Saturday, May 30, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor on Dissenting Justice

Because I have written so many essays regarding Sonia Sotomayor, I have decided to compile a link list. I have also added at tab on the left side of the blog for quick access to this page. I will update this page with each new post. Enjoy.

Republicans' Latest "New" Strategy on Sotomayor Is Another Loser

Kenneth Starr Praises, Offers Support for Sonia Sotomayor

The Blog "Hot Air" Stays True to Its Name With Article Suggesting Supreme Court Intentionally Delaying Ruling in Ricci

Media Matters: NYT, Fox and MSNBC Delete Sotomayor Comment Regarding Her "Socio-Economically Poor Background"

Will Wonders Ever Cease: Senator Grassley Discovers Sotomayor Is Not "Aggressive" or "Obnoxious"

Rosen Writes on Race and Sotomayor

WWKD: Ricci v. DeStefano Will Likely Turn on Justice Kennedy

Sotomayor Hearings To Begin on July 13

Does a Judge's Gender Matter? Ask "Proud" Laura Bush

Sotomayor's Opponents Apply Racial and Gendered Double-Standard

Hypocrisy Alert: Conservatives Angry That Sotomayor Is Not a Judicial Activist (Part II)

Sotomayor's Diverse Former Law Clerks Give Her Strong Endorsement

No Longer "PC Liberal Fascist Rhetoric": Conservatives Are Suddenly Concerned About Race!

"Racist" Sotomayor Defends White Employee From Dismissal Due to His Circulation of Racist Literature

Major Hypocrisy Alert: Washington Times Condemns Sotomayor for Strictly Adhering to the Text of Statute When Deciding Felon Voting Case

Andrew McCarthy's Argument Against Sotomayor Would Disqualify O'Connor and Scalia as Well!

Peggy Noonan to Republicans: Let's Play Grown-Up

Judge Guido Calabresi, Superstar Legal Scholar, Gives Sotomayor Strong Endorsement

Is Justice Alito a Biased Judicial Ideologue Who Only Focuses on His "Background"?

Ilya Shapiro and Dana Milbank Float the "Dumb Broad" Stereotype

Fearing Political Consequences GOP Might Back Down From Sotomayor Fight

Conservative Judicial Empathy? You Betcha!

The Audacity of Hypocrisy: Mike Huckabee Says Appointing "Maria" Sotomayor Will Lead to an "Extreme Court"

Sotomayor = Supreme Court Pick! Plus: Anti-Conservative Talking Points

Rosen's Reviewers Suddenly Get Names!

Strikingly Similar: Comparing Sotomayor's Views on Sex and Race With Statements By O'Connor, Ginsburg, Scalia and Kennedy

Scalia v. Sotomayor: The Use of Gender-Coded Language to Evaluate a Judge's "Temperament"

Rosen Defends His Misreading of a Judicial Footnote: Says Judge Winter's Writing "Not a Model of Clarity"

Earth to Orrin Hatch: Even Conservative Judges Make Policy!

Hatchet Job: Jeffrey Rosen's Utterly Bankrupt Analysis of Judge Sonia Sotomayor

8 comments:

The Gaucho Politico said...

Thanks for the aggregation. Also, arent the attacks on her entering the self parody zone? Cant they find some meritorious critiques somewhere?

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Meritorious critiques? I can only offer this highly appropriate satire from The Onion: Oh, No! It's Making Well-Reasoned Arguments Backed With Facts! Run!

Stray Yellar Dawg? said...

Thanks. That is very helpful!

SYD

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Hey, Stray: You're welcome....Thanks for the link.

wjb said...

I don't often agree with your views but I am extremely appreciative of the much needed civil dialogue. Any comments on Sotomayor and the Armstrong case? (Scroll down on article to see Scribd link one http://princetoneconomics.blogspot.com)

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

WJB: Thanks. I had not even heard about the Armstrong case, but I read the opinion, and Armstrong's caustic letters about the case. His anger with Sotomayor and the rest of the judges on the panel is misplaced.

For those of you who do not know about this case, it involves a case a securities fraud. The individual was subject to prosecution and a civil enforcement action, and so was a company for which he served as an officer. As an officer, he had control of the companies books and other data that could substantiate wrongdoing by the company. When the court-appointed receiver requested the records, he refused to turn them over, citing the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Second Circuit ruled against him, citing clear Supreme Court precedent. The SCT had already held that a corporate officer cannot refuse to turn over corporate materials, sought in an action against the company, by invoking the Fifth Amendment. Makes sense to me.

The other issue involved his seven years incarceration for refusing to turn over the documents. Sotomayor actually gave him the better deal on this issue. The other two judges on the panel said that the seven years did not violate the due process clause and that Armstrong could not benefit from federal statutes that mandate a shorter window for detaining someone to force compliance with a subpoena.

Sotomayor, however, wrote separately to say that one particular statute goes against his "indefinite detention" and that the 18 months cap in that statute should be the guiding line in all cases of civil contempt -- even if the facts do not explicitly mandate application of that statute. In other words, she said that the federal statute should guide the court's analysis on this "discretionary" matter.

Here's some powerful language that Sotomayor wrote in favor of the BITTER Armstrong:

The district court's finding that Armstrong is motivated solely by greed is not enough to justify disregard for due process. Courts must exercise caution in their use of the contempt power and must recognize when it has reached the limits of its utility. The Fifth Amendment provides the final constraint on incarceration for civil contempt, and I encourage the district court to be vigilant in policing the boundary-line between the coercive and the punitive.

Armstrong and his fans are wondering why Senators have not mentioned this case. Well, if anything, it lets me know that she values due process. It could only help her. Armstrong's letters, which are posted on the web, are so misleading and caustic that it becomes easy to understand why members of Congress decided to avoid him. Besides, using a person who defrauded investors of billions to go after Sotomayor would not have been a smart move.

Anonymous said...

Too many evasive answers to questions concerning the 2nd amendment from Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Like it or not,it IS an inalienable or fundamental right.
In Maloney v. Cuomo, you joined a three-judge panel concluding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. You also argued that the right to bear arms is not a “fundamental right.”

In your incredibly short opinion, your panel cites Presser v. Illinois as the basis for its claim that “it is settled law … that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on [the right to bear arms].” Your panel neglects to mention, however, that Presser was decided before the courts began incorporating the Bill of Rights through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller describes as “the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.”[14]

More disturbingly, your panel summarily stated in a scant 11-word conclusion that statutes restricting possession of weapons do not implicate a fundamental right–something that no court has done since the Supreme Court affirmed an individual Second Amendment right in Heller.

Why did you fail to even consider the sort of inquiry that the Supreme Court said is required by the Fourteenth Amendment in your decision stripping Second Amendment protection from citizens in the Second Circuit? Do you believe that statutes restricting possession of weapons do not even implicate fundamental rights? How does that view comport with the text of the Second Amendment?

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Anonymous: A panel of the Seventh Circuit reached the same conclusion on the incorporation issue. Are the conservatives angry that the Second Circuit did not go the way of the "activist" Ninth Circuit? Apparently.

The "fundamental rights" issue raises the same question. Since the SCT only recently held that the Second Amendment contains an individual right enforceable against the federal government, why does this compel a result that the Fourteenth Amendment protects a fundamental right to bear arms?

Real Time Analytics