Obamas nomination of Sotomayor

[Philbo]

Calling some one a druggie, racist, fool,and moronic causes me to lose credibility too. Both sides now.

[ccbatson]

Sigh...how often are liberals going to try and go that well. Name calling of the messenger when they can't argue the message successfully.

[firstandten]

Regardless of how you feel about Pres Obama's politics, I remain impressed with how he goes about preparing to make a decision. Regarding Sotomayor, this link goes into detail about what his administration did even up front to prepare for a possible SCOTUS vacancy. The kind of care and involvement in this decision was what I hoping for when he transitioned from candidate to president. That doesn't mean that one should or will agree with his decisions, but to know that the decision wasn't arrived by haphazardly carries great weight with me.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us...select.html?hp

[d.mcc]

Don't let this be turned into a race or gender question...it is a question of the wrongness of liberal activist [[or any activist judges) making laws instead of interpreting them.

Well, better go back to civics class there friend, judges cannot make laws!

[vetalalumni]

I'm sure there's at least one female and/or minority that is extremely intelligent and highly qualified. Give partial diversity a chance.

Apologetic sentiments aside, Honorable Judge Sotomayor's known vitae qualifies her very well.

[Detroitej72]

I challenge all right wingers here to give an example of her being an activist judge. You can't use the firefighters case as an example, since she and the other justices were acting out of precedence, which is something you people continuously preach.

I bet your will be hard pressed to find one, as your right wing wacko commentators haven't spoken about any other cases.

[Bobl]

Looking at this choice as one of maybe 2 or 3 that Obama will get as he tries to move the court from its conservative activist majority to more to the center.

Probably true. Life will go on. The sun will still appear to rise in the east and set in the west.
Sadly, the extreme right wing AM radio crowd will rant and rave. My advice to them: follow your leader Rush's example and self medicate with illegal oxy prescriptions. If that doesn't work, you could always mock a handicapped person, just like Rush.

[Detroitej72]

One thing that is disturbing to me is some callers to AM radio complaining that we'll now have 6 justices that are of the Catholic faith. Why would that be an issue?

This appears to reinforce the belief that Catholics are still looked down upon in this country. That is a sad testament to the 21st century landscape.

[ccbatson]

Well said d.mcc....Sotomayer and other activist judges desperately need that civics lesson you are talking about.

[Detroitej72]

I can't help but notice you failed to provide proof of her being an activist judge. By the way, whats your definition of one?

[ccbatson]

You haven't heard her say it on that taped meeting? Check it out...she even sheepishly chastises herself for saying it.

[vetalalumni]

... she even sheepishly chastises herself for saying it.

Nope. Listen to all of the clip.




This was an extremely influential person openly acknowledging the gravitas of the occupation. People, especially powerful or influential, should honorably self govern themselves by choice as part of their responsibility to the influenced. It is referred to as good or sound judgement. The sheepish self chastisement was essentially self deprecation. Get it now?

[WolverinesA2]

Yeah, what we need are more strict constitutionalists like Scalia and Thomas, who think that gay sex should be a felony punishable by prison terms. No joke, they actually voted against de-criminalizing gay sex in Lawrence v Texas.

These are the types of judges that FreeofAletall and Ccbatson would like our country to have, "activist" judges pushing a Far Right Christian agenda.

[gazhekwe]

Or more judges who think what's OK for them as boys should be just fine for everyone else. [[Taking off your own clothes among a class full of others doing the same preparing for gym class equates to being required to undress in front of three watching adults). Somehow, that doesn't qualify as applying your own understanding of life to your decision affecting others who might have a different understanding.

[mjs]

Yeah, what we need are more strict constitutionality's like Scalia and Thomas, who think that gay sex should be a felony punishable by prison terms. No joke, they actually voted against de-criminalizing gay sex in Lawrence v Texas.

These are the types of judges that FreeofAletall and Ccbatson would like our country to have, "activist" judges pushing a Far Right Christian agenda.

You're not even making sense. Are Scalia and Thomas strict constructionists or activists? The two terms fall on opposite sides of the spectrum. Thomas is arguably the most strict constructionist the Court has ever seen. He takes the Tenth Amendment literally: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." What he said was that if you want gay sex to be protected by the US Constitution, start drafting the amendment because its currently not mentioned. He will most defiantly allow any State law that legalizes gay marriage and will defiantly strike down any Federal law that bans it. Gay marriage is a pretty liberal idea, but the US Constitution mentions nothing about marriage so he believes the Constitution provides the Federal government with absolutely no power at all to interfere in marriage or sex.

I'll say it again, the activist/constructionist spectrum is unrelated to a liberal/conservative spectrum just as the color spectrum is unrelated to a height spectrum.

[WolverinesA2]

You're not even making sense. Are Scalia and Thomas strict constructionists or activists? The two terms fall on opposite sides of the spectrum.

SARCASM. Ever heard of it?

And no, sex is not mentioned in the Constitution. So theoretically, according to people like you, the state of Michigan could criminalize any sexual act other than missionary-position sex between a man and a woman within the confines of marriage and it would be 100% constitutional. Banning interracial marriage would also be constitutional, since marriage isn't mentioned. Of course there's that pesky 14th Amendment that says you have to treat everyone equally, and treating gay people differently from straight people would certainly not adhere to the spirit of the 14th Amendment, now would it?

[mjs]

I don't care to argue for or against specific cases. I'm simply informing you what the terms you use mean, how they inner relate, and the basis for Justice Thomas's decisions. You misrepresented what he said in the case. He never said he agreed with the law; he said it did not violate the US Constitution. You even said no joke to imply you weren't misrepresenting, exaggerating, or using sarcasm.

[WolverinesA2]

You misrepresented what he said in the case. He never said he agreed with the law; he said it did not violate the US Constitution.

And the majority of the Justices disagreed with him. They decided that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

They were right, Scalia and Thomas were wrong.

And he said a lot more than that it didn't violate the U.S. Constitution [[which it did). Scalia also used the phrase "homosexual agenda" in his dissent. That is a phrase concocted by the Right Wing, it has no relevance in a legal argument other than to betray Scalia's personal anti-gay bias.

[mjs]

So theoretically, according to people like you, the State of Michigan could criminalize any sexual act other than missionary-position sex between a man and a woman within the confines of marriage and it would be 100% constitutional.

People like me say no. People like Justice Thomas might say its not against the US Constitution. US Supreme Court Justices don't decide cases based on State Constitutions so its hard to say what he'd say is 100% constitutional.

[mjs]

You keep mixing terms and people and ideas and everything else. The other Justices disagreement doesn't mean he didn't say what he said. Likewise, what Scalia says isn't what Thomas says. Jesus, read the damned case if you want to comment on its details. Here's what Thomas said:

If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy”.

[WolverinesA2]

You keep mixing terms and people and ideas and everything else. The other Justices disagreement doesn't mean he didn't say what he said. Likewise, what Scalia says isn't what Thomas says. Jesus, read the damned case if you want to comment on its details. Here's what Thomas said:

If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy”.

Yeah I know what they said. You claim that they were strictly interpreting the Constitution. Well, the Constitution is a bit vague, don't you think? "Liberty" as specified in the 14th Amendment is pretty open-ended and subject to wide interpretation. A majority of justices concluded that consensual sex between adults is a basic human liberty, I must say that I agree. Scalia disagreed. His judicial opinion was based on the premise that sex is NOT a protected liberty and thus not protected under the 14th Amendment. That is very much a conservative, and dare I say, archaic religious view of sex. The fact that both he and Thomas felt the law was unjust does not change the fact that neither of these men decided that "liberty" as specified in the 14th Amendment includes consensual sex between adults. Thomas even went one step furhter and declared that PRIVACY in your own home is not a liberty. At the end of the day, these are opinions, not a direct interpretation of the Constitution. In Scalia's opinion, sex is not a liberty. In Thomas' opinion, privacy is not a liberty. What these opinions are based on, I cannot say, I'm not a mind reader. But I'm willing to bet that their strict religious and conservative philsophies were not divorced from their decision.

[mjs]

They're both conservative with Scalia being quite a bit more conservative. I think Scalia may even be conservative enough that he really believes sex is a right for non-gays only, but he'd never say that directly and thats just my opinion. Constructionist viewpoints are first and foremost in Thomas's decisions. I'm not sure of their religious backgrounds.

Being a left libertarian, I like moderate liberals, moderate conservatives, and moderate constructionists. I think Wickard v Filburn was the worst case ever handed down. But, being a constructionist, I believe that any President can appoint any qualified candidate he wants on any grounds he wants. I don't even know how I'd classify Sotomayer, but I do know she is very well qualified so I say God/Yahweh/Allah/Budda bless.

[vetalalumni]

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.

Poor word selection. You could say this is a simple comparison of Latina [[female) versus Caucasian male. This type of comparison regarding analytical aptitude is fundamentally problematic as it refers to potential innate superiorities. That would be a very difficult and uncomfortable discussion. Let us not shy away from it.

*** In the Honorable Judge Sotomayor's defense, she did further qualify beyond simply race and gender when she specifically [[only) added the wisdom attribute to the Latina. Wisdom is generally considered acquired or learned [[i.e. life experiences), in contrast to innate.

It then becomes:

• Wise Latina [[female)

versus

• Caucasian male

An argument can then be made that all things being equal, adding wisdom to one candidate provides it with a superiority. Still problematic would you agree?

Would attributing a strong mathematical aptitude to one candidate provide superiority? What about attributing artistic or athletic skills to one candidate?

Proactive discussions regarding race [[and yes even gender) are still needed in the United States of America. In this case, Americans are simply reacting out of a perceived necessity. Attorney General Holder was correct, we are fearful [[until compelled) to openly discuss. We know that people do have opinions and do speak about race in the privacy of their own homes and over backyard fences. Our American exceptionalism for all Americans is at stake.

[Linda from Detroit]

The only reservation I have about this nominee is that she believes her ethnic background makes her more capable than a white male would be. That is something she is going to have to explain. I tend to agree with Justice O'Conner who said that a wise woman and a wise man would come to the same conclusion in interpreting the law. That is the statement of someone who weighs things without prejudice and an individual I would trust. Mr Obamas nominee appears to be lacking in this quality which I believe should be at the core of any judge anywhere, not just on the Supreme Court.

[vetalalumni]

... Justice O'Conner who said that a wise woman and a wise man would come to the same conclusion in interpreting the law.

Did Justice O'Conner literally state same conclusion in interpreting the law? I heard it a little differently. What is your source? How would we then explain dissension among the Justices? Further, two or more non-prejudicial Justices would by definition weighs things without prejudice, and yet they can and do arrive at differing opinions.

The product of the SCOTUS is a single majority opinion, not [[necessarily) unanimity. In fact, consistent unanimity, as a goal or not, would indicate a very serious problem.