President Obama on Judge Sotomayor

President Obama talks about his nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court in this weeks you tube address. He extolls her judicial virtues, and calls for quick confirmation.

This entry was posted in National News and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to President Obama on Judge Sotomayor

  1. Gerard Donahue says:

    Jules & Mayor Manzi:

    Here is the GOP Response this week given by Indiana Gov Mitch Daniels ( R – IN)



  2. Jules Gordon says:

    Your Honor,

    I haven’t heard so much BS since the Hart speech above.

    The characteristics that keep her from taking the position on the Supreme court are:

    1. She is a racist, declaring in a recorded message her ethnicity and sex makes her superior to others of different race and sex such as you and I. It was a broad brush. She may be smarter than you, but isn’t smarter than me.

    2. In a video clip she is recorded as mocking that judging based on law as subservient to making policy, a job for the legislature.

    She should be Borked. ( Democratic hate rant against judge Bork and Clarence Thomas)

    All that other stuff is immaterial or wrong. President Obama is telling us she is the most qualified candidate. Yuh, right.



  3. Fred Mertz says:


    We should never consider those that think judges make law!

    “This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of “representative government” might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to “make” common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States’ constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.”

    -Justice Anton Scalia, Republican Party of Minnesota vs White

    Or those that think their background should have any bearing on their decisions!

    “Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. … And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position. […]

    And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”

    -Justice Samuel Alito, confirmation hearings

    Don’t these people get it? Why can’t they just sit there and read the Constitution and try not to think about what it means?

    Dammit. 😉



  4. Jules Gordon says:


    In spite of your fine argument, constitutional law is to be judged on the intent or meaning of the law.

    It’s up to our elected officials to do the sentimental stuff. However, usually the shoe just goes to the other foot. Like the case of the New Haven Fire department who passed his test. She did not even consider the constitutional question to the point she was admonished by her Hispanic liberal collegue.

    The Supreme Court will now resolve the question.




  5. Fred Mertz says:


    Aw, shucks. All I did was cut and paste. No argument required. The words of two of the most conservative members of the Court speak for themselves.

    Let me try and get to the bottom of the New Haven Fire department case that you are way ahead of me on. First article that comes up from Google, from Slate Magazine:

    Loosely quoted:

    “New Haven’s decision may sound like blatant racial favoritism, but in fact the city rejected the firefighter exam because the test violated Title VII, the federal civil rights law that prevents discrimination in employment. Title VII requires employers to consider the racial impact of their hiring and promotion procedures in order to prevent discrimination that’s inadvertent as well as intentional. Ricci’s claim is that the city’s effort to comply with Title VII is itself race discrimination (under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and under Title VII itself).”

    So really, what seems to be at stake is that the plantiff seeks to overturn civil rights laws by claiming that adherence amounts to reverse discrimination.

    “There are two ways an employer can discriminate according to Title VII. He can intentionally discriminate by making race a factor in employment decisions—choosing a black candidate over a white candidate because he is black. Frank Ricci claims the city intentionally discriminated when it threw out the exam results because most of the people who scored high were white. An employer can also discriminate by using a selection process that has a disparate impact—in other words, that screens out a particular group for no good reason. New Haven claims that the test it tossed out had a disparate impact. Eight black, 25 white, and eight Hispanic firefighters took New Haven’s test for promotion to captain; three black, 16 white, and three Hispanic candidates passed. Nineteen black, 43 white, and 15 Hispanic firefighters took the test to become lieutenant; six black, 25 white, and three Hispanic candidates passed. This result counts as discriminatory under the rules of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. New Haven was right to worry about the possibility of a lawsuit from black firefighters if it accepted the results of the tests.”

    “In other situations like this, minority candidates have successfully sued based on the long-recognized legal theory that a test that has a disparate impact—it affects one racial group more than others—must truly be job-related in order to be legal. You can see why New Haven’s black firefighters might have done just that. Why promote firefighters based on a written test rather than their performance in the field? Why favor multiple-choice questions over evaluations of leadership and execution? It’s like granting a driver’s license based solely on the written test, only with much higher stakes.”

    Even more from MediaMatters:

    Writing for the majority, Judge Barrington Parker:

    “At the heart of the dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc is the assertion that there was no Supreme Court or circuit law to guide this district court, or future district courts faced with similar claims. I disagree. The district court correctly observed that this case was unusual. Nonetheless, the district court also recognized that there was controlling authority in our decisions–among them, Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 1999) and Bushey v. N.Y. State Civil Serv. Comm’n, 733 F.2d 220 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1117, 105 S. Ct. 803, 83 L. Ed. 2d 795 (1985). These cases clearly establish for the circuit that a public employer, faced with a prima facie case of disparate-impact liability under Title VII, does not violate Title VII or the Equal Protection Clause by taking facially neutral, albeit race-conscious, actions to avoid such liability.”

    So, it appears that there was certainly precedent set for the three judge panel (including Judge Sotomayer) to conclude what it did.

    The Supremes can take take the case, that’s their job. Let’s see what novel argument are made on both sides.

    Bottom line, I’m not sure how this undermines her qualifications as a judge or a nominee.

    Sorry for being long winded, again.



  6. Jules Gordon says:

    So Fred, those guys have to keep taking the test until a black is able to pass (dumbing down the test). The fellow who thinks he should get the promotion took great pains to prepare for the test. The loosers, of what ever ethnicity, didn’t.

    Well, old boy, the Supreme will see who is right you or me.

    Judge Sotomayer will legislate from the bench.



  7. Fred Mertz says:


    You might want to rephrase that first statement to avoid the obvious racial overtone …

    And yes, it’s hard to guess what the Supreme Court will do with this. I’m not sure you’re reading the nuanced balance here between civil rights and equal protection. But I’m sure they will.

    I predict your Republican representatives will begin to understand the politics behind racially attacking a person who appears to have qualifications, especially a race representing the fastest growing population in the US. Just a hunch (Sessions and Cornyn seem dimly aware). But, I could be wrong. I have a lot of trouble predicting what Republicans will do …

    But I’m guessing from your last statement that you don’t agree with Justice Anton Scalia? Tell me more!



  8. Jules Gordon says:


    You are pulling the “race card”. Left wing procedure when the discussion gets hot.

    Nice job, but, I say what I say and how I say it. Stand by my last entry.



  9. Fred Mertz says:


    Then I have nothing more to debate with you on this thread. I’ll leave the racism to you.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s