Chuck Todd: Republicans Won't Boycott Sotomayor Hearing

more at msnbc.com

June 10, 2009

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Chuck
• Todd
• Sotomayor
• Supreme
• Court
• Hearing

[RealCaptainAmerica]

Republicans are playing political games. They were going to attack ANYONE Obama nominated. How does that help the country?

[greyflcn]

re: TedinLasVegas

==YES, New Haven IS proof that not everyone will get a fair shake before her bench==

Well considering all of the judges on that panel came to the same position, AND it was basically just a repeat of already established common-law.

I guess that really depends what your interpretation of "fair" is?

If you can accuse her of anything, it's that she's a too frequently sides with the status quo. That she's not "activist" enough.

[CynicalSavior]

TedinLasVegas = worthless troll.

Come on Ted. Tell us how much trolling YouTube pays. Did you sign up under McCain's plan back during the campaign and you've decided to keep it up?

Is this your only job? You troll these vids day and night every god damn day.

[dluviam]

TedinLasVegas:

"SCOTUS already set the precedent that such a decision was A VIOLATION OF LAW""

What SCOTUS decision are your referring to?

Forgive me if I don't take your word. I like to verify things for myself.

MY point is, & the FACTS are, that a U.S. District Court judge had already ruled that the city government had acted within the law, and a panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals including Sotomayor agreed.

Because of the, "legal precedent" the judges rightly followed the law

[TedinLasVegas]

OK, I've read and re-read your comments. YOU'RE STILL WRONG!

I agree, it's not a matter of whether it was wrong. The difference is, SCOTUS already set the precedent that such a decision was A VIOLATION OF LAW -- case law, specifically.

The legal precedent, something liberal judges seem to hate, is how law is supposed to be decided. The precedent was that the city acted illegally and therefore the petition for enforcement of the results was legal proper.

[dluviam]

TedinLasVegas, READ my comment before you go to your prepared remarks.

Once again:

The issue before Sotomayor's court wasn't whether the city of New Haven had acted fairly in canceling the exam, but whether it had acted legally.

There's no law to prevent New Haven from doing what it did. It WAS NOT FAIR, but it wasn't illegal.

The job of Sotomayor's 3 judge court was not to decide fairness.

That would've been legislating from the bench.

Do you want judges to legislate from the bench?

[TedinLasVegas]

Ridiculuous! SCOTUS has already thrown out the idea that a test can be thrown out based on arbitrary standards of race. Unless the Plaintiff can prove that the test is racially biased -- as in the questions themselves are racist -- the outcome of the test cannot be tossed based on a racial standard.

In the New Haven test, there was no evidence proffered that showed the questions were biased, only that the outcome was that only white males (one disabled) passed. They don't meet the test.

[dluviam]

TedinLasVegas, New Haven was an example of judicial restraint. She followed the law. The case shows she's not an "activist" judge as she's been painted as being.

The issue before Sotomayor's court wasn't whether the city of New Haven had acted fairly in canceling the exam, but whether it had acted legally.

Am I wrong about New Haven? Tell me how.

If you don't see that in the New Haven case, then it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

Don't just repeat other's talking points.

[TedinLasVegas]

What, praytell, Common Law precedent is that?

It seems to me that this concept of striking down test results as racially biased is a new concept, not one well steeped in precedent and judicial tradition.

In fact, similar cases have been struck down by SCOTUS previously; that means her decision is actually AGAINST precedent, albeit recently created precedent.

[hossboss96]

a boycott? o please get over yourself and participate in the political process you clowns. the reason you are up a river without a paddle is because of those pesky 'elections' that recently took place. its so unfortunate that you no longer wield as much power, gop, just because of that damn 'representative' government we set up.

[TedinLasVegas]

YES, New Haven IS proof that not everyone will get a fair shake before her bench.