Thursday, May 28, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor - A Judicial Lawmaker

This is the kind of judicial nominee you get when you elect a president who has no respect for the constitution. (I know... Obama taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, but that's like the gay, atheist, Episcopalian professor teaching theology)

When Sotomayor's rulings have been challenged and brought before the Supreme Court, she has been overturned 60% of the time. Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton nominee for crying out loud, has scolded her in writing for her decision in the infamous Ricci v. DeStefano.

But let's let the Judge speak for herself: "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." --Sonia Sotomayor in a speech at Berkeley

This is not a racist statement. This is the philosophy of a judicial activist. The founding fathers created a government in which judges were to rule based upon the Constitution and the laws written by legislators elected by The People... Judges were not intended to rule based upon their personal experience. This is the statement of a Supreme Court Justice who will overrule the will of the people... Because she can... Because she thinks it's her job to be fair... Even if it means she has to overrule the Constitution.

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor is how Obama will further take the governing of America out of the hands of the people, and make it the province of the elite.

Update: I'd like to thank PAW and Skyepuppy for correcting the first sentence in my post's second paragraph. I wouldn't want to dupe anyone, and I know those who support the Left wouldn't want to dupe anyone or involve themselves in character assassination.

That's as gracious as I can be, because I have no fondness for people who support the limiting of my freedom and the devaluation of my vote.

....

11 comments:

Grammy said...

What are you thinking???? Obviously, the problem here is that white males wrote the Constitution.

Malott said...

Ahhhhhhhhhhh!

janice said...

I wasn't at all surprised by this pick, actually she's not as radical as I thought his nomination would be.

paw said...

I'm not cruising for a fight. Maybe you can help me see one of your points.

Can you tell me why a 60% reversal rate is a bad thing? I think its true that the Supreme Court reverses more than 60% of the cases it takes, which makes 60% seem about right, and that most judges at Soto's level have a reversal rate at about that level, and much higher reversal rates are not unusual or typically cause for concern. I've heard but haven't verified that Alito had a 100% reversal rate.

Any insight is appreciated.

Christina said...

All I have to say is this:

What would the Democrats say if Justice Roberts had made the same statement regarding his experiences as a white man?

Yes, it's a rhetorical question....and yes, it's a clear double standard.

Tsofah said...

Weeellll, let's hope the Republican's still ASK questions and vet her properly (maybe Democrats will too?). Just because she's Hispanic doesn't mean she should not be put under the same scrutiny that any other Supreme Court candidate is under. I'm tired of the "it doesn't apply to me because I'm not white" stuff, ya'll know?

janice said...

paw, since when aren't you here looking for a fight?

paw said...

Pretty much always, Janice. Its pretty sad if I can't ask in the most nuetral way for someone to explain to me the revelence of a claim they are making. But that's the times, isn't it.

Someone has been duped by out-of-context stats, and if it's me I want to know that. Of course I suspect it's your side. Since Malott is making the claim, I'd like to see him back it up or back down. Or ignore me. But I have a point that deserves to be addressed by anyone considering this issue.

Totally ready to be shown why I'm wrong and why her reversal rate is bad. Any insight is appreciated.

SkyePuppy said...

Paw,

It appears your favorite John Hinderaker shares your views on the 60% figure:

[The 60% statistic] relates only to Sotomayor's decisions as to which a petition for a writ of certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court--a total of only five. (The overwhelming majority of such petitions are denied.) Of the five cases in which the Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, it reversed three. Not only is this a ridiculously small sample, the overall rate of reversal of cases in which the Supreme Court grants cert appears to be around 70 percent. This shouldn't be too surprising, as it requires four votes on the court to grant a writ of certiorari, and five to reverse the Court of Appeals' decision.

So, unless there is more to the story, conservatives should stop citing the 60 percent figure as evidence of any lack of competence on Sotomayor's part.

paw said...

Ma chérie is a woman with integrity and Mr. H comes through with a surprise!

The stats are seemingly pretty simple to put in context. As I understand it, its bold to even try and pull this one off - like crazy bold. I'd be miffed if my guys were operating on this level, manipulating me like a chump and taking the kitchen sink approach to character assassination.

Malott said...

PAW and Skyepuppy,

Thanks for the correction. I've updated my post and given credit.