But only 150 civil cases. I'm not aware of any of her criminal cases that were overturned. Which is why the the Republicans aren't picking their fights very carefully. Obama will have more Juducial appointments and other candidates may be far more liberal than this one. If they stage a massive fight over Sotomayor and lose . . . then Obama has no reason to try to placate them on future appointments. If they plan to fight every appointment tooth and nail, then Obama can simply appoint a far-left judge to make his far-left constituents happy and face no consequences that he wouldn't have anyway. Republicans really need to guard against simply becoming the party of NO. They appointed conservative judges when they were in power and democrats are going to appoint liberal judges when they are in power. Republican outrage here seems very shallow and transparent.
Don't watch, listen to any of them. What I did hear yesterday was Schumer saying that Republicans would be "at their own peril" for criticizing her. I see multiple headlines suggesting that if Republicans aren't "careful" they will piss off every Hispanic in the country......oh and the concept that somehow Obama owes Latinos something because he garnered 67% of their vote. The message being sent by Democrats is that Sotomayor is untouchable and in fact anybody discussing her is a racist/sexist. Unfortunately for her, it was her own comments that brought race and gender into the discussion. She proclaimed herself able to render a better decision than a white male. Oops. And what of Estrada? Why was he filibustered? Was his being a LatinO not enough?
I don't believe there are any but again I don't know how that compares to other judges. And a big reason why I reject the introduction of a flat statistic that doesn't really tell us anything. It's her cases that I object to. Completely agree which is why I've said she'll sail through with only enough complaining on the right to grab a headline or two. The fact that her appointment is for LIFE and the process so crappy makes me both sad and angry.
I think you are taking this too personal, I'll say it again so you can read it. I am just posting facts, the basis are the same. She is saying judges make policy at the appellate level because only a small number of cases actually reach the Supreme Court, where they decide thousands of cases at the appellate level. There is not much difference its all policy making and legislating from the bench if your deciding law on appellate cases that dont make it to the supreme court. Now you can continue to use your logic, but its basically the samething. Very few cases have no precedent at all, those that dont have any, make it to the Supreme court where policy is made with a extreme right or right of center viewpoint because thats the numbers we have on the court right now.
I understand the point and I'm well aware of what Bush did. I guess its a matter of semantics, but define "cause." Obviously what they deemed "Cause" was fishy, unprecedented, political etc... And I'm speaking directly to the firings. Sure its embarassing what they did, but could people in their administration be sued for wrongfully termination or could they have been charged with crimes? I'm not talking about serving time for contempt etc. I'm speaking directly to the firings. That's the real question, did they do anything illegal. I think my understanding is still valid that they serve at the will of the President and can be fired for what the President deems "cause" whether we or a bunch of politicians agree with it or not. And you didn't answer my question, did Obama just make a fishy firing of a US attorney. Again, I have no problem with what he did here but I'm just making a point that both sides are doing this.
Where did she say this, maybe I missed something here, because Scalia's opinion is written down and documented. Hers is recorded where she clearly says policy is made at the appellate circuit and then jokes about how she shouldn't be saying this on a recording because judges aren't suppossed to do what she just said. I will be more than happy to concede my point if you can point to a recording or written account of what you are saying. Your interpretation of what she said may aggree with Scalia's but to this point I haven't heard or seen physical evidence. Until we do, we will have to agree to disagree.
How is that any different from what Alito said about his immigrant background and making decisions considering that fact? its Identity politics from both sides, however the reality of this nomination is that the right will piss off the hispanic community for accusing her of being a racist, when the fact of the matter is she is more than qualified for the seat. If shes not, then nobody on the court is qualified either. Id have to look at the Estrada process to correctly comment on it.
The emphasis are the same, I cant understand what you dont understand about the basis of the arguments being the same. here you go
There is no way for anyone to make decisions outside of their own experience.......social, professional, childhood, heritage. I get that. But she said BETTER, not different. I'm not saying she's not qualified. Lots of qualified applicants for a single job but that doesn't make her the best. As far as Latino voters, like that's a big change. So I'd say the Democrats are waging a nonexistent battle over Hispanic voters but are using the concept of racism to influence other voters. By all means although I already posted that in 2001 he became the first Appeals Court candidate to EVER be filibustered. Democrats knew they couldn't kill him in vote and they knew he'd likely end up on the Supreme Court one day. So instead we have Sotomayor, a demonstrated opponent of business when it comes to the law and at a desperate time in our history and she's there for LIFE. I understand she'll get the job but I am not happy with the selection OR the process.
I told you we would have to agree to disagree. Legislating from the bench when there is no case law is one thing, but when there is prior case law (precedent) it should not be done. I understand the legal system quite well and understand that legislating from the bench happens and is a part of our legal system. Scalia explained that it is ok when there is no prior case law. Sotomayor did not. She merely said it was ok and then laughed saying she shouldn't have said. What don't you get about the difference. Its not black and white to say it is either ok to legislate from the bench or it is not ok. Unless at the Supreme Court level, I have a problem with a judge who makes policy by overturning precedents already set. You interpret her to have said the same thing as Scalia. Because of her flipant attitude in her remarks and joking about it, I interpret it another way. Until I have hard evidence to the contrary my opinion is going to stay that way. Its always going to be in the details.
