Posted on 05/05/2009 8:14:25 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?") Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: "She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media."
Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.
Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
I never expected such a column from Rosen, who has called on Obama to appoint a Supreme Court judge who would assert liberal leadership as Earl Warren and William Brennan did during the 1960’s.
The link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/opinion/02rosen.html
Sotomayer’s chances may be fading.
Why is this woman a judge in the first place? It’s obvious she can’t do the job and is a control freak to compensate.
She is not an intelligent jurist. Certainly, the Supreme Court has not always been graced with scholarly minds interested in the Constitution, but at least we should try. It does matter after all.
“She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.”
Sounds just like el presidente.
What is interesting to see is that the liberals are acting the way they accuse the conservatives of acting. Which just proves the point that liberals when they raise objections, raise them because that’s what THEY would do. They project their own strategies onto everyone else and think they are doing what they themselves would do.
Also this will not be a case to find anyone really qualified. The criteria is to find a judge that counter-weighs the conservative justices. This is apparently the paramount issue to the libs (no kidding, but they admit it).
Counter-weighing the conservative justices is not a constitutional mandate. Generally the makeup of the court as it stood recently was 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and Souter. Souter is gone, now they need a liberal to balance the 4 conservatives? How about putting up a conservative to balance the 4 liberals? If they already had 5 liberals, would they be calling for a conservative to balance the majority of liberals on the court? Or does the hypocrisy flag fly high when they admit things must only be balanced when they want more liberals on the court?
These people are destroying the US justice system. Hate speech. Hate crimes. Protected classes violating the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. It is sickening.
Sounds like an affirmative action law school grad, just like the prez.
My shock was this judge was appointed by Bush 41.
Harry Reid thinks we should nominate a common man or senator instead of a jurist.... sounded like he was auditioning for the job... ~LOL~
Bush 41 was not a true conservative.
I’m wondering how far Obama’s empathy will go with regards to this judge.
Clearly he never was, which is why he was out after his first term.
“Bush 41 was not a true conservative.”
Nor was 43.
Sotomayar is a modern day G. Harold Carswell. (that is if it wasn’t a lie that he was “mediocre”)
He was better than his idiot dad.
“He was better than his idiot dad.”
Hmm, that’s debatable. Both of them were big government Republicans who handed DC to the democrats on a silver platter.
Is herpes better than warts?
No way. 16 years ago we were coming out of a mild recession and ex-president Bush was generally liked and respected (key=respected) and it didnt take long like months before that general public was unhappy with democrats and Clinton.
GWB is extremely disliked and disrespected and because his NAME was associated with capitalism with tax cuts, gave both a bad name. Let's say his Dad could only do so much damage because he had a democrat congress. GWB got a blank check with a R congress and Sept 11 so he used it to mess up as much as he could, and brand capitalism, republican and conservatives as bad things.
~LOL~ I think that goes without saying.
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.