Sotomayor
I have no idea how Sonia Sotomayor will rule on abortion. And that’s a credit to her.
From her background, and the few things that have been bandied about, you’d think she was some crazed liberal activist. But she’s really not. Look at her background, and some of the cases she’s decided, and she comes off as a law-and-order liberal with a somewhat libertarian bent:
[As a prosecutor in New york] she prosecuted everything from shoplifting and prostitution to robberies, assaults, murders, and police brutality. She felt the lower-level crimes were largely products of socioeconomic environment and poverty, but had a different attitude about serious felonies: “No matter how liberal I am, I’m still outraged by crimes of violence. Regardless of whether I can sympathize with the causes that lead these individuals to do these crimes, the effects are outrageous.” She was especially saddened by crimes committed by Hispanics against other Hispanics. In general, she showed a passion for bringing law and order to the streets of New York, and had a special zeal in pursuing child pornography cases, unusual for the time.
…
In Pappas v. Giuliani, Sotomayor dissented from her colleagues’ ruling that the NYPD could terminate an employee from his desk job who sent racist materials through the mail. Sotomayor argued that the First Amendment protected speech by the employee “away from the office, on [his] own time,” even if that speech was “offensive, hateful, and insulting,” and that therefore the employee’s First Amendment claim should have gone to trial rather than being dismissed on summary judgment.
In Dow Jones v. Department of Justice, Sotomayor sided with the Wall Street Journal in its efforts to obtain and publish a photocopy of the suicide note of former White House Counsel Vince Foster. Sotomayor ruled that the public had “a substantial interest” in viewing the note and enjoined the Justice Department from blocking its release.
Sotomayor also rejected an appeal of Doninger v. Niehoff, where a teenager at Lewis S. Mills High School was barred from running for school government after she called the superintendent and other school officials “douche bags” on her blog while off-campus.
…
In Krimstock v. Kelly, Sotomayor wrote an opinion halting New York City’s practice of seizing the motor vehicles of drivers accused of driving while intoxicated and some other crimes and holding those vehicles for “months or even years” during criminal proceedings. Noting the importance of cars to many individuals’ livelihoods or daily activities, she held that it violated individuals’ due process rights to hold the vehicles without permitting the owners to challenge the City’s continued possession of their property.
In Brody v. Village of Port Chester, a takings case, Sotomayor wrote an opinion remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings on whether Brody had adequate notice of the Village’s condemnation proceedings against his property. (A related proceeding in the lower court was called Didden v. Village of Port Chester. The case has drawn attention from libertarian commentators.)
If I had to sum up Sotomayor: She’s the liberal answer to Samuel Alito, a thoughtful and modest judge who follows the law. Where she has some flexibility (she will on the Supreme Court), she generally roots for the underdog, especially against a government that goes too far.
I don’t think I’m going to agree with all of Sotomayor’s decisions on the Supreme Court; but I don’t think she’ll move the Court to the left of where it is now.
P.S. Watch the Senate voting on Sotomayor. You can create a shortlist of Republican presidential candidates based on those who vote against her.
Subscribe to blog feed.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
sodomizer is a fan of affirmative action, and her rulings are anti gun.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
You are only fooling yourself if you really think that she won’t make the court more liberal.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I don’t know if she’s a fan of affirmative action; but, in the Ricci firefighter case, she was just following well-established Supreme Court precedent. It’s up to the Supreme Court to overrule those precedents.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
She has a 60% reversal rate so that makes her a bad candidate alone:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023663.php
I expect that she will be overruled in the Ricci case as well.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
The ruling about the firefighters is the scariest.
I don’t think she’s a racist because of her “Latina woman” / “white male” remarks, but that firefighter ruling is definitely racist.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I don’t think it was following clear Supreme Court precedent. If it was, why did they not cite it in the “unusually terse decision”? And why did dissenting Judge Cabranes write the ruling “lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal” and “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case”?
May 28th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Membership in the Mexican equivalent of the KKK? Rulings against freedom of speech? And you think seriously think she’ll support the rights of the unborn?
I think your meds are off…
May 28th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
“I don’t think it was following clear Supreme Court precedent. If it was, why did they not cite it in the ‘unusually terse decision’? And why did dissenting Judge Cabranes write the ruling ‘lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal’ and ‘contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case’?”
Sigh. A District Judge ruled against the plaintiffs. A three-judge appeals panel (including Sotomayor) thought the decision was sound, and simply let it stand without comment. Then the entire appeals court voted on whether to hear it “en banc,” i.e. with all judges rather than just those three. The vote was to not hear it, with Cabranes dissenting from that decision.
The three-judge panel lated issued a terse opinion which basically said that, while they were sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ hardship, the District Court’s opinion was well-reasoned and thorough and they had nothing to add.
This wasn’t a lack of sympathy for victims of discrimination. It was simply following very obvious Supreme Court precedents. Ruling in favor of the firefighters here would have been an activist decision. Your grouse is with the ultra-liberal Supreme Court that shaped those precedents, not Sotomayor. She could not rule in favor of the plaintiffs anymore than a conservative appellate judge could have ruled against Roe v. Wade.
I can’t believe I’m defending an Obama nomination to the Supreme Court, but I really can’t find anything to complain about here.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Fair enough.
P.S. I agree with Taranto here:
May 28th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Sotomayor will more than likely be seated on the court. I’ve read all kinds of opinions about her, ranging from insinuations of her not being too smart, to where, like Poli is saying, she appears to be fairer than her liberal credentials and some of her comments might lead one to believe.
For our sake, because the odds are against her not getting the votes, I hope she is as you said, a more principled liberal with some libertarian streaks in her rulings.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Hard to believe she is not pro choice. Look at who appointed her. I would think he’d have been required to run his choice by NARAL and the rest of the pro aborts.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
I agree with Polipundit.
I think that this woman is absolutely one of the best choices we could have expected from Obama.
As a single issue prolifer, after looking at her decisions, it is obvious she is not doctrinaire feminist.
I think when Roberts and Alito work with her as an equal, her Catholic roots are going to kick in.
Will she be a Scalia? No.
Will she be a Ginsburg? No.
I think she is likely to be a Souter/Kennedy/OConnor clone and decide each issue, one at a time.
If a GOPer nominated her, we would be up in arms.
But I think this may be the trojan horse that God has provided to the unborn.
Only time will tell!
May 28th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
in the Ricci firefighter case, she was just following well-established Supreme Court precedent etc~~poli
Translation~~reverse discrimination is O.K. by the court.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Hey I am a conservative republican. i think it’s great that Obama has nominated a pro lifer to the court. In 3 cases she upheld the verdict that a aborting a fetus is akin to murdering a child and she agreed with Bush on not sending tax dollars over seas to fund abortions. She is going to get nominated anyway, we (republicans) dont have the power to block, so I say let support her. She is going to be the deciding vote to tip the scales in favor of killing roe v wade. And it will be all Obamas doing, won’t that be great!
May 28th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
It is my hope that not a single Republican Senator, other than the crazy ones from Maine, votes in favor of Judge Sotomayor. The Constitution was written clearly and deliberately and its words have plain meanings. She does not believe that. That alone is ample reason to vote against her. Justice that is not impartial and neutral is not justice. There is one justice for all. There should not be one justice for white firefighters and a different justice for non-white firefighters.
Words have meaning or they don’t. The laws and their limitations have meaning or they don’t. Which is more important, what the law says or the results you want? Judge Sotomayor, if she were to answer honestly, would have to say the results are more important.
She is wrong about the role of the courts. The courts job is to apply the law that the lawmakers wrote. The Ledbetter case is an example of this. The court found that the law precluded any other result and told Congress and change the law if you want a different end result. Law and policy is the purview of our elected officials not unaccountable Judges who live forever.
Her race is not an issue. Her gender is not an issue. Her views are not Conservative and we should say so clearly. The President who picked her is not Conservative and we should say so over and over again. The Presidents views and the Judge’s views are largely antithetical to the Constitution, Limited Government and Individual Freedom and we should say so over and over again. Our rejection should be stated in a clear, conservative, near unanimous voice.
Hispanics are smart enough to know the difference between a principled NO vote and a spineless YES. Hispanics are more likely to have respect for people who stand for their principles even if they disagree with those principles. Moreover, it would give hope to Conservatives that our Senators actually believe in a smaller, less powerful and less costly Government not just one where our side was first at the trough
May 28th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
I agree she is a horrible candidate! But with the republicans having no way to block, the only way to prevent her nomintion is to havethe Dems demand her withdrawl. Obama will look like an idiot for the nomination in the first place. Throw enough pro life doubt into the dems and we get to watch the start to devour one of their own. Besides that, how great will it look to Latino voters, when their new nominee is cast out by the party THEY put in office. Certainly wonthelp the dems in 2010 or 2012.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Stock up on you know what.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Jeez. I guess there is more than one Obama pundit here.
She said a latina could reach a better decision than a white male. Racist, end of story.
She said appellate courts make policy. not qualified, end of story.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
On what basis does this site make the claim to be conservative? We can’t even get a shout for originalist SCOTUS judges?
May 28th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
What point is there in any conservatives posting here? OPENLY RACIST, OPENLY ACTIVIST judges are endorsed? This is a “conservative bent”? Something’s bent all right.
I’ve had enough.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:08 am
Sotomayor is the Democrats’ Clarence Thomas: a dumb, lazy, unqualified minority who is where she is because of her race.
BTW, I know Clarence Thomas. He’s a punk. The worst kind of affirmative action punk.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:16 am
BTW, I know Clarence Thomas. He’s a punk. The worst kind of affirmative action punk.~~~spencer
Why do you care? your crowd of leftist syncophants love that crap anyway.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:57 am
syncophants
Try spelling that again, idiot.
May 29th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Spencer – your comments are thuggish, racist and disgusting.
Poli – I agree with you. I would rather have Sotomayor than some of the leftists being touted by the media. I don’t think I will agree with her on much, but it will be interesting to see two things:
1.) Is Sotomayor going to try to expand the role of the Court – expand Roe v. Wade to include a right to a partial birth abortion, freedom of choice act, etc. Is she going to try to overrule the death penalty and find a right to gay marriage. That would make her an activist.
2.) Does Sotomayor, from an ego perspective, need more than being considered a reliable liberal vote? If no, that’s great for us. Something tells me this woman is a media whore and will want to matter like an O’Connor or Kennedy. She’s not going to matter if she’s reflexively liberal. Of course, this conversation is absolutely not what the framers intended, but an O’Connor politician on the bench is better than a Souter leftist.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:19 am
She’s anti gun.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Where exactly does the Second Amendment apply?
May 29th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Try spelling that again, idiot.~~~fred
Try kissing my ass dipshit.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Where exactly does the Second Amendment apply? ~~BCL
If it only applies to the feds, then why would any of the other bill of rights only apply to the feds.Can the states violate the 1st amend..???
The 2nd amend. says “shall not be infringed” it doesn’t say by whom, just that such infringement is prohibited. State law cannot super- cede the federal constitution.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Another RINO turncoat
May 29th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Try kissing my ass dipshit.
IP727 gets his rise from typing about ass and anus.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:50 am
The only one hung up around here on the subject is anal retentive freud.
(by the way, you too can kiss my ass)
May 29th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I do NOT agree with the LIBERAL appointment of Sotomayor for Supreme Court nominee. I do believe that some of the things that Sotomayor have said are racist in nature, simply review her record.
In the United States their are some 40 million illegal aliens, most of them of hispanic origin, that have emigrated to the United States ILLEGALLY, and with that said, I SAY THIS: U.S. CITIZENS DO NOT NEED A LIBERAL HISPANIC NOMINEE FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE!!!!!! Why? She will be sympathetic to the illegal hispanic alien law breakers, and our country, and our U.S. CITIZENS don’t deserve that, since our federal government has failed to protect U.S. CITIZENS from the ravages of illegal hispanic alien criminals.
LET YOUR CONSTITUENTS IN THE SENATE AND HOUSE KNOW THAT YOU WANT THEM TO VOTE NO TO SOTOMAYOR!!!!!!!!!!!
May 29th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Viva La Raza! Sométale los diablos anglo o le destruiremos.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Nutty old white men
“Attempting to paint her as a bigot or racist would be a terrible political miscalculation that would accomplish nothing but further illustrate why Republicans are in the wilderness right now.”
No more striving for a color-blind society I guess. Whitey had better shut the f!!k up and behave or the hispanics won’t like us.
Here’s a clue, they have already made it clear that they hate us and behaving subserviently will only make them hate us more. We all know that justice means putting whitey in his place.
We’re in the wilderness because of people like the anonymous “Republican insider” and demonstrates the truth of Limbaugh’s statement. We are being thrown to the back of the bus and reduced to second class citizens in the name of diversity and people like the “Republican insider” are nothing more than the new era white Uncle Toms. They project a consciousness of guilt upon others and reinforce the bigoted stereotypes of those who hate us.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
7gSUdI dwwsvpcqguvv, [url=http://lpnlkkwdtiqm.com/]lpnlkkwdtiqm[/url], [link=http://itejlvocamhd.com/]itejlvocamhd[/link], http://gittfdpynoxl.com/