Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 18, 2019, 03:52:35 pm
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: NYGurl, Torie, Associate Justice PiT)
  BREAKING: MSNBC reports Sotomayor next SCOTUS justice
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 Print
Author Topic: BREAKING: MSNBC reports Sotomayor next SCOTUS justice  (Read 20055 times)
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 45,637


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #225 on: May 26, 2009, 09:32:55 pm »

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/26/rnc-fumbles-sotomayor-talking-points/

Whoops. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has apparently inadvertently released its list of talking points on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Included on the released list were a few hundred influential Republicans who were the intended recipients of the talking points. Unfortunately for the RNC, so were members of the media.


That's an easy mistake to make, to mistake some members of the media for members of the RNC.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,364
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #226 on: May 26, 2009, 09:32:57 pm »

Benjamin Cardozo

Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,703


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #227 on: May 26, 2009, 09:36:42 pm »

Benjamin Cardozo

Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!

Ok, enough already. Seriously.
Logged
Joe Republic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34,620
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #228 on: May 26, 2009, 09:45:11 pm »

I am pleased that there will finally be a second Latino on the Supreme Court(haha no one has heard of Benjamin Cardozo?).

Cardozo was a Sephardi Jew of Portuguese descent, i.e. not a Latino.
Logged
Linus Van Pelt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,130


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #229 on: May 26, 2009, 09:50:31 pm »

I am pleased that there will finally be a second Latino on the Supreme Court(haha no one has heard of Benjamin Cardozo?).

Cardozo was a Sephardi Jew of Portuguese descent, i.e. not a Latino.

Even the Portuguese connection is very tenuous: the family left the Iberian peninsula for the Netherlands during the Inquisition, then went to England, and then came to America before the Revolution.
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,648
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #230 on: May 26, 2009, 09:50:58 pm »

Benjamin Cardozo

Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!  Jew!
Who says Jews can't be Latinos at the same time? Wink
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,648
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #231 on: May 26, 2009, 09:51:36 pm »

I am pleased that there will finally be a second Latino on the Supreme Court(haha no one has heard of Benjamin Cardozo?).

Cardozo was a Sephardi Jew of Portuguese descent, i.e. not a Latino.

Even the Portuguese connection is very tenuous: the family left the Iberian peninsula for the Netherlands during the Inquisition, then went to England, and then came to America before the Revolution.
Hey come on man, my race doesn't have very many accomplishments in this country. Tongue
Logged
Oh Jeremy Corbyn!
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,641


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #232 on: May 26, 2009, 09:56:45 pm »

I am pleased that there will finally be a second Latino on the Supreme Court(haha no one has heard of Benjamin Cardozo?).

Cardozo was a Sephardi Jew of Portuguese descent, i.e. not a Latino.

Even the Portuguese connection is very tenuous: the family left the Iberian peninsula for the Netherlands during the Inquisition, then went to England, and then came to America before the Revolution.
Hey come on man, my race doesn't have very many accomplishments in this country. Tongue

Hispanics are not a race.  And the Portuguese are obviously not Hispanic.
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,648
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #233 on: May 26, 2009, 10:11:36 pm »

I am pleased that there will finally be a second Latino on the Supreme Court(haha no one has heard of Benjamin Cardozo?).

Cardozo was a Sephardi Jew of Portuguese descent, i.e. not a Latino.

Even the Portuguese connection is very tenuous: the family left the Iberian peninsula for the Netherlands during the Inquisition, then went to England, and then came to America before the Revolution.
Hey come on man, my race doesn't have very many accomplishments in this country. Tongue

Hispanics are not a race.  And the Portuguese are obviously not Hispanic.
They are generally somewhat of a culture though and almost all Hispanics share Spanish blood(not a common trait really). The Portuguese count to an extent, I think.
Logged
Nutmeg
thepolitic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,940
United States Minor Outlying Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #234 on: May 26, 2009, 10:19:52 pm »

This might have been discussed already, but the only thing (other than the affirmative action elements to Obama's stated criteria in choosing a nominee, although Sotomayor certainly seems well qualified, so I'm not as concerned at this point) that concerns me is her opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano.  Does anyone have any insights on this?  I haven't seen much analysis of this decision, perhaps since the case is still pending before the Supreme Court.
Logged
Oh Jeremy Corbyn!
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,641


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #235 on: May 26, 2009, 10:24:28 pm »

This might have been discussed already, but the only thing (other than the affirmative action elements to Obama's stated criteria in choosing a nominee, although Sotomayor certainly seems well qualified, so I'm not as concerned at this point) that concerns me is her opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano.  Does anyone have any insights on this?  I haven't seen much analysis of this decision, perhaps since the case is still pending before the Supreme Court.

There's really nothing wrong with AA when it comes to Supreme Court appointments IMO.  I think it's actually a good thing.  I'm against making appointments based on race or other criteria when it comes to Cabinet positions, but that's because every secretary has a specific job and you must pick the best person.  Everyone on the Supreme Court however does the same job, so I think it is right that everyone is represented.

The firefighters case bothers me too to be honest.  It really depends though on the reasons why she reached that decision.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,674


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #236 on: May 26, 2009, 10:36:07 pm »

The firefighters case is probably going to be overturned because of Kennedy, I suspect.  So her inclusion on the court would be irrelevant in that matter.

Still trying to figure out what race has to do with any of this.  She's qualified to be an SC justice.  I've already given my opinion as to what her impact will be.  That I feel fairly confident about.
Logged
Lunar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,423
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #237 on: May 26, 2009, 10:46:08 pm »

The firefighters case is probably going to be overturned because of Kennedy, I suspect.  So her inclusion on the court would be irrelevant in that matter.

Still trying to figure out what race has to do with any of this.  She's qualified to be an SC justice.  I've already given my opinion as to what her impact will be.  That I feel fairly confident about.

I suspect this is your opinion summarized?
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,300
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #238 on: May 26, 2009, 10:48:58 pm »

The firefighters case is probably going to be overturned because of Kennedy, I suspect.  So her inclusion on the court would be irrelevant in that matter.

Still trying to figure out what race has to do with any of this.  She's qualified to be an SC justice.  I've already given my opinion as to what her impact will be.  That I feel fairly confident about.

Erwin Chemerinsky disagrees with you on the persuasiveness and quality of writing thing: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/05/26/why-sotomayor-is-such-a-good-pick.aspx

I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,674


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #239 on: May 26, 2009, 11:09:28 pm »

The firefighters case is probably going to be overturned because of Kennedy, I suspect.  So her inclusion on the court would be irrelevant in that matter.

Still trying to figure out what race has to do with any of this.  She's qualified to be an SC justice.  I've already given my opinion as to what her impact will be.  That I feel fairly confident about.

I suspect this is your opinion summarized?

David Frum is an idiot.  I believe I have given my opinion on Sotomayor in other posts.  I don't know whether to believe Rosen's piece or not, so my opinion is not based on that.  One thing is also for sure - we're sadly not going to get any reexamination of eminent domain precedent with Sotomayor involved.

Honestly, unless I missed someone, I didn't believe that any of the possible appointees had enough power to overcome Roberts' influence of Kennedy.  You have to remember that where Kennedy is often the most agreeable to listening to the liberal wing's point of view is in terms of individual rights.  But he is still fundamentally a conservative, especially on the issues of race and abortion, in which I don't believe his opinions have changed much in the past 20 years, even when Scalia was hectoring him and when O'Connor was there for possible influence otherwise. 

Moreover, the individual rights support where good in some areas for the left (i.e. gay rights) is not good in other areas (i.e. 2nd Amendment, campaign contributions).

Furthermore, I disagree with Frum in that I think Kennedy has moved back to the right a good deal since Roberts got on the Court.  I think that key to that is that Roberts has really toned down Scalia's opinions.  During Rehnquist's reign, you would see Scalia often get assigned an opinion where he would write something extreme and never get the 5 votes necessary because Kennedy would revolt on something.  I'm seeing a lot, lot less of that now.

While we're talking about this, it is kind of amusing to see the left (and right too) in complete ignorance of the most important shift in the Court that's occurred in the last five years (which was on display in another opinion today) or so.  Scalia is basically, with the help of the Stevens/Ginsburg/Souter/Thomas alliance on one hand and the traditional right vs. left alliance on another, remaking and rewriting a lot of the criminal procedure constitutional interpretation in his own image.

I don't have any problems with this, since a lot of the post-Warren court jurisprudence in criminal procedure is confusing, to say the least (and I think Scalia has the best ideas).  But it is kind of amazing that it gets no publicity.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,674


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #240 on: May 26, 2009, 11:12:18 pm »

The firefighters case is probably going to be overturned because of Kennedy, I suspect.  So her inclusion on the court would be irrelevant in that matter.

Still trying to figure out what race has to do with any of this.  She's qualified to be an SC justice.  I've already given my opinion as to what her impact will be.  That I feel fairly confident about.

Erwin Chemerinsky disagrees with you on the persuasiveness and quality of writing thing: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/05/26/why-sotomayor-is-such-a-good-pick.aspx

I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Chemerinsky writes a good Con Law hornbook information-wise, but quite frankly I found his writing style to be boring and academic.

If I am so picky about this area, it is because I consider legal persuasiveness to be one of the strong points in my legal writing. (and am not the only one).  Smiley
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,572


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #241 on: May 27, 2009, 12:06:07 am »

I am not thrilled by this appointment but I am pleased that there will finally be a second Latino on the Supreme Court(haha no one has heard of Benjamin Cardozo?). I am mostly happy with her desicions on the Court of Appeals too.

I had a nice chat with a friend of mine about the Cardozo thing earlier.  The end result was the decision that this guy:
Img


is a pretty hard sell as a Hispanic, not least of which because of his Portuguese ancestry.
Logged
Oh Jeremy Corbyn!
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,641


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #242 on: May 27, 2009, 12:14:09 am »

The only thing Hispanic about Cardozo is his name.  Portuguese in case someone didn't know is a different language than Spanish.  He's not Latino either. The term is meant to describe immigrants or descendants of immigrants from Latin America, not European countries like Portugal
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,174
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #243 on: May 27, 2009, 12:16:28 am »

The only thing Hispanic about Cardozo is his name.  Portuguese in case someone didn't know is a different language than Spanish.  He's not Latino either. The term is meant to describe immigrants or descendants of immigrants from Latin America, not European countries like Portugal


Hispanic is a made up race anyway, a complete creation of the US Census Bureau.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,300
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #244 on: May 27, 2009, 01:16:28 am »

The only thing Hispanic about Cardozo is his name.  Portuguese in case someone didn't know is a different language than Spanish.  He's not Latino either. The term is meant to describe immigrants or descendants of immigrants from Latin America, not European countries like Portugal


Hispanic is a made up race anyway, a complete creation of the US Census Bureau.

Except for the fact that it's not considered a race by the Census Bureau.

I agree that it shouldn't really be treated any differently than any other European nationality. I think the only reason it is really is because most Hispanics are relatively recent immigrants and thus less assimilated (100 years ago there was just as much "racism" against Italians or Irish or Scandanavians or any other "minority" from Europe), and because there's so many more of them due to Spain's colonization of nearly all of Central and South America.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,300
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #245 on: May 27, 2009, 01:20:11 am »

The firefighters case is probably going to be overturned because of Kennedy, I suspect.  So her inclusion on the court would be irrelevant in that matter.

Still trying to figure out what race has to do with any of this.  She's qualified to be an SC justice.  I've already given my opinion as to what her impact will be.  That I feel fairly confident about.

Erwin Chemerinsky disagrees with you on the persuasiveness and quality of writing thing: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/05/26/why-sotomayor-is-such-a-good-pick.aspx

I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Chemerinsky writes a good Con Law hornbook information-wise, but quite frankly I found his writing style to be boring and academic.

If I am so picky about this area, it is because I consider legal persuasiveness to be one of the strong points in my legal writing. (and am not the only one).  Smiley

Well, perhaps in 25 years you will be chosen for the Court, Sam. Wink
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,428
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #246 on: May 27, 2009, 11:27:51 am »

LMAO!!!!!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/coleman-i-will-review-sotomayers-record-when-i-am-re-elected.php
Logged
Wiz in Wis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,509


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #247 on: May 27, 2009, 01:07:07 pm »

The only thing Hispanic about Cardozo is his name.  Portuguese in case someone didn't know is a different language than Spanish.  He's not Latino either. The term is meant to describe immigrants or descendants of immigrants from Latin America, not European countries like Portugal


Last names, especially in the Americas, are not good predictors of ethnicity. My last name sounds Polish but I'm 75% German and 25% Dutch. Cardozo sounds Latin, but he was a Portuguese Jew. FWIW, the leader of the Chilean independence movement in the 19th Century was a man name Bernardo O'Higgins!
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,771
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -4.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #248 on: May 28, 2009, 12:16:57 am »

One of my favorite Supreme Court writers, Linda Greenhouse, has a thoughtful editorial on how when a new Justice joins the Court, "you change the Court."  This is true, interestingly, even when the new and departing Justice hold similar views.

Quote
Every time a new justice comes to the Supreme Court, “it’s a different court,” Justice Byron R. White liked to say — and he was in a position to know, having witnessed the arrival of 13 new justices during his own 31-year tenure.

He meant that in a group of nine people bound together by daily ritual and by the need to round up a sufficient number of like-minded colleagues to get anything done, the substitution of one personality for another matters in real life more than it might seem to matter on paper.

It’s an obvious point, but one that is often overlooked in discussions of Supreme Court nominations when, as now, the departing justice’s successor is one who figures to occupy the same side of the ideological divide. President Obama’s nominee to succeed Justice David Souter, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, may not vote much differently from Justice Souter, who established a moderately liberal record during his 19 years on the court.

Even before President Obama made his selection, it was commonly said that this particular nomination would not be a “game changer” on today’s sharply polarized court, where two blocs of four justices seem to spend much of their energy competing for the affections of the one in the middle, Anthony M. Kennedy. (In two 5-to-4 decisions issued on Tuesday, Justice Kennedy voted once with the conservative bloc and once with the more liberal bloc; a third decision was unanimous.)

But even when it seems most static, the Supreme Court is a dynamic institution whose component parts are always, although not always visibly, in motion. John G. Roberts Jr. didn’t figure to be a game-changer either when President George W. Bush nominated him in 2005 to be chief justice. After all, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who had just died, was his former boss and longtime mentor, and no matter how conservative he might prove to be, it was hard to imagine him or anyone else finding much running room to Rehnquist’s right.

And yet there is a different tone now at the court, and not only because Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush’s subsequent nominee, is more conservative than the justice he replaced, Sandra Day O’Connor. John Roberts is a justice in a hurry; he pushes hard, like the young Associate Justice Rehnquist for whom he clerked, and in contrast to Chief Justice Rehnquist, who in his later years was capable of voting in surprising ways — to reaffirm the Miranda decision and reject a constitutional challenge to the Family and Medical Leave Act, for example.

It wasn’t that Chief Justice Rehnquist changed his mind on issues that mattered to him — there is no evidence of that. Rather, he seemed to have developed a sense for when it was best for the court, or perhaps even for the country, not to carry every favored proposition over a cliff to its logical conclusion.

That is a sense that Chief Justice Roberts did not appear to gain during his first years on the court; his 2007 opinion striking down voluntary school integration plans in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle was so hard-edged that Justice Kennedy refused to sign it, providing a fifth vote for the result but not for the chief justice’s reasoning.

Whether Chief Justice Roberts has developed a Rehnquist-style sense of when to hold back will be evident next month, when the court is expected to decide whether a central provision of the Voting Rights Act, renewed almost unanimously by Congress three years ago, is constitutional. Based on the deep skepticism he expressed when the case was argued last month, the answer is no.

Beyond Sonia Sotomayor’s stirring life story and impressive résumé, what we really want to know is how she will fit into this mix of ideology, personality, principle and politics. Will she make a difference? According to common sense as well as Justice White’s maxim, the answer is “yes, inevitably.” Will it be a difference that is discernible in the outcomes of cases? That may not be clear immediately.

After Justice Thurgood Marshall retired in 1991, Justice O’Connor published a tribute describing him as the embodiment of “moral truth” and recounting the experience of listening to his stories during the decade that they served together, stories that “would, by and by, perhaps change the way I see the world.”

That was a striking statement from a justice who was on the opposite side from Thurgood Marshall in nearly every civil rights case and whose jurisprudence appeared unmarked by his influence. But it turned out to be Justice O’Connor who wrote the majority opinion in 2003 that upheld affirmative action in admission to the University of Michigan Law School. The way she saw the world in the interval had clearly changed, whatever the cause.

Although she is a pioneer in her own way, it takes nothing from Judge Sotomayor to observe that she is not Thurgood Marshall — just as Anthony Kennedy, for that matter, is not Sandra O’Connor.

Indeed, not even the most experienced justice can count on finding an argument that will persuade Justice Kennedy. But there is some evidence that he can be inspired by example and observation. His opinion for the court in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 gay-rights case, clearly rested on his conclusion that gays were entitled to the “dignity,” as he put it, that the court’s earlier ruling on gay rights in Bowers v. Hardwick had withheld. That opinion, among others, indicates Justice Kennedy’s willingness to look through the eyes of those whose experiences are different from his own.

In any event, Judge Sotomayor’s nomination comes at a special moment: the first projection of the remarkable 2008 election onto a Supreme Court that has so often in these last few years appeared headed in the opposite direction from the country. Whether her arrival proves to change the way the incumbent justices see the world, it will, at the least, change the way the world sees the Supreme Court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/opinion/27greenhouse.html

Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,300
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #249 on: May 28, 2009, 02:31:53 am »

This might have been discussed already, but the only thing (other than the affirmative action elements to Obama's stated criteria in choosing a nominee, although Sotomayor certainly seems well qualified, so I'm not as concerned at this point) that concerns me is her opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano.  Does anyone have any insights on this?  I haven't seen much analysis of this decision, perhaps since the case is still pending before the Supreme Court.

I posted a good analysis of it in the "Is Sotomayor a centrist?" thread. It's worth noting that her decision did uphold precedent.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC