Sonia Sotomayor for USSC?

[The Minsky Moment]

The Ricci case is an example: Whites were denied fire department promotions because of a clear racial quota. Ms. Sotomayor's refusal to hear their arguments won her stinging criticism from fellow Second Court of Appeals judge José Cabranes, a respected Clinton appointee.

It also won the 3-0 panel decision an affirmance from the entire en banc court, Karl.

But then again, law and legality is not your specialty, is it?

[Valmy]

While the next two to four months of maneuverings and hearings may provide more insights into the views of Mr. Obama's pick, barring an unforeseen development -- not unheard of in Supreme Court nominations -- Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic) and third woman confirmed to the Supreme Court. Democrats will win the vote, but Republicans can win the argument by making a clear case against the judicial activism she represents.

I am pretty sure the case against judicial activism has been made extensively for decades upon decades.  I fail to see how anybody is going to change their opinion on the subject based on one confirmation.

[The Minsky Moment]

Also while there has been a lot of focus on the two speeches, I have yet to see someone point to any of her actual opinions as egregious examples of inappropriate "activism".   Given that she has authored hundreds of opinions over the years, one would think that it should be a very simple thing to do.

[MadImmortalMan]

The court is about to become majority Catholic. 

[Valmy]

Also while there has been a lot of focus on the two speeches, I have yet to see someone point to any of her actual opinions as egregious examples of inappropriate "activism".   Given that she has authored hundreds of opinions over the years, one would think that it should be a very simple thing to do.

We all know that for most 'Judicial Activism' means making a decision you do not like.

[Barrister]

We all know that for most 'Judicial Activism' means making a decision you do not like.

Uh, no it does not.

The prhase "judicial activism" has been weakened by that kind of useage from some, but that does not take away from the fact that there are many differing schools of judicial interpretation, and some show much greater deference to past precedent and legislative decision than do others.  The schools that show less deference to past precedent, and less deference to legislative decisions, are more activist.

[Valmy]

Uh, no it does not.

The prhase "judicial activism" has been weakened by that kind of useage from some, but that does not take away from the fact that there are many differing schools of judicial interpretation, and some show much greater deference to past precedent and legislative decision than do others.  The schools that show less deference to past precedent, and less deference to legislative decisions, are more activist.

You notice I said 'for most'.  I meant in political discussion not in legal theory.

[Faeelin]

Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic)

If he doesn't have Injun blood he's not a real hispanic. 

Sephardic?  Were his ancestors secret Jews who stayed in Spain until the 19th century?

It's sort of like me saying I'm French because my ancestors were Hugenots who fled to Scotland...

[The Minsky Moment]

We all know that for most 'Judicial Activism' means making a decision you do not like.

Uh, no it does not.

The prhase "judicial activism" has been weakened by that kind of useage from some, but that does not take away from the fact that there are many differing schools of judicial interpretation, and some show much greater deference to past precedent and legislative decision than do others.  The schools that show less deference to past precedent, and less deference to legislative decisions, are more activist.

Activism could refer to (in the US context):

Application of strict formalism in interpretation
Deference to past precedent; stare decisis
Deference to legislature; caution in striking down statutes
Deference to states in federal system
Deference to executive/admin interpretations
Caution in adopting innovative or far-reaching judicial remedies, or enlarging common law doctrines or rights of action
Emphasis on use of standing doctrines or principles of judicial parisomony to avoid reaching unecessary issues
Strict emphasis (in federal judiciary) on limited nature of powers delegated to the federal government
etc.

Problem is that in any given case, some of these principles are likely to come into conflict.  Strict formalism often comes into conflict with fidelity to legislative intent or administrative interpretations for example, and deference to the legislature is often at odds with a strict approach to limited federal powers.  Stare decisis often conflicts with other rationales. And so forth.  So that for any given decision, it may be possible to accuse both sides of the issue of being activist.

[ulmont]

We all know that for most 'Judicial Activism' means making a decision you do not like.

The prhase "judicial activism" has been weakened by that kind of useage from some, but that does not take away from the fact that there are many differing schools of judicial interpretation, and some show much greater deference to past precedent and legislative decision than do others.  The schools that show less deference to past precedent, and less deference to legislative decisions, are more activist.

While you may have a theoretical point, I note that the members of the less activist schools tend to take the position that the original intent of the Founders (or whatever) somehow unambiguously compels their desired result about 100% of the time, and to strike down laws with significant regularity.

Compare U.S. v. Lopez (finding the gun-free school zone act to be beyond the power of the US Congress to enact based on its attentuation from interstate commerce, and striking it down) with Raich v. Ashcroft (finding a ban on purely intrastate marijuana to be sufficiently related to interstate commerce, and upholding it).

[Hansmeister]

The court is about to become majority Catholic. 

It already was.  This nomination will make it two-thirds catholic.  It seems to be impossible for a WASP to get nominated.

[Alatriste]

The court is about to become majority Catholic. 

It already was.  This nomination will make it two-thirds catholic.  It seems to be impossible for a WASP to get nominated.

It all belongs to Mother Rome, baby...

Now, and a bit more seriously, one could say that perhaps, just perhaps, the search for so-called "pro life" candidates that should be difficult to reject has been a factor in that Roman Catholic hegemony... anyway, it's a fact that all five of them were nominated by Republican presidents. (2 by Reagan, 1 by Bush Sr., 2 by Bush jr.)

[Razgovory]

The court is about to become majority Catholic. 

It already was.  This nomination will make it two-thirds catholic.  It seems to be impossible for a WASP to get nominated.

Good.

[derspiess]

The court is about to become majority Catholic. 

It already was.  This nomination will make it two-thirds catholic.  It seems to be impossible for a WASP to get nominated.

Good.

[Sheilbh]

It all belongs to Mother Rome, baby...

I've always found the quiet Catholic takeover really striking (and interesting).  The US Supreme Court and just 6 years ago, or so, the British leader of the Lib Dems was a lapsed Catholic, the Tory a practising Catholic and the Prime Minister an in pectore Catholic.  Given that even in the 1940s sane people like Bevin saw a Popish plot in moves for European integration it's a remarkable turnaround.