Lee breaks with many in his party by supporting Obama's Supreme Court nominee

sorry Chris, you lost my vote. the dems are screwing every thing up.

Oh please ! it doesnt matter what he does becoz the Republicans cant out vote the demo's. He maybe true but lets see the backlash from the republicans when he tries to push something for our region. She is as good as in unless they find out she owes taxes or has an illegal Mexican Nanny.

Stop, fools. She is totally qualified and she has empathy for people like us. Don't take the hate bait.

She is as left as they come, and Lee is getting closer to her everyday. Our own Arlen Specter

You say that like it's a bad thing Bud:)

Who doesn't like judges legislating from the bench, using empathy to decide cases instead of the rule of law, or preferring to base rulings on European Laws when they're unable to get the decision they want with current US Case Law or the Constitution?

I agree as far as trying to balance the humanity side of law intrpretation. Its not gonna change the world but its not gonna be any worse then anyone appointed. I just never thought I would live to see the day that non caucasians would finally get the chance to improve America. My biggest complaint is trying to say their names correctly. But I have had to deal with that myself everyday. I think we need to be less political and more progress. Whaddya call that ?

I haven't got a clue because your 2nd to last sentence makes no sense. As far as trying to balance the humanity side of law interpretation, there's a reason Lady Justice is blindfolded.

Less political and more progress ? Maybe the "lady justice" should look at the scales ? I believe in the "if it aint broke dont fix it " theory but obviously many peops are going broke and lotza things need fixing.

It's fairly typical for bipartisan support to be offered within the state that the nominee comes from. It would be much more remarkable if Lee expressed opposition to her.

And, to Bud, if she's so far to the left as he thinks she is, why are interest groups on the left expressing less than enthusiastic support. In no way is she Democratic equivalent of Scalia et al. Look at the Republican senators who voted for her when she was nominated for a position during the Bush admistration. Face it, Obama is aiming for the middle even though he gets kicked in the teeth every time he tries to do so.

Accusations that she's a racist are absolutely laughable. If Lee has seen the light in this regard THAT would be progress.

So, you don't want justice, you want what's "fair" and that's a very subjective term. You can't argue for; "if it ain't broke don't fix it" while at the same time trying to change the entire concept of how our judicial system was designed to work. Lastly, having the Federal Government becoming increasingly involved in private business is certainly not going to make that any better. One only need look at Amtrak, the USPS, or the VA to see that the folks in charge in DC haven't got a clue when it comes to running a business.

Posted by James Renfrew on May 29, 2009 - 12:00am
It's fairly typical for bipartisan support to be offered within the state that the nominee comes from. It would be much more remarkable if Lee expressed opposition to her.

And, to Bud, if she's so far to the left as he thinks she is, why are interest groups on the left expressing less than enthusiastic support. In no way is she Democratic equivalent of Scalia et al. Look at the Republican senators who voted for her when she was nominated for a position during the Bush admistration. Face it, Obama is aiming for the middle even though he gets kicked in the teeth every time he tries to do so.

Accusations that she's a racist are absolutely laughable. If Lee has seen the light in this regard THAT would be progress.

You said everything I was going to write. President Herbert W Bush, when he nominated Clarence Thomas, praised Justice Thomas for his 'empathy'. Today, that word is bandied around by the right as something vile.

Justice Thomas was nominated to SOTUS following the Souter debacle and one of the primary reasons President Bush selected him was because he's an originalist.

Posted by Andrew Erbell on May 29, 2009 - 12:21am
Justice Thomas was nominated to SOTUS following the Souter debacle and one of the primary reasons President Bush selected him was because he's an originalist.

Missing the point, Andrew.
Empathy, when applied to Justice Thomas, was something the right all nodded in agreement.
Why was empathy correct then, and not now?
I have no dog in this fight. She will be seated. This entire campaign by the likes of Limbaugh, etc. is just noise. Only the ditto heads are buying into it.

I think that a white man experiencing the full richness of his life will probably make a better decision than a latina woman who has never left the ghetto.

Chris Lee's opinion might make a difference if he were a Senator and had a vote on the question.

He's still a public figure and his opinion does hold weight because of it.

Jim- with all due respect, I was more concerned with the support shown by RINO Chris Lee for the nomination, rather than the nomination itself. His extremely moderate tendencies prove to me that he is more concerned about aligning with the majority of congress, and disregarding the constituents back home.
BTW, I do regard Obama's pick as the proverbial "killer of 2 birds with 1 stone". A woman and Hispanic american combined. JMO
Oh yeah.....I do appreciate she helped with the baseball strike in 95..she is a yankee fan, so she can't be all bad! :)

I'm not missing the point at all Bea. A tenet for most Conservatives is that Justices are originalists. The US Constitution is not a "living & breathing document" to be twisted around to suit the prevailing moral relativism of the day or be ignored all together when making decisions from the bench.

No one on the right believes Justice Sotomayor will not be easily confirmed by the Senate, barring some unforeseen damaging info coming out during her background investigation. That doesn't mean however everyone need to simply look the other way and let her sail throughout without any critique whatsoever. There is a piece in the latest The New Republic, written before she was nominated, that offers a fairly balanced look at her and much of the opposition to her nomination to SCOTUS is coming directly from those that have worked with her. Her compelling life story aside, she may not be the most qualified person for the job and in the end, isn't that what should matter most? As Thomas Sowell wrote earlier this week, if you were to have some specialized heart surgery done, would you want the absolute best doctor performing it or someone that was adequate but rose above his/her circumstances to become a surgeon?

"extreme moderate" -- now there's an oxymoron, but we could use more of them

"a good lawyer"-- I'm just spewing oxymorons today!

Andrew, you honestly believe that The New Republic is not biased. Those statements from "those who worked with her" were not named. I wonder why? If they were willing to give damaging statements and believed that their words held weight, why not say who they are.

As far as the tenets you hold sacred read the tenet mentioned by another poster that she never left the ghetto. Have you looked at her credentials? Once again, spouting Rush and repeated it as 'gospel' doesn't make it so. The far right is way off on this one.
Trust me, if I felt that she was not qualified, I'd be the FIRST person to speak up - regardless of political affiliation. I can't, and won't spout party talking points.

Sorry to disappoint Bea, I don't listen to Rush.

I listen to WBTA in the AM to hear the latest news.

The only other radio I listen to is KLOVE, FLN, or Beethoven.com

I just re-read the TNR piece. You will note none of those singing her praises are named either. It's written as an overview, and pretty much says so in the opening paragraph.

She believes in writing policy from the bench which is one the things the founding fathers feared. That and a democracy.

Madison and the others who wrote the Federalist Papers

"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary;... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

-Thomas Jefferson

"When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

- Declaration of Independence

Can't we all just get along?
-Rodney King

Too bad Rodney couldn't follow his own advice. He's been arrested twice since for domestic abuse, plus driving an SUV into a house, indecent exposure, and being under the influence of PCP.

Posted by Peter O'Brien on May 29, 2009 - 6:56am
I think that a white man experiencing the full richness of his like will probably make a better decision than a latina woman who has never left the ghetto.

So you consider Princeton; Yale; and working as a DA in New York County, with a law practice in NYC the ghetto. What part of this supports your statement that she NEVER left the ghetto?

Sotomayor did her undergraduate work at Princeton, graduating summa cum laude in 1976, and then went on to law school at Yale Law, where she was awarded her Juris Doctor degree in 1979. She then began her legal career working from 1979-1984 as an assistant District Attorney with the District Attorney's Office of New York County. In 1984, she took up the private practice of law in New York City at the law firm of Pavia & Harcourt.[12] continuing in private practice through 1992 when she joined the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.[1]

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Sonia_Sotomayor

My point is that my comment was just as racist as hers.

Who cares what schools she attended, she is an activist juror and a racist and shouldn't be allowed to sit as a traffic court judge, let alone the Supreme Court.

Posted by Peter O'Brien on May 29, 2009 - 1:07pm
My point is that my comment was just as racist as hers.

I don't consider her a racist, but it is nice to know that you label yourself as one!
Here is the entire acceptance speech she gave. Maybe you should read it ALL rather than depend on the right wing sound bite before you decide that it was a racist remark. Amazing, even the Republicans are toning down the rhetoric. They realize that the 'racist' slant isn't helping them. You, and few more of the far right are the only ones who are trying to keep it alive. They realize that INTELLIGENT people will listen to the entire speech...only those too lazy will accept the bombastic writhing of the far right talk radio. Egads, even some Conservatives are speaking and asking for a step back and the toning down of the racist remarks.

"Sonia Sotomayor's remarks
"Thank you Mr. President for the most humbling honor of my life and I am deeply moved. I cannot in the few minutes I have to thank the friends and family who guided me in my life and help me realized my dreams"[15].

"I chose to be a lawyer and ultimately a judge because I find endless challenge in the complexities of the law. I firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights"[15].

"For as long as I can remember, I have been inspired by the achievement of our founding fathers. They set forth principles that have endured for than more two centuries. Those principles are as meaningful and relevant in each generation as the generation before"[15].

"It would be a profound privilege for me to play a role in applying those principles to the questions and controversies we face today"[15].

"I have had the privilege of serving as a federal district court trial judge, and am now serving as a federal appellate circuit court judge"[15].

"This wealth of experiences, personal and professional, have helped me appreciate the variety of perspectives that present themselves in every case that I hear. It has helped me to understand, respect and respond to the concerns and arguments of all litigants who appear before me, as well as to the views of my colleagues on the bench"[15].

"I strive never to forget the real world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses and government".

"It is a daunting feeling to be here...Never I imagined when I dream to live this moment. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate this honor you have given me." "As the American people know more about me that I am a person that has blessed with extraordinary opportunities. Thank You"[15]. "

Posted by Peter O'Brien on May 29, 2009 - 6:56am
I think that a white man experiencing the full richness of his like will probably make a better decision than a latina woman who has never left the ghetto.

So you consider Princeton; Yale; and working as a DA in New York County, with a law practice in NYC the ghetto. What part of this supports your statement that she NEVER left the ghetto?

Sotomayor did her undergraduate work at Princeton, graduating summa cum laude in 1976, and then went on to law school at Yale Law, where she was awarded her Juris Doctor degree in 1979. She then began her legal career working from 1979-1984 as an assistant District Attorney with the District Attorney's Office of New York County. In 1984, she took up the private practice of law in New York City at the law firm of Pavia & Harcourt.[12] continuing in private practice through 1992 when she joined the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.[1]

Peter answered:
"Who cares what schools she attended, she is an activist juror and a racist and shouldn't be allowed to sit as a traffic court judge, let alone the Supreme Court. "

Not an answer, Peter. Where in her background does it support your statement that she NEVER left the ghetto. You stated that as FACT, now support it.

Until the left stops placing Rush, Hannity, Boortz, and Palin in the gutter by using sound bites, I refuse to read their quotes in context.

You can't win a fight without being willing to be as dirty as your opponent.

She represents everything that is wrong in America, from Race based decision on the appellate courts to condoning policy by judicial rulings to the belief that minorities should be honored for simply being a minority.

Look up the New Haven fire fighter case
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124354041637563491.html

She is for equalizing of outcome not of the playing field just like Obama and other socialists.

I never said that she never left the ghetto I was making a point by using the same logic she did in the same racial tone she did but reversed the objects in the argument to show the obvious, that her remark is that of a racist.

Bea - The comments Justice Sotomayor made that have caused her trouble, and it has otherwise Lanny Davis wouldn't be among those asking her to clarify them, were made at a lecture she gave at the University of California-Berklely in 2001. They weren't off the cuff but from the prepared text she wrote. Her acceptance speech at the Whitehouse earlier this week had nothing to do with them.

Peter, how would you have ruled?

Notable rulings
Main article: Notable opinions of Judge Sonia Sotomayor
U.S. v. Giordano, 442 F.3d 30. At issue was whether the conviction of a former mayor of Waterbury, Connecticut should be overturned. The conviction stemmed from the mayor's repeated sexual abuse of the minor daughter and niece of a prostitute. The defendant’s prosecution on the charges that led to this appeal grew out of an unrelated investigation by the FBI and IRS into political corruption in the city of Waterbury. In the course of this surveillance, the government intercepted 151 calls on the defendant's cell phones to or from a prostitute with whom the defendant had a long-term sex-for-money relationship. These calls showed that the prostitute was bringing a nine-year-old girl for sex upon the request of the Defendant. Sotomayor, writing for the majority of the court, held that the Defendant’s conviction should not be overruled because all of the Defendant's appeals lacked merit. Specifically, the Court ruled: (1) defendant's mere use of a telephone satisfied the jurisdictional element of the statute prohibiting the knowing transmission of minors' names by use of facilities and means of interstate commerce with intent to entice, encourage, and solicit them to engage in sexual activity (2) statute prohibiting the knowing transmission of minors' names by use of facilities and means of interstate commerce with intent to entice, encourage, and solicit them to engage in sexual activity did not exceed Congress' authority under Commerce Clause.
You object to this?

U.S. v. Falcone, 257 F.3d 226. At issue was whether the sale or purchase of a security is a requirement for conviction for securities fraud under the misappropriation theory of insider trading. The defendant, a security broker, was convicted based on his participation in a scheme where a financial news magazine wholesaler faxed pre-release confidential copies of a column entitled "Inside Wall Street" that discussed companies and their stocks. Utilizing this pre-released information to his benefit, defendant traded in the securities discussed in the column. Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous court, ruled that the defendant’s conviction should not be overturned because the lower court did not misapply any rules governing securities fraud. The court held: (1) misappropriation theory of securities fraud does not require the sale or purchase of a security in connection with the breach of duty owed to source of confidential information, and (2) the evidence sustained the conviction because the wholesaler’s employee breached duty, and defendant was aware of the breach.
You object to this?

Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh (547 U.S. 677, 2006): In 2006, the United States Supreme Court affirmed in a 5-4 decision a ruling in which Madam Appeals judge Sotomayor ruled against the New York Division of Blue Cross Blue Shield (Empire HealthChoice) that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury covered under the plan. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit against the same insurance company over her husband's injuries. After the ruling, Empire HealthChoice sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party[41]. The Supreme Court in its ruling that under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (FEHBA), state courts and not federal courts are the proper forum for a lawsuit by a plan administrator seeking reimbursement for medical costs paid by the plan on behalf of a beneficiary when the beneficiary recovers damages in a tort action against a responsible third party[42]. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented
You object to this?

U.S. v. Castellanos[44]
Ricci v. DeStefano. In this 2008 case, Sotomayor participated in a one-page decision that allowed the City of New Haven, Connecticut to scrap the results of a promotion test for the city's firefighters because no African-Americans passed the test. In April 2009, the Supreme Court said that it would review the Second Circuit's decision.[3]
Legal talking heads, on both sides, agree that the ruling followed the law...she wasn't making policy, just following the law in front of her. You object to that?

The problem that I have with this nominee, is very little is actually said about her qualifications. More is unnecessarily said about her race and background. IF she is qualified her race SHOULD NOT be an issue.

I'm sure congress will do its job looking into her background. Yeah, it can be argued that the Democrats control everything, but the Republicans (and Independent(s)) do have a say during the process.

My question is, why aren't more people worried about their local courts than the Supreme Court? Many local judicial positions do not even require a college degree or any type of education. Those decisions will generally affect you more than the Supreme Court's decisions.

Posted by Chelsea Dobson on May 29, 2009 - 1:41pm
The problem that I have with this nominee, is very little is actually said about her qualifications. More is unnecessarily said about her race and background. IF she is qualified her race SHOULD NOT be an issue.

I'm sure congress will do its job looking into her background. Yeah, it can be argued that the Democrats control everything, but the Republicans (and Independent(s)) do have a say during the process.

Chelsea, this is the problem. Many only listen to what they hear on biased radio or tv programs (biased I might add, from both sdes). Check out this site. It gives her qualifications; the oppositions point of view; the support point of view; and even debunks the more outlandish claims. It gives you an opportunity for an informed opinion.
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Sonia_Sotomayor

Yes, but my opinion as a citizen, in this case, does not matter. We vote in our representatives, we (kind of) vote in our president and vice president. They then pick the judiciary branch of government.

The site is good for reference, but it really doesn't matter (and, as a side note, I have a degree in political science and have never heard of that site to do research).

1st case, thrown out, no probable cause to search for child abuse, similar to the new ruling about police search of vehicles for unrelated traffic violations. (Yes the act is horribly wrong)

2nd case, don't know enough about securities law

3rd case, not enough background for me to decided

4th case, I completely object.

Chelsea,

The supreme court determines how the constitution is to be read. That is used in all lower courts to ensure the law of the land is being followed.

Also, news agencies make no money having many local divisions and broadcasting to each market, they make money by broadcasting one encompassing news cast that will appeal to the masses.

Remember specialty stores are more expensive than walmart for a reason.

Peter,

How many rulings are you aware of and have specifically affected your life that were decided upon by the Supreme Court?

Without doing any research, I can think of maybe 3 or 4 that have affected mine.

Posted by Chelsea Dobson on May 29, 2009 - 1:51pm
The site is good for reference, ...
(and, as a side note, I have a degree in political science and have never heard of that site to do research).

ummmm, even golden agers can contribute something once in a while. glad you liked it.

Bea,

I like it, it's a good reference tool (and will be added to my favorites), I have just never heard of it before.

I would have to be accused of a crime for most rulings to affect me.

But I can think of about 15 or so.

Bea, if you want to bring up her cases, why don't you ask what readers here think of Maloney v Cuomo in which she wrote the opinion that States and Cities do have the right to ban gun ownership. That case is currently pending at SCOTUS, where it will likely be overturned based on the recent Washington DC gun ownership ruling.

Posted by Andrew Erbell on May 29, 2009 - 4:32pm
Bea, if you want to bring up her cases, why don't you ask what readers here think of Maloney v Cuomo in which she wrote the opinion that States and Cities do have the right to ban gun ownership. That case is currently pending at SCOTUS, where it will likely be overturned based on the recent Washington DC gun ownership ruling.

I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.
As a side note (actually, the important note, she is apologizing for her statement made that caused this raucus).
Which is more than we'll ever hear from the likes of those who have compared her to a KKK member, or to Rush who said she was worse than David Duke or to our own racist on this board who would like to us to believe that she never left the ghetto. (but then again, the name calling from the far right seems to be okay by most on this board, which I find appalling).
The ironic thing is that most people appointed to SCOTUS end up centrist. As would most of us, I think, if we were in the same position. It isn't a job I'd want.

Justice Sotomayor hasn't apologized or taken back her statement about being a better judge than an old white man. President Obama and Secretary Gibbs have both made those comments for her, which is damage control mode.

As far as this being more important than her stand on the 2nd Amendment - I beg to differ. She can have whatever opinion of herself she wants and I couldn't care less. Isn't building better self-esteem been all that publication has been about the last 20 years? However, the fact that she has issues (as does the President) with private citizens legally owning firearms is another matter entirely.

When did I say I was racist. I made a comment to show how horrible hers was then I said that comment was racist. Does having other apologize for her change her way of thinking? And once again I never said she never left the ghetto, that statement was a generalization. LEARN TO READ!

Funny to see, when the tables are turned{colors of skin} that is, how some of you whine racism. How many years have the black society been made fun of behind their backs. How many years have the whites run the show in the US, and looked down upon the blacks. I think it is halarious to see you upset.
The president, and who he chooses may not be who you wanted, but why?? Because they are black? Give me a break! These people are intelegent, hardworking, streetwise, and just so happens Black. To the stuffy, greedy, dishonest, moneygrubbing, white poloticians, and negetive people, GET OVER IT!