Quote:Her nomination needs to be challenged.

Based on what decisions? The New Haven one? What were the options in that case, and what precedents was she following, let alone setting?

I'm really interested in all of your information that you can provide as to why you feel that she shouldn't be confirmed.

(05-26-2009 09:08 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  Well that just proves it then. What's the source of that blurb? I'd like to see the rest of the discussion with this quote in context.

Still waiting for the source of this blurb so that we can view it in context, do you have it available for us?

DBotamayor

Quote:Still waiting for the source of this blurb so that we can view it in context, do you have it available for us?

Are you serious, you haven't heard about the New Haven reverse discrimination case she ruled on? It's been on every news program imaginable, as well as on a 100 plus blogs.

4 paragraphs down

Here's 828 Google hits for you. That enough sources for you
Ricci vs. DeStefano Affirmative Action Case

Been busy watching the Pens wrap up their conference finals.

That's a famous case about the firemen exams, and she with another judge upheld an opinion from a lower court, this is nothing new. Is that all they have on her, THAT is the dirt?

She's a shoe in, there won't be a fight unless they find something else. Eight Republicans voted for her in 98, one's a DEM now in Spector, not sure how they can stop this now and they won't have the votes for a filibuster, even if they did they won't set that precedent or it'll fly right in their face after McConnell whined so loudly against it in 2005, remember?

If they base their opposition on that case, in my opinion, the Republican party will have stuck the final nail in their coffin as a party.

Quote:I'm really interested in all of your information that you can provide as to why you feel that she shouldn't be confirmed.

Did you not watch the video ESSS put up. That is enormously damaging, and if the senate was not stacked with Democrats that alone would kill her nomination, or any one elses.

The Democrats have used a very successful strategy over the years. They ask for the moon knowing full well they won't get it. But they still get what they want. That's what's going on here.

They know she's an activist judge. They'll put her nomination up, and if she manages to get through, great. If not the next nominee will likely be a tad less radical, and he/she will fly through. Either way they win. In addition they come away with all kinds of mud they can sling. "The Republicans are anti hispanic, anti female, extremists, etc. Stop fretting DB, either way you'll get you activist nut job. :domokun:

How do you say she's an activist judge. Which cases was she overturning a lower court ruling that changed the legal landscape? That would be an activist judge at the appellate level.

Like I said, unless they find more on her, she's in with no problem.

BTW, history has told us repeatedly that nominees don't always turn out the way presidents intend them to turn out.

I'm not sure why the huge concern over a judge who hasn't really been an activist or shown any reason to be distrusted, she's made a quote out of court about policy which can be debated but really that's not a big deal if you really take what she said in context. Her New Haven case upheld a lower court ruling, which is far from being activist.

Is there some underlying issue that you're not bringing up which has you in such a clamor?

DB How do you say she's an activist judge.

Quote:“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,” she said. “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.”

If she believes what she said, she is clearly an activist judge.

Quote:BTW, history has told us repeatedly that nominees don't always turn out the way presidents intend them to turn out.

That's true. Many go from Constitutionalists to border line activists.........see Row vs. Wade. I'm missing where the founding fathers said women should be entitled to an abortion. By a vote of 7 to 2, the court declared that abortion was a right guaranteed by the Constitution under an implied right to privacy.

Justice Blackman said it was in the Right to Privacy in the 14th amendment. Good luck finding it. Nowhere, in fact, does the Constitution mention privacy.

Quote:Her New Haven case upheld a lower court ruling, which is far from being activist.

Her job as an appeals judge is to decide if judicial procedures, laws, or facts were used correctly. Not sure how she could look at the New Haven case and agree with it, which probably explains why it's in the Supreme court.

She's rendered 380 opinions and 5 of them have made it to the Supreme Court (few do). The Supreme Court has overturned 3 of the 5. Not sure I'd call that a good record.

She's clearly an activist judge based on one case? Seriously? I think she's a shoe in if that's all that comes up is her statement on YouTube and her interpretation of a affirmative action case. I hope the Republicans really rail on her for that one. They'll be toast for years.

I think you're reaching but tipped your hand as to why you are against her with this statement.

Quote:That's true. Many go from Constitutionalists to border line activists.........see Row vs. Wade. I'm missing where the founding fathers said women should be entitled to an abortion. By a vote of 7 to 2, the court declared that abortion was a right guaranteed by the Constitution under an implied right to privacy.

Justice Blackman said it was in the Right to Privacy in the 14th amendment. Good luck finding it. Nowhere, in fact, does the Constitution mention privacy.

It might not mention it directly, but there are precedents which interpret the constitution and arrive at the right to privacy statement, much like the "separation of church and state" phrase which is mentioned so often but doesn't directly say that in the constitution.

Quote:The Right To Privacy

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.

Quote:She's rendered 380 opinions and 5 of them have made it to the Supreme Court (few do). The Supreme Court has overturned 3 of the 5. Not sure I'd call that a good record.

Interesting, what are the details of those cases? I'm sure you have them at the tip of your google query!

BTW, if the Supreme Court does go along party/theological lines on this one, it'll play even more into Obama's hands, the Republican Party has been played by a guy that they underestimated (I did too), this was a masterful move to nominate the candidate that was one of the appellate judges on a reverse discrimination case that is currently being held and potentially being overturned by the Supreme Court.

Let's see the Republican Senate threaten to filibuster her, this is really interesting stuff. I think they don't have a play except to hope for a skeleton.

Quote:Interesting, what are the details of those cases?

I have no idea, I only know that 60% of her cases that went to the Supreme Court were overturned.

Kind of ironic that you're the guy who knew nothing about the New Haven case, in spite of it being on every new cast. And you're calling me out because I don't have the specifics of every case she had overturned by the SC? I have no idea about the cases she had overturned, and neither do you. I don't have to watch the Lions lose to know they didn't get the job done.

I like her because she is kind of cute. Seems witty and a sense of humor.

Also, to me, she comes across as empathic. To me, that is important.

What's with it with all these people so mired in the past trying to strictly interpret a centuries old document. Big deal. Shouldn't we be getting a life already?

I mean, it's not like the Constituition is the Word of God.

Even back in the day they debated to no end about this and that part of it, so it's not like it came down from above on wings of fire. And then amended and the amendments over-ridden, and likely if it wasn't such a bother to do an amendment there would be hundreds of them.

I like that our system is based on interpretation and precedent. Keeps it current and fresh while grounded in tradition. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. This strict interpretation thing is just another way of creating controversy. "Activist Judge" that's when they do something you don't like. If you like it, it's not activism, it's The American Way.

(05-27-2009 01:21 AM)Chipdip1 Wrote:  

Quote:Interesting, what are the details of those cases?

I have no idea, I only know that 60% of her cases that went to the Supreme Court were overturned.

Kind of ironic that you're the guy who knew nothing about the New Haven case, in spite of it being on every new cast. And you're calling me out because I don't have the specifics of every case she had overturned by the SC? I have no idea about the cases she had overturned, and neither do you. I don't have to watch the Lions lose to know they didn't get the job done.

What led you to believe that I didn't know anything about it, that was a well covered case and expected to go to the next level. I was asking what you knew and for the sources of your information. As for her cases that were overturned, the reason I ask about those is the facts of the case, the precedents they set or overturned, everything is relevant to the debate of whether her nomination should be challeneged or not. Wouldn't you agree?

Quote:What led you to believe that I didn't know anything about it, that was a well covered case and expected to go to the next level.

Ohhh, I don't know. Maybe because you kept asking for a source as though you didn't believe it to be true

(05-27-2009 01:21 AM)Chipdip1 Wrote:  

Quote:Interesting, what are the details of those cases?

I have no idea I only know that 60% of her cases that went to the Supreme Court were overturned.

Kind of ironic that you're the guy who knew nothing about the New Haven case, in spite of it being on every new cast. And you're calling me out because I don't have the specifics of every case she had overturned by the SC? I have no idea about the cases she had overturned, and neither do you. I don't have to watch the Lions lose to know they didn't get the job done.

No idea is right, you were parroting right wing media.

Quote:No idea is right, you were parroting right wing media.

Naaaah, couldn't be because you're completely uninformed when it comes to politics...........nahhhhh, couldn't be that