Comments on: SCOTUS: Right Wing Objections To Sotomayor In A Nutshell

By: Christy Hardin Smith

Christy Hardin Smith — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:33:36 +0000

L-Ones are first year law students. The twos and threes are the next two years of schooling levels.

By: msmolly

msmolly — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:23:10 +0000

Other than the L- Ones, my experience is the no one pays too much attention to the “academics.” Except for Professor Gilbert, who many L- Twos and L-Threes came to revere and depend upon.

OK. what on earth are THOSE??

(Careful, or I’m gonna start throwing around techie computer terms. *g*)

By: goldpearl

goldpearl — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:18:33 +0000

there’s a judge & prosecutor somewhere in spain right now nodding & saying proceda!

By: msmolly

msmolly — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:15:39 +0000

Thanks, Christy. I think I “get” where Turley was coming from, and I admire him tremendously, but I guess my question is what visionary, well known and quoted opinions do the other short-listers have in their backgrounds that Judge Sotomayor doesn’t have. He implied that they did and she didn’t. I had never heard of ANY of them before the Souter announcement.

No big deal, just curious. And your explanation was very helpful!

By: Fern

Fern — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:02:58 +0000

I am not a lawyer either – but that strikes me as an excessively high standard to which to hold someone.

By: jaango

jaango — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:56:39 +0000

Over the years, I have found many advocates for the “post-racial” Era, and now, they will be found to be of an inconsequence in the political arena. To wit, the Latino political advisers are ‘coaching” the Republican Senators and their staff not to oppose Judge Sotmayor on the premise that she is a Latina. And that’s advice that not going to be accepted.

Her legal history relative to “god, guns, and gays” is at best, superficial, and thusly, the Achilles Heel that the GOPsters will attack, and thereby, revert to their historical behavior. First, it raises a wealth of dollars, and secondly, this overall effort will be sold to the rank and file as a “test run” on President Obama’s second opportunity to replace the fifth vote with a candidate that reflects a potential center-left shift on SCOTUS.

And being a Native from the Sonoran Desert, I am an Optimist and expect that Judge Sotomayor will achieve, at a minimum, 65 votes, and from my knowing that the Senate contains 35 hard core conservative votes. And these Senators will not relent regardless of their always pending ‘affection’ for the Chicano votes across America.

As such, Senator Kyl from our Arizona, is a good indicator since he epitomizes the John Bircher view of poliltics. He is sooo far Right that I believe that he tends to get lonely out their in right field and where many are hesitant to permit themselves to be seen by their voting constituency. And if permitted, Kyl will drag them out their, as he usually does being the second ranking GOP member in the Senate.

Consequently and despite the theatrics of the GOP, Judge Sotomayor is a shoo-in.

Jaango

By: Christy Hardin Smith

Christy Hardin Smith — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:47:46 +0000

Fresh thought up top, for anyone who wants one. Just FYI.

By: Christy Hardin Smith

Christy Hardin Smith — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:42:41 +0000

That’s what I’ve been hearing, too, although nothing is set yet. It’s most likely, given the calendar and timing needs and such.

By: Christy Hardin Smith

Christy Hardin Smith — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:42:09 +0000

Yeah — you actually practice law, so you know exactly what I mean on this one. *g* The theory rarely translates to anything you can use on the fly in a courtroom, and the theoretical opinions almost always cause more problems in the “what the hell does this mean” attempts at interpretation than the straight out practical application drafting ones that are written for practicing lawyers and judges to follow.

I love the nitty gritty arguments on theory because I’m nerdy that way. But they give you only a little wiggle room in the lack of clarity for argument’s sake, not really guidance on how you should move forward or clear boundaries for how you shouldn’t. And, in that way, they are just less useful in the day to day, but may in some way allow for legal advances at some future point.

It’s the age old argument between Jefferson’s ideals and Adams practicality writ legal, I think. I love to read them both, but in the end, you want the thing that helps you get the job done in the moment even though you really need the pull and tug of one on the other to make things work well over time.

By: becca656

becca656 — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:38:34 +0000

I said yesterday, this is Obama’s last really good chance to show that his team can vet a candidate properly. After all the previous attempts to get someone through, particularly good nominees for the roles they were proposed for, Obama can’t let her have even one little problem going back four generations because her grandmother’s problem in the Bronx in 1950 will be held up for scrutiny and prevent her from being confirmed, whether she had anything to do with it or not. No tax problems, no illegals working for her, no drug problems, no abortions…. and I seriously believe she can’t have anything like this going back at least four generations.