newsobserver.com projects - U.S. Supreme Court - Comments

Re: Prof: Burr in a tough spot

hally23 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:00:18 -0500

For others, it's a symbol of larger things ... a signal somehow that the person holds very conservative or very liberal views. That can be part of an overall package of cheap aion kinah.

Re: Prof: Burr in a tough spot

digitr — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:36:14 -0400

selam hi This sounds fascinating sıcak sohbet I’m going to read that tracing articlekısa aşk şiirleri when I have a moment.
Wow. erotik film izle is
şifalı bitkiler zayıflama de
çet sohbet fer
netlog ger
müzik dinle err
şarkı dinle
cüneyt arkın filmleri kk
isyan sözleri fer
hikayeler er
islami çet ff
adet sancısına ne iyi gelir hh
escort bayanlar der
bedava chat dd
chat odaları der
liseli kızlar derf
kızlarla sohbet fder
kızlarla chat
sohbet err

Re: Prof: Burr in a tough spot

wohuhuhua — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:52:14 -0400

Official website for Ed Hardy Eyewear. The lifestyle brand is based on the original clothing, accessories, energy drink, randed by
cheap ed hardy ed hardy clothes ed hardy swimwear
Don Ed Hardy is an American tattoo artist born and raised in Southern California in 1945. A pupil of Sailor Jerry, Hardy is recognized for incorporating.
ed hardy clothing,Providing authentic Ed Hardy Clothing with competitive price and fast,secure delivery.The famous brand inspired by Don Ed Hardy 's Vintage
ed hardy
ed hardy shoes
tiffany jewelry

Re: Burr won't support Sotomayor

corgi397 — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:25:31 -0400

Race sure does obsess many members of the Republican party: Judge Sotomayor's a racist, President Obama's a racist.

They see reverse racism everywhere, can't see actual conventional racism - as demonstrated shamefully, for instance, at Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearing.

Republican members of the Judiciary Committee didn't engage her on decisions - except Ricci v. DeStefano, where she & the other two members of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel had no clear precedent (as a previous comment indicated) to justify overturning the District Court's decision. On the contrary, the 1971 precedent of Griggs v. Duke Power Company, a unanimous 8-0 opinion written by Chief Justice (and Nixon appointee) Warren Burger, obliged them to treat the test result as "discriminatory in operation" under the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission's "four-fifths rule" [if minorities passed the test at a rate less than 80 percent of the group with the highest rate, then that test is presumptively illegal due to the "disparate effect" of the test; in this case, less than half as many African American firefighters passed the test.] Even this decision I didn't see discussed seriously, on the facts, but as part of an embarrassing display of race-baiting and disrespectful personal attacks.

She is a centrist judge originally appointed by President George H.W. Bush. Her record's quite conservative: she wrote three opinions favoring anti-abortion protesters; Sotomayor and the panel rejected roughly 4/5 of 96 cases alleging racial discrimination. During her six years as a federal district judge, she sent more convicts to prison and handed out longer sentences than her colleagues. And fewer than average of her decisions were overturned by the Supreme Court (which tends to choose to hear cases they might be interested in over-turning; otherwise they can just let the decision stand).

I'd have preferred that President Obama appoint someone progressive-leaning to our very right-wing court (with Republicans making the appointments for 20 of the last 28 years). Yet I can see that she's an exemplary judge, with an impeccable record and reputation, over which increasingly knee-jerk-oppositional Republicans have been pouring ordure. This told us more about them than about her.

When Senator Burr has attracted national attention, it's been to embarrass us: bragging about his run-on-the-bank instructions to his wife after being briefed on the financial crisis last fall (if his first thought must be for his own interests, hadn't he heard of FDIC insurance?) and his unreasoning (he gave no reason) blocking of Iraq veteran double-amputee Tammy Duckworth to the Department of Veterans Affairs for as long as he could. He's pretty well ensured against votes from Democrats or moderate Republicans, veterans or those concerned with the rights of the disabled. In case he hasn't swept his constituency clean of potential voters, he's also beating back Hispanic and women voters.

Re: Burr won't support Sotomayor

ishley — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:43:04 -0400

Actually, all that it means is that there was no issue of fact to be determined in court...ie, the parties agreed on the facts and were only in court in order to determine how the law should be applied to those facts. It's how many (if not most) appellate cases are decided, and it's a great benefit for parties to litigation and the taxpayer.

Look, from a policy standpoint, I think that Sotomayor got it wrong and SCOTUS got it right w/r/t the New Haven firefighters. Those boys were discriminated against. However, she was navigating a complex body of law that does not have clear precedent, and (from what I understand) the subsequent Supreme Court opinion implicitly acknowledges as much. Some areas of law are more settled than others, either because Congress wrote clearer statutes or because the Supreme Court has previously issued clearer opinions. Until I or any of you have taken time to read both her opinion, the Supreme Court opinion, AND all the case law that they use to make their decision, I think it's mighty presumptuous to imply that she deviated from the proper role as a judge. Certainly, accusing Sotomayor of exercising her judicial responsibilities in bad faith is a stretch.

Finally, and most importantly, what HAS Burr done for NC? I honestly can't think of a single thing he's done. He's no absentee E.Dole, I will grant that, but if that's where you set the bar, then you and I have far different expectations of our elected officials.

Re: Burr won't support Sotomayor

kevin_smith5 — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:12:52 -0400

From what I have seen of her opinions, public statements, and her own statements in the hearings I can say she strikes me as a judicial activist who bends the law to match her personal prejudices and beliefs. I can see no way where a person who was overturned on a summary decision like the New Haven case (this means she didn't even bother to let the two sides present their cases fully) has any place on the court. The failure to be able to apparently comprehend the 2nd ammendment is just icing on the cake.....

Re: Burr won't support Sotomayor

brightmidnight — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:08:23 -0400

I don't like Burr, but good for him. Sotomayor obviously doesn't take the Constitution into account when she makes rulings. The ruling she made against the New Haven firefighters is so bad it's scandalous. She also said she couldn't say whether the Constitution provides an individual right to bear arms (something clearly stated in its own amendment), yet she believes there is a right to privacy included in it, although those words aren't even seen in the Constitution. It's wacky. She obviously wants to bend the law to conform to how she wants to rule, rather than the other way around.

Re: Burr won't support Sotomayor

mountainman — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:36:43 -0400

Good for you, senator Burr!!!!! I for one support your "NO" vote.

Re: Burr won't support Sotomayor

AgentPierce — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:09:22 -0400

duplicate .... see earlier post.

Re: Burr won't support Sotomayor

AgentPierce — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:07:32 -0400

To henrye ..... as a long time "public Conservative" if I'm not called a "racist" by some raging Liberal every morning by 10 AM I start to worry.

For awhile it was the combo "racist Nazi" but "Nazi" seems to be out of vogue right now. These insulting names they so love seem to go in a odd rotation. I think its controlled by the phases of the moon.

A veteran Lib rager can string together 6-8 insulting names in one sentence. Its like they are in some strange competition to out rage one another. Alas, I see no sign of any change in their behavior in the forseeable future.

Re: Burr won't support Sotomayor

bniolet — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:04:05 -0400

I'm going to need some of you guys to tone it down. My finger is ready to hit the button to turn off comments in this thread. BN

Re: Burr won't support Sotomayor

scharrison — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:00:22 -0400

"Huzzah, me."

You can claim all the victories you want to, but waging personal attacks to make up for your lackluster defense of Richard Burr ain't nothing to brag about, pal.

I know James personally, and you know how that came about? Because he's an open book, and he invited me into his home without an ounce of distrust on his part. You don't agree with his opinions? Fine. But quit making up crap to make people think he's got some evil agenda.

Re: Burr won't support Sotomayor

Platowasright — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:25:13 -0400

Why should he vote for a racist?

Re: Burr won't support Sotomayor

JoeBloggs — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:49:48 -0400

Burr plays devils advocate with Sotomayor to get his name and face in the media. Too bad he doesn't use his actions as a Senator for this state to accomplish the same thing. Oh, wait! He HASN'T done the first thing as a Senator for our state in order for him to be in the media. He takes the easy way out. Like so many others in Washington, he is a self-obsessed, entitlement focused cad, worthy of nothing, let alone a position to represent our state.

Re: Burr won't support Sotomayor

BitterEXdemocrat — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:24:28 -0400

We dont, but no small wonder considering the vast numbers of clueless voters in NC...I guess you'd rather have a racist like Obama, right?