Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

Anita, Birmingham, Alabama — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:20:25 GMT

Indeed, “White House press secretary Robert Gibbs all but accused the current court of ‘judicial activism,’ a buzz term used by conservatives in recent years, in overturning what the White House saw as Sotomayor's upholding of precedent,” The Hill says.
-------------------------------------------
As I've aid...you can't trust the repubs...it is a party of mistrust and they are living up to their name. The Grand No Party.

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

Mike in Illinois — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:20:29 GMT

Why not just eliminate all testing for promotions. Just throw darts at a dartboard. The names that the darts land on get promoted.

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

GP NW Indiana — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:20:51 GMT

They should be driving home the fact that there were two others on the same ruling that ruled just as sotomayor did.

This is about interpretation, and in the prior ruling they all must of saw the same thing.

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

Definition of Irony — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:22:39 GMT

It appears Sotomayor will be the Affirmitive Action member of the Supreme Court. She'll be taking advantage of the very law that was struck down yesterday by her future colleagues.

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

cindy, las vegas, nv — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:23:29 GMT

Anybody else watch Tom Tancredo on Ed yesterday. Geez, talk about an idiot. I like the way Katrina slammed back at him. She handled him well I think. He's an example of how alot of these Repugs think. Since he's not an elected official, he can say whatever and nobody cares much.
Ron Christie surprised me too on the show talking about Sanford.

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

The Democratic Soldier — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:23:30 GMT

If she was white and said what she has said and done what she has done ... There is no way she would be confirmed!!!

And we all know it!!!

Actually, she would also have to be a republican...
Robert Byrd, leader of the KKK - said and did far worse and was still a democratic leader.

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

GS, PA — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:27:15 GMT

I just saw a graduation from a city police department academy covered on the local news this morning and almost every graduate stated that their ancestory contributed to the decision to become a police officer. Most large city police and fire departments tend to have many generations of one family employed. Now, I am not saying they do not deserve to be employed by these various departments, however, how many qualified individuals were passed over due to this blatant nepotism? What makes someone's kid or nephew more qualified than someone who does not have an ancestor currently or previously employed by that department? Just something to think about.

This certainly does appear to be judicial activism. Anyone who actually pays attention to what is going on can see things the way they really are. Everything the republicans say and do is meticulously planned and executed to fool and scare Americans, including this decision. Haven't we been hoodwinked and frightened into voting and supporting policies based on lies and scare tactics long enough?

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

Big Nardi — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:33:13 GMT

MO

Is that short for moron?

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

Pete - Albany, NY — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:34:46 GMT

Silly rabbit! It's only "judicial activism" if it's done by a judge nominated by a Democrat!

But, that's what Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito did...judicial activism. They stepped in and determined what the law should be by creating the ridiculous "strong basis in evidence" standard.

Sotomayor absolutely believes in past precedent. Go look at the decision her panel wrote in Maloney v. Cuomo...again, she yields to the higher court and will leave it up to them to overturn their own past precedent.

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

BJ, CA — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:47:42 GMT

YAWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN......?

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

Juan, fT lauderdale,fl — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:01:10 GMT

Following precedent is something that the right wing Gop and their apologists could never fathom. When a decision goes against their ideology a judge is an activist but eventhough a majority wants legal and safe abortions in the first trimester its name calling and demonizing. They're such loathing hyprocrits.

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

BoBo's Depressions Grows — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:02:09 GMT

MO

Is that short for moron?
Big Nardi (Sent Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:33 AM)

I thought it was BoBo's Response to the following question:

"How much money do you want to give to ACORN"

MO

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:08:28 GMT

The one thing that the Republicans are missing with the latest decision is that she wasn't the only one to have an opinion on it. Did all of the SCOTUS justices specifically point out her concurring opinion on their decisions? If they didn't, then there isn't really much to say about it. You can't win them all.

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

eagle1776 — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:13:24 GMT

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

Juan,ft lauderdale, fl — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:15:38 GMT

Travel to any public schools in this country where the big majority schools that are minority get the least money, supplies, and compare/constrast w/ predominately white schools throughout the YEARS and wonder why whites test scores are higher. Lets not fool anyone that Brown vs board of Education equaled the playing field which is a patent lie and then add white flight which maybe might explain why minorities in New Haven did not score as well. Furthermore, the state of California is now leaving slots availiable in their state universities for white anglo saxon kids which is denying Asian Americans who score much better on test scores. Can you say double standard.

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

Serve justice for the justices — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:28:17 GMT

I am suprised little has been stated regarding the comparison of Chief Justice Roberts Supreme Court nomination and the Hamdan v Rumsfeld case. Similarly, a hot debate occurs when a justice is up for nomination. In both situations, the Supreme Court overturned their decision when each served on a lower court.
The 2006 Hamdan case brought the constitutional questions of Separation of power, rights of military tribunals, and the Suspension Clause. At the time, Justice Roberts was interviewed for the position to replace Rehnquist on the US Supreme Court. While the interviewing occurred, he also presided on the US Court of Appeals hearing this case. The three court panel reversed the District Courts decision upholding the right of habeas corpus. Such ruling defied precedents as set forth in the Quirin case.

On June 29, 2006 the Supreme Court delivered its 5-3 decision (Roberts recused himself from the hearing) against the Bush administration's military commissions thoroughly explained why the appeals court ruling erred.

In the recent case concerning reverse discrimination, Sotomayor was on the appellate court that dismissed the appeal. In contrast to Robert’s case, In February 2008, Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court decision to dismiss the results.

Case in point, how does Sonya Sotomayor’s situation differ from Chief Justice Roberts? If we are truly, applying the sentiments of the ruling held in, "Ricci et al v. Destefano then Judge Sotomayor should similarly face the same scrutiny as Chief Justice Roberts; to be nominated as a qualified justice.

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

Jim — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:30:27 GMT

Regardless of who it is, being in favor of supporting discrimination to eliminate discrimination seems counterproductive.

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

mexed, san antonio, texas — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:33:36 GMT

As the news of the day clarifies the SC decision it is confirmed that the origianal law was poorly written (by our dear lawmakers of the two houses)and the SC recent decision clarifies little if anything. It simply decided on a case but leaves the law as muddled as ever. We face judges of the right or the left to muddle through decisions as the can, only to be challenged at the higher court. Sotomayors decision was an honest effort to interpret a very badly written law and the SC did little to improve the situation. It is obvious by their 5-4 vote and its limitations that the law should be rewritten. It is also obvious that this decision could have gone either way. It's the lawmakers who are to blame, not Sotomayor. And, the lawmakers will need to be careful how the approach using this decision against her. Most of them could not begin to explain how the law works. I hope she challenges them to explain their questions, to make more clear what they are saying about the law itself rather than her decision. Most of them have not the intellectual capacity nor an indepth understanding of the law to challenge her honestly. They will use this decision to wack her some but in the end they should know that they are on very thin ice if they think they really know what the law requires. Obviously the SC was not sure either.

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

Fact Finder — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:48:00 GMT

Not only did yesterday ruling shows the judical shortcomings of Sotomayor but now 300 boxes of additional stuff has been discovered. It'll be interesting to see what other off the wall rulings will be uncovered.

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

John Doe, Scranton, PA — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:01:32 GMT

I grew up as a pooooor white boy. This story gives me REAL HOPE for America

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

I love the smell of GOP hypocrisy in the morning!!! — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:10:24 GMT

"How much money do you want to give to ACORN"

MO
BoBo's Depressions Grows (Sent Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:02 AM)

____________

Funny how everyone on the right loves to trumpet about Acorn, yet not one of them will mention the Young Political Group and its voter fraud....oh right, what was I thinking, they were a conservative group practicing voter fraud, and we all know by now that everything is ok as long as the GOP is doing it and not the Democrats, right?

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

Just more of that wonderful GOP hypocrisy — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:11:47 GMT

Those on the extreme right in Congress will vote against Sotomayor and the others will vote to confirm. Had Obama picked Jesus Christ the result might well have been the same. The party of No are going to vote NO no matter who is selected or what is presented for their vote. Orders from on high from Lord Limbaugh.
eagle1776 (Sent Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:13 AM)
_________

The same Limbaugh who pronounced the filibuster against judicial nominees to be unconstitutional:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905010042

Sotomayor: You're all clear, kid

amsron, Southern, California — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:29:06 GMT

If real news worked the way Fox News does, the headline for this article would be

"Are High Court Conservatives afraid of Sotomayor?"