Civil libertarians have been complaining that many liberals are ignoring that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been viewed as hostile to core liberal values and has a fairly conservative voting record in many areas, including free speech, student rights, and criminal procedure. For a review of her cases, click here. Another case has come to light that shows little of the empathy cited by the White House. While Vice President Joe Biden has emphasized the Sotomayor “watches the back of police” in cases (which is supported in some of her more controversial rulings), she has shown little empathy for those challenging police or convictions. The case of Jeffrey Deskovic is being cited as one such case.
Sotomayor was one of the judges who dismissed Deskovic’s 2000 appeal to United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with a cursory two-page decision. The panel based its decision on the fact that the filing was made four days late due to confusion between the lawyer and the clerk.
Deskovic was convicted at 16 of killing a high school classmate and filed a habeas corpus petition to challenge his conviction. He was later proven innocent by DNA evidence.
His lawyer insisted that he was misinformed about the due date by the clerk’s office and that his client should not suffer for the miscommunication. However, Sotomayor and another judge refused to consider the merits based on the technical filing problem.
He would spend six more years behind bars until finally proven innocent (and the real killer arrested).
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 requires that habeas corpus petitions must be submitted no more than a year after a conviction becomes final or, as the courts later determined, no more than a year from the act’s implementation. This meant that he had until April 24, 1997 to file his habeas but his papers were filed four days late. Sotomayor and Judge Rosemary S. Pooler ruled that, even if the lawyer was told by the clerk that he had the later due date, it was still a violation and barred the appeal.
There is an interesting disconnect in the position of many liberal organizations, which have abandoned prior views to support this nominee without a hint of concern. As noted earlier, such rulings would normally cause liberals considerable concern and prompt intense review if this were a Republican nominee. Instead, there is virtually no discussion of such rulings by most liberals despite objections from civil libertarians that the left will lose ground on the Court if Sotomayor votes as she did on the Second Circuit.
For the full story, click here.
I have to say, if this was a Republican judge we would not be having this conversation. I’d like to know what she should have based her decision on, if not the law? Ask me if I think its right? Of course, not, there are many problems with this legal system. But the real question is, was Sotomayor alone in her decision? And what would another [let’s assume ‘better’] judge have done?
I nominate JT…
The LIAR-IN-CHIEF:
On Tuesday, the White House released a photograph of President Obama nonchalantly leaning back in his chair with his feet on the desk, the soles of his shoes clearly visible–as he spoke on the telephone with Benyamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel. Israelis have interpreted the release of the photograph as an expression of contempt, intended for Arab consumption.
I suspect that the Israelis are not being hypersensitive. Barack Obama has a history of belittling his adversaries in just such a fashion. In April 2008, he was caught on tape during a debate with Hillary Clinton, rubbing his hand across the right side of his face and extending his middle finger in an obscene gesture that many in the audience could see it but she could not, and when this provoked laughter on the part of his supporters he responded with a knowing smile.
Later, after accepting his party’s nomination, he did precisely the same thing during a debate with John McCain; and, after Sarah Palin remarked at the Republican National Convention that the only difference between a pit bull and a soccer mom was lipstick, he observed at a rally that a pig with lipstick is still a pig. Again, many in the audience caught the dig and they, too, were rewarded with a knowing smile.
Obama is, in fact, a master of the insulting gesture. There is no other construction that one can put on his conduct towards Gordon Brown when the British prime minister paid him a visit shortly after his inauguration. First, in an ostentatious manner, he returned to the British embassy a bust of Winston Churchill that had been loaned to his predecessor. Then, when Brown presented him with a pen made from timber used in a British ship once involved in putting down the slave trade, he gave him in return a stack of movies on DVD which could not be played on machines sold in Europe.
Were Obama a yokel, one might be able to explain this away. But a yokel he is not, and there are State Department protocol officers who are highly sensitive to the proprieties. It is no accident that, at about the same time, the White House press secretary intimated in the presence of members of the British press that there was no special relationship between the United States and Great Britain. Obama’s gesture was a calculated insult–meant to be understood only by those to whom it was directed.
If we are to comprehend what is going on, we must pay close attention not only to what Obama says but to what he conveys in other ways. His tone is nearly always moderate but what he hints at and what he intimates by way of body language often convey the opposite. Witness his warm embrace of Hugo Chavez. Behind the thin veneer of politeness, there is, I suspect, something ugly lurking. In the first of the autobiographies that he claims to have written, Barack Obama frequently speaks of himself as being in the grips of rage. We would do well to take him at his word. If we are to stop him from doing great damage to this country and to our friends and allies, we must take every opportunity that comes our way to unmask the man.
Time to Demand Obama’s Resignation
Alan Caruba Bio
By Alan Caruba Thursday, June 11, 2009
“In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal…” (Article Two, U.S. Constitution)
Since the President takes an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”, a President who acts contrary to the Constitution or is found guilty of breaking the law should be subject to removal.
Constitutionally, removal can be secured by “impeachment for, conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Preserving and protecting the Constitution
The question of preserving and protecting the Constitution would be hard to prove except in hindsight, but by then it would be too late for the nation, ruined by excessive, unjustified taxation and borrowing that threatens the collapse of the economy.
I would argue that a President who appoints over twenty “czars” to supersede the powers of the secretaries of various federal departments; people who are apparently exempt from Congressional approval or oversight, and people who apparently do not feel the need to hold press conferences to explain what they are doing, is distinctly unconstitutional.
It will be argued that there have been various such “czars” in the past, mostly particularly “drug czars” whose purpose was to oversee and coordinate efforts to address the nation’s problems with illegal drugs, but the imposition of people to virtually replace members of the President’s cabinet is unprecedented. Cabinet officers must receive the approval of Congress, but these “czars” have not.
Even the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has been reduced to a mere figurehead as various personal envoys of the President have been authorized to act for him regarding sensitive diplomatic affairs, answerable presumably only to him.
Running the government through an invisible network of people who are not answerable to the citizens of the nation
What we have is a President who is running the government through an invisible network of people who are not answerable to the citizens of the nation, yet granted powers to determine the extent of the rights of those citizens including how much compensation they may receive.
This is a President who has said during a C-Span interview that the government is out of money, but who is pressing forward for legislation to impose trillions in taxes on all energy use, who advocates the borrowing of tens of billions by the nation for a proposed healthcare “reform”, and who has already signed a so-called stimulus bill of nearly 9,000 items representing $700 billion that he deemed “imperfect.”
The economy does not need a stimulus. It needs the government to get out of the way of the free market system to correct itself and for the nation’s famed entrepreneurial spirit to initiate new businesses and new jobs. We do not “rescue” people who took on too much debt.
He has approved “bailouts” to private companies that should have been allowed to seek bankruptcy protection and he has demanded that the former head of General Motors be fired by its board of directors. He has launched an attack on the Constitutional sanctity of contracts, abrogating the rights of lenders. Banks which received TARP funds are desperate to return such funding to the U.S. Treasury rather than give up control over their affairs.
We have all watched the President in action since January 20, 2009 and what we have seen and heard has been constant criticism of America that has been an affront to our great history and our defense of human rights. He has done this in one foreign nation after another.
A speech in Cairo to the worldwide Muslim community President Obama distorted the facts of American history and conflated the deliberate murder of six million European Jews in the last century with the suffering inflicted on so-called Palestinians by their fellow Arabs; the result of repeated wars on Israel. No such comparison can be made and is by definition obscene.
Oathkeepers, TEA Parties, Protestors
Within months, “tea parties”, citizen protests, occurred from coast to coast and others are being planned for July Fourth. Not since the advent of the Civil War under threat of secession has a President faced such widespread opposition after taking office.
In State after State, resolutions are being passed in opposition to his proposed legislation and policies. An organization of “Oath-Keepers”, members of the U.S. military, the reserves, the National Guard, peace officers, and veterans, has emerged to say they will not blindly “follow orders” issued by this President that are contrary to the oath to uphold the Constitution they have taken.
This is a President whose Department of Homeland Security has defined as “extremist” anyone who criticizes or disagrees with his policies.
Americans who are fearful of the havoc President Barack Obama has let loose on this nation need to flood Congress with the demand that he be removed from office for his failure to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution. Indeed, to conclusively prove he was constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency.
The White House has to hear from Americans calling on the President to resign.
He and the Democrat-controlled Congress are proposing onerous taxation and reckless borrowing that will destroy the nation’s economy.
Americans cannot afford to let this President hold power until the next election in 2012. They cannot hope that the midterm elections in 2010 will be sufficient to protect them against the damage he will do to them, to their children, and to their grandchildren before they are held.
Oh oh:
Business groups dare Obama to limit pay for unions bosses…
‘This Interview is Over’: Barney Frank Walks Off Live CNBC Interview on Executive Pay…
New GM Chairman declares: ‘I don’t know anything about cars’…
Russia urges USA to drop missile shield to “help ties”…
ADMINISTRATION: “PAY” CZAR WILL REIN IN PAY ACROSS PRIVATE SECTOR
PREDICTION: $200 OIL…
PREDICTION: Gasoline to $4.50 by December 2009…
As long as we’re gettin trolled, here’s some important info:
“The ACLU today launched a major new campaign to impose accountability for torture and related Bush-era crimes. The campaign — Accountability for Torture — is devoted principally to a restoration of the rule of law and the appointment by the DOJ of a Special Prosecutor. The website to coordinate these efforts is here, and that site is also now probably the single best resource for all documents and other information relating to torture and accountability efforts. The ACLU has clearly led the way in battling for disclosure of Bush-era war crimes secrets — so much of what we know is due to their litigation efforts and those of other civil liberties groups (rather than, say, the efforts of the “watchdog” media or the “oversight” Congress). But what has been missing up until now is a coordinated, centralized effort to galvanize public demands for accountability, and this project is intended to provide that.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
To launch the campaign, I hosted a podcast discussion on issues of accountability and transparency with international human rights lawyer Phillipe Sands (author of Torture Team) and ACLU litigator Amrit Singh (co-author of Administration of Torture), which can be heard here. It is roughly 25 minutes long. One of the critical themes that emerged was that, both in general and specifically for Bush crimes, a prerequisite to accountability is transparency and disclosure. Only once citizens know what their Government did will they be able to hold the wrongdoers accountable.”
Noxi:
apologies, I thouhgt you were making fun of her judicial philosophy.
Jill:
hopefully the right will just vote for her if they don’t and she is not confirmed I can here it now – “Republican Senators Racist for voting down empathetic Latina nomination”
@IndenturedServant
Thanks, but I did not intend it as satire. Although overall I support her nomination, this is actually disturbing.
I.S.,
(from above) “Hopefully the right wont be stupid enough to fall into this trap the left is setting. Get those rascally republicans to torpedo her nomination for them.”
—————————————————————
My understanding is that Republican Senators do not oppose Judge Sotomayor. In fact they have been asked to filibuster her nomination but the Senators have indicated they do not want to do so. Are you’re saying the left wing has somehow forced the right wing to ask for a filibuster so the right wing can be blamed for the failure of her confirmation, while at the same time Republican Senators say they will likely confirm her? If so, I’m confused.
This is from the NYT on the rightwing request for a filiabuster.
“So far, Senate Republicans have not voiced enthusiasm about trying to mount a filibuster. On CNN last week, for example, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said, “I don’t sense a filibuster in the works.”
“I would think that we need to all have a good hearing, take our time, and do it right,” he said. “And then the senators cast their vote up or down based on whether or not they think this is the kind of judge that should be on the court.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/conservatives-ask-republican-senators-to-filibuster-on-sotomayor/
mike appleton wrote
“The attorney was indeed negligent in relying on the clerk, but that is the type of excusable negligence that is routinely found sufficient to avoid dismissal.”
that begs the question is the court negligent in relying on the clerk?
More on Jeremy Scahill:
Jeremy Scahill Goes Inside Blackwater, the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army
http://blog.buzzflash.com/interviews/057
Domestic surveillance operations are much worse than most people realize but, historically, we ignore the warning signs and then, when there’s a crisis, we react. (Are these ops COINTELPRO? Are they CIA, NSA, or DHS programs? Are private contractors like Blackwater/Xe involved? Are we seeing a resurgence of McCarthy-era Red Squads? Whatever’s going on, it isn’t something that is consistent with our values, the rule of law or the Constitution.
Noxi:
very funny, good satire.
This is certainly disturbing. I find it contemptible to strictly adhere to bureaucratic rules at the expense of true justice. I hope that is not a pattern of hers.
Jill:
neither the right or the left has any use for the constitution. both only want power over people.
The Christian right and the far left want to enslave man, one for the hereafter one for the here and now.
Both the right and the left want control and no one seems to be able to stop it. Get ready for the Jack Boots and Goose Stepping.
Puzzling:
Its to bad that Dems can’t seem to do under Obama what the Republicans did under Bush, is the standing behind what ever he did.All of a sudden some senators want to be individuals.
Which I understand is their right,but it seems as if its a tug of war,regardless of the issue.
Come on Sonia Sotomayor is eminantly qualified for the bench. She is an hispanic female with empathy. and will take decisions based on said empathy, I for one am looking forward to her confirmation.
Hopefully the right wont be stupid enough to fall into this trap the left is setting. Get those rascally republicans to torpedo her nomination for them. then blame it on right wing racism. You guys are as transparent as saran wrap.
Jill,
You are absolutely right. So far, the left is proving to be far more principled than the right was under Bush.
I would also argue that the actions by Republicans under Bush were worse than cowardice… in many cases much worse. I’m afraid we have only begun to pay the price for that, part of which is the level of executive power that Obama will hold if he goes off the rails entirely.
puzzling,
The right wing should have been out in front, excoriating Bush for the destruction of every value this nation holds dear. Instead they, for the most part, with brave exceptions, capitulated in the destruction of the rule of law, helping Bush “live the dream” that the Consitution is “just a piece of paper”. This cowardice was beyond reprehensible. We are paying dearly for this cowardice.
Jill,
Very well said.
Obama continues to articulate many of the right words. However, his actions on civil liberties, executive power, government transparency, faith based initiatives, foreign policy, and expansion of corporatist government seem more like a Bush III presidency.
While I did not support either major party, I am very pleased to see many on the left maintain their support for principles over person as evidence mounts. Criticism of Sotomayor is another example of this. Had this been true under Bush with consistent criticism from the Goldwater right, the country and her core principles would be far better off today.