Obama's candidate to the U.S. Supreme Court

And as suspected, while most Republicans have indicated they likely won't put up much of a fight, some on the far right fringe are already spitting bile:

One conservative group did not wait for the formal announcement. Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network, issued a statement calling Sotomayor a "liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written."

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just slow, but what is the point of crap like this? What are they fighting against? Sotomayor is a left-leaning judge. She's replacing a left-leaning judge. Conservatives will still have the advantage in the court. Did these clowns somehow expect obama to nominate another conservative? This seems like nothing but attention whoring and obstructionism. Also, i wonder if a nominee who opposed abortion would be denounced by this group if he/she "put their personal agenda above the law". Any wagers?

From what I know about the woman, which is admittedly very little, she doesn't seem near as radical as some other past choices. She seems to have a good head on her shoulders. We'll see.In any event, this development really has little consequence as the court's leaning won't change.

I expect a "show" of resisting the nomination from the GOP, but she'll make it to the court.

Provided she paid all her taxes, of course.

cethklein said:

From what I know about the woman, which is admittedly very little, she doesn't seem near as radical as some other past choices. She seems to have a good head on her shoulders. We'll see.In any event, this development really has little consequence as the court's leaning won't change.

Click to expand...

the issue of judicial activism will be at the forefront, and she has given some cause for concern there.

William Haskins said:

the issue of judicial activism will be at the forefront, and she has given some cause for concern there.

Click to expand...

So have pretty much every other nominee in SCOTUS history. Nothing new here.

whistlelock said:

I expect a "show" of resisting the nomination from the GOP, but she'll make it to the court.

Provided she paid all her taxes, of course.

Click to expand...

I suspect she has. If she hadn't, we'd have heard about it the moment her name was mentioned as a possible candidate. I'm guessing there isn't even a chance she hasn't, as if there were, Fair and Balanced TV would have already reported it as a "proven fact". I'd say she's in the clear.

cethklein said:

So have pretty much every other nominee in SCOTUS history. Nothing new here.

Click to expand...

most of them don't say (or at least don't allow themselves to be videotaped saying) that courts "make policy". that's pretty strong stuff.

nor do they often make hamfisted comments about how their gender/race make them more qualified to render fair decisions.

William Haskins said:

the issue of judicial activism will be at the forefront, and she has given some cause for concern there.

Click to expand...

What does "judicial activism" mean?

(seriously, I don't know)

William Haskins said:

most of them don't say (or at least don't allow themselves to be videotaped saying) that courts "make policy". that's pretty strong stuff.

nor do they often make hamfisted comments about how their gender/race make them more qualified to render fair decisions.

Click to expand...

I think we all agree that said hamfisted comments aren't a good thing (ok, well I can think of one person who might think they are). As for policy though, they kind of do shape policy. Even if the court doesn't directly control policy, the precedent they set often indirectly controls it.

And even if she does think she can make policy, she won't be able to do so directly so she can think it all she wants.

William Haskins said:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=judicial+activism

Click to expand...

James81 said:

What does "judicial activism" mean?

Click to expand...

Any ruling by a judge that a conservative disagrees with.

rugcat said:

Any ruling by a judge that a conservative disagrees with.

Click to expand...

Apparently so. As most of the people using the term as if it's a bad thing would likely have little problem if an activist judge promoted things like bans on abortion and same sex marriage. both of which, by the way, are "personal beliefs". I've noticed even Fair and Balanced TV has begun using the term a lot more lately.

From what I've heard and read thus far, she sounds ideal. And yes, I'm presuming she has paid her taxes. Female? Check? Minority? Check? Up to date on taxes?

Any ruling by a judge that a conservative disagrees with.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and probably any ruling by a judge that a liberal disagrees with as well.

These kinds of terms can cut both ways.


This was interesting, to me:

However, an official with the Republican National Committee promised that the GOP will be equitable toward Sotomayor.

"The Republicans are going to strike a tone that's fair, that allows the vetting process to happen like it should, and that's in stark contrast to how the Democrats dealt with Judge Roberts when you look back a couple years ago," the official said, referring to the 2005 confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Click to expand...

"Equitable". Let's see how that goes.

rugcat said:

Any ruling by a judge that a conservative disagrees with.

Click to expand...

points for snark.

points deducted for not acknowledging that any judge, regardless of political bent, saying that the appeals court is "where policy is made" is vastly overreaching.

Williebee said:

Yeah, and probably any ruling by a judge that a liberal disagrees with as well.

These kinds of terms can cut both ways.


This was interesting, to me:



"Equitable". Let's see how that goes.

Click to expand...

I haven't heard the left using the term activist judge much though. They're more blunt and to the point. The right seems more into the whole idea of coming up with crafty little gimmick terms for things like this. "Mainstream media" "neo-socialist" and "activist judge". to the left's credit, they simply call them as they see them, rightly or wrongly.

As for the GOP being equitable, I agree, let's see how that turns out. I figure most of them will be but a few quacks will stir crap up. And since Steele is essentially spineless, he'll let them take control of the debate most likely. But yeah, anything is better than how Roberts was treated.

funniest post of the month.

yeah the left doesn't use "catch-all" or gimmicky names for anything.

Williebee said:

Yeah, and probably any ruling by a judge that a liberal disagrees with as well. These kinds of terms can cut both ways.

Click to expand...

True, except the term"activist judge" is one almost exclusively used by conservatives, and is indeed often a code word for any judge whose rulings they disagree with.

William Haskins said:

points for snark.

points deducted for not acknowledging that any judge, regardless of political bent, saying that the appeals court is "where policy is made" is vastly overreaching.

Click to expand...

I like to start off every day even up.

William Haskins said:

funniest post of the month.

yeah the left doesn't use "catch-all" or gimmicky names for anything.

Click to expand...

Not lately they haven't. I'd almost rather they did but they've been surprisingly more blunt since Obama took over. I suspect it's because they feel safer in being blunt, whereas before they needed gimmicks when they were "fighting the good fight against the evil imperialist Bush dynasty".

cethklein said:

I haven't heard the left using the term activist judge much though. They're more blunt and to the point. The right seems more into the whole idea of coming up with crafty little gimmick terms for things like this. "Mainstream media" "neo-socialist" and "activist judge". to the left's credit, they simply call them as they see them, rightly or wrongly.

Click to expand...

Actually, the left made a concerted effort to redefine judicial activism so the term could be used against conservative judges. The idea was that "judicial activism" should be understood as a willingness to strike down laws or overturn the rulings of lower courts.

And as I recall, this redefinition picked up some steam for a while.

ETA: And they're still at it. Linky: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/26/735464/-Judicial-Activism

rugcat said:

Any ruling by a judge that a conservative disagrees with.

Click to expand...

Oh, horse crap.

Williebee said:

Yeah, and probably any ruling by a judge that a liberal disagrees with as well.

These kinds of terms can cut both ways.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

William Haskins said:

points for snark.

points deducted for not acknowledging that any judge, regardless of political bent, saying that the appeals court is "where policy is made" is vastly overreaching.

Click to expand...

The last time I checked, the appeals court doesn't 'make' policy. The appeals court rules on the legality of policy, but the thought of a judge who actively seeks to make policy is a little disconcerting.

robeiae said:

Actually, the left made a concerted effort to redefine judicial activism so the term could be used against conservative judges. The idea was that "judicial activism" should be understood as a willingness to strike down laws or overturn the rulings of lower courts.

And as I recall, this redefinition picked up some steam for a while.

ETA: And they're still at it. Linky: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/26/735464/-Judicial-Activism

Click to expand...

Exactly.

I'm not that concerned with Sotomayor's politics. I don't have a problem with liberal-leaning judges. I will reserve my overall opinion until I get a better idea of whether she is a strong proponent of legislating from the bench. I don't think she'll have any trouble getting confirmed: she's a Hispanic (Puerto Rican descent), a woman and from what I can find from a cursory look, seems to have a fairly strong record on the bench.

However, I find it interesting that the President, who (we are reminded ad nauseum) is a constiutional scholar, would look to a candidate for his first Supreme Court nomination who has publicly stated that policy should be made by the courts.

robeiae said:

willingness to strike down laws

Click to expand...

I'm confused. Isn't this the same thing as judging when a law is unconstitutional? Or is there some other definition to this phrase that I'm, as yet, unaware of?

darkprincealain said:

I'm confused. Isn't this the same thing as judging when a law is unconstitutional?

Click to expand...

Yes. But the idea here--in redefining "judicial activism"--was that using this power made a judge more "activist." Which is--of course--stupid. We need judges willing to actually follow the Constitution, as written.

Thanks Robeiae, for both the clarification and the argument. That is basically how I would have responded.

I don't like this redefinition. When one of the checks and balances is contested, we might as well worry about the rest of them.

mscelina said:

I don't think she'll have any trouble getting confirmed: she's a Hispanic (Puerto Rican descent), a woman and from what I can find from a cursory look, seems to have a fairly strong record on the bench.

Click to expand...

She's been reversed a number of times (4) by the SCOTUS.