|
Post by scorpion42 on Jul 9, 2009 10:59:43 GMT -7
Firefighters to testify about Sotomayor @ 1:09 pm by Eric Zimmermann Republicans will call two New Haven firefighters to testify in the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor next week, making clear the GOP's intent to place affirmative action at the center of Senate battle over Sotomayor's nomination. A Judiciary Committee press release lists Frank Ricci and Ben Vargas as expected Republican witnesses. Ricci was the lead plaintiff in Ricci v. New Haven, the controversial case in which Sotomayor ruled the New Haven fire department acted constitutionally when it promoted black firefighters who scored lower than their white counterparts on a qualifying test. Vargas was the only non-white co-plaintiff in that case. The Supreme Court later overturned that decision. Meanwhile, Democrats will trot out New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who supports Sotomayor's nomination. Also testifying at the behest of Democrats will be former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau (Sotomayor's boss when she was a prosecutor) and former major league pitcher David Cone. (I'm assuming Cone's testimony has something to do with Sotomayor "saving baseball.") briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07/09/firefighters-to-testify-about-sotomayor/
|
|
|
Post by scorpion42 on Jul 9, 2009 11:06:31 GMT -7
How Sotomayor 'Saved' Baseball By Sean Gregory Tuesday, May. 26, 2009 Barack Obama has never hidden his passion for sports, whether it be opining on the shortcomings of the college football Bowl Championship Series or defending his picks for the NCAA college basketball tournament. So perhaps it should have come as no surprise that in announcing his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, the President singled out the federal appeals court judge's landmark 1995 ruling that effectively ended the 232-day baseball strike. "Some say that Judge Sotomayor saved baseball," Obama said on Tuesday. That may be an exaggeration, of course, but there are many baseball observers who agree that Sotomayor's quick, decisive action — which helped halt a strike that had eliminated the last month and a half of the 1994 regular season as well as the entire postseason — ended a dispute that could have ruined the national pastime for good. (See pictures of Sotomayor.) And if Sotomayor's performance back then offers any clues about how she'll perform on the high court, expect a brisk jurist who is utterly unafraid to dress down powerful interest groups. On March 30, 1995, Sotomayor, then age 40 and the youngest judge in the Southern District of New York, presided over a two-hour hearing in which the baseball players' association protested the owners' decision to unilaterally eliminate free-agent negotiations and salary arbitrations while both sides were negotiating a new collective-bargaining agreement. Although Sotomayor, who was raised in a housing project a few miles from Yankee Stadium in the South Bronx, admitted that "I know nothing about this, except what a common layperson reads in the New York Times," she also told the litigators that "I hope none of you assumed ... that my lack of knowledge of any of the intimate details of your dispute meant I was not a baseball fan. You can't grow up in the South Bronx without knowing about baseball." (Read about the 1994 baseball strike.) She grilled both sides, and it took her only 15 minutes to rule in favor of the players. "She obviously had done her homework well before the case was argued," says Donald Fehr, the head lawyer for the players' union. "She was in control of her courtroom." Sotomayor issued an injunction against the owners that ordered them to restore free agency and arbitration. With the injunction in place, the players agreed to return to work while a new labor agreement was hammered out. Sotomayor chided the owners. "The owners misunderstood the case law, and many of their arguments were inconsistent," she said. "One side can't come up with new rules unless they negotiate it with the other." A few sports columnists, offended by the speed with which she reached her decision, offered odd indictments of Sotomayor. "I'm sorry she's not male, so I could say what I really think," wrote Furman Bisher of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "I haven't the time or disposition to deal with NOW [the National Organization for Women] right now." However, the legal community for the most part still has high praise for her judgment. "It was the correct ruling," says Rick Karcher, sports law professor at the Florida Coastal School of Law. "She assured that fair collective bargaining would take place under the labor laws." A few days later, a three-judge panel from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Sotomayor's injunction, and baseball played a 144-game season in 1995. (Read "Judge Sonia Sotomayor Headed for Easy Supreme Court Nomination.") Sotomayor revisited sports law back in 2004, when she upheld the NFL's rule that players must be out of high school for three years before becoming eligible for the draft. Former Ohio State running back Maurice Clarett, who at the time was suspended from college football for accepting improper gifts and filing a false police report, had sued the league, alleging that this rule violated anti-trust law. Sotomayor argued that the age-eligibility rule was exempt from anti-trust law, even though the rule is a "hardship" on players who are not yet members of the players' union. Says Karcher: "Her ruling gave the union the authority to negotiate terms on behalf of amateur players, taking them out of the anti-trust arena and keeping them in the labor arena. Both decisions, at least in the sports area, tend to suggest she is pro-labor." www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1900974,00.html
|
|
|
Post by ArkCowboy on Jul 9, 2009 12:11:51 GMT -7
you guys should get over it, her confirmation is a forgone conclusion. embrace the horror
|
|
|
Post by scorpion42 on Jul 10, 2009 19:46:01 GMT -7
you guys should get over it, her confirmation is a forgone conclusion. embrace the horror Go check the archives, Ark! I said it right from the get go. She was going to be confirmed. All the P-BO had to do is, pluck off one GOP's senator's vote at the time. Or, was it two? Since Senator Spector jumped shop. I'm not worried about this SCOTUS nominee. Its the next one, that scares me. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 76 years old. Stephen Breyer will be 71 in August. Justice Kennedy will be 72 on July 23rd. Scalia is 73 years old. John Paul Stevens will be 90 years old next April. Its the one that will tilt the court in the other direction.Clarence Thomas is still a young guy at 61 years of age. Samual Alito is 59 years old. Chief Justice John Roberts is the youngster @ 54 years old.
|
|
|
Post by ArkCowboy on Jul 11, 2009 4:39:30 GMT -7
scalia is the worst! the GOP is worried about 'activist judges' unless he is on their team!
as for Sotamayor, i was watching an interview with a person from a Judicial watchdog group who said the appellate court she was on had conservative judges as well and she voted with them 98% of the time, so i am not sure why the GOP is so strongly against this woman, she is more than qualified. however, i am glad they are taking this opportunity to piss off the fastest growing voting block in the country! it will surely help expedite their demise, which is good for America!! in itself that would be kinda sad because the Dem's need someone to keep them honest, they are far too overboard with the 'team' mentality instead of actually trying to get anything done, but i am hoping their minimization and the consequent vacuum of power will lead to a third party rising
|
|
|
Post by scorpion42 on Jul 13, 2009 16:09:41 GMT -7
scalia is the worst! the GOP is worried about 'activist judges' unless he is on their team! as for Sotamayor, i was watching an interview with a person from a Judicial watchdog group who said the appellate court she was on had conservative judges as well and she voted with them 98% of the time, so i am not sure why the GOP is so strongly against this woman, she is more than qualified. however, i am glad they are taking this opportunity to piss off the fastest growing voting block in the country! it will surely help expedite their demise, which is good for America!! in itself that would be kinda sad because the Dem's need someone to keep them honest, they are far too overboard with the 'team' mentality instead of actually trying to get anything done, but i am hoping their minimization and the consequent vacuum of power will lead to a third party rising It is a foregone conclusion, Sotomayor will be the third woman to sit on the Supreme Court. Especially, with Sen. Lindsay Graham said .... Even so, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Sotomayor, "Unless you have a complete meltdown, you're going to get confirmed." "And I don't think you will" have a meltdown, he added quickly. www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99DL9Q83&show_article=1With a little luck, the GOP will find some good candidates to run in 2010. Or, its going to be a long time before they get back their message. Whatever their message is?
|
|
|
Post by ArkCowboy on Jul 13, 2009 17:29:35 GMT -7
"whatever their message is" is exactly right! if they are not trying to legislate morality, they don't know what else to do!
|
|