Posted on 05/29/2009 3:10:35 AM PDT by Scanian
Lawyers who have argued cases before Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor call her "nasty," "angry" and a "terror on the bench," according to the current Almanac of the Federal Judiciary -- a kind of Zagat's guide to federal judges.
The withering evaluation of Judge Sotomayor's temperament stands in stark contrast to reviews of her peers on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Of the 21 judges evaluated, the same lawyers gave 18 positive to glowing reviews and two judges received mixed reviews. Judge Sotomayor was the only one to receive decidedly negative comments.
Judge Sotomayor's demeanor on the bench will be one of the issues the Senate Judiciary Committee tackles when she appears for her confirmation hearing. A lack of a good temperament has been used as a line of attack against nominees in the past - most notably conservative Judge Robert H. Bork, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was defeated.
But several lawyers and legal scholars on a call organized by the White House said the criticism is misplaced and that Judge Sotomayor's legal acumen is overwhelming.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
“She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts,” one lawyer told the almanac. Another said she “abuses lawyers.”
She’s clearly unqualified; however, one wonders if our spineless congressional Republicans will have enough of what it takes to overcome the Democrat Kool Aid drinkers’ rubber stamp of All Things Obama and shoot down her appointment.
Wow, who’d a thought it—all those lawyers...racists!
Didn’t she have a lot of decisions overruled?
And belong to LaRaza?
I thought I heard it was over 60%.
At any rate, she’s an idiot. And yes O’Reilly can quote me, she’s an idiot.
I suddenly understand what Obama sees in her!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi5256dhvM
“Nazi judge Roland Freisler presides over a 1944 trial. Nicknamed “Raving Roland”, Freisler was infamous for his bombastic courtroom behavior.
He mostly issued death or lifetime prison sentences, having reached his verdict before the trial actually began.”
Our biggest problem with Sotomayor will be the spineless RINOs in the Senate...who value the La Raza crowd over conservatives.
In saner times this woman would not have even been allowed to be a judge, period
I kinda like the “abuses lawyers” deal,,this may move some toward her.
> She’s clearly unqualified;
As unqualified as Obama!
She bases her judicial temperament by watching too many episodes of Judge Judy???
Great link, thanks.
Do we really want to encourage this kind of low life temprament on the bench?
She obviously has very specific biases and non-constitutional views on the role of the judiciary. (or more correctly left wing text book radical views of the judiciary as policy setter)
she is not worthy of being a judge AT ANY LEVEL.
“Judge Sotomayor’s legal acumen is overwhelming.”
“Overwhelming” in what way? That she is subjective and biased?
60 %
The FDR parallels to this era are creepy.
“She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts,”
We must celebrate Diversity and Multiculturalism!!!
For a 'Latino woman', it's called 'earning your street cred'.
Overwhelming? Than why has she been overturned in 60% of her opinions?
Female. Hispanic. All the qualifications she needs.
Don’t those lawyers know they’re racist?
“She really lacks judicial temperament. “
Good. Maybe we’ll see some fireworks for a change. I want to see the Surpeme Court on CourtTV with Danny Bonaduce and Leif Garrett doing the commentary.
“But several lawyers and legal scholars on a call organized by the White House”
Who’d have guessed that? Like we’re not supposed to figure out that any lawyers and “legal scholars” picked by the White House are going to be White House flunkies. No bias, prejudice, or corruption there.
Take a look at this article.
You said — I thought I heard it was over 60%.
—
Ummm..., that should be documented then, if that’s the case. I can’t think of a better reason to not have a judge nominated, than that... LOL...
““She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts”
Ah, the perfect Obama employee. What could be more appropriate?
Just wow. Appellate attorneys aren't your run of the mill ambulance chasers. They aren't fools and are highly professional, and normally incredibly bright and highly skilled. It's interesting that they are being demeaned because they have been critical of Sotomayor. Kind of like Clinton's defenders calling those who came out against his sexual assaults "trailer park trash".
That doesn't appear to be the case here. It's not just one lawyer complaining, and the complaints were raised before there was any question of a SC appointment.
I can recall three judges in the course of my trial career who had really, really inappropriate judicial temperaments. It is not only miserable for the lawyers who appear before them -- the clients don't get justice when the judge is throwing a temper tantrum. And inappropriate temperament seems to go hand in hand with bad judging -- they let their temper influence their decisions as well as taking it out on the lawyers.
Of the three judges, one was defeated for re-election when everybody had finally had enough (he used to ask his Masonic brothers, "How you want me to rule in this case?"), one was removed from the bench for misconduct after compiling nearly a 100 percent reversal rate, and the third was kicked upstairs to an appeals court where he continued to wreak havoc until, mercifully, he retired. And nobody has invited him back to serve as a senior judge, either.
If I mentioned their names, any GA lawyer over the age of 40 would nod his head and say, "Oh, yeah . . . " and start with the Judge X stories.
I can't tell if Sotomayor is as bad as those three without hearing details. Usually the bad federal judges aren't quite as bad as the bad state court judges -- the problem there is usually that they continue on the bench after they become bored, lazy, and/or senile.
Well, the only good thing is, if she doesn’t suffer fools gladly, she ought to be really grouchy during her confirmation hearings. Too bad old Joe Biden isn’t there to kick the “questioning” off.
Ah, she's "intense". Is that like saying your blind date has a good personality?
Ah. Making excuses for herself as early as 1998.
So she KNOWS she has a problem, and has known for some time, but refuses to DO anything about it.
Absolute power over the law of the land is JUST what she needs . . . .
Foul-tempered b-word.
Everything I’ve read about this hack makes her sound as intemperate as hell.
Yessirree !!!
She needs to be CALLED out on her BAD judgment.
Bad judgment = BAD JUDGE !!!
She cares NOT ONE WHIT about the Constitution!
Racist, gun-grabbing trampler of the Constitution.
Right down Hussein's alley.
Right down Hussein’s alley indeed !!!
"She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts," one lawyer told the almanac. Another said she "abuses lawyers."
Great. Just great. /sarcasm>
Que bruja, oye!
We’ve heard about this harpy’s comments about white males but I would bet dollars to donuts that Judge Sonia’s problem is with men in general—she despises them. Hard to prove but that’s the aura she gives off.
I guarantee you that, while she disses white males the way she does, her worst nightmare would be a old-school macho latino who would react to her sarcasm by taking his belt off and administering some serious discipline to the area of the “botapedo.”
Then again, maybe she’d like it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.