[besson3c]

Why is this story getting so much attention?

It is so rare that we have a supreme court justice nominee you'd think that some people would have better things to do than parse some fairly inconsequential remark in a 1994 speech that really was not terribly disagreeable to begin with. Instead of obsessing over what she might have actually meant using the usual partisan bias to spin this one way or another (she has since agreed that her choice of words were not great), why not actually comb over her legal record to see if there is any legal evidence of her rulings being racially prejudiced? Just because her legal rulings require a little more intelligent research and thought to get some knees jerking doesn't mean we should just let the media ignore this crucial part of her vetting. While we're at it, how about focusing on vetting her legal rulings as a whole, and not just looking for race related ones which I'm sure many might be tempted to do now that this media frenzy seems to have gained some traction?

Really, what is going on here is quite simple. She has been called racist because she was nominated by a D rather than an R. Limbaugh and Gingrich have gotten the conservative base going about this, so therefore if you are an R you must fall in line and complain loudly about her nomination. The life of politics is such a painful life of reruns we have seen over and over and over and over again.... *sigh*

Perhaps this is nothing new and perhaps the Ds were complaining like this during Bush's appointments, but unless I've been asleep at the wheel I certainly don't recall there being vicious and disrespectful labels being flung around such as "racist". If there were, I officially issue my seal of disapproval towards whomever was being an asshat on the Democrat side.

Are we really a living Idiocracy? Have we really reduced one of the most important appointments in our country to Judge Judy, trash talk style debate?

All I'm saying is why don't we focus on her legal rulings - you know, stuff that actually matters?

[besson3c]

Oh, and for the record, I don't know if I would support Sotomayor or not. It's hard to form any sort of opinion when we have to wade through all of the hoopla revolving around this particular story, Limbaugh this, Gingrich that, Leahy this, blabity blabity blab... although maybe I'm just lazy.

[besson3c]

If I recall correctly, there was the Harriet Myers thing that kind of blew up in Bush's face. I can't remember whether the disagreement over this nominee was purely partisan or what the dispute was really, but IIRC the nomination of Alito went fairly smoothly? Is there any precedent to a weighty and highly contentious name such as "racist"?

[Dork.]

The "disagreement" over Harriet Miers was that she wasn't qualified. The Senate committee in charge of these things sent her a questionnaire to fill out. She got some basic constitutional law issues wrong, and they asked her for a "do-over". That's never a good sign.

Sotomayor is clearly qualified, but she is Liberal on many issues, including labor relations, and naturally there are folks who don't like that. I actually think the scrutiny of the remark is warranted: yes, the talking heads are spinning it all out of proportion, and taking it somewhat out of context. But those are her words, and she ought to defend and explain them.

Even without that remark, however, you can expect many Republicans to vote against her out of principle: when Obama was in the Senate, he voted against both Roberts and Alito, not based on their qualifications but based on their politics. I believe he even admitted it. It's probably not worth a fillibuster (and they won't be able to once Franken is seated.), but it's going to be closer than it should be.

[besson3c]

I guess I should start Googling her record for myself, I didn't know about her views on labor relations.

I still think it's sad that these judges are vetted based on the usual political party line checklists.

[besson3c]

Dork., once she says that her choice of words were bad, do you think it is right to keep on pressing her on this like we press on political gaffes during campaign season? How far should we go in getting her to defend her remarks? Have any nominees gotten wrapped up with interviews with the media during this process in order to defend their remarks?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Sotomayor is clearly qualified, but she is Liberal on many issues, including labor relations, and naturally there are folks who don't like that.

What makes her qualified?

She put in the time?

She's got a good "story"?

She had a good portion of her rulings overturned by higher courts, and in some instances even fellow Democrats where embarrassed by her drivel?

That she clearly doesn't believe in the framer's intent for the judicial branch to interpret laws, not make them?

I mean really, what makes her qualified?

I could care less that she's "liberal". I don't like it that she doesn't seem to have a respect for the Constitution itself.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Dork., once she says that her choice of words were bad, do you think it is right to keep on pressing her on this like we press on political gaffes during campaign season? How far should we go in getting her to defend her remarks? Have any nominees gotten wrapped up with interviews with the media during this process in order to defend their remarks?

See, that's the thing. I don't believe it was just a poor choice of words. She said nearly the identical thing in 1994, replacing woman for Latina.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

She's got a good "story"?

Miguel Estrada has a better story, and his nomination was filibustered by the (D)s

Estrada was born in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. After his parents divorced, he immigrated to the United States to join his mother when he was 17, arriving with a limited command of English.
He graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a bachelor's degree from Columbia in 1983. He received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree magna cum laude in 1986 from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. After law school, Estrada served as a law clerk to Judge Amalya Lyle Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He then clerked for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court during his first year on the Court in 1988.

[stupendousman]

I just don't understand the kneejerk "well, she's clearly qualified" rergergitations I see left and right - especially from the media elite.. She isn't "clearly" qualified by any standard I can figure out. While she may have the minimum requirements to get nominated, I don't think that makes her qualified to be the best candidate for the job.

Especially when there are judges with better records, better reputations for the depth of their intellectual opinions, and ones that make it clear that they don't feel it's their job to make "policy" unconstitutionally. Liberal or Conservative.

It's my opinion that she's clearly unqualified, but I accept that there are people who might disagree and believe that she might meet the minimum qualification. The idea though that there would be universal acceptance that this woman whose record is filled with a lot of nonsense would be "clearly qualified" frankly baffles me.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What makes her qualified?

Well, for one thing, the Senate didn't send back her questionnaire to the President. (At least that we know of -- it's possible the liberal Media is even covering for that....)

She had a good portion of her rulings overturned by higher courts, and in some instances even fellow Democrats where embarrassed by her drivel?

Define "good portion of her rulings" and maybe we can have a discussion over whether or not that means anything, but it sounds like you're talking out of your ass. (Ot Rush Limbaugh's ass.)

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

and ones that make it clear that they don't feel it's their job to make "policy" unconstitutionally.

This is an odd way of phrasing things which I see over and over again.

Isn't the problem with an activist judge on the Supreme Court precisely that their decisions (if in the majority) are constitutional?

[besson3c]

Care to cite your sources, stupendousman?

[Big Mac]

She can't explain away her earlier racist comment. All she can do is change her tune. She has no respect for the Second Amendment, which was clearly applied to the states through the Heller ruling - even the 9th Circuit got that right (so far). She tried to bury the firefighter discrimination case. She doesn't understand or appreciate the proper function and limitation of the judiciary. Her appointment is dangerous, although just a prelude to the dangers associated with Obama's future appointments.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Dork., once she says that her choice of words were bad, do you think it is right to keep on pressing her on this like we press on political gaffes during campaign season?

If the words she replaces them with satisfy people.

AFAICT, she hasn't even replaced them yet, so it's a bit early to complain that people are still pressing her.

If anyone needs to be taken to task for the current state of the national dialogue, it's Sotomayor and the White House. They didn't get out in front of it like they should have.

[besson3c]

Care to cite your sources, Big Mac?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

If the words she replaces them with satisfy people.

AFAICT, she hasn't even replaced them yet, so it's a bit early to complain that people are still pressing her.

If anyone needs to be taken to task for the current state of the national dialogue, it's Sotomayor and the White House. They didn't get out in front of it like they should have.

Well, let's start with exactly what was "wrong" about her statements that warrant her having to defend them to this degree? This isn't intended to be a leading question, just a starting place - I suspect that there is some disagreement here.

[subego]

Who me?

I don't have a problem with them.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is an odd way of phrasing things which I see over and over again.

Isn't the problem with an activist judge on the Supreme Court precisely that their decisions (if in the majority) are constitutional?

What? No.

Geeze man, just start with Dred Scott. According to the SCOTUS, no person of African decent can be a citizen of the United States. Sounds reaaal Constitutional to me!

The court isn't magic- it's fully capable of making rulings that play to the fads of the day and ignore the Constitution. There's a long history of rulings that prove this.

The Constitution itself doesn't grant legislative powers to the Judicial branch (separation of powers anyone? Or is that too, just a fad?) - so it always amazes me when people go "Gee, what's wrong with judges that legislate from the bench?" Gee, nothing except that they aren't granted that power, and in the past have misused that power to the detriment of millions of people. History can and does repeat itself.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What makes her qualified?

She put in the time?

She's got a good "story"?

She had a good portion of her rulings overturned by higher courts, and in some instances even fellow Democrats where embarrassed by her drivel?

That she clearly doesn't believe in the framer's intent for the judicial branch to interpret laws, not make them?

I mean really, what makes her qualified?

I could care less that she's "liberal". I don't like it that she doesn't seem to have a respect for the Constitution itself.

Wow! All the Republican talking points in one post!! That's a feat even for you Stupendous, you at least spread them out over several posts. Rush must be proud, I'm sure you'll get a golden Oxycontin pill as your reward.

Let me debunk your talking points so we can move on.

Qualifications:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Sotomayor graduated with an A.B., summa cum laude, from Princeton University in 1976, and received her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1979, where she was an editor at the Yale Law Journal. She was an advocate for the hiring of Latino faculty at both schools. She worked as an Assistant District Attorney in New York for five years before entering private practice in 1984. She played an active role on the boards of directors for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the State of New York Mortgage Agency, and the New York City Campaign Finance Board. Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H. W. Bush in 1991 and confirmed in 1992.
Sotomayor has ruled on several high profile cases. In 1995, she issued the preliminary injunction against Major League Baseball which ended the 1994 baseball strike. Sotomayor made a ruling allowing The Wall Street Journal to publish Vince Foster's final note. In 1997, she was nominated by President Bill Clinton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. After being blocked for more than a year by Senate Republicans fearful she was on the fast track to the Supreme Court, she was confirmed in 1998. On the Second Circuit, Sotomayor has heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases, and has written about 380 opinions. Sotomayor has also taught at the New York University School of Law and Columbia Law School.

Do you know how many cases she had overturned by the SCOTUS? 2 out of the 3000 cases that she has ruled on.

If you don't think the SCOTUS doesn't make laws, from the bench it's obvious that you've never read Miranda v. Arizona, In Re Gault, Roper v. Simmons, or any SCOTUS brief. I mean a real SCOTUS brief from LexisNexis or Oyez.org.....not a two pager from a Google search. A majority of the rulings don't make laws, but there are some decisions where it happens. Miranda v. Arizona is a good example, it's the only time in the history of the SCOTUS where in the ruling that instructions were given to law enforcement about how to arrest someone. That's why the Miranda warning is given when your arrested, because the SCOTUS said so.

I suggest you re-read the Constitution and get a better understanding of it before you talk about respect of it. Better yet, take the LSAT and get accepted to a law school and then you might have a leg to stand on when talking about SCOTUS nominees and their qualifications.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

She can't explain away her earlier racist comment. All she can do is change her tune. She has no respect for the Second Amendment, which was clearly applied to the states through the Heller ruling - even the 9th Circuit got that right (so far). She tried to bury the firefighter discrimination case. She doesn't understand or appreciate the proper function and limitation of the judiciary. Her appointment is dangerous, although just a prelude to the dangers associated with Obama's future appointments.

What racist comment? Have you read all of her speech? It's obvious that you haven't. Or are you knee-jerking on what Fox news and Your leader Jabba-The Rush are telling you?

Here's a section of her speech below that outlines her true intent, not the faux racist comments that the Right Wing has latched onto.

What's dangerous about her appointment? The fact that a liberal is going to replace a liberal on the bench? It's not going to change the make-up of the bench. Now the other 5 to 6 appointments that President Obama will make over the next 7 and half years of his Presidency will change the make-up, for the better.

Here's the rest of Justice Sotomayor's speech if anyone is interested, not the Fox news cherry picked comments version.

Originally Posted by Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice [Benjamin] Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Geeze man, just start with Dred Scott. According to the SCOTUS, no person of African decent can be a citizen of the United States. Sounds reaaal Constitutional to me!

It doesn't matter how it sounds, or whether it is by any objective standard. It was constitutional because that's how our country works. As the final arbiters of what is and isn't constitutional, what the Supreme Court says is and isn't, is and isn't.

With this particular example, after an amendment ratified at gunpoint, and a decision by a later court, it went from is to isn't.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

She tried to bury the firefighter discrimination case.

This is another one I'm confused about. It's being portrayed like it was an obvious screw up on her part.

At the least, it strikes me as a judgement call. From what I've read so far I can't say it was the wrong decision. The firefighters' argument seems to hinge on the intent of city officials, rather than whether their actions were legal or not.

Likewise, it was a unanimous decision by a three judge panel, but this is being portrayed as her doing. Did her opinion count more or something?

[Big Mac]

It wasn't unanimous according to the reports - there was a dissenting opinion and that fellow judge took his colleagues to task for the way the mishandled the appeal.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It wasn't unanimous according to the reports - there was a dissenting opinion and that fellow judge took his colleagues to task for the way the mishandled the appeal.

Other than I haven't seen this reported, it doesn't make sense. I thought the accusation of her "burying" it is based on the decision coming down as an unsigned summary order.

I'll hit a few other sources to see if I can find the dissent.

Edit: found it. It's a dissent from a judge who who didn't hear the case.

[ebuddy]

CNN has been breaking down her judicial record. The Supreme Court of the US has overturned 3 of 5 of her majority rulings and the Ricci case is likely to be added to her current, 60% rate of reversal.

- She claimed policy is made from the bench and jokingly added that she knows she's not supposed to say that.
- She challenged the conventional wisdom of those before her such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor that; "a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases." saying rather; "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life..."
- She's very open and honest about the fact that "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences," she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

She has a judicial record that should be examined and a judicial philosophy that should be examined. Still... if she turns out to be Pro-life, a great many of you running to her defense will be quick to throw her "racist a$$ under the bus!" I can't wait.

As for me and the Catholic League’s Bill Donahue; we'll be quietly rooting for her.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

sn't the problem with an activist judge on the Supreme Court precisely that their decisions (if in the majority) are constitutional?

I don't believe so. If you get a majority of the liberal or conservative justices to agree and pick up one or two in the middle, and they agree to to give something that has little to nothing to do with what the Constitution says I don't think that makes it "constitutional" amy more than if a cop commits a crime it makes it "legal" because he doesn't get caught or stopped. It may be considered the law, and some may ignorantly say it has something to do with it being "Consitutional" but in reality it can be just as easily overturned and done the other way.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Care to cite your sources, stupendousman?

What are you refuting? That she ruled for racism? That she makes no apologies for the unconstitutionality of legislating from the bench? Please be more specific in your rebuttal.

Let me debunk your talking points so we can move on.

Qualifications:

What in that spiel was extraordinary? What in that list of accomplishments go above and beyond other judges as to put him in the top echelon of judges?

Do you know how many cases she had overturned by the SCOTUS? 2 out of the 3000 cases that she has ruled on.

Actually, 3 out of the five reviewed by the court where overturned by the SCOTUS and a fourth one they essentially told her she didn't know the law. Most court watches expect Ricci v. DeStefano case to be another blow to her credibility, as even liberal judges have scolded her for not understanding the law.

If you don't think the SCOTUS doesn't make laws, from the bench it's obvious that you've never read Miranda v. Arizona, In Re Gault, Roper v. Simmons, or any SCOTUS brief. I mean a real SCOTUS brief from LexisNexis or Oyez.org.....not a two pager from a Google search.

Of course when the SC rules it makes something "law". It's their job to judge whether or not something is Constitutional or not. By definition, when they issue a finding their decision becomes law. That's quite a bit different from looking at a case and inventing reasons why the law should be as they think when they have little to nothing to do with either the letter of the Constitution, or the founding father's intent as she did in the Ricii case. Roe V. Wade for instance. Not a word in the Constitution, and at the time of the founding fathers abortion was not federally protected. It was a law invented by the Supreme Court. The will of the founding fathers, states and the people was overturned in order to insert the will, based on politics, of a few unelected guys in robes. Sotomayor seems to agree with this role for the court. Her record seems to indicate that as well.

I suggest you re-read the Constitution and get a better understanding of it before you talk about respect of it. Better yet, take the LSAT and get accepted to a law school and then you might have a leg to stand on when talking about SCOTUS nominees and their qualifications.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

CNN has been breaking down her judicial record. The Supreme Court of the US has overturned 3 of 5 of her majority rulings and the Ricci case is likely to be added to her current, 60% rate of reversal.

- She claimed policy is made from the bench and jokingly added that she knows she's not supposed to say that.
- She challenged the conventional wisdom of those before her such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor that; "a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases." saying rather; "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life..."
- She's very open and honest about the fact that "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences," she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

She has a judicial record that should be examined and a judicial philosophy that should be examined. Still... if she turns out to be Pro-life, a great many of you running to her defense will be quick to throw her "racist a$$ under the bus!" I can't wait.

As for me and the Catholic League’s Bill Donahue; we'll be quietly rooting for her.

I don't care if she is pro life or pro choice since by her own words she has made it clear that she feels that her racial and gender identity are important in deciding what the founding fathers intended, which makes very little sense.

I want judicial findings that are right, not ones that just agree with my stands on issues.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't care if she is pro life or pro choice since by her own words she has made it clear that she feels that her racial and gender identity are important in deciding what the founding fathers intended, which makes very little sense.

I want judicial findings that are right, not ones that just agree with my stands on issues.

I understand your point stupendousman and am in general agreement. However, considering the overall collective makeup of the Supreme Court, she's replacing Souter. I've not heard her defense of a questionable judicial record nor have I heard her defense of her espoused judicial philosophy. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt as being possibly "not as bad as it could be". By fighting this one with everything you've got, you lose leverage in fighting what will arguably get only more questionable.

Based on the inherent conflict many on the left will have with her potential Pro-Life philosophy, I'm quietly pulling for her while eating popcorn and watching anxiously for them to start throwing her "racist Latina a$$ under the bus." You know we've seen it before. They will turn on her like a cornered badger.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Based on the inherent conflict many on the left will have with her potential Pro-Life philosophy, I'm quietly pulling for her while eating popcorn and watching anxiously for them to start throwing her "racist Latina a$$ under the bus." You know we've seen it before. They will turn on her like a cornered badger.

Are we libs going to turn on her before or after her confirmation?

At the very least your entertaining.

[turtle777]

Obviously, she can't NOT be qualified, because she's a minority.

Saying that she isn't qualified, or even applying objective standards, would be racist (see Firefighter case)

-t

[Timo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is this story getting so much attention?

Because (see what you already wrote below)

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Really, what is going on here is quite simple. She has been called racist because she was nominated by a D rather than an R. Limbaugh and Gingrich have gotten the conservative base going about this, so therefore if you are an R you must fall in line and complain loudly about her nomination.

This happens to be a) good for "energizing" the party base, and b) great for ratings. Though it's obvious, it's also worth repeating: if there is no controversy, there is no news. If there is no news, there is no revenue. Controversy=food for the 24 hr news cycle = viagra ad revenue. Or in Limbaugh's case, more $$$ for his pocket; I understand he has different drugs of choice.

Are we really a living Idiocracy? Have we really reduced one of the most important appointments in our country to Judge Judy, trash talk style debate?

We have, if you let the news outlets define the issue. You needn't.

All I'm saying is why don't we focus on her legal rulings - you know, stuff that actually matters?

Who's this "we," kemosabe? If "we" is a CNN/Fox exec, then, we is going to be all about racism and controversy and socialism and whatever, unless they find that Air France box soon, unless a major disaster hits, unless a terrorist attack hits, unless the tension in NK produces video you can slam on heavy rotation.

OTOH, there's no such thing as a soundbite regarding legal rulings. They uniformly require a back story and a push-and-pull between what was decided, what wasn't, as well as what held up on appeal and what didn't.

And THAT video sucks (oh noes viagra sales down!)

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I
Actually, 3 out of the five reviewed by the court where overturned by the SCOTUS and a fourth one they essentially told her she didn't know the law. Most court watches expect Ricci v. DeStefano case to be another blow to her credibility, as even liberal judges have scolded her for not understanding the law.

Doesn't the Supreme court get to choose which cases they hear? Don't they skip over cases that they think are sound, and not worth their time?

In that case, it's unfair to cite that four out of five cases were (or will be) overturned, and give her a 80% rejection rate. What about the thousands of cases that the Supreme Court let stand? Rejection rate is a useless metric unless her rate is well above those of her colleagues.

The specifics of the cases that were overturned, of course, are useful to review, and I'm sure Ricci v. DeStefano will be getting a lot more attention, even if the ruling doesn't come in time for the confirmation hearing. I would expect at least one of the firefighters to be invited to testify at the hearing....

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

It doesn't matter how it sounds, or whether it is by any objective standard. It was constitutional because that's how our country works. As the final arbiters of what is and isn't constitutional, what the Supreme Court says is and isn't, is and isn't.

Sorry, but no. It was NEVER Constitutional. (It was also never actually overturned).

This is the problem in a nutshell with ignoring what the Constitution actually says, then granting so much ridiculous power to seven unelected, appointed for life people in black robes. If we are going to give them so much power they can rewrite the founding documents on a whim, then maybe people can see why it's so damned important to truly examine who we put on the court.

The glaring irony is, the Constitution itself doesn't grant the SCOTUS any such power to ignore its words and declare completely unconstitutional things to be so based on political fad. Basically, the court granted itself such a power and has never really been effectively called on it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

If we are going to give them so much power they can rewrite the founding documents on a whim, then maybe people can see why it's so damned important to truly examine who we put on the court.

The glaring irony is, the Constitution itself doesn't grant the SCOTUS any such power to ignore its words and declare completely unconstitutional things to be so based on political fad. Basically, the court granted itself such a power and has never really been effectively called on it.

You gave an example from the 1850s, and it's still happening now. After more than 150 years of not being effectively called on it, I begin to come to the conclusion it is unlikely they will ever be effectively called on it.

There isn't a method to do so in the Constitution beyond passing an amendment or doing your best to influence a later court. I guess the president could declare martial law too. None of these possibilities rate high on the "effective" scale.

It is for this reason I agree 100% with your assessment of the importance of examining who we put on the court.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The glaring irony is, the Constitution itself doesn't grant the SCOTUS any such power to ignore its words and declare completely unconstitutional things to be so based on political fad. Basically, the court granted itself such a power and has never really been effectively called on it.

This is not quite accurate. Marbury vs. Madison established (or affirmed, depending on your POV) the right of the court to review the constitutionality of laws, not to "ignore its words;" and the power of judicial review has a long history that predates Marbury vs. Madison. You may feel the exercise of judicial review does "ignore [the Constitution's] words" in effect, but that's a matter of opinion, and ideology (I'm guessing a Jeffersonian "I'm warning you about the dangers of an oligarchy" one.)

As for the legitimacy of constitutional review, it is accepted in our tradition and precedent based judicial system. Furthermore, were this precedent unbalanced it could be overturned simply by amending the Constitution to clarify its limits or to even overturn it. Yet, we have not seen the will of the people make this move.

A US without Marbury vs Madison is one closer to mob rule. If you want that now, all you need to do is move to California.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Sorry, but no. It was NEVER Constitutional. (It was also never actually overturned).

This is the problem in a nutshell with ignoring what the Constitution actually says, then granting so much ridiculous power to seven unelected, appointed for life people in black robes. If we are going to give them so much power they can rewrite the founding documents on a whim, then maybe people can see why it's so damned important to truly examine who we put on the court.

The glaring irony is, the Constitution itself doesn't grant the SCOTUS any such power to ignore its words and declare completely unconstitutional things to be so based on political fad. Basically, the court granted itself such a power and has never really been effectively called on it.

It's nine members on the SCOTUS, not seven.

[besson3c]

Perhaps these appointments are just political maneuvers that are disguised as being non-partisan. Why is it that Sotomayor's biggest critics seem to be the most outspoken Republicans who are wildly critical of the Democrats? This isn't criticism of these Republicans, maybe these appointments really are just politics as usual.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Timo 

This is not quite accurate. Marbury vs. Madison established (or affirmed, depending on your POV) the right of the court to review the constitutionality of laws, not to "ignore its words;" and the power of judicial review has a long history that predates Marbury vs. Madison. You may feel the exercise of judicial review does "ignore [the Constitution's] words" in effect, but that's a matter of opinion, and ideology (I'm guessing a Jeffersonian "I'm warning you about the dangers of an oligarchy" one.)

As for the legitimacy of constitutional review, it is accepted in our tradition and precedent based judicial system. Furthermore, were this precedent unbalanced it could be overturned simply by amending the Constitution to clarify its limits or to even overturn it. Yet, we have not seen the will of the people make this move.

A US without Marbury vs Madison is one closer to mob rule. If you want that now, all you need to do is move to California.

+1

You beat me to the Marbury v. Madison ruling.

Just think all this banter could be avoided if people actually have read the about the SCOTUS or actually have read the Constitution.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

and some may ignorantly say it has something to do with it being "Consitutional" but in reality it can be just as easily overturned and done the other way.

Nice implied ad hom.

Practicality is just as legitimate a reason.

I think Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. That and $4.75 will get me an overpriced cup of coffee.

Preferably not in my crotch.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Perhaps these appointments are just political maneuvers that are disguised as being non-partisan. Why is it that Sotomayor's biggest critics seem to be the most outspoken Republicans who are wildly critical of the Democrats? This isn't criticism of these Republicans, maybe these appointments really are just politics as usual.

True Sotomayor's biggest critics are all the outspoken Right Wing elite, but all they can do is be outspoken and say no. Nobody is listening to them, outside of the 14% Republican bubble.

No, is all the Republican/Whig party has left, as they know that Sotomayor will be appointed and there's nothing that can be done about it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Timo 

This is not quite accurate. Marbury vs. Madison established (or affirmed, depending on your POV) the right of the court to review the constitutionality of laws, not to "ignore its words;" and the power of judicial review has a long history that predates Marbury vs. Madison. You may feel the exercise of judicial review does "ignore [the Constitution's] words" in effect, but that's a matter of opinion, and ideology (I'm guessing a Jeffersonian "I'm warning you about the dangers of an oligarchy" one.)

I don't think he stated that the Court doesn't have the right to review. What he meant was that they don't have the right to review, then change the law to something that other than what is written in the Constitution, that the founding fathers intended. If the law doesn't violate that, then they have no business interjecting themselves.

I believe that the framers intended for the judicial branch to act as part of a system of checks and balances on the other two branches. The problem is that our founding fathers didn't really have a very good plan to put any real checks or balances on the court. Especially when the left worship at the feet of "stare decisis" in order to ensure that activist courts can't be overturned when people who actually do what the framers of our laws intended to due get put into power. Essentially, allowing a couple of people to make laws that don't reflect the will of the people or the will of our founding fathers with no "do overs".

[subego]

Originally Posted by Timo 

This is not quite accurate. Marbury vs. Madison established (or affirmed, depending on your POV) the right of the court to review the constitutionality of laws, not to "ignore its words;" and the power of judicial review has a long history that predates Marbury vs. Madison.

I appreciate the citation. My argument was essentially empirical.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Nice implied ad hom.

I didn't really have anyone in particular in mind

Practicality is just as legitimate a reason.

I think Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. That and $4.75 will get me an overpriced cup of coffee.

Preferably not in my crotch.

ZING!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kobi 

No, is all the Republican/Whig party has left, as they know that Sotomayor will be appointed and there's nothing that can be done about it.

They want to be on record come the next couple of elections when the American people give those in power a big WTF?!?!? They can say "hey, don't look at me!"

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The problem is that our founding fathers didn't really have a very good plan to put any real checks or balances on the court.

Bingo.

If they had, then the way justices on the Supreme Court make decisions would be unconstitutional. They didn't, so it isn't.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I didn't really have anyone in particular in mind

Well, as the person you quoted, and as someone who just took the position you claim "some might ignorantly say", I'd have been hard pressed to think it wasn't directed at me.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Saying that she isn't qualified, or even applying objective standards, would be racist (see Firefighter case)

I'm still waiting for the explanation for how this unanimous decision was a slam-dunk ****up on her part.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I believe that the framers intended for the judicial branch to act as part of a system of checks and balances on the other two branches. The problem is that our founding fathers didn't really have a very good plan to put any real checks or balances on the court.

The SCOTUS is part of the system of checks and balances and it's doing exactly that. It's not that checks and balances have to be put on the court, there already are. If the founding fathers would have wanted more control of the SCOTUS (e. g. by introducing term or age limits for the justices), then they would have done so. But they haven't done so on purpose, because they did not want Supreme Court justices to be politicians vying for re-election or depending on public support.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Essentially, allowing a couple of people to make laws that don't reflect the will of the people or the will of our founding fathers with no "do overs".

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws, it checks their constitutionality and interprets the constitution. That sometimes means making policy (e. g. by overruling the previous' administrations stance on the treatment of Gitmo detainees), but that's what the Supreme Court is: part of the political system.

The alternative is to lose the Supreme Court as a balance -- just look at Japan which is in breach of Article 9 of its Constitution for decades, only because it has a very weak supreme court equivalent.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm still waiting for the explanation for how this unanimous decision was a slam-dunk ****up on her part.

A good (and balanced) summary is here:

A Sotomayor Ruling Gets Scrutiny - WSJ.com

While the decision itself was an issue, how it was made was a bigger issue: it was not heard by the full appeals court, and one of the judges who didn't hear the case publicly questioned the decision. I'm not sure how the court decides to hear cases, but it was clear that there was more disagreement than you would normally see among judges on this issue.