Sotomayor Tougher on Crime Than Any of Her Colleagues

[Crabtownboy]

Conservatives should like this.

Conservative critics of Judge Sonia Sotomayor have had plenty to say about what they consider her liberal judicial record. But would it make any difference if they knew that as a New York trial judge, she was tougher on crime -- handing down more and longer sentences -- than any of her colleagues in the same district?

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/09/sotomayor-and-sentencing-tough-on-crime/

 

[rbell]

CTB, that was a thought-provoking post. Here are my thoughts on the article, and on Sotomayor...

• "Tougher than the fellow bench-mates" doesn't mean much, until we know the relative position of that particular court. Here's what I mean: the barely-American Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as a whole lies to the left of Joseph Stalin (hyperbole, yes, but you get the point). If you are "more conservative than the rest," you still might be too far left. We need a snapshot of that court as a whole to truly understand where Sotomayor is.
• There are still some unresolved inconsistencies, IMO. I don't believe you can be tough on crime and yet be not support the Second Amendment. I hope that her feet are held to the fire regarding her anti-gun ownership positions.
• The cases that the Supremes here are often times broader than one-crime, one-sentence cases...they are often broader in scope. I'm having trouble with describing it; here goes...thug A is arrested, sentenced, and eventually his case makes it to the Supreme court. I believe that more often than not, the SC will hear general cases (something like a miranda-type case) that is broader than one particular crime/punishment. I'm not convinced Sotomayor will be so "mainstream" when we're talking in generalities.
• I still cannot resolve that terrible "latina women are wiser" silliness. I'm sorry, but that is a huge problem for me. If a white judge had said that, reversing the races, he'd never be up for this position. But unfortunately, statements that reek of racist thinking only run in one direction these days.

 

[targus]

Conservatives should like this.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/09/sotomayor-and-sentencing-tough-on-crime/

Buried way at the bottom of the article we find this admission.

"Because of the way the information about individual cases has long been collected and stored by the courts, it is virtually impossible to make judge-by-judge comparisons about what they do,'' he said.

So after his arguement that Sotomayor is tougher on crime than her colleagues the author admits that it is virtually impossible to make comparisons like the one he just made.

As crabby would say - interesting.

IMO even if the author has his analysis right it may be meaningless. For all I know Sotomayor is the lmerely the least liberal of judges in a district that could possibly be the most liberal of an district of them all.

 

[donnA]

tough on anything means nothing unless the position is right, and too many of hers aren't.

 

[Palatka51]

5 Thumbs Up

CTB, that was a thought-provoking post. Here are my thoughts on the article, and on Sotomayor...

• "Tougher than the fellow bench-mates" doesn't mean much, until we know the relative position of that particular court. Here's what I mean: the barely-American Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as a whole lies to the left of Joseph Stalin (hyperbole, yes, but you get the point). If you are "more conservative than the rest," you still might be too far left. We need a snapshot of that court as a whole to truly understand where Sotomayor is.
• There are still some unresolved inconsistencies, IMO. I don't believe you can be tough on crime and yet be not support the Second Amendment. I hope that her feet are held to the fire regarding her anti-gun ownership positions.
• The cases that the Supremes here are often times broader than one-crime, one-sentence cases...they are often broader in scope. I'm having trouble with describing it; here goes...thug A is arrested, sentenced, and eventually his case makes it to the Supreme court. I believe that more often than not, the SC will hear general cases (something like a miranda-type case) that is broader than one particular crime/punishment. I'm not convinced Sotomayor will be so "mainstream" when we're talking in generalities.
• I still cannot resolve that terrible "latina women are wiser" silliness. I'm sorry, but that is a huge problem for me. If a white judge had said that, reversing the races, he'd never be up for this position. But unfortunately, statements that reek of racist thinking only run in one direction these days.

Hear! Hear! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Conservatives should like this.



http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/09/sotomayor-and-sentencing-tough-on-crime/

Don't care. She's not being considered as trial judge. She's being considered as a Supreme Court justice.

Sentencing criminals is one thing. Interpreting the Constitution and protecting the rights of American citizens from an overreaching legislative and executive branch is quite another.