Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2009 - 06:15pm PT
|
HWDean/LEB, B Rumsen, et al-
It's over. She's gonna be confirmed, and none of your whining, FauxNews influenced perception of reality is going to change that. Go have a beer or go climbing.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 17, 2009 - 06:23pm PT
|
I feel bad for the white males.
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2009 - 06:20pm PT
|
thats what I thought.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 19, 2009 - 06:35pm PT
|
got my popcorn ....
|
|
nick d
Trad climber
nm
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2009 - 07:36pm PT
|
Review evidence? These aren't criminal cases. Actually, appeals courts look at precedence, previously settled cases and how they apply to the case under review.
The cases that were overturned by the Supreme Court are prime examples of judicial activism, in which they ignored previously settled law. The "guilty" parties are all, not so shockingly, right wing appointees. These justices are ignoring hundreds of years of preceding law in order to impose their personal views on our country.
HWD, this misstatement is typical right wing straw-man tactics. You can't make a valid case and so resort to bait and switch.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2009 - 10:47pm PT
|
Wierd Dean- there's a rabbit in your apple orchard...
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2009 - 11:29pm PT
|
Howie wrote: I have had it with this discussion. We are just rehashing the same old sh#t, over and over. We are wasting time.
Please take your own advice and go away.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2009 - 11:39pm PT
|
Howweird- I like how you think you've decided the case "correctly" after not having actually sat down with any of the real evidence while you claim that a judge with decades of experience who actually did see the evidence (and just as importantly researched the PRECEDENT) is exercising her "pet peeves." I suppose the other judge that ruled with her on the case was also just ruling on her personal whimsy?
I've paid attention to the review of the case in the media and listened to some much more well informed people than you and I on the case and I STILL don't know what the "correct" decision was. Why? BECAUSE I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE CASE OR THE PRECEDENT. Nobody here does.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2009 - 02:04am PT
|
This discussion seems to confuse the roles of trial and appellate judges. The appellate judge does not review the evidence to see if justice was done. Rather, the appellate judge reviews the record to see if the trial judge made a mistake. The difference can be rather dramatic.
In particular, under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and those of every state with which I am familiar, the trial court's findings of fact will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. The clearly erroneous standard requires more than the appellate court's feeling that it would reach a different result on the evidence presented. It requires, essentially, that the trial court's factual findings contain some egregious error. For example, if 99 witnesses said the light was red, and one said the light was green, it would not be clearly erroneous for the trial court to believe the one witness over the 99. If, on the other hand, the trial court found that the light was green and also found that there was no light at the intersection, that would be clearly erroneous.
Most often, the only issue on factual findings is whether the court allowed or excluded profferred items of evidence properly. The real issues on appeal are almost always legal ones, not factual ones.
In the New Haven firefighters decision, the court had to decide whether, assuming the facts stated by the highest-scoring firefighters were true, Congress intended for them to have a claim recognized under federal law. The fact that the U.S. Supreme court split 5-4 on that decision tells me that reasonable minds can differ.
I happen to agree with the Supreme Court majority, but I don't think you can use this case to say that Sotomayor is unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice.
John
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2009 - 12:55pm PT
|
Along JE's clear logic:
Indeed it would seem the only Supreme Court finding that could be used to support a claim of incompetence would be 9 to 0. And if ANY decision of that court were not 9 to 0 the Court itself could be judged disqualified.
The argument that Sotomayor is unqualified because of a reversal, immediately invalidates our entire system of jurisprudence.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2009 - 01:51am PT
|
OK, so let me get this straight- after the GOP circus sideshow last week starring Jeff Sessions and Lindsey Graham, all of the Repugs vote against Soto except Graham, who made some of the most inflammatory, anti-Soto comments in the whole feckin' circus?
Man, what kind of idiots do they take us for? Republicans or something? It would take an HWD moron to be fooled by that kind of political chicanery.
What a waste of time and taxpayer $.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2009 - 02:47am PT
|
It may give solace (or perhaps not), to read the ABA evaluation of Sotomayor.
It was their evaluation of Justice Roberts that swayed me to support him. He was obviously very qualified, and I believed, that as long as he was, the President should have the right to appoint who he (she) wants.
When you see the process that they conduct on these candidates, it is amazing. Few people in any walk of life could withstand such scrutiny.
"We initially contacted some 2,600 persons who potentially had knowledge of Judge Sotomayor’s professional qualifications, including EVERY(my emphasis) federal judge in United States, included justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, state judges, lawyers, and community and bar representatives. These judges included all of Judge Sotomayor’s colleagues on the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“Second Circuit”) and her former colleagues on the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. As a result of this outreach, we
received substantive input from federal judges from around the country who had sat both
regularly and by designation on hundreds of panels of the Second Circuit with Judge Sotomayor and on judicial and court administration committees.
As part of this process, the Standing Committee also contacted state court judges, cocounsel,
opposing counsel and lawyers who had appeared before Judge Sotomayor during her near 17-year tenure as a federal judge. These included lawyers from across the country, many
who won their particular cases and many who lost."
"The Committee Members and the reading groups collectively analyzed over 1,000 of Judge Sotomayor’s opinions, speeches and other writings."
"Judge Sotomayor has a reputation for integrity and outstanding character and is universally praised for her diligence and industry. Her professional competence places her at the top of the profession. She has an outstanding intellect, strong analytical abilities, sound judgment, an exceptional work ethic, and is known for her detailed courtroom preparation and thorough decisions. As a judge, she has written on a range of complex issues and has mastered even the most difficult or arcane areas of law. Her judicial temperament meets the high standards for appointment to the Supreme Court."
"Lawyers and judges overwhelmingly
agree that she is an absolutely fair judge. None (including those many lawyers who lost cases
before her) reported to the Standing Committee that they have ever discerned any racial, gender,
cultural or other bias in her opinions or any aspect of her judicial performance. Lawyers and
judges commented that she is open-minded, thoroughly examines a record in far more detail than many circuit judges, and listens to all sides of an argument."
http://www.abanet.org/scfedjud/SCpage/sotomayorstatement.pdf
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!