May 15, 2009

Sotomayor's opinions.

Lots of detail, for a change. From SCOTUSblog.

16 comments:

John Lynch said...

Hmmm. Other than the Second Amendment case, seems fine to me.

David said...

Of course, this is someone else's selection of cases and summary, but she doesn't exactly sound like a wild eyed radical. Unfortunately abortion will continue to cloud the debate (oh why, why did they not let the legislatures decide?) and there's nothing on executive power. But it sounds like the Republic could survive this woman.

No empathy, though. I don't see any empathy.

Jordan said...

Trackback: Friday Morning Feeling Like Afternoon Already Linkage

Salamandyr said...

I found the decisions listed here generally reasonable, but one thing that I'm not sure I understand.

How is it "settled law" that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states? And if the Second Amendment does not apply, why are the states limited by the other Amendments of the Bill of Rights?

cryptical said...

How is it "settled law" that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states? And if the Second Amendment does not apply, why are the states limited by the other Amendments of the Bill of Rights?I don't know if it's settled law any longer, now that the Ninth Circuit has incorporated the 2nd.

Check out Incorporation (Bill of Rights) for info on incorporation.

David said...

Looks like the commenters at Althouse Blog are not very interested in reading about Sotomayor's judicial opinions.

Or they have no opinion on the opinions.

After all, this is blogging. Why read anything over 50 words long.

Salamandyr said...

Wow, David, you're a git.

Salamandyr said...

Cryptical, thank you for the link on incorporation. So if I understand this correctly, incorporation of rights has not been applied as a sweeping principle, but more as an ad hoc response to individual cases?

Shows what I know, I thought the Bill of Rights applied to states because of supremacy (the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land")

John Lynch said...

We're going to get a pro-choice liberal, so we might as well get one with a lot of respect for civil liberties.

Henry Buck said...

Sotomayor was member of the panel in Ricci v. DeStefano. And although you can't judge a judge by one opinion (a per curiam at that), the procedural oddities surrounding that case raise a big warning flag.

cryptical said...

So if I understand this correctly, incorporation of rights has not been applied as a sweeping principle, but more as an ad hoc response to individual cases?That's what I understand as well, but IANALP. Heh, just wanted to say that once here :)

JAL said...

Where is Simon?

Dale said...

Several of the opinions seem middle of the road or even conservative to me. But what do I know - I'm a teacher, not a lawyer, Jim!

But I don't think she'll be nominated: she's just not very attractive, frankly, and Obama is not going to be comfortable with that.

Brent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brent said...

I just made a similar comment to Dale's about choosing a good-looking woman for the Supreme Court over at another blog and my wife saw it and said it wasn't very nice.

But c'mon - if your legacy is going to be a woman appointee and with the proliferation of women in law school - especially hot-looking women - why not get a looker?

Ann, is your hat in the ring?

David said...

Sala, you taught me a new word, even if it is an insult:

"'git' & 'sod' both more or less mean the same thing a complete idiot or someone beneath contempt, to say someone is a sodding git just multiplies the sentiment and the amount of venom or contempt in someone's voice as they say it will usually indicate how sincere they are when they say it."

At least you did not call me a sodding git.