Tales from the Wonderland

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

So far....Sotomayor is 1 for 6 with Supreme Court! That's really dealing from a position of strength,huh?

The fact her decisions even got to the Supreme Court and taken
up by them means she was facing some tough cases. So your point
is well taken that the experience is clearly there and she has dealt
with tough cases.

And it is also patently clear she is liberal. The last case I looked at
her decision was reversed 5-4. Alito, Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts
(conservatives)against, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer (liberals)
on the other side.

So what is exactly astonishing about her record in the Supreme Court?

[Honu]

Originally Posted by pgardn

The fact her decisions even got to the Supreme Court and taken
up by them means she was facing some tough cases. So your point
is well taken that the experience is clearly there and she has dealt
with tough cases.

And it is also patently clear she is liberal. The last case I looked at
her decision was reversed 5-4. Alito, Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts
(conservatives)against, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer (liberals)
on the other side.

So what is exactly astonishing about her record in the Supreme Court?

Nothing. The Supreme court did the right thing by the firemen , she was totally wrong in more ways than one.

Originally Posted by Honu

Nothing. The Supreme court did the right thing by the firemen , she was totally wrong in more ways than one.

They may have.
And it probably was very good news for
the individuals that brought the suit against the
city.

But this was not an easy one.

The City that declined to use the test given
because they thought a suit would be brought against
them on grounds of racial discrimination because the results
of the test were badly skewed.

The Supreme Court decided that was not necessarily true.
(That the city should have dropped the exam because they were bound
to get sued)

And there is even more.

These cases are usually more complex than appear on
the surface. The legal questions are not what they appear to
be in many of these cases.
They usually make my head hurt.

And 4 out of 9 justices, her liberal "brethren", were with her.

[SOREHOOF]

The Supreme Court doesn't always get it right, although in this case I think they did. Seizing private property to get more tax dollars is scary. I don't believe she would come down on the right side of that one.

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

The Supreme Court doesn't always get it right, although in this case I think they did. Seizing private property to get more tax dollars is scary. I don't believe she would come down on the right side of that one.

So its that simple in what kind of cases?
The government takes your property in order
to get tax money...

What case was that?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by pgardn

So its that simple in what kind of cases?
The government takes your property in order
to get tax money...

What case was that?

Thursday, June 23, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A closely divided Supreme Court ruled June 23 that municipal and other governments have broad power to seize private property for public purposes.

In a 5-4 ruling, the high court upheld the right of New London, Conn., to seize and raze several private homes and replace them with a waterfront office, retail and housing project. The court's majority held that the depressed industrial town's leaders could claim and redevelop the property for the "public use" of creating new jobs and increasing tax revenue.

Somehow I think she'd be in the majority on this one.

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Thursday, June 23, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A closely divided Supreme Court ruled June 23 that municipal and other governments have broad power to seize private property for public purposes.

In a 5-4 ruling, the high court upheld the right of New London, Conn., to seize and raze several private homes and replace them with a waterfront office, retail and housing project. The court's majority held that the depressed industrial town's leaders could claim and redevelop the property for the "public use" of creating new jobs and increasing tax revenue.

Somehow I think she'd be in the majority on this one.

So it was imminent domain.
It is not about taxes. Its about getting
people jobs. People who have jobs can
pay taxes so a city can function.

BTW I personally was NOT happy with the decision.
But it was again simplified by the original poster.