General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCNN: Is Sotomayor the new Scalia?
That's their headline. Here is the other one...
Sonia Sotomayor channels liberal voice on Supreme Court
On the losing end of a 5-3 decision regarding police searches without a warrant, Sonia Sotomayor last week unleashed a withering dissent. With direct references to Ferguson, Missouri, and a reading list of black authors including Ta-Nehisi Coates and W.E.B Du Bois, Sotomayor took the majority to task for ignoring the realities on the ground.
"This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants -- even if you are doing nothing wrong," she told her audience. And then she took things a step further, rejecting the majority's contention that the stop at hand could be considered an isolated instance.
"We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are 'isolated," she said. "They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere."
To some, she has become the liberals' answer to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, asking tough questions of lawyers and delivering fierce opinions with -- at times -- searing language.
"Like Justice Scalia, Jutice Sotomayor has the ability to take on her colleagues on the court when she thinks they are wrong, while at the same time speaking to the public at large in colorful, evocative, often fiery language," said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center.
<snip>
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/sonia-sotomayor-supreme-court-liberal-voice/index.html
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)xocet
(3,870 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)bjobotts
(9,141 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)But if she starts flying around to secret meetings with very wealthy people like the court's most outstanding conservative revisionist did, we really shouldn't wait for her to drop dread to notice.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)the real one, not the one that existed in Scalia's tiny mind.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)wryter2000
(46,016 posts)What he was missing was any scrap of humanity.
PJMcK
(21,921 posts)Orrex
(63,086 posts)I'd have to say no.
I'm so profoundly grateful for Scalia being permanently absent from the bench, unable to do any further judicial harm.....
Orrex
(63,086 posts)If that makes me a bad person, then I don't want to be a good one.
Paladin
(28,204 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Paladin
(28,204 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)They are extremely upset over my grave dancing.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)But I share the sentiment!
CheRan
(2 posts)But is that Arlington national cemetery?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)with each new day that he isn't on the court, but I sure had my husband staring on the first new day.
Btw, Dow Chemical, which had appealed a case to SCOTUS when Scalia was on it, dropped the case and settled a $1+ billion anti-trust judgement for $835 million. So I'm guessing they didn't dance.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)I kind of doubt it, but what do I know?
TeamPooka
(24,156 posts)I'm with you on this one. This session has been downright glorious!
Rex
(65,616 posts)Not a big brain trust there.
47of74
(18,470 posts)CNN, Sotomayor has a brain. Sotomayor has basic human decency. And Sotomayor isn't in the pocket of reich wingers.
Up yours CNN.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)PJMcK
(21,921 posts)CNN is not even a shadow of the amazing news network it was originally.
The attempt to create an equivalency between Justice Sotomayor and the (thankfully) late Justice Scalia is ridiculous.
CNN is the epitome of false journalism perfectly represented by their "star," Wolf Blitzer.
Mr. Blitzer, you're an idiot.
dembotoz
(16,739 posts)brush
(53,475 posts)StevieM
(10,499 posts)brush
(53,475 posts)StevieM
(10,499 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,355 posts)Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,355 posts)aren't they basically comparing Scalia- who has no positive qualities AFAIC- favorably to her?
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)CNN's comments about Scalia are in line with popular thought. The other way of looking at it is that if someone said "Jutice Sotomayor has the ability to take on her colleagues on the court when she thinks they are wrong, while at the same time speaking to the public at large in colorful, evocative, often fiery language" we would be happy with that.
By the way, the person that said that is "Elizabeth Wydra, president of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center."
TygrBright
(20,733 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)No, CNN, the new Scalia is Alito. He's his ideological and dishonesty crown heir.
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)He's Scalia without the charm.
ProfessorGAC
(64,425 posts)There is something far less smug and self-important about Alito.
Like you, i don't like his politics or his interpretation of justice, but he doesn't act like everything he says and writes were from stone tablets handed down by god.
Scalia did. He had such disdain for anyone who disagreed because he was so sure that anybody who disagreed was just too stupid to understand his brilliance. (and i use that last word advisedly.)
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)And true
NewJeffCT
(56,827 posts)at least Scalia could laugh at himself. At Stephen Colbert's breakout performance at the White House correspondent's dinner many years ago, while Bush looked rather pissed at Colbert, Scalia was laughing uproariously as Colbert mocked him. And, Scalia went out of his way to shake Colbert's hand afterwards and tell him he did a great job.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)CrispyQ
(36,231 posts)on edit: Not sure Alito is the bully Scalia was. This is a great read!
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2016/03/in_oral_arguments_for_the_texas_abortion_case_the_three_female_justices.html
mountain grammy
(26,571 posts)I figured the reference was to their weight.
Great cartoon!
Liberalagogo
(1,770 posts)CNN is becoming the new False Noise.
The Wizard
(12,482 posts)They lurched to the right after Pox came on the air and took a substantial piece of their audience. The rightward lurch was an attempt to regain the lost viewers. that strategy backfired. The Pox converts never returned and they lost many who noticed they were a less blatant form of right wing propaganda than Pox.
BlueMTexpat
(15,349 posts)It bears as much resemblance to the journalism of my youth as Scalia does to Sotomayor. That is to say practically none.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)An unintentional joke masquerading as journalism.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)klook
(12,134 posts)This figures, coming from a "news" outlet that can't distinguish between style and substance.
Politicub
(12,163 posts)And this article has a whiff of sexism about it.
Sotomayor is blazing her own trail. It has nothing to do with Scalia.
Just like the man himself, Sacalism is dead.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)lark
(23,003 posts)Other than being passionate, she is nothing at all like no ethics Scalia. She cares about the law and about common folks. He was actually against the constitution, saying we should be governed by the Bible instead. He cared nothing for conflict of interests, taking a paid duck hunting trip with Cheney 2 weeks before Cheney's case came before him and refused to recuse himself. He is the most sickly partisan judge that I have seen on SCOTUS during my lifetime. He had nothing but scorn for working class people and the rich could do no harm, per him. He was a total pile of excrement and his absence makes our country a better place.
Well said.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)He is the primary reason George W. was named president. Fat Tony was the Selector Justice.
And those are some of the better things about the man. I don't even want to get into the DC v. Heller decision. It's no mystery why mass murders have become commonplace, and why President Obama has been POTUS during an unprecedented period of catastrophic mass murder. Heller was decided in 2008, and it was Scalia's baby.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)Who the hell is this Ariane De Vouge person? This is not only bullshit, it's deliberate bullshit.
Here is a bio from 2002, she sounds like a reporters version of an ambulance chaser
The tall, French-bred, Indiana-raised beauty has no interest in being on air, or even toting a camera crew behind her. "She's a reporter's reporter," says one on-air correspondent who has worked with her. (Or, as de Vogue puts it: "I could never keep my hair combed long enough." De Vogue had intended to become a print reporter, beginning her career as a researcher for the Baltimore Sun's Washington bureau. But after taking time off to travel and landing in Los Angeles without money or a job, she pursued an opening as a national researcher at ABC. She spent two years there on the fire and earthquake, Menendez brothers and O.J. beat, making a big enough impression to earn a transfer to the network's Washington bureau and the title of investigative reporter. Her first assignment was then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his emerging ethics problems. Thereafter, whenever a big story hit, de Vogue has been brought in to investigate--campaign finance, the Unabomber, the TWA crash, impeachment, Enron. Her work on the Ford-Firestone defective tire story helped earn an Emmy nomination for the network. As an off-air investigator, she can stay on the same story for weeks, often switching correspondents, while the on-air personalities are forced to follow daily breaking news. "You lose ownership, but you gain an amazing amount of teamwork," says de Vogue, who is 37 and continues her investigations while raising two young children.
treestar
(82,383 posts)they are complimenting her for asking tough questions and that her opinions are in searing language - though the opposite in conclusion, the method they are saying is just as passionate or whatever. Comparisons does not mean identical. There are similarities and differences you can compare between any two people.
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)Should the author of this piece be staked out naked in the desert smeared with honey? Well, to some that is a good idea.
-- Mal
StevieM
(10,499 posts)was placed on the high court.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)She wrote a very passionate dissenting opinion to an awful ruling by the SC. If she were like Scalia, she would write a verbose angry dissenting opinion to a just ruling.
Svafa
(594 posts)is what the article seems to be saying. Good grief, CNN.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Strives to be as neutral as possible to an absurd extreme.
merrily
(45,251 posts)deceive that portion of the public.
For a first world nation, we sure do have crappy mainstream media.
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Mike Nelson
(9,903 posts)mcar
(42,210 posts)benld74
(9,889 posts)Hekate
(90,202 posts)Xipe Totec
(43,872 posts)I'm not saying. I'm just asking.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)AwakeAtLast
(14,112 posts)in a way that would be offensive to other bat-shit insane people.
Skittles
(152,965 posts)Scalia was a narcissistic bully
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)The Wizard
(12,482 posts)to promote his sick political agenda.
frankieallen
(583 posts)"This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants -- even if you are doing nothing wrong,"
If the court decided the opposite, as Sotomayor suggested, that you needed to be somehow breaking the law in order for an officer to ask you to identify yourself, that would be unprecedented IMO.
As i understand the law, if a police officer asks you for your id, or asks you to identify yourself, you must comply. I don't have a problem with that. They are there to protect us and to enforce the laws.
Cops deal with people every day, if they suspect someone is up to no good, they are probably right, and they should have the right to check.
If they are wrong, no harm done.
(full disclosure, my brother is a cop)
bluejaylane
(5 posts)A police officer may not require that you identify yourself unless he/she has a legal reason for contacting you. That requirement is called probable causethat's his/her authority for detaining you. It's his/her defensible belief that you have done something illegal. Cops just don't get to stop people and demand ID. Sadly, you've missed the entire point of the argument Justice Sotomayor made. To restate it, many members of the police are not there to protect us. Some are racists, bigots, and right wing radicals. They might stop people for no reason either to hassle them under color of authority or run a criminal background without cause hoping to arrest them. Theses tactics were once rampant in the South and still common throughout the US today. Suggesting that "if they suspect someone is up to no good, they are probably right" is naive in the extreme.
(full disclosure: I used to be a federal peace officer)
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)using obfuscating language and strangely constructed and linked sentences.
lordsummerisle
(4,649 posts)Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)Pretty much every response is about how terrible the comparison is, but it's got 91 recs. I suspect that people hate the comparison, but love the idea of a left win Scalia.
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed