Comments on: The Supreme Court vs. Sotomayor http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/the-supreme-court-vs-sotomayor/ Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:16:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Pond’rings » News of Note http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/the-supreme-court-vs-sotomayor/#comment-39753 Pond’rings » News of Note Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:24:14 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=9667#comment-39753 [...] The Supreme Court of the US recently overturned the decision of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, whom Mr. Obama has nominated as the next justice of the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the reason the Supreme Court overturned her was because of the sloppiness of her handling the overturned case, issuing stays that were turned into decisions without due consideration of all the facts at hand. I’m not certain what you’d expect of someone who states empathy is her main guide. If empathy is your guide, then process and truth must bow to what you feel. The Heritage Foundation has an article explaining the full story. [...] [...] The Supreme Court of the US recently overturned the decision of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, whom Mr. Obama has nominated as the next justice of the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the reason the Supreme Court overturned her was because of the sloppiness of her handling the overturned case, issuing stays that were turned into decisions without due consideration of all the facts at hand. I’m not certain what you’d expect of someone who states empathy is her main guide. If empathy is your guide, then process and truth must bow to what you feel. The Heritage Foundation has an article explaining the full story. [...]

]]> By: Frank, VA http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/the-supreme-court-vs-sotomayor/#comment-39649 Frank, VA Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:47:18 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=9667#comment-39649 The Supreme Court is certainly not the forum for axe grinding... The Supreme Court is certainly not the forum for axe grinding…

]]> By: Barb mn http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/the-supreme-court-vs-sotomayor/#comment-39546 Barb mn Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:50:46 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=9667#comment-39546 This is where the weeds need to be pulled. She is not fit for anything in any government of a free and equal rights society. Why isn't this grounds for removal!?. This is where the weeds need to be pulled. She is not fit for anything in any government of a free and equal rights society. Why isn't this grounds for removal!?.

]]> By: Roger S., MA. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/the-supreme-court-vs-sotomayor/#comment-39511 Roger S., MA. Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:45:08 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=9667#comment-39511 The issue is whether Sotomayor would be qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Apparently not, being either stupid or lazy or ignorant or subjectively feeling-driven in her judgements. A special, "secret", mixture of all of these ? Again, who knows ? Who can tell from this evidence ? What did her "female, Latina, soul" have to tell her in this legal context ? Would she, herself, be aware of her bias, let alone know it in sufficient detail so as to exclude it from her judgements? Your guess is as good as mine, or anybody's, and THAT scares me. As for the anti-discrimination laws, isn't it about time to phase them out ? Based on the premise the cure is as bad as the disease ? Ever try squaring a circle, or make a square peg fit a round hole ? The cause of justice cannot be served by a more equal distribution of injustice. The issue is whether Sotomayor would be qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Apparently not, being either stupid or lazy or ignorant or subjectively feeling-driven in her judgements. A special, "secret", mixture of all of these ? Again, who knows ? Who can tell from this evidence ? What did her "female, Latina, soul" have to tell her in this legal context ? Would she, herself, be aware of her bias, let alone know it in sufficient detail so as to exclude it from her judgements? Your guess is as good as mine, or anybody's, and THAT scares me.

As for the anti-discrimination laws, isn't it about time to phase them out ? Based on the premise the cure is as bad as the disease ? Ever try squaring a circle, or make a square peg fit a round hole ? The cause of justice cannot be served by a more equal distribution of injustice.

]]> By: Sotomayor Overturned « The Climate Heretic http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/the-supreme-court-vs-sotomayor/#comment-39447 Sotomayor Overturned « The Climate Heretic Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:17:12 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=9667#comment-39447 [...] Heritage Foundation [...] [...] Heritage Foundation [...]

]]> By: Ginsburg's arro http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/the-supreme-court-vs-sotomayor/#comment-39456 Ginsburg's arro Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:33:20 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=9667#comment-39456 Ginsburg's dissent is a template for liberal interpretation of "equal opportunity". Her conclusion that the plaintiff's had no "vested right to promotion" is stunning in it's ignorance. The sole purpose of the open test was qualification for promotion and to take the position that an expectation of promotion engendered by virtue of successful completion of the test was an illogical assumption is to declare that the test itself was little more than a form of racial winnowing. Would Ginsburg's opinion on that "vested right" be the same had the demographic of the testees been reversed? She goes even further into the fog of liberalism by saying noone "received promotions in preference" to the plaintiffs. Does she believe that a failure to honor a contract with one group is acceptable as long as noone else benefits from that failure? Justice denied is just? Ginsburg's dissent is a template for liberal interpretation of "equal opportunity". Her conclusion that the plaintiff's had no "vested right to promotion" is stunning in it's ignorance. The sole purpose of the open test was qualification for promotion and to take the position that an expectation of promotion engendered by virtue of successful completion of the test was an illogical assumption is to declare that the test itself was little more than a form of racial winnowing. Would Ginsburg's opinion on that "vested right" be the same had the demographic of the testees been reversed? She goes even further into the fog of liberalism by saying noone "received promotions in preference" to the plaintiffs. Does she believe that a failure to honor a contract with one group is acceptable as long as noone else benefits from that failure? Justice denied is just?

]]>