Sotomayor hearings ....

The questions begin today -- she is talking about some case called the Tarzan Murder case (I don't recall it) where this guy swung into windows and killed who he found there ... so apparently there was one murder which involved a single mom and three kids -- one of the kids was shot and the family split up ... and she blames the Prosecutes for it???

Seems to me it was the heart ache of the murderous act and not anything forced upon them by the prosecution that broke the family up -- but she doesn't see it that way. OHHH - she was prosecutor of the case! So is she then blaming herself for what she considers the demise of the family?

Or does she consider all families which eventually move away from each other, whether for jobs or whatever, as a 'failed' family? That's a bad way of looking at things ... it is very caste-minded ... stay in your place ... hang with your own.

0000000000000000000

It has been pointed out to Sotomayor that the discrimination suit in which she sided against the firefighters who passed the test ... had already had a Supreme Court legal precedent that should have been applied in the case (which the Supreme Court just did) which would have settled the case in favor of the firefighters who passed -- that original decision was in 1991, well within such time to where she would have known about it.

her answer:
she felt the Supreme court applied as standard from a different point of law and that's why her decision was over turned...not that she and the other two judges (because she did not come to it on her own) made a bad decision ... although I don't know -- maybe when it comes to the appeals courts the judges can only consider the arguments made by counsel instead of being able to apply a broad scope of law ...

you know what I mean? If the lawyers are arguing blue & yellow only, the judges aren't allowed to go 'no green', they have to say 'blue' or 'yellow' ... in which case then yeah it would put the case on the shoulders of the lawyers ... but if a circuit judge has the wider latitude, then it was on the courts shoulders.
```````````````````````````
On the Latina question: never mind what I said, it was the spirit in which I said it.

HUH?? so we can expect the same type of rulings if she gets in? She will 'interprete' the law instead of following it? Doesn't that make her a 'policy setter' from the bench, which is a no-no?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the 2nd Amendment:
Maloney v. Cuomo - ban on martial arets weapons violates 2nd amendment; district court rejected, appeal court agreed it did; 3-judge panel, inc. sotomayor, voted it violated the 2nd amend. but opinion was left unsigned - which would mean that while the law was applied none of the judges really agreed with the decision.
Heller v. DC - DC cop wanted to register gun to keep in his home, but the district refused it; he filed suit as violation of 2nd Amendment - DC court dismissed it, circuit court put it back into play, the US Supreme court said possession in the home was upheld by the 2nd amendment.
Her response: one of her god-children is a member of the NRA, and she has friends that hunt ... soooooo????? I have friends who are handicapped and relatives who are hispanic, that doesn't mean I 'understand' what its like for them. She pointed out that justice Scalia pointed out that the federal 2nd amendment doctrine doesn't apply to the states and that they were free to make their own laws on the matters (I think they both have it wrong there).
@@@@@@@@@

She seems to be doing an awful lot of back-tracking of statements she has made and has come forth ... things that were brought out so far in advanced (thanks to the news media) that she has been able to come up with canned answers ... bummer ... would love to see her first initial reaction.

I am still hoping that they have something up their sleeves, but I have a feeling it isn't ... and once she's in, its a lifetime appointment -- and knowing how the Obama camp does such lousy vetting -- I am hoping that if she has any skeletons in her closet that they come forth NOW instead of later when its too late.