President Obama has promised to nominate liberal judicial activists who will indulge their left-wing policy preferences based on “empathy” instead of neutrally in applying the law. In selecting Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his promise.
In a speech as a Court of Appeals judge, she said, “The court is where policy is made.” Her opinions have followed that approach. What she was referring to was that public policy was made by the Court of Appeals, not by the Legislature.
In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor ruled that reverse racism was to be used in making decisions. She ruled in favor of a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. In Ricci, an applicant to be a firefighter scored the highest on the test but was denied the job because he was not black.
According to Judge Jose Cabranes, Sotomayor’s colleague, Sotomayor’s opinion “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case,” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.” Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed disappointment with the case, stating, “Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.”
Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech given at Berkeley, she said she believes it is appropriate for judges to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
The poor quality of Sotomayor’s decisions is reflected in her record of reversals by the Supreme Court. Sixty percent of her decisions have been reversed by the Supreme Court.
^ ”The poor quality of Sotomayor’s decisions is reflected in her record of reversals by the Supreme Court. Sixty percent of her decisions have been reversed by the Supreme Court.”
She has actually ruled in favor of anti-choice protesters. And she has also ruled that citizens did not have the right to challenge Bush’s decision regarding cutting off funding for overseas family planning agencies that offered abortion services. These are just two of the reasons why legal experts on the right and the left are singing Judge Sotomayor’s praises.
And Right_On, I’m pretty sure that she’s nowhere near forgetting “that Constitution thingy”. As a matter of fact, given her degrees from Princeton and Yale on the topic, I’d wager that she is vastly more familiar with and respectful of the Constitution than are you.
To give you an idea of how far ‘out there’ the righties are getting in their attempt to bring down Sotomayor, I offer THIS little gem, from another forum:
“The thing with New Yorkers is that they believe they are normal, average everyday Americans.
Sorry to disappoint them, but the majority of us do not live between skyscrapers and several million people crammed one on top of another.
The experiences of a New York citizen is nothing even close to a suburban and rural American.
And what makes a woman or a minority an expert on the law, just because they are female and/or not white?”
Didja know that John Roberts, the last judge that Republicans placed on the Supreme Court, has never ruled against a corporation in his entire career?
Sotomayor is a widely respected moderate who closely follows case law. Obama should have nominated a real left-wing bomb-thrower - the kind of justice that righties accuse her of being. That would balance the court!
Simon, And you think the post you quoted proves how “out there” the righties are? Your use of this as an example proves how out of touch you are. I guess you believe that women and minorities are better on the law? That is absurd and you know it.
Lighten up folks. The Supreme Court is a political apponintment. Always has, always will be. Objective Judges and defenders of the Constitution are the ones you agree with and the activist judges are those you disagree with. A few times they surprise but for the most part they follow the line of the President who nominated. Remember the constitution was purposly left vague so they could get something to the people, who by the way they didn’t really trust. Each generation interperts it in the light of current information. That’s the strength of America. The rules are flexible.
jkshaw about 15 years ago
She looks as though she’s about to contest a decision there,
MaryWorth Premium Member about 15 years ago
Sonia knows the rules and doesn’t need a rule book… and is a neighbor of mine ( Bedford Street at 7th Avenue ), but have never met her.
Right_On about 15 years ago
“Dale Hopson said, 41 minutes
Sonia knows the rules and doesn’t need a rule book”
That’s right Dale, forget that Constitution thingy and just judge from your heart!! Just what the framers intended!!!
nomad2112 about 15 years ago
President Obama has promised to nominate liberal judicial activists who will indulge their left-wing policy preferences based on “empathy” instead of neutrally in applying the law. In selecting Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his promise.
In a speech as a Court of Appeals judge, she said, “The court is where policy is made.” Her opinions have followed that approach. What she was referring to was that public policy was made by the Court of Appeals, not by the Legislature.
In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor ruled that reverse racism was to be used in making decisions. She ruled in favor of a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. In Ricci, an applicant to be a firefighter scored the highest on the test but was denied the job because he was not black.
According to Judge Jose Cabranes, Sotomayor’s colleague, Sotomayor’s opinion “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case,” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.” Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed disappointment with the case, stating, “Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.”
Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech given at Berkeley, she said she believes it is appropriate for judges to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
The poor quality of Sotomayor’s decisions is reflected in her record of reversals by the Supreme Court. Sixty percent of her decisions have been reversed by the Supreme Court.
believecommonsense about 15 years ago
^ ”The poor quality of Sotomayor’s decisions is reflected in her record of reversals by the Supreme Court. Sixty percent of her decisions have been reversed by the Supreme Court.”
cite a source other than Rush Limbblah
tpenna about 15 years ago
She has actually ruled in favor of anti-choice protesters. And she has also ruled that citizens did not have the right to challenge Bush’s decision regarding cutting off funding for overseas family planning agencies that offered abortion services. These are just two of the reasons why legal experts on the right and the left are singing Judge Sotomayor’s praises.
And Right_On, I’m pretty sure that she’s nowhere near forgetting “that Constitution thingy”. As a matter of fact, given her degrees from Princeton and Yale on the topic, I’d wager that she is vastly more familiar with and respectful of the Constitution than are you.
Savannahis4 about 15 years ago
ditto
Simon_Jester about 15 years ago
To give you an idea of how far ‘out there’ the righties are getting in their attempt to bring down Sotomayor, I offer THIS little gem, from another forum:
“The thing with New Yorkers is that they believe they are normal, average everyday Americans.
Sorry to disappoint them, but the majority of us do not live between skyscrapers and several million people crammed one on top of another.
The experiences of a New York citizen is nothing even close to a suburban and rural American.
And what makes a woman or a minority an expert on the law, just because they are female and/or not white?”
Copperdomebodhi about 15 years ago
Didja know that John Roberts, the last judge that Republicans placed on the Supreme Court, has never ruled against a corporation in his entire career?
Sotomayor is a widely respected moderate who closely follows case law. Obama should have nominated a real left-wing bomb-thrower - the kind of justice that righties accuse her of being. That would balance the court!
gbrucewilson about 15 years ago
Simon, And you think the post you quoted proves how “out there” the righties are? Your use of this as an example proves how out of touch you are. I guess you believe that women and minorities are better on the law? That is absurd and you know it.
Simon_Jester about 15 years ago
Bruce, lil’ suggestion.
Forget about that job with the Psychic Friends Hotline
Yer no good as a mind reader. LOL!
Peter Duran about 15 years ago
Lighten up folks. The Supreme Court is a political apponintment. Always has, always will be. Objective Judges and defenders of the Constitution are the ones you agree with and the activist judges are those you disagree with. A few times they surprise but for the most part they follow the line of the President who nominated. Remember the constitution was purposly left vague so they could get something to the people, who by the way they didn’t really trust. Each generation interperts it in the light of current information. That’s the strength of America. The rules are flexible.
Motivemagus about 15 years ago
The main legitimate “criticism” of her is that she is strict legally – she isn’t a guaranteed vote for either side!