Non-Liberal News © Copyright 2009 by Adam Barthmare
Associated Press - Liberal
The New York Times - Liberal
Time Magazine - Liberal
Newsweek - Liberal
NLN - Non-Liberal

 

 

Non-Liberal News

Your Daily News

Without The Liberal Bias

 

Role of Judge as described by the American Bar Association:
"Judges are like umpires in baseball or referees in football or basketball. Their role is to see that the rules of court procedures are followed by both sides. Like the ump, they call 'em as they see 'em, according to the facts and law—without regard to which side is popular (no home field advantage), without regard to who is "favored,"without regard for what the spectators want, and without regard to whether the judge agrees with the law."

The oath Supreme Court justices must take:
"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Sonia Sotomayor - Quotes

In a speech at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law as quoted in the article "A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record" (full speech here)

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

"One must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see."

"My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

In the following video from 2005 Sonia Sotomayor makes the revealing statement:
“Court of appeals is where policy is made.”

Then she catches herself and realizes she's on video and tries to back track but her laughter and mocking statement:
“And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t (mocking grin, mock quotes)...make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

According to interleaves of Sonia Sotomoyor's colleagues by Jeffrey Rosen:

"Despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship."

"The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was 'not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,' as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. 'She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue.' (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, 'Will you please stop talking and let them talk?') Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: 'She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media.'"

"Her opinions are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues."

"Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details."

 

Other Decisions and Statements:

Sotomayor, Obama, and the Felon Vote

EDITORIAL: The franchise for felons

“My brother and I plagiarized many a school report from those books." - Sonia Sotomayor

 

 



CNN - Liberal
NBC - Liberal
ABC - Liberal
CBS - Liberal
NLN - Non-Liberal

60% of Sonia Sotomayor's Decisions have been reversed by the Supreme Court

Sotomayor favors racism...against whites
Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008)
- decision pending (more below)
Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of an exam to determine promotions within the city's fire department because 14 whites and one Hispanic scored the highest on a test designed to be racially non-biased. The top 15 should have been eligible for 15 available promotions stated beforehand to be determined strictly by test score. Since no blacks scored in the top 15 of test results, the City subsequently decided not to certify the results and not issue any promotions. In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral arguments in April 2009.

Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)
- reversed 6-3
Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the EPA may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the "best technology available" must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the "best technology" regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the "best technology" rule was too narrow.

Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) - Ruling upheld but Supreme Court unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted
In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductible. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach "flies in the face of the statutory language."

Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)
- reversed 8-0
In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch's argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor's ruling, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails and that doing otherwise could give rise to "wasteful, duplicative litigation."

Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005)
- reversed 5-4
In 2005, Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from those whom she claimed caused her husband's injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling.

Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000)
- reversed 5-4
Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual's constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as "Bivens," which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government.

Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)
- reversed 7-2
As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers' work on electronic databases and archives such as "Lexis/Nexis" without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor's decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor's original ruling).

What's most disturbing about the firefighter case is that Sotomayor has explicitly stated that her "gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging" and then follows those words by the action of arbitrarily dismissing the issue of racial discrimination when brought forth by mostly white males. Sotomayor's decision about dismissing the claim, made with two other judges, contained only one paragraph of reasoning.

Sotomayor's judicial colleague, Fellow 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Cabranes, representing himself and five other judges, harshly criticism Sotomayor’s decision in a dissenting opinion from the full court's refusal to rehear the firefighters' case. He opined that her decision “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”

Richard Cohen of the Washington Post , wrote of his dissatisfaction with the case, stating, “Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.”

For Obama to have nominated someone for the Supreme Court who clearly missed, through apparent racial prejudice disguised as "social justice," the vast range of Constitutional issues exhibited by this case is further evidence that Obama does not care about the rule of law and in fact favors this and other forms of government-sanctioned racism against whites as a form of social justice (or retribution) as he has admitted openly in his own books.

Full Ricci v. DeStefano Decision

"A case that could spell trouble for Sotomayor" by Adam Liptak

"Obama Nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court" by Connie Hair