HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Sotomayor, Kagan ready fo...

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:08 PM

Sotomayor, Kagan ready for battles

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-sotomayor-kagan-ready-for-battles/2013/02/27/ee1fa09e-812f-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html?hpid=z5

Sotomayor, Kagan ready for battles
By Dana Milbank, Published: February 27


For a quarter-century, Antonin Scalia has been the reigning bully of the Supreme Court, but finally a couple of justices are willing to face him down.

As it happens, the two manning up to take on Nino the Terrible are women: the court’s newest members, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

snip//

The styles of the two Obama appointees are different. Sotomayor is blunt and caustic, repeatedly interrupting. In an opinion this week, she harshly criticized a Texas prosecutor for a racist line of questioning. She has been on the interview circuit publicizing her memoir.

Kagan is choosier about when to interject herself, but she’s sardonic and sharp-witted. (“Well, that’s a big, new power that you are giving us,” she said, mockingly, when a lawyer tried to argue that the justices should overrule Congress’s discrimination findings.)

Both are more forceful than the Clinton appointees, the amiable Breyer and the frail Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The two new justices are sending a message to the court’s conservative majority: You may have the votes, but you’re going to have a fight.


snip//


Scalia was not about to surrender his title of worst-behaved justice. He mocked the civil rights law as he questioned the government lawyer. “Even the name of it is wonderful,” he said. “The Voting Rights Act: Who is going to vote against that?” (Verrilli cautioned him not to ignore actual votes of Congress in favor of “motive analysis.”)

But Scalia’s mouth was no longer the loudest in the room. When the Alabama county’s lawyer returned for his rebuttal, he managed to utter only five words — “Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice” — before Sotomayor broke in.

14 replies, 1270 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sotomayor, Kagan ready for battles (Original post)
babylonsister Feb 2013 OP
SoCalDem Feb 2013 #1
bettyellen Feb 2013 #5
RudynJack Mar 2013 #12
NewJeffCT Feb 2013 #2
elleng Feb 2013 #3
elleng Feb 2013 #4
meow2u3 Feb 2013 #6
blueclown Feb 2013 #7
Bake Feb 2013 #8
elleng Feb 2013 #9
RudynJack Mar 2013 #13
Bake Mar 2013 #14
Scurrilous Mar 2013 #10
Hekate Mar 2013 #11

Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:15 PM

1. Two vs the rest will not win the argument

Our SCOTUS is as broken as the rest of government.

and no one dares to fix it.


A country the size of ours, and one whose politics is as razor sharp as ours is, should have a 21 person SCOTUS..

all 21 "choose" cases taken, but a random draw for the 9 who deliberate would cut down on the politics of it all


and we should have a minimum/maximum for ages...and NO pensions EVER

60 minimum
75 maximum

also, no book-writing/.speechifying/etc.. while they serve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:02 PM

5. Sotomayor's memoir is inspiring, but conflict of interest is something that should be looked at.

And it's not. Corporatist shit heads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 03:26 AM

12. I would have to strongly disagree

Why should 60 be a minimum? Why 75 the maximum? I can't think of any decision that was wrongly decided because a particular justice was too young or too old.

And 21? How would that ensure any better outcomes than we currently have? I can see arguments that certain circuits are too large (9th, e.g.) and should be broken up, but the basic notion that more justices would give us better decisions is suspect, to me. It would also tie up the Senate.

And no pensions? Why? It's not an issue now as most justices die on the bench, or retire shortly before death. This will save us... what? A few hundred thousand - maybe a couple million? What purpose does it serve?

Whenever I hear people talking about changes being made to the court, they're consistently talking about getting decisions they like. That's a terrible reason to change the rules regarding the court. I may be old-fashioned, but I think the court usually gets things right, and when they fuck up, it gets corrected later. Never on the schedule I'd like, but eventually. Our system of government is annoying that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:15 PM

2. Good for them

I'm glad these two women have the backbone to stand up to Scalia and his bullying.

I just hope one of the Far-Right Five have to make an exit over the next 2-3 years so Obama can replace Thomas, Robert, Alito, Scalia or Kennedy with somebody equally combative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:29 PM

3. Good to see this BUT

gotta say how angry it gets me to see, regularly, and on DU too, references to Ruth B G's alleged 'frailty!' REALLY pisses me off!!! She's short and slender, and she speaks deliberately.

Watch this:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:53 PM

4. AND

'Sotomayor allowed the lawyer for the Alabama county seeking to overturn the law to get just four sentences into his argument before interrupting him. “Assuming I accept your premise — and there’s some question about that — that some portions of the South have changed, your county pretty much hasn’t,” she charged. “Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?”

Moments later, Kagan pointed out that “Alabama has no black statewide elected officials” and has one of the worst records of voting rights violations.

Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito tried to assist the Alabama county’s lawyer by offering some friendly hypotheticals, but Sotomayor wasn’t interested in hearing that. “The problem with those hypotheticals is obvious,” she said, because “it’s a real record as to what Alabama has done to earn its place on the list.”

Sotomayor continued questioning as if she were the only jurist in the room. “Discrimination is discrimination,” she informed him, “and what Congress said is it continues.”

At one point, Justice Anthony Kennedy tried to quiet her. “I would like to hear the answer to the question,” he said. The lawyer got out a few more sentences — and then Kagan broke in.'

---------------------------

This MAY be a case wherein the Justice assigned the role of drafting dissent from 'majority,' assuming majority goes against us at the Conference, ends up having the dissent finally prevail OVER the erstwhile majority. Justice Ginsburg recited recently that this occurred once when SHE had job of drafting 'dissent,' which later became the opinion for the majority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:54 PM

6. I lurrrve seeing two women giving bully-boy Scalia a punch in the mouth

Put that punk in his place, ladies!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:58 PM

7. Can't wait for Justice Sotomayor's dissent.

I hope it's the opinion of the court, but I am doubtful.

Hope she authors an opinion that is forceful and holds no punches. Screw making friends on the court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueclown (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:37 PM

8. I've always thought Justice Ginsberg and "Nino" (aka Fat Tony) Scalia were a little too cozy

They're fast friends outside of Court. I wonder how that happened. Nothing about Scalia says "charm." Boyish? No. Boorish? Absolutely.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 05:12 PM

9. Their families have shared holiday meals.

They've both been on the Court for many years, and share common experiences.

Justice Ginsburg is smart enough to avoid estrangement when doing so might make her job more difficult.

She is charming and wise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #8)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 03:34 AM

13. I think Justice Ginsberg

is both charming and incredibly smart.

Befriending Scalia may be just wise politics. I don't know the man, maybe outside his judicial views, he's OK. I have no idea. But they have to work together in the most rarefied judicial atmosphere on the planet. I don't begrudge such comity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RudynJack (Reply #13)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:41 AM

14. I'm not knocking Justice Ginsberg at all

She is incredibly smart and charming. I just don't get the whole "Nino thing." Maybe it's smart, maybe it's just politics, but I don't get it. I couldn't do it. The man is a pig who has no respect for the Constitution and hides behind his so-called "original intent" facade.



Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 03:03 AM

10. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 03:14 AM

11. More and more we see that these women were great picks for the High Court!

I think some feathers are being ruffled, and about time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread