Obama nominates NewyoRican female to SCOTUS

[DinoDoc]

Hey plenty of the authors of the document had a living document idea of it.

And they very helpfully put in an amendment process to help the document evolve if the people felt it was needed. I'm not sure that Berz who I'm trying to channel atm would view the idea of a "living constitution" well at all. It would seem to lead inevitably into crafting subjective interpretations of the Constitution to address issues that could and should be handled by Congress.

PS Are we still having that stupid qualification arguement? Could Ramo or whoever else might be trying to push it please enlighten us as to who they might be argueing against in this thread. I can't see any that might qualify.

[SpencerH]

Apparently not, because Sotomayor has just as much academic experience.

She was adjunct faculty at NYU (as Roberts was at Georgetown). She was also a lecturer at Columbia.

You are correct, both Roberts and Alito were only adjunct faculty so they fall to her level in that regard while Scalia maintains his position as the most qualified by my criteria. OTOH, both Alito and Roberts argued cases before the Supreme Court (which counts positively for their credentials) while Sotomayor did not.

[SpencerH]

How is it racist/sexist to appoint a superbly qualified hispanic woman?

my bold



Thats just as big a joke as saying she's unqualified.

[DinoDoc]

It's true. If he appointed a white man, he wouldn't have had a golden opportunity to publicly expose Republican racism and sexism (yet again).

Is it racist or sexist to have criticisms of the judge? Can I call people who are critical of Thomas Klan members?

[DinoDoc]

my bold



Thats just as big a joke as saying she's unqualified.

She saved baseball and has a compelling life story.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And they very helpfully put in an amendment process to help the document evolve if the people felt it was needed. I'm not sure that Berz who I'm trying to channel atm would view the idea of a "living constitution" well at all. It would seem to lead inevitably into crafting subjective interpretations of the Constitution to address issues that could and should be handled by Congress.

So the "living constitution" people stopped at amendment process? Doubt it. Alexander Hamilton, who was at the Constitutional Convention, and signed the document, pushed forcefully, and got started a Bank of the United States. Where is that listed in the Constitution or an Amendment? It was an implied power to Hamilton based on Commerce Clause power.

Every interpretation of the Constitution is subjective. Look at how the two main early parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, interpreted the document and BOTH sides were represented at Philadelphia when they were creating it.

[Kuciwalker]

How is it racist/sexist to appoint a superbly qualified hispanic woman?

It's racist and sexist to refuse to consider any white males.

[Kuciwalker]

According to some people, to value diversity means to be racist and/or sexist.

Yes.

[Kuciwalker]

You don't need a written constitution for judicial review.

You do for the idea of judicial review as practiced in the US.

[Kuciwalker]

How come the solicitor general never seems to get nominated? It seems he would often be the most qualified possible candidate.

edit: apparently they often are

[Drake Tungsten]

The Solicitor General was considered this time, but she lost out to Sotomayor despite being more qualified. Kagan has the misfortune of being white...

[Theben]

It's true. If you look at all of Obama's appointments you'll be hard-pressed to find any that are white.

[Berzerker]

Uh... I hope you are just being coy...

of course

Madison won by not being forced to accept Marbury's writ of mandamus to be appointed Justice of the Peace for D.C.

The court upheld the law, they sided with Madison and the gov't. So how did Madison benefit from judicial activism? That was Dino's evidence Madison could be confirmed today if he were alive... I think. He seemed to disagree with my assessment but I dont know why Marbury v Madison supports his argument.

Alexander Hamilton was an author of the document as well, and he was a huge supporter of the Alien and Sedition Acts passed under John Adams. So is that a good reason to believe that the 1st Amendment means the Alien and Sedition Acts are allowable?

Hamilton wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being nominated/confirmed either But Hamilton wasn't an author of the 1st Amendment, that was Madison and his allies for religious liberty, like Jefferson (yes, he was off in France) and other Virginians who came up with that state's statute of religious liberty.

Marshall should have recused himself anyway given his personal involvement in the case.

I agree with that, and aint it amazing the BS going on at the time? Talk about packing the courts

The court case! Marbury v. Madison, what you were talking about! The court ruled in his favor.

Yes, so how is that judicial activism? Marbury v Madison is famous for establishing (or formalizing) judicial review but the decision in favor of Madison was hardly judicial activism.

[Berzerker]

Nobody has claimed she is not qualified Ramo.

I think I did, but thats just me

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hamilton wasn't an author of the 1st Amendment, that was Madison and his allies for religious liberty, like Jefferson (yes, he was off in France) and other Virginians who came up with that state's statute of religious liberty.

The 1st Amendment went through 19 different drafts. And far more than the Virginians' view were considered. Furthermore those who voted for the 1st Amendment also voted for the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, meaning in their belief such was allowed by the 1st Amendment (perhaps otherwise they would not have signed off on it and it would not have become part of the Constitution). If you are using originalism as your argument, it is ludicrous not to consider the views of those who voted for a law.