Sotomayor: Inflated Opinion of Herself

The more I read about her..I think she’s a Trojan horse....is she gets through, great...but she’s the sacrifical lamb thrown to the right, to be chewed up and spit out..then he’ll give us whom he REALLY wants...

Well, she should fit right in with the Obama camp.

"She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry.” “She is overly aggressive–not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament.” “She abuses lawyers.” “She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts.” “She is nasty to lawyers.

If we have to swallow a lib I'd rather it be a nasty one like this who might be unable to build any kind of consensus with the other justices. Sorta the lone angry yeller in the corner noboby listens to.

LOL Maybe even the other libs on the bench will learn to hate her!

Same thought I had. Do not listen to what he says, watch what he does.

All slight of hand, smoke and mirrors. The press is the willing assistant to his magical act of turning a Republic into a Third World Socialist Country.

Disgusting!

Gunner

Liberals always lack true humility.

An anti-European-American, anti-male racist with a chip on her shoulder and an agenda to match. Eerily similar to the psychopath narcissist America-hater who is nominating her. We need the Supreme Court like we need the Waffen SS. It’s time to get rid of this tag team of tyranny.

Dismissed the New Haven Firefighter Case as to prevent further judicial review but was caught. Her thinking and actions on this case are scary. The city of New Haven threw out a promotional exam when Blacks failed to pass, even though it was designed to be racially neutral. So the white firefighters and one Hispanic sued and she threw them out of court, and tried to bury the evidence. It was discovered and now at the Supreme Court. This case is emblematic of the difference between Democratic and Republican judicial thinking and when most people see the facts they will be disgusted with the blatant unfairness of Sotomayor’s position. It will happen more and more as Obama type politicians are elected to higher office.

FROM NATIONAL REVIEW

Obama Supreme Court Candidate Sonia Sotomayor—Part 1 [Ed Whelan]

In the hope or illusion that America’s voters will soberly consider what is at stake in this presidential election, I continue my exploration of the sort of candidates that a President Obama can be expected to appoint to the Supreme Court. (My previous posts in the series are on Harold Koh, Parts 1 and 2, and Deval Patrick, Parts 1 and 2.)

Highlighting the emphasis on diversity over quality in judicial selection, Justice Scalia has joked that “the next nominee to the Court will be a female Protestant Hispanic”. Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor fits at least two-thirds of the description. Plus, she’s acquired a reputation as a very liberal judge. For these reasons, she’s widely mentioned as a leading Supreme Court candidate in an Obama administration.

A striking opinion this past June by highly regarded Second Circuit judge (and Clinton appointee) José Cabranes exposes some remarkable and disturbing shenanigans by Sotomayor. Cabranes’s opinion, joined by five of his colleagues (including Chief Judge Jacobs), dissented from his court’s narrow 7-6 denial of en banc rehearing in Ricci v. DeStefano. (Cabranes’s opinion begins on the ninth page of this Second Circuit order.)

In Ricci, 19 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter charged that New Haven city officials engaged in racially discriminatory practices by throwing out the results of two promotional exams. As Cabranes puts it, “this case presents a straight-forward question: May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination, which was carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality, on the ground that the results of that examination yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another?”

The district judge, Janet Bond Arterton, issued a 48-page summary-judgment order ruling against the firefighters. Summarizing Arterton’s opinion, Cabranes clearly finds highly unusual that Arterton could grant summary judgment for the city officials notwithstanding her acknowledgement that the evidence was sufficient to enable a jury to find that the city officials “were motivated by a concern that too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted.” Further, Cabranes finds it remarkable that such a “path-breaking opinion” was “nevertheless unpublished.”

On appeal, Cabranes’s account indicates, the judicial effort to bury the firefighters’ claims got worse. In a case in which the parties “submitted briefs of eighty-six pages each and a six-volume joint appendix of over 1,800 pages,” in which two amicus briefs were filed, and in which oral argument “lasted over an hour (an unusually long argument in the practice of our Circuit),” the panel, consisting of Sotomayor and fellow Clinton appointees Rosemary Pooler and Robert Sack, “affirmed the District Court’s ruling in a summary order containing a single substantive paragraph”—which Cabranes quotes in full and which gives the reader virtually no sense of what the case is about. Four months later, just three days before Cabranes issued his opinion—and after the panel evidently knew that it had evaded en banc review—“the panel withdrew its summary order and published a per curiam opinion that contained the same operative text as the summary order, with the addition of a citation to the District Court’s opinion in the Westlaw and LexisNexis databases.” As Cabranes sums it up:

This per curiam opinion adopted in toto the reasoning of the District Court, without further elaboration or substantive comment, and thereby converted a lengthy, unpublished district court opinion, grappling with significant constitutional and statutory claims of first impression, into the law of this Circuit. It did so, moreover, in an opinion that lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal. Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at he core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination.

And then this killer understatement:

This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.

Cabranes and his five colleagues clearly believe that Sotomayor and her panel colleagues acted as they did in order to bury the firefighters’ claims and to prevent en banc and Supreme Court review of them. Cabranes’s opinion expresses his “hope that the Supreme Court will resolve the issues of great significance raised by this case” and his judgment that plaintiffs’ claims are “worthy of [Supreme Court] review.”

Quite an indictment—by a fellow Clinton appointee, no less—of Sotomayor’s unwillingness to give a fair shake to parties whose claims she evidently dislikes. Hardly the mark of a jurist worth serious consideration for the nation’s highest court

The Supreme Court just knocked her tires off by reversing all four of her opinions before them.

The first nice thing Obama has done for Bush...he picked someone who makes Harriet Miers look good by comparison.

@ken5050 - There’s a thought. The second appointee once Sotomayor fails, will be more of the type that appears to be a pragmatist but will be worse in the long run. Meanwhile Republicans can be made to look like the party of No again as they argue over Sotomayor. Could be, although I believe Obama feels like he can get her through while it’s still “early” in his reign of terror.

I’m pleased that Obama has realized my fear that he would pick the worst possible person for the Supreme Court he possibly could. Thank you once again Mr. President for confirming my fears and doing exactly what I’d thought you might do i.e. pick an outright racist to be a Supreme Court justice. (smirk)

Is there anything nice to say about her? So far all I have read are negatives.