A disturbing ruling by Sotomayor...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/nyregion/10dna.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss


This should give some pause to those who believe this woman is going to become Saint Sotomayor the Defender of the downtrodden and Protector of Rights. Whatever the merits of the case are or were are immaterial to the core problem with her ruling. she chose to ignore, deny the rights of a citizen because of a small error by the persons attorney...and to make matters worse she acknowledged that the error was from no fault of the petitioner and were tantamount to neglect by counsel. Yet, she chose to pick-nits with a persons life and the nits won the day.

Is this really what you want on the bench? Isn't this just a latina version of Thomas? All indications are that this woman is going to be as disappointing to her boosters as David Souter was to his. There is a point when a blind-eye must not be used any longer and this administration has reached that point in my mind.

Sotomayor is no Harriet Meyers, but their is strong evidence emerging that she might well be the missing sister of Scalia.
(edited for creative speleeling ererrs)

That's the hyperbole straight out of certain Obama-basher-bashers' fantasies.

n/t

court.

The hyperbole you use to discuss this issue is difficult to ignore.

women, or midgets or any other homo sapiens are what we need...NOT a court made up of mediocre intellects no matter they be composed of: 1 midget, 1 woman, 1 black, 1 catholic, 1 muslim, 1 old white guy etc. Think of this way: Put a 1000HP engine into a an old volkswagon beetle ... do you think it will win (or even survive the first turn in a Grand Prix race? You need the frame to support the power...the intellect is the frame, the background, ethnicity cannot do the job alone.

Sotomayor does not lack intellect.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

One does not deny the other. Diversity does not preclude quality. And for one to actually believe that implication as a posit, results in a lot less credibility other people may have for that believer.

I was going to walk, but there's rain in the forecast, and I wouldn't want to get swept under a bridge. You find all kinds of nasty things under bridges.

What do you think?

:eyes:

excuse...they give much more credence and deferrence to the proscution....I doubt she's worse than most of them.

and is responsible for this ruling.

As the judge stated, the attorney took the word(verbal)of a clerk about the deadline. If the attorney had been on the ball, he/she would have had this prepared and filed prior to the deadline and not waited until the last minute. Lawyers frequently do this to their client's peril. Anyone know a good lawyer who does not write letters to receive confirmation about deadlines? I don't. Written confirmation would probably have gotten a favorable or at least more favorable ruling.

Verbal=no proof

Written by clerk on official stationary=indisputable proof

This nominee has a very good long history of careful rulings all well defined by applicable laws. She will make a pretty good justice--the more so when compared with Roberts, Alito, and Slappy Thomas.

Question is, will the Repugnants allow her nomination to stand?

You're exactly right, as it shows later in the article: "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."

He was serving 15 years to life. He was not subject to capital punishment.

right, in my opinion. Why anyone would expect a mainstream politician to choose anything other than a mainstream person for a
S.Ct. position is beyond me, but there it is.

Many thanks. I think you have a fine mind.

Attacking Obama? At least the OP had the courtesy of saying that Sotomayor would be a disappointment to him, although one case isn't enough to make that judgment on.

Interesting.

KNOW THE LAW, or at least know where & how to find out what the laws is...including the appeal window on the client's case. I sympathize with Mr. Deskovic too, but it was HIS lawyer's fault in this case.

includes time windows.

I hate to have to say it, but there are a lot of people in our prisons due to attorney incompetance.

The Appellate courts including the Supreme Court exist. Laws are laid against the Constitution. The Constitution is rather specific about the fact that citizens rights, particularly the right to life, and due process are paramount, and thus a court can set aside time limits and constraints in order to guarantee those rights. In the case we are discussing the BIG failure of the Appellate was in disregarding the fact that 'due process' was NOT provided, the lawyer screwed up, not the petioner and since the case concerned the right to life and liberty the cdourts should have ruled that the case be heard...and the lawyer suffer reprimand at the least...but most certainly NOT to ignore the petitioner thus leaving him to a life sentence for something the evidence he wanted to present later cleared him of when a different Court ruled on the case. Sotomayor and the other consenting judges on the AppCt erred...pure and simple.

To call her the missing sister of Scalia is not an accurate conclusion.

WEithin the context of your conversation and dialog, what is the precise and relevant difference between a conclusion and a "fanciful summary'? :shrug:

http://openjurist.org/304/f3d/183/center-for-reproductive-law-and-policy-v-w-bush

She basically upheld Bush decision. There were some cases where she ruled in favor of corporations over plaintiffs but don't get me wrong. I support her, overall she is a moderate that leans left. I think she would make a great justice but in such as long career there is bound to be decisions anyone disagrees with.

That's not helpful to his client and this outcome is entirely predictable and has nothing to do with being a right wing reactionary.

/grammar

But what's even more disturbing is an attorney who doesn't double and triple check a drop-dead date. There are some things that just aren't left to a clerk's word at a hearing, and the filing of a notice of appeal, a habeas corpus petition, an initial complaint are just a few of them. It was up to the attorney to make 100% sure that the filing was timely. It's too bad about the outcome for the defendant, but courts have rules and except in very special circumstances (like Bush v. Gore, where the federal courts really, really wanted to hand the election to George W. Bush), they follow those rules rigorously. The complaint section in the monthly bar bulletin in my state would be quite a bit shorter if every attorney who blew a deadline by a day or two was held blameless.

Fined? Anything? As a layperson, I always feel that an official with the whole weight of the legal system behind him/her like a judge, prosecutor, or police officer, shouldn't respond excessively in a way that devastates a person's life and denies that person their usual legal recourse in reaction to a small and non-threatening infraction. The lawyer wasn't on the verge of overturning the whole system of deadlines, and loss of the client's right to an appeal was not the only penalty available, was it?

It is also troubling that Judge Sotomayer didn't feel the necessity to similarly invalidate an entire case when a police officer made an equivalent error.

I think that the OPer's opinion that this behavior in her history at least hints that she will not be particularly sympathetic to the underdog or victims of miscarriages of justice is reasonable.

It's not the function of the Court of Appeals to retry any "fact" of the case, only the procedure of the case.

The procedure wasn't followed and the appeals court ruled that way. BTW, that ruling should have left the defendant with a opportunity to file a new appeal where he could have rightly claim incompetence and neglect by his own attorneys... and use THIS ruling as his evidence. Possibly getting a new trial where his new DNA evidence could be introduced.

Our system of "justice" really isn't about what's right or what's fair, only about insuring that the rules and laws are followed, and, should justice be the outcome, so much the better.

(a repeat of a previous answer I gave)
The Appellate courts including the Supreme Court exist. Laws are laid against the Constitution. The Constitution is rather specific about the fact that citizens rights, particularly the right to life, and due process are paramount, and thus a court can set aside time limits and constraints in order to guarantee those rights. In the case we are discussing the BIG failure of the Appellate was in disregarding the fact that 'due process' was NOT provided, the lawyer screwed up, not the petioner and since the case concerned the right to life and liberty the cdourts should have ruled that the case be heard...and the lawyer suffer reprimand at the least...but most certainly NOT to ignore the petitioner thus leaving him to a life sentence for something the evidence he wanted to present later cleared him of when a different Court ruled on the case. Sotomayor and the other consenting judges on the AppCt erred...pure and simple.

then it seems inconsistent with her rulings in these other cases.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sotomayor-prosecutor9-2009jun09,0,7206855.story

In two major rulings after she joined the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in 1998, she held that evidence could be used to convict a defendant even though police had violated his rights in seizing it. Sotomayor said that because the police and prosecutors acted "in good faith," the evidence need not be thrown out.

In 1999, Sotomayor upheld the crack cocaine conviction of a New York man despite what she called a "mistaken arrest." Last year, Sotomayor spoke for a 2-1 majority that upheld a man's child pornography conviction, even though she agreed an FBI agent did not have probable cause to search his computer.

After several hours of questioning — and after being promised that he would go home if he admitted to the murder — Mr. Deskovic confessed.


It's easy for this "armchair suspect" to wonder what kind of an idiot would confess to a crime that he didn't commit, especially a rape and murder- but this isn't the first time I have seen this EXACT claim, ie that the police promised a young person that he could go home if he confessed.

As cold as I am to stupidity not born of mental defect, as suspicious as I am of anyone a jury has seen to convict; I have never been a youth or a vulnerable person being interrogated by the police. The fact that such a person has no attorney present to keep this particular "promise" or tactic from happening is evidence to me that such a person is not fully capable of making the decision to speak with the police. Why was a 16 year old being interrogated without a parent or attorney present? Yes, I realize that some jurisdictions use 16 at a cut-off for the right of a parent to be present; this would appear to be for the convenience of the police and that's not really my priority.

Deskovic should not have been interrogated without an attorney.

It really doesn't matter what any of us think.

pathetic comment

:puke:

I say we mail this thread to Lou Dobbs.

and your ridiculous attacks on diversity are right up Lou's alley.

...but I worked for many years for lawyers and part of our job was to check and double-check deadlines for important filings. Unless the lawyer was repeatedly told the wrong date, it was on him or her to meet that deadline, so this sounds like a case of CYA. I think if I were the defendant, I would have filed an Ineffective Assistance of Council appeal.

That said, if there was indeed a question of innocence raised by the DNA evidence then the appeal should have been looked at and granted. But when you consider that this was probably one of hundreds, maybe thousands, of appeals based on an attorney's f-up, it would be impossible for any judge to read the facts on every single case of this type that crosses his or her desk. They look at the reason for the missed deadline, and if that reason doesn't hold water, they're going to deny without delving further into the case. So I don't necessarily see this as a judge putting "procedure over innocence."

While this is tragic, I think the attorneys carry as much of the blame here.

And I'm sorry, but this seems like pretty meager evidence to support the hyperbole in your last sentence. I don't care who the nominee is, you're always going to find decisions that will give you pause. It's the nature of the legal profession.

Making over the top statements like "might well be the missing sister of Scalia" does not help your argument.

FIrstly, the courts error is NOT whether the petitioner is guilty or innocent, nor even whether his evidence is sound. The court ruled ONLY on the merits of the habeas corpus... meaning was due process abridged or not and is their new evidence that would shed light on the case such that the case might be reversed at trial. What the court did was ignore the Constitutional due process right, ignore the evidence and dealt solely with the letter of the law. I quote from one of my previous responses:"The Appellate courts including the Supreme Court exist. Laws are laid against the Constitution. The Constitution is rather specific about the fact that citizens rights, particularly the right to life, and due process are paramount, and thus a court can set aside time limits and constraints in order to guarantee those rights. In the case we are discussing the BIG failure of the Appellate was in disregarding the fact that 'due process' was NOT provided, the lawyer screwed up, not the petioner and since the case concerned the right to life and liberty the cdourts should have ruled that the case be heard...and the lawyer suffer reprimand at the least...but most certainly NOT to ignore the petitioner thus leaving him to a life sentence for something the evidence he wanted to present later cleared him of when a different Court ruled on the case. Sotomayor and the other consenting judges on the AppCt erred...pure and simple."

Now do see the real error?

As for my 'over the top' as you call it statement about Sotomayor involving thomas and Scalia, I would remind you to respond to that in context the full quote:"Sotomayor is no Harriet Meyers, but their is strong evidence emerging that she might well be the missing sister of Scalia."

Now look at that and ask yourself if that was meant to be taken literally? Of course not, to my or anyone elses knowledge Scalia doesn't have a missing sister, hell I don';t know if he has a sister at all! that"She is no Harriet Meyers..." if taken soley could just as well be argued that I am absolutely enthralled with the woman as a potential Justice. She falls inbetween expremes...is that such a difficult concept to grasp? Must 'supporters' of things always insist upon totality of saintliness in their idols? Think a humor, black humor(NO not PIGMENTATION black), how about low satire? Honest when you give your brain a chance to digest stuff in its own context things generally are funnier and certainly less dark and bleak than they migh appear on a quick scan.

(edited subj line for pseelign ereoras)

No. I called it over the top, which is exactly what it was. To suggest that Sotomayor is somehow akin to Scalia is ridiculous.

As for the first part of your post, I think you missed MY point. I just heard somewhere that Sotomayor has handled 3,000 cases in her career as a judge. That's A LOT of cases. As I said, there will always be decisions that we don't like. This one mistake does not make her a demon. Perhaps human?

A Latina Thomas? Not a chance. You really don't seem to know jackshit about her record and you're bloviating in rushbo fashion. pathetic. Odds are, in light of her ample record, that she'll be somewhat in the mold of Breyer/Ginsberg/Souter. Her record- and there's quite a bit of it- does not back up your utterly moronic claim.

:eyes: