Thread: Obama's Choice for the Supreme Court

Originally Posted by jason_jinx

Eating all those poor lil sunfish has damaged your brain. :9

Whatchu sayin', Jason? I usually understand where you're coming from but you lost me on that one.

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

Originally Posted by Captain Coors

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."

States rights.....uh huh. I digress...way off topic but the phrase "states rights" sends me into red zone sometimes.

Opposite side of the spectrum...and yet the left claim to better represent the people. To your earlier comment...yes there was debate among the founders...it was NO FED or LIMITED FED. They ultimately went limited but would have their eyes shoot out of their skull if they were alive to see how far we have twisted it.

You are probably right, thought I personally would have phrased it differently.

But the founding fathers also lived 300+ years ago, and we live in modern times.

Anyhoo, I dont really feel like 'debating' states rights anymore, so Im not trying to provoke you with that last comment.

Originally Posted by Gumby

hmmmm.....
Trent Lott, says his state was proud to have voted for Strom Thurman and gets run out of town for being a racist.
Sotomayor says that a Latina lady would make a better judge than a white man and gets to be nominated for the Supreme Court....
Strange times we live in.

"When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either." Sounds innocent enough, but Strom Thurmond's presidential campaign hinged on racial segregation platform, I mean the man has the record for the longest filibuster in history, what was it against? "Civil Rights Act of 1957". I think Trent Lott's comments open himself up to be viewed in a racist light. That compounded with some of his votes, like voting against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, pretty much defines him as someone a little on the bigoted side.

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." This neither supports racism , nor do any of her decisions as a judge give any evidence that she is or supports racism. Especially if you read the whole speech that this quote was taken from. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...ewanted=5&_r=2 I fail to see where the "racist" is in her speech, what I get out of it is that life/cultural experience takes part in every decision that you make, and that some experiences will make your decision making better in some cases than others' decision made based on their life's experiences.

So what I see as strange, is that you cannot or just outright refusal to see that there is absolutely no comparison your examples given.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Regarding the firefighter case - the City messed up and she should have ruled on it...that is my layman's opinion. Just because no blacks passed the test and some whites and one hispanic did - doesnt mean they cant hand out promotions, that's some of the clearest quota keeping...ridiculous.

Why wouldnt she take the opportunity, in the Circuit Court to deal with the difficult constitutional issues at play? Why would she issue an extremely brief, un-signed opinion that basically rubber-stamped the District Court below her? Was that a good decision? The Surpeme Court seems to disagree and have taken up the case. I like Jose Cabranes' view...and he makes a good point when he says "the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

She punted...hoping to keep it out of the big ring, and it failed.

If the ruling is upheld or struck down is almost irrelevent. Why would she shirk her duty to handle the legalities and constitutional issues that are at the heart of the case?

I'm not a lawyer - and I have no doubt that the Pro-bama lawyers that we do have here will side with her and explain in legalese why she did what she did...but I'm (PERSONALLY) not buying it.

Her hands were tied. In regards to this case, she was bound by precedent of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Barrington Parker, a GW Bush nominee). Now correct me if I am wrong, but is she "legislating from the bench" as you guys commonly like to blame the judiciary for doing? Nope. She is doing exactly what the "party of the LAW" wants the judiciary to do, she is following the law, and not "legislating from the bench".

Are you advocating "judicial activism"? Isn't that the very phrase that you guys have been parroting for the past 10 years, and now you are saying that she "punted" because isn't an "activist judge"? Hypocrite much?

Originally Posted by Gumby

more troubling to me, Hawgballs, is when she said that the appeals court was where policy is made.
If that is not an endorsement for legislating from the bench, I do not know what is. I am not a fan of lawmaking from the bench.

Also, the racism thing I was talking about was not to indite her as a racist. Both comments were taken out of context by these people's opponents.
Lott was only trying to make an old man smile and Sanmayor was only trying to state how her life experiences could be relevant to her job.
People blew both out of proportion.

Once again, context is the key.

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made," she said, laughing a bit through the next part: "And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. Okay, I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I know."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99...layer_embedded
Was she actually wrong by saying what she said? Nope. She isn't condoning legislating from the bench. She is stating reality. Ask any lawyer or "legal expert" how off the mark she is, and they will state more often than not, that she is basically stating a truth as general as "the sun will rise in the morning". You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy.

I read in an article that a recent case heard by the Supreme Court (which is itself a "court of appeal") involves the strip search of a 12 year old girl who school officials believed was carrying ibuprofen. The law provides no clear guidance as to whether school officials can be sued for such actions, so when the Supreme Court does finally decide on the case, they will in fact be making policy.

Where the SCotUS might hear 100 cases a year, the courts of appeals will hear thousands, so they are the final stop for a majority of important decisions made at the federal level. So by rendering a decision and giving guidance on the laws, they are actually setting policy.

If bacon were around, I'm sure he would be better at explaining "precedent" and how it is utilized when coming to a decision.

Originally Posted by Gumby

Policy is not made by judges. You are confusing policy with something else, I think. And I think she only said the part about not condoning it because she realized cameras were there.

Okay, now you are just arguing for arguments sake, I get it.

There is no confusion here on my part, what I posted just showed you how appellate courts indeed do make policy. As far as your speculation that she was hedging because of the cameras, well that is just speculation, and it has no relevance as to how correct her statement is.