Obama Nominates Sonia Maria Sotomayor to the Supreme Court … Is Justice Blind or just Socialist?

 

EMPATHY VS. THE RULE OF LAW

 The nomination of Sonia Maria Sotomayor is in and let the games begin.

Vanderbilt_sotobabe

Vanderbilt – ‘09

Obowma wants a ‘Progressive’ (Socialist)
type of female and ethnic background to
represent HIS leanings. Sotomayor has
indicated her leanings are in his general
direction. She’s shown past decisions do
not follow the law, and is often challenged
(in writing too) on those lawless rulings.
She does not represent Conservative
thought. Blind Justice here??

Empathy is defined by the subjective nature that one would have empathy for? To have empathy toward one side, means that one would have a bias against the other. That is hardly judicial.

Richard A. Epstein has an issue or two which the choice of Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court Justice. He states that the Obama “empathy” chickens have come home to roost as judicial ability and temperament do not seem to matter.

Evidently, the characteristics that matter most for a potential nominee to the Supreme Court have little to do with judicial ability or temperament, or even so ephemeral a consideration as a knowledge of the law. Instead, the tag line for this appointment says it all. The president wants to choose “a daughter of Puerto Rican parents raised in Bronx public housing projects to become the nation’s first Hispanic justice.”

Flopping Aces has a great review of Sotomayer’s body of work including even a Justice’s yearbook page from college which includes a quote from Norman Thomas, the socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

Once again we see the liberal bias in the media in every action that is done by the Obama Administration. When Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s name was picked there was no reference to her liberal tenancies. Did that occur when GWB chose justices? NEVER! The very first thing that was referenced was how conservative was the justice?

BTW, Does Sotomayor Have Empathy for Frank Ricci?

Between the bailouts, the continued spending, the unending federal deficits and now the choice of a “empathetic” Supreme Court Justice, we will be feeling the backlash of the Obama days well into the future.

To get all sides on the SCOTUS debate visit memorandum.com



If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • Joe Biden, Vice Idiot, Tells Law enforcement “She’ll Have Your Back” … So much for Justice being Blind
  • Barack Obama to Announce Elena Kagan as SCOTUS Nominee … Elections Have Serious Consequnces
  • Samuel Alito Sworn In as Nation’s 110th Supreme Court Justice
  • Barack Obama To Unveil U.S. Supreme Court Selection Today … Either Federal Appeals Court Judges, Sri Srinivasan or Merrick Garland
  • WHAT!!! Upskirt Photos Not Illegal According to Massachusetts High Court




  • Comments

    27 Responses to “Obama Nominates Sonia Maria Sotomayor to the Supreme Court … Is Justice Blind or just Socialist?”

    1. MissUnderestimated on May 27th, 2009 11:39 am

      Makes sense to me, think about this….Sotomayor threw out the test because blacks didn’t pass it. So Obama is doing the favor back. Throwing out the law for Sotomayor to get in and uphold the law that does hold????

      Really as far as the test failed, the very act that Sotomayor threw the test our should have inflamed blacks, in her action she as so much said the black people taking the test were not smart enough.

    2. rightknight on May 27th, 2009 12:28 pm

      Historically, half of all her decisions are
      OVER-RULED! Sonia’s personal survival
      story in life is wonderful. An impartial
      jurist is more important to America than
      a radical lady with a lovely story. She
      may be incapable of putting aside her
      warm feelings for certain groups that
      ‘need her help’. Our Constitution does
      not support favoring a ‘group du jour’.

    3. Pat in Alabama on May 27th, 2009 1:17 pm

      Since the judicial branch of government can “make policy”, why don’t we just fire the (ineffective, wasteful, partisan) legislative branch and save ourselves a lot of money? This could go a long way toward stimulous. The biggest problem would be the rise in unemployment due to all legislators without jobs. I doubt many of them would be employable any place else.

    4. yoyo muffintop on May 27th, 2009 2:40 pm

      #2: “Historically, half of all her decisions are
      OVER-RULED!”

      Noticing the “caps” makes me think you actually believe you can get any useful information from reversal rates. Or, more than likely, you listen to Rush/Hannity/Levin too much.

      It’d be odd to have a reversal rate below 50%, since most of the time if a majority of SCOTUS agrees with the circuit opinion they don’t take the case on cert.

      No offense rightknight (since I believe your repeating rightwing radio talking points) but it’s a nonsense statistic wielded by those grasping at straws.

    5. katablog.com on May 27th, 2009 3:10 pm

      yoyo muffinhead: been waiting for you to tell us just how you feel about GM (Government Motors). I suppose you think this is a good thing.

      But then this starts to make some sense of the entire process, doesn’t it?

    6. rightknight on May 27th, 2009 5:23 pm

      The racially tainted decision re: “firefighters” will
      be hot about the time she would be confirmed
      and on the bench. This would be a major conflict
      requiring her abstinence from the top court action.
      Could be yet another overturn adding to her current
      60% rate of reversed decisions. Racist tendencies,
      coupled with perceived inadequacies of judicial
      abilities may interfere with her confirmation. She
      may not be capable of adhering to the oath.

    7. yoyo muffintop on May 27th, 2009 6:08 pm

      #5 katablog – I cannot open the second link, but being a free market person such as yourself I’m shocked you would think that is a bad thing in your first link.
      The dealership is a franchisee of the auto maker. If the auto maker believes they can do better by discontinuing some of the franchises then they have every right to do so (within whatever limits are spelled out in the franchise contracts). Just as the auto maker can refuse to grant a new franchise near an existing franchise.
      It is a free market. Free for both the dealership and the auto maker. The dealership cannot force the auto maker to make bad business decisions just because it benefits the dealer (as we know though US car makers really don’t need much help in making bad business decisions.)

      Have you now changed your views on free market principles katablog?

      What this has to do with Judge Sotomayor I haven’t a clue.

    8. katablog.com on May 27th, 2009 10:24 pm

      Yoyo Muffinhead: It’s sad to hear that you don’t stay up with the news but pontificate on it anyway. Closing these dealerships is not the “free market”. You see, the free market would have saved the taxpayers $19 billion and counting.

      You apparently missed the part where Chrysler’s own lawyer says that Chrysler did not make the decision on which dealerships to close – the dealerships cost Chrysler NOTHING, not one dime. The owners of the dealerships are independent of any money from Chrysler.

      When the President of the US and his car czar make decisions involving private businesses – it is NOT a free market.

      What does it have to do with Judge Sotomayor? Glad you asked. Sotomayor is just another idiotic decision by the O. She is a racist, just like the man who appointed her. Yet Gibbs, the President’s henchman to the media, warns that we should be careful what we say about her because after all she’s Hispanic! I couldn’t give a wit about her race – it seems only she, Gibbs and O care about that. What I do care about is her decisions and thoughts in how to go about making those decisions. Court decisions aren’t made on emotions, background, race or likes and dislikes. They are suppose to be made based on the law.

      BTW, nothing wrong with the second link. You just didn’t read it because you might have learned something about what’s really going on in Chrysler and the US Government.

    9. Dolf on May 28th, 2009 1:32 am

      didn’t Bush appoint her as judge (federal judge) or was that more a rubber stamp decision?

    10. rightknight on May 28th, 2009 1:55 am

      Oh boy, now we can all feel more safe. Obama
      doesn’t care for the Second Amendment Rights,
      and Sonia is under the impression that guns were
      never really legal at all. Maybe she can help him
      rid our citizens (the honest ones at least) of
      all those nasty firearms and bullets.

      Are you listening all you crooks and robbers
      out there? Oh, and smooth sailing for would-be
      Fascists too. Gosh, wonder if with all the Dem’s fanatical
      over spending we will have enough money left to
      pay the police to write up the crime reports after
      the fact?

    11. SUPER DAVE on May 28th, 2009 7:19 am

      the dealerships being (forced) to close were targeted because they were not democratic supporters.
      welcome to your boy’s dictatorship yoyo. the next thing will be our 2nd amendment rights then the fight will start. while barry takes our guns, his fellow gangstas and thugs will still have firearms and still be allowed to murder at will. c

    12. katablog.com on May 28th, 2009 8:00 am

      yoyo muffinhead: I wrote a blog just for you to explain exactly why the US Government closing Chrysler Dealerships is NOT free market.

      Dolf: Yes, Bush 1 did appoint Sotomayor to the Federal bench. However, two wrongs don’t make a right. And so far 60% of Sotomayor’s federal bench decisions have been overturned by the SC. And, no, that can’t be explained away by yoyo muffinhead’s explanation because a judge should not have their decisions heard by the SC if the judge is making the right decisions to being with. It’s not 60% of her decisions actually heard by the Court, but rather, 60% of her federal decisions not only land in the SC but actually get over turned.

      Why? Because Sotomayor believes that she’s there to “make” law rather than uphold existing law. You can’t trust things people rattle off the top of their heads without any backup because some commentors on this blog tend to be very poorly informed. However, that never stops them from expressing O’s talking points, regardless of truth.

    13. Dolf on May 28th, 2009 9:01 am

      ehh….if they would have let the free market run its course, there would be no more GM and Chrysler

    14. nurturer on May 28th, 2009 9:16 am

      #11 – An armed electorate is the only thing that will keep the United States govenment from becoming a complete dictatorship. Keep your guns. If you don’t have one, get one and JOIN THE NRA.

      And no, I’m not speaking to everybody. Because not everyone is astute enough to realize the danger, based on either history or experience, that we are in for if an armed electorate is forced to disarm.

    15. Scott on May 28th, 2009 11:31 am

      Reverse RACISM in only acceptable in the world of liberals, when it suits them best; like if the roles were reversed and some white judge had made that statement about Latina judges.

      #13 That’s the whole point of a free market. If GM and Chrysler can’t make it, oh well…then somebody will eventually come along and take their place. GM and Chrysler are NOT paramount to the survival of this country.

      The only reason GM is being saved is because the government has to save them in order to save GE which owns GM, NBC, MSNBC, etc…; so that they can ILLEGALLY give “green” contracts to GE. This is payback for the FAR LEFT JUMP that NBC took during the election process; in order to help lift Obama to the White House.

      Mark it down..the paragraph above is going to come true and every American should pay attention because government contracts are supposed to be competed; not just handed over to the company that helped you get in power!

    16. katablog.com on May 28th, 2009 3:01 pm

      ehh….if they would have let the free market run its course, there would be no more GM and Chrysler

      Not necessarily. Companies often declare bankruptcy and then continue operations after bankruptcy.

      But, if the US government had not intervened, the US taxpayers would have $20 billion more. Do you understand just how much $20 billion is and how far it could go in helping those displaced by bankruptcy? And, if these automakers had gone bankrupt – there would be assets available to take care of claims against the company in a lawful method. The UAW and O would not be on top of the pile.

      Dolf, it seems that you and YoYo and Hope all have “answers” for everything, but those “answers” merely detract from the real issue.

      Regardless of what would have happened, O intervened in a private business and his cronies come out on top while everyone else loses.

      Why should the US taxpayers *give* $20 billion to any business for any reason? Why should the UAW, which is what destroyed the automakers, be the ones on top in the end? Why will the US taxpayers give another $50 billion to the “new” Government Motors company? What experience does BO or any of his henchmen have in running an auto company? And, why are the losing auto dealers turning out to be those who supported GOP candidates?

    17. yoyo muffintop on May 28th, 2009 4:43 pm

      katablog – too funny. Lol. Regurgitating Rush/Hannity/Beck/Levin again I see.
      Sotomayor’s record is 3/5 reversed, or 60%. That’s slightly better than average (75%).
      Now, are those reversals about a case of first impression before the circuit, where the judge was interpreting the law from scratch, or is it a case where a judge is applying a past precedent? It’d hardly be reasonable to look down upon a judge who faithfully applied circuit court precedent, only to have SCOTUS rule the other way…isn’t that right Katablog?
      In fact, to ignore their circuit’s precedent would be a serious problem, even if they believed it to be incorrect…isn’t that right Katablog?

      Katablog says: “Court decisions aren’t made on emotions, background, race or likes and dislikes. They are suppose to be made based on the law.”

      Oh, looky here katablog, a conservative justice speaking at his comfirmation hearings in 2006:

      ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. … And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position. [...]
      And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

      Did ya read that last line katablog. Amazingly I haven’t heard you say a peep in the past about Justice Alito. Couldn’t be because he’s a conservative appointed by a republican now could it? Lol.

      - conservative justice who possibly makes court decisions on emotions, background, race or likes and dislikes…good
      - liberal who might (in your view)…bad

      #12 katablog says: “Because Sotomayor believes that she’s there to “make” law rather than uphold existing law.”

      Oh looky here katablog…here’s what conservative Justice Scalia has to say about that:

      “This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of “representative government” might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to “make” common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States’ constitutions as well.”

      Shocking that a conservative justice appointed by a republican would have the exact same view as Sotomayor. Lol.

      It’s sooooo obvious why you don’t care for this pick katablog…she’s being appointed by Obama, she’s a liberal and she’s hispanic.

      btw katablog – not being able to open a link doesn’t equal a link not working now does it. Could it be that anything with “blog” might be blocked on one’s server? Nah. Lol.

    18. yoyo muffintop on May 28th, 2009 8:30 pm

      katablog – too funny. Lol. Regurgitating Rush/Hannity/Beck/Levin again I see.
      Sotomayor’s record is 3/5 reversed, or 60%. That’s slightly better than average (75%).
      Now, are those reversals about a case of first impression before the circuit, where the judge was interpreting the law from scratch, or is it a case where a judge is applying a past precedent? It’d hardly be reasonable to look down upon a judge who faithfully applied circuit court precedent, only to have SCOTUS rule the other way…isn’t that right Katablog?
      In fact, to ignore their circuit’s precedent would be a serious problem, even if they believed it to be incorrect…isn’t that right Katablog?

      Katablog says: “Court decisions aren’t made on emotions, background, race or likes and dislikes. They are suppose to be made based on the law.”

      Oh, looky here katablog, a conservative justice speaking at his comfirmation hearings in 2006:

      ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. … And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position. [...]
      And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

      Did ya read that last line katablog. Amazingly I haven’t heard you say a peep in the past about Justice Alito. Couldn’t be because he’s a conservative appointed by a republican now could it? Lol.

      - conservative justice who possibly makes court decisions on emotions, background, race or likes and dislikes…good
      - liberal who might (in your view)…bad

      #12 katablog says: “Because Sotomayor believes that she’s there to “make” law rather than uphold existing law.”

      Oh looky here katablog…here’s what conservative Justice Scalia has to say about that:

      “This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of “representative government” might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to “make” common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States’ constitutions as well.”

      Shocking that a conservative justice appointed by a republican would have the exact same view as Sotomayor. Lol.

      It’s sooooo obvious why you don’t care for this pick katablog…she’s being appointed by Obama, she’s a liberal and she’s hispanic.

      btw katablog – not being able to open a link doesn’t equal a link not working now does it. Could it be that anything with “blog” might be blocked on one’s server? Nah. Lol.

    19. yoyo muffintop on May 28th, 2009 10:19 pm

      Katablog: “You apparently missed the part where Chrysler’s own lawyer says that Chrysler did not make the decision on which dealerships to close”

      Katablog, it appears you are the one who is uninformed. You say “Chrysler’s own lawyer says that Chrysler did not make the decision on which dealerships to close”.
      Yet in your blog you you say “Bellavia is Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Gentile & Associates, the lawyer representing some of the Chrysler dealers being closed. His statement came after having deposed Chrysler President Jim Press, who Bellavia believes does not support the plan to close 25% of Chrysler’s dealerships.”

      So katablog, you say in #8 it was Chrysler’s lawyer but in your blog we find out it was really the disgruntled dealerships lawyer (who stands to gain quite a bit by saying “the govt did it”).

      So you are either:
      1. Uninformed
      2. Lying
      What’s your choice katablog?

      On your blog you make this statement: “His statement came after having deposed Chrysler President Jim Press, who Bellavia believes does not support the plan to close 25% of Chrysler’s dealerships.”

      Now, let’s hear it from Jim Press rather than the dealer’s lawyer that stands to gain quite a bit by saying “the govt did it”:
      http://www.cnbc.com/id/30771363

      Now, let’s hear it from a Chrysler spokeperson:
      A spokeswoman for Chrysler said the decision to cut a
      quarter of the dealers was “not coming from the task force.” “Our position is that the market can’t support the number of
      dealers that are out there,” said spokeswoman Carrie McElwee.
      “This has been our plan for more than 10 years to combine
      Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep under one roof.”

      Now, you make the statement: “the dealerships cost Chrysler NOTHING, not one dime. The owners of the dealerships are independent of any money from Chrysler.”
      What a silly uninformed statement that is. A 7th grader could figure out how uninformed that statement is:
      - Dealers rarely buy the cars from Chrysler, they float them and after a time make monthly payments
      - Ever here of transportation costs? It costs money to ship cars to a dealership right? Eliminating delivery costs/increasing efficiencies (Volumes to locations will be higher)

      Removing cost from the overall logistics and sales stream is standard cost modeling tied in with performance. Hard to believe a woman of your age would not understand that.

      Here’s an article from 2007 that will help you get “informed”:
      http://tinyurl.com/nhjrwu

      Free market principles closed them down. Why don’t you like free market principles anymore katablog?

      Clearly it is YOU that is “uninformed” katablog.

      Did ya really think you’d get away with flat out lying about “Chrysler’s own lawyer”?

    20. katablog.com on May 28th, 2009 11:11 pm

      yo yo muffinhead: Stay uninformed but don’t call me a liar while you cherry pick links in my blog. Here is the Reuter’s story about Chrysler’s lawyer’s statement

      In addition, what do you think O’s Car Czar does?

      You are not worth reading or entering into a discussion with because you will say anything to cover for your guy. BTW, who is Levin? Last time I heard Rush or Hannity was absolutely weeks ago – I’m usually too busy to listen. Occasionally if I drive to the gym, I hear 10 minutes of Rush on the way home and 10 minutes of Beck on the way. Most of the time (when it’s not raining) I walk the 3 miles and listen to my iPod.

    21. yoyo muffintop on May 29th, 2009 1:04 am

      Katablog – now that we know you will flat out lie in order to further a partisan adgenda (you’ve done this twice recently – above in #8 with your “Chrysler’s own lawyer” and about a week ago when you stated 241 americans were killed in the Beruit barracks bombing during Bill Clinton’s presidency (even though it happened in 1983)) why don’t you answer this question:

      If “the dealerships cost Chrysler NOTHING, not one dime. The owners of the dealerships are independent of any money from Chrysler” as you say in #8, do the dealers use their own cash to buy the cars and pay in full at the time of delivery of the cars?

      A yes or no will suffice.

      If “yes” you’d have a point.

      Heck, I’ll answer it for you – NO, therefore you don’t and are absolutley incorrect.

      Seems you are very poorly informed Katablog.

    22. rightknight on May 29th, 2009 1:49 am

      “Empathy” is the word Obama emphasized and
      empathy is not good in interpreting (upholding)
      the law. Constitutional law should not be twiddled
      to suit someone’s personality, it should be applied
      as it was intended. Obama wants the Law to permit
      redistribution of one man’s earnings and property
      to another man by decree. This is against reasonable
      human logic. Sonia appeals to Obama in that she
      could blur the intent of our Law, thus assisting the
      destruction of the Free Enterprise System which
      rewards ingenuity, creative effort, competition,
      hard work, education, risk taking, and so on.

      Say, are those trillions of our dollars spent by the
      Illustrious Presidente still a Federal Secret? The
      ‘transparency’ and ‘advance notice’ LIES are
      still ringing in my ears! “Where’s the beef?”,
      “Where’s our Bucks?”.

    23. Dolf on May 29th, 2009 2:11 am

      “Mark it down..the paragraph above is going to come true and every American should pay attention because government contracts are supposed to be competed; not just handed over to the company that helped you get in power!”

      Haliburton, KBR
      (and any company that funds the president into power demo or repl., cause they all do it)

    24. Reaganite Republican Resistance on May 29th, 2009 9:14 am

      Sotomayer is a racist, as are all members of the treasonous La Raza -by definition- who advocate a “Re Conquista” of the SW United States and who’s motto is “For our race everything- for others, nothing”.

      Clearly Eric Holder has some racial hangups and agenda too… as does Obama, since his behavior betrays a wierd pro-Kenyan grudge against the British… and he’s the one who nominated all these kooks.

      What happened to the idea of a colorblind society? These three define their world in racial terms all the time- and unlike any white people I know.
      I wouldn’t want to be judged by any of them after what I’ve heard come out of their own mouths- they sound like Jesse Jackson.

      If Obama is going to go on with his “justice” agenda largely based upon race- the double standards need to stop, and NOW.

    25. katablog.com on May 29th, 2009 9:20 am

      yoyo idiot: of course you would like a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ because that would leave people with an incomplete answer now wouldn’t it. Car dealers have what is called a “floor plan” which is financed by the financing of the dealer’s choice but that doesn’t mean the floor plan costs Chrysler anything. Many dealers finance their floor plan through local banks. The cars they take from Chrysler are the collateral for the loans. Again, no cost to Chrysler.

      It is you that lie frequently but I’ve always been kind and assumed it was you being mis-informed. Now we know differently.

      I need not worry. You’ve set your track record with readers a long time ago.

    26. yoyo muffintop on May 29th, 2009 11:35 am

      Haha katablog – good lord you are uninformed.

      The “floor plan” does cost Chrysler money. Does Chrysler pay the dealer a “holdback” of 3% of the MSRP when a car is delivered? Yep.

      Katablog – let me give you examples of lies vs being uninformed

      katablog says: “You apparently missed the part where Chrysler’s own lawyer says that Chrysler did not make the decision on which dealerships to close”.
      That is what’s called a lie.

      katablog says: “the dealerships cost Chrysler NOTHING, not one dime.”
      That is what called being uninformed.

      btw – like your layout of your blog. I see why you excel at what you do.

    27. Louis on July 29th, 2009 1:44 pm

      Twenty plus years after being intentionally injured by employer (paralysis) why can’t I get into court?
      I’ve been denied access by judges, who threatened me with sanctions “if I continue” (to seek justice). Attorneys who swindled me out of my life savings. Lost my job at their request. Union refused the grievance procedure. Company’s doctors claim I’m unemployable and the Court of appeals wrote a deceitful and fraudulent order to dismiss.
      Who’s more a fraud? The Gov., who tried to sell a seat or one that denied the constitution )state and federal).

    Leave a Reply




    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

     
     
    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Close
    E-mail It