Berman Post: Sotomayor

Showing posts with label Sotomayor. Show all posts

Friday, December 4, 2009

New Haven Firefighters Approved For Promotion

The New Haven firefighters that were denied promotion because of their race, who Sotomayor ruled against with her decision being overturned by the Supreme Court during her nomination, have now been approved for promotion. The ceremony is scheduled for the 10th.

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/12/01/news/doc4b1571ef3b1b9626869946.txt

"The Board of Fire Commissioners today approved the promotions of one Hispanic and 13 white firefighters, giving them the advancement they fought for all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A formal promotional ceremony is scheduled for Dec. 10."

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Justice Sotomayor, Sotomayor Sworn in

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Sotomayor Confirmed by Senate 68 to 31

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Senate Judiciary Committee Votes in Favor of Sotomayor

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Senate Judiciary Committee Delay Sotomayor Confirmation Vote For One Week

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Confirmation Hearing For Sotomayor - Day Four

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Confirmation Hearing For Sotomayor - Day Three

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Confirmation Hearing For Sotomayor - Day Two

The day seemed to go as most people expected. Sotomayor said 'the right things' trying to explain away or justify her past statements/rulings that cause concern among conservatives. If a conservative only took into account what she said today, they would not be as concerned. Which Sotomayor will appear on the Supreme Court when she is confirmed (yes, when) is something I can not tell you. I say "when" because none of her comments today are likely to change the assumed outcome (her being confirmed). You can probably guess which one I would prefer.

This may be the most interesting segment:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Monday, July 13, 2009

Confirmation Hearing For Sotomayor Begin

Today was the first day of Sotomayor's confirmation hearing. There was no questions and answer, only opening statements. You can read the full text of all of the Senator's opening statements at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/sotomayor-hearing-senator-statement-texts.html. There was nothing that surprising. The Democrats praised her while the republicans expressed concerns while admitting she would likely be confirmed.

This is Sotomayor's opening statement (from http://thirdbranch.crooksandliars.com/big-tent-democrat/judge-sotomayors-opening-statem-1).

Full text at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/13/text-sotomayors-opening-statement.

Chris Matthews (MSNBC) got another "thrill" up his leg (video at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/13/msnbcs_matthews_gets_thrill_over_sotomayor_hearing.html).

Latino interest groups announced they would be watching closely for signs of racism (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SoniaSotomayor/story?id=8065668&page=1). As pointed out by http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/13/sotomayor-day-1-hispanics-promise-lots-of-scrutiny-of-gop; "Miguel Estrada was nominated to the DC Appellate Court by George Bush in 2001, and got filibustered by Democrats in 2003. The reason for their opposition was explicitly racist, as this memo to Senator Dick Durbin in 2001 shows:
...
Democrats explicitly opposed Estrada because he was Latino. Do you remember the huge outcry this created from these Hispanic interest groups at the time this memo got revealed, and how they protested Democratic racism and bigotry?"

The 'Joe the Plumber' treatment has begun against Ricci; "The widespread criticism of Sonia Sotomayor's dismissal of the New Haven firefighters' claims must have struck a chord: Slate's Dahlia Lithwick has published an attempted character assassination of Frank Ricci, the namesake plaintiff of the infamous Ricci case.

Lithwick's move isn't surprising -- she's a reliable left-wing partisan. What's particularly amusing, though, is that the McClatchy newswire already has blown her cover, by reporting that People for the American Way has been urging writers to attack Frank Ricci on precisely the grounds cited by Lithwick. Lithwick obviously did little more than take a PFAW press release, reword it, and run it under her own name.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Public Support For Sotomayor Second-Lowest For a Supreme Court Nominee in 20 Year

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Sotomayor Supporters Trying to Smear Ricci

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Tax 'Issues' For Sotomayor?

There is some question as to if Sotomayor may have some tax 'issue' about to bubble to the surface. Sotomayor had a private law office she named "Sotomayor & Associates", but there were no associates. There is nothing illegal about adding "& Associates" even though it is just one person, but it does seem to be misleading. There is also some question as to why she would even have a private law practice.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTQ4YTM5MTk4YjI1YjA2NTI4YzIyMTQ1YmMyNjcxZGY= (hat tip to http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/81507)

"the New York Times report yesterday on the strange matter of Sonia Sotomayor's sideline job from 1983-86, when she was a young district attorney and, later, law firm associate. It turns out she ran her own private law office, which she called "Sotomayor & Associates" even though there were no associates — there was just Sotomayor.

This seems odd. When you're a prosecutor, your client is the public and you're really not supposed to be taking on private clients who may have conflicts-of-interest with the public. Exceptions are made for providing finite legal help for family or friends (e.g., helping your mother draft a will) — after all, those things don't usually entail much compensation and the prosecutor is conflicted with respect to family and friends anyway (i.e., if mom gets indicted, you don't get the case — they find another prosecutor to take it).

Furthermore, law firms frown on their associates running on-the-side legal practices. Leaving aside whether income the lawyer earns should be going through the firm, good law firms set up systems to check for conflicts-of-interest: whenever new business comes in the door, the firm does a conflicts check to make sure the prospective client isn't in an adversarial posture as to a current client to whom the firm already owes professional fealty."

The obvious question then becomes why she set up the law firm. Was it a tax dodge (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/07/judge-sotomayors-law-practice-a-tax-dodge.html)? Glenn Reynolds opines "When you see a business arrangement that doesn’t seem to make any sense, just say “it’s probably for tax reasons,” and you’ll be right nine times out of ten." (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/81555).

Assuming that to be the case, the final question is if Sotomayor has a tax problem (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/81564 and http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/07/does-judge-sotomayor-have-a-tax-problem-.html). The answer as of now appears to be a very unsatisfying maybe. There is not enough information to determine how serious, if at all, this is. That said, this will almost certainly come up during her confirmation hearings and could be one of the significant non-race related issues the Republicans raise.

More thoughts on the naming issue at http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2009/07/sotomayor-offers-lousy-defense-to.html.

Past related posts:
Berman Post: Supreme Court Justice David Souter Will Retire
Berman Post: Obama Comments On Supreme Court Justice David Souter's Retirement
Berman Post: Specter's Defection May Hurt Obama in Picking a New Supreme Court Justice
Berman Post: ObamasFrontrunners.com
Berman Post: Obama Nominates Sonia Sotomayor For Supreme Court Justice
Berman Post: Is Sotomayor a Racist?
Berman Post: When Life Experience Apparently Matters (in Politics)
Berman Post: Harry Reid on Sotomayor - "She's Written Hundreds And Hundreds of Opinions. I Haven't Read a Single One of Them"
Berman Post: Sotomayor Made Other Sexist Comments
Berman Post: Aide To Sotomayor - "Don't Answer Any Questions", Sotomayor to Aide - "I Know"
Berman Post: Sotomayor Was a Member of La Raza For Six Years
Berman Post: Sotomayor's Senior Thesis
Berman Post: Sotomayor Repeatedly Made 'Wise Latino Woman' Statements
Berman Post: Sotomayor Questionnaire Omits Death Penalty Memo, Said Death Penalty Is Racist
Berman Post: Sotomayor And Liberalism (She Said She Does Not Know What Liberalism is After Calling Herself One)
Berman Post: Does Sotomayor's Past Shows a Propensity to be Swept Away by Radical Causes or Theories That Relate to Her Identity?
Berman Post: Sotomayor Fractures Her Ankle
Berman Post: Confirmation Hearings For Sotomayor Start July 13
Berman Post: Sotomayor - "I Am A Product Of Affirmative Action"
Berman Post: 300 New Boxes of Sotomayor's Work Discovered
Berman Post: Sotomayor's Ricci Decision Overruled by The Supreme Court
Berman Post: Public Support For Sotomayor Slipping
Berman Post: Sotomayor Helped Bork Bork

Friday, July 3, 2009

Sotomayor Helped Bork Bork

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Public Support For Sotomayor Slipping

More people now say that Sotomayor should not be confirmed then say she should be confirmed following the Supreme Court's Ricci ruling (Berman Post: Sotomayor's Ricci Decision Overruled by The Supreme Court).

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/07/023941.php

"Rasmussen reports that the Supreme Court's reversal of Sonia Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci case has caused her public support to slip badly:

A heavily publicized U.S. Supreme Court reversal of an appeals court ruling by Judge Sonia Sotomayor has at least temporarily diminished public support for President Obama's first Supreme Court nominee.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the two nights following the Supreme Court decision, finds that 37% now believe Sotomayor should be confirmed while 39% disagree.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Sotomayor's Ricci Decision Overruled by The Supreme Court

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the firefighters who were denied promotion because not enough (any) black applicants scored well enough on the test to deserve a promotion, were unfairly discriminated against (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901608_pf.html). Well, the ruling is more nuanced then that, but the ruling is in favor of the firefighters who were denied promotion. Sotomayor had ruled against the firefighters.

The Obama administration is saying that the close ruling shows that Sotomayor is not an activist (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D994HS400).

In one sense this decision supports the notion that Sotomayor would not change the ideological balance of the court. The fact that it was close (5 to 4) will not hurt her chances of being confirmed to the supreme court as much as if the decision was more lopsided. While the actual vote may not have a significant impact, there is another potential problem she may face from this case.

Ed Whelan explains that while the ruling was 5-4, all nine supreme court justices sided against Sotomayor (http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTBhOTEzMTZhMmMyNDczNTE5MjA4MTI0Mjk1Zjc5MDA=); "Ginsburg doesn’t believe that final disposition of the case is appropriate. She and her fellow dissenters therefore believe that Sotomayor and her Second Circuit colleagues and the district court were wrong to grant summary judgment to the City of New Haven.".

Jonathan Adler opines similarly (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_06_28-2009_07_04.shtml#1246287417); "the fact that it took the Court nearly 100 pages to resolve this question does cast a shadow over the Second Circuit panel's handling of the case, and may raise questions about her judgment. Initially, the panel upon which Sotomayor sat was ready to dispose of the case with an unpublished, unsigned summary order. Whatever the reasons for this (and we've seen some speculation), it's difficult to argue that this case was a simple no brainer of the sort that would justify that sort of resolution — and it's difficult to square the justifications for this disposition with the panel's subsequent decision to affirm the district court with a one paragraph, precedential opinion. The length of the Supreme Court's opinions (a 34-page majority, 39-page dissent, and two concurrences) is evidence that the case raised difficult and weighty issues. It reinforces the position of Judge Sotomayor's colleagues who criticized the panel's initial disposition and, on their own initiative (and without the filing of a petition for rehearing en banc), sought full court review of the case.".

Basically; Sotomayor's main potential problem from this case is not her decision, it is the process she used.

Will this be disqualifying, probably not. It will likely provide some fodder for the Republicans who will question her during the confirmation hearings.

Past related posts:
Berman Post: Supreme Court Justice David Souter Will Retire
Berman Post: Obama Comments On Supreme Court Justice David Souter's Retirement
Berman Post: Specter's Defection May Hurt Obama in Picking a New Supreme Court Justice
Berman Post: ObamasFrontrunners.com
Berman Post: Obama Nominates Sonia Sotomayor For Supreme Court Justice
Berman Post: Is Sotomayor a Racist?
Berman Post: When Life Experience Apparently Matters (in Politics)
Berman Post: Harry Reid on Sotomayor - "She's Written Hundreds And Hundreds of Opinions. I Haven't Read a Single One of Them"
Berman Post: Sotomayor Made Other Sexist Comments
Berman Post: Aide To Sotomayor - "Don't Answer Any Questions", Sotomayor to Aide - "I Know"
Berman Post: Sotomayor Was a Member of La Raza For Six Years
Berman Post: Sotomayor's Senior Thesis
Berman Post: Sotomayor Repeatedly Made 'Wise Latino Woman' Statements
Berman Post: Sotomayor Questionnaire Omits Death Penalty Memo, Said Death Penalty Is Racist
Berman Post: Sotomayor And Liberalism (She Said She Does Not Know What Liberalism is After Calling Herself One)
Berman Post: Does Sotomayor's Past Shows a Propensity to be Swept Away by Radical Causes or Theories That Relate to Her Identity?
Berman Post: Sotomayor Fractures Her Ankle
Berman Post: Confirmation Hearings For Sotomayor Start July 13
Berman Post: Sotomayor - "I Am A Product Of Affirmative Action"
Berman Post: 300 New Boxes of Sotomayor's Work Discovered