious observation. While I haven’t found any definitive source regarding Sotomayor’s religious affiliation, she is of Puerto Rican heritage, and was educated in Catholic schools, so at the very least, it is pretty safe to describe her as coming from a Catholic background. Thus if confirmed, the Supreme Court would now be composed of six Catholics, two Jews, and only one Protestestant, the 89-year-old Ford appointee, Justice John Paul Stevens. As I said, curious.
And later today in momentous/unsurprising judicial news, the California Supreme Court is widely expect to uphold the anti-gay marriage Prop 8, in a decision to be released around 10AM.
UPDATE:
As expected, the California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8 today by a 6-1 margin, banning same-sex marriage, but unanimously ruled that the 18,000 or so same-sex marriages conducted before the measure’s passage remain valid. That’s kinda weird.
I suppose that’s a victory of sorts for the anti-gay forces, but only for the moment. History is clearly on the side of equal rights, and no doubt Prop 8, which only passed with 52% of the vote, will be reversed by initiative a few years hence.
Actually Goldy, this is a very good one to oppose FOR CAUSE.
1) As an appellate judge, she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters after the city threw out results of a promotion exam because two few minorities scored high enough. Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court.
There is a video where she says: “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience” because “the court of appeals is where policy is made.”
Clearly shows Sotomayor believes in an “activist” Court.
We’ll see what else pops up.
I think you will see the Republicans carefully laying out a case against her based on her actions and comments. Nothing wrong with that.
Buckle-up…this is gonna be the Super-Bowl of wingnut-wankery…the Boston Marathon of troll tom-foolia…the World-Series of right-wing wrongheadedness!!!
I love that Obama heard all the pre-nomination sniping and said in effect “Fuck you…I won.” Finally, a Democrat with balls.
The Hon. Judge Sotomayer is a brilliant legal pick and an outstanding Jurist.
Have at it, morons…let the baleful bleating begin!
Huckapoo already called her “Maria”…that’s really being careful.
@1 Grit your teeth and suck it up, Mr. C, because Obama is NOT going to appoint a wingnut to SCOTUS — no matter how much you cross your fingers! That’s what elections are all about, dude. And yes, it’s high time we had some people on the highest court who care as much about ordinary people as they do about giant corporations. Who knows, maybe an Obama appointee would even decide that domestic spying on a massive scale without a warrant violates the Constitution and the federal law against it! That would be a refreshing change from the Stalinist worldview of the Busheviks.
Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court.
What’s ironic about it? Don’t you mean “coincidentally?”
Clearly shows Sotomayor believes in an “activist” Court.
No, it doesn’t; it shows she understands the way our courts work.
The Republicans have no leg to stand on if they want to oppose her, as their leader said this in 2005:
“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. When you win an election, you can put all these socialist wackos, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, all over the court, but until then, SHUT UP! You are really irritating me.”
Classic right wing talking point.
Take out of context. Distort. Spin. Repeat.
I want a Supreme Court justice to be intellectually brilliant, tuned in to the society around him/her, to know the law, and to have solid judicial experience. In these respects, Sotomayor is at least as qualified as any of the Republicans currently serving on the Court, so a vote against has to be ascribed to cynical partisanship. The voters made it clear last fall that they are tired of cynical partisanship and want public officials to move America forward and deal with its problems, so the GOP will be cutting its own throat if it fights this nomination. Of course, if they wish to do so, I’ll be happy to hand them a knife. The sooner the GOP is gone forever, the better off we’ll all be.
I was going to say that we should get ready for wingnut charges of “judicial activism,” but Kynikal has already stepped up to the plate with this vacuous charge.
While there has been a long-standing debate among legal scholars about the proper role of the Courts within our Constitutional system, Right-wing usage of the term “activism” didn’t come into popular usage until the Warren Court in the 50’s and 60’s started striking down state and Federal laws as being unconstitutional. The argument, then, was that the Warren Court was thwarting the democratic will of the people by taking such an active role in their exercise of the power of judicial review.
But, then, people started pointing out that the Supreme Court decisions striking down New Deal legislation were equally “activist” under that definition, so Republicans went searching for a new definition of the term.
Judge Robert Bork was more than happy to oblige by equating “activism” with “legislating from the bench,” a concept under which judges, supposedly, replace the law with their own, personal interpretations. This argument points to Roe v. Wade and the Court’s finding that the Constitution embodies a basic right of privacy despite the fact that no such right is specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
There are two problems with this usage. The first is that this kind of “strict constructionism” completely eviscerates any meaning for the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution:
The second problem with this definition of “activism” is that there are a number of circumstances where being “activist” requires the Court to not act. If the states want to outlaw abortion, so the argument goes, then the Court should refrain from striking down these laws as being unconstitutional.
Moreover, reformulating this concept of “legislating from the bench” in terms of “strict constructionism” does little to resolve the basic controversy regarding the proper role of the Court. There are two reasons for this.
First, this argument assumes that there is a singular intent and purpose behind a document that was written and ratified by a relatively large number of people who had differing views on a variety of the subjects covered by the Constitution. If the resolution of Constitutional controversies is to be decided by some notion of “original intent,” then the decision necessarily involves choosing one of many potential views of that “original intent”.
The second problem with the concept of “strict constructionism” is that the Constitution is rather unlike most laws. Rather than laying down specific exhortations, there are places where the Constitution merely states broad principles leaving the interpretation and application of those principles to specific facts.
Ultimately, the Republican usage of “activist judge” is little more than a way to say that such a judge makes decisions that Republicans disagree with without providing any objective criteria for reaching such a conclusion. This serves only to cloud a very legitimate debate about the proper role of the Courts in our government, and politicizes some rather important questions regarding our individual liberties and rights.
Three words: Future hispanic voters.
Of course California ruled to uphold the ban on gay marriages. Their ruling wasn’t about gay marriage…could have been about ‘widgets’. The ruling was whether or not a voter sponsored initiative with 50% + 1 vote could be used to amend the California constitution (in this case to change marriage laws). The court said yes.
It’s a legal nightmare. Because now the pro-gay marriage folks will run an initiative to specifically change the constitution to ALLOW gay marriage. And they might win (even chance) after the backlash from the last vote. But if they do, then the anti-gay marriage folks will put up an initiative the next year to re-ban it. And it will go back and forth for YEARS AND YEARS as long as it’s something like a 50/50 split in the state on the issue.
This is WHY it should be difficult to change a constitution. You shouldn’t be able to change it one way or the other one a momentary whim of a 50% of the voters. Changes that fundamental should require like 60%-70% of the public. But the California supreme court disagrees. It’s their legal mess now!
I’m bothered by the lack of diversity represented in this selection.
It’s not only that she’s (one assumes) Catholic. She’s also still another federal appellate judge elevated to SCOTUS — like every single current Justice — and still another graduate of either Harvard or Yale Law School — like all current Justices except Stevens (Northwestern) and Ginsburg (Columbia, though she also studied law at Harvard).
Many of our finest Supreme Court Justices arrived at the Court from other sorts of backgrounds. For example: Marshall, Brandeis, Warren, Douglas, Black, …
That bloated whale still wants Obama to fail – thinks he’s going to fail anyway. Such nice talk coming from the de facto leader of the GOPP.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....07690.html
And of course wants Sotomayor to fail as well.
I so despise the right wing.
I have a question for supporters of gay marriage. Should a father be allowed to marry his adult son if they are in love with each other in a romantic way? Let’s say the Father is 40 years old, and the son is 18. They have sex with one another. Should they be allowed to marry if they want to?
Troll, just because your family approves of incest…
…so the troll’s got the hots for his kid??? who knew…
[Deleted. See HA Comment Policy]
Now you see it @ 11
The majority of states (almost all of them, if not all) require a popular vote as part of the process of amending the state constitution. In most of these states, the legislature must first approve the proposed amendment, usually by at least a 2/3 majority, before it is submitted to the people.
Only a minority of states allow for the state constitution to be amended solely by initiative. California allows this, while Washington does not. In some states, such as Massachusetts, a constitutional amendment can be proposed by initiative, and then submitted to a public vote, provided that it has some support in the legislature (in Massachusetts, a 1/4 support of both houses sitting together).
However, I believe the popular vote required in all states to approve a constitutional amendment is a simple majority. I am not aware of any states that require a larger popular vote approval for a constitutional amendment.
@1 hit it, man. It was so unactivist for the Court to rule that separate but equal was okay in the 1890s, but it was so activist for the court to rule that separate but equal was NOT okay in the 1950s.
And that whole judicial review power, the one that’s not in the consitution? That damn Justice Marshall, what an activist in making that up. Awful! Then as to marriage and abortion, marriage and child brith stuff isn’t in the constitution, so obviously the STATE can pass a law saying ALL BIRTH CONTROL IS PROHIBITED, and god damn those activist judges on teh supreme court that ruled those laws were invalid!
of COURSE, ANY STATE can pass a law requiring you to get married, and could require you choose your spouse by a govt. run lottery, and could make you marry your goat, or could pass a law saying you have to have 4 kids or off you go to jail — because there’s nothing in the “original intent” of the constitution as written saying these things would be illegal, and as we know, all other rights are reserved to the States.
So god damn any activist judge that would say a law making you marry your goat is illegal, that would be total judicial activism based on some made-up notion of “right to privacy” or vague “liberty” that’s not even defined in the constitution!
In fact, there’s no definition of “liberty” at all, so how do we even know due process applies to criminal trials in the first place? The constitution doesn’t say it does. Damn those activist judges who hold that due process applies to criminal trials! They are putting in a definition of liberty that isn’t in the constitution!
…the cyniklown of course has NO (zero) interest in cutting CORPORATE welfare…the cost of which could fund a single payor health care system for the entire country.
…fucking hypocrite.
@17.
Typical Republican.
Because if someone, somewhere is gaming the system, AND THEY ARE POOR, the system should be dismantled.
Yet if someone, somewhere games the system, AND THEY ARE RICH, why, that’s just good business acumen.
Where are your ideas, where are your proposals to make things better? Or do all you have are complaints and sniping?
17 – Give it up Klynical. That comment was lame when you first posted it and it’s lame now.
Yawn….
The California Supreme Court ruling is not anything shocking or novel. California allows the voters to amend the state constitution by initiative. That is exactly what Proposition 8 did.
Of course, Proposition 8 does not annul the same gender marriages previously entered into. Nothing in Proposition 8 said anything about annulling existing marriages, so it could not be interpreted that way. Had Proposition 8 been drafted to expressly annul existing marriages, maybe the voters would not have approved it in the first place.
There is also a provision in the United States Constitution prohibiting states from impairing the obligations of an existing contract. Marriage is a contractual relationship. Since numerous people entered into same sex marriage under valid California law (albeit judicial case law interpreting the state constitution as it was in effect at the time), it would violate the U.S. Constitution for California to pass a law or constitutional amendment to annul an existing marriage.
That comment was lame when you first posted it and it’s lame now.
Wait. Are you suggesting that posting the same phoney-baloney story over and over DOESN’T make it more persuasive?
#14.
My initial reaction is that is seriously distasteful.
However, if you use a little common sense, do we allow fathers to marry their daughters? No? Then no. Not for fathers and sons, either.
But wait, what about Woody Allen and his adopted daughter? Yuck. Then maybe in NY. Still Yuck.
No. 17 — ya hablamos espanol, y es por este hecho y otros que lay mayor parte de los Hispanos nunca va a votar por el partido republicano.
Leyelo y llore.
1 Cyn
Gee, I would think that a Republican would LOVE a judge who rules against the plaintiffs in a discrimination case.
Poor white men. Who is looking out for them?
10 T
six words:
GOP alienates generation of Latino voters
1 Cyn
“the court of appeals is where policy is made.”
Yep. The Appeals Court decisions are looked to by district courts as important precedent and guidance. Duh.
As she said in the same speech, when she explained the difference between judging at the trial court level and judging at the appeals court level:
FYI, in the Ricci case Cynical refers to @1:
The testing and promotions were reviewed by a city board, which deadlocked on whether the tests were racially biased, and this deadlock did not allow Ricci to be promoted. He and some others sued.
The district court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment (dismissing the case), agreeing that the City did not need to certify the results because doing so could subject it to litigation for violating Title VII’s disparate impact prohibition.
On appeal, the Second Circuit initially affirmed the district court’s opinion summarily, but subsequently issued a per curiam opinion that praised the district court for a “thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion” and concluded that the City could not be held liable for its failure to certify because it “was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII.” Three days later, the Circuit voted 7-6 to deny rehearing en banc.
14 T
Replace “adult son” with “adult daughter” and answer it yourself.
#14 (Troll) – You are one sick fucked up person. That is the weirdest thing I’ve heard in ages.
How does it feel to KNOW you’re the bad guy? You’re the guy arguing why we can’t let Jews in our country club, why black men can’t marry white woman, why woman aren’t fit to vote. You’re on the wrong side of history. Your grand children will look back on you with shame and disgust for being such a black hearted bigot. I KNOW you think you’re right. When the KKK is hanging a black person, they KNOW they’re in the right and protecting proper white society from the ‘blacks’…but MOST of us think they’re nuts. You’re not “protecting” marriage, you’re attacking it. I can’t change your mind or the KKK (who feel about gays just the way you do) but you’re both wrong.
Yep, rising from humble beginnings to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton, attended Yale Law and edited the law review, assistant district attorney, New York County, 1979-1984; private practice (plenty of public interest pro bono work), New York City, 1984-1992; judge, U. S. District Court Southern District of New York, 1992-1998; judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1998-present.
To anyone but a Republican, it will look like they are opposing a highly qualified judge because she is a woman and a Latina.
We MUST ban (insert from list A) from destroying our values! It’s known and a well proven fact that (insert from list A) are attacking our traditional family values. If we let (insert from list A) in our community and give them the same rights as God Fearing White Men(tm), then it will be the end of our society!
List A
—————-
Blacks
Jews
Gypsies
Non-Aryan
Hispanics
Gays
Irish
Catholics
Asians
non-Christians
Women (who want to vote or choose who they marry)
“As expected, the California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8 today by a 6-1 margin, banning same-sex marriage, but unanimously ruled that the 18,000 or so same-sex marriages conducted before the measure’s passage remain valid. That’s kinda weird.”
Actually, it’s consistent, not weird; and what it means is the California Supreme Court sees same-sex marriage as a legislative matter, not a constitutional right. Therefore, what the Legislature giveth, the people can taketh away by initiative. No constitutional “right” to marry.
Of course, this view wouldn’t prevail if, say, the people passed an initiative saying Hispanics can’t marry because California “already has enough Hispanics.” (!) That one, no doubt, would be found unconstitutional. So, we must surmise from this, that the California court thinks gays have less constitutional rights than Hispanics.
21. Blue John spews:
Blue John–
California imploded because of excessive costly government social programs. It was unsustainable and KER-POW! I’m warning you that folks who cannot get the handouts in California anymore are looking for more fertil grounds aka Washington State. I’m not complaining…I’m making an observation. Where do you think all those folks who have been gaming the California system are gonna go Blue John?? It’s this type of situation that turns Liberals into Conservatives as folks of all stripes get tired of paying for folks who do not produce. It happened in Denmark and many European countries…the overwhelming impact of uncontrolled “do-gooder” immigration.
Do you speak Spanish Blue John??
If not, learn quick!
#36 – The problem in your logic (giggle) is that it doesn’t make any sense. If ‘liberal big government’ is always the problem, if it’s that simple, then the MOST conservative states with the smallest government will be DEFINITION be the most business friendly and attract all the money and wealth and will have done so over the last 200 years.
I won’t even go in to the laughable nature of that. You can go check out how many financial firms have moved out of liberal big government LA, NY and Chicago to go to Mississippi….go…look it up. LOL.
Daddy Love, why don’t you believe in equal rights for fathers who want to marry their adult sons? How does their marriage affect yours?
38 T
You didn’t follow my advice. But here’s another question: can you name one?
We have millions of non-related adult males and females who would like the right to marry the consenting adult they love. As opposed to that, and following in a proud Republican tradition of arguing from the non-existent, you are positing a father and son whose existence you have not established.
Hmmm, whose rights should I support?
Anyone from “List A” voting democrat is ruining the country.
#38. Do you bother to read other posts? We answered your stupid question, at least twice.
#38
I agree with troll. We must ban all hetero-sexual marriages. Good point. Otherwise we’re be forced to allow mother-son marriages next. It’s a slippery slope. If men can marry WOMEN, then what’s next? Letting men marry goats? Eventually we’ll let sexless 90 year old seniors marry…how will THAT help procreation! We MUST ban seniors from being married! Otherwise when will it stop! The logic is OBVIOUS? LOL
My GOD Republicans are stupid. That’s why ALL (98%) of corporations are run out of big liberal cities with fancy evolution learn’n edukation…and Mississippi and South Dakota have jack shit. Fox News has their HQ in New York city you idiots! Why don’t THEY, the beacon of conservative media, move their ass to a ‘conservative’ low tax state like Wyoming? It’s FOX NEWS! No one is stopping them? (looking at watch)
#36. “Be afraid. Be very afraid of those brown skinned people. We must fan the flames of immigrant hatred. It’s the only thing that’s still working for us conservatives.”
You got links for that, or is this just racist BS pulled from your….hat? How about some facts, not rumor and fear mongering.
40 MS
Anyone from List A who votes Republican is supporting their oppressors.
Anyone from “List A” voting democrat is ruining the country.
Facts. Let’s see some data or some links.
Exactly HOW is voting democrat ruining the country? Let’s have a debate on those bullet points instead of your bumper sticker kindergarten blurt.
43 BJ
That’s why all of the European countries have turned rabidly conservative, don’t you know.
BTW, my own opinion is that now that the millennialist ferveor is subsiding, consertvatives will find fewer and fewer irrationally fearful people to vote for them.
The interesting thing about the Ricci case is that (as I understand it) Ricci et. al. made no argument that Title VII is unconstitutional or that Title VII does not apply. Because of that, (as I understand it) the defendants did not have to prove that the promotion tests were racially biased, just that the appearance of bias would leave them liable for a Title VII lawsuit. Which it would.
9 DJ
You left out one of the fundamental uses of “activist judges:” they are judges who recognized the civil rights of African-Americans and de-balled the white supremacists and racists in the American South after WWII.
Among other things, that is, those are code words for “n—-r lovers.”
Just like I said. Here’s Senator Inhofe (Dumbass-OK) on Sotomayor:
Yep. They oppose her because she’s a Latino woman. Or so it will be obvious to anyone who is not a Republican bleater.
How come there are not hordes of danes and finns and dutch and english trying to sneak into the US to better their lives from those “socialist” contries, but
there are many illegals coming in from Mexico, that has a lower personal and corporate tax rate? Shouldn’t Mexico, with it’s lower taxes, be a capitalistic paradise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....ountry.svg
Just wondering about those pesky facts.
Rush Limbaugh, once-upon-a-time when the “drive by” media wasn’t paying attention to him on a daily basis he was the keeper and teacher of higher conservative study.
Now that the MSM is paying attention to every word he says, he’s crying like a baby on his radio show pleading that Keith Olbermann go “one month” without reporting on Rush.
No such luck, baby.
On the air today Rush called Sotomayor and President Obama “racists.”
Oh man this is so good, Liberals couldn’t buy or make up this kind of golden publicity.
I don’t follow the Hispanic political community, but I’m certain that today, regardless of their specific heritage, they are brimming with great pride that a Latino has been nominated as a Justice to the SCOTUS.
Then, within hours if not minutes of the announcement, Rush is calling her a racist!!
Way-to-go, Rush!
Imagine, the man who played “Barack The Magic Negro” on his radio show is calling President Obama and the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee racists!
I heard this on Ed Schultz today:
“The GOP(P) is lower than whale manure on the bottom of the ocean.”
LMAO!! I’m so enjoying this!!! After years of those shitheads dividing this country and then finally running it into the ground this is such sweet justice!
tsk, tsk…the troll is still looking for somebody who’ll say that it’s ok for him to screw his kid…
…uhhhh, try John Yoo or a Catholic Archbishop…or a Mormon Elder…might be expensive, but I’ll bet they’ll do it for you.
Good luck with that (rolls eyes…).
This SCOTUS pick is BRILLIANT.
1) Appointed by George H.W. Bush.
2) Reappointed by Pres. Clinton.
3) Affirmed by Republican Senators in the past
4) Most judicial experience than any other nominee in many decades.
5) Female
6) Latino.
President Obama is PLAYING what’s left of the Republican Party like a cheap $2 harp from Hell.
Here are the Republicans choices:
A) Oppose the nomination of Justice Sotomayor who has bi-partisan presidential and senatorial support, who is female and the first Latino nominated to the position. The backlash of which will further damage the Republican’s chances at reviving their dying party.
Or,
B) Go along with the nomination of Justice Sotomayor and piss off the hardcore conservative base of the party. The backlash of which will further damage the Republican’s chances at reviving their dying party.
Check and MATE!
You know, I knew Obama was good, even great. But this GREAT, in just 4 MONTHS!!!! America will be in great, great shape in just a few years from now.
The GOP has less than 1 year to right its ship with the public, then we’re in the 2010 election cycle. If they lose more congressional seats and even lose one more Senate seat, then they’ll have just one more election cycle to be successful or it’s over of the GOP. I wonder what the new conservative party name will be for the 2014 elections? Maybe the DNC should take a vote and re-brand the party name for them. Doh!
Grand
Obsolete
Party.
I just hope that nothing unfortunate happens to Justices Alito, Thomas, or Scalia, or Chief Justice Roberts. That would be just awful.
Let’s wish they would suddenly decide to retire to spend more time with their families.
I’m just worried that Chief Justicve Roberts will be unable to decide cases without letting his race and gender unduly influence hium.
(chortle!)
And collapse on the the fainting couch with the vapors!
[Spam]
As long as the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are adhered to, I’m OK with whomever they put on the court. However, if he or she wants to legislate from the bench, he or she should resign and run for some elected office in order to introduce and/or change the laws.
60 PI
if he or she wants to legislate from the bench
And just what do you think that means?
52. YLB spews:
You find that funny?
Ed stole one of the oldest analogies ever.
Have you never heard this before YLB??
Funny??
About as funny as saying “the sky is blue”.
Golly Diddled Luvr@60, would Sotomayor voted with the one nitwit to kill Prop-8? If so then that’s legislation from the bench moron. That’s why the CA Supremes let the law stand as Pelletizer said. People vote and make law. Judges determine if laws were broken or if a passed law is constitutional. Prop-8 was constitutional so they left it alone.
Gosh you are thick headed and stupid.
Don Joe brought up Judge Bork. Research the blatant lies told by Joe Biden back in the day regarding his voting for Bork.
62 Just about as true, too.
What remains to be seen is whether the GOP has irretrievably dragged the whole damned country to the bottom of the Briny along with it.
50 The answer to the question you raise, of course, is that Mr. C, like his delusional-fascist colleagues, pulled another lie out of his ass and tossed it out expecting we’d all be dumb enough not to question it.
Sotomayor’s elevation to the appeals court by Bill Clinton was supported by a number of still sitting Republican Senators including Orrin Hatch.
It will be interesting to see if they sing the Limbaugh/Huckabee/Gingrich tune sung today.
The GOPP is lower than whale manure on the bottom of the ocean and it’s sinking even further!
62 – It’s funny because it fits so well! Eat it fiend!
@11 The Economist had an article last week about California’s dysfunctional government and talk of a state constitutional convention to fix it.
Obama wins by 52% and you say that’s a landslide, Prop 8 passes by 52% and you make it sound like it passed by the skin of its teeth.
You want another reason to block Sotomayor?
Didden v. Village of Port Chester, 2006
Rancid bag of piss that she is, she didn’t even have the guts to sign the decision. It came out unopposed and unsigned from a 3 judge panel on the 2nd Circuit.
@32 “When the KKK is hanging a black person, they KNOW they’re in the right”
I think it’s important for people to know the KKK did more than hang blacks. They burned some of them alive. In the case of Jesse Washington, a mob of 15,000 bigots — half the town of Waco, Texas — turned out to watch the burning, then one sick bastard sent a picture postcard to a friend boasting of the “barbecue.” They threw a chain around his neck, hoisted him up on a tree limb, and repeatedly lowered him slowly into the fire. When he tried to use his hands to climb up the chain, they cut off his fingers so he couldn’t. That happened in 1916, but can you believe this, even today there are people in that armpit of a town who oppose erecting a monument to the victim of this lynching.
@32 “When the KKK is hanging a black person, they KNOW they’re in the right”
I think it’s important for people to know the KKK did more than hang blacks. They burned some of them alive.
Obama wins by 52% and you say that’s a landslide, Prop 8 passes by 52% and you make it sound like it passed by the skin of its teeth.
Neither won BY 52%. Obama won WITH 53%.
Prop h8 won by 4.5%. Obama won by 7.2%.
Spews is right…you just don’t have a flying fuck of a clue as to what you’re talking about do you?
Additionally you conveniently failed to mention that the United States Supreme Court did not deem this case worthy of re-consideration.
Fume all you want fuckhead, the election is still over…
… and you still lost.
I’d say it’s more likely that the poster in the “rancid bag of piss” (sooooo typically classy).
@71 I would wager you haven’t even read the case, or if you did, you don’t understand a thing it says. OK, fasten your seatbelt, dumbass, because here goes.
The case is not about a developer’s alleged attempt to extort money from a property owner. It’s about the property owner’s failure to challenge a municipality’s taking of his land under a state eminent domain statute within the statute of limitations. This is simple, black-letter law, a no-brainer even for a first-year law student: If you don’t file your lawsuit before the statute of limitations expires, you can’t sue and the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.
In dicta, the three-judge federal appellate court panel also said that on the issue of the validity of the municipality’s use of eminent domain for a private development, the court was obliged to follow the Supreme Court’s precedential ruling in the New London case. This also is simple first-year-law-school stuff that is not controversial or debatable.
In other words, wingnut bloggers are raising hell because a federal appeals court refused to hear a case over which it had no jurisdiction and stated in dicta (do you know what “dicta” is, imbecile?) that is has to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court!
I’m a patient rabbit, but it annoys me when people who don’t know anything about the most elementary aspects of our legal system presume to criticize a judge when they don’t even know what the case was about, what the decision said, or what the judge actually did. Imbecile.
a federal appeals court refused to hear a case over which it had no jurisdiction and stated in dicta (do you know what “dicta” is, imbecile?) that is has to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court!
Clearly, she’s an activist judge. ;-)
@75 “you just don’t have a flying fuck of a clue as to what you’re talking about”
That pretty much sums up what delbert knows about Didden, Judge Sotomayor, and the law in general.
@ 77
[D]o you know what “dicta” is, imbecile?
Wanna bet he looks it up, and reads the other word as “orbiter,” and wonders what the hell rockets have to do with the law?
@78 Yep, I figured delbert and his fellow wingnuts would leap to that conclusion. Of course, it’s a lot easier to reach that conclusion if you haven’t read the case, don’t know what the case was about, and don’t know anything about judicial jurisdiction to begin with.
This has been the rethuglicant strategy for the last forty years…throw as much irrelevant bullshit in the air…frame and control the debate/discussion with the most arrant nonsense imaginable…and dare the other side to waste their time and resources to refute all the absurdities. Hmmmm…just like the trolls here. Imagine that.
@80 Yep, I think that’s pretty much the direction that wingnut “reasoning” (if you deign to call it that) is going with respect to this particular ruling.
What it boils down to is these wingnut ignoramuses think Sotomayor should be kept off the Supreme Court because she (along with the District Court judge and the other two judges on her appellate court panel) concluded that a court doesn’t have jurisdiction over a case filed after the statute of limitations expired.
At this point, nearly every lawyer in America must be hoping the Democrats get a permanent filibuster-proof majority in the Senate so people operating at this level of stupidity are permanently deprived of any ability to have any say in the selection of our nation’s jurists …
@82 Delbert isn’t that deep. He simply didn’t read the case, and shot off his mouth in a state of complete ignorance. An error no rookie law student makes twice …
I still cannot fathom why jurists who consider themselves original constitutionalists can even sanction a public corporation that has outlived its public purpose. (which is limited by law — originally).
@84 et al
You give lie to the term “liberal” if you can defend a case like Didden. It is statism at its worst. Taking from a private party for the benefit of another private party at Governmental fiat. Why Wasser was given authority to handle the development should have been the subject of a corruption investigation.
On your arguments:
The precedent for Didden is Kelo, another execrable decision by the liberals on the SC. Bad law makes bad precedent.
And the statute of limitations argument was a cheap out for the court, since the extortion wasn’t actually committed until 2003, yet the court somehow started the clock in 1999. If you have enough connections to get the development rights for the city, getting one more judge in your pocket can’t be all that tough.
#86…
1) You’re still wrong.
2) You’re still a dumb fuck.
3) The election is still over.
4) You still LOST.
A typlical libertard seeing a Dem conspiracy under every rock, conveniently ignoring the systematic looting of the middle class by the Republican Corporate oligarchy…there’s your conspiracy, dumbass…
…it’s so much easier to slurp the gruel that Rush feeds you than to think for yourself, isn’t it?
@87
Nice 2nd grade debate style there. All invective, no substance.
Work in the term “poopyhead” and you’re golden.
@86 Of course I can defend the ruling in Didden. People who file lawsuits after the statute of limitations has expired get their cases dismissed. There, that wasn’t hard at all.
Nice 2nd grade debate style there. All invective, no substance.
Work in the term “poopyhead” and you’re golden.
You’re referring to your comment at 71, right?
There’s no debate…the delbert is just plain wrong.
Get over it.
Oh..and calling a sitting Judge a “rancid bag of piss” is REALLY mature….asshole.
@86 (continued) Read the case, dildo brain!
“On July 14, 1999, after a public hearing, the Defendant-Appellee Village Board of Trustees adopted a resolution in which it made a finding of public purpose for condemnation of the properties located in the redevelopment district. … The statute of limitations … is three years. … Appellants … brought suit in January 2004, more than three years after the date their claims accrued, and thus their claims are time-barred.”
http://vlex.com/vid/didden-vil.....d-20315525
The decision says nothing about the merits of the case. How could it? The trial court ruled it had no jurisdiction to hear the case, so no evidence was submitted, no findings of fact were made, and nothing was ruled on except the motion to dismiss; so the appellate court had no record on which to base a decision on the merits. If the property owner had won the appeal, Sotomayor’s court wouldn’t have decided the case in his favor, it would have sent the case back to the District Court for a trial.
@90
Can you honestly say that decision was just – at either the district court level or the appeals court level?
“Gimme $800k or half your project, or my goons will take your property?”
@ 95
In other words, you would have Sotomayor and the other members of the three judge panel ignore the precedent of a higher court, and rule based on their personal notions of justice and equity?
I should point out that the SCOTUS refused cert in this case.
@92 My comments are, despite outward appearances, are not aimed at persuading delbert. Delbert is a basket case. My discussion of Didden is for the benefit of readers more intelligent than a coconut, so it’s clearly not directed at him.
@94 I read the case. I understand the contrived technicality that caused it to be thrown out. I still say it was a miscarriage of justice.
Well, lets hope your “Wise Latina” can dredge up a little empathy for the common man, otherwise we’re going to see a lot more shit like Didden and Kelo.
I still can’t believe I’m arguing for personal freedoms and y’all are pressing the corporate case – you Republicans you.
@95 The case isn’t about the developer’s demands. That’s irrelevant. When you don’t have a right to sue because you let the statute of limitations expire, the court’s lack of jurisdiction is the only issue.
@96
Bad precedent can be ignored, see Dred Scott.
@97 You didn’t answer the question.
Was Didden just?
Yes or no.
@95 (continued) But let’s consider what might have happened. The property owner learned in 1999 his property would be condemned for a redevelopment project, and if he consulted legal counsel, knew he had 3 years to challenge it. But he did nothing until 2003, at which time he apparently got a better offer from a rival developer.
Meanwhile, the original developer has expended time, effort, and money on designing and planning the redevelopment project. Nevertheless, when the property owner squawks, the developer agrees to sit down with the property owner and negotiate. And says, okay we’ll let you proceed with your own plans if you compensate us for giving up what we’ve invested in this phase of the project. And spells out what that compensation is. It’s presented as a settlement offer, but the property owner, who doesn’t want to pay the developer anything at all in return for the developer giving up its rights, slaps the “extortion” label on it, which plays well in the media and among people who know nothing about the matter, but in fact it’s not at all clear this was anything other than the developer advising the property owner of what it would take to make the developer whole.
Now, I’m not saying that’s what happened, I’m only saying this is illustrative of what could have happened, and I would want to find out what did happen before passing the kind of knee-jerk judgment you’re flinging around in this thread.
@98 Sounds like you’re in the market for activist judges who will exerise jurisdiction over anything and everything regardless of any statutory, constitutional, or other legal limitations on their power.
@100 “Was Didden just? Yes or no.”
How would I know whether the end result was just? There’s no way to know that, because the case never went to trial, because the plaintiff waited too long to file his lawsuit, so there’s no evidence or facts on which to make that judgment. The closest I can come to answering your question is, that was the plaintiff’s fault.
For what it’s worth, I’m not a fan of using eminent domain to take property from one private landowner to give to another private landowner. Apparently many of my fellow liberals agree with me, because the Soviet of Washington, despite its reputation as a cesspool of leftist radicalism, was one of only 8 states that had enacted laws against this practice prior to the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision — legislation the other 42 states promptly moved to copy. It seems the socialists who run this state historically have had more respect for private property rights than, say, the conservative legislatures running the red states.
@ 100
Bad precedent can be ignored, see Dred Scott.
First of all, Scott v Sanford was “overruled” by the XIVth Amendment:
Secondly, you’ve side-stepped my question. Since you’re demanding that RR answer your question with a simple “yes” or “no,” I think you should answer mine:
Should the judges on a lower court disregard the precedent of a higher court, thereby substituting in its stead their own, personal views of justice and equity?
By the way, delbert, you might have a better argument with Plessy and Brown v Board of Education, but, even then, we’re talking about the Supreme Court overturning its own precedent. In this case, you’re demanding that a lower court ignore the precedent set by a higher court.
A friend of mine once complained that a school district condemned land owned by his family, to use for a school expansion that never happened, and the district ultimately resold the land at a large profit. He thought the land should have been returned to his family when it became clear it wasn’t needed for the school. While constitutional restraints on the power of eminent domain are not so restrictive, I think this is good policy that should be legislatively enacted. It would encourage public entities to make eminent domain decisions more carefully.
Sen. James Inhofe’s brilliant release:
Did James Inhofe express similar concerns about the race and gender of, say, Samuel Alito? If not, would we be justified in calling Inhofe a sexist and racist pig?
Don Joe’s answers:
1) I wasn’t able to find any such remarks.
2) No. That would be an insult to pigs.
Good god, this crowd has dived into case law and squashed the conservatives with reason and nuance. All the cons and sock puppets have left is bleating insults. Granted there are a few liberals yammering nasty like the conservatives, but over all, very impressive.
And probably completely ignored/lost by cyn and the rest.
Exactly the kind of mean-spirited bullshit the right wing is flinging about right now.
Perfect. Let them sink further into the muck of their own making. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.
While Blue John may have actually read through these posts, i stopped at comment #1 realizing that the reichwinger conservative voice on this website is completely populated by idiots and morons. No reason to delve any further.
Don Joe @ 108
Senator Inhofe is from Oklahoma — the state which gave McCain his largest margin of victory in 2008. A couple points higher than Utah, which has had the largest Republican victory margins for several previous presidential elections in a row. And Oklahoma was the only state in the entire country where McCain carried every single county.
What a perfect politcal and policy pick.
From the SCOTUS Blog, an interesting analysis of the “Pappas” case I heard some wingnuts go off on. Apparently they never read the case. I just did, and greatly appreciate this analysis. For you wingnuts, please read on.
Sotomayor wrote in dissent on this case. I believe you can often tell more about appellate judges by their dissents. This is brilliant and thoughtful.
From Scotus Blog:
“One of her more controversial cases was Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2002), involving an employee of the New York City Police Department who was terminated from his desk job because, when he received mailings requesting that he make charitable contributions, he responded by mailing back racist and bigoted materials. On appeal, the panel majority held that the NYPD could terminate Pappas for his behavior without violating his First Amendment right to free speech. Sotomayor dissented from the majority’s decision to award summary judgment to the police department. She acknowledged that the speech was “patently offensive, hateful, and insulting,” but cautioned the majority against “gloss[ing] over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives just because it is confronted with speech is does not like.” In her view, Supreme Court precedent required the court to consider not only the NYPD’s mission and community relations but also that Pappas was neither a policymaker nor a cop on the beat. Moreover, Pappas’s speech was anonymous, “occur[ring] away from the office on [his] own time.” She expressed sympathy for the NYPD’s “concerns about race relations in the community,” which she described as “especially poignant,” but at the same time emphasized that the NYPD had substantially contributed to the problem by disclosing the results of its investigation into the racist mailings to the public. In the end, she concluded, the NYPD’s race relations concerns “are so removed from the effective functioning of the public employer that they cannot prevail over the free speech rights of the public employee.”
Gee, she upheld the concept and principles of free speech, even when it is hateful, stepped on progressive groups rightly outraged by the officer’s conduct, and in dissent pled with her colleagues to stick to the rule of law and precedent. I love that phrase, “…be careful about glossing over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of the first amendment in our lives…” The whole decision flows beautifully.
When she says these things, she apparently sounds radical and dangerous to today’s repubs. That speaks volumes.
Checkmate.
YLB @111
Your quote from delbert about “dredging up empathy for the common man” in judicial decisionmaking shows both his misunderstanding of constitutional jurisprudence and his poorly-aimed reason for flailing away at “activist” judges. Empathy, of course, is not what the Constitution prescribes with regard to what Article 3 judges should seek in interpreting the Constitution’s, or the law’s, contours. Rather, the rule of law should be that which judges should seek. Moreover, that which wingies always fling at the judiciary is that judges should not employ extrajudicial concepts like “empathy” to make decisions. Employing empathy to resolve a court case would be at the heart of judicial activism. Now, we have a wingie requesting just that. Where do these people come from? (Sorry about ending a sentence with a preposition.)
Tom Foss @114
I haven’t read that decision. But, your summary says the decision was a dissent from “summary judgment.” Too many federal judges (about 75% of them appointed by Republican presidents) think that a motion for summary judgment means they get to decide who wins a case without having to hear any testimony, without a jury getting to weigh the credibility of witnesses. That would be okay if such judges paid attention to the rule permitting summary judgment–are there any material facts in dispute? Granting a motion for summary judgment means the plaintiff (generally, the little guy), too often loses. Our local federal trial bench is quite good. That is not the case nationwide. If Sotomayor dissented in a free speech case from granting summary judgment, that means she thought all the facts should come out in a trial. That’s a major plus, from my humble perspective.
Richard @ 113
Senator Inhofe is from Oklahoma
So, they raise a lot of pigs in Oklahoma?
PL @ 116
I think the facts in Pappas v. Giuliani were stipulated. The case description from the NY Civil Liberties Union reads:
FYI, the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
This decision was, in my opinion, unconstitutional.
DJ @ 118
Stipulated “facts” can, and often do, lead past a motion for summary judgment and to a trial. The question might be what inferences might be drawn from such facts?–could a trier of fact find the elements of the cause of action claimed from between the lines of the evidence offered? There is some nuance involved, some notion that maybe, as a judge who understands that I might be wrong, that maybe hearing live testimony might be helpful in reaching my decision. (Motions for summary judgment are resolved on written affidavits, among other things.) I like a judge who says that “there’s enough here. Let’s hear these people testify, under oath, and all of that.”
Hey, where’d all our wingies go on this thread? Puddy, Cynical, Marvie? Shoot, no talking points, I’d guess, right? Cualquiera. Buenas noches, mis amigos.
Some say there may be questions as to Sonia Sotomayor’s citizenship. They say there may be evidence that she’s undocumented. In other words, she’s an illegal alien!
Some say there may be questions as to Sonia Sotomayor’s citizenship, as she is one of the lizard people from Alpha Draconis who secretly rule our world. They say there may be evidence that she’s undocumented. In other words, she’s an illegal alien!
Proud leftist and Don joe- you are exactly right, and that was my point in posting this comment.
She adhered to the rule of law and also pointed out the proper role of the jury system, which is to hear all the facts and apply them to the case. She also stated the reality of our free speech principles, in that it protects a lot of angry and hateful speech too, even when that is wrong. (Hear that wingnuts?) Good basic 1st and 7th amendment stuff that true conservatives should appreciate. But in today’s world, the right wingers love to denigrate and have spent thirty years trying to destroy selected elements of the bill of rights like free speech and the jury system with their views of a corporate state and radical conservatism.
This was the point of my post. I did not elaborate as I was tired and I apologize for being unclear. I agree completely with your comments.
@122 Go away. We’re having a serious discussion about law here. Stop interrupting us and go play in a sandbox with the rest of the first graders.
@115 The reason Delbert is flailing away is because a GOP operative in an East Coast boiler room pressed the “Flail” button when Sotomayor was nominated, the word was put out on the wingnut blogs, and all across the land clones like Delbert began flailing on command just as they were brainwashed to do.
63 Pud
So now we know that you know neither how laws are made nor what judges do. I’m shocked, shocked to discover this.
98 delbert
So you think that a federal judge should ignore the law and get in touch with their feelings about what is “just,” and then rule based on that?
Riiiiight.
Another TJ @ 123:
Brilliant!!
thanks for the great laugh out loud at Troll’s expense.
We’re blessed in these comment threads with a deep bench in knowledge of legal matters.
Excellent work my fellow liberals!
All I can say is bring it on you right wing cunts. I WANT YOU TO ATTACK THIS NOMINEE WITH EVERYTHING YOU HAVE! Do it you cowards. If you don’t then you’re lower than whale shit. Get on the phone. Start calling the few Publican representatives left and DEMAND they go after her. PLEASE!
I love the fact that the inbred righties are too fucking stupid to realize what a gift their attack of this nominee is. I am loving it! OBAMA by 20% in 2012!