Jump to content

SCOTUS appointment thread


Elrostar

Recommended Posts

So what do people think? Here's a link to the story on CNN.

I notice that she wrote the opinion on the firefighters in New Haven for the case that's currently before SCOTUS, so that's an interesting thing. Input from legal minds?

And her appointment to the appeals court was opposed by a lot of republicans back in 1998.

Hoping to get the ball rolling on this one, as I'm particularly interested in it.

EDIT: If this should just be part of the general US Politics thread, can some kind mod please delete this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discussion of the SCOTUS appointment and confirmation hearings can go in its own thread as long as it stays on-topic. From the looks of her CV, there'll be plenty to talk about. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read her record, and I must say... I don't like her for the SCOTUS. Not one bit. It seems to me (after reading through that article) that she has an awfully big chip on her shoulder and that she is (among other things) a racist/bigot. I think that we could do far better in finding a suitable judge for the Supreme Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read her record, and I must say... I don't like her for the SCOTUS. Not one bit. It seems to me (after reading through that article) that she has an awfully big chip on her shoulder and that she is (among other things) a racist/bigot. I think that we could do far better in finding a suitable judge for the Supreme Court.

When you say that you read her record, what did you read? And specifically, what did you read that led you to the conclusion that she's a "racist/bigot?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The classic appeals court decision "Hunter vs. Johnson: I hate that fucking bitch" kind of made it clear she was a bigot, Harry.

Or maybe Blauer Dragon is worried that she's bigoted against racists and would be unduly prejudiced against him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a related, but tangential matter, what is the first recorded instance, can anyone tell me, when the Senate employed its power to "advise and consent" to attempt to stall out a Presidential appointment? And then when did it become vogue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The classic appeals court decision "Hunter vs. Johnson: I hate that fucking bitch" kind of made it clear she was a bigot, Harry.

That's not fair. She was compelled to hate that fucking bitch by binding precedent. The Supreme Court has been hating on fucking bitches since Roger "Motherfucking" Taney. It's an American legal tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The classic appeals court decision "Hunter vs. Johnson: I hate that fucking bitch" kind of made it clear she was a bigot, Harry.

Or maybe Blauer Dragon is worried that she's bigoted against racists and would be unduly prejudiced against him?

To be fair, the title of her opinion was actually "Hunter vs. Johnson: I hate that fucking bitch because he's a white honkey paleface".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a related, but tangential matter, what is the first recorded instance, can anyone tell me, when the Senate employed its power to "advise and consent" to attempt to stall out a Presidential appointment? And then when did it become vogue?

Who knows?

Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were the last real exciting confirmation hearings. Alito and Roberts should have been more exciting than they were, but what can you do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that she wrote the opinion on the firefighters in New Haven for the case that's currently before SCOTUS, so that's an interesting thing. Input from legal minds?

For me the Ricci case is a disqualifier. How anyone can justify the bizarre, Harrison Bergeron actions of New Haven is beyond me. Since too many of the wrong race win, everyone has to fail? WTF is that?

It's also telling about the Obama administration. Obama made some subtle noises about how whites are hurt by affirmative action during the campaign. It's obvious by picking Sotomayer that he's not going to "Nixon in China" the current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't had time to really look at her record, but my general impression from the article is that this is a brilliant move by Obama.

I think he probably wants her on the court, but he is going to make the Republicans attack a female Hispanic in order to block the nomination. Republicans end up looking like a**holes whether they win or lose, and if they win, then Obama can nominate a slightly less controversial choice and it will be harder for the Republicans to continue steadfast opposition without looking like a bunch of reactionary tools.

I like that she is only 54. If we have to be stuck with Roberts for 3 decades, it will be nice to have a younger liberal to balance things a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the Ricci case is a disqualifier. How anyone can justify the bizarre, Harrison Bergeron actions of New Haven is beyond me. Since too many of the wrong race win, everyone has to fail? WTF is that?

Honestly, I can see both sides. I haven't read her opinion though, so all I know is who she sided with and not what her legal reasoning was.

It's also telling about the Obama administration. Obama made some subtle noises about how whites are hurt by affirmative action during the campaign. It's obvious by picking Sotomayer that he's not going to "Nixon in China" the current system.

I haven't followed the potentials.. who was passed over that has the appropriate affirmative action record and otherwise fits the bill, as far as replacing a liberal leaning judge?

Anyway, I could be wrong, but I don't see Sotomayer as upsetting the current balance of the Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he probably wants her on the court, but he is going to make the Republicans attack a female Hispanic in order to block the nomination. Republicans end up looking like a**holes whether they win or lose, and if they win, then Obama can nominate a slightly less controversial choice and it will be harder for the Republicans to continue steadfast opposition without looking like a bunch of reactionary tools.

That's my thinking as well, although I don't think exacerbating racial tensions in America is a good thing.

I like that she is only 54. If we have to be stuck with Roberts for 3 decades, it will be nice to have a younger liberal to balance things a little.

She's been diabetic since age 8. She might not live that long, or might have to retire for health reasons.

On the same note, Roberts has infrequent seizures, he might not last long either.

The SC should really have term limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my thinking as well, although I don't think exacerbating racial tensions in America is a good thing.

I agree, but there is no doubt in my mind that Thomas was nominated by Bush to try to make inroads in racial politics with the traditional base of the Democrats. Nominating a Hispanic sort of does the same thing going the other direction. Eh, maybe the confirmation hearings will spark a national discussion of racial/sexual politics just like the Hill/Thomas hearings did. Seems like we are due for one.

She's been diabetic since age 8. She might not live that long, or might have to retire for health reasons.

On the same note, Roberts has infrequent seizures, he might not last long either.

The SC should really have term limits.

I don't think they should have term limits, but I think there should be a mandatory retirement age for all Article III judges, maybe for all 3 branches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the Ricci case is a disqualifier. How anyone can justify the bizarre, Harrison Bergeron actions of New Haven is beyond me. Since too many of the wrong race win, everyone has to fail? WTF is that?

It's a good faith effort to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Keep in mind that neither side is contesting the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act, so in effect what Ricci is asking for is increased court supervision of employers, which will essentially leave them in a Scylla-v-Charbydis situation, as they're told on the one hand not to violate the Civil Rights Act, and on the other not to comply with it too energetically either. Maybe you think that's a good thing and courts should get more involved in employment decisions, but I don't think that it's automatically beyond the pale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Because I think that it's a good faith effort to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Keep in mind that neither side is contesting the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act, so in effect what Ricci is asking for is increased court supervision of employers, which will essentially leave them in a Scylla-v-Charbydis situation, as they're told on the one hand not to violate the Civil Rights Act, and on the other not to comply with it too energetically either. Maybe you think that's a good thing and courts should get more involved in employment decisions, but I don't think that it's automatically beyond the pale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One suggestion I'd heard (which was worth considering) was the idea of a term of 18 years for SCOTUS justices. That way every administration gets to appoint two justices. Furthermore, 18 years is short enough that you can appoint a reasonably experienced person to the court and still have them serve out a full term; it removes the pressure to appoint young justices to serve for forty years, in the way there is now.

There are certainly some problems, like how elections might become very heavily about those specific SCOTUS seats, but at least there would be some structure to it. It would be more formalized, and you'd be in less of a worry about people hoping old justices retire/die, having them hold out until the right president is in office, etc.

The problem with this sort of debate is that it's largely academic. I feel like it's entirely too difficult to amend the constitution at this point in time, meaning that ideas about putting terms on supreme court justices is pretty moot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cases I don't agree with her on (obviously I'm an armchair attorney):

Wrote the 2008 opinion supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions. The Supreme Court heard the case in April 2009 and a final opinion is pending.

Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.

Overall I'm not overly impressed one way or the other. Her comments on race/gender don't necessarily sit well with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...