With California Video Game Law Before the Supreme Court, Nominee Sonia Sotomayor Has Mixed Record on Free Speech
With California Video Game Law Before the Supreme Court, Nominee Sonia Sotomayor Has Mixed Record on Free Speech
May 28, 2009
Now that California has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether its 2005 violent video game law is constitutional, President Obama's recent nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Court takes on added significance for the video game industry.
That being the case, where does Sotomayor stand on free speech issues? Her record appears to be mixed, according to a source with knowledge of the legal issues involved in the California appeal.
On the plus side for the video game industry, Sotomayor dissented from a majority of her colleagues on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court in Pappas v. Giuliani. In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote that an NYPD officer should not have been fired for responding, off-duty, to an e-mail request for a charitable donation with a racist and bigoted language. As SCOTUSblog reports:
She acknowledged that the speech was 'patently offensive, hateful, and insulting,' but cautioned the majority against 'gloss[ing] over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives just because it is confronted with speech is does not like.'
On the other hand, Fordham Prof. Paul Levinson - who has argued free speech issues with Jack Thompson - writes that Sotomayor should be disqualified from the High Court over a what he calls a "bad 1st Amendment Decision."
In the case, Doninger v. Niehoff, Sotomayor and her 2nd Circuit colleagues supported high school officials who barred a student from holding class office after the young lady referred to school officials as "douchebags" in an off-campus blog. While the courts have traditionally given school officials some degree of leeway in maintaining order, Levinson remains concerned about Sotomayor:
[Retiring Justice] David Souter was a surprise to the Republicans who appointed him... His vote made a difference on the side of progressive and humane issues in many a Supreme Court decision.
We cannot afford or risk a Souter in reverse with this new appointment - a Justice who seems to have a progressive record, but who turns out to have an insufficient passion for protecting and strengthening the freedoms that make our country great.
Meanwhile, the California appeal has been docketed by the Supreme Court. The video game industry has until June 22nd to submit its response to California's petition.
UPDATE: Paul Smith of Jenner Block, who has been the video game industry's lead attorney in challenging video game legislation over the years, discusses the cases mentioned here on Talk Radio News and describes Sotomayor as:
She's a careful person who could go either way, but is focused on not just broad doctrine but how the doctrine applies to particular factual situations. Certainly that's true in the First Amendment free speech area.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN / REGISTER
Crispy Gamer
GamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:32pm
Aliasalpha: Ding dong the witch is dead eh? Maybe we'll finally be treated as adults here and women can have small tits again!
Aliasalpha: Ding dong the witch is dead eh? Maybe we'll finally be treated as adults here and women can have small tits again!
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:28pm
JDKJ: Survey says no opinion either way. But approval is high among wombats.
JDKJ: Survey says no opinion either way. But approval is high among wombats.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:25pm
BearDogg-X: JDKJ: What does the wallabies and crocodiles think of Skippy?
BearDogg-X: JDKJ: What does the wallabies and crocodiles think of Skippy?
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:24pm
Andrew Eisen: Beardogg-X - Not staunchly, no. However, only one AG has gone on record as supporting an R18+ rating. The rest either stated no position or declined to comment.
Andrew Eisen: Beardogg-X - Not staunchly, no. However, only one AG has gone on record as supporting an R18+ rating. The rest either stated no position or declined to comment.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:23pm
JDKJ: Of 437 koala bears surveyed, 420 disagree with choice of Skippy for interim AG.
JDKJ: Of 437 koala bears surveyed, 420 disagree with choice of Skippy for interim AG.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:21pm
BearDogg-X: With Atkinson stepping down, the question now becomes was there any other AG besides him that was against R18+? His stepping down does make R18+ more likely to be approved.
BearDogg-X: With Atkinson stepping down, the question now becomes was there any other AG besides him that was against R18+? His stepping down does make R18+ more likely to be approved.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:18pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, Adelaide readers seem pleased with Atkinson's decision. 420 out of 437.
Andrew Eisen: Well, Adelaide readers seem pleased with Atkinson's decision. 420 out of 437.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:15pm
JDKJ: BREAKING: Vacant Aussie AG post to be filled by Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo.
JDKJ: BREAKING: Vacant Aussie AG post to be filled by Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:12pm
Andrew Eisen: Flamespeak - Gamecube and Xbox came out in late 2001 with contollers pretty similar to the Dual Shock. You never know thoug. This Fall may be when the standard controller changes from the Dual Shock to a motion wand. *shudder*
Andrew Eisen: Flamespeak - Gamecube and Xbox came out in late 2001 with contollers pretty similar to the Dual Shock. You never know thoug. This Fall may be when the standard controller changes from the Dual Shock to a motion wand. *shudder*
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:09pm
Flamespeak: at a quicker rate these days.
Flamespeak: at a quicker rate these days.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:09pm
Flamespeak: I believe that was launched in the first part of 1998. 2 years seems kind of fast too, but then again the world seems to move
Flamespeak: I believe that was launched in the first part of 1998. 2 years seems kind of fast too, but then again the world seems to move
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:05pm
Andrew Eisen: Flamespeak - Not when you consider Sony's been using the same controller since the PS1.
Andrew Eisen: Flamespeak - Not when you consider Sony's been using the same controller since the PS1.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:03pm
BearDogg-X: Andrew Eisen: I meant that it won't take as many people to change their votes next election. Besides that, it's become a moot point now that he's stepping down as AG as soon as the election's over.
BearDogg-X: Andrew Eisen: I meant that it won't take as many people to change their votes next election. Besides that, it's become a moot point now that he's stepping down as AG as soon as the election's over.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:02pm
Flamespeak: Seems kind of early considering the PS2 didn't launch until well into 2000.
Flamespeak: Seems kind of early considering the PS2 didn't launch until well into 2000.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:01pm
Andrew Eisen: Fleamespeak - I'd say since around the turn of the century.
Andrew Eisen: Fleamespeak - I'd say since around the turn of the century.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:01pm
BearDogg-X: BREAKING NEWS: Atkinson will step down as South Australia Attorney-General; will remain in Parliament
BearDogg-X: BREAKING NEWS: Atkinson will step down as South Australia Attorney-General; will remain in Parliament
Posted 03/20/10 at 09:59pm
Andrew Eisen: BearDogg-X - Not sure what your point about Atkinson having only 8500 votes is, seeing as that's around 65% (of the total votes counted at the time).
Andrew Eisen: BearDogg-X - Not sure what your point about Atkinson having only 8500 votes is, seeing as that's around 65% (of the total votes counted at the time).
Posted 03/20/10 at 09:57pm
Flamespeak: I remember when the NES controller held that honor and the stand alone one button joystick before that.
Flamespeak: I remember when the NES controller held that honor and the stand alone one button joystick before that.
Posted 03/20/10 at 09:56pm
Flamespeak: artistic rendering of things associated with gaming? Even GP has a rough version of one in their logo.
Flamespeak: artistic rendering of things associated with gaming? Even GP has a rough version of one in their logo.
Posted 03/20/10 at 09:56pm
Flamespeak: Just out of curiosity, when did the PS2 controller become the 'standard' for video game controller representation in most
Flamespeak: Just out of curiosity, when did the PS2 controller become the 'standard' for video game controller representation in most
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
She's also in La Raza.
Let's face it, there are many reasons she's unfit for SCOTUS.
And Ruth Bader Gingsburg supports the Anti-Defamation League. Maybe you should agitate for her impeachment. Following your logic, she's clearly unfit, too.
La Raza is probably the largest group organized for support of Latin American lawers in the united states. To imply that this makes her unfit for the SCOTUS is to imply that no non-white judge would be fit due to their membership in a race focused support and networking group. APALSA, BALSA, La Raza, etc. etc.
Don't just parrot what you hear on conservative blogs or anti ACLU websites.
As I already pointed out to Mr. Lewis, former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall rose to prominence as a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's Legal Defense Fund, Inc. In fact, prior to becoming a Justice, Marshall argued some of the most important cases to come before the Court, including Brown v. B. of Ed. (striking down the racist doctrine of "separate but equal"). If we follow Mr. Lewis' logic, Justice Marshall was a racist and unfit to serve on the Court.
Ask any conservative and they'll tell you Marshall was a dangerous liberal activist judge who ruined america with his decisions, especially on Brown v. Board of Education.
Which is why when I want an opinion, I make sure not to solict any conservatives. They're likely to tell me complete and utter rot and rubbish just like you are in attributing the Brown decision to Thurgood Marshall's judgement -- a factual impossibility since Brown was decided long before Marshall took the bench.
La Raza has an anti-American philosophy. That's not a parrot of anything, it's an objective fact.
Can you first define exactly what an "anti-American philosphy" is and, having done so, point me to some objective and factual support - other than your naked say-so - for your contention that La Raza has this claimed "anti-America philiosphy?"
That school case rather scares me. 'Respect for Authority' should not trump free speech... and only allowing respectful people to have access to services that can not be obtained otherwise, esp when the people in question are children, seems pretty despicable.
I'm not certain that she made the wrong decision about the school thing, and I'm not certain that her dissent in the case of the foul-mouthed, racist cop was the correct decision either.
AFAIK, in neither case was the government abridging speech.
To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee that you can say anything that you want and not get fired, nor does it guarantee that you can say anything that you want and still run for scholastic office. It says that, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...", which it wasn't doing in these cases. Admittedly I'm no lawyer, and I don't know the specifics of these two cases, but in the context that they're being discussed here, I don't think that the notion of free speech as guaranteed in the Constitution is being represented accurately.
Hey, lawyers, am I off base here?
***Homicide-free video gaming since 1972!***
Firstly, the Ricci case has nothing to do with free speech or the First Amendment. It's an affirmative action case.
Secondly, there's a long line of Supreme Court cases, beginning with the Tinker case, which hold that the free speech rights of students in school are far from absolute and if the speech in question bears the imprimatur (i.e., seal of approval) of the school, then it may be subject to the school's regulation. I won't argue as to whether or not the Doninger case was decided correctly but I will point out that Sotomayor was not alone in her opinion, the Court having divided itself as to opinion, and the Second Circuit's Court of Appeals contains some of the sharpest legal minds you'll find on the federal bench today.
Not sure which case the Ricci case was. Was that the New Haven Firefighter case (referenced in a post below)? I agree with you if that's the case. It has nothing to do with free speech.
Regarding Doninger, I agree that there may well have been aspects to the case that I'm not aware of. I'm sure that it was a good battle!
***Homicide-free video gaming since 1972!***
Yep. Ricci was the firefighter case. That case, too, involved a sharply divided full-panel Court. I say this to point out to those who would seemingly attempt to make it appear that Judge Sotomayor is some sort of misguided lone wolf that the smallest panel of a federal Circuit Court of Appeals is a three-judge panel and, hence, for every "bad" decision she's made, at least one other judge was going right along with that bad-decision making process. In the interest of fairness, she can't take all the blame.
As far as Doninger is concerned, the summary says it was an off-campus blog, so the school's "seal of approval" doesn't apply there. Instead, it seems to me the case is more about whether her behavior outside of school should be taken into account before allowing her to assume a privileged post in her school.
If she had been suspended instead, I'd be crying foul.
That the school's imprimatur doesn't apply isn't exactly clear. Certainly, holding an office in school government does bear the school's imprimatur. If a student assumes such office having publicly made out-of-school statement "X," certainly the imprimatur attaches to the student by virtue of them holding the office. Why doesn't the imprimatur also attach to the student's out-of-school statement "X," too? Simply because it was made out of school? Does the fact that it was made out of school completely divorce the statement from the school's interest and ability in ensuring that the student body respect the school's administrators? Not an entirely clear case, in my opinion.
I meant the imprimatur doesn't attach to the independent publication. A school has no right to restrict what is published outside of school, nor should it be allowed to simply suspend a student for what they say in such a context.
Having said that, the question of particular students being bound to a higher standard than students who don't hold an office in school is indeed not clear. I suppose a case could be made for students who hold an office in school being able to get along with the school's administration, such that it might be okay to hold the student accountable for clearly disrespectful statements. This line of reasoning, however, I only agree with to the extent that holding an office in school is a privilege and not a right.
Agreed. But for the fact that the student sough office within school government, the application of imprimatur would be a non-issue as it relates to the student's wholly non-school related blog. But given that the circumastances do involve an office-seeking student, the issue raised may go far beyond the student's ability to get along with the administration and, rather, raises an issue of whether the statement that "the administrators are douchebags" would bear the official approval stamp of the school if the office-seeker took office. I'd imagine there'd be little debate that such a statement if made while holding office, even if only made on the student's non-school related blog, would tend to undermine the adminstration's ability to foster respect among the student body and would therefore be a fit subject for regulation. What's less certain is whether the statement receives post-facto approval when its maker assumes office.
I'm more pissed about the firefighter case in New Haven. She is the reason that that case is being argued in the Supreme Court, because she sided with the town/city.
She supports "quotas" and other racially-biased hinderances.
The case was as follows: A test was issued for several promotions. 19 people passed the test out of hundreds of applicants, but the only people that passed were white (with several latinos). The town said that the test MUST have been racist or otherwise unfairly balanced against blacks, and so they threw out the test. The 19 firemen that should've been promoted sued, saying that it was racist and unfair. This lady agreed with the city. The firemen appealed again to the Supreme Court, who will hear this case.
Anyone that has a shred of decency and isn't a reversely-racist idiot can see that the New Haven case easily belongs to the firemen. Sotomayor hasn't a shred of decency, and should not be the next Supreme Court justice.
Hearing about this case dealing with the schools pisses me off even more. This b$&^h has clearly never read the Constitution or knows the meaning of the word "equality." She simply promotes racism and seperatism and promotes giving in to all authority, no matter or abusive that authority is.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
I really should look into that case in more detail.
The bit that keeps me wondering is, was the test actually racist? Were the results statistically significant? Where there elements in the test that were culturally bias? Etc
I can recall a flap at my HS over SAT questions when they went through some redesigns due to some inadvertently culturally bias questions... i.e. questions that relied on common knowledge among one group but things less likely encountered by another group. I think one of the examples was the use of brand names in questions that were only sold in more affluent areas.
According to the source I found (I'm going on memory, since I can't find that article, bleh.), everyone got the same study materials and time to study, it just happened that the white firefighters did better. Neither group (whites or blacks) have the majority in the area, both are in the high 30's or 40's for percentage. There was a multiple-choice section with 300 (or 400?) questions, and then an oral section. Yes, it is possible that the test was somehow racist, but with the facts that I saw it didn't seem so. There could be 399 black testers and 1 white tester, and if the white tester does the best it doesn't necessarily mean that it was somehow biased. Otherwise we'd have to make sure that blondes do just as well as brunettes, and that tall people are "balanced" with short people, etc etc. Culture =/= race, and so we should be careful when dealing with these things. Talent should precede race, especially when it is lives that are on the line.
I'll try and find more facts on this case when I get the chance.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
From what I saw on the news, the test was all situational questions involving firefighting (What would you do if...). The city threw them out because no black people passed the test.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
"Anyone that has a shred of decency and isn't a racist idiot..."
Fixed it for you, no such thing as reverse racism. Racism is not majority race being predjudiced against minority race, it's simply predjudice and bigotry against a race. The size of the races are insignificant.
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
I agree, but I used reversely because there are groups that seriously believe that blacks/minorites cannot be racist. It's hard sometimes, finding the best words for a given situation.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
Defining "racism" as simply "prejudice" and "bigotry" is, perhaps, a gross oversimplification and, certainly, denies the operative way race and racism have been historically used in America, i.e., as an exclusionary means of determining the proper allocation of resources and opportunities. If you adopt the more operative definition of "racism," then it does presuppose that in order to in fact be "racist," you must first control the allocation of resources and opportunities. If you don't so control, then it follows that you can't be "racist."
Might using race as a method of gaining control of allocation of resources and opportunities be termed as being "racist"?
***Homicide-free video gaming since 1972!***
It doesn't squarely fit the operative definition I've posited, but if race did play an operative part in ultimately gaining control of the allocative process, then I'd have to say, "Yes" (the practice would be "racism" and the practitioners would be "racist").
She said that white men are not capable of making good decisions from the bench like Latinas. What about that is not racist? Racism is putting individuals or a group down for their race. Pure and simple. It has nothing to do with "allocation of resources and oportunities." Even if it did, a Judge has that power, so her comments and actions would be racism, according to your definition.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
"She said that white men are not capable of making good decisions from the bench like Latinas."
Can you source this claim? I'd be interested in knowing more if she indeed said that.
***Homicide-free video gaming since 1972!***
"Second, 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."
The exact quote. Taken from a biased website that I found that tries to support her, lol.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/28/736397/-Why-Sotomayors-Wise-Lati....
And even the example on that site near the end about atheists and religious expression is wrong...I'm an atheist and I still believe that EXPRESSION of any type, religious or not, should be encouraged and tolerated. I would expect religious people to be tolerant of my atheistic expression as well. But that's a rant for another time. Point is, this bitch is racist and definitely not a good candidate for Supreme Court Justice.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
If you read the rest of the piece you would see she is refering to power of experience in affirmative action cases. She is not saying latinas make better judges than white men.
Did you even read the example near the end? It's about people who share your viewpoint in the supreme court. Nobody is saying 9 atheist judges would curb religious expression, no, they're saying a conservative christian would believe that 9 atheist judges would curb religious expression.
"Context?! I don't need no stinking context!" -- chadachada321
Why don't you try a pair of quotation marks and then some analysis instead of misquoting her to suit the conclusion at which you'd have your analysis arrive? 'Cause that there what you wrote ain't what she said.
And if you think that "racism" as practiced in America wasn't (I'll pass on the distinct possiblity that the more correct word is "isn't") entirely about the allocation of resources and opportunities, then you're re-writing an awful lot of American History. What do you think the Jim Crow Laws and Post-Reconstruction segregation were intended to do if not allocate resoures and opportunities in an exclusionary manner?
And, given my definition, a judge's actions would only be "racist" if they used race as a determinative factor in dispensing justice. Mere comments wouldn't be "racist" unless their intended and actual effect was to grant or deny resources and/or opportunities.
Thus, by even your definition, everything she said about the Ricci case is in fact racist.
Just saying.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
I may be able to agree or disagree with you if I had a better idea of what statements of Judge Sotomayer you include in "everything she said" (I assume you don't literally mean everything she said), but, given that affirmative action (which the Ricci case involved) fits perfectly the operative definition of racism as an exclusionary means of allocating resources and opportunities, I wouldn't be surprised to find myself agreeing with you.
If we accept that definition that only those in power can be racist (and I don't) then fine it's not racist.
However it is stupid, bigoted, hateful, insane and shows embarrassingly bad judgement.
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
How so? Is it any more stupid, bigoted, hateful, insane and of embarrassingly bad judgement than for a woman to state that she can better decide an issue of abortion than a man because as a woman and unlike a man she can better understand an issue which relates to a woman's reproduction? Which is closely analogous to Judge Sotomayor's statement. Personally, I've never really understood why there're all those men on the Supreme Court steps at those pro-life and pro-abortion rallies, waving placards and marching up and down. What are they doing there? Safeguarding their rights to either give birth or have an abortion?
For a more clear-cut example of a statement which is stupid, bigoted, hateful, insane and of embarrassingly bad judgement, I would point you to: "[Judge Sotomayor is] also in La Raza [and therefore is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.]"
" I've never really understood why there're all those men on the Supreme Court steps at those pro-life and pro-abortion rallies, waving placards and marching up and down. What are they doing there? Safeguarding their rights to either give birth or have an abortion? "
Maybe it's just me not having enough caffeine in my system yet, but I really can't tell if you're being serious here. On the off chance that you are...
They're attempting to safeguard the freedoms they believe in for those they believe should have them. This is just silly; why wouldn't a man want to support a woman's right to choose if he believes they should have that right? Similarly, why wouldn't a man support the pro-life agenda if he truly believes in the unborn baby's right to live above and beyond the mother-to-be's right to abort?
All that is required...evil to triumph...good men...do nothing...etc.
"The case was as follows: A test was issued for several promotions. 19 people passed the test out of hundreds of applicants, but the only people that passed were white (with several latinos). The town said that the test MUST have been racist or otherwise unfairly balanced against blacks, and so they threw out the test. The 19 firemen that should've been promoted sued, saying that it was racist and unfair. This lady agreed with the city. The firemen appealed again to the Supreme Court, who will hear this case.
Anyone that has a shred of decency and isn't a reversely-racist idiot can see that the New Haven case easily belongs to the firemen. Sotomayor hasn't a shred of decency, and should not be the next Supreme Court justice.
Hearing about this case dealing with the schools pisses me off even more. This b$&^h has clearly never read the Constitution or knows the meaning of the word "equality." She simply promotes racism and seperatism and promotes giving in to all authority, no matter or abusive that authority is."
Who hasn't read the Constitution?
The thing is, it's not up to her to decide if the town was right or not. It's up to her (and the other panel judges) to determine whether or not the law, as written, says the town was right or not.
The laws applicable to this situation might be antiquated and, well, wrong, but if they say the town is right, then the panel's obligation is to say that, in accordance with the law, we find in favor of the town. They are also quite free to add "we believe it may be in the best interest of all to re-examine [the law in question] such that it may, if deemed appropriate, be amended to be brought more in line with modern necessities of application."
In other words, "the law says you're right, so you're right according to the law, but this law is maybe a little dumb. Hey, LEGISLATORS, you might want to take a look at this". It is NOT their job to say "Hey, LEGISLATORS, you f'ed this up, so we're disregarding it. FIFY."
Not neccessarily true. Putting aside the actual facts and legal claims of Ricci and speaking generally, the Court's responsibility isn't limited to merely holding up laws against the Constitution and determing if said laws are constitutional or not. For example, many plaintiffs come before the Court claiming denial of procedural due process (i.e., a particular process as employed by the government in their particular case has functioned so as to deny them their rights). In these cases, a particular law isn't at issue, rather, a particular process is at issue. It is well within the power of the Court to find that the process did or didn't work as the plaintiff claims and if the finding is that it did, then it is also well within the power of the Court to void any particular outcome which may have resulted from that denial of procedural due process. As it is also within the Court's power to uphold the government's use of the process and validate any resulting outcome if it finds that the process didn't work as the plaintiff claims.
I will never understand the logic that says schools should be allowed to punish people for what goes on outside of school. It seems like such an immoral power grab.
Oh and I've heard some bad things about her views on the second amendment.
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
Her one second amendment case was actually an intersting argument about when federal and state rights collide and if the second amendment dictates what states can do for local restrictions. Here we run into the thorny issue of abstract usage of rights vs historical interpretation. Always messy when it comes up since the US is a precedent based legal system.
Come on Obama you can do better then this gal.
http://www.magicinkgaming.com/
A shame another poli shill....
I am a criminal because I purchase media,I am a criminal because I use media, I am a criminal because I chose to own media..We shall remain criminals until Corporate stay's outside our bedrooms..
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com
Of course, the irony with the above statement is that this has been said of just about every Supreme Court Justice nominee in the last few decades... yet when push comes to shove, they tend to make their own judicial path, and they generally do NOT end up as a parrot for the party that nominated them.
Ture, sutor was not such a shill after he bacame one...but the whole thign smacks of politcal shilling....
I am a criminal because I purchase media,I am a criminal because I use media, I am a criminal because I chose to own media..We shall remain criminals until Corporate stay's outside our bedrooms..
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com
If, as Prof. Levinson contends, one arguably "bad decision" forms a sufficient basis for disqualification, then it would follow that 99.9% of the federal bench should also be disqualified. Good luck finding someone -- anyone -- on the bench longer than a year with a perfect batting average (putting aside the fact that a "bad decision" isn't really a bad decision until a higher court reviews it and says that it is and until then, it's only "bad" in someone's subjective opinion).
Moreover, how can there ever be any way of ensuring that a Justice doesn't switch ideological allegiance? The instances of this happening are numerous -- most notably Eisenhower's appointment of Earl Warren who went on to be one of the most liberal Justices in the Court's history. That's what you get for giving them lifetime tenure. They're supposed to be above ideological and political allegiances.
It's not that she made "one bad decision," it's that the subject matter of this particular decision. I really don't understand the decision either way, or what this guy was saying to begin with, but I think that's the point he was trying to make.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
I am not really sure were she stands and I don't really care if she is left or right. However, after looking at her past work and her philosphy that the court should help create policy I'm not really sure she is the right person for the Supreme Court. I think there are many better choices Obama can choose from which are better politically and philisophically.
You Obama fans who don't really like her don't get it, do you? She and Obama share a great deal of ideological similarities. On top of that, as a pure political maneuver against Republicans, it is brilliant. However, he's going to use her as a means to make his policies stick for as long as he can get them to, no matter how they hurt this country.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
What makes you think that the above poster is an obama fan? Just saying.
The only way that Obama could want such a racist person is if he himself was racist. Thank you America for electing a racist president. I'm still voting for Ron Paul...
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
I wonder if your theory accounts for the fact that she's the wrong goddamned race to be racist in his favor.
I'm not an obama fan. I'm just looking at it from a constitutional standpoint. I was actually for Mitt Romney until he lost the primary.
I've been noticing the way that her nomination puts the Republicans between a rock and a hard place.
Many want to accuse her of racism, but the problem is that the more they go along with that point of view, the more they will alienate Hispanics. And they could use Hispanics because they are a huge social conservative voting bloc.
She appears to be a life-leaning moderate on abortion, which is a welcome relief from years of fighting over stubbornly pro-life nominees and militantly pro-abortion nominees.
Not to mention the fact that she ascended to the federal bench on the appointment of George Bush the First. To argue that Obama's not getting it right this time is to also argue by implication that Bush -- still a towering pillar of the Republican Party -- didn't get it right the first time.
A lot of the arguement isn't over whether she is a suitable judge, but rather if she is the right type of judge for the supreme court.
If a Hispanic person sides with her simply because she is Hispanic (while ignoring the fact that she is racist), then that person is just as racist. Hispanic or not, it's no excuse to be racist, and Republicans and Democrats alike should be joining forces to take down racism.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
If I, as a person of color or a minority, consciously decide to spend my hard-earned dollars not in stores which are owned or on products which are manufactured by Whites or non-minorities but, rather, only in stores which are owned and on products which are manufactured by other persons of color or minorities because I want to uplift the economic power of the group of which I am a member, and that makes me guilty of "racism" and thus a "racist," then that's perfectly fine with me. I'd rather be accused of being "racist" than accused of being "stupid."
It's always irritating to read commentary and listen to commentary on TV from armchair lawyers.
Unless you've read a given case, you are not qualified to make any comments on it other than "I haven't read this case but I should." This should be the first rule of any legal case commentary.
Second rule should be to learn how the courts work. Despite the cries that she is an "activist judge" because of the quote that "the Circuit Court is where policy is made." Get real, there is probably no more true statement about the american legal system than this. The circuit courts are where policy is interpreted, and the power to interpret law is the power to steer policy, period. There is nothing disengenuous about this phrase.
And judicial activism comes in all colors. Conservative and Liberal, Rhenquist and Scalia are two of the most activist justices I can think of in the past 50 years and they are oft considered conservative.
it is nice to see someone nominated who is qualified to be a justice, and who actually wirtes opinions.
It's like the nitwits believe that Presidents making an appointment to the Court whisper in their appointee's ear: "Now, look here. I'm putting you up for this job but, if you get it, I want you to just sit passively up there and don't do a thing which'll be likely to change anything, O.K.? That's why I picked you from my many available choices. So you'd do absolutly nothing to further my policies. Now, I'm counting on you to do a whole lotta nada. Nada damn thing. Don't let me down."
Psh, hardly anyone is even commenting on her activism. Most are commenting on her racism and authoritarianism.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
Theres more Free speech issues(actually 1 more) that Dennis didn't see (I'll quote it from wikipedia)
In Dow Jones v. Department of Justice, Sotomayor sided with the Wall Street Journal in its efforts to obtain and publish a photocopy of the suicide note of former White House Counsel Vince Foster. Sotomayor ruled that the public had "a substantial interest" in viewing the note and enjoined the Justice Department from blocking its release.
in short she ruled against the Justice dept only once over free speech for the Dowjones owned(now fox owned) Wall street journal
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights
Not exactly a "free speech" issue, PHX. More the closely related and often confused free press issue. But, either way, a useful indicator of Sotomayor's judicial temperment -- for those actually willing to do more than simply and simple-mindedly latch on to the obvious but not neccessarily informative aspects of the Judge's biography.
So she's more better on the free speech issue
Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights