Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Parking Lot


Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Parking Lot


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-28-2009, 01:28 PM   #61
Swearinger
 
GMScud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 37
Posts: 12,623
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly View Post
You know the term Redneck came about when American's with Indian blood were told their necks were too red to vote. Now people run around like it has something to do with working class WASPs and it's some kind of badge of honor.

Thank you for recognizing that old schoolers don't like being put into some made up ethnic group with people from another race and culture. I can't speak for everyone else but I don't appreciate people speaking on my behalf.

I would find it insulting to find out that I was elevated to a position because I've got a dash of Indian blood and some egg head thinks I'm some kind of minority. The last time I checked I was surrounded by my fellow country-men.

Judge Soda-Maker thinks because she's Puerto Rican that makes her smarter than Caucasians. That is racist BS. Had it been a white man saying these things the liberal media would've shat.
Aren't double standards great?
__________________
Insert witty signature here
GMScud is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 05-28-2009, 03:57 PM   #62
Playmaker
 
over the mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: close to the edge
Posts: 4,033
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly View Post
You know the term Redneck came about when American's with Indian blood were told their necks were too red to vote. Now people run around like it has something to do with working class WASPs and it's some kind of badge of honor.
not that i am some kind of class label expert but i was told the term "redneck" came from west virginia coal miner (union) workers who fought (and lost real bad) to coal miner company hired guns/army? coal mine workers tied red bandannas around their neck so they could tell who was who.

im gonna google it now and see whats up.

go skins!!

"The popular etymology says that the term derives from such individuals having a red neck caused by working outdoors in the sunlight over the course of their lifetime. The effect of decades of direct sunlight on the exposed skin of the back of the neck not only reddens fair skin, but renders it leathery and tough, and typically very wrinkled by late middle age. Another popular theory stems from the use of red bandanas tied around the neck to signify union affiliation during the violent clashes between United Mine Workers and owners between 1910 and 1920."

yeah i believe the origin i was told.
over the mountain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 04:07 PM   #63
Playmaker
 
over the mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: close to the edge
Posts: 4,033
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

to further my story as it was told to me about the term "redneck" (i was born west virginia, got family out there, i am a redneck).

the union workers/rednecks would expectedly come over the same ridge/hill, the army/hired guns would wait for them to come over then light them up with canon fire they had arranged right across the ridge. more of a massacre repeated every day until the rednecks figured things out.

go skins!!!
over the mountain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 04:17 PM   #64
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

A little research goes a long way. Sotomayor is good to go.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 04:58 PM   #65
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
A little research goes a long way. Sotomayor is good to go.
Curious which case MM is not considering based on the list below from CNN. I'm assuming they're not including Ricci. Also which is the second upheld case?

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009
Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 05:47 PM   #66
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Curious which case MM is not considering based on the list below from CNN. I'm assuming they're not including Ricci. Also which is the second upheld case?

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)
60% reversal rate is not from MM but rather the ultra conservative Washington Times and one of the perpetrators of the "reversal rate should be a concern" talking point. They don't even cite where they come up with that number (no surprise there) and MM is simply pointing out the reversal rate of the high courts over the last 5 years. Honestly though, one doesn't need to do much research to formulate a rough estimate of high court reversal rate of lower court decisions.

Last edited by saden1; 05-28-2009 at 06:02 PM.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 11:53 PM   #67
Playmaker
 
70Chip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manassas
Age: 44
Posts: 3,048
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
60% reversal rate is not from MM but rather the ultra conservative Washington Times and one of the perpetrators of the "reversal rate should be a concern" talking point. They don't even cite where they come up with that number (no surprise there) and MM is simply pointing out the reversal rate of the high courts over the last 5 years. Honestly though, one doesn't need to do much research to formulate a rough estimate of high court reversal rate of lower court decisions.
The one that is of concern is the one that says "reason unanimously faulted". Everyone knows that judges make decisions based on their biases, but the good ones find a legal argument to back it up. She doesn't seem to think that's necessary.
__________________
This Monkey's Gone to Heaven
70Chip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 12:53 AM   #68
MVP
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 10,070
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip View Post
The one that is of concern is the one that says "reason unanimously faulted". Everyone knows that judges make decisions based on their biases, but the good ones find a legal argument to back it up. She doesn't seem to think that's necessary.
No because she has a richness of heritage and diversity that provides her magical wisdom unencumbered by silly legal reasoning.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 02:05 AM   #69
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip View Post
The one that is of concern is the one that says "reason unanimously faulted". Everyone knows that judges make decisions based on their biases, but the good ones find a legal argument to back it up. She doesn't seem to think that's necessary.
I have stated just as much (Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS). The irony is, of course, that those who advocate for state rights have forgone such sentiments with respect to Sotomyors ruling in Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch because it does not suite their current desire to justify her deficiency as a Supreme Court candidate.

In times of war one must be willing to use the ammunition of the enemy and fire at will!
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 08:09 AM   #70
MVP
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 10,070
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

I don't have time to educate myself on the case this morning...did she argue it was a states rights type issue and get overturned?
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 10:25 AM   #71
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
I don't have time to educate myself on the case this morning...did she argue it was a states rights type issue and get overturned?
The crust of her argument was that people should be able to sue under state law. She (they really) also asked the Supreme Court for clarification. You can find the legal grounds for the opinion here.



Quote:
Dabit filed a "breach of fiduciary duty" claim under Oklahoma state law in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under "diversity grounds" because the parties in the case were from different states. His complaint was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York where more than 120 additional cases against Merrill Lynch were consolidated.

In the suit, Dabit claimed that Merrill Lynch's practices caused certain stocks to trade at "artificially inflated" prices through the use of deceptive devices alleged to be the "hallmarks of stock manipulation."


Section 10(b) of the federal Securities Exchange Act makes it unlawful for any person to use deceptive or manipulative devices "in the connection or sale of any security." Because of a perceived flood of frivolous lawsuits regarding security fraud through state courts, Congress enacted the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) in 1998, which provides that people must file suits charging securities fraud in federal court where there are stringent, uniform standards.


SLUSA states that any class action lawsuit based on state or local law alleging fraud "in connection with the purchase or sale" or of a stock must be governed by federal law.


...


Judge Sonia Sotomayor [in agreement with her colleagues], wrote that SLUSA should be interpreted very narrowly to apply to only purchasers and sellers.


"We see no clear indication either in the text or the legislative history of SLUSA of a congressional intent to abolish nonpurchaser and nonseller state class action claims," wrote Sotomayer.


Sotomayer seemed to ask for definition of the "in connection with" phrase from the U.S. Supreme Court, writing that the high court has "not yet interpreted this phrase in the context of SLUSA."
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 11:32 AM   #72
MVP
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 10,070
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
My problem with her is I know she is a liberal and thats how she will come down on the issues.
She's replacing a liberal...why care? He isn't going to nominate a conservative. We elected him and this is what he gets to do...just like Bush got to nominate Roberts and Alito.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 01:16 PM   #73
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 41
Posts: 5,303
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Curious which case MM is not considering based on the list below from CNN. I'm assuming they're not including Ricci. Also which is the second upheld case?

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009
Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

Not sure how CNN got this information, but FactCheck.org says that she has been overturned just three times by the Supreme Court. Three of her appellate opinions have been overturned, which is 1.3 percent of all that she has written and 60 percent of those reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Normally, the Supreme Court reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 11:04 AM   #74
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,458
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
I think this infers the opinions of those in the majority are wrong simply because they are in the majority. I'll stand corrected if that's not what was meant.

She did more than just express her unique background. She held it like a flag of honor and basically said it provided her higher qualifications than people of differing backgrounds.

All-in-all none of this matters but I am just amused at how this discussion has gone. She's going to be appointed, she'll be fine as a judge, it doesn't shift the balance of the court. It's why he went this direction with this pick...because those predisposed to fight it will be less inclined to really go hard to the mat since it doesn't matter all that much in the political scheme. Now when one of the 5 conservative leaning judges kicks it he'll go more moderate knowing that the Pubs will fight to the death over it.

Is she liberal? Yeah. What did everyone expect him to do? This is the guy we elected. He gets his shot now.
I wouldn't be so fast to label her as liberal. Besides these titles are old and worn out anyway. But for someone who has sat on panels and voted with her Republican colleagues 95% of the time, has ruled against funding abortion overseas (hardly a liberal position and counter to that of the President's position on the same issue), I would definitely say she's moderate. Probably left of center or on some days right of center.

Last edited by 12thMan; 05-30-2009 at 11:11 AM.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 04:31 PM   #75
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,458
Re: Obama Nominates Sotomayor to SCOTUS

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
I know for a fact that she is liberal because she has messy hair.
You know on second thought, I think the Prez should rescind his offer.
12thMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.36363 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25