Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings (Official Thread)

[Praetor]

Started today. Thoughts?

[saysmydoctor]

Where would you like me to start?

[Villanova1L]

Questioning begins tomorrow, correct?

I don't think there is anything controversial about Judge Sotomayor. I'm sure the Right will do their best to make something about of nothing.

[saysmydoctor]

Basically what they are doing. Activist judge, etc, etc.

[Villanova1L]

Basically what they are doing. Activist judge, etc, etc.

I think she's 100% correct that your life experience is undeniably going to effect your decisions. The fact others have downplayed this, to me, is far more dishonest.

[saysmydoctor]

Exactly. It affects how your jurisprudence, your governance, and your legislative belief. It's naive to make a claim to the contrary.

Also, to deny that Court of Appeals doesn't make policy is ridiculous when appellate decisions are used as precedence for future cases. She is either creating policy or enforcing it.

Feinstein made the best point, the Roberts Court has been incredibly judicially active, just from the conservative side of the spectrum so it makes it okay.

[saysmydoctor]

Senator Sessions open by making an issue of a nondecision speech taken completely out of context.

Awesome.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/norma-mccorvey-jane-roe-a_n_231230.html
Hahahaha, she is so stupid.

[saysmydoctor]

Orrin Hatch, if you ask a question, you don't interrupt while she is answering.

[Praetor]

I would watch this but my asshole brother decided to park himself in front of the TV again. Is there an online stream?

[saysmydoctor]

Yes, HuffPo has one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/sotomayor-hearings-video_n_231206.html

[saysmydoctor]

Sessions: got 'em'd.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0709/Per_curiam.html

[saysmydoctor]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/14/grassley-admits-to-double-standard/
Grassley contradicts himself.

[Ben09]

That guy screaming was awesome...no idea what he was saying though

[saysmydoctor]

Think he said something concerning "filibuster Sotomayor" and I heard the GOP a lot in there.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

I love Al Franken. I really do. He is the best. Minnesota is lucky to have him as a senator.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/16/jeff-sessions-were-going_n_236326.html

First of all, lolololol

Second of all, why don't you fix marijuana laws, douchebag?

[Villanova1L]

Orrin Hatch, if you ask a question, you don't interrupt while she is answering.

Orrin Hatch runs shit, recognize.

What a worthless process this whole thing is, there was no question she'd get confirmed. All that happened is I think the Senate is dumber than I did before.

[&IllBeTheReason]

Stewart is tearing Graham apart right now, it is all kinds of wonderful.

[Nevuk]

I would watch this but my asshole brother decided to park himself in front of the TV again. Is there an online stream?
Totally off-topic, but Palatka was always one of my favorite bands.
And these hearings were more boring than they usually are.

[Praetor]

Totally off-topic, but Palatka was always one of my favorite bands.
And these hearings were more boring than they usually are.
haha I think I got them from your rec. Or your profile or something. Really solid shit, I should thank you haha.

And I was trying for a few days to get to watch these hearings but then I realized that I have no interest. Jeff Sessions will be a racist while pretending not to be, Lindsey Graham will in an unlikely turn of events keep being the rational Republican in the room, Democrats will accuse Republicans of politicizing the issue, and at the end of it she will get confirmed and Republicans will start sucking up to her. I don't need to watch when I know how it will all play out.

Oh, and who knows. Maybe Sotomayor will even get to speak a couple of times.

[PunkyPoo]

It really depends on what you want out of the judicial system.

Do you want the courts to uphold the law? Or do you want the courts to create the law? These are two different philosophies.

We have a legislative system designed for creating laws. And we have a judicial system used to uphold the law, and to make sure that the laws created by the legislature are Constitutional.

Activist judges do not uphold law. They even go beyond just attempting to interpret the law. The do an end around our legislative system and then create their own laws.

[Praetor]

haha I think I got them from your rec. Or your profile or something. Really solid shit, I should thank you haha.

And I was trying for a few days to get to watch these hearings but then I realized that I have no interest. Jeff Sessions will be a racist while pretending not to be, Lindsey Graham will in an unlikely turn of events keep being the rational Republican in the room, Democrats will accuse Republicans of politicizing the issue, and at the end of it she will get confirmed and Republicans will start sucking up to her. I don't need to watch when I know how it will all play out.

Oh, and who knows. Maybe Sotomayor will even get to speak a couple of times.
Only thing in my prediction that turned out to be wrong.

edit: Maybe not. I'm a God.

[Machu505]

The Senate Judiciary Comittee confirmed her, and we've got a friend (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=C1C45511-18FE-70B2-A8B37498973190CA) in Lindsey Graham.

[Praetor]

At least one Republican knows how to hedge their bets.

[Machu505]

Susan Collins too. She said she's voting for her.

[Machu505]

Ben Nelson, what the fuck is wrong with you (http://journalstar.com/news/local/article_71f6c596-7c75-11de-a2e3-001cc4c03286.html)?

[Praetor]

lol

"I accept her judicial philosophy of fidelity to the law," Nelson said during a telephone conference call from Washington.

Nelson said he also believes Sotomayor is committed to supporting settled judicial precedent.


But, he said, he needs to "convince myself she won't be an activist" on the court.


"I need an opportunity to review a few things," the Democratic senator said.


I know she will be faithful to the law, I just need to make sure that she will be faithful to the law.

[Machu505]

Mark Begich, what the fuck is wrong with you (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/29/sotomayor-nra/)?

[Machu505]

Lamar Alexander, props (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090730/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sotomayor_alexander).

[Machu505]

So on the Republican side, we have Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander, Dick Lugar, Mel Martinez, and Olympia Snowe supporting her.

[Praetor]

I figured that Snowe and Collins would endorse her. Graham was a total left-field endorsement for me. I still can't explain it.

[saysmydoctor]

It really depends on what you want out of the judicial system.

Do you want the courts to uphold the law? Or do you want the courts to create the law? These are two different philosophies.

We have a legislative system designed for creating laws. And we have a judicial system used to uphold the law, and to make sure that the laws created by the legislature are Constitutional.

Activist judges do not uphold law. They even go beyond just attempting to interpret the law. The do an end around our legislative system and then create their own laws.
It really depends on your perspective of what is 'judicial restraint.' The Court, by casting a decision, creates a precedent or reinforces one. That precedent carries equal weight as the law.

Activist judges don't uphold the law, you're right. It's too bad that those nine activist judges every came to vote unanimously for Brown in Brown v. Board. They should have stuck with Plessy v. Ferguson and the Jim Crow laws. They created inequality, but hey, we don't want the judges to create laws or in this case destroy them.

[Machu505]

Max Baucus, what the fuck is wrong with you (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/31/baucus-no-idea-how-ill-vo_n_248528.html)?

EDIT: Oops. False alarm. Everybody calm down.

[Machu505]

Eight Republicans (Alexander, Bond, Collins, Graham, Gregg, Lugar, Martinez, and Snowe) will be voting for her and only one GOP senator is left undecided: George Voinovich of Ohio. We also already have enough votes to confirm her at this point.

[saysmydoctor]

Justice Sotomayor, holla.

[perceptrons]

Sadly the wikipedia page is locked, or she would be listed as "In office."

[Praetor]

w00t

I think she'll be a decent justice.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

yay!

hopefully Roberts does not mess up the oath like he did with Obama

[Praetor]

yay!

hopefully Roberts does not mess up the oath like he did with Obama
Yeah, then she'll swear in on the Qu'ran the second time.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Yeah, then she'll swear in on a idol of the Virgin Mary the second time.

fixed

[Praetor]

hahahahahahahahaha holy shit hahahaha

[Machu505]

Fuck yeah every Democrat (minus Kennedy; he didn't vote) plus nine Republicans.

[J.C.]

According to John McCain, Sarah Palin was qualified to be President, but Sonia Sotomayor isn't qualified to be one of 9 people on the Supreme Court.

[Machu505]

I think John McCain just want to be a dick to Barack Obama.

[stayforawhile]

Where would you like me to start?
Haha I feel you, this absolutely disgusts me.

[Jake Denning]

I think John McCain just want to be a dick to Barack Obama.

My man John McCain mixin things up.

I'm reminded of that south park episode about the election and Randy yelling "Change!" fifty million times during the episode

[cirerelleum]

personally, i think a judge who's ruling on a case gets overturned by the Supreme Court, should never get to serve on it. with that said, its a pity sotomayor was selected.

[Praetor]

personally, i think a judge who's ruling on a case gets overturned by the Supreme Court, should never get to serve on it. with that said, its a pity sotomayor was selected.
Most cases that make it to the Supreme Court get overturned. Also, the case was overturned in a 5-4 decision, meaning that four Justices on the bench agreed with her ruling. Next talking point please.

[cirerelleum]

Most cases that make it to the Supreme Court get overturned. Also, the case was overturned in a 5-4 decision, meaning that four Justices on the bench agreed with her ruling. Next talking point please.

yeah, but given the amount of cases that actually make it to the Supreme Court... it's pretty hard to fuck up that bad.

[Praetor]

yeah, but given the amount of cases that actually make it to the Supreme Court... it's pretty hard to fuck up that bad.
Four out of nine justices agreed with her. It's not like it was an open and shut case. If one justice dissented, the case would have been upheld. You are obviously looking for reasons to not like her.

[cirerelleum]

Four out of nine justices agreed with her. It's not like it was an open and shut case. If one justice dissented, the case would have been upheld. You are obviously looking for reasons to not like her.

I don't like her because she tried to get a bunch of qualified firefighters from New Haven fired for the color of their skin.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

I don't like her because she tried to get a bunch of qualified firefighters from New Haven fired for the color of their skin.

huh I did not realize judges search for clients and choose to bring cases to trial.


oh wait those are lawyers.

EDIT: oh and no one in that case was going to be fired because of the ruling. you should get your facts straight

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/28/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-sotomayor-disregarded-law-rule-/


But back to Limbaugh's claim. That Sotomayor ruled against "white firefighter Ricci and other white firefighters" is undisputed. But this is a very complex legal case and Limbaugh misleads when he boils down the ruling by Sotomayor (and two other appeals court judges), saying it was made "just on the basis that she thought women and minorities should be given a preference because of their skin color and because of the history of discrimination in the past. The law was totally disregarded."
The ruling by the three-judge panel makes no mention of giving preferential treatment to women or minorities, as Limbaugh suggested. Rather, it upholds a district court decision that the city had the right to throw out a test it felt led to racially disparate results.
The first sentence of the panel's statement is also significant. The judges begin by saying they agree with the district court ruling "substantially for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the (district court)." In other words, without laying out all those opinions, they were essentially incorporating what the district court said.
So we took a look at the opinions delivered by District Judge Janet Arterton (http://ct.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CC02%5C2008%5C20080612_000135 5.C02.htm/qx) on Sept. 28, 2006.
The first thing we note is that the opinion cites numerous other cases to back up various points. That alone weakens Limbaugh's claim that "the law was totally disregarded."
Moreover, Judge Arterton lays out very specific legal reasons for her decision.
"Nothing in the record in this case suggests that the City defendants or CSB (Civil Service Board) acted 'because of' discriminatory animus toward plaintiffs or other non-minority applicants for promotion," Arterton wrote. "Rather, they acted based on the following concerns: that the test had a statistically adverse impact on African-American and Hispanic examinees; that promoting off of this list would undermine their goal of diversity in the Fire Department and would fail to develop managerial role models for aspiring firefighters; that it would subject the City to public criticism; and that it would likely subject the City to Title VII lawsuits from minority applicants that, for political reasons, the City did not want to defend."
The judge cites several cases which, she wrote, "clearly establish" that a public employer faced with the threat of a lawsuit over a test with racially disparate results does not violate civil rights laws by taking "neutral, albeit race-conscious, actions to avoid such liability."
The judge argued the white firefighters could not claim to have been discriminated against because "here, all applicants took the same test, and the result was the same for all because the test results were discarded and nobody was promoted."
In siding with the city, the judge wrote that the city's "motivation to avoid making promotions based on a test with a racially disparate impact, even in a political context, does not, as a matter of law, constitute discriminatory intent, and therefore such evidence is insufficient for plaintiffs to prevail on their Title VII claim."
We cite some of this not just to make your head hurt, or to make the case that the ruling was correct — that will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court — but to show the complicated legal issues involved, as well as the fact that the district court did, in fact, make reasoned legal arguments and cited numerous legal cases to underpin its decision. In other words, you may not agree with the conclusions, but it's wrong to suggest the judges "totally disregarded" the law. Nor did Sotomayor's panel or the district court ever suggest that the city ought to give preferential treatment to women and minorities. And so we rule Limbaugh's statement Barely True.

[Machu505]

I don't like her because she tried to get a bunch of qualified firefighters from New Haven fired for the color of their skin.
No she didn't.

[Praetor]

I don't like her because she tried to get a bunch of qualified firefighters from New Haven fired for the color of their skin.
http://media.depechemode.com/main_site/2009_gr/wrong_prerelease_cover.jpg

[cirerelleum]

you get a different side to the story when you're from the area and she negatively affected people you know. And when you know people whow ork for her. just sayin'

[Praetor]

you get a different side to the story when you're from the area and she negatively affected people you know. And when you know people whow ork for her. just sayin'
Oh, this argument.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

you get a different side to the story when you're from the area and she negatively affected people you know. And when you know people whow ork for her. just sayin'

Then Are you mad the city for making the decision to not allow the test results for promotions?

Why are you not placing your anger with the people who made the original decision that "negatively affected people you know"?

[Kill_the_radio]

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/political-pictures-sonia-sotomayor-american-idol.jpg?w=492&h=390