The circus is in town...

[Peikko 1,575]

Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic woman nominated to the US supreme court, today begins what is expected to be a gruelling but ultimately successful run of confirmation hearings in the Senate.

Sotomayor, 55, represents a milestone in American jurisprudence and is the first high court justice nominated by a Democrat in 15 years. She is President Barack Obama's first opportunity to reshape the court, although if she is confirmed she replaces another liberal jurist, and is thus not expected dramatically to shift the court's political direction.

Today is Sotomayor's first chance to publicly address months of attacks on her judicial philosophy, her politics and her intellectual ability, hurled at her non-stop by Washington conservatives who hoped to weaken Obama politically, if not derail Sotomayor's ascent to the bench.

Republican senators are expected to question Sotomayor, a New York federal judge since 1992, about her views on abortion, the death penalty, same-sex marriage, and especially affirmative action and race issues. They have signalled they will focus on speeches and public remarks in which she has expressed pride in her ethnic background and said that the federal appellate court is where policy is made. Republicans hope to portray her as biased toward ethnic minorities, willing to inject her personal beliefs into her judicial opinions, and as an "activist judge" who legislates from the bench rather than merely shapes case law.

"Every judge must be committed every day to not let their personal politics, their ethnic backgrounds, their biases, sympathies influence the nature of their decision-making process," Republican senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama said yesterday on CBS news.

Sessions, the senior Republican on the Senate panel, today pledged a "respectful tone" and "maybe some disagreements" in the questioning today. But he said later, "I will not vote for, and no senator should vote for" anyone who will not render justice impartially.

"Call it empathy, call it prejudice or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it's not law," he said. "In truth, it's more akin to politics and politics has no place in the courtroom."

Sessions today also attacked Sotomayor's membership in the Puerto Rican Legal Defence Fund, and blasted Obama's pledge to nominate justices who have empathy. He raised the prospect that Sotomayor would be unable to rule fairly because she would be swayed by personal feelings that run contrary to case law.

"This was bombs away from the get-go," US supreme court analyst Jeff Toobin said on CNN of Sessions' opening statement.

Obama's Democratic allies, meanwhile, are playing up Sotomayor's humble background in the Bronx, her stellar academic record and her 17 years of experience on the federal bench.

"Hers is a success story in which all – all – Americans can take pride," Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont said today. "I trust that all members of the committee will reject efforts of partisans and outside pressure groups to create a caricature of Judge Sotomayor. Let no one demean this extraordinary woman for her success and her understanding of constitutional duties that she has ably performed over the last 17 years ... Let's be fair to her and to the American people by not misrepresenting her views."

Expected to testify against Sotomayor are a white Connecticut firefighter who will attack the judge's views on affirmative action in government hiring, an abortion-rights opponent and an advocate for looser firearms restrictions.

In her defence, Democrats have lined up a World Series-winning baseball pitcher who will discuss Sotomayor's role in resolving a 1994 baseball strike, New York mayor Mike Bloomberg, and the state attorney general of Arkansas.

Link

[justashooter 430]

Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic woman nominated to the US supreme court, today begins what is expected to be a gruelling but ultimately successful run of confirmation hearings in the Senate.

she is the only horse in the race, and the betters are lined up. it's a no brainer.

is she qualified for the post? prolly not. does the current court respect her? demonstrably not.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic woman nominated to the US supreme court, today begins what is expected to be a gruelling but ultimately successful run of confirmation hearings in the Senate.

she is the only horse in the race, and the betters are lined up. it's a no brainer.

is she qualified for the post? prolly not. does the current court respect her? demonstrably not.

Ahh another round of shooter trying to pass of his personal opinions as facts. Post links to references. Do your homework son.

[Peikko 1,575]

As your opinion is demonstrably worth less than a bag of turkey feathers, Shooeter, that you believe she is neither qualified nor respected counts for naught.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

After a lot of bellyaching, Sotomayor will be confirmed and nothing will change.

[Peikko 1,575]

Precisely A.J, quite so.

[justashooter 430]

in their consideration of the "no promotions for qualified whites" case all of the current sitting justices declared that the appealed opinion referred from soto's court demonstrated poor judicial accumen. this has been posted before, so i'm not gonna post it again.

whether you like it or not, this creepy, arrogant hag got bit@h slapped hard in that review, which would not normally have been heard so rapidly, but was pushed up in the schedule for this year's session just so that the current court could weigh in. if this broad is confirmed (a sure thing, barring a stroke of lightning) she will be a lame duck justice, no doubt.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

After a lot of bellyaching, Sotomayor will be confirmed and nothing will change.

Same thing for Roberts and Alito.

Myers would have been a joke though...

[scandal 951]

in their consideration of the "no promotions for qualified whites" case all of the current sitting justices declared that the appealed opinion referred from soto's court demonstrated poor judicial accumen. this has been posted before, so i'm not gonna post it again.

whether you like it or not, this creepy, arrogant hag got bit@h slapped hard in that review, which would not normally have been heard so rapidly, but was pushed up in the schedule for this year's session just so that the current court could weigh in. if this broad is confirmed (a sure thing, barring a stroke of lightning) she will be a lame duck justice, no doubt.

Just out of curiosity, what is a "lame duck justice"? Never heard that expression before.

A SCOTUS appointment is for life. She will have a vote, one of nine, on every case that comes before the court. Given that she's in her 50s, there are probably two decades worth of cases, perhaps 2,000 cases, that she will have an opportunity to vote upon, and to issue decisions upon. No one who sits on the court is a lame duck - it's not like an elected politician serving out a term in its dying days.

Regarding the New Haven decision, the Court did not repudiate the lower decision so much as recognize that there was no precedent to follow at the time of the lower decision. The Supreme Court then stepped in to make that new precedent and set the standard for how Title IX conflicts should be handled in future cases. That's hardly a repudiation.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The Supreme Court then stepped in to make that new precedent and set the standard for how Title IX conflicts should be handled in future cases. That's hardly a repudiation.

That was in public. In private, all 9 justices got together and stuck needles into a voodoo doll of Sotomayor. They hate her and when she joins the court they will give her wedgies behind the bench.

[Peikko 1,575]

The Supreme Court then stepped in to make that new precedent and set the standard for how Title IX conflicts should be handled in future cases. That's hardly a repudiation.

That was in public. In private, all 9 justices got together and stuck needles into a voodoo doll of Sotomayor. They hate her and when she joins the court they will give her wedgies behind the bench.

in their consideration of the "no promotions for qualified whites" case all of the current sitting justices declared that the appealed opinion referred from soto's court demonstrated poor judicial accumen. this has been posted before, so i'm not gonna post it again.

whether you like it or not, this creepy, arrogant hag got bit@h slapped hard in that review, which would not normally have been heard so rapidly, but was pushed up in the schedule for this year's session just so that the current court could weigh in. if this broad is confirmed (a sure thing, barring a stroke of lightning) she will be a lame duck justice, no doubt.

Just out of curiosity, what is a "lame duck justice"? Never heard that expression before.

A SCOTUS appointment is for life. She will have a vote, one of nine, on every case that comes before the court. Given that she's in her 50s, there are probably two decades worth of cases, perhaps 2,000 cases, that she will have an opportunity to vote upon, and to issue decisions upon. No one who sits on the court is a lame duck - it's not like an elected politician serving out a term in its dying days.

Regarding the New Haven decision, the Court did not repudiate the lower decision so much as recognize that there was no precedent to follow at the time of the lower decision. The Supreme Court then stepped in to make that new precedent and set the standard for how Title IX conflicts should be handled in future cases. That's hardly a repudiation.

It's further proof that Shooter always does it from the hip

[justashooter 430]

read the actual decision, instead of making stuff up.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf