Monday, June 29, 2009

Sotomayor reversal least by some

It's been interesting following some of the reaction to the Supreme Court decision today that reverses the decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor related to the white firefighters in Connecticut. While some believe it will have an impact on her confirmation hearings, some actually hope it will would probably be a better statement. Yet, according to this CNN Commentary it's not as unusual as some may think:

The reversal was expected and is not the first time an appointee has been reversed by the court he was about to join.

Indeed, two of Chief Justice Warren Burger's opinions for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals were reversed in 1969, the year he joined the court. One was Watts v. United States, in which the defendant had been convicted for threatening the life of the president.

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that Watts' supposed threats were really nothing but hyperbole. The decision came down one month before President Nixon nominated Burger. More significantly, after Burger had been confirmed, the Court reversed him again, this time in a major case -- Powell v. McCormack.

I also think this piece in Forbes is an interesting one on why Republicans should not oppose Sotomayer.


Anonymous said...


提供上千種成人商品線上購物服務--專營情趣商品、男女自慰用品、性感睡衣、情趣用品批發、自慰套、SM商品、逼真情趣娃娃、跳蛋、按摩棒、同志用品、TENGA飛機杯..,可線上刷卡及貨到付款。 ... 收到的東西會有情趣用品的字樣嗎? 轉帳之後,如何通知這筆款項是我付的

T. F. Stern said...

I'm still laughing after having taken that last comment, used the Chinese to English translation tool and found that you got spammed by a company selling erotic play toys.
Now that is funny!

I'd have to disagree with the Sotomayor nomination to sit on the SCOTUS for a couple of reasons. There is a division in the thought process between “progressives” and “conservatives”, a broad and often inaccurate classification to describe political alignments. I’d fall into the “originalist/conservative” type and prefer the cold facts determining the outcome of any legal issue that goes before the courts as opposed to agenda driven rulings which attempt to right the wrongs of the past. Ms Sotomayor would appear to be the latter.

kateb said...

I was really surprised to hear some of the sentiments people have expressed about this case.

During my childhood I was taught that if a situation comes into question for potential sexist or racially biased motivations you look at the statement of the situation.

If you can take out the party and put in another party (take out white fireman and insert black fireman) and see the statement as racist or sexist then it's failed the litmus test. And it's racist.

I believe the situation was egregiously racially motivated and patently unfair based upon the firemen's skin color. And if it isn't acceptable to do it to one class of people it doesn't suddenly become magically correct to do the same thing to another class.