Comments on: Sotomayor and Siding With Cops

By: Supreme Court Says Warrant Required for GPS Tracking (See correction below) | The Agitator

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:48:08 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Marty

Marty — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:44:54 +0000

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…

By: scott

scott — Sun, 31 May 2009 14:23:29 +0000

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.

By: Douglas Willinger

Douglas Willinger — Sun, 31 May 2009 06:42:37 +0000

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.

By: JT

JT — Sat, 30 May 2009 07:31:31 +0000

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.

By: Pinandpuller

Pinandpuller — Sat, 30 May 2009 03:21:40 +0000

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

By: john

john — Sat, 30 May 2009 01:02:07 +0000

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.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:06:33 +0000

Communists nationalize profitable companies.

…and then run them into the ground.

By: Mister DNA

Mister DNA — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:45:10 +0000

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

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

By: Cynical in CA

Cynical in CA — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:29:22 +0000

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.

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:01:08 +0000

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.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:00:38 +0000

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.

By: Chris K.

Chris K. — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:52:48 +0000

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

By: Adolphus

Adolphus — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:50:24 +0000

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.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:49:21 +0000

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.)

By: MikeL

MikeL — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:32:36 +0000

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

By: Chris K.

Chris K. — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:18:29 +0000

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.

By: Mattocracy

Mattocracy — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:16:09 +0000

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

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:15:26 +0000

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.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:04:39 +0000

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.