Sotomayor and Siding With Cops

Friday, May 29th, 2009

This isn’t encouraging.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

28 Responses to “Sotomayor and Siding With Cops”

  1. #1 |  SJE | 

    THIS is the sort of thing that she should be grilled on, not the usual GOP b.s….actually, it would be hard to paint her as a weak on crime liberal.

  2. #2 |  MikeL | 

    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.

  3. #3 |  Nick T | 

    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.

  4. #4 |  Ginger Dan | 

    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.

  5. #5 |  Edmund Dantes | 

    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.

  6. #6 |  claude | 

    “we might as well start planning the funeral for the Exclusionary Rule, as well as the Fourth Amendment.”

    This woman is going to be trouble. Mark my words.

  7. #7 |  Brian Moore | 

    This article on the new supreme court nominee is disturbingly filled with facts and actual information, therefore I cannot in good conscience read it.

  8. #8 |  Bob | 

    This is terrible.

    Even if you utterly disregard Jock’s account of events, and side totally with the cops simply because they are cops, the shining protectors of society…

    You still have a douche bag cop who who managed to turn a simple request to use a phone into a fucking felony arrest.

    Did he try to help the guy, even though he’s a public servant? Oh! Fuck no!

    Did he use his superior police training to defuse the situation? Oh! fuck no! He was the one doing the escalation!

    And that’s if you believe HIS story!

    Sotomayor has lost an eighth.

  9. #9 |  Bob | 

    Ok, slightly calmer.

    This is why Sotomoyer was so wrong:

    “…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.

  10. #10 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Well, you weren’t going to get a judge with a history of surpressing the state’s power or protecting citizens from POS cops…because there aren’t any judges like that.

  11. #11 |  Mattocracy | 

    And this is Slate making this opinion. When Slate says one of Obama’s nominations is bad news, it must be pretty bad.

  12. #12 |  Chris K. | 

    I’m SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you that our COMMUNIST president (yes, he is, he just took over 70+ of GM) would appoint someone who consistantly sides with the state.

  13. #13 |  MikeL | 

    Chris K, all your post proves is you don’t know what a communist is.

  14. #14 |  Steve | 

    The GOP needs to learn to be an opposition, not a bunch of nay sayers. The moderates are trying to do that…. Powel is good example of that.

    Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiichpleeeeze!

    Powell endorsed Barack Obama for president.

    Colin. Powell. Endorsed. The. Democrat.

    Hey, you forgot to mention Arlen Specter. That’ll really show Republicans that you have their best interests at heart.

    (I am not a Republican or Democrat, just in case you were about to go off half-cocked.)

  15. #15 |  Adolphus | 

    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.

  16. #16 |  Chris K. | 

    Really MikeL? Nationalising of industry isn’t something communists do?

  17. #17 |  Steve | 

    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.

  18. #18 |  Steve Verdon | 

    What a shock! An appointee of one our two main political parties to the SCOTUS is a Statist. I’m shocked! Shocked I’d say.

    Please this was so utterly f*cking predictable it isn’t even amusing.

  19. #19 |  Cynical in CA | 

    Reading about the makeup of the 3-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit reminded me of this gem by John Hasnas, “The Myth of the Rule of Law.”

    http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/gtwebsite/MythWeb.htm

    Sheldon Richman of the Foundation for Economic Education referred to this same article in his op-ed today.

    http://fee.org/articles/tgif/rule-lore/

    Hopefully this will temper any emotion the results from the nomination of Sotomayor, or any other nominee for that matter.

  20. #20 |  Mister DNA | 

    To those accusing Obama of being a communist because he nationalized GM.

    There’s a big difference: Communists nationalize profitable companies.

  21. #21 |  Steve | 

    Communists nationalize profitable companies.

    …and then run them into the ground.

  22. #22 |  john | 

    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.

  23. #23 |  Pinandpuller | 

    Just don’t go calling her a douche-bag…

  24. #24 |  JT | 

    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.

  25. #25 |  Douglas Willinger | 

    At the civil trial, the cop claims that the the truck driver assaulted him, but did not make this claim earlier?!

    Sounds like the truck driver has a valid civil rights claim, that the cops and Sotomayer need psychiatric evaluations, and that she is utterly unworthy to be a judge.

  26. #26 |  scott | 

    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.

  27. #27 |  Marty | 

    Jocks v. Tavernier was obviously a huge tragedy for Mr. Jocks (and all of us), but I see this as another step in Obama’s FDR obsession. Only he’s able to make over the court without threats…

  28. #28 |  Supreme Court Says Warrant Required for GPS Tracking (See correction below) | The Agitator | 

    [...] think it’s probably time for me to concede that I was wrong about Sotomayor. (See here, here, here, and here.) Not only has she not been a liability in criminal justice cases, you could make a [...]

Leave a Reply