Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Jay Sekulow on Sonia Sotomayor and is Sotomayor Two Faced?

Don't know who the idiot who comes up with these videos, he is the same one who came up with one on North Korea's first rocket launch.

Hell, the idot who made the video slamming both Fox News and Sekulow should have done his homework.

A good legal analysis on rulings from the bench involving Sotomayor can be found here.

There is an irony of sorts with the video of her commentary on creating policy from the bench and her comments on the voting rights act in Hayden v. Pataki, 449F.3d 305(2d Cir. 2006)

In Hayden v. Pataki, 449 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2006), the en banc Second Circuit rejected a challenge under the Voting Rights Act to a New York law denying convicted felons the right to vote. The plaintiffs in the case had argued that in light of the long history of discrimination, both in society and in the New York criminal justice system specifically, the state’s disqualification of felons constituted disqualification based on race. The majority reasoned that Congress did not intend the VRA to apply to state felon disenfranchisement laws. Moreover, extending the VRA to the state statutes would “alter the constitutional balance” between states and the federal government, and the VRA lacked a clear statement by Congress that it intended to upset that balance.

Sotomayor joined the main dissent from the en banc court’s decision but also wrote a short dissenting opinion of her own in which she opined that the issue was actually much simpler than the majority and concurring opinions would suggest: the VRA “applies to all ‘voting qualifications,’” and - in her view - the state law “disqualifies a group of people from voting.” “These two propositions,” she concluded, “should constitute the entirety of our analysis.” Rejecting what she regarded as the majority’s failure to grapple with the plain text of the statute, she emphasized that “[t]he 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. . . . 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.”

So with Sotomayor, creating policy from the bench is okay when she thinks it is appropriate, but when convicted felons are kept from voting, she interprets the law in a manner that a judge is to follow the law and the VRA applies to them?

She sounds like a hypocrite to me...And regardless of Bush 1 picking her, Clinton was the one who nominated her to the Circuit. Both were wrong.

No comments: