It's no wonder why the whole advise and consent isn't working if that is one of the suggested nominees to replace Justice O'Connor.
Sonia Sotomayor at first glance looks promising as she was nominated by President Bush in 1991 for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Some of you who are baseball fans might remember she is the Judge who ruled against MLB during the strike in 1995.
Even though she was appointed by President Bush, when President Clinton nominated her in 1997 for the U.S. Court of Appeals Second District Republicans began opposing her nomination. Senator Leahy tried to imply that the Republicans were purposely blocking hispanic candidates. It was felt that she was one of those "activist" judges because she publicly stated that law can and should "evolve" without constitutional amendments. I strongly disagree with that as it destroys the whole balance of power between the three branches.
National Review wrote about this in July stating the Democrats suggesting they were acting in bad faith, because it allegedly reflected a lack of effort to suggest nominees whom Bush could also support. I think the National Review article makes some good points and this gives you an idea who the Democrats are suggesting and why whoever Bush nominates will not be acceptable to them.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Details...
Financial resources & Fun!
Financial Resources:
Corporate Recovery
With a shaky stock market, now's a great time to invest in diamonds.
Fun!
Yard Signs Cheap
Yard Signs Cheap
Corporate Recovery
With a shaky stock market, now's a great time to invest in diamonds.
Fun!
Yard Signs Cheap
Yard Signs Cheap
Regular Reads
History Mike's Musings
Toledo Tales
Hooda Thunkit
Aaron's Blog
Along the Tracks
The Glitch
Roland's Ramblings
Judy's Jewels
I think about by Valbee
Toledo Speaks Out
Maggie Thurber's Thoughts
Color Orange Art
The Yippie Show
Progressive Toledo
Thoughts on TPS
Shanahan Select
Make A Difference
Toledo Perspectives
Toledo Tales
Hooda Thunkit
Aaron's Blog
Along the Tracks
The Glitch
Roland's Ramblings
Judy's Jewels
I think about by Valbee
Toledo Speaks Out
Maggie Thurber's Thoughts
Color Orange Art
The Yippie Show
Progressive Toledo
Thoughts on TPS
Shanahan Select
Make A Difference
Toledo Perspectives
Blog Archive
...
...
Thank you!
Thanks for visiting Liberal Common Sense...
7 comments:
Congress creates law, and also creates ammendments. I think ammendments should be used sparingly, so I agree with her view about the evolution of law without ammendments. Judicial can always toss a law in the can if it is a bad one. Hence there is still balance. Am I missing something?
She takes it a step further than that, she believes the court alone can change law without congress or legislation. Declaring a law unconstitutional or a part of a law unconstitutional is part of the job of the judicial branch. Re-writing laws isn't.
Lisa,
If President Bush ASKED them for their suggestions then they would be correct in making such a suggestion.
If however, President Bush didn't, they should then advise and consent on his nominee.
From the sound of it, Sotomayor would be loose cannon, not the kind of nominee that the President would give a second look to.
In essence, they're playing POLITICS...
Definitely on-trick ponies...
Clinton at least listened to Hatch, but then again Hatch tried to suggest candidates that he thought it would be possible for both sides to agree on. I don't see that from the Democrats, especially given the names that have been stated they did suggest.
Democrats are idiots. For some reason they feel the need to fight little battes so that they feel better about losing the war. Too bad they lose both the battles and the wars too often
I'm no law student, but I don't think a court can create law. They can strike down all or parts of laws, they can say a situation does not apply, or they can be lenient with penalties/judgements. They can even cite different legal precidents. But I'm not aware of how a court or justice can actually add law. Feel free to explain, I find designation between activism and how the courts 'should be' interesting.
That is the essence of the problem with her, she feels that the courts can evolve and change laws without legislation being needed to change laws.
Like the whole "living constitution" but taking it a step further which is why I can't support her. I believe in the balance of power and it is already messed up compared to how it was designed.
Post a Comment