Judge Soto's Views

[YouMad.GIF]

I dont really care about one statement she said that makes her look bad when taken completely out of any sort of context it may or may not have been presented in (and crunched down into an inflamitory sound bite)

 

I want to talk about her fucked up ruling record... Something substancial

 

 

 

 

Old white guys complaining about racism and reverse racism is just retarded, I don't believe she is racist, but I do believe CLEARLY her record shows she has a clear racial bias towards her race and rules against common sense and rationality in order to give preferencial treatment towards her race through activist judgements.

Her record shows an intent to rule against fairness in favor of ANY oportunity to make precedent in favor of her own agenda. I am NOT ok with that.

 

 

She has got to go

[DPMS556]

Latinos (or people of color ) will support soto know matter what she says or does.

[lord_casek]

Latinos (or people of color ) will support soto know matter what she says or does.

 

 

that may be calling latino's stupid and i happen to think that they aren't.

[El Mamerro]

We're not stupid, just unreasonably proud. DPMS556 is mostly right imo.

[El Mamerro]

KimJungIlla, besides the New Haven travesty, what other notable rulings would you point out have clear racial bias? Genuinely curious, haven't seen much more than that to agree her entire record shows bias.

[dreaken1993]

dosent she have a seat in la raza which is a racial group i mean i just dont think she makes a good candidate not only with the whole race issue but her ideas about the bill of rights and her disregard to the constitution

[YouMad.GIF]

KimJungIlla, besides the New Haven travesty, what other notable rulings would you point out have clear racial bias? Genuinely curious, haven't seen much more than that to agree her entire record shows bias.

 

She has a wide history of pressing through imminent domain property cases, sometimes while completely ignoring claims of near extortion to save property, with the threat of condemnation

 

I'm from new haven, I know what she does in that city

[NewAccount12345]

My final note on this subject is that our U.S. Senators are scheduling her hearing in september. Justice Souter is retiring the next month in october and there will be a vacancy. I personally dont know of any time where there has been a vacancy not filled for a time while nominations are reviewed by the Senate. But this will give very little time to review anyone else. This is bad. I think she should be questioned thouroughly and her background checked but not all summer while we wait till september. I hope they don't try to rush a judge in.

 

 

 

 

About her civil rights policy if you look at the first page there is a link to her most famous decisions and dissents on issues. One issue i see is that she is a former prosecutor. and will be one of the few ever to be considered for appointment. This plays a role in the decision of the guantanamo bay detaineees because she will most inevitably be for giving them due process<------

 

Read whats in the link on the first page and discuss something other than civil rights like foreign policy or any amendments or upcoming cases. Things that you think the judges should be doing while they are sitting on the supreme court. WHAT ARE YOUR PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR AN APPOINTMENT TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?

[NewAccount12345]

I bring this back because the confirmation hearings are on right now but they are in a closed session involving the FBI. there have already been 15 senators involved in questioning.

[lord_casek]

Let's hope the cunt doesn't get the job.

[shai]

...but they are in a closed session involving the FBI. there have already been 15 senators involved in questioning.

 

Haha, what? I'll check out the news later, this sounds like it's gonna be good.

[Y@d@d@]

close the border.

[NewAccount12345]

check out the q&a session with senator lindsey graham and senator jeff sessions on her view of international law and whether states are incorporated in fundamentally regulating arms and guns or not.

 

"It is worth noting that the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States filed a brief arguing that while the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms, that right is subject to reasonable regulation that would allow the many federal laws regulating guns to stand (including federal laws banning machine guns, requiring background checks on gun purchasers, and licensing gun dealers)."

 

in the heller case the supreme court left the idea of the states regulation up in the air and will be decided later on. It was decided that the federal governments regulations on any matters pertaining to the second amendment the only allowable regulation. It was asked that if any regulation was allowed and why. reasoning has something to do with the second emendment not being incorporated ("the Supreme Court has held that certain amendments contained in the Bill of Rights are "incorporated" by the Fourteenth Amendment as a constraint on state and local action")

 

"""""Since the Heller decision, three federal appellate circuits have addressed whether the Second

Amendment applies to the states. The first decision to address this issue was a three-judge per

curiam opinion by the Second Circuit in Maloney v. Rice,45 in which Judge Sotomayor was one of

the judges. In Maloney, the plaintiff sought a declaration that a New York penal law that punishes

the possession of nunchukas46 was unconstitutional. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the state

statutory ban violates the Second Amendment because it infringes on his right to keep and bear

arms. Here, the court, citing Presser v. Illinois, held that the state law did not violate the Second

Amendment because “it is settled law ... that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations

the federal government seeks to impose on this right.”47 The court noted that, although Heller

might have questioned the continuing validity of this principle, Supreme Court precedent directs

them to follow Presser because “[w]here, as here, a Supreme Court precedent ‘has direct

application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the

prerogative of overruling its own decisions.’”""""""

 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40649.pdf

[russell jones]

I would read up a little on the New Haven case before passing judgment.

 

Those of you who are complaining about her being an activist judge, i.e. making policy from the bench, should be perfectly satisfied with here ruling in New Haven, since it follows precedent and leaves a legal policy in place. For explanation, see this article:

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/pagenum/all/#p2

 

Did anyone watch any of the hearings? I was able to see one day while getting a treatment at the hospital (it's the only time I watch TV.) I was impressed with her refusal to chomp on the bait offered by Orrin Hatch. His questions were ridiculous political statements meant to call attention to the standard line the Neo-Cons want place on her, but she stayed calm and cool, answering using case law and her own experience in cases. Repeated attempts by Hatch to get her to make "ideological" statements failed.

 

Contrary to what the press is reporting, she was very straightforward when answering questions, at least on that day. She politely refused to answer questions regarding how she would rule on future cases, which of course is her duty. Nonetheless, my relatively liberal local newspaper printed the headline "Sotomayor dodges questions," while offering no evidence within the article of this fact.

 

That being said, her comments on the nonchucks case were just flat out dumb. She took some time describing how dangerous they were, which was beside the point and not, as far as I could tell, part of the compelling interest issue in the case.

 

And casek, do you have to hate? I think this woman deserves more respect, considering her accomplishments, than being called a "cunt."

[lord_casek]

 

And casek, do you have to hate? I think this woman deserves more respect, considering her accomplishments, than being called a "cunt."

 

 

I only respect her as a fellow human. The "cunt" comment comes from the disdain for her views on the 2nd.

 

If it makes you feel any better, I think Condi is a cunt, too. Her achievements are just as vast.

[NewAccount12345]

i watched a few cspan videos individual to senator sessions and senator graham. i also saw some of senator spector round 1 and franken.

honestly i would like that the more famous senators take their q&a

 

i disagree with this pick and feel that she is somwewhat too far away from my views on the constitution.

 

 

Senator Jeff Sessions quouted: "Thats a problem for people, um you ask about abortion and its not explicitly referred to in the constitution, but you say thats a fundamental right and we have in the constitution language thats says the right of the people to keep and bear armes shall not be infringed, and theres a question thats its not a fundamental right"

 

Sotomayor"

"when the court looks at that issue it will determine is it incorporated or not and it will decide with a test subsequent to its ol dprecident wheter or not it is fundamental and hence incorporated" "but the maloney decision was not addressing the meriots of that question it was adressing what the precident said on that issue"

 

 

on foreign law

Sotomayor" unless the statutes requires you to or directs you to look at foreign law, and some do, The answer is no, foreign law cannot be used as a holding or a precident or to bind or to influence the outcome of interpreting a legal decision, or american law.

 

at an earlier time she is quoted in saying in front of the ACLU(American Civil Liberties Union) in puerto rico

Sotomayor, " International law and foreign law will be important in the discussion of how we think about unsettled issues in our legal system, it is my hope that judges everywhere judges will continue to do this, because in the american legal system were comanded to interpret our law in the best way we can and that means looking at what other anyone else has said that has persuasive value."

[El Mamerro]

[NewAccount12345]

Here are our senators commitments on the issue.

 

http://cspan.org/Supreme-Court-Sotomayor-Senate-Confirmation-Votes.aspx

 

 

 

Both of my state senators are democrats and they are falling in line like dominoes. Im not sure of the votes needed for her to fill the seat but i find it highly undemocratic to fill the position with just one person seriously reviewed. Justice souter should have purposely waited for a time to retire. he was the only person who could have made it democratic by occupying the seat until more people were reviewed. Our president is trying to appoint a globalist judge against 2nd amendment incorporation. Judge Sotomayor in my opinion is the wrong choice. And I look forward to the day when there are more independents in our congress so things dont just go one way or the other. And i dont support the election of judges but i want more than just one to be reviewed. Can anyone agree with me on this?