BREAKING NEWS: Sotomayor Supports Letting FELONS Vote

should be her position and perspective on allowing felons to vote. It will be interesting if she will answer on this one, as she is undoubtably being groomed as I write on how not to answer a question, when asked a question.

Althought the writing is pretty much on the wall that she will being confirmed (she's already been coronated by the press and of course most Democrats) , it would make sense for Republican senators to ask her position on this question, as the American people need to see what kind of judge Obama has given us.  Thank you for finding this, and I hope that somebody will pick up on this.

This suggests that she is all ears to any and all "racial disparity" arguments raised by people challenging race neutral law enforcement policies.

Here in CT parole was restricted after the Cheshire massacre in 2007.  There was then an outcry from various people in minority neighborhoods. Upon further review it was apparent many of the angered people were parents of inmates.  Ironically, although the impetus to tighten parole in CT came from an atrocity committed by two white guys in the suburbs,  the history of Giuliani's NYC demonstrates the beneficiaries of more realistic  law enforcement strategies  have a beneficial "disparate impact" on  neighborhoods of color.

Let's find out if the "wise Latina"  can bring her life experience to the table here; since her risk of being a crime victim in the West Village declined substantially after the powers that be in her community let the police do their job .

As an aside, doesn't it stand to reason that to the extent we add convicts to the voter rolls the voting bloc against law enforcement is likely to grow?   How is that a good thing?   

Lordy, lordy - this is rich. Another case wherein Sotomayor dissents from the majority and criticizes the majority for engaging in judicial activism, and Conman thinks it is "devasating" to her chances.

Here is a suggestion - don't believe every bit of spin you read in the The Washington Times.

Here is Sotomayor's entire dissent in Hayden v. Pataki. (Conman, I've highlighted the important words for you to make it easier.)

I join in Judge Parker's dissent, and write this separate opinion only to emphasize one point.  I fear that the many pages of the majority opinion and concurrences — and the many pages of the dissent that are necessary to explain why they are wrong — may give the impression that this case is in some way complex.  It is not.

 It is plain to anyone reading the Voting Rights Act that it applies to all "voting qualification[s]." And it is equally plain that § 5-106 disqualifies a group of people from voting.  These two propositions should constitute the entirety of our analysis.  Section 2 of the Act by its unambiguous terms subjects felony disenfranchisement and all other voting qualifications to its coverage.

The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms.  I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statutes it has created.  The majority's "wealth of persuasive evidence" that Congress intended felony disenfranchisement laws to be immune from scrutiny under § 2 of the Act,  Maj. Op. at 322, includes not a single legislator actually saying so.  But even if Congress had doubts about the wisdom of subjecting felony disenfranchisement laws to the results test of § 2, I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it.

I respectfully dissent.

A plain rejection of judicial activism - and Conman goes bananas.

This decision is from a district court in the 2nd Circuit applying CT's statutory "plain meaning" law.

The meaning of a statute is plain and unambiguous only when the “meaning that is so strongly indicated or suggested by the statutory language as applied to the facts of the case that when the language is read as so applied, it appears to be the meaning and appears to preclude any other likely meaning.”

Also, consider this

Additionally, “‘[i]n the interpretation of a statute, a radical departure from an established policy cannot be implied. It must be expressed in unequivocal language.’”Rivera v. Comm’r of Corr., 254 Conn. 214, 242 (2000) (citation omitted). “‘Furthermore, there is a presumption that an amendatory act does not change the existing law further than is expressly declared or necessarily implied.’” Id. (citation and footnote omitted).

 

The problem herein is Judge Sotomayor found the Voting Rights Act unambigious in mandating that felons had the right to vote; and her colleagues didn't. Why was this so obvious to her and not the court's majority?   Perhaps a question could be posed that if the application of a statute placed a disportionate impact on another group in society  (such as requiring foreign language ballots in rural upstate counties with few immigrants) would this Judge be so quick to find the same sort of "plain meaning" in the statute?

...if an associate justice of the Supreme Court should, or could recuse themself from hearing cases they ruled upon as Federal Appeals Court  judges? It seems like it to me, they should be required too as a simple matter of fairness, or is that asking too much?

 Secondly, is Sotomayor is appointed to the Supreme Court, are we going to lose the right to bear arms?

ex animo

davidfarrar