"Justice" Sotomayor

Sotomayor will be confirmed as Supreme Court Justice. The hearings are a waste of taxpayer money. Sotomayor, by any account is a liberal Justice. She will replace Justice Souter, another liberal Justice. Souter is one of four liberal justices on the court. There are also four conservative justices typified by Justice Thomas. The ninth, "swing Justice" is currently Justice Kennedy. A role played for many years, with great aplomb, by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Most decisions by the court are (nearly) unanimous where the case is determined to have been properly decided by a lower court, the case considerations are patently obvious, or that the case does not rise to the level of new Court considerations. For those fully reviewed, decisions rest with the "swing" Justice resulting in a 5-4 vote. Which brings me to my point. Why do we need the expense and waste of time with nine Justices? Let's reduce the size to three. One to represent the liberal point of view, one conservative. The third would be elected. But elected only by those who swear under a potential charge of perjury, that they have read a selected 100 summary opinions of two "neutral" contenders being put forth by the political parties. Forget the hearings. Save time, expense and money. Get quicker, better results. Don Flassing **************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323036x1201367247/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jul yExcfooterNO62)

Comments

[ray schmitz]

As the new guy on this group it is with great trepidation that I challenge the opinion of Mr. Flassing. Let me admit that I have not taken the time to read in detail all or even a good sample of Judge Sotomayor's opinions; but I have listened to and read comments and analysis of several individuals. And I have also read cases of the current Justices and numerous past justices. The line between what some define a liberal and conservative seems often to be as labeled by the commentator. Even those who are regarded as most liberal or conservative are not consistently within that pattern, this occurs most often because the facts of a particular case often drive the courts ruling. Remember that the supreme court selects the cases that it hears, often this means that a jurist will look for some time for a case to make a point or clarify what they see as an issue that is doubtful. Is this selection process liberal or conservative, is it the mark of a judicial activist, if so all of the court has to plea guilty. One ongoing issue is the line between the authority of a state and the federal government, this is an area where the decisions in the most recent sessions are mixed and confusing, liberal/conservative the jury is out. That most conservative of the current court, Justice Scalia, has ruled in two cases against what I feel were reasonable limits on the confrontation clause, in terms of injury to the prosecution of criminals these could be as significant as the famous miranda decision, but has that harmed his reputation as the tough on crime judge, not to this point.
I think that labels, although it is fun to apply them, have little real meaning in the world of that court.