What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
96 Comments
- CodeAnxiety, on 07/11/2009, -7/+67I don't really care how tough she is on criminals... Shes tough on crime? What does that even mean? A longer sentence for breaking an unjust law is not a good thing.
I am more concerned whether or not she will strive for objectivity or will go with whatever personal whims she (or anyone) might hold at any particular moment. - BottledViolence, on 07/12/2009, -4/+51Ok, great. She was tough on criminals... who cares? The Supreme Court is about the constitution, its not traffic court. Its her comments about constitutional law that I find troubling.
- vault, on 07/11/2009, -8/+45According to the article, she was "considerably tougher" on drug sentencing than others in her district. Heads up for any pro-legalization supporters of Sotomayor that have been defending her lately..
- 3tcp, on 07/10/2009, -11/+38It shouldn't make a difference because the supreme court doesn't hand out sentences.
- jmarvel, on 07/11/2009, -7/+31The real issue is not whether or not she is tough on crime. The cases that reach the supreme court are cases that interpreting the constitution and they is really where she fails. She has been overturned numerous times and she clearly cares more about politics rather than upholding the constitution which is the job of the supreme court.
- Animan351, on 07/12/2009, -5/+27Yea. She's giving longer sentences to non violent crimes to further overcrowd our jails.
- DouglasQ, on 07/12/2009, -1/+21I kind of don't like the idea of some judges being harser or more leniant than others.
Surely that's the one profession you want a bit of consistancy out of. - blqysmg, on 07/11/2009, -11/+29Is she really tough on crime? or is she more supportive of criminalizing a larger range of activities that large percentages of the American population participate in? We have left the "land of the free" and become the "land where everything is illegal," or at least tightly controlled.
The Government wants to control just about every aspect of your life. They have a say in what you eat, what you wear, what you do for a living, how you save and spend your money, where you sleep at night, who you sleep with, what movies you are allowed to see, what news you are allowed to read, how you are allowed to defend yourself. What, exactly, are we allowed to do without Government intervention? - Chairboy, on 07/12/2009, -3/+18I'm more concerned with her rulings being overturned 60% of the time. This does not indicate, in my mind, a judge with a firm enough grasp of the fundamentals to be setting national interpretation of constitutional issues.
- NorthMass, on 07/12/2009, -9/+23Who cares what the "conservative critics" think? This mindset of libs vs conservatives is destroying our country folks.
Sotomayor probably would be a bad supreme court justice IMO because I doubt she supports gun rights(hopefully I am wrong), and I think her decision about not changing the ruling that the firefighters tests be thrown out is also terrible. Affirmative action is good intentioned, but only keeps bigotry around by enraging people who lost jobs due to their race/gender. - mirunit, on 07/12/2009, -2/+15"Affirmative action is good intentioned, but only keeps bigotry around by enraging people who lost jobs due to their race/gender."
Because anything with done with the intention of helping/hurting a certain race of people - is racist. I really long for the day when we can just forget the idea of race altogether. - Akairenn, on 07/12/2009, -6/+19"handing down more and longer sentences"
No. The jails are overcrowded and our justice system is flawed. Sorry, 'tough on crime' to me, equates to, "I'm a power-hungry ***** looking to further my political career."
Oh, and there's the entire racist against white people thing. Listen, Sotomayor, I'm glad you're butthurt, but I am not my great-great-great-grandparents. *****, I'm pretty sure I had no family in the US until after Lincoln. So why don't you strive for actual equality, rather than spiteful revenge? - Kavalier, on 07/10/2009, -10/+20True, but it brings the knee-jerk liberal tag into question.
- govsucks, on 07/12/2009, -6/+15Unless you are a minority, then she takes into consideration your skin color when sentencing. I wish I was being sarcastic.
- IgorUnchained, on 07/12/2009, -2/+11Well said all around North and Mir....that is what this comes down for me as well.
The Bill of Rights is pretty clear...if you cant get through the first two Amendments without getting it wrong, Im ok with looking elsewhere for someone to fill the seat.
Affirmative Action might have had it's day, but its supporters should feel glad to be obsolete on the day when a black man is elected to office. You are never going to totally stamp out bigotry and favoritism in the workplace, but when a black man has the most powerful job in the world (for a few years more anyway).....Mission Accomplished. - drmangrum, on 07/12/2009, -2/+11"Tough on crime" is a politicians phrase. If a judge is handing down stronger sentences than necessary, or tougher sentences on certain crimes, then that person does not need to be a judge. They've lost their objectivity and are pursuing a personal agenda. If they can't weigh mitigating factors into the sentencing phase and always fall back on the maximum allowed by law then they don't need to be a judge.
- d3matt, on 07/12/2009, -3/+12it's not the liberal tag I'm applying to her... it's her view of the constitution as something that should be applied according to her belief system rather than as the restraint on government power and authority the founders meant it to be. Yes, one could say that's a liberal view, but my response is, I really don't care what her political views are... they shouldn't be pertinent to those sitting on the court. Their entire job is to be completely unbiased. She has outright stated that she would not do that.
- khfn, on 07/12/2009, -1/+9La Raza seems kind of racist, which bothers me.
- Nintendesert, on 07/12/2009, -2/+10And all of a sudden packing our prisons is a good thing? I doubt she makes it onto the Supreme Court, but I don't think she was nominated to. She's the nominee that causes a big fight to pave the way for the next nominee which was the goal all along.
- sirdarksoul, on 07/12/2009, -2/+9While on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor revealed her views on the right to ke ep and bear arms in Maloney v. Cuomo, a case decided after Heller, yet holding that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right, that it does not apply to the states, and that if an object is "designed primarily as a weapon" that is a sufficient basis for total prohibition even within the home. Earlier in a 2004 case, United States v. Sanchez-Villar, Sotomayor and two colleagues perfunctorily dismissed a Second Amendment claim holding that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."
- AraleNorimaki, on 07/12/2009, -1/+8"The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force."
- NorthMass, on 07/12/2009, -3/+10"I really long for the day when we can just forget the idea of race altogether."
I couldn't have said that any better. - ironhide, on 07/12/2009, -4/+11Translated: "I don't like being dugg down by people who disagree with me, so I'll whine about it, while trying to sound noble"
- lovemorgul, on 07/10/2009, -7/+13She was also tough on criminal defendants in general.
- emmeron, on 07/12/2009, -4/+9@ Chestnutridge:
I think the point here is that ... well... real supreme court judges would find her judgments questionable.
I would agree with that sentiment. You make a fine point, but it in no way argues against what jmarvel said -- I don't know where either of you are getting a better or worse than average statistic from, so I don't really care to comment on that further (citations are nice though).
She doesn't give a rats ass about the constitution compared to her ethnic status. She's made that clear MANY times. The rest is irrelevant. - Kumah, on 07/12/2009, -3/+8Cool propaganda bro.
- dknybbrz, on 07/12/2009, -1/+6Kinda like the Klan "seems" racist...
- LawScholar, on 07/12/2009, -3/+8Bitch about stuff.
- inactive, on 07/12/2009, -35/+39Yeah she's tough, if you're white. Otherwise she's pretty "empathetic"
- shig, on 07/12/2009, -0/+4Well-regulated meant functioning well, adequately equipped, good working order, properly calibrated. It didn't, like it's modern connotation, mean governed by a ruling body or bureaucratic regime. For instance, you can have well-regulated bowels without government intervention. The framers understood a properly functioning militia as being necessary for the security of a free state, like a well-regulated organ was necessary for good health.
If she understands only the first half to mean such things than she's not even half right. - seltaeb4, on 07/12/2009, -2/+6What happened to this "shinning" beacon?
Did people keep bumping into it with the fronts of their lower legs? - NorthMass, on 07/12/2009, -1/+5"This coming from one of the biggest right-wing extremist hacks on Digg? Youre not fooling anyone."
What? What have I ever said that is "extremist"? Whether you agree with my views or not, I always blame both parties for our economic and political situations, and you are calling me a hack for it? Are you simply trying to label ANYONE who disagrees with your point of view as an extremist?
You either don't even know who I am, or you are just trolling. - inactive, on 07/12/2009, -6/+10This woman does not deserve a seat on our nation's highest court.
- randumbusername, on 07/12/2009, -2/+6isn't it something how politics make people flop all over the place.
tough on crime.............will she utter phrases like "bring it on" too. - DerangedPenguin, on 07/12/2009, -0/+4Besides her flagrant disregard for the Constitution that makes her one of the most over turned judges in the history of the United States court system saying she is tough on crime is much like saying that the Ku Klux Klan was tough on crime. Sotomayor all too often has let her personal bigotry be the deciding force in her decisions. If she wanted to make changes to the fundamental way this country is run she should have gone into the legislative branch of government.
- inactive, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3This should read:
Sotomayor Tougher on People Arbitrarily Divided Into Groups Based on Skin Color Than Any of Her Colleages - tkubic46, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3tough on crime aka spend trillions of federal dollars on a pointless and ineffective and immoral drug war
- Barackalypse, on 07/12/2009, -2/+5I notice they make no mention as to how she treats violent offenders, which are the ones that most need to be in prison. Incidentally, here is a direct link to the study results:
http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/judge/213/ - madtechnologist, on 07/13/2009, -0/+3Tougher on crime??? Maybe if it's white folk on trial....
- inactive, on 07/12/2009, -2/+5Ad hominem attacks will not refute facts. Try to rise above high school debate level.
The Supreme Court ruled against her in the Ricci case, look it up. She was dead wrong. You want this woman saying what's fair for the next 30 years?
And stop drinking the Kool-Aid. The Dems are in power, the only dissenting voice right now is Fox News and talk radio. I watched MSNBC before Obama won. Then it became pretty apparent what they were all about. They only questioned the authority of Republicans and gave the Dems a pass. I thought Olbermann would keep railing against the president. How foolish was I? Look at the people reporting in the Main Stream Media, are they biased towards liberals?
Now if I do watch news, it's 20/20 (with Stossel) or Fox. That's the only place to get the other side of the government's argument. Think for yourself, it's harder but it's more fulfilling. - Unreal030, on 07/12/2009, -0/+3How's the pseudo-dictatorship panning out for you? Don't come crying for help in 20 years when they drag you away ass clown.
- sirdarksoul, on 07/12/2009, -7/+10She's anti 2nd Amendment
- Chestnutridge, on 07/12/2009, -1/+4Emmeron: The information below is from May 29th issue of Newsweek:
"Of the majority opinions that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has authored since becoming an appellate judge in 1998, three of her appellate opinions have been overturned by the Supreme Court.
Our search for appellate opinions by Sotomayor on the LexisNexis database returned 232 cases. That's a reversal rate of 1.3 percent.
But only five of her decisions have been reviewed by the justices. Using five as a denominator, the rate comes out to 60 percent.
In the week before President Barack Obama announced that he would nominate Sotomayor, the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network ran an Internet ad saying she had a "100 percent reversal rate," which is false. (We asked that group for back-up material, which a spokesman agreed to give us but which we never received; since Obama's announcement, the group has taken the ad down.)
In any case, 60 percent of the cases the Supreme Court has reviewed is not a particularly high number. In any given term, the Supreme Court normally reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears. During its 2006-2007 term, for instance, the Court reversed or vacated (which, for our purposes here, mean the same thing) 68 percent of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6 percent the previous term."
You last paragraph is pretty pathetic since you obviously didn't take the time to look up the facts. - gureyes, on 07/12/2009, -1/+3they were white
- d3matt, on 07/12/2009, -1/+3actually, most conservative "critics" don't speak for us right-wing extremeist hacks...
- realcoolguy9022, on 07/12/2009, -5/+7It does not make a lick of difference how hard she came down on criminals... Although I get the sneaking suspicion if we compared her 'minority' sentences to her 'white folk' sentences, I would be curious to see who she came down harder on.
Yes, please just enforce the constitution, do not invent law, but do not let laws that are unjust, and overreaching cause harm to the populace. This lady folks, she is absolutely whacked.
I can't even believe she's a judge with the way she thinks and behaves. If she gets in, it means that we really don't have any checks on whom the president wants to appoint.
Yeah, I'm sure she has some really nice good points that everyone can support her for. However her intentional, willful, and even public pursuit of changing the law to fit her own will makes her someone no one should be supporting, even if they agree with her! - ulcards2033, on 07/12/2009, -0/+2Tell me, how do you think the militia got guns? The governments of the states had very little taxes and almost no authority to collect them around the time of the revolution, the federal government had even less. If they couldnt supply Washingtons army with boots then how would they supply colonists with weapons? And why would they need to when most already had guns they brought with them from their homes to fight with.
- errantic, on 07/12/2009, -5/+7I think I'd trust lawyer organizations to evaluate her. Not twitter-diggers.
- DavidNiven, on 07/12/2009, -6/+8She's only considered tougher on crime by those even more radically liberal than she is. Yeah, I know. There are a few of them out there.
- ancientshoes, on 07/12/2009, -3/+5is she supportive on the death penalty?
end of discussion -
Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is