Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-15-2009, 05:32 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
Sonia Sotomayor

I'm rapidly getting disgusted by the hearings. There are a few reasons why.

1. Pres Obama won the election and with it the power to appoint judges. Yes, the Senate should be screening for competence, cronyism and corruption, but past that, the President is entitled to nominate whoever he thinks best. I have thought that ever since I graduated law school (i.e. I was OK with Scalia, Rehnquist's elevation to CJ, Bork, Kennedy, Thomas, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Roberts and Alito. I didn't approve of Miers because of cronyism and competence.) Sotomayor has been a pretty good judge for 17 years, no one questions her ability or her performance, so what the hell is the problem? She's not who I would pick, but I'm not the President. Barack Obama is.

2. This bullshit about her speeches is just that, bullshit. She spent roughly a decade on the Second Circuit and a number of years before that in the district court. Is there any evidence -- even a smidgen -- that in all that time she preferred any litigant based on race or ethnicity? Sen Schumer may be a loudmouth, but he's 100% right - her record shows she is 100% a straight shooter. A bit left-leaning, but so what? I'm a believer in revealed preferences: people may say lots of things but if you want to see what they really believe, watch what they do. Whatever she may have said in speeches to some of the narrow audiences she spoke to, the fact is that she has been a careful and mainstream judge. (Yes, I know about Ricci; that was a panel decision, and I don't know why the other two judges chose the summary affirmance route. I don't practice in this area, but from what I understand the result was defensible based on prior law, and the district court opinion was pretty exhaustive.)

3. Those speeches about the wise Latina were, shall we say, unremarkable in context. Understand, I think this ethnic glorification is bullshit and probably dangerous long term to the country, but I live in NY and I'm very in tune with left-wing orthodoxies. This sort of comment is utterly unremarkable and probably was uttered with barely a thought. It's sort of like a club handshake; in the circles she was in this is probably as common as "good morning" or as common as (to use another stereotype) Texans having a conversation about their guns. Again: there is no evidence that, whatever lefty pieties she might have uttered, any of that stuff made its way into her judging. So what the hell is the problem?

4. The grandstanding and pontificating from our Senators is just silly. This is an example of how politics infects everything and even keeps peopel from doing their jobs. The Repubs want to score points against the Pres's nominee, so they ignore her record and look at her speeches. Please. This is yet another example of how government decisionmaking is distorted, irrational, self-serving and often counterproductive -- and why we should err on the sideof entrusting it with as little as possible.
loquitur is offline  
Old 07-15-2009, 05:39 PM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
I am disgusted with the hearings also. To me it is an exercise for the nominee to spend several days moving their lips but not say anything.

With Sotomayor, my view is simple. She was either being dishonest when she spoke to the audience talking about a wise Latina, or she is being dishonest now. Personally, I don't have a problem when people have honest and admitted biases. When they try to hide them is when I am concerned.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 07-15-2009, 06:39 PM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
The most annoying part for me is the issue with the firefighter case. They make it out like she made some extremest decision, despite the fact that other judges on the same panel agreed AND nearly half of the supreme court agreed with her.

One of the GOP senators said something along the lines that any judge who believes something that is contrary to the law is unqualified for the position. My question for that senator is does that mean every judge who believes abortion should be banned is unqualified to be in the supreme court?
Rekna is offline  
Old 07-16-2009, 01:53 AM   #4 (permalink)
Human
 
SecretMethod70's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna View Post
One of the GOP senators said something along the lines that any judge who believes something that is contrary to the law is unqualified for the position. My question for that senator is does that mean every judge who believes abortion should be banned is unqualified to be in the supreme court?
Or does it mean that every time a supreme court judge votes on the losing side, they no longer qualify for the court?
__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
SecretMethod70 is offline  
Old 07-16-2009, 04:09 AM   #5 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna View Post
One of the GOP senators said something along the lines that any judge who believes something that is contrary to the law is unqualified for the position. My question for that senator is does that mean every judge who believes abortion should be banned is unqualified to be in the supreme court?
That senator needs to go back to Civics Class. The job of the SCOTUS is to interpret the law. Their interpretation becomes law. By definition, a SCJ can't possibly "believe something that is contrary to the law" as if there IS a thing called "The Law" prior to the SCOTUS interpreting it.

It's hard for a congresscritter to get his head around, I guess, but every single word of law they pass is only provisionally the law, until the SCOTUS gets a case that challenges that law and the law is upheld.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 07-16-2009, 06:16 AM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
ummmm.......... not exactly, ratbastid. In theory judges discover law, not make it (there are lots of reasons why that has to be so that are critical to maintaining the rule of law in this country). And you're wrong about acts of Congress: they are the law unless and until there is a constitutional challenge that strikes one down. And those are very, very, very rare. No significant percentage of legislation is even challenged, much less struck down. Legislation is presumed constitutional under longstanding rules of interpretation.

I think part of the issue people have trouble with is that a lot of Supreme Court decisionmaking is not so much what the policy should be as who gets to decide. Sometimes a law is poorly written, or doesn't mean what some people think, so Congress gets to rewrite it. Sometimes a state should make a decision rather than the feds. Sometimes a decision is for Congress rather than an agency, or the Pres rather than Congress, or an agency rather than a court. Focussing too much on who wins and who loses in a particular case distracts you from looking at what is really being decided. Don't confuse a federalism decision with the result of the case.

Most cases don't implicate the limitations on governmental power (mainly in the bill of rights). Heck, most of the Supreme Court's work is in interpreting statutes - i.e. trying to figure out what Congress did. And since Congress isn't exactly the most coherent body, the answer isn't always one that people like - but, in such cases Congress can always fix the perceived problem (as it did with the Ledbetter case, for example).
loquitur is offline  
Old 07-16-2009, 08:07 AM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
I'm sure that none of this 'point scoring' and pontificating was even slightly attempted with the nominees by GW Bush, right? all of those hearings were righteous?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 07-16-2009, 08:09 AM   #8 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
they've all been ridiculous. the partisanship is out of hand
Derwood is offline  
Old 07-16-2009, 11:58 PM   #9 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
Am I wrong to ask this....

The people nominated for the SCOTUS cannot make statements about their philosophy, or how it would apply to any possible case that might come before the court right? I mean that in a case by case basis. So why the hell do people bother with asking case/issue specific questions?

Even if I am wrong in that, what do they expect her to say? In regards to abortion she would have every clinic shut down tomorrow if she could? These hearings are political, she obviously wants the nomination, I'm sure there is something more productive that could be done over the course of the last few days.

As far as her comments, they are mostly harmless, although I do think her statement where she said that the appellate courts are supposed to make policy, and where she chuckled and noted seconds after because she said that on camera, was retarded of her.

Wise Latina? Meh, stupid, offbase, fairly in conflict with the whole notion of justice, hence the lady is blindfolded: All the same, no biggie. I'm not to worried about her, she seems even keeled enough, albeit boneheaded at times (ala Ricci).
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 07-17-2009, 09:11 AM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
Mojo, there is nothing wrong with asking for judicial philosophy in terms of "how do you approach deciding cases? what sources do you use, what sorts of things do you find persuasive?" That's perfectly ok; we wouldn't want a justice who consults a psychic, right? But it's wildly improper to ask how someone would rule on a case that hasn't even come before them yet. For one thing, it's massively unfair to the particular litigants, who are entitled to an impartial judge who hasn't already publicly declared how they would rule. But it's also impossible to answer these questions in the abstract because you just don't know what the facts will be of the particular case that ends up coming to the court. Lincoln had the best comment on this; I wish I could remember it, but it went something like "if a judge told us in advance how he would rule we should despise him."
loquitur is offline  
Old 07-17-2009, 09:48 AM   #11 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur View Post
ummmm.......... not exactly, ratbastid.
I guess my point is that treating The Law like some immobile and invariable body of extrinsic facts is absurd. Especially when you're talking about a position that is charged with interpreting The Law.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 07-17-2009, 10:30 AM   #12 (permalink)
Banned
 
Zeraph's Avatar
 
Location: The Cosmos
I love her name <3!
Zeraph is offline  
Old 07-17-2009, 10:35 AM   #13 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
The only thing that bothers me is the sheer, unbridled, failed-at-reading, proof-texting, out-of-context ignorance surrounding the "wise Latina" quote. It's a quick litmus test of who is even worth discussing politics,with, though. Anyone espousing the "racism" of said statement is clearly incapable of critical thought or reading, and have either willfully ignored the context or will do so when I identify it. Hasn't failed me yet.

The last thread on TFP regarding Sotomayor had the same result, in fact.

They're generally the same people who believe that Obama is not an eloquent speaker, or that he somehow is tied to a teleprompter. I feel bad for them, to be honest, because their vocabulary and/or understanding of grammar is so underdeveloped that they miss at least half of what is said. Words have very specific meanings, especially when combined in sentences. Those aware of specific meaning will note all sorts of extemporaneous speech tactics, from deference to apositives, that dramatically alter not only what is being said, but how it should be understood.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Last edited by Jinn; 07-17-2009 at 10:39 AM..
Jinn is offline  
Old 07-17-2009, 12:44 PM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid View Post
I guess my point is that treating The Law like some immobile and invariable body of extrinsic facts is absurd. Especially when you're talking about a position that is charged with interpreting The Law.
I actually think this line of thinking is absurd. It's the equivalent of saying 'that was the law last year, this is the law now'. It doesn't work.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 07-17-2009, 12:58 PM   #15 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth View Post
I actually think this line of thinking is absurd. It's the equivalent of saying 'that was the law last year, this is the law now'. It doesn't work.
Except that that IS how it works. Check out the history of abortion law in this country. Current law stands because of a very famous Supreme Court case. Prior to that, that wasn't the law. The gavel banged, the law changed. Ta daaa!

People who think that even such a fundamental document as the Constitution is somehow written in stone and unchangeable for all time are just not thinking from where the founding fathers were thinking from. The founders were clear that the times would change, and they designed our structure to be malleable to keep up with the times. It takes some work--amending the Constitution isn't a trivial task. But it's designed in there precisely because they KNEW they couldn't predict the future, and they weren't going to try and pretend they could.

There IS no "what the Constitution says". It's a brilliantly constructed thing that deliberately leaves room for interpretation. Despite its claims to the contrary, strict constructionism is just one possible interpretation. It claims NOT to be an interpretation, and can therefore lay claim on being Right. But it's not--it's just one of many possible ways to read the document. This is the beauty of our nation; it's ours to invent, rather than being some dusty Truth to be pulled off a shelf and referred to. People think democracy was the big innovation of America, but I think it's the power to re-invent ourselves that makes us unique.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 07-17-2009, 01:14 PM   #16 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
uh, not exactly, Ratbastid. There is a reason it was written, because words have meaning. Otherwise why bother writing them down? I agree that the Constitution was written flexibly, but that does not mean that the meaning of a word changes over time. You can't say that the Constitution says "Pres must be 35" but today it means "states can't secede." That's an extreme case, but my point is this: there is a different between flexibility and evolution. The Founding Fathers (and yes, they were men) wrote the Constitution as they did in order to make sure that the govt could never do to the citizens what King George did to the colonies - they were very clear about that, and meant it not to change over time. That doesn't mean "impair the obligations of contract" or "privileges or immunities" or "due process" aren't flexible concepts - they are - but their meaning doesn't change, only their application does. The priviliges or immunities clause doesn't evolve into something else, it still has to pertain to privileges and immunities. I think you're setting up a strawman here.
loquitur is offline  
Old 07-18-2009, 09:38 AM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid View Post
Except that that IS how it works. Check out the history of abortion law in this country. Current law stands because of a very famous Supreme Court case. Prior to that, that wasn't the law. The gavel banged, the law changed. Ta daaa!
I didn't say that isn't how it works, I said it doesn't work. If it did, we'd all be happy go lucky with every ruling and there wouldn't be any conflict after a decision. Instead, we have to deal with groups of an ideological bent either agreeing or disagreeing on plain word meanings of what a well regulated militia was in 1798, or what probable cause meant, or shall make no law really means that they can prescribe free speech areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid View Post
People who think that even such a fundamental document as the Constitution is somehow written in stone and unchangeable for all time are just not thinking from where the founding fathers were thinking from. The founders were clear that the times would change, and they designed our structure to be malleable to keep up with the times. It takes some work--amending the Constitution isn't a trivial task. But it's designed in there precisely because they KNEW they couldn't predict the future, and they weren't going to try and pretend they could.
there is a huge difference in accepting that the constitution is allowed to be changed by the prescribed method and the so called 'living document' theory that allows judges to change the meanings of words on the fly. The constitution IS written to be firm, but does allow for changes if a greater portion of the population deem it needs to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid View Post
There IS no "what the Constitution says". It's a brilliantly constructed thing that deliberately leaves room for interpretation. Despite its claims to the contrary, strict constructionism is just one possible interpretation. It claims NOT to be an interpretation, and can therefore lay claim on being Right. But it's not--it's just one of many possible ways to read the document. This is the beauty of our nation; it's ours to invent, rather than being some dusty Truth to be pulled off a shelf and referred to. People think democracy was the big innovation of America, but I think it's the power to re-invent ourselves that makes us unique.
allowing 'interpretation' is exactly the reason why we have the political divide in this country. The founders were extremely clear when it was written. All evidence from that era concludes it's truth. It took dozens of debates to get the words just right for the citizens of all 13 states to ratify it.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 07-18-2009, 10:27 AM   #18 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth View Post
allowing 'interpretation' is exactly the reason why we have the political divide in this country. The founders were extremely clear when it was written. All evidence from that era concludes it's truth. It took dozens of debates to get the words just right for the citizens of all 13 states to ratify it.
About some things, yes, they were very specific--loquitor's 35 year old president example is pretty hard to interpret to mean anything else. Other things are (deliberately!) vague and demand a contemporary mind to apply to contemporary times. And the existence of an amendment process tells us exactly how "strict constructionist" our SCOTUS was intended to be. Which is to say: not.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 07-18-2009, 02:31 PM   #19 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid View Post
About some things, yes, they were very specific--loquitor's 35 year old president example is pretty hard to interpret to mean anything else. Other things are (deliberately!) vague and demand a contemporary mind to apply to contemporary times. And the existence of an amendment process tells us exactly how "strict constructionist" our SCOTUS was intended to be. Which is to say: not.
if things were meant to be vague, there would be no reason to prescribe a change to the constitution. The founders would simply have inserted another clause allowing the central government to change things at will. they didn't do that though. They outlined specific enumerated powers. they also left, in no uncertain terms, that anything not assigned to the federal government was specifically left to the states or to the people (10th Amdnt).

"No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words "no" and "not" employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights." — Edmund A. Opitz
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 07-18-2009, 07:22 PM   #20 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
actually, ratbastid, the existence of an amendment process implies that the meaning of the constitution doesn't change, and that if you want something new or need to fix something you have to go through the amendment process.
loquitur is offline  
 

Tags
sonia, sotomayor

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:38 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360