News & Politics - President Obama has chosen federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court

Uh Blah · 05-26-2009, 05:58 AM

Obama to name Sotomayor as Supreme Court pick - CNN.com

Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic U.S. Supreme Court justice if confirmed

Obama's nominee will replace retiring Justice David Souter, who announced this month he would step down when the court's current session ends this summer.

Bella Grint · 05-26-2009, 09:15 AM

I have only done some research on her because I didn't know much but I like what I have found out so far and like Obama's decision.

Uh Blah · 05-26-2009, 10:53 AM

Mitt Romney had this to say...

Quote:

The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is troubling. Her public statements make it clear she has an expansive view of the role of the judiciary. Historically, the Court is where judges interpret the Constitution and apply the law. It should never be the place "where policy is made," as Judge Sotomayor has said. Like any nominee, she deserves a fair and thorough hearing. What the American public deserves is a judge who will put the law above her own personal political philosophy."

Miss Kelsey Rose · 05-26-2009, 10:54 AM

I am excited that she is the first Hispanic justice and a woman, as well.

However, before I have an opinion on her, I want to find out her views on civil rights.

**Callace** · 05-26-2009, 01:09 PM

Quote:

It should never be the place "where policy is made,"

As a lawyer myself, I just got to laugh at this

of course law is politics!! and all the more in a common law system I'd figure.

I love that he chose a judge who is open about this though

**vc318** · 05-26-2009, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uh Blah (View Post)

Mitt Romney had this to say...

I hope he's not trying to throw the "Obama" card on this considering I heard that Bush also recommended her at one time too.

Gossip_Addict · 05-26-2009, 07:20 PM

I definitely like what I've seen about Judge Sotomayor so far. She might have had that slip about "making policy," but I agree with Callace, at least she's open about that. It's certainly the truth.

Uh Blah · 05-27-2009, 01:15 PM

Sotomayor's record on notable cases

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court

• Affirmative Action (New Haven firefighter case): 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. Only one Hispanic and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam; the City subsequently decided not to certify the results and issued no 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. Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008)

• Environment (Protection of fish at power plants): Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency 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. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor's position. Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)

• Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductable. 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." Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)

• Finance (Rights of investors to sue firms in state court): 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 in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to "wasteful, duplicative litigation." Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)

• Health Insurance (Reimbursement of insurance benefits): 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 upheld Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 opinion. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented. Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005)

• Civil Rights (Right to sue federal government and its agents): 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 in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling. Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000)

• Intellectual Property (Distribution of freelance material): 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). Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, taking Sotomayor's position. Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)

Other Notable Cases

• Abortion (Mexico City policy): Sotomayor ruled against an abortion rights group in its challenge to the so-called "Mexico City Policy," which states that nations that receive U.S. funds may neither perform nor promote abortions. The abortion rights advocates alleged that the policy violated their First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights. Sotomayor upheld a lower court ruling dismissing the case, saying that the group's First Amendment rights had not been violated and that it had not been denied due process. On the equal protection claim, Sotomayor wrote, "The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds." Sotomayor did not address the underlying abortion issue. Center for Reproductive Law and Policy vs. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2002)

• Major League Baseball Strike: As a district court judge, Sotomayor issued an injunction against team owners for alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act during collective bargaining negotiations with the MLB players association. The owners had sought to end the system of free agency and salary arbitration and imposed a lock-out against players as negotiations began to break down. The ruling ended the longest baseball strike in history. National Labor Relations Board vs. Major League Baseball, 880 F. Supp. 246 (1995)

**sunnykerr** · 05-27-2009, 07:13 PM

Thanks for that breakdown.

Either way, she's not Harriet Miers. Her experience is the salient part.

**wanderer78** · 05-28-2009, 12:01 AM

Uh Blah, thanks for that. I'm going to try to read more about her before I form any opinions.

**sunnykerr** · 05-28-2009, 05:53 PM

Indeed, thanks Lou for bringing that over. But you didn't say... What do you think?

Uh Blah · 05-29-2009, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

Indeed, thanks Lou for bringing that over. But you didn't say... What do you think?

Judging from her record I think she'll certainly shake things up in the Supreme Court. There's still a lot we simply don't know, like her view on abortion for one. I can only hope Obama has done his homework here.

Bella Grint · 05-29-2009, 10:50 AM

Everyone seems to be waiting for what her stance is on abortion. I don't know if it's just me but it's like both political parties are waiting to see if they should embrace or hate her for it

**Callace** · 05-29-2009, 12:07 PM

yeah, it seems like a funny thing to hold out as the most important. I mean, it is an important matter, but so are very many of the issues the Supreme Court deals with.

This one has just become a political tag, so that everything else she stands for somehow gets tied up to her stance in this one issue.

Bella Grint · 05-29-2009, 04:00 PM

That much is true. People might be worried she could have some control on making abortion illegal or more legal or but considering there has been nothing about it on her track record I wouldn't make a big deal of it..