Bronx judge named to Supreme Court

[flabbybody]

born and raised.
also female and Puerto Rican

thats about all I need to know that she's probably on the right side of most major issues facing the Court

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

[deee757]

born and raised.
also female and Puerto Rican

thats about all I need to know that she's probably on the right side of most major issues facing the Court

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

Now you have to play fair, generalizations are wrong even when they are positive. But i know what u are saying

[bte]

I heard a few things about her. The right is raising the issue that she wont judge according to the Constitution. They also cite a case in CT where a white firefighter scored higher on a test that determined promotion. He was denied the promotion because there were no other minorities that made a high enough grade. He took the case to court that the Supreme Court nominee said that 'It's okay'. So what the right is saying that she judges from the bench with her heart and not according to the Constitution.

Truth be told, I thought all judges judged with their hearts.

[Solitary Brother]

born and raised.
also female and Puerto Rican

thats about all I need to know that she's probably on the right side of most major issues facing the Court

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

Boriqua to the bone!

[Alyssa87]

ive been reading up on her for a while.
i'm seeing a lot of critics saying she will
'vote on gender'

i cant understand that.

what do the men in the supreme court vote on?

[giovanni_hotel]

Actually, she was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Obama.

She still has to run the gauntlet of a firing squad Senate confirmation hearing.

I wish her the best, but the Repubes are waiting in the bushes to knock her out.

[deee757]

Actually, she was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Obama.

She still has to run the gauntlet of a firing squad Senate confirmation hearing.

I wish her the best, but the Repubes are waiting in the bushes to knock her out.

Democrats are majority in the Senate. Only a sex scandal will keep her out

[SarahG]

Truth be told, I thought all judges judged with their hearts.

Generally speaking they do usually vote based on personal views.

That's not always a bad thing, but it is a very risky practice. Judicial activism works great sometimes, like with Brown v BOE, but then sometimes things don't go well and you end up with a Dred Scott ruling.

The republicans only talk about judicial activism when its judicial activism against republican party positions- when activism goes in the other direction, it's usually not lamented.

The argument against judicial activism, is that it establishes the practice as a norm, allowing people with horrible views to use the power in the wrong direction in the future. The basic idea behind strict interpretation is it prevents a perverted interpretation... but the problem with that is even a strict interpretation would allow practices that are constitutionally-legal, but highly unethical/immoral.

The big debate the founding fathers had was whether or not to have a bill of rights at all. The intention for the Bill of Rights was to make a list of the most important rights for the people to prevent those rights from being trampled on, but it was never intended to be a comprehensive list! Jefferson feared that if such a list of rights was made, the government would eventually take it to mean its a comprehensive right (aka "if your right isn't specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, you don't have it"). I am inclined to agree both sides were correct on that one, the amendments certainly are regarded as a comprehensive list of rights today (despite amendment #10), and I'd also argue that if it weren't for the bill of rights, many of the rights listed in the first few amendments would have easily and quickly been eroded away. To think the people would have any recognized right to arm themselves without the 2nd amendment today is laughable, and the same could probably be said in regards to a free press.

So in the end, whether we like it or not it has to be dancing a fine line between judicial activism & strict adherence... especially since so much in the constitution was (intentionally) left vague so it could be open to future interpretations. A truly strict interpretationist would immediately run into several fatal problems, including the reality that the constitution doesn't even say how many justices should sit on the supreme court! Yet you don't see the Republicans arguing that having 9 justices is unconstitutional (in fact they argued the exact opposite when FDR tried to pack the court).

[SarahG]

ive been reading up on her for a while.
i'm seeing a lot of critics saying she will
'vote on gender'

i cant understand that.

what do the men in the supreme court vote on?

It's just republican spin. They're basically saying "if you dare put a GIRL in there, she might do crazy things like allowing women control over their bodies... and we can't have that!" :banghead

Not only would that NOT be a bad thing, but the whole logic is flawed. There are certainly a lot of female anti-abortionists & anti-sterilists, hell I might go so far as to wonder if there are more females on that side than males.

[deee757]

Truth be told, I thought all judges judged with their hearts.

Generally speaking they do usually vote based on personal views.

That's not always a bad thing, but it is a very risky practice. Judicial activism works great sometimes, like with Brown v BOE, but then sometimes things don't go well and you end up with a Dred Scott ruling.

The republicans only talk about judicial activism when its judicial activism against republican party positions- when activism goes in the other direction, it's usually not lamented.

The argument against judicial activism, is that it establishes the practice as a norm, allowing people with horrible views to use the power in the wrong direction in the future. The basic idea behind strict interpretation is it prevents a perverted interpretation... but the problem with that is even a strict interpretation would allow practices that are constitutionally-legal, but highly unethical/immoral.

The big debate the founding fathers had was whether or not to have a bill of rights at all. The intention for the Bill of Rights was to make a list of the most important rights for the people to prevent those rights from being trampled on, but it was never intended to be a comprehensive list! Jefferson feared that if such a list of rights was made, the government would eventually take it to mean its a comprehensive right (aka "if your right isn't specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, you don't have it"). I am inclined to agree both sides were correct on that one, the amendments certainly are regarded as a comprehensive list of rights today (despite amendment #10), and I'd also argue that if it weren't for the bill of rights, many of the rights listed in the first few amendments would have easily and quickly been eroded away. To think the people would have any recognized right to arm themselves without the 2nd amendment today is laughable, and the same could probably be said in regards to a free press.

So in the end, whether we like it or not it has to be dancing a fine line between judicial activism & strict adherence... especially since so much in the constitution was (intentionally) left vague so it could be open to future interpretations. A truly strict interpretationist would immediately run into several fatal problems, including the reality that the constitution doesn't even say how many justices should sit on the supreme court! Yet you don't see the Republicans arguing that having 9 justices is unconstitutional (in fact they argued the exact opposite when FDR tried to pack the court).

I agree, the title "judge" means they are appointed to give expert interpretation of equality and justice pertaining to the law. Their personal views will be tied to thier professional opinion. I dont see anything wrong with that, as long as we keep an un even number of judges

[giovanni_hotel]

Just heard that if she's confirmed she will be the 6th Catholic sitting on the Supreme Court, more than enough votes to knock out Roe V Wade.

Interesting....

[NYBURBS]

Truth be told, I thought all judges judged with their hearts.

Generally speaking they do usually vote based on personal views.

That's not always a bad thing, but it is a very risky practice. Judicial activism works great sometimes, like with Brown v BOE, but then sometimes things don't go well and you end up with a Dred Scott ruling.

The republicans only talk about judicial activism when its judicial activism against republican party positions- when activism goes in the other direction, it's usually not lamented.

The argument against judicial activism, is that it establishes the practice as a norm, allowing people with horrible views to use the power in the wrong direction in the future. The basic idea behind strict interpretation is it prevents a perverted interpretation... but the problem with that is even a strict interpretation would allow practices that are constitutionally-legal, but highly unethical/immoral.

The big debate the founding fathers had was whether or not to have a bill of rights at all. The intention for the Bill of Rights was to make a list of the most important rights for the people to prevent those rights from being trampled on, but it was never intended to be a comprehensive list! Jefferson feared that if such a list of rights was made, the government would eventually take it to mean its a comprehensive right (aka "if your right isn't specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, you don't have it"). I am inclined to agree both sides were correct on that one, the amendments certainly are regarded as a comprehensive list of rights today (despite amendment #10), and I'd also argue that if it weren't for the bill of rights, many of the rights listed in the first few amendments would have easily and quickly been eroded away. To think the people would have any recognized right to arm themselves without the 2nd amendment today is laughable, and the same could probably be said in regards to a free press.

So in the end, whether we like it or not it has to be dancing a fine line between judicial activism & strict adherence... especially since so much in the constitution was (intentionally) left vague so it could be open to future interpretations. A truly strict interpretationist would immediately run into several fatal problems, including the reality that the constitution doesn't even say how many justices should sit on the supreme court! Yet you don't see the Republicans arguing that having 9 justices is unconstitutional (in fact they argued the exact opposite when FDR tried to pack the court).

Well, the Bill of Rights came about as a way to ensure the ratification of the Constitution. Some states only ratified after assurances that certain issues would be taken up. Technically speaking the federal government is only suppose to have the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but the 10th Amendment was meant to cement that principal (hasn't worked so great for the past 90 years or so though).

The document is also intentionally vague, this was a political move to ensure ratification. The 9th Amendment though speaks to rights not listed, and again opens up the door to interpretation. With that said, my personal belief is that activism on either side of the political spectrum is dangerous. As a matter of practice the best and most proper means of constitutional change is via the amendment process. However, there are many people that openly advocate the living breathing document theory of constitutional interpretation. The idea that a constitution can evolve over time seems counter-intuitive to me. It'd be like signing a mortgage agreement that says your rate must be 5%, and having the bank decide that due to changes in societal views they can disregard that and now make it 10%.

I think overall she is a good pick, and a fair judge. I don't foresee any great issue in getting her confirmed.

[NYBURBS]

Just heard that if she's confirmed she will be the 6th Catholic sitting on the Supreme Court, more than enough votes to knock out Roe V Wade.

Interesting....

Doesn't mean anything by itself. Just because someone identifies with a certain religious group doesn't mean they will interject that particular religious dogma into judicial decisions.

[SarahG]

Truth be told, I thought all judges judged with their hearts.

Generally speaking they do usually vote based on personal views.

That's not always a bad thing, but it is a very risky practice. Judicial activism works great sometimes, like with Brown v BOE, but then sometimes things don't go well and you end up with a Dred Scott ruling.

The republicans only talk about judicial activism when its judicial activism against republican party positions- when activism goes in the other direction, it's usually not lamented.

The argument against judicial activism, is that it establishes the practice as a norm, allowing people with horrible views to use the power in the wrong direction in the future. The basic idea behind strict interpretation is it prevents a perverted interpretation... but the problem with that is even a strict interpretation would allow practices that are constitutionally-legal, but highly unethical/immoral.

The big debate the founding fathers had was whether or not to have a bill of rights at all. The intention for the Bill of Rights was to make a list of the most important rights for the people to prevent those rights from being trampled on, but it was never intended to be a comprehensive list! Jefferson feared that if such a list of rights was made, the government would eventually take it to mean its a comprehensive right (aka "if your right isn't specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, you don't have it"). I am inclined to agree both sides were correct on that one, the amendments certainly are regarded as a comprehensive list of rights today (despite amendment #10), and I'd also argue that if it weren't for the bill of rights, many of the rights listed in the first few amendments would have easily and quickly been eroded away. To think the people would have any recognized right to arm themselves without the 2nd amendment today is laughable, and the same could probably be said in regards to a free press.

So in the end, whether we like it or not it has to be dancing a fine line between judicial activism & strict adherence... especially since so much in the constitution was (intentionally) left vague so it could be open to future interpretations. A truly strict interpretationist would immediately run into several fatal problems, including the reality that the constitution doesn't even say how many justices should sit on the supreme court! Yet you don't see the Republicans arguing that having 9 justices is unconstitutional (in fact they argued the exact opposite when FDR tried to pack the court).

Well, the Bill of Rights came about as a way to ensure the ratification of the Constitution. Some states only ratified after assurances that certain issues would be taken up. Technically speaking the federal government is only suppose to have the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but the 10th Amendment was meant to cement that principal (hasn't worked so great for the past 90 years or so though).

The document is also intentionally vague, this was a political move to ensure ratification. The 9th Amendment though speaks to rights not listed, and again opens up the door to interpretation. With that said, my personal belief is that activism on either side of the political spectrum is dangerous. As a matter of practice the best and most proper means of constitutional change is via the amendment process. However, there are many people that openly advocate the living breathing document theory of constitutional interpretation. The idea that a constitution can evolve over time seems counter-intuitive to me. It'd be like signing a mortgage agreement that says your rate must be 5%, and having the bank decide that due to changes in societal views they can disregard that and now make it 10%.

I think overall she is a good pick, and a fair judge. I don't foresee any great issue in getting her confirmed.

I agree its highly dangerous, but if interpretation is what it takes to safeguard against abusive practices, then so be it. The amendment process is so difficult that most people having their rights trampled upon will never have the political capital to get specific protections in the form of new amendments.

The south would probably still be segregated today if it weren't for Brown v BOE.

:shrug

[NYBURBS]

I agree its highly dangerous, but if interpretation is what it takes to safeguard against abusive practices, then so be it. The amendment process is so difficult that most people having their rights trampled upon will never have the political capital to get specific protections in the form of new amendments.

The south would probably still be segregated today if it weren't for Brown v BOE.

:shrug

There is always some degree of interpretation no matter what (and differences in opinion), but that is separate from people that advocate disregarding certain provisions in order to push forward a particular social agenda.

I wouldn't define Brown v BOE as activism in its entirety. The 14th Amendment clearly requires the equal protection of the laws. In fact the whole "separate but equal" doctrine was probably more in line with judicial activism; however, so are affirmative action laws in my opinion. The language requires equal protection, yet differences or preferences are allowed in order to push a certain social agenda.

Another good example would be the attempt by some to say that torture of suspected terrorists is legal because the 8th Amendment only protects against punishments post-conviction. That seems to fly in the face of the very document itself (4th Amend no seizure without warrant, 5th Amendment due process, 6th Amendment trial requirement), and basic logic (i.e., the gov't can't torture you after conviction but could do so before hand??? lol). So again the evils inherent to that philosophy can and do cut both ways.

PS- Most of the major rights people enjoy came about through the amendment process. Bill of Rights, the right to vote at 18, the prohibition on slavery, the right of women to vote, race not to be a barrier to voting, direct election of senators, etc.
PPS- Maybe move this badboy to the politics section? :wink:

[flabbybody]

Just heard that if she's confirmed she will be the 6th Catholic sitting on the Supreme Court, more than enough votes to knock out Roe V Wade.

Interesting....

just about everyone I know is Catholic, but no one actually believes in what the Church stands for

[hippifried]

Just heard that if she's confirmed she will be the 6th Catholic sitting on the Supreme Court, more than enough votes to knock out Roe V Wade.

Interesting....
Currently, or over the history of SCOTUS? I heard that too, but they just left it hanging.

I wonder if the Senate will subpoena her ex.
You know somebody wants this to drag through the mud.

[Solitary Brother]

ive been reading up on her for a while.
i'm seeing a lot of critics saying she will
'vote on gender'

i cant understand that.

what do the men in the supreme court vote on?

Im ALREADY starting to hear really crazy stuff about her from whacked out republicans.
This could get ugly quick.
Pay attention you boriquas out there this is what the republicans think about you.

[giovanni_hotel]

Just heard that if she's confirmed she will be the 6th Catholic sitting on the Supreme Court, more than enough votes to knock out Roe V Wade.

Interesting....
Currently, or over the history of SCOTUS? I heard that too, but they just left it hanging.

I wonder if the Senate will subpoena her ex.
You know somebody wants this to drag through the mud.

She would be the 6th catholic presently seated on the SC.

It probably doesn't mean a whole lot, but I'm curious down the road to see how it plays out if she's confirmed.

[runamok]

Just heard that if she's confirmed she will be the 6th Catholic sitting on the Supreme Court, more than enough votes to knock out Roe V Wade.

Interesting....

As a fellow Catholic, I can say for certain that this is not a lock to knock Roe V Wade. Personally, I don't think real Repubs want RVW done away with. It's their raw meat issue that keeps the fundys under their banner.

[flabbybody]

unless she's got some unknown skeleton in the closet the confirmation will be a slam dunk. I can't imagine what premise the Republican minority might use to mount a campain against her. It's a fight they'd surely lose and in the process would piss off latina and women voters.

Republicans are dumb but not that dumb