This entry was posted
on Friday, May 29th, 2009 at 3:46 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under Police Professionalism.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Agree with SJE completely. While I think it’s a good choice, the role of the opposition is closely scrutinize these choices, and niether Obama fans nor Obama nay sayers can do that effectively. The GOP needs to learn to be an opposition, not a bunch of nay sayers. The moderates are trying to do that, but the blowhards like Limbaugh go as far as to try to purge anyone who tries. Powel is good example of that.
I’m glad Radley is trying to be an effective opposition voice, not many are these days.
I’ll read that case when I have time, but this one also sounds really fishy. It sounds like the case rested on witness credibility, and when that’s the case, jury verdicts are virtually untouchable.
It appears that Sotomayor’s record is one of restraint, so I don’t know why should would have over-turned a jury’s verdict on a fact-intensive sort of issue. There has to be more to it. I’ll see what the opinion says.
Well, if the case in the Slate article indicative of Sotomayor’s take on the “new professional” we might as well start planning the funeral for the Exclusionary Rule, as well as the Fourth Amendment.
I won’t be surprised if it turns out she is a drug warrior dressed up in progressive robes.
If there is any bright side to this, it will occur in the next year or so when she sides with Scalia and liberal hand-wringing fest that will follow. If we can’t have a Constitution, at least we can have identity politics schadenfreude.
If you actually dig down into her record, Sotomayor is far from a “liberal”. She’s a pretty middle of the road competent pick, but she’s not one that’s suddenly going to throw the court wildly to the left. She’s no liberal version of Scalia.
She’s probably going to be close to the current swing vote Kennedy, unless she’s a truly stealth candidate that has built up a decades plus # of cases showing her to be the opposite of what she actually is.
“…28 court appearances before he was found not guilty of felony assault. He spent $20,000 on legal fees…”
The police have SUCH influence in the courts, and a never ending supply of resources and backup… that you MUST treat everything they say as suspect. They have such an advantage, they must be required to prove their every word.
All this cop had to do to prevent some poor truck driver from going to court 28 times and spending 20K in legal fees was to keep his dick in his pocket and be the better man.
NOt defending her, but in another case, Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford, (which I haven’t read and I am not a lawyer so wouldn’t totally understand it anyway) she found against the police that they had, or that a reasonable jury could find, that police used excessive force against protesters.
Interestingly, I read about this case in an article that was trying to disparage her pro-choice stance because the protesters in this case were abortion protesters, and, after all it’s okay to use excessive force against people we disagree with, i guess.
My guess would be they are both more complicated than brief popular articles can convey and that her position on this is more complicated still. I do however agree with Boyd. The days of finding SCOTUS Justices in the ACLU and NAACP are long gone and I think lasted for exactly one Justice.
Chris K, all your post proves is you don’t know what a communist is.
He’s closer than you are, Mike. I would have called Obama a Mussolini-type fascist to be more precise. The difference between a fascist and a communist is that a fascist lets you pretend to own your factory, as long as your factory serves the fascist’s interests, while a communist drops that one particular pretense.
What this amounts to is bickering over the style of chair the driver of the tank sits on while he drives down your street. It’s not that important in the grand scheme of things.
When Bill O’Reilly touts a judge as “good on crime” you know she’s a statist who ALWAYS sides with the govt. A socialist who also has authoritarian leanings…so she’s like ginsberg and scalia. bad times for the usa. don’t forget Obama’s radio interview: This is the guy who said income redistribution should be accomplished through the courts, and the American people STILL elected him.
Speaking as a libertarian that leans liberal, this *should* be one of the things liberals can be counted on to side very very solidly with the libertarians on.
Why in the flaming hell can’t a democrat get a better nominee than this?
You know your country is in trouble when the “leaders” on the left are authoritarian bootlicks.
It really is getting impossible to tell the left from the right now.
Haven’t Libertarians (I know, I know, Radley is not a Libertarian but that is the general tone of his blog and readership) figured out that modern day liberals are NOT interested in individual liberty? Sotomayer is going to be no different.