New SCOTUS Judge?
by CmdrFenix on Jun.10, 2009, under Political Discussion
Well, I can’t say I’m terribly impressed with Sonia Sotomayor as a replacement for Judge Souter. It doesn’t upset the balance of ideology on the court; ideology isn’t something that should matter, but unfortunately it does. I have to ask President Obama, “Is this the best you could find?”. I have been reading up on some of her past rulings as a means of trying to get to know her. Some of her statements to the public directly attack her credibility (IMHO) to be a judge. I know nobody is perfect, but there has to be someone better than this.
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Please enlighten me as to those “rich experiences” in your life that you think will enable you to rule on some of the most important cases in this country. We can’t afford have your judgment clouded or let those personal experiences or your own opinions affect your rulings. You are supposed to interpret the law as impartial as possible and NEVER attempt to circumvent the legislative branch of gov’t and set policies based on your rulings.
In a forum at the Duke University School of Law in 2005, Sonia Sotomayor said, “Court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know – and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. OK, I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it, I’m – you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating – its interpretation, its application.
Well crap… NVM. (Nevermind) I guess you think differently.
OK, so if we can forgive Joe Biden’s recent gaffs with the English language, let go through some of her past rulings to see where she is likely to rule on important issues. When it comes to first amendment rights, here is one of those rulings that I agree with.
Sotomayor dissented from her colleagues’ ruling that the New York Police Department could terminate an employee from his desk job who sent racist materials through the mail. Sotomayor argued that the First Amendment protected speech by the employee “away from the office, on [his] own time,” even if that speech was “offensive, hateful, and insulting,” and that therefore the employee’s First Amendment claim should have gone to trial rather than being dismissed on summary judgment.
I completely agree with this. We ALL have a first amendment right to say or express what we feel and believe, but on your own time. Now if the NYPD had found the officer did all of this after hours and then fired him, I would say they violated his rights, but not in this case. Bottom line, do it on your own time and your employer shouldn’t care about it as long as you don’t drag them into it.
Now onto the some fourth amendment rulings, which are important to me.
Sotomayor dissented from her colleagues’ decision to uphold a series of strip searches of “troubled adolescent girls” in juvenile detention centers. While Sotomayor agreed that some of the strip searches at issue in the case were lawful, she would have held that due to the “the severely intrusive nature of strip searches,”they should not be allowed “in the absence of individualized suspicion, of adolescents who have never been charged with a crime.”
I have read several comments about her on this issue. Justice Ginsburg and herself have said that “as women” they are more sensitive when strip searches involve women rather than men because of their gender. *rings a bell* I hate to break it to you but your gender is irrelevant. The law as written is what matters. Here are some valid questions that should be asked by the judge when something like this is challenged.
- Was the strip search legal?
- Did they have probable cause?
I am not saying all strip searches are warranted or valid, but I am concerned about her letting her personal feelings cloud her judgment.
Now here is a fourth amendment case ruling from her that I agree with.
Sotomayor rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge by a U.S. Department of Transportation employee whose employer searched his office computer. She held that, “Even though [the employee] had some expectation of privacy in the contents of his office computer, the investigatory searches by the DOT did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights” because here “there were reasonable grounds to believe” that the search would reveal evidence of “work-related misconduct.”
Working in IT, I can tell you I have seen this first hand. Unfortunately, and I hate to say it, I am the one doing some of these investigations for employers. I hate to break it to the employee’s, but those computers you use at the office? They aren’t yours. So assume everything you do is monitored. You have no idea the level of monitoring that can go on. Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating it and I always recommend the employer’s talk to their employees and try another way to solve their problems, but in the end it is their infrastructure. If you have personal emails you want to send? Send them at home. If you want to play a game on that office computer? Don’t. This is something that is forgotten too many times.
Now onto her rulings regarding the second amendment. I know, you all thought I skipped over it… 
Sotomayor does not believe that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individuals.
Uh oh. You lost me. She has had several rulings that dealt with gun bans in major cities and in each case, she has stated that the second amendment has no affect on state law or individual rights. Um. Hello? *points at the constitution* Um yea, I respectfully disagree with that. You can’t say the first amendment protects free speech for all people, the fourth amendment protects against unlawful search and seizure for all people, but that second one? Nah forget about that one.
I am not looking for a right leaning judge. I am definitely not looking for a left leaning judge. I’m am looking for a judge that doesn’t lean anywhere. That’ll rule on a case based on the merits of law, the evidence at hand, and not let their personal opinions affect their interpretation of the law. I am looking for someone better than Souter. Where are those judges I must ask myself? I have no idea…
June 10th, 2009 on 11:17 pm
Well stated commentary, particularly on Sotomayor. A Supreme Court Judge is supposed to interpret the law, not lean towards their personal agenda.
June 11th, 2009 on 9:50 am
So where was everyone wanting a judge that would “lean nowhere” when Schrub anointed Scalito ?
Sotomayor is qualified, politics aside. Is it the best Obama could do? Probably not. Is it the best Obama could do within a reasonable time frame? Maybe.
June 11th, 2009 on 12:07 pm
“A Supreme Court Judge is supposed to interpret the law, not lean towards their personal agenda.” – I agree, so I take it you will support my efforts to impeach every federal judge who votes against roe v. wade, since it’s current federal law?
June 11th, 2009 on 12:12 pm
Oh I agree 100%, hence my statement about finding a judge that “doesn’t lean in any direction”.
Personally, I’d like to see term limits on SCOTUS judges, but that is another story too.
June 12th, 2009 on 7:26 am
The following letter has been sent to both NH senators. Yes, I changed the salutation…
June 12th, 2009 on 4:32 pm
Incredible. You got all, 100%, of the hannitized talking-points in one letter.
I’d humbly submit that using the evaluation criteria you seem to be using, that essentially -any- potential nominee is going to be disqualified due to some out-of-context quote, minor inconsistency in their ruling record, or not wanting to issue military hardware to 7 year olds.
Can I trust that your opposition to future nominations will be just as empassioned if they arent 100% in-line with your particular interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and similarly worded letters will be sent?
June 12th, 2009 on 6:15 pm
Funny because I haven’t watched Hannity in ages.
First off, I started off by saying, “If we can forgive Joe Biden’s gaffs, we can overlook hers”. I can let a lot of stuff go, but you can’t forget about the stuff they’ve said in public because it tells a lot about their personality and how their mind works. In all honestly, choosing someone for a position like this, if it was a minor gaff, I would have just let it go, but those two statements stick out as being a little over the top.
Minor? The problem is you and I disagree as to the how the constitution should be interpreted and that is where you and I will not see eye to eye.
I also think that her past ruling record and past ruling inconsistency are extremely important here. I mean come on, there are no term limits for the SCOTUS. There is no easy way to remove them from the bench after they are on so you better be damn well sure of the integrity of the person you put on that bench ahead of time.
Her inconsistency is what I would describe is a cafeteria style “taking from the constitution” what she likes and leaving the rest behind. My point is that it’s all or nothing. You either agree with all the freedoms we as American’s have or you don’t.
Way to take an argument to an extreme and make yourself appear as ludicrous as that statement sounds. Who the hell has advocated that? Where have I ever said that? I do think civilians should have full access to all military hardware if they can afford it.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.
– Benjamin Franklin
Notice how I put that objection at the bottom surrounded by numerous other examples of why this woman shouldn’t be on this bench, but yes they can expect a letter if I do not agree with the nominee…
If that doesn’t work, a phone call…
If that doesn’t work, maybe I’ll try something else…
I will tell you this. I will NEVER sit by when something I feel is wrong can be stopped with a voice. I have this site up and go through all the pain and time to do all of this for the opportunity of discussion. Convince me differently if you think otherwise.
June 13th, 2009 on 9:30 am
I don’t think you want to be convinced. I’m not saying it to make you feel good, bad, or indifferent, but you’re a “single-issue voter”, and your single issue is minutia interpretation of the second amendment.
You and I see eye to eye on about 90% of second amendment issues, even if our reasoning is a little different, the paths lead to mostly the same place.
However, I just can’t see you ever supporting someone for any kind of public office who doesnt agree with your views on firearms. I also can’t see you putting up such spirited opposition to someone who shares your views on firearms, but may be otherwise unsuitable, unqualified, or objectionable.
I use the extreeme examples because they illustrate the point. When I discuss economics with people farther left then I, I often make snide reference to them trying to form aggrocommunes – it isnt intended to be taken literally.
As for the judge, you missed something important – “My point is that it’s all or nothing. You either agree with all the freedoms we as American’s have or you don’t.” The job description of federal judges is to interpret the constitution and figure out what exactly those freedoms are. Terms like “the right to assemble” can be taken a few different ways, does it mean needing maximum occupancy permits for buildings is unconstitutional? Does it mean needing to list a permanent residence to get a drivers license is unconstitutional because it discriminates against those who choose to associate-freely and not live in one place? Is needing to register a church (in terms of tax-exemption) unconstitutional because it sets definitions on what types of religious associations and gatherings qualify as a “church”? Freedom of assembly is one of the more clearly worded sections in the bill of rights, and it can still mean a dozen things. It isnt a matter of “agreeing with all the freedoms or not” it’s a matter of how a federal judge feels those rights impact the day-to-day operations of society. Someone who doesnt believe a free press should exist would never get nominated to a federal bench. Your single issue is no different, and to my information no nominee for a federal bench has ever said that -any- part of the bill of rights shouldnt be there. They may differ with you, me, or Charlton Heston, on how we should implement some parts but nobody thinks any of it doesn’t belong.
*shrugs*
As a closing thought, the idea of Microsoft having a private army equipped with nuclear weapons or a stealth bomber scares the shit out of me. They have enough cash on hand to buy how many space shuttles now? Be careful when you say that wealth should be a/the deciding factor in “who gets the big guns”… most (not all, but a strong majority of) rich folk didn’t get rich by playing well with others.
June 13th, 2009 on 9:53 am
Nah, I hear you on issues with this judge. I will start posting about people I support with backing evidence of why in addition to the people who I object to so you can see the “other side”.
Well, when I was talking about military weapons, I was referring to fully automatic, and some heavy weapons that if they released all of their bans on would be affordable to most Americans. Right now, to get a pre-1968 machine gun, I am looking at $30k. That is 2x as much as I spent on my 2008 Dodge Charger. I wasn’t referring to the stealth bombers or nuclear weapons, but I see your point.
… and yes, I always want to be convinced otherwise. Constructive opinions and thoughts are always welcome here. I do not delete/edit comments unless there is a damn good reason.