Cheat Sheet
The Best In Brief
Sotomayor Practicing for Senate Battle
Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings begin Monday, and the Supreme Court nominee has been rehearsing for over a week with Obama administration lawyers to prepare for senators' hard-hitting questions. Republicans will target her "wise Latina" comment, linking it to President Obama's earlier comment that it's important for a judge to have empathy. "Empathy is great, perhaps, if you're the beneficiary of it," Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a Senate speech last week. Republicans say they will press Sotomayor on her 10 years as a board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, when Sessions said she took "extreme positions," as well as her decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, the firefighter discrimination case. Abortion will most likely not be an issue, since she won't tip the court's balance, though if senators press her on hot-button issues she might have to rule on as a justice, Sotomayor will most likely say she can't comment.
sparky13
She'll probably be confirmed, however: she's a little to far right for me!
squiggy
I was just thinking she will sit the Supremes but she is a bit left for me! LOL Does that make her bi-polar? Certainly not moderate?
sparky13
AC / DC
I'm hoping her music is just as good !
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
baptox
I love Sonia Sotomayor and I think she'll make a great Supreme Court justice. My only complaint about her is that she smiles too much. It's a little difficult to take someone seriously when they have a perpetual grin on their face. Perhaps she's just shining on those republican thugs who are desperately trying to find something to criticise about her.
Now about those disingenuous, pitiful republicans thugs...Is there anyone more stupid, nasty and spiteful than Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions? What a distasteful, ignorant little bully-brute! With an IQ probably half that of Sotomayor's, it's a ludicrous folly to even have him questioning her. But with his head all puffed-up with power, venom, and the fury of self-righteous hypocrisy, he'll be in fine form to remind us why the republican party is dying a fast death. And while it might be interesting to see what preprogrammed propaganda spews from Sessions' perpetually sour, smirking, tight little lips, look for him to channel a 1960's George Wallace. I predict he'll reach new lows of cowardly, bombastic and theatrical race-baiting.
Shine them on, Judge Sotomayor. Smile continuously if you must. Use whatever wise Latina strategies you have to get through this futile exercise in silly democratic showboating. Just remember, you will make a great justice!
sparky13
Latina's & Latino's are accustomed to dealing with sullen, omnipotent, little rich boys with a presumed entitlement. One's who can't handle defeat like Ensign. I'm sure that Sessions and Ensign were mommy and daddy's baby boys. Sotomayor can certainly handle stupid white men !
whipmawhopma
sparky13 & squiggy - I think she'll be an independent.
squiggy
That would be fine.
whipmawhopma
I look forward to Saturday Night Live.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--charles116This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
keepakeeper43
Go Sonia!
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
sparky13
or culata
MaliciousDisorder
Now that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has reveled her understanding and her support for abortion was simply to restrict the population growth of undesirable minorities (blacks and browns) in America, is Ginsburgs application of the abortion law the same as Sonia Sotomayor or will Sotomayor views be our raced by Ginsburg ?
For those of you that haven't heard this revelation, When Planned Parenthood was formed in 1920 it was formed to stop the growth of the undesirable minority populations, yes, that means blacks and browns. Shocking ? Nah,
Of course we'll never know because no one will ask her..
MaliciousDisorder
I guess this is too deep a reality for this crowd
whipmawhopma
MaliciousDisorder - Perhaps that's just Ginsburg.
whipmawhopma
MaliciousDisorder - I had heard about the origins of Planned Parenthood. Perhaps it has the same goals these days, but I doubt it.
MaliciousDisorder
Are you kidding ? Ginsburg said if she were in private practice she'd pick up right where she left off.
RegisteredIndependent
Why is nobody bringing up Jeffrey Deskovic?
http://www.jeffreydeskovicspeaks.org/
The nomination by President Obama of 2nd Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court is more than alarming to an innocent man who was convicted of murder and spent 16 years in prison before being cleared and released.
Jeff Deskovic, whose pursuit of freedom has been chronicled by the New York Times and others, proves that the last six of those years are directly attributable to decisions endorsed by Sotomayor.
"I'm very alarmed," he said. "The rest of my life, as a result of my ordeal, is dedicated to preventing this from happening to other people."
Sotomayor in her 2nd Circuit position repeatedly put "procedure over innocence" and rejected appeals that could have provided Deskovic with his freedom much earlier than it actually happened.
He blames the prosecutors and others in his original case for getting his conviction and sentence, but he blames Sotomayor - and the other judge on the 2nd Circuit panel - for the last six years he remained in prison.
sparky13
I can understand how she could and would do something like that, . . .
She has that hard-headed, omnipotent attitude ! However, the rest of the Supremes, at least 80%, are worse than her !
I know that does not justify the action and behavior.
All the more reason to abolish the death penalty.
RegisteredIndependent
Sotomayor was a brilliant and (almost) bulletproof POLITICAL pick for President Obama. Her record leaves much to be desired.
If your premise is that she would neutralize others like that troll, Scalia; that would do nothing more than to render the SCOTUS even more polarized and ineffective than they have been so far.
I cannot overlook this. Imagine you were that 16 year old who spent as many years in the slammer because Sotomayor refused to admit evidence (the REAL killer was found shortly after, confessed and was incarcerated, but not before committing a few more rapes).
Empathy? I think not. She needs to answer more than just a few polite questions about this case, and Deskovic deserves the right to testify at her confirmation hearings.
sparky13
@RegisteredDependant
You are making a knee-jerk reaction. I made no inference to the 'troll.'
Brevity, RegisteredDependent, brevity
In paragraph three, you say,"Imagine you were that 16 year old. . ."
In paragraph four, your first words are, "Empathy? I think not."
Which way do you want it (brevity) RegDep ?
RegisteredIndependent
@Sparky13,
I didn't say you inferred "troll". I take full responsibility for that remark, and make no apologies.
Regarding par4 (Empathy?I think not), I was referring to Sotomayor. President Obama lauded her "empathy", and I see absolutely none. RegisteredIndependent
@Centrist-
So, is procedure supposed to trump proven innocence?
To make the appellant himself responsible for a minor miscalculation in determining when the petition should be filed is like holding the patient himself liable when a doctor does something like cut off the wrong leg. The truth is that clients and patients depend on the expertise of the lawyers and doctors they hire or who get appointed to represent them. If a mistake is made, sanction the person responsible, but not the client.
This is not like a civil action, in which a client can sue his attorney for money damages if a mistake is made. There is no remedy here, since it is his actual freedom at stake, except for the Court to hear his case; and it appears that if confirmed, Sotomayor will be an addition to Scalia's "you got your due process, we don't care if you're innocent, so get back to your cell" club.
sparky13
@ RegisteredDependent
He IS a troll.
My empathy is the whole motivation behind your comment.
Index Anima Sermo
Centrist
Registered doesn't understand the U.S. Justice system. When a case goes to appeal the facts of the case (ultimately guilt or innocence) are not at issue. The only issue that can be considered on appeal is essentially whether or not the trial was conducted according to law. For any appeals court to treat an appeal in any other manner would be the zenith of "judicial activism".
JeffDeskovic
I am Jeff Deskovic. I seved 16 years in prison in NY for a murder and rape which I was proven innocent of. At 17, I was convicted despite a negative DNA test showing that semen found in the victim didn't match me, based upon a coerced, false confession, the fabrication of other evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and fraud by the medical examiner. Prior to be cleared by further DNA testing which identified the real perpetrator, all of my appeals were denied, including two by Sotomayor. I filed a habeas corpus petition in the court below hers, arguing my innocence based on the DNA, and that the police violated my rights by the way that they questioned me. Due to the court clerk giving my attorney inaccurate information regarding the filing procedure, my petition arrived 4 days too late. Westchester DA Jeanine Pirro's office argued that the court should simply rule that I was too late without looking at my issues, and the court did just that. I appealed that ruling to Judge Sotomayor's court, arguing three reasons why she should overturn the procedural ruling: that to uphold it would be to cause a miscarriage of justice to continue, that reversing the ruling would open the door to more sophisticated DNA testing, and that the delay was caused by the court clerk. She upheld the ruling. When we moved to reargue the case in front of her, this too was denied. Given that the US Supreme Court only agrees to hear a small number of cases, for all intents and purposes, that was my last appeal. Her ruling condemned me to serve a life sentence for a crime that I was innocent and that I was arguing I was innocent of, with very strong evidence to back it up. Luckily for me, I only wound up serving 6 more years before I was cleared. But those 6 years are directly attributable to Sotomayor. Other than the NY Times and a short AP video clip, the national media seems to be blacking this story out, and both the Democrat and Republican Judiciary committee's left me off of the witness list despite my frequent contact with them. If anyone can help me get more media attention about my case and the role that Judge Sotomayor played in it, please do so.
Here is a short youtube video pertaining to the Judge and myself me the court: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2-NgsTLjfAHere is a Facebook group that I made entitled "Judge Sotomayor Put Procedure Over Innocence In Deskovic Wrongful Conviction" http://www.facebook.com/inbox/?ref=mb&__a=1#/group.php?gid=213251725203 . Here is my website url, which people can email me through: www.JeffreyDeskovicSpeaks.org
JonesRE
Sodomayor is typical of the quality we get from 'affirmative action.'
She is an inept, incompetent racist pig who isn't intellectually fit to shine Clarence Thomas' shoes.
Of course she'll be confirmed. The repubs don't have the spine to tell the truth about her. All they'll do is hem & haw and harumph about 'irregularities' and so forth. She'll avoid giving any real answers, they won't call her on it. And it will all be over in a couple of days.
In the end...the people will get FVCKD again.
rabbitb
I wish she would do something about her hair and her clothes
sparky13
Why ?
baptox
Who cares about the clothes she wears? Under her judicial robes it won't matter. There was barely a peep about Scalia's amalgamated priest outfits or John Roberts' rotary club suits when they were being considered. Are there now fashion criteria that female justices have to meet?
And her hair? I hope she'll let it go natural but I really don't care. Stop focusing on the exterior details! This woman is brilliant and, more importantly, her experiences and opinions will be just what this retro court of male jesters needs to stir things up. (Ruth Bader Ginsberg, of course, excluded.)
maliciousdisorder, stop saying stupid, untruthful things about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and abortion. She was most probably referring to teenage pregnancies when she said "populations we don't want too many of." It is only you and other anti-abortion advocates who project your own racially prejudicial meaning onto her statement.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Hawnzz
She seems quite centrist in general. I don't see anything that should keep her from being on the court. Looking at her record, it is very centrist. (She's even been appointed by Republicans in the past.) She can't be that left-wing. The wise-latina comment was said in a tongue and cheek address and needs to be put in context. If we're going to be that picky... we need to look back at the rest of our justices. She seems tame in comparison.
sparky13
I don't care what anyone says, a woman will see things in a different light than a man, and that's not derogatory, actually complimentary !
She is a centrist, slightly right.
A good addition.
Next time, how about a lefty !
MaliciousDisorder
She's not suppose to see anything other than the Constitution ,,, not color,or man or woman.
sparky13
A little overly Waldon !
MaliciousDisorder
Only if you live in a country other than America
baptox
If that were the case, then we should have five female, minority justices, a much more comprehensive way of "seeing" the constitution than what currently exists.
Your comment implies that there is only one way to interpret the Constitution. If that were a given, no difference of opinion would ever occur.
Life experience, gender, race and age, all seemingly unimportant matters, matter a lot when it comes to rendering legal opinions. To pretend that they don't is a denial of reality.
MaliciousDisorder
Two more American soldier families were devastated today in Afghanistan today..
bring them home as promised O
sparky13
Mal, as much as you and I disagree, I'm with you on this one !!!
BRING THEM HOME NOW !!! Piss on Iraq, piss on Afghanistan, let them eat cake !!!
MaliciousDisorder
Right on right NOW
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.