Forums / Political & Legal / "DEFEATE" SOTOMAYOR NOMINATION

5 years 21 weeks ago, 10:43 AM

bosshog

bosshog's picture

Rank:
Colonel
Points:
168
Join Date:
May 2009
Location:
Mims, Fl.

Can it really be true? Does Barack Hussein Obama’s radical Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, really legislate from the bench... does she insult her judicial colleagues... does she actually show a deep-seated contempt for those of us who disagree with her?

New York Senator Charles Schumer says Sotomayor exemplifies “excellence, moderation, and diversity.” Our Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves over that statement.

FOX News' Sean Hannity rightly called Sotomayor “the most divisive nominee in the history of the Court.”

Consider her much-discussed, eye-popping remarks made at Duke University:

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is - Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law, I know." [Derisive laughter from audience]

Apparently, when Sotomayor swore to uphold the Constitution, she meant upholding her own desire to make “policy” ... or rather, to make law.

There is no room on the High Court for such blatant judicial activism. The Senate should reject her nomination and suggest she seek a seat in Congress instead.

Make it crystal clear to them that Judge Sonia Sotomayor does not merit approval as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Let them know that Sotomayor’s activism and lack of judicial temperament should disqualify her from sitting on a court distinguished by great jurists and legal scholars like John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, William Rehnquist, and John Roberts. Tell them you won’t accept – and our country can’t afford – yet another liberals Supreme Court Justice legislating from the bench.

Sotomayor: Intellectual Firepower... or Foot-in-Mouth Disease?

Barack Obama told us he wanted his nominee to have “intellectual firepower,” supposedly meaning a first-rate legal mind. But there are some unresolved questions in that regard when it comes to Sotomayor.

Even liberals are questioning her qualifications. Consider an article written by legal journalist Jeffrey Rosen in the liberal New Republic. Rosen interviewed a number of individuals who had worked with or around Sotomayor in the 2nd District Court of Appeals, and he says:

1. “They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship and... most of all, her ability to provide a liberal counterweight to the [Supreme Court’s] conservative justices...";

2. One law clerk described Sotomayor as “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench... . She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions . . . don’t get to the heart of the issue”;

3. During one court session, an elderly jurist asked her; ”Will you please stop talking and let them [the litigants] talk?”

As for her legal opinions, Rosen adds: “although competent, [they are] viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clear or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees.”

Finally, Sotomayor has a reputation for treating her appellate court colleagues – some of them far more distinguished than she – in a patronizing manner, for example... red-penciling their spelling on drafts.

Does Sotomajor talk too much and think too little? Is she someone who irritates law clerks, judicial colleagues, and litigants. Is she, at best, a marginal member of the Appellate Court.

In short, is she Supreme Court material?

Make it crystal clear to them that Judge Sonia Sotomayor does not merit approval as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Let them know that Sotomayor’s activism and lack of judicial temperament should disqualify her from sitting on a court distinguished by great jurists and legal scholars like John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, William Rehnquist, and John Roberts. Tell them you won’t accept – and our country can’t afford – yet another liberals Supreme Court Justice legislating from the bench.

Tell Them You Want Sotomayor’s Nomination Defeated.

Sotomayor: A Case of Highly Selective “Empathy.”

Barack Obama claimed that his Supreme Court nominees would need “empathy” ... which to some means a predisposition to stack the legal deck in favor of some at the expense of others.

In any practical sense, empathy is not a good quality for a judge.

In the words of Senator Jeff Sessions:

"And really empathy is not a judicial act. It's something else. I'm not sure what it is. But it's certainly not law, it's certainly not judicial."

Is Sotomayor a judge governed not by objectivity and fairness, but rather by bias? In her court, does Justice wear blinders, rather than a bindfold?

Sotomayor once made the following statement on “cultural diversity.”

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

In one 30-word statement, Sotomayor succeeded in being both racist and sexist. If a white male judge had made a similarly offensive statement, he would never have been nominated... let alone confirmed.

And yet, Sotomayor also showed little empathy in her judicial actions toward firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut. The City of New Haven refused to promote those who scored highest on a standardized "race-neutral" test because African-American firefighters who took the test did not score high enough.

Disregarding precedent and perhaps moved by the concept of equality of outcome over equality of opportunity; Sotomayor was one of a three-judge 2nd District panel that issued a ridiculously short, ambiguous and non-substantive opinion in favor of the city and against the firefighters who justly deserved promotion.

Another 2nd Court jurist, Clinton appointee Judge Jose Carbanes, dismayed by the perfunctory action, said the opinion had “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of the case.”

If Judge Sotomayor lacks true empathy, respect for those unlike her, and concern for constitutional issues, how can either the Judiciary Committee or the entire Senate do anything but reject her?

Make it crystal clear to them that Judge Sonia Sotomayor does not merit approval as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Let them know that Sotomayor’s activism and lack of judicial temperament should disqualify her from sitting on a court distinguished by great jurists and legal scholars like John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, William Rehnquist, and John Roberts. Tell them you won’t accept – and our country can’t afford – yet another liberals Supreme Court Justice legislating from the bench.

Sotomayor: Intemperate and Injudicious

In the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, lawyers get to comment anonymously on judges with whom they’ve worked. Usually, the comments are positive, but Sotomayor drew a great deal of criticism.

Various lawyers who have practiced before the 2nd District Court describe Sotomayor as “a terror on the bench” . . . “very outspoken” . . . “difficult”. . . “temperamental and excitable” . . . “angry” . . . “overly aggressive” . . . “out-of- control” . . . “[subject to] inappropriate outbursts” . . . “nasty to lawyers making an argument she does not like.” Those don’t exactly qualify as ringing endorsements.

In other words, some of the lawyers who know Judge Sotomayor’s work best see as her as angry, nasty, aggressive, injudicious, and hostile to attorneys defending positions different from her own views.

It would appear that Sotomayor seems to lack... well... "empathy" ... for firefighters and jurists who don’t share her ethnicity . . . her gender . . . or her worldview.

In spite of her claims otherwise, her experience in New York’s South Bronx is not necessarily any richer or more valuable than that of people of various races and genders who grew up in Burbank... Boise... or Buffalo.

The Constitution promises equal protection under the law – not more protection for one individual, than another.

We need to defeat her nomination.

Make it crystal clear to them that Judge Sonia Sotomayor does not merit approval as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Let them know that Sotomayor’s activism and lack of judicial temperament should disqualify her from sitting on a court distinguished by great jurists and legal scholars like John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, William Rehnquist, and John Roberts. Tell them you won’t accept – and our country can’t afford – yet another liberals Supreme Court Justice legislating from the bench.

Can We Really Defeat Sotomayor’s Nomination?

In a word: YES.

But to do so, we must demonstrate the same passion, commitment, and focus the liberals have used to fight nominations to the High Court.

According to FOX News, Republicans claim they will give Sotomayor “a fair confirmation hearing.” Question for them: When – if ever – was the last time Senate liberals gave a conservative nominee a “fair hearing?”

In accordance with Senate Judiciary Committee rules (specifically Rule IV), at least one member of the minority party must agree with the majority to bring the confirmation to the floor of the Senate. If all seven Republicans on the committee stand united, the Sotomayor nomination is dead.

And some of these senators are talking the talk. The question remains, will they walk the walk.

Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee , voted against Sotomayor’s when she came before the Senate for confirmation to a lower court years ago. He cited what he called “a history of activism.”

In the Committee, remember also that Arlen Specter – a certain yes vote for Sotomayor – is no longer a Republican, and so he can’t help move her nomination to the full Senate.

Senator Orrin Hatch, a veteran of many nomination battles, has expressed his “great concern” about Sotomayor. He is clearly appalled by the woman’s activism and outrageous statements.

Conservatives in the Senate don’t necessarily need more votes... just more backbone... and that’s where your efforts can play a critical role.

Let’s start Operation Backbone right now.

Make it crystal clear to them that Judge Sonia Sotomayor does not merit approval as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Let them know that Sotomayor’s activism and lack of judicial temperament should disqualify her from sitting on a court distinguished by great jurists and legal scholars like John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, William Rehnquist, and John Roberts. Tell them you won’t accept – and our country can’t afford – yet another liberals Supreme Court Justice legislating from the bench.

Liberals Haven't Exactly Been Fair; Now Have They?

Remember how liberals subjected Judge Robert Bork to a stream of mindless venom that became known as “borking?”

Also, recall what happened to Justice Clarence Thomas, a good man whose reputation was subjected to what Thomas aptly described as a “high-tech lynching.”

And what about Senator Obama’s militant opposition to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

One sickening memory of that time is how the liberals’ trashing of the mild-mannered and scholarly Alito led his wife to fleeing the hearing in tears.

Senator Obama couched his opposition to the Roberts and Alito in his usual rhetorical bluster, but it basically came down to his belief that they might disagree with him on issues near and dear to the extreme-left.

Where is the man's "empathy?"

Opposing Alito, Obama even called him “a man of great character.”

However, that didn’t stop him from obstructing Alito’s nomination. That stance by Senator Obama would make it hard for President Obama to declare out-of-bounds a filibuster against Sotomayor.

Frankly, if we’re looking for an even-handed, impartial Justice, Barack Obama is not the right president to nominate one... and Sonia Sotomayor is not the right nominee.

Judge Sotomayor is no Robert Bork, or Clarence Thomas, or Samuel Alito, and she’s certainly no John Roberts.

The best thing the Senate can do is to send her packing – back to the Court of Appeals.

Make it crystal clear to them that Judge Sonia Sotomayor does not merit approval as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Let them know that Sotomayor’s activism and lack of judicial temperament should disqualify her from sitting on a court distinguished by great jurists and legal scholars like John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, William Rehnquist, and John Roberts. Tell them you won’t accept – and our country can’t afford – yet another liberals Supreme Court Justice legislating from the bench.

Tell Them You Want Sotomayor’s Nomination Defeated.

5 years 21 weeks ago, 2:52 PM

Eturnit3

Eturnit3's picture

Rank:
Lieutenant General
Points:
798
Join Date:
Dec 2008
Location:
Grass Valley , CA

re: sotomayor

"The nomination of Second Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court is a slap at gun rights and the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Judge Sotomayor, a New York native, ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“While Democrats in Congress have been making great strides in the gun rights arena, refusing to consider a renewal of the Clinton gun ban, and offering overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation allowing citizens to carry firearms in national parks, President Obama just demonstrated that he prefers judges who oppose Second Amendment rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb.

Incorporation may be taken up by the high court during its next session beginning in October, because attorneys in the Maloney case plan to appeal in late June.

“If the Maloney appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb wondered, “would Justice Sotomayor – provided she is confirmed – recuse herself from deliberations?”

Judge Sotomayor has written an opinion that declined to order the release of certain information under the Freedom of Information Act. In one case, according to SCOTUSblog, she wrote that the “unwarranted invasion of privacy” for individuals whose names would be released under an FOIA request outweighed the public interest.

“Would a Justice Sotomayor be just as protective of the privacy rights of concealed carry permit holders if a newspaper wanted to publish that information?” Gottlieb asked. “We hope that during Senate confirmation hearings, someone asks about her positions on incorporation and the privacy rights of gun owners. The Second Amendment needs to be expanded, not eviscerated.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
_________________________

The time is coming when those who kill you will think they are offering service to God. Jesus - (John 16.2) A penny saved is a government oversight.
5 years 21 weeks ago, 8:43 PM

DEMO

DEMO's picture

Rank:
Lieutenant General
Points:
1268
Join Date:
Oct 2008
Location:
Hamburg, NY
Constitutional rights?

Democrats like 'rights' when its convienient to their agenda......

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do

Who's Online

Guns Lot Activity
Users
Currently Active Users: 444 (1 member and 443 guests)
tallguy007

Users Active within the last 24 hours
tallguy007, Caber, captmax, nobile157, presslerms
Guns Lot Statistics
Stats Topics: 8,654, Comments: 161,088, Members: 23,517
Welcome our newest member: Hank6046

Recent Activity