DontTreadOnMe
 
  2  
Tue 26 May, 2009 06:10 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Drunk


tu, cabron...


   http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ft8ai0ua-kwfpfiuykumoq.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118306/Obama-Approval-Picks-Up-May.aspx

  http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/0i3mm7roaek89iybll8oxa.gif


H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Tue 26 May, 2009 06:24 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,


I'm talking about the citizens, not the dumbmasses and their poll.
old europe
 
  1  
Tue 26 May, 2009 07:11 pm
@H2O MAN,
So people who agree with you are "citizens", while people who disagree with you are "the dumbmasses"?

Why do you hate America?
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Tue 26 May, 2009 07:14 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DTOM wrote (in refernce to H2O Man)

Quote:
seriously, dude. it's like having somebody's 12 year old brother hopping around while we're trying to talk.


That is probably the best description I've seen of the retard in a long time. Laughing
In any battle of wits this dude is unarmed. Drunk indeed.


0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Tue 26 May, 2009 07:15 pm
@old europe,


Why are you a dumbass?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 26 May, 2009 07:38 pm
Anyone has any further informed opinions about Sotomayor?

Hoping JoefromChicago might turn up, or Thomas, but will eagerly read up on anyone else's take on her as well..

There was a bit of brouhaha about her supposedly being abrasive, spurred by a TNR article, though I wasnt impressed by the sourcing of the characterisations (or the article period). Plus, I wouldnt mind an abrasive liberal to be added to the court as a counterweight for Clarence Thomas..
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Tue 26 May, 2009 09:29 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:

Anyone has any further informed opinions about Sotomayor?

Hoping JoefromChicago might turn up, or Thomas, but will eagerly read up on anyone else's take on her as well..

There was a bit of brouhaha about her supposedly being abrasive, spurred by a TNR article, though I wasnt impressed by the sourcing of the characterisations (or the article period). Plus, I wouldnt mind an abrasive liberal to be added to the court as a counterweight for Clarence Thomas..


rachel maddow was just finishing up some stuff about sotomayor not being as liberal as she was assumed to be.


0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Tue 26 May, 2009 10:02 pm
@nimh,
Quote:
Hoping JoefromChicago might turn up, or Thomas, but will eagerly read up on anyone else's take on her as well..


Here's JoefromChicago's comments from another thread:

Quote:
4 Reply report Tue 26 May, 2009 12:29 pm Re: Miller (Post 3660077)
Jeffrey Rosen wrote:
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?")
There are plenty of jurists who can accurately be described as "kind of a bully on the bench." In their book The Brethren, Woodward and Bernstein made it clear that the nicest guy on the supreme court at that time was William Rehnquist, while the biggest douchebag by far was William O. Douglas. In an all-time ranking of supreme court justices, however, it's likely that Douglas would be far ahead of Rehnquist.

Jeffrey Rosen wrote:
Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: "She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media."
How is that "being charitable?" Sounds laudatory to me.

Jeffrey Rosen wrote:
Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.
Well, those kind of memos probably rankled those unnamed former clerks more than the judges for whom they clerked. It's the job of the clerks, after all, to make sure the first drafts don't go out with lots of typos and other errors.

Jeffrey Rosen wrote:
Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants.
If Winter thought that Sotomayor had ruled incorrectly on a point of law, it was his duty to state that clearly, not just drop a cryptic footnote in an opinion. I'd very much like to see this footnote, but then Rosen no more identifies this case than he identifies his sources.

Jeffrey Rosen wrote:
The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)
Circuit courts routinely issue summary denials of appeal in cases. If the district court was right and its opinion sound, there's really no reason to issue an appellate opinion saying the same thing. Criticizing such a summary denial as lacking references to precedent misses the point: if the district court opinion contained those references, there's no point in repeating them.

Jeffrey Rosen wrote:
I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor's detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths.
But that doesn't stop Rosen from commenting on Sotomayor's qualifications.
genoves
 
  -2  
Tue 26 May, 2009 11:10 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2o man--Note the following:

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 Email to a Friend ShareThisAdvertisement
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 31% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty percent (30%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +1. That’s the lowest positive rating yet received by the new President (see trends).

It will take several more days to determine whether today’s low ratings are merely statistical noise or a reflection of shifting perceptions.

Following the President’s speech on the Guantanamo prison camp, just 38% agree with the President’s decision. Forty-nine percent (49%) now disagree. Opinion was evenly divided in January. By a two-to-one margin, voters oppose having any of the suspected terrorists brought to prisons in the United States. Only 25% share the President’s belief that the Guantanamo camp weakened the nation’s security.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter.
**************************************************

Obama only has a one point edge --the lowest edge since he was elected.

And just wait, H2o, until the campaign season starts in January when the Unemployment Rate will still be around 10%.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -2  
Tue 26 May, 2009 11:21 pm

1 Reply report Tue 26 May, 2009 10:02 pm Re: nimh (Post 3660640)
Quote:
Hoping JoefromChicago might turn up, or Thomas, but will eagerly read up on anyone else's take on her as well..

Here's JoefromChicago's comments from another thread:

Quote:
4 Reply report Tue 26 May, 2009 12:29 pm Re: Miller (Post 3660077)
Jeffrey Rosen wrote:
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?")
There are plenty of jurists who can accurately be described as "kind of a bully on the bench." In their book The Brethren, Woodward and Bernstein made it clear that the nicest guy on the supreme court at that time was William Rehnquist, while the biggest douchebag by far was William O. Douglas. In an all-time ranking of supreme court justices, however, it's likely that Douglas would be far ahead of Rehnquist.

Jeffrey Rosen wrote:
Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: "She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media."
How is that "being charitable?" Sounds laudatory to me.

Jeffrey Rosen wrote:
Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.
Well, those kind of memos probably rankled those unnamed former clerks more than the judges for whom they clerked. It's the job of the clerks, after all, to make sure the first drafts don't go out with lots of typos and other errors.

Jeffrey Rosen wrote:
Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants.
If Winter thought that Sotomayor had ruled incorrectly on a point of law, it was his duty to state that clearly, not just drop a cryptic footnote in an opinion. I'd very much like to see this footnote, but then Rosen no more identifies this case than he identifies his sources.

Jeffrey Rosen wrote:
The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)
Circuit courts routinely issue summary denials of appeal in cases. If the district court was right and its opinion sound, there's really no reason to issue an appellate opinion saying the same thing. Criticizing such a summary denial as lacking references to precedent misses the point: if the district court opinion contained those references, there's no point in repeating them.

Jeffrey Rosen wrote:
I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor's detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths.
But that doesn't stop Rosen from commenting on Sotomayor's qualifications

*******************************************************************

The comments above are NOT Joe from Chicago's comments. Joe from Chicago is not smart enough to make such comments. Joe graduated from a TTT and is now doing small time traffic ticket work.

You might try Debra L A W. She thinks she knows something about L A W, but all she does is cut and paste decisions. She has shown her utter stupidity by her incredibly dense comments on "1984" which she obviously has not read carefully and her ignorance in her comments on the provenance of the title of Obama's book--The Audacity of Hope.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -3  
Tue 26 May, 2009 11:26 pm
I must agree that Obama made a very astute decision in naming Sotomayor as the candidate for Souter's soon to be vacated seat. In order to maximize his votes in the future, he must attempt to win over

l. the Disabled Lob by

2. GLAD

3. the left wing feminists.

4. Mexicans(Ms. Sotomayor is Puerto Rican but the Mexican lobby will produce even more votes with a Mexican candidate.

*****************************

Can Obama find a good disabled, Mexican Lesbian Jurist?

That would be a coup--Count the votes coming from the backers of that nominee.
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Wed 27 May, 2009 06:36 am
Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court

With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

But opponents have an uphill battle.

Judge Sotomayor already has been confirmed for the federal bench twice: unanimously in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush nominated her to a district court, and by a vote of 67-29 in 1998, after President Clinton nominated her to the appeals court. Seven Republicans who voted for her in 1997 are still in the Senate, and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said "they're certainly well positioned to support her again."

Mr. Gibbs dismissed questions about Judge Sotomayor's reversal rate, saying she wrote 380 majority opinions during her 11 years on the appeals court. Of those 380 opinions, the Supreme Court heard five of the cases and overturned her on three.

"The totality of the record is one that's more important to look at, rather than, like I said, some out-of-context or clipped way of looking at it," Mr. Gibbs said.

While Democratic senators were quick to back Judge Sotomayor, Republicans took a wait-and-see approach, saying they will judge her by her answers at her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Still, Republicans will be under pressure from conservative and libertarian activist groups, who say the questions are mounting. The activists are looking forward to the Supreme Court's expected ruling next month in the Ricci case on race-based employment promotions.

Court watchers predict a majority of justices will rule in favor of New Haven, Conn., firefighters who said the city discriminated against them after it tested them for promotions, then scrapped the results after it realized a disproportionate number of whites would be promoted. Judge Sotomayor was part of a unanimous three-judge panel that issued an unsigned opinion ruling against the firefighters and in favor of the city.

"Given the way she recently all but dismissed the Ricci case ... and the expectation, based on oral argument, that the Supreme Court will reverse the 2nd Circuit decision, there will likely be an extremely contentious confirmation battle ahead," said Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute. "If confirmation hearings are scheduled for summer, they will follow shortly upon the Courts decision in that explosive case."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/?page=2
McGentrix
 
  2  
Wed 27 May, 2009 06:50 am
So far, my only qualm with Sotomayor is that now the NPR hosts have yet another reason to break into a fake Hispanic accent when they say her name. It is sooooooo annoying.
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Wed 27 May, 2009 07:12 am
http://travelingluck.com/f/rq-lgflag.gif
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Wed 27 May, 2009 07:26 am
@Woiyo9,
LOL.. Are you seriously trying to tell us that Sotomayor only ruled on 5 cases when she was on the appeals court?

Quote:
Mr. Gibbs dismissed questions about Judge Sotomayor's reversal rate, saying she wrote 380 majority opinions during her 11 years on the appeals court. Of those 380 opinions, the Supreme Court heard five of the cases and overturned her on three.

No.. it seems she wrote 380 majority opinions and the court only heard 5 of them. It seems she was NOT reversed by the court 60% of the time at all.

Rather it shows the Supreme Court only takes cases when it is likely to overturn them.

Based on what I can find so far it seems Alitio was reversed 100% by the high court since I can only find one majority opinion of his that went to the higher court. I don't recall the Washington Times trumpeting Alito's 100% reversal rate.
Woiyo9
 
  -2  
Wed 27 May, 2009 08:00 am
@parados,
Dummy!!!!!

I clearly highlighted that fact so stupid people like you might have a better chance of understanding the issue.

I realize it took you some time to come up with the correct conclusion that 3 of the 5 were reversed by the USSC. That is 60%. VERY GOOD YOU ARE AT MATH!!!!

I have not yet come to a conclusion of this nominee. What you are too stupid to understand, is that no is the time to gather information so we can LEARN more about the nominee in order to form a conclusion.

I understand how difficult it is for you to be objective. So do me a favor and place me on ignore so I do not have to deal with a partisan dunce like you.
panzade
 
  1  
Wed 27 May, 2009 08:23 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
another reason to break into a fake Hispanic accent when they say her name. It is sooooooo annoying.


amen....brother
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Wed 27 May, 2009 08:24 am
@Woiyo9,
Yes, and you made the title LARGER and even BOLDER to imply you thought that was the most important part.

But you haven't come to a conclusion? You only posted it without comment other then highlighting the 60% rate and the 3 of 5 statements twice. Rolling Eyes

Learning she was overturned 3 of 5 times helps you in what way? What did you learn about Alito if he was overturned 100% of the time by the Supreme Court?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Wed 27 May, 2009 09:45 am
@nimh,
A good rundown of Sotomayor's appellate opinions can be found at Scotusblog. In general, I think it's clear that Sotomayor is left-of-center, especially in employment discrimination cases, where she almost uniformly sides with the employee. She'll probably get a lot of grief for her vote in Maloney v. Cuomo, a gun rights case where the panel, in an unsigned opinion, surprisingly held that the supreme court's decision in Heller didn't apply the second amendment to the states (I need to read that before offering any analysis -- I'm not Jeffrey Rosen, after all). Given that Maloney will likely be heard by the supreme court at some point in the future, however, Sotomayor will probably duck any questions about the case at her confirmation hearings.

It may be true that the supreme court reversed her 3 out of 5 times, but that's hardly a surprising statistic, given that the supreme court usually accepts appeals only where it disagrees with the lower court or where there is a split in opinion among the circuits. If six or more justices think that the appellate court got it right, it won't take the case. Actually, it's surprising that the court upheld Sotomayor twice, given the ideological makeup of the current court.

On the whole, then, I think Sotomayor is a good choice, but I believe there could have been better choices. Once again, the court gets an federal appellate court jurist from the DC-Philadelphia-New York triangle, and another Catholic to boot (although she may only be a nominal one). She does, however, have actual trial court experience, which will make one on the supreme court, and she also has experience as a prosecutor, which, I think, will also make her unique among her colleagues.
Setanta
 
  3  
Wed 27 May, 2009 10:00 am
I think it's just appalling that Mr. Obama would attempt to "pack the court" with people of his own ideological predilections. I mean, it's not as though any other President would . . . uhm . . . i mean . . .

This is what is stuck in the conservative craw, the idiotic resentment that Mr. Obama is not nominating someone of whom they would automatically approve. What a bunch of mopes.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.14 seconds on 11/21/2024 at 03:10:25