Hagan 'pleased' with Sotomayor

I am glad you laugh - perhaps it is your own ego that you need to reflect upon to understand how completely misguided you are...

This is you, isn't it?

Irony is funny.

And the list continues -

Supports Amnesty and Illegal Drivers' Licenses

By the way - one of the biggest reasons why our economy is in the tank is because of the sheer number illegal immigrants in this country...

Every state is facing a budget shortfall for a reasons, especially NC...

Ruled teen's blog post created a created "foreseeable risk of substantial disruption"

Learning more and more everyday - perhaps I will support her if she would take away Gosh's first amendment right...

I am glad you laugh - perhaps it is your own ego that you need to reflect upon to understand how completely misguided you are, but I am sure you spend a fair amount of time rationalizing to yourself that you have the world figured out and that you are in the right...

Anyways moving on...

Exactly what impressed Hagan is the point of my contention...

In some 380 opinions, it is truly amazing that her stances are in question. If this were a conservative minded judge, then there would be outrage from the left, i.e. Harriet Miers. There is an opinion in every appeals decision. Remember 60% of hers have been reversed. I am not sure your experiences with the judicial system, but perhaps refresh your memory.

I am not saying that I do not support her, but I think there is a lot to be determined through the confirmation hearing. Thus I disagree with the fact that the Administration is urging caution with their questions...that is what the point of discontent on my end is...

Grow UP since you are the adult...

It is funny that you paint me as a youngster, yet you know nothing about me

I find it ironic...

Paul, you haven't found irony since the last time you took a bath.

If you really think privileged white guys just don't have a voice in this country, run for office on that platform and see how that works out.

Oh, you did.

Sweetheart, of course as you have already pointed out, Judge Sotomayor isn't even remotely controversial as she served on the Court of Appeals where in the last 30 years they haven't ruled on....

Any "major decisions concerning abortion, the death penalty, gay rights or national security."

Two-thirds of the time, there's not even an opinion as the point of APPEALS is a SCOTUS filter.

Hagan said she was impressed with her record and I disagreed.

Good for you! Hagan matters though as your Senator that will vote to confirm.

Not sure where Burr fits into this equation.

He's the other one that will.

Keep Rambling

You make grown ups giggle. Thank you for making politics fun again. If not for you, there wouldn't be anyone left to make fun of.

She's confirmed. Both your Senators will approve her. You've got nothing but the embarrassment you deserve, and Paul Terrell.

Good luck with that.

First of all, this thread is about Hagan - please read the entire thread below just asserting your personal attack rhetoric.

As I have already pointed out...

"Judge Sotomayor, whom President Obama announced Tuesday as his choice for the Supreme Court, has issued no major decisions concerning abortion, the death penalty, gay rights or national security. In cases involving criminal defendants, employment discrimination and free speech, her rulings are more liberal than not."

Hagan said she was impressed with her record and I disagreed. Not sure where Burr fits into this equation.

Keep Rambling

And yet despite Rush's 1997 warning you provide to prove my point, Jesse Helms still agreed with the first President Bush that originally elevated her on this path.

Yes, you are embarrassing yourself.

She will be confirmed, Burr will help. You are silly.

"Rocket Ship" of Sotomayor

Please prove that she was en route to SCOTUS appointment before I was born. She was on track in 1997, which would have been Clinton...

Yet I am the one embarrassing myself...

I find it ironic that Sotomayor makes a racist statement in public and that statement is all but ignored by the drive by media and left wingers. Can you imagine how fast a white male would have been kicked to the curb if he had said the reverse of her statement. Again this shows the hypocrisy of the left.

Keep on rambling...

You're embarrasing yourself.

She was set on the path for SCOTUS confirmation by President Bush (the real one) before you were even born.

You've got nothing, but please continue.

Richard Burr will vote to confirm her, meaning anything you say now will be held against you in a court of public opinion when you try to agree with Burr later.

Awww - actually I was trying to simplify the content into three separate post since SHarrison commented on trying to clarify my earlier post...

Bnartist thanks for continuing to be a liberal because once you lose on facts you must change the subject...

Keep on rambling...

Someone with concern for the law might want to review the Dome's Code of Conduct Part 2.

Please don't just cut/paste verbatim text as a comment.
Please use the <blockquote> tag for quoted text.
Please provide a link to the source (eg Heritage for the verbatim 3 cited cases comment)

Makes it easier to have a conversation.

I get it that you do not understand the concept of judicial activism?

I get it that you are bitter about Justice Roberts

I get it that you still did not disapprove any of my qualms - we know nothing about her on the major issues facing America, only her liberal tendencies....

But keep rambling...

"The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, battled dyslexia and spent months studying for the test, which he passed, but because no African-American firefighters passed he was denied a promotion."

Plainly you really aren't familiar with this case. Or whoever it is you're quoting without attributing isn't familiar with it. In both the Lieutenant's and Captain's tests, some African American firefighters did pass. But since there were only a limited number of promotion slots to be filled, and a greater number of white firefighters scored higher than the black firefighters who passed, there was no way the black firefighters could be promoted.

Sotomayer wasn't "legislating from the bench" or acting radical in this case, she merely affirmed the city's decision to not certify the results of the test. Had she backed the plaintiffs and undermined the city's authority to make these decisions, that would have been radical.

"With that said - it is her 350 majority opinions that are alarming.

In research of her opinions I have found, along with the New York Times, that she offers no clear vision or opinions on many major issues facing this country."

You guys really amaze me. You lovingly support an inexperienced judge with only a handful of opinions with which to determine his judicial "vision" to be promoted to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and then whine about "no clear vision" emanating from 11 years and 380 opinions.

Here's a vision: out of all those "liberal" opinions you reference, only 5 were challenged. Now, all those losing attorneys were very aware that the Supreme Court has maintained a conservative majority all these years, yet only 5 of her decisions were sent there. You can wring your hands and type the word "liberal" all you want to, but that is proof positive that the vast majority of her opinions were solid enough that hundreds of attorneys decided that challenging them would be a waste of time. Do you get it now?

Equal Opportunity: In Ricci v. Destefano, Sotomayor joined an unsigned opinion rejecting a lawsuit from a group of firefighters who claimed the city of New Haven, Connecticut violated their civil rights by invalidating the results of a test administered to fill 15 captain and lieutenant vacancies. The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, battled dyslexia and spent months studying for the test, which he passed, but because no African-American firefighters passed he was denied a promotion. Sotomayor’s curt rejection of Ricci’s claims prompted President Bill Clinton appointed Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes to write: “The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”

Second Amendment: In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor joined an opinion holding that “it is settled law” that the Second Amendment only limits federal, and not state, gun control laws. Even the famously liberal Ninth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion last month in Nordyke v. King.

Property Rights: In Didden v. Village of Port Chester, Sotomayor joined an unsigned opinion affirming Port Chester’s condemnation of land which plaintiff Bart Didden planned to build a pharmacy on. Didden had been approached by a politically connected developer who demanded either $800,000 from Didden or 50% stake in his pharmacy. When Didden did not comply, Port Chester condemned the land the very next day through eminent domain.

All of which makes her remarkably cursory treatment last year of an employment discrimination case brought by firefighters in New Haven so baffling. The unsigned decision by Judge Sotomayor and two other judges, which affirmed the dismissal of the claims from 18 white firefighters, one of them Hispanic, contained a single paragraph of reasoning.

Judge Sotomayor’s current court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, is a collegial one. But Judge Jose A. Cabranes, writing for himself and five other judges, used unusually tough language in dissenting from the full court’s later refusal to rehear the firefighters’ case.

This single case should raise concerns from Hagan's office since she did co-sponsor Lilly Leadbetter. Equality for all...isn't that the liberal way!

Steve Harrison -

I am very impressed by her story and her lengthy tenure of public service through our courts and let me be the first to say thank you and Americans should embrace her story as inspiration to achieve the American Dream.

With that said - it is her 350 majority opinions that are alarming.

In research of her opinions I have found, along with the New York Times, that she offers no clear vision or opinions on many major issues facing this country.

Judge Sotomayor, whom President Obama announced Tuesday as his choice for the Supreme Court, has issued no major decisions concerning abortion, the death penalty, gay rights or national security. In cases involving criminal defendants, employment discrimination and free speech, her rulings are more liberal than not.

In addition, the opinions that she does offer are "liberal."

Coupled with her clear opinion of judicial activism, then I do see reason for intense scrutiny of her record.

Apparently, you need someone to spell all the details out for you as well...

"She has a reversal rate of 60%, indicating that even her own peers find her opinions to be a little too far left of the mainstream."

Just to clarify, for those readers here that are prone to take erroneous statements like this at face value, Sotomayer's real "reversal rate" is less than one percent.

As a Court of Appeals judge, Sotomayer wrote 380 majority opinions. Only 5 of those were challenged and sent to the Supreme Court, and 3 of those 5 were reversed. That's 3 out of 380, or less than 1%.

Kay Hagan is right to be impressed by Sotomayer's record of service. She was an ADA prosecuting criminal cases for 5 years, a District Court judge for 6 years, and a Court of Appeals judge for 11 years. You compare that with John Roberts' measly 2 years (and 49 opinions) experience as a judge before plopping into the Chief Justice seat and you just might understand why Senator Hagan and many others are pleased with this nomination.

Again, Kay Hagan is proving she is nothing but a sock puppet...

"I am impressed by her record of service."

She is known as one of the most liberal judges in the Court of Appeals. She has a reversal rate of 60%, indicating that even her own peers find her opinions to be a little too far left of the mainstream.

Obama did this nomination for two reasons. He is playing to his left leaning base that are currently outraged at him for the flip flop on Gitmo.

Democrats also view this as an opportunity to gain more support among Hispanics.

Yet how short is the memory of the liberals in this country..'He Is Latino'
Why Dems borked Estrada, in their own words