Sotomayor doesn't mind getting an innocent defendant's off UNLESS...

[Nik]

THAT is the $64,000 question isn't it?

Not really, no. Her court opinions are measured, precise, and well reasoned. Whatever her personal opinions, they don't seem to enter into it. Nobody has been able to cite, and back up, a case where her opinion was absurd, or racist.

Oh how neat! We should just dispense with the Senate hearings then!

Please don't. The farce will only hurt the Republicans more. Maybe they can call her a racist some more, or say that because she is a Latino who voted a certain way on a discrimination case, she must be racist.

Speaking of racism...Ghook, would you have said she was a racist for ruling that way if she had been white? Do you think the USSC justices who ruled the way they did were racists, since 4 of them were white?

 

[del]

Perhaps a white male would have been better able to judge his case.

Using Ms Sotomayor's standards that is.

Oh? And what are her standards exactly?

the one where she said she would make better decissions than a white male because she was a latino woman.....

oh, but you forgot the context!



she's gonna sail right through the "north american" congress, but it is fun to watch people like nik contort themselves.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

He was released. After he was actually exonerated. At the time Sotomayor rejected the petition, it was just another untimely petition.

The petition at that time wasn't for release. It was for a new Habeas Corpus hearing on the rejected DNA evidence, and the defense missed a deadline. So Sotomayor summarily rejected the appeal. She could have ordered the lower court to either extend the deadline or schedule the hearing. The defendant however finally GOT a hearing, and the same evidence which was originally rejected, exonerated him.

I notice you didn't say anything about whether or not it's okay with you for innocent and/or even un-accused people to be held, be it foreign nationals on foreign soil, or US citizens on US soil.

The only problem with accusing Sotomayor of this is that she didn't know he was innocent.

There is no accusation, only facts. It's not like she was being asked to put a killer back out on the streets. She wasn't. She was being asked to allow another hearing on the improperly rejected DNA evidence. She was well within her power and authority to do it. If she has so much "empathy" where was it?

Courts have rules. Do you think that anyone should be able to just miss deadlines, not show up, whatever, and the court should forgive it and overlook it?

Case by case. That's why this went to the appeals court. For a higher judge to decide. A judge that was well within legal and authoritative power to order the court to allow the hearing.

 

[Nik]

Oh? And what are her standards exactly?

the one where she said she would make better decissions than a white male because she was a latino woman.....

but it is fun to watch people .

You like watching people? Creeper.

Good to know you think context doesn't matter though.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Not really, no. Her court opinions are measured, precise, and well reasoned. Whatever her personal opinions, they don't seem to enter into it. Nobody has been able to cite, and back up, a case where her opinion was absurd, or racist.

Oh how neat! We should just dispense with the Senate hearings then!

Please don't. The farce will only hurt the Republicans more.

Senate hearings for a newly-appointed SCOTUS judge are farces? Were you saying that when Booooosh was making appointments, cheap hack?

 

[del]

the one where she said she would make better decissions than a white male because she was a latino woman.....

but it is fun to watch people .

i messed with somebody else's post and didn't identify it as such, now i've been infracted.

fixed that for you.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Nik, use your brain. The guy in question, over Sotomayor's objections, eventually GOT his hearing anyway, and justice was done! Turns out the improperly rejected DNA evidence exonerated him!

Justice was done in spite of Sotomayor in this case, just like in the case of the firefighters who were discriminated against because of their skin color.

 

[Nik]

The petition at that time wasn't for release. It was for a new Habeas Corpus hearing on the rejected DNA evidence, and the defense missed a deadline. So Sotomayor summarily rejected the appeal. She could have ordered the lower court to either extend the deadline or schedule the hearing. The defendant however finally GOT a hearing, and the same evidence which was originally rejected, exonerated him.

I notice you didn't say anything about whether or not it's okay with you for innocent and/or even un-accused people to be held, be it foreign nationals on foreign soil, or US citizens on US soil.

The only problem with accusing Sotomayor of this is that she didn't know he was innocent.

There is no accusation, only facts. It's not like she was being asked to put a killer back out on the streets. She wasn't. She was being asked to allow another hearing on the improperly rejected DNA evidence.

She didn't know whether he was a killer or not, did she? And she didn't know whether the DNA evidence was improperly rejected, did she?

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 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 if the conviction became final before that. Mr. Deskovic was convicted in 1990. He had until April 24, 1997, to turn in his request. It arrived four days after that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/nyregion/10dna.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

He had 7 years to do the haebus petition.

But the odds were stacked against Mr. Deskovic. A 2007 report by Vanderbilt University Law School and the National Center for State Courts, for example, showed that out of 2,384 randomly selected habeas corpus petitions filed by state prisoners in noncapital cases in 2003 and 2004, only seven had been granted.

Hmm, she seems to be following the general practice of judges as well.

She was well within her power and authority to do it. If she has so much "empathy" where was it?

Courts have rules. Do you think that anyone should be able to just miss deadlines, not show up, whatever, and the court should forgive it and overlook it?

Case by case. That's why this went to the appeals court. For a higher judge to decide. A judge that was well within legal and authoritative power to order the court to allow the hearing.

It went to an appeals court because Deskovic appealed it. Its usually not case by case. Usually, barring extraordinary circumstances, there is no reason to allow someone to break a US Statute, and over-rule a lower court. What were the extraordinary circumstances here? That the lawyer was incompetent and had gotten the wrong date?

 

[Nik]

but it is fun to watch people .

i messed with somebody else's post and didn't identify it as such, now i've been infracted.

fixed that for you.

But I thought context didn't matter, Del?

Haha, you really are pathetic and vindictive aren't you? You can take your infraction and shove it up your ass. Way to use the board rules against me merely because you don't like me

 

[Nik]

Oh how neat! We should just dispense with the Senate hearings then!

Please don't. The farce will only hurt the Republicans more.

Senate hearings for a newly-appointed SCOTUS judge are farces? Were you saying that when Booooosh was making appointments, cheap hack?

Republican arguments against Sotomayor are a farce, yes.

 

[Nik]

Nik, use your brain. The guy in question, over Sotomayor's objections, eventually GOT his hearing anyway, and justice was done! Turns out the improperly rejected DNA evidence exonerated him!

Justice was done in spite of Sotomayor in this case, just like in the case of the firefighters who were discriminated against because of their skin color.

I'm not sure that he did, actually. And what exonerated him was that someone else confessed to the crime. The DNA evidence was available at his trial when he was convicted, he was convicted on the strength of his confession.

 

[Xenophon]

Take heart, now that Stuart Smally is here, Ms Sotomayor should have smoothe sailing to the supreme court.

Afterall, Ruth needs a girlfriend to gossip with again.

 

[Nik]

but it is fun to watch people .

i messed with somebody else's post and didn't identify it as such, now i've been infracted.

fixed that for you.

Hmm, you didn't identify it "as such" did you?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

she didn't know he was innocent.

That wasn't in question, it's just a weak strawman for you to cling to.

Despite Sotomayor's best efforts, justice was finally done and an innocent man freed.

 

[del]

i messed with somebody else's post and didn't identify it as such, now i've been infracted.

fixed that for you.

But I thought context didn't matter, Del?

Haha, you really are pathetic and vindictive aren't you? You can take your infraction and shove it up your ass. Way to use the board rules against me merely because you don't like me

if i wanted to use board rules against you because i don't like you, i'd have done so before now. here's another board rule for you to ponder. if you have an issue with moderation, take it up with staff via PM. and for the record, the context of sotomayor's remarks make them worse, not better.

have a nice day, liar.

 

[Nik]

she didn't know he was innocent.

That wasn't in question, it's just a weak strawman for you to cling to.

Despite Sotomayor's best efforts, justice was finally done and an innocent man freed.

If its not in question, then why do you keep saying he was innocent? Since she didn't know it, that fact is irrelevant.

 

[Nik]

fixed that for you.

But I thought context didn't matter, Del?

Haha, you really are pathetic and vindictive aren't you? You can take your infraction and shove it up your ass. Way to use the board rules against me merely because you don't like me

if i wanted to use board rules against you because i don't like you, i'd have done so before now. here's another board rule for you to ponder. if you have an issue with moderation, take it up with staff via PM. and for the record, the context of sotomayor's remarks make them worse, not better.

have a nice day, liar.

I don't really care what you do, bitch, I'm just laughing at your petty nature

By the way, please note that you changed my post. Otherwise I'd expect you to give yourself an infraction, eh ?

 

[Xenophon]

she didn't know he was innocent.

That wasn't in question, it's just a weak strawman for you to cling to.

Despite Sotomayor's best efforts, justice was finally done and an innocent man freed.

If its not in question, then why do you keep saying he was innocent? Since she didn't know it, that fact is irrelevant.

I should revive the stupid post thread to add this gem!

The fact he was innocent is irrelivent!

 

[del]

But I thought context didn't matter, Del?

Haha, you really are pathetic and vindictive aren't you? You can take your infraction and shove it up your ass. Way to use the board rules against me merely because you don't like me

if i wanted to use board rules against you because i don't like you, i'd have done so before now. here's another board rule for you to ponder. if you have an issue with moderation, take it up with staff via PM. and for the record, the context of sotomayor's remarks make them worse, not better.

have a nice day, liar.

more whining expunged:

but i did note it nikki, and therefor i'm not guilty of lying. there are several ways to do it, ranging from "fixed that for you" as i did in your earlier post, or the above example. i do it all the time as do a lot of posters. it's not my fault you're too stupid to get it right and then try to fall back on that bullshit "context" excuse.

you're not the brightest bulb in the sign, are you?

 

[Nik]

That wasn't in question, it's just a weak strawman for you to cling to.

Despite Sotomayor's best efforts, justice was finally done and an innocent man freed.

If its not in question, then why do you keep saying he was innocent? Since she didn't know it, that fact is irrelevant.

I should revive the stupid post thread to add this gem!

The fact he was innocent is irrelivent!

It is, considering it was an unknown fact.

Do you think the justice system has problems because we sometimes try innocent people? Thats the whole point of the damn thing, to figure out who is innocent and who isn't.