If you actually listen to what Dr. Paul says, it makes way too much sense.

 romeotuma wrote: 

romeo,
Greetings...
And THE LEFT didn't attack Miguel Estrada? There is no Senate Judiciary Staff memo written that clearly stated Mr. Estrada must be stopped or Republicans would curry favor with Hispanics? Both sides play a game of blood sport on Court nominations. Both.

with regards,
mk

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer - 12 mins ago

WASHINGTON - Pushing toward a historic Supreme Court confirmation vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the first Hispanic justice, over nearly solid Republican opposition.

I nominate Lewis Black.

 manbirdexperiment wrote: 

Bullwinkle 

Uh oh! The Repugs are bringing out the big guns to challenge, the original Dirty Tricks guy:

Ed Meese, Far-Right Reaganite, Hired By GOP To Coordinate Sotomayor Attack

In their battle against Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, Republicans in Congress have turned to an old hand. Ed Meese, the Reagan-era attorney general and conservative firebrand, has been playing a behind-the-scenes role in organizing GOP opposition to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

Meese was hired before Sotomayor was chosen. According to the Washington Post, which broke the story, he coordinated with Republican Senators on how best to plan for the nomination.

What type of guidance Meese is offering in his memos remains a secret. But it's not hard to guess the message he's trying to push. Despite being removed from government for more than two decades, Meese remains a lightening rod in judicial circles, his admirers praise his legacy as a strict "originalist" while his critics accuse him of politicizing the judicial nomination process.

As Attorney General under Ronald Reagan, Meese played an influential role in helping craft the White House's approach to the courts. He is reported to have applied litmus tests to judicial candidates, including asking them about their philosophies on Roe v. Wade, school prayer, and unions (allegations Meese has denied). Within this context, conservative figures like Antonin Scalia, Richard Posner, Kenneth Starr and Robert Bork flourished and were granted appointments — not always successfully — to higher posts. Moderates, by contrast, floundered. Former U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Andrew Frey found his career path impeded in part because he had given $25 to a gun-control group.

Policy tilted heavily conservative under Meese's influence as well. In January 1982, he helped guide the Reagan administration's decision to reverse a policy that removed tax exemptions from schools that discriminated on the basis of race. "We do not want IRS bureaucrats setting social policy," he reportedly said.

But Meese was known above all for his unbending belief that the conservative movement needed to change the culture of the Supreme Court. He famously declared in 1985 that judges should be "expected to resist any political effort to depart from the literal provisions of the Constitution." Later, he would suggest that it was within the power of the president to circumvent Supreme Court decisions.

"Such decisions," Meese said, "do not of themselves establish the supreme law of the land, as that phrase is known, that is binding on all persons and parts of government henceforth and forever more."

Such remarks engendered a wave of concern and anger among Democrats, moderates, and even members of the Court. Justices Brennan and Stevens would rebuke the argument that the court had departed from the constitution in speeches later that year.

The Meese philosophy would be put to the test in 1987, when a Supreme Court vacancy presented itself following the retirement of Justice Lewis Powell. In his place, Reagan turned to Judge Bork who, even before his nomination, was heavily criticized by Democrats in the Senate. When that nomination was defeated, in large part over opposition to Bork's judicial "originalism," Meese hastily pushed for a replacement: Judge Douglas Ginsburg. It was a peculiar choice. A former Harvard academic, Ginsburg had argued before the court once. But, according to contemporary news reports, Meese regarded him as an "ideological soul mate" based on various conversations the two had on constitutional issues, including abortion. Ginsburg would end up withdrawing his name after embarrassing revelations from his past surfaced, including ones regarding marijuana use. And Reagan would finally settle on the more moderate Anthony Kennedy for the Court.

Meese would resign from his post as Attorney General the next year, under a host of legal problems and an unfavorable ethics investigation. Since then, however, he has played an active role in crafting conservative judicial philosophy. Last year, he expressed his concern that the nomination process had become too laborious and partisan during a speech in Greenville, South Carolina. And now, of course, he is helping contribute to that trend by coordinating the political opposition to Obama's Supreme Court nominee.

 Lazy8 wrote:  

The confirmation hearings went off the track long ago, and have really devolved into political spitting matches.  The Founders were right to immunize — as much as possible — the Justices from the political process. Unfortunately, nothing is more political than the current confirmation process for the Supreme Court, which has become more of a dog -and-pony show for constituents and the party faithful than anything else. .

Everyday folk seem to think they have a pretty good notion of what does or does not make a good Justice. They don't.  It is no secret that jurisdictions that select their judges by popular vote have much worse judges on the whole than jurisdictions in which the judges are appointed.  

The confirmation process for Justices really underscores what is wrong with this country.  Jurisprudence giants from the past would have no chance — absolutely no chance — of getting on the Court today. That should tell us something. 

       
 Don't mind me. Just playing through.

 jadewahoo wrote: 

How ironic, truly.  Both sides are so guilty of this.  "The Loyal Opposition" has now trancended into "we disagree no matter what".  Once again, a Bush "chicken" has "come home to roost" in the Obama administration, with Sotomayor. 

The more things change, the more they remain the same.  This has never been more true than it is presently.

Except that Rollerball teams are now forming.  Contact your regional Corporate office for details.

Residents of Sector R need not apply.

Question:  Is it still a coincidence that the last 4 Presidents have attended either Yale or Harvard and...
That presently 8 out of the 9 current Supreme Court Justices have attended Yale or Harvard, the lone different school is Northwestern.

?????

 arighter2 wrote: 
As bad as it is, she was bound by the Kelo decision—one of the worst Supreme court decisions in our history. The only way to answer the question I'd have about this would be to ask her how she would have voted on the Kelo case, a question she would probably decline to answer.

Which leaves her real intentions as a Supreme Court Justice unknown. Whatever she says in the hearings she will be on the bench for life, and short of impeachment there's no way to throw her out. The recent pattern has been to say as little as possible (or whatever is necessary) to get thru the hearings and then get to work. No one will answer a question that matters.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/05/27/is-d....-kelo-decision/

Another case that makes me wonder if the nominee is too quick to put the State before the liberty of the people.

 Zep wrote: 
Actually, the appeal came just slightly after The Supreme Court ruled on the Bong Hits for Jesus case. I think requests to call the principal may well have been a legitimate attempt to get the principal's decision overturned. But that requires a little more digging on my part.

 Zep wrote: 
No. Republicans that are so stuck in the 'anti-anything-Obama' mode that they are incapable of seeing that Sotomayor is one of their own corporate lackies. Democrats who are so delusional that they are blinded by the light and fail to see that Sotomayor is one of the proverbial 'pieces of silver' given in obeisance to the Corporatacracy.

Sotomayor's Publications

 jadewahoo wrote: 
Harriet Myers II?

Or "Souter in Reverse"?

 arighter2 wrote: 
The student (Doninger) sent out emails to the student community calling the administrators "douchebags," which by itself should be protected, but she also moved closer to disruptive actions when she encouraged her readers to call the school to "piss off" the principle. 

This came before the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case, right?

 romeotuma wrote: 
that doesn't sound racist to me...sounds reasoned. ?!
if he had said being a white dude and benefiting from the richness of that makes it likely that he would make better judgments than
a latino woman, that would be racist and sexist right???!!

sotomayor's statement was racist and sexist...but not enough to deny her confirmation on its own...
let us all be honest here!!

all this partisan crap is getting so old to me!...on what we know now sotomayor is confirmed, just as alito should have been and was...!

 arsenault wrote: 
It was her mom, I think, who actually brought suit. I'm not sure though. I don't think it's as important a case as it's being made out to be... but it's famous and Sotomayor was sort of involved so hey.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
i am always queasy when children are litigious...whatever the merits.

 arighter2 wrote: 
She didn't make the decision in that case, the lower court did. Her court was asked to determine whether the lower court abused its discretion. In fact they agreed that the punishment did not fit the crime, but they were not re-trying the case. They found that the lower court acted appropriately and therefore the decision must stand. It's possible (probable?) that if any of the circuit court judges had tried the case, the decision would have been different.