Re: Sotomayor for SCOTUS and Racial Discrimination

On May 26, 9:35�am, "Irish Mike" <ace...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
She's a liberal racist with minimal qualifications. �Who else would you
expect Obama to nominate? �The funny thing is �the liberals will suddenly
develop selective amnesia about their vicious attacks on conservative
nominees.

Irish Mike

"JerseyRudy" <a44f...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:njite6x52d.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On May 26 2009 11:01 AM, susan wrote:

"mo_charles" <harrybal...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tffte6xim4.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano

if you work hard, pass the test, and are white, the results can be
invalidated doesn't.... just ask our next scotus nominee.

mo_charles

at least she is honest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

Isn't honesty refreshing?

I guess the right-wing is going to use their old dishonest strategy of
trying to convince people that "activist" judges should be stopped!

If only they would be honest about what they are complaining about. The
Supreme Court of the last few years has been as activist as any Supreme
Court in history, but the right-wing has no problem with that because it
is a court that tilts to the right-wing.

It is not "activist" judges that they are against...it is "liberal"
judges. �But they are incapable of being honest about that.

Elections have consequences. Obama won the election. Now he gets to
nominate someone that shares his judicial philosophy. That's the way the
system works. �I just wish the right-wing would have the decency to be
honest about their disagreement, rather than trying to portray it as some
principled stance against "judicial activism."

From the New York Times:

EDITORIAL OBSERVER; Last Term's Winner at the Supreme Court: Judicial
Activism
ADAM COHEN
Published: July 9, 2007

The Supreme Court told Seattle and Louisville, and hundreds more cities
and counties, last month that they have to scrap their integration
programs. There is a word for judges who invoke the Constitution to tell
democratically elected officials how to do their jobs: activist.

President Bush, who created the court's conservative majority when he
appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, campaigned
against activist judges, and promised to nominate judges who would
''interpret the law, not try to make law.'' Largely because of Chief
Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, the court has just completed one of its
most activist terms in years.

The individuals and groups that have been railing against judicial
activism should be outraged. They are not, though, because their criticism
has always been of ''liberal activist judges.'' Now we have conservative
ones, who use their judicial power on behalf of employers who mistreat
their workers, tobacco companies, and whites who do not want to be made to
go to school with blacks.

The most basic charge against activist judges has always been that they
substitute their own views for those of the elected branches. The court's
conservative majority did just that this term. It blithely overruled
Congress, notably by nullifying a key part of the McCain-Feingold campaign
finance law, a popular law designed to reduce the role of special-interest
money in politics.

It also overturned the policies of federal agencies, which are supposed to
be given special deference because of their expertise. In a
pay-discrimination case, the majority interpreted the Civil Rights Act of
1964 in a bizarre way that makes it extremely difficult for many victims
of discrimination to prevail. The majority did not care that the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission has long interpreted the law in just the
opposite way.

The court also eagerly overturned its own precedents. In an antitrust
case, it gave corporations more leeway to collude and drive up prices by
reversing 96-year-old case law. In its ruling upholding the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act, it almost completely reversed its decision from 2000 on
a nearly identical law.

The school integration ruling was the most activist of all. The campaign
against ''activist judges'' dates back to the civil rights era, when
whites argued that federal judges had no right to order the Jim Crow South
to desegregate. These critics insisted they were not against integration;
they simply opposed judges' telling elected officials what to do.

This term, the court did precisely what those federal judges did: it
invoked the 14th Amendment to tell localities how to assign students to
schools. The Roberts Court's ruling had an extra fillip of activism. The
civil rights era judges were on solid ground in saying that the 14th
Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War to bring former slaves
into society, supported integration. Today's conservative majority makes
the much less obvious argument that the 14th Amendment protects society
from integration.

With few exceptions, the court's activism was in service of a conservative
ideology. The justices invoked the due process clause in a novel way to
overturn a jury's award of $79.5 million in punitive damages against
Philip Morris, which for decades misrepresented the harm of smoking. It is
hard to imagine that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, who were in
the majority, would have supported this sort of ''judge-made law'' as
readily if the beneficiary were not a corporation.

The conservative activism that is taking hold is troubling in two ways.
First, it is likely to make America a much harsher place. Companies like
Philip Morris will be more likely to injure consumers if they know the due
process clause will save them. Employees will be freer to mistreat workers
like Lilly Ledbetter, who was for years paid less than her male
colleagues, if they know that any lawsuit she files is likely to be thrown
out on a technicality.

We have seen this before. In the early 1900s, the court routinely struck
down worker protections, including minimum wage and maximum hours laws,
and Congressional laws against child labor. That period, known as the
Lochner era -- after a 1905 ruling that a New York maximum hours law
violated the employer's due process rights -- is considered one of the
court's darkest.

We are not in a new Lochner era, but traces of one are emerging. This
court is already the most pro-business one in years, and one or two more
conservative appointments could take it to a new level. Janice Rogers
Brown, a federal appeals court judge who is often mentioned as a future
Supreme Court nominee, has expressly called for a return to the Lochner
era.

The other disturbing aspect of the new conservative judicial activism is
its dishonesty. The conservative justices claim to support ''judicial
modesty,'' but reviews of the court's rulings over the last few years show
that they have actually voted more often to overturn laws passed by
Congress -- the ultimate act of judicial activism -- than has the liberal
bloc.

It is time to admit that all judges are activists for their vision of the
law. Once that is done, the focus can shift to where it should be: on
whose vision is more faithful to the Constitution, and better for the
nation.

----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4105 (20090526) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have really shown your ignorance with this,BUCKO!!
Sotomayor's experiences as a Latina raised in a housing project who
went on to excel at
Yale and Princeton don't in themselves qualify her for the court. They
do,however, complement her sterling
credentials and equip her with perspectives that could illuminate
legal issues that come before her.
So does her experience as a trial judge applying the often abstract
rulings of the Supreme Court to particular cases.
None of the eight justices she would join has comparable experience.
Shame on you,an avowed bigot,calling this fine woman a racist!!!
Minimal qualifications? Her record speaks for itself. This is a
MODERATE liberal with maximum qualifications.
Someone has to offset the judicial activism of Roberts,Scalia,and
Thomas.
Open your eyes you pea brained Limbaugh clone!!!
hanks
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sotomayor for SCOTUS and Racial Discrimination
    ... Editor of the Yale Law Journal. ... President Bill Clinton nominated her to the appeals court in 1997, ... qualifications or fall-back on the old "judicial activism" BS. ... trying to convince people that "activist" judges should be stopped! ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Sotomayor for SCOTUS and Racial Discrimination
    ... trying to convince people that "activist" judges should be stopped! ... Supreme Court of the last few years has been as activist as any Supreme ... principled stance against "judicial activism." ... ''interpret the law, not try to make law.'' Largely because of Chief ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Sotomayor for SCOTUS and Racial Discrimination
    ... trying to convince people that "activist" judges should be stopped! ... Supreme Court of the last few years has been as activist as any Supreme ... principled stance against "judicial activism." ... ''interpret the law, not try to make law.'' Largely because of Chief ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Sotomayor for SCOTUS and Racial Discrimination
    ... trying to convince people that "activist" judges should be stopped! ... Supreme Court of the last few years has been as activist as any Supreme ... principled stance against "judicial activism." ... ''interpret the law, not try to make law.'' Largely because of Chief ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: The Supreme Courts stealth hard-liner
    ... Supreme Court Justice I'm thinking there may be some with a desire ... the law and not "make" law. ... Judges should use the law not make new laws. ... "Judges are like umpires," Roberts said at the time. ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
Loading