Sotomayor fro USSC

[Silver]

I've argued before her. I found her to be very thorough and shrewd. She had a firm grasp on the legal issue I presented which was incredibly layered, and ultimately ruled in my favor.

To be honest I'm not sure what I think of the selection. Her decisions have not faired well before the USSC:

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court:

• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

[Shokar]

• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)


Ouch. 1-6.

[Diraker]

You called it a while ago, Silver.

Anyway I am awaiting more info on her regarding church and state separation issues. Most of the info out there, so far, is just links to Law sites that not many people have access to. I think my wife can access all these sites but I know some require you (or your company) to pay by usage.

But so far from what I can tell she is sort of a mixed bag regarding CSS issues. I need more info though.

And that her descions have been overruled in SCOTUS isn't a bad thing IMO because if you look at the dissenting judges, they are the (so called) liberal ones. This means she's gonna fit in with the other )again, so called) liberal judges already on the court.

[Silver]

Anyway I am awaiting more info on her regarding church and state separation issues.

I'll look into it.

I am in complete agreement with you on separation of C&S. As for the abortion issue, which ultimately relates to Sep. of C&S, I personally believe it is a decision that should be left to the States, and that Roe v Wade is an inherently flawed decision from a Constitutional perspective.

That being said, I agree with President Obama on the issue: abortions need to be safe, legal and rare. Anyone who is on the fence on the abortion issue should read the Cider House Rules by John Irving who ironically is a former client. It puts the issue in perspective.

*EDIT*

It appears that Sotomayor has not written widely on church-state issues. This is what I've been able to find.

Flamer v. City of White Plains (1993). This case involved a suit by a rabbi who had sought permission to display a menorah in a city park, but was denied permission in light of a city council resolution barring fixed outdoor displays of religious or political symbols in parks. The rabbi's suit challenged the resolution as unconstitutional. Judge Sotomayor (then on the district court) agreed and struck down the resolution as a content-based regulation of speech that discriminated against religious speech.

Campos v. Coughlin (1994). In this case, prison inmates asserted a free exercise right to wear multiple strands of beads under their clothes, as part of their practice of the Santeria religion. Judge Sotomayor upheld their claim.

Ford v. McGinnis (2003). This case involved a suit by a Muslim prison inmate against state correctional officials who refused to let him participate in an Islamic religious feast. The district judge rejected the inmate's claim, relying on testimony by the religious authorities working in the prison that the prisoner's beliefs about the timing and significance of the feast did not comport with Islam's actual requirements. The Second Circuit reversed in a panel opinion by Judge Sotomayor which explained that the key question was not the objective reasonableness of the prisoner's asserted religious belief but whether the prisoner sincerely held the belief. Going further, Judge Sotomayor stressed that courts must be wary of evaluating claims about the content of particular religions or the importance of certain religious rites. "[C]ourts have not aptitude," she wrote, "to pass upon the question of whether particular religious beliefs are wrong or right."

Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. George W. Bush (http://slomanson.tjsl.edu/3.2%20NGOvBush.pdf), 304 F.3d 183 (2nd Cir. 2002)

Religion related cases (http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayor-is-high-court-pick-here-are.html)

[Diraker]

Regarding CSS she sounds like an accomodationist. That is IMO unfortunate. We'll see though.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/05/26/why-the-white-house-will-promote-sotomayors-religious-liberty-record.html

the White House is already spotlighting Sotomayor's record on religious liberty cases, where her rulings are likely to please religious conservatives....

It's the kind of church-state separation opinion—protecting the church from the state, as opposed to the other way around—that will please religious conservatives...

[Konrad]

You are not even trying to hide anymore that you are a one issue zealot.

[Diraker]

Konrad, are you gonna play some games with us or just troll my posts?

[Konrad]

Probably just troll your posts.

[Diraker]

Ouch. 1-6.

But what of her 380+ decisions that didn't get overturned or looked at by SCOTUS? 380 - 6 is a good record, no? Not that I support Obama or his nominee. I do not.

[Zorat]

I know nothing about the USSC or the cases however I don't think 1-6 isnt as bad as it looks.

The only bad ones are the 7-2 and 8-0 reversals, the others, even though they were overturned had enough for and against (5-4 and 6-3) to make them legitimate issues.

[Silver]

The ussc doesn't grant cert on every case, and in most instances decisions of the court of appeals are final.

[Diraker]

I know nothing about the USSC or the cases however I don't think 1-6 isnt as bad as it looks.

The only bad ones are the 7-2 and 8-0 reversals, the others, even though they were overturned had enough for and against (5-4 and 6-3) to make them legitimate issues.

This video explains it pretty well.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-addresses-washington-times-a

[Silver]

This video explains it pretty well.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-addresses-washington-times-a

...but doesn't quite explain it accurately.

The statistic of real importance, and I don’t know the answer, is how many of Justice Sotomayor’s opinions have been appealed to the USSC, and more importantly why did the USSC decline to grant a writ of certiorari in cases where cert was petitioned.

The vast majority of cases cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of right. The Supreme Court only grants cert for cases over which the Court has jurisdiction and when the case involves a significant constitutional question, or in circumstances where there is a split in the Circuits, and cert is granted for the purpose of uniformity.

Moreover, federal litigation is no laughing matter, and carries with it a significant price tag. Oftentimes financially clients are either unwilling or unable to appeal beyond the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, even if the Circuit Court rendered an untenable decision. The vast majority of Sotomayor's (or any Federal Judge for that matter) decisions have not been appealed to the USSC.

So that being said, I’ve appeared before Sotomayor, and have been on both the winning and losing end of her decisions. I have both agreed with her decisions, and have also felt in both victory and defeat that she didn’t hit the target in her analysis and that her reasoning was fatally flawed. What I can say is that she may be one of the most astute Judges I have ever appeared before in 13 years of federal litigation.

I can't say with any accuracy whether she is a good pick or a bad pick, but what I can say with 100% certainty is that she is a political pick. I say this because Obama garnered the vast majority of Hispanic votes which significantly impacted the election in many southern swing States that traditionally go to a Republican. Obama has chosen a Latina for the bench as a way to appease and placate these Hispanic voters who are growing discontent with his administration's abject failure to meaningfully address comprehensive immigration reform. This pick buys him time, and she is more than qualified: two birds one stone.

Regardless, I'm certain that she will be appointed to the Court, and trust me there are far worse Judges out there than her. I also like the fact that she was in private practice before going on the Bench. It gives her a perspective that is lost on career academics, and politicians. As such, I am indifferent to her selection, and hope that she refrains from judicial activism.

[Diraker]

I would be interrested in knowing what percentage of Sotomayor's rulings get appealed to SCOTUS. And how that number compares to other judges of her position. Your point is certainly a good one. It may very well be that her rulings are appealed more often than other judges. Or it might just be right wing crazy talk. Until there's evidence of her ruling unusually bad then I'm going with right wing crazy talk.

I agree that the pick is political but that's what Obama and these people are...politicians. Another political aspect has to do with putting congressional republicans in a bind. Where if they vote against her they will be painted as, I dunno, biggots or something. The right, though, has already ursurped this political nonsense by calling Sotomayor a racist. Oh what lovely politics.../eyeroll

And what is meant by the phrase "activist judge"? Does "activist judge" mean someone who tries to "legislate from the bench"? And thus those judges who are more likely to vote to strike down laws made in congress are the "activist" ones? Well it turns out that if you look at which judges are voting to strike down congressional laws and which judges vote to uphold them, it becomes very clear which judges are "activist". The conservative ones. Granted it could then be argued that liberal judges are simply congresses' lapdogs, but that is a wholly different charge than "judicial activism". If there's another measure one can use to measure "judicial activism" then I'm willing to hear it. Anyway sometimes it is appropriate for judges to strike down laws made in congress, so being "activist" isn't necessarily even a bad thing. I'd hope SCOTUS stikes down some of the bogus shit that get's through congress.

[Silver]

My definition of an activist judge is an individual who has a moral/political predisposition and renders their decision on such basis, rather than on a strict interpretation of the Constitution or existing precedent.

My definition of legislating from the bench is when a Judge renders a decision in order to make policy, i.e., abortion should be legal so I will render my decision in a way to ensure that it remains legal and I don't care if such protection is not set forth in the Constitution.

Needless to say, I don't agree with the concept of the Constitution being a living document, and believe that adopting this philosophy is the tell-tale sign of an activist judge legislating from the bench.

[Mourne]

What about a racial predisposition? Would you also consider that part of being an activist judge?