Obama's Pick For Supreme Court

[TheRoo]

It should be noted that in Maloney v Cuomo, the court cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Presser v. Illinois, in which William Woods wrote:

"But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state."

The three judge panel that she sat on didn't really have an option to overrule a precedent set by the supreme court.

[AFPheonix]

I currious as to what her rate of overturned decisions is???

Probably a better measure of her ability would be to see how many of her cases were denied hearing by SCOTUS. The Supreme Court ends up overturning most of the cases that come their way. The ones that they don't bother to take on are ones they'd uphold. There's no reason to hear those cases if they're not going to bother doing anything to them.

[Tanasi]

Probably a better measure of her ability would be to see how many of her cases were denied hearing by SCOTUS. The Supreme Court ends up overturning most of the cases that come their way. The ones that they don't bother to take on are ones they'd uphold. There's no reason to hear those cases if they're not going to bother doing anything to them.

That's true but I thought she wasn't high enough in the federal court system for her cases to be directly appealed to SCOTUS. I was under the impression she was one step below the district federal appeals court. I'll have to look that up.
I know fairly recently that her decision regarding the Firefighters and promotion was overturned and sent back because the appeals court said she misintrupeted (sp) the law. Then again it's not just her on that level of appeals but I think she wrote the opinion for the majority.
At this time I'm not for or against her but I'm leaning away from her.

I still say she was selected because she's latina and female if not why is Obama's folks making such a big deal about her being such. I've not seen much about any ground breaking decisions she's made. Again more research to do.

[joe hx]

I could care less that she's female or hispanic. The reason that I don't think she's a good choice is because her belief that judges (at least appeals court judges) make policy and law:

"All of the legal defense funds out there--they're looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. [Laughs] I know. I know. [Laughter] I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it, I'm...y'know."

The last sentence is somewhat of a relief, however. While she thinks courts can make policy, she doesn't think all judges are required to.

Also, her "nationality" is American. She was born in the Bronx. She is of Puerto Rican decent. Her ethnicity is white-hispanic.

Lastly, if she becomes a justice, she won't be the first hispanic. That honor goes to Benjamin Nathan Cardozo. Of course, that was in 1932, so maybe it doesn't count...

[AFPheonix]

She is right about the policy thing, though. Yeah legislatures technically make the law, but when laws come to court, it's the judges who have to figure out when those laws apply. Their rulings become precedent and set the tone for how that law works in the future.
It's also their rulings that many times send faulty laws back to legislature to be rewritten if they were complete crap in the first place.

[Boozy]

It's also their rulings that many times send faulty laws back to legislature to be rewritten if they were complete crap in the first place.

Exactly. And there's nothing at all wrong with that. It's how the system is supposed to work, and it's why the US system of government is so (comparatively) successful. All of those checks and balances. If the legislature screws up, the judiciary can fix it before a poorly written bill starts wreaking havoc on real people's lives.

[EmiOfBrie]

As I understand her opinion is that the 2nd Admendment only prohibits the federal government from denying firearms, yet state and local governments are free to do as they will.

Does that mean states get to take away our right to free speech too? The right to bear arms is delineated the same way the right to free speech is.

No....the states need to abide by the Constitution as well. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Right there, in plain English. And as "the people" everywhere else in the Constitution means all law-abiding adult US citizens, it stands to reason it means the same here as well.

[daleduke17]

Lastly, if she becomes a justice, she won't be the first hispanic. That honor goes to Benjamin Nathan Cardozo. Of course, that was in 1932, so maybe it doesn't count...

But, she'll be the first female hispanic. That makes her even more special. She's not the first female, or the first hispanic. She just happens to be the first to say she's both female AND hispanic.

She's less special than Obama and the big deal a lot of people made out of his "status".

[guywithashovel]

I have a question for everyone.

When Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor (the first woman to ever serve) for the Supreme Court, was everyone getting whipped up into a frenzy and saying things like, "He picked her just because she's a woman! Why is it such a big deal that she's the first woman to serve? He just wants a minority on the bench!! No!"

I'm asking in seriousness, because I was born at approximately the time when she was nominated and therefore am not old enough to remember.

Then again, maybe it's different when a Republican president nominates "the first woman" or "the first Hispanic." Yet another reason why we probably shouldn't have political parties in this country.

[Tanasi]

To tell the truth I don't remember SDO nomination being that big a deal other than her being a woman. The NAG crowd strutted around blowing their horns but really who pays them any mind??? While I disagreed with some of her decisions I gotta say one thing for her, she did what she thought was right and all else be damned.

[Flyndaran]

...
No....the states need to abide by the Constitution as well. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Right there, in plain English. And as "the people" everywhere else in the Constitution means all law-abiding adult US citizens, it stands to reason it means the same here as well.

I won't take your flintlock from you.

[Estil]

Speaking as a conservative (though I'm pro-life first), I don't see the fuss in this nomination. We're trading one liberal for another, and she's got more than enough D votes to get in easily. Not to mention the fact she's not some militant pro-abortion justice like I figured Obama would insist upon to make Big Abortion (NOW, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc) happy. Remember how the Bush 41 Supreme Court justice turned into a liberal (I think it was Souter)? Well, who knows? Maybe this new justice-to-be will become one of the most pro-life justices out there. Not likely, but certainly not impossible.

[IDrinkaRum]

Here is how the Supreme Court has ruled on the Firefighter case where white and hispanic firefighters were denied promotions because of their race:

They have reversed the ruling Sonia Sodomayor proclaimed, ruling for the white firefighters.

[AFPheonix]

That happens. She actually has a pretty low rate of her rulings being overturned for how long she was in the lower courts. I still think she would make a very good pick.

[AdminAssistant]

One of the folks on CNN today were pointing out that the lower court rulings, including Sotomayor's, were in accordance with current laws; something that the dissenting opinion of the SCOTUS pointed out. And 5-4 is a pretty narrow margin.

The bigger deal, IMO, is that this may set a precedent that will eliminate affirmative action.