Sonia Sotomayor was appointed to the federal court operating under the Second Circuit Court of Appeals purvey. She was appointed to that court by George H. Bush and promoted to the appeals court (in 1998) by Bill Clinton. The Second Circuit Court is a fairly conservative body located in the State of Louisiana. If we can all appreciate the difference between a "liberal" and a radicalized jurist, I believe that Justice Sotomayor, in time, may wind up being classified as a liberal justice, not a radicalized pundit. I believe that Elena Kagan, by contrast, is a cud chewing radical pundit who is much more an educated Left Wing hick than a qualified jurist . . . . . but that is just my opinion and I am little more than an educated hick, myself.
Before giving you the resulting research on Sotomayor by the Brennan Center for Justice (immediately below - see "End notes"), I want to present three High Court cases that seem to support the theme of this particular post as expressed in the headline.
The first is the Hosanna/Tabor Lutheran Church v the EEOC court case, in which the Obama Administration attempted to demand sovereign authority over religious institutions as to hiring practices. The Obama government, for the first time in American history, sought to be considered "the final word" when it comes to hiring practices within a religious institution. If the Administrations view had succeeded, the government could force a church administration to hire an atheist to teach in its school system. The decision was published after the first of this year and ran against Obama's wishful and anti-religious world view. Sotomayer voted with the other eight members of the Court and against Obama (9 - 0).
The second decision is Sackett v the EPA. This case would have given Obama and his EPA unfettered control over private property rights with no legal recourse. Again, Sotomayor voted with the unanimous majority and against Obama's Administration. This decision was published on March 23 of this year.
The third case is the FAA v Cooper in a decision published on March 28, 2012. Without getting into detail, Sotomayor, again, voted with majority in a 6 - 3 decision, as the High Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and favor of the feds. Her voted augmented those of Scalia, Thomas and Roberts, the most conservative voices on the High Court.
Each of the three cases, above, can be viewed as confirmation that Sotomayor is fully capable of acting out of a position of judicial principle rather than an ideological construct.
If you are a returning reader of this blog, you know that "ideology" is of great importance to me. I vote for an administrator more because of her ideology than any other single issue, but, I do not think that ideology is the paramount concern for members of the Supreme Court. The "job" that is above all other considerations, for the High Court, is its judical view of a law, any law, brought before the Court, as it stands in the shadow of stated (written) constitutional construct. The first responsibility of the High Court is the protection of the US Constitution as a simple man reads that document. That statement would exclude most pinheads from Harvard, btw. Call my opinion "ideology," in and of itself, if you will, but I see it as an independent statement as to the function of the High Court, resulting in a demand, if you will, to judge a written law against the definitive limitations set forth in the Constitution and its several amendments.
With all that in mind, I believe Sotomayor is somewhat more capable of acting in line with the prescribed function of the Supreme Court when Justices Ginsburg, Kagan and Breyer are not.
End notes: The Brennan Center's opinion as relates [primarily] to the facts of this discussion.
• Even given
the often-noted collegiality of the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has been in
agreement with her colleagues more often than most – 94% of her constitutional
decisions have been unanimous.
• She has
voted with the majority in 98.2% of constitutional cases.
• When she
has voted to hold a challenged governmental action unconstitutional, her decisions
have been unanimous over 90% of the time.
• Republican
appointees have agreed with her
decision to hold
a challenged governmental action unconstitutional in
nearly 90% of cases.
• When she
has voted to overrule a lower court or agency, her decisions have been unanimous
over 93% of the time.
• Republican
appointees have agreed with her decision to overrule a lower court decision in over
94% of cases.
• She
overruled lower court and agency decisions at a rate that closely conforms to
the circuit overall average.
The Brennan Center for Justice is a liberal think tank according to Ben Smith and, again, CBS News. It is a Soros funded resource according to News Busters. Having said this, I must add this as a caveat: "facts are facts and the above is about facts."
Understand that Sotomayor served on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals from 1998 to 2008. In her confirmation hearings in 2009, she was opposed by the NRA, the first time the NRA took a position against an appointee. The consensus opinion is that she is a pro-gun control jurist in spite of her claims, otherwise, but, still, I consider her a "liberal," not a Marxist or subversive jurist.
The conclusion is unmistakable. Based on the data, in constitutional cases Judge Sotomayor’s record places her squarely in the mainstream of the Second Circuit. After we analyzed every constitutional case in the Second Circuit over the past decade, what was striking was the degree of unanimity and consensus on a court roughly evenly split between Democratic appointees and Republican appointees. Even given the often-noted collegiality of the Second Circuit,
Judge Sotomayor has voted with her colleagues more than most — 94% of her constitutional decisions have been unanimous, and she has voted with the majority in 98.2% of constitutional cases. When she has voted to hold a challenged governmental action unconstitutional, her decisions have been unanimous over 90% of the time. Indeed, Republican appointees have agreed with her decision to hold a challenged governmental action unconstitutional in nearly 90% of cases. Similarly, she overruled lower court and agency decisions at a rate that closely conforms to the circuit overall average. In the cases in which Judge Sotomayor voted to overrule a district court or agency, she was in the majority 96% of the time and sided with at least one Republican appointee 94% of the time. Our analysis
 |
| While I do not think this is a racist remark, it certainly is one expressive of a particular bias. I do not excuse her bias, but we all have them, biases, and they reflect on the decisions. we make. No High Court member is void of bias and all function out of this circumstance. It is an existential/ontological fact of life, and unavoidable, for that reason |
shows that — far from revealing her as an “outlier” — Judge Sotomayor’s record is remarkably consistent with that of her colleague (end of the sourced material from Brennan).
Source for the "end notes" above: Brennan Center for Justice.
Understand that Sotomayor served on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals from 1998 to 2008. In her confirmation hearings in 2009, she was opposed by the NRA, the first time the NRA took a position against an appointee. The consensus opinion is that she is a pro-gun control jurist in spite of her claims, otherwise, but, still, I consider her a "liberal," not a Marxist or subversive jurist.
No comments:
Post a Comment