President Obama and other Democrats have been saying that when Judge Sotomayor said a wise Latina would more often than not reach a "better conclusion" than a white male, she "simply" meant that she would bring her own experiences to the court.
That is a lie. She was making a specific point. She referenced a quote that a wise man and wise woman will reach the same conclusion; she stated her disagreement with that view; and then she said a wise Latina will reach a better conclusion.
This was not a misstatement, or a slip of the tongue, it was an intentional and explicit point she was making.
However, this does not bother me nearly as much as her opinion in Hayden v. Pataki. Briefly, a New York state law that restricted the voting rights of felons was being challenged because, in the view of the challengers, blacks and Latinos were disproportionately affected and therefore the law violated the Voting Rights Act's prohibition of any voting qualification or standard that "results" in the denial of the right to vote "on account of" race.
Now, realize this decision is not about whether such prohibition "on account of" race actually occurred, but whether a case can go forward to make that determination. The majority claims that the Voting Rights Act does not apply to such statutes; this allows Sotomayor in her dissent to claim the textualist high ground, saying, the "plain terms" of the law say that the Voting Rights Act applies to such statutes.
But to me, this is all dancing around the plain fact that there is no evidence of any kind that the denial of rights is in any way "on account of" race.
But that all ignores the plain fact that the law in question does not deny rights "on account of" race. So I find myself much more drawn to Judge Raggi's concurring opinion than chief Judge Walker's opinion. Raggi notes:
While acknowledging the presumptive validity of felon disenfranchisement laws ... plaintiffs ... submit that New York's practice of prisoner disenfranchisement violates the VRA because there is a gross racial disparity in the state prison population. If permitted to pursue their claim, they seek to show that this disparity is a product of pervasive racism infecting every part of the New York criminal justice system, from stop and frisk determinations by police officers on the street, to charging decisions by prosecutors, to detention and sentencing rulings by state court judges. In short, plaintiffs propose to use the VRA to indict the New York criminal justice system for racism.
So employed, the VRA would not only significantly intrude on, but also seriously disrupt, the orderly administration of criminal justice in New York, obviously a matter of legitimate state interest. Plaintiffs' suit would effectively impugn the constitutionality of countless state convictions without necessarily proving that any one prosecution or sentence was, in fact, discriminatory.
The suit does not even attempt demonstrate, in any serious way, that the system is actually discriminatory. For that reason alone, the majority judgment is the correct one, and in my view Sotomayor -- while perhaps correct in her dissent, that the VRA can apply to such disfranchisement laws -- is implicitly buying into the argument that New York's system is discriminatory, or could be adjudged such without serious proof.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at May 31, 2009 10:44 AM | Email ThisAs for the White House lying? Disingenuous? Yes. Lying? Close but no cigar. They are lawyerly weasel words carefully crafted to skirt around the edge of lying, without crossing the line.
Lawyers were the class of citizens that destroyed the Roman Republic. Will they now destroy ours? Or is it too late?
Posted by: deadwood on May 31, 2009 11:01 AM"there is no evidence of any kind that the denial of rights is in any way "on account of" race."
You do know why that is true for Hayden v. Pataki?
While I agree with the outcome, it would appear to be an example of so-called activism. Lots of woulda, coulda, shoulda in the majority opinion.
Sotomayor's dissent (below) seems to throw the ball back to the Congress expecting them to do their job and clarify how and why the VRA does not apply in the case of felony exclusions.
"I join in Judge Parker's dissent, and write this separate opinion only to emphasize one point. I fear that the many pages of the majority opinion and concurrences — and the many pages of the dissent that are necessary to explain why they are wrong — may give the impression that this case is in some way complex. It is not.
It is plain to anyone reading the Voting Rights Act that it applies to all "voting qualification[s]." And it is equally plain that § 5-106 disqualifies a group of people from voting. These two propositions should constitute the entirety of our analysis. Section 2 of the Act by its unambiguous terms subjects felony disenfranchisement and all other voting qualifications to its coverage.
The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statutes it has created. The majority's "wealth of persuasive evidence" that Congress intended felony disenfranchisement laws to be immune from scrutiny under § 2 of the Act, Maj. Op. at 322, includes not a single legislator actually saying so. But even if Congress had doubts about the wisdom of subjecting felony disenfranchisement laws to the results test of § 2, I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it.
I respectfully dissent"
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 31, 2009 11:04 AMThat is a lie. She was making a specific point. She referenced a quote that a wise man and wise woman will reach the same conclusion; she stated her disagreement with that view; and then she said a wise Latina will reach a better conclusion.
No, she was stating the obvious: that experiences influence judgement. This applies whether you're a crotchety old white man or a younger Latina judge or whomever. In fact, in another part of her speech she referred to this idea specifically in terms of the judgements of male versus female judges, and how there are demonstrable statistical differences in the outcomes of cases. You can think of that as "bias", but how valid is the assumption that a decision by a white male is automatically "correct"?
Overall, this argument essentially states that conservatives don't want someone who is "impartial". They want someone who will judge like an old white man, and any different conclusions are somehow flawed because of "bias".
And like Mike said above, and you specifically stated, Hayden v. Pataki isn't a case where they are trying to find fact! They're deciding whether this case has the merit to be reviewed further. In the dissenting opinions, they are clear: they don't have the information to make a ruling, but the wording of the VRA doesn't exclude the possibility that felon disenfranchisement is covered. Without knowledge of how Sotomayor would have ruled on a full case, any assumptions about her "racism" related to this case are overstated. In fact, she's being less "activist" than other judges by making fewer assumptions about the intent and coverage of the law!
@1: Frankly, I'm sick of the whining. You haven't proven "racism" in the slightest. You've merely reinforced the fact that the conservative mindset is hardly a "big tent".
@3: Relevance? You mouth off like an idiot about whatever you want it seems, but you never make sense. What does it matter that people are trying to ensure that everyone has a voice in government?
Posted by: demo kid on May 31, 2009 12:42 PMPlease do not lie. Her EXPLICIT and undeniably INTENTIONAL argument was that a wise Latina will reach a BETTER conclusion. Yes, it is true that she was making the point that experience influences judgment, but it is a lie to say that she was "simply" saying that, as she very clearly said more: that she would reach a BETTER conclusion than a white male.
there are demonstrable statistical differences in the outcomes of cases
So? On what basis does she make the claim that her conclusion is BETTER?
how valid is the assumption that a decision by a white male is automatically "correct"?
Straw man fallacy. I am not arguing that at all.
Overall, this argument essentially states that conservatives don't want someone who is "impartial".
Please do not lie about me. I explicitly DO want someone who is impartial.
They want someone who will judge like an old white man, and any different conclusions are somehow flawed because of "bias".
Please do not lie about me. I argue no such thing.
And like Mike said above ...
I wouldn't know. I do not read his comments anymore.
They're deciding whether this case has the merit to be reviewed further.
And as there was NO evidence even HINTED at that the policies and procedures leading to incarceration are "on account of" race, the case should not have been allowed to move forward. Yes, they were not finding fact, but you still need to demonstrate some reason for the court to believe that you COULD POSSIBLY back up your case. And no such reason existed.
Without knowledge of how Sotomayor would have ruled on a full case, any assumptions about her "racism" related to this case are overstated.
I never said she was racist. I do, however, state that she is accepting the argument that New York's system IS discriminatory, OR that it could be adjudged as such despite no serious evidence for that claim. Which is why I emphasized Raggi's opinion, not Walker's.
The VRA was, as Raggi said, not designed for this. If "the system" is discriminatory, then use other anti-discrimination statutes to fix the system. If someone is wrongly incarcerated, or if other people are wrongly acquitted, then fix those problems. The VRA was not designed to overturn an entire criminal justice system, and it is not capable of handling such a task.
In fact, she's being less "activist" than other judges by making fewer assumptions about the intent and coverage of the law!
In regards to the question of the applicability of the VRA to this TYPE of case, perhaps. As to the question of whether New York's system is biased such that the VRA could be triggered, no. If you could prove separately that New York's system is racially biased, THEN the VRA could be triggered. It cannot reasonably be used to prove the bias of that huge system.
Her membership in this Latino KKK group should be enough to make the average American cringe
Posted by: hellpig on May 31, 2009 01:50 PMNext!
Posted by: Michele on May 31, 2009 01:51 PMWhile i'd like to be incensed you "do not read his [my] comments anymore", i can't be cuz it is too funny. :-D
Alas, your silly Bobbing&Weaving shouldn't be ignored simply because you are neither adept enough to support your suppositions, nor wise enough to admit when you are mistaken on the facts.
You wrote: "As to the question of whether New York's system is biased such that the VRA could be triggered, no. If you could prove separately that New York's system is racially biased, THEN the VRA could be triggered."
Unfortunately Hayden et al are prevented from meeting your criteria of 'proof', because the 2nd Circuit upheld the petition for dismissal on the grounds
"is based on our conclusion that Congress did not intend or understand the Voting Rights Act to encompass such felon disenfranchisement statutes, that application of the Voting Rights Act to felon disenfranchisement statutes such as these would alter the constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government, and that Congress at the very least did not clearly indicate that it intended the Voting Rights Act to alter the federal balance in this way."
SOURCE: http://openjurist.org/449/f3d/305/hayden-iii-v-pataki-s
In her dissent of the opinion affirming the dismissal of the law suit, Sotomayor agrees with you implicitly - there should be evidence to prove the case.
As the case was not heard, there will be no evidence presented and decided upon, at least not in the 2nd Circuit. And the reasoning is based upon nothing more than lazy thinking - Congress meant to exclude felon disenfranchisement because it said nothing on the subject.
Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes offered this conclusion in his "Silver Blaze"
"I had grasped the significance of the silence of the dog, for one true inference invariably suggests others"
What other legal conclusions can judges reach when Congress is silent?
Editorial COMMENT: The power to dismiss a case is one of the greatest powers given to judges, and is therefore one most prone to abuse.
The problem is the fact that all the white collar criminals on wall street, and in the banks, and the mortgage brokers and AIG execs never get prosecuted.
I would say the odds are pretty even, even with twice as many Americans calling themselves Democrats versus Republicons....
The law is only there to keep the poor in line.
Posted by: Ghost of Facts on May 31, 2009 02:07 PMYou know, when you put "facts" in your name and then you say reference some "fact" "that all the white collar criminals on wall street, and in the banks, and the mortgage brokers and AIG execs never get prosecuted ..."
... one would hope you would actually be citing facts instead of blatantly lying.
In fact, an AIG exec was convicted last year for deceiving AIG investors. Enron and Madoff are the two most prominent examples of prosecutions that prove you're lying, but there's many more from the last decade: Arthur Andersen, Tyco, WorldCom ... the list is long and distinguished.
Next time bring ACTUAL facts, mmmmkay? You only hurt your cause by lying.
Here is Sotomayor's alleged 'racist' quote:
"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."
Shall we really be arguing that had she deviously hid her true 'racist' leanings and used the word "equal" in place of "better" we'd have no smoking gun to prove the allegation of racism?
And so, given that her nomination sails through because the Republicans don't have the votes to stop it - you think that repeated charges of racism against Sotomayor for the next 3+ months based upon nothing more than one word in one sentence won't have serious negative political implications for Republicans?
If so, you're whistling past the graveyard.
One word - TILT!
There is the bamboo curtain in China, the Iron Curtain existed in the former Soviet Union. Don't believe it can't happen here, because it is happening here before our very eyes - maybe the topic of another post. Beware of the Government/Media complex !
Posted by: KDS on May 31, 2009 03:26 PMSotomayor is obviously not wise enough to keep her yap shut about her own personal preferences on how the law should make policy...
Sotomayor's grip on the Constitution is at least as flawed as the VIEW her 'new boss (?)', the stuttering dunce has...
Posted by: juandos on May 31, 2009 03:35 PM
Anyone have a problem with that statement?
"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
....
In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law," since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed"????
However, I'd bet they still stay in touch on his Blackberry or other non-secure means. One of the reasons he was sensitive about being able to keep it is to stay in touch with his "mysterious connections".
Posted by: KDS on May 31, 2009 05:30 PM- Senator Barack Obama on the confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown
Seems he's changed his tune in the last 3 years, as he's now actively looking for a SC Justice who will use personal ideology and "empathy" in making decisions...
Or is it only acceptable when the ideology and "empathy" matches his own?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 31, 2009 07:22 PMYou wrote:
"most conservatives couldn't care less who a prospective judge "sympathizes" with, we merely want and expect judges to INTERPRET LAWS as they were written, rather than the common leftist judicial practice of interjecting their personal "feelings", or rendering decisions based on what lawmakers "really meant" when they enacted legislation."
(1) Interpreting the law as written is what Sotomayor did in her dissent of Hayden v. Pataki.
(2) Rendering a decision based on what Congress 'must have meant' is what Sotomayor dissented against in Hayden v. Pataki.
(3) Can you identify a single case where Sotomayor acted as a 'common leftist'?
@pugde (a.k.a. Bob&Weave), why don't you just ignore C.G. under your 'ignorance is bliss' approach to comments? :-p
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 1, 2009 07:25 AMRegarding your second part, I am not sure what you were saying. I believe you were trying to state that there wasn't bias due in the number of felons and because there was no bias, then the case didn't have merit. This would be opposed to Sotomayor's opinion that the Voting Rights Act didn't apply and that it was up to Congress to change the law, not the judges. To me Sotomayor's opinion is one of a lot more judicial restraint (i.e., just interpret the laws) and not one of judicial activism (as is demonstrated in numerous decisions, such as the Ricci). If she was an activist judge, then maybe should would have ruled the case had standing with regards to the Voting Rights Act, or she could have also, in an activist role, ruled how you wish (e.g., that there wasn't a bias in the first place). In either case, it is elevating the role of judge to a more activist role. I thought conservatives didn't want activist judges? To me, you are arguing for activist judges, when they rule in your favor. You can't have it both ways.
Posted by: tc on June 1, 2009 07:51 AMThat said, the National La Raza -- which she is a member of -- has never, to my knowledge, said Hispanics should reconquer portions of the United States. However, some local branches of La Raza have claimed this, and I've never seen National La Raza condemn the view as wrong. Their own web site simply says it is "out of the mainstream."
I agree that Sotomayor was responding to the O'Conner and Thomas quote regarding wise men and woman reaching same conclusion. This context is left out of the discussion. However, the following context is also left out, and you ignore it also. At the end of the 2001 discussion, Sotomayor specifically talks about "checking" one's experience at the door in order to deliever equal justice. If you are going to put the brohaha into context, please use the full context not half the context.
I am not drawing conclusions, and I am not intending to try to fully interpret her remarks. All I am saying is that it is dishonest for Obama and others to say she is "simply" making the point that she brings her own experiences to the job. I don't need to go over the entire speech in order to do that.
Regarding your second part, I am not sure what you were saying. I believe you were trying to state that there wasn't bias due in the number of felons and because there was no bias, then the case didn't have merit.
Yes. You need to show at least some indication that you COULD POSSIBLY make your case.
This would be opposed to Sotomayor's opinion that the Voting Rights Act didn't apply and that it was up to Congress to change the law, not the judges.
No, Sotomayor's opinion was that the VRA did apply, and that if the Congress didn't want it to apply, they should change the law. And I am not criticizing that part of her ruling; I am criticizing her implicit acceptance that the NY criminal justice system is or could be adjudged, without serious evidence, a discriminatory system.
If there were signs of evidence of such discrimination in the system, I'd have much less problem with Sotomayor's decision that the VRA applied. I'd still wonder whether the VRA was designed for such a thing -- to overturn an entire criminal justice system, when there's already more appropriate means of addressing discrimination in the system -- but I'd need to give more thought to that. But I'd never really get that far because it doesn't matter, since there's no evidentiary reason I see to allow the case to move forward anyway.
To me Sotomayor's opinion is one of a lot more judicial restraint (i.e., just interpret the laws) and not one of judicial activism (as is demonstrated in numerous decisions, such as the Ricci).
The question in Ricci, which was not backed up by the majority opinion and was disagreed with by the minority, was precisely whether precedent WAS followed. So let's not just say Ricci proves Sotomayor followed precedent one way or another without delving into it ... which we cannot do since the opinion Ricci is based on is unpublished.
(What's really galling about the Ricci opinion, in the context of Pataki, is that Sotomayor agreed that despite the fact that the test was tossed explicitly because it did not favor blacks well enough, this "was facially race-neutral," yet in Pataki, there's no evidence of any kind that there was any racial discrimination, but she upheld the applicability of the VRA anyway.)
If she was an activist judge, then maybe should would have ruled the case had standing with regards to the Voting Rights Act ...
She did rule that.
... or she could have also, in an activist role, ruled how you wish (e.g., that there wasn't a bias in the first place).
No, I didn't say that. I said there needs to be some EVIDENCE presented that the system is discriminatory in order to move forward. You don't have to rule that the evidence is right or wrong, that there was or was not bias, at this stage. You do, however, have to show some reason to think that you MIGHT BE ABLE to prove your case.
This is not activist, this is the job of judges. Can you please explain how this is in any way activist?
Can you also explain how Sotomayor's ruling was activist? You said that ruling the case had standing with regards to the VRA is activist, and she did that.
Sotomayor�s dissent was activist because it TOOK A SIDE for reasons that were manifestly beyond the law itself in the quest to create law (social justice) based on race.
Sotomayor used her racial bias as the minor premise in her argument when she claimed that the "plain terms" of the law say that the Voting Rights Act applies to a situation where blacks and Latinos were disproportionately affected. Sotomayor behaved more like an advocate than a judge and presumed that her opinion is law. As a judge, her job is to use sound legal reasoning in determining the law. She is supposed to view the FACTS without passion or prejudice and she is not supposed to care which side wins.
Either the law applies to felons or it does not regardless of the makeup of those felons.
Sotomayor is a politician obviously working to gradually water the law down with not so subtle legal trickery like her opinion in the Hayden v. Pataki case to a point where she will be able to use legally flawed case law as pretext to make bigger more racially biased case law. Obama is giving her the opportunity to do lots of harm.
The fact that she is brash (and I think stupidly so) in doing so may be a real advantage for those of us who want to be able to easily identify the truth about her intentions. I say �stupidly� because she is being short-sighted. Ultimately racism (of whatever brand) hurts the whole society, and she has the capacity to know this but deliberately ignores it.
This is a great debate for America to have because it may educate some people who would otherwise care about the law and the impact of the SCOTUS on all of us. Keep up the good work Pudge.
Amused by Liberals
What the heck are you talking about?
You can read her dissent up at #2.
You can read a synopsis of the majority opinion of Summary Judgment at #9, or read the whole thing at
SOURCE: http://openjurist.org/449/f3d/305/hayden-iii-v-pataki-s
"This is a great debate for America to have because it may educate some people...."
Education does not simply arrive, it is acquired. Simply re-iterating 'talking points' with vitriol and snarky signatures does not a debate make.
If you are interested in educating YOURSELF about Sotomayor and her opinions vis-a-vis race/civil rights, it might help to know that
"other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.
Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions.
Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were UNANIMOUS. (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.) Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge.
So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1."
SOURCE: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 1, 2009 10:13 AMCome on lib's, you sure can.
Let's be fair, you didn't like what he said, so apply YOUR same rules on her.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on June 1, 2009 11:38 AM
Agreed the libs pissed and moaned about Lott's statement,
but who drove him out of the position of Senate Majority Leader? The minority Dems? Or his own caucus with the 'no comment' assistance of the Republican President?
"Mr Lott announced his resignation less than 24 hours after one of his colleagues, Bill Frist, declared his intention to challenge for the position. A number of other senators were quick to back Mr Frist publicly, indicating Mr Lott's demise was imminent."
SOURCE: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/republican-leader-lott-forced-out-over-racist-remarks-611687.html
"Agreed the libs pissed and moaned about Lott's statement,but who drove him out of the position of Senate Majority Leader? The minority Dems? Or his own caucus with the 'no comment' assistance of the Republican President?"
So it would have been better for Republicans to reappoint him to a committee and look the other way just like Democrats did with William Jefferson (D-LA)?
When was the last time the Democrats had an ethics and booted one of their own for unethical behavior?
Posted by: pbj on June 1, 2009 12:05 PMSure more ethical politicians on both sides would be a great achievement. And the best way to rid ourselves of unethical politicians is to vote them out.
Regarding Jefferson,
(a) one of his staunchest defenders, in the turf battle between between the FBI and Congress, became Dennis Hastert, who was Speaker of the House and a Republican.
(b) On 2006 June 15, House Democrats voted to strip Jefferson of his committee assignment while the federal bribery investigation continued. The intra-party vote passed 99 to 58.
(c) Jefferson's unethical and alleged criminal behavior is not at all germane to 'racism' or judicial appointments.
Not quite.
YOU guys were the ones making the race statments.
Yes the Rep did push on him to leave.
So again I ask. Where are you guys on her statements. If Lott's statements were racist, then she fits the mold too.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on June 1, 2009 01:24 PMI could grap much more.
But this proves my point.
___________________
Black lawmakers and leaders said that Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi did not go far enough in apologizing for remarks he made praising the 1948 presidential run of then-segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond.
Democrats--Black and White--are also outraged by Lott's comments.
Newly elected Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said of Lott's comments: "It sends a chilling message to all people. These are the kinds of words that tear this nation apart."
Cummings and outgoing chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) issued a joint statement from the Caucus calling for censure of Senator Lott.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now use your same rules for her.
If you are asking me to use my rules, i am. I don't really give a darn what Lott or Sotomayor say, and everything about what they DO.
I don't really give a darn what Lott or Sotomayor say, and everything about what they DO.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WOW is that telling, for a lib/dem that is.
Trying to close the loop here.
Lott was not, in fact, censured, nor was there ever a vote taken to censure him.
"In his 2005 book, "Herding Cats, A Lifetime in Politics", LOTT ACCUSES William FRIST of being "one of the main manipulators" in the debate that ended Senator Lott's leadership in the Republican Senate. Lott wrote that Senator Frist's actions amounted to a "personal betrayal." Frist "... didn't even have the courtesy to call and tell me personally that he was going to run ... If Frist had not announced exactly when he did, as the fire was about to burn out, I would still be majority leader of the Senate today," Lott wrote."
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist
I don't generally see a comparison between Lott's situation and the Sotomayor nomination, but it there is one, it is the Republican self-hounding being done. For example, Rush/Newt vs. Cronyn.
I'll repeat it, the 'racism' issue is a loser for Republicans and a winner for Dems and Obama.
Thanks very much Boy Scout. I take my education very seriously and I appreciate your kind interest.
I read the case. If you had read it more carefully and wished to honestly and thoughtfully discuss it on its actual merits you would have done so, but you did not. Sotomayor agreed with Judge Parker's dissent, and Parker's dissent was racist. Ignoring this fact doesn't make it disappear.
Your change of subject was interesting education though. Even if your assertion of numbers is correct what is it supposed to prove? Your conclusion that "Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1," means . . . what?
Oh gee whiz I get it, a woman who makes openly racist comments, declares her insistence upon legislating from the bench, and who supports obvious racist judicial legislation is not a racist because (you say) she rejected some discrimination-related claims? Since (as you say) education does not simply arrive, but is acquired, thanks for the lesson.
Interesting logic indeed.
Keep it up, you'll go far.
Amused by Liberals
"Sotomayor agreed with Judge Parker's dissent, and Parker's dissent was racist. Ignoring this fact doesn't make it disappear."
Care to identify a racist remark?
Page 61 Here - http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/04-3886-pr_opn.pdf
"The operative inquiry on this appeal is not whether a historic policy of felon
disenfranchisement, read next to odds and ends from legislative histories, indicates Congress’s
intention to exclude felon disenfranchisement laws from the coverage of the VRA. Rather, this
appeal begins and ends with the simple question of whether we should read an unambiguous
remedial statute, intended to have, as the Supreme Court has emphasized, the “broadest possible
scope,” to allow the Hayden plaintiffs’ claims to go forward. .... I believe we should."
As they say on good 'ole Perry Mason, you are relying on FACTS not in evidence.
Not that you can,
but can you show us ONE example of "declares her insistence upon legislating from the bench"?
Then again, if YOU just say so, I guess that is good enough, right?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 1, 2009 04:19 PM"Your change of subject was interesting education though. Even if your assertion of numbers is correct what is it supposed to prove? Your conclusion that "Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1," means . . . what?"
Couldn't follow the link?
It is not my assertion, nor did i draw a conclusion. The author did.
"In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She participated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decision making."
SOURCE (again!) http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/
IF you have FACT and DATA to back up your assertion, AMUSE US and present it.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 1, 2009 04:28 PMAt least with Rush, Newt, Hannity, and other entertainers/commentators, there is a commercial benefit to them to spin the 'racist' meme.
What Obama & Axelrod, et al counted on was YOU going overboard on the absolutely predictable charge based SOLEY on ONE WORD in a speech 8 years ago to push the Republican caucus in to a trap.
While you JIHAD against sensible Republicans for a 'racist' interpretation the one liner in a speech whose context cannot be taken to mean what you either think or reflexively parrot
(http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml)
the Democrats are laughing up their sleeves.
The outcome of this nomination is she ascends to the SCOTUS because the Dems have the votes, and the Republicans do not have the votes to stop it.
The beauty for Obama is that at worst, his nominee gets to SCOTUS, at best he beguiles you in to forcing the Senate Republican caucus to all vote against her, and then.....
all the wonderful Spanish language ads in 2010, 2012, ....
Am I wrong? Find me a Republican Senator who actually has to vote who agrees with the 'racist' charge.
Not even Sen Sessions from Alabama will go out on that shaky limb.
But maybe if you, Rush and Newt push hard enough you can get them all to jump? Think of it... a 66 Dem member Senate in 2011.
O.K.
Judge Parker: "[T]he amended complaint alleges that the stark differences in incarceration and probation rates for Blacks and Latinos in New York, as opposed to Whites, have resulted from discrimination in New York's criminal justice system." "The Hayden plaintiffs allege that § 5-106 violates § 2(a) because it results in a denial or dilution of the right to vote ON ACCOUNT OF RACE. Because I believe these contentions state a claim upon which relief can be granted, I respectfully dissent." [Emphasis mine]
Let's be honest Boy Scout, you have a tough time focusing on issues because you are too busy attempting to be clever.
Instead, attempt to focus on how it can be that a Judge like Sotomayor or Parker could argue with a straight face that "the stark differences in incarceration and probation rates for Blacks and Latinos (minority races) in New York," could possibly be germane to a statute that makes it illegal for felons to vote unless that focus (by Sotomayor and Parker) on race (i.e. Blacks and Latinos (minority races) in New York) is racist.
Sotomayor stated that the issue in this case is simple. The answer to this question is simple even for you.
Thanks for the humorous dodges and weaves.
asked:
"how it can be that a Judge like Sotomayor or Parker could argue with a straight face that "the stark differences in incarceration and probation rates for Blacks and Latinos (minority races) in New York,..."?
They don't Amused one. Try diagramming the sentence you quoted. Find the subject. Find the verb.
hint: "COMPLAINT ALLEGES"
ps - plug "summary judgment definition" into your google machine.
What might a dissent against a Summary Judgment in favor of the defendant mean in this case?
pps. "ON ACCOUNT OF RACE" Glad your Caps Lock is working, but any clue what Section 2 of the VRA says?
plug this in to your internets machine
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/42usc/subch_ia.php
what a maroon!
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 1, 2009 05:52 PMWhile no one could know the outcome of the case had it been allowed to proceed, it is very reasonable that the Plaintiff would have lost, because the claim that the Government of New York intended to discriminate on the basis race/color is absurd on its face - the law disenfranchising felons in New York was written long before a majority of ex-felons where blacks and/or hispanic.
Sotomayor said: "The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to INVENT EXCEPTIONS to the statutes it has created. The majority's "wealth of persuasive evidence" that Congress intended felony disenfranchisement laws to be immune from scrutiny under § 2 of the Act, Maj. Op. at 322, INCLUDES NOT A SINGLE LEGISLATOR ACTUALLY SAYING SO."
If THAT is liberal, activist racism - we are all sunk!
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 1, 2009 06:08 PM"What a maroon!"
Clever argument.
Obviously you are the white man Sotomayor was talking about.
Thanks.
Posted by: Amused by Liberal Boy Scouts on June 1, 2009 06:16 PM"Obviously you are the white man Sotomayor was talking about."
Having previously pointed your reading problem, I won't ping you on "men" vs. "man" misquote, but between you and me - yeah, it is at least obvious which is the wiser. LOL!
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 1, 2009 06:28 PMThe Hayden plaintiffs' challenged "New York State's unconstitutional and discriminatory practice of denying suffrage to persons who are incarcerated or on parole for a felony conviction and the resulting discriminatory impact that such denial of suffrage has on Blacks and Latinos in the State." The court held that the Voting Rights Act does not encompass the felon disenfranchisement provisions, and, consequently, affirmed the [summary] judgment of the District Court."
In Sotomayor's dissent she joined in Judge Parker's dissent, and wrote herseparate opinion "[o]nly to emphasize one point.
Then she wrote, [as Boy Scout Asserts]
"The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. . . etc etc Sotomayor's comments here had nothing to do with the racial aspect of the plaintiff's case.
Sotomayor joined in Judge Parker's dissent, that concludes simply that "Section 2(a) of the VRA provides that "[n]o voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State . . . in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 1973(a) (emphasis added). New York Election Law § 5-106 imposes a voting qualification. It denies those convicted of felonies the opportunity to vote. The Hayden plaintiffs allege that § 5-106 violates § 2(a) because it results in a denial or dilution of the right to vote on account of race. Because I believe these contentions state a claim upon which relief can be granted, I respectfully dissent.
As Boy Scout likes to point out in his unnecessarily nasty snotty way, the summary judgment of the District Court was based on failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The lower court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ("VRA" or the "Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 1973, based on allegations that a New York State statute that disenfranchises currently incarcerated felons and parolees, N.Y. Election Law § 5-106, results in unlawful vote denial and vote dilution.
Because Parker and Sotomayor believed the contentions of denial or dilution of the right to vote on ACCOUNT OF RACE did (in their opinion) state a claim upon which relief can be granted, they dissented from the majority opinion of the court.
Boy Scout's mother may love him.
He is just full of himself trying to prove how clever he is . . . by half.
Thanks Boy
"Sotomayor's comments here had nothing to do with the racial aspect of the plaintiff's case."
I understand you don't care to understand why this is true, but let me explain it briefly, so others might understand.
The issue before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals was not the case and the Plaintiff's assertion, but the Summary Judgment. NOBODY ruled on the Plaintiff's claim smart guy.
As the majority opinion itself states
"The question whether a prisoner disenfranchisement statute such as New York’s can be challenged under § 1973 depends primarily on OUR INTERPRETATION of the Voting Rights Act itself,"
The ruling of the District Court that the 2nd Circuit majority opinion upheld is based first and foremost on that old chestnut of activist judges from Oliver Wendell Holmes:
"As Justice Holmes has observed, “[i]t is said that when the meaning of language is plain
we are not to resort to evidence in order to raise doubts. That is rather an axiom of experience than
a rule of law, and does not preclude consideration of persuasive evidence if it exists.”"
SOURCE: Page 14 the decision at http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/04-3886-pr_opn.pdf
And one other thing, my reading comprehension challenged friend, "Parker and Sotomayor believed the contentions of denial or dilution of the right to vote on ACCOUNT OF RACE did (in their opinion) state a claim",
Yes they do. Because had you been wise enough to go read Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when i provided you the link you would (maybe) understand it says:
"No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote ON ACCOUNT OF RACE OR COLOR, ..."
SOURCE: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/42usc/subch_ia.php
But of course, you can see it says very clearly 'with the exception of felon disenfranchisement laws' - No? Neither could those who dissented.
"Boy Scout's mother may love him.
He is just full of himself trying to prove how clever he is . . . by half." Sure. But what about my sister? Surely that is relevant to Sotomayor also? ___hole.
"Perhaps most telling of all, this [racist] smear on Sotomayor will not advance conservative causes one inch, but will boomerang and harm them significantly, and those who recklessly flung these charges should not be surprised if they come back to haunt them later on."
SOURCE: http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/05/31/boomerang-2/
Alternatively one could side with the rhetoric of G. Gordon Liddy (convicted felon/entertainer) and worry about Sotomayor's ability to make a decision when she is PMS-ing. That's bound to bring votes to the conservative cause. not!
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 2, 2009 07:06 AMThe issue is not the disposition or procedural machinations of Hayden v. Pataki, but Sotomayor's declaration of her judicial temperament in her dissent. Either Sotomayor joined Parker''s dissent or she didn't, and either it was racist or it wasn't. This debate reveals that MikeBoyScout refuses to openly and honestly discuss Pudge's expressed central concern that Sonia Sotomayor expresses a racially motivated propensity to rule from the bench.
I am opposed to Sonia Sotomayor based on the facts that I have reviewed so far because it proves her to be ill-suited to a position on the SCOTUS. There is plenty of information about her yet to learn and I certainly do not profess to know it all. However, if I am wrong about Sonia Sotomayor, MikeBoyScout has proven that he is utterly incapable of revealing to any reasonable person why. I would have been interested (and possibly persuaded by) an honest argument from him.
MikeBoyScout recognizes that Pudge's concern is completely legitimate, and uses tactics to divert the issue. Otherwise MikeBoyScout would make a relevant argument. He believes that his personal attacks against me will suffice by changing the issue from a discussion of Sotomayor's judicial temperament into a discussion about me for commenting on those liberally charged racist propensities. His dodge made in the vain presumption that he is my intellectual superior proves exactly the reverse. If MikeBoyScout was my superior, he would not have needed to resort to personal attacks in direct substitution for legitimate arguments.
Petty tactics while tedious, tend to reveal the emptiness of the practitioner's position. Just as President Obama and other Democrats dodge the issues by calling her statements, misstatements and slips of the tongue, MikeBoyScout intentionally and explicitly sidetracks the issue with dissembling irrelevancies. Calling them "slips of the tongue," implicitly reveals that the substance of the statement was troubling. By refusing to respond directly to any challenge, MikeBoyScout boy proves only that he has no real point to make about Sotomayor's objectivity; only tactics. Like Obama, he is wrong and he knows it.
MikeBoyScout provides absolutely nothing to counter the fact that Sonia Sotomayor joined Judge Parker in his support of using an absurd racial basis to invalidate a law in NY. His presumed coup de gras is that my "[racist] smear on Sotomayor, will not advance conservative causes one inch, but will boomerang and harm [Republicans] significantly, and those who recklessly flung these charges should not be surprised if they come back to haunt them later on."
The point MikeBoyScout ignores here is that we all need to be more concerned with the racist rulings Sotomayor and her ilk will haunt us with in the future. I don't know and don't care what race MikeBoyScout is, but he and his family will be damaged significantly by the liberal racist policies embodied in the Obama platform, and this issue rather than harming the conservative movement will galvanize it.
And . . . MikeBoyScout knows it.
Gee whiz, MikeBoyScout's deep concern for the future of the Republican Party is touching. So long as he is satisfied to believe that his tactics are the equivalent of substance, I will be amused by his pretence of intellectual superiority and what it truly represents.
Thanks very much for your contributions MikeBoyScout
"My initial reaction was strong and direct -- perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. ....
The word �racist� should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable...."
SOURCE: http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4266/Default.aspx
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 3, 2009 10:31 AMThat made her have a bad day.
Posted by: Cargill on June 3, 2009 11:17 PMI don't know if I agree with you or not. But you didn't quote the words of the law that is at issue here, so you are not giving us a chance to evaluate whether or not their plain meaning supports Sotomayor's view, or makes it more reasonable, etc.
You have said many times you appreciate the plain meaning rule and that judges shouldn't make law. I agree that they shouldn't in that they should adhere to the plain meaning rule.
But we can't tell if they did or not if you don't quote the words at issue.
Thank you for your attention. Btw I couldn't check if you agreed the 2d amendment will protect the right to own a hydrogen bomb? This is another good hypothetical on the plain meaning rule. You might also enjoy a recent NYT opnion piece about a English case deciding whether or not pringles are potato chips, the piece is a really great summary of the various ways that judges struggle with "plain meaning" e.g., what exactly is a potato chip?
The outcome of the case is pringles have to pay like 160 million pounds in taxes because the court held they are potato chips.
Have a great day.
There's no need to quote the words of the law, since there's no outstanding issue of any kind regarding those words. It's the roots and effect of the law that is at issue: plaintiffs allege that the effect of the law is that blacks and Latinos are discriminated against, and that the roots (not text) of the law are discriminatory.
The law itself (which you could look up if you wished, since I linked to the appeals court decision in Hayden v. Pataki which references it ... try Google) simply says that felons cannot vote unless pardoned, or their sentence has expired, or they have been discharged from parole. The question is whether this results in denial of the right to vote "on account of" race based on historical and institutional racism in the political and criminal justice systems.
As I said in my post, I do not quibble with her statement that the plain meaning of the VRA makes it potentially applicable to felong disfranchisement statutes, although I'd have to look deeper into it to form my own judgment. But the VRA can still only apply IF there's actual evidence that the denial of rights is "on account of" race, and there's no such evidence here. She might reply she was not ruling on that basis, but that she gave no word of any kind to this is troubling at the least, as the District Court judge was quite clear that the evidence didn't demonstrate such discrimination as was alleged.
As to the Second Amendment, you obviously didn't read my reply in the other discussion. I won't bother recounting it here for you.
As to the Pringles case, what it is a better example of is how absolutely insane and socialist our societies have become that anyone should think the government should have anything to say about whether or not something is a potato chip. Much of the problems we have with courts today is that the government extends itself very far into areas it has no business being in, and the courts usually play along as though it's all rational.
SOURCE: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/manny-miranda-acknowledges-sotomayor-almost-certain-to-get-confirmed/
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 4, 2009 10:32 AMGovernment has NO BUSINESS in regulating food and drugs?