Difference between revisions of "Sonia Sotomayor"
m |
|||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
===Establishment Clause=== | ===Establishment Clause=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Hankins v. Lyght, 441 F.3d 96 (2006)''' "In an age discrimination challenge by a Methodist clergyman, Judge Winter writing for the majority held that [the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA)] is properly applied to an Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim. Judge Sotomayor dissented contending that RFRA does not apply to disputes between private parties and that the ADEA does not govern disputes between religious entities and their spiritual leaders." <ref>http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayor-is-high-court-pick-here-are.html</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Sotomayor stated, "The majority's opinion thus violates a cardinal principle of '''judicial restraint''' by reaching unnecessarily the question of RFRA's constitutionality. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent." (emphasis added) | ||
| + | |||
| + | "I believe that a remand is a wasteful expenditure of judicial resources and an unnecessary and uninvited burden on the parties. The district court is in no better position than we are to decide either the statutory or constitutional questions presented in this case. In my view, the most appropriate disposition of this case would be to affirm the district court's dismissal of appellant's claims on the ground that the ADEA does not apply to employment suits brought against religious institutions by their spiritual leaders. Because the majority's contrary approach disregards a clear and voluntary waiver, conflicts with RFRA's text and with binding precedent, and unnecessarily resolves a contested constitutional question, I respectfully dissent." | ||
===Free Speech=== | ===Free Speech=== | ||
Revision as of 17:46, May 26, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor is a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On May 26, 2009, President Barack Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court. If confirmed, she will replace Justice David Souter
According to the ABA Journal, Sotomayor is,"A political centrist, the Bronx-born Sotomayor has been regarded as a potential high court nominee by several presidents, both Republican and Democrat. Reared by her widowed mother after the death of her father, a tool-and-die worker, she has an attractive life narrative and an even more attractive resumé. She was an editor of the Yale Law Review, did heavy lifting as a prosecutor under legendary New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, and worked in private practice as an intellectual property litigator. She was first appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush, then to the appeals court by President Clinton." [1]
In a speech in 2001, Sotomayor said "she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decision making, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”"[2]
Contents
Background
Sonia Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican descent, and was born and raised in Bronx, NY. She attended Catholic school, but it is uncertain where she currently stands in terms of religion.
"Some sources, including Pete Williams, reported that the Judge is a Catholic. However, there has not yet been any indication of whether that report is accurate and, if so, if she actually practices her faith."[3]
"Sotomayor attended Catholic schools, but we haven't yet confirmed that she is, in fact, Catholic. If she is, she would become the sixth Catholic justice on the current Supreme Court"[4]
Decisions
Standing
Decisions by Sotomayor, such as Taylor v. Vt. Dept of Ed. 313 F.3d 768 (2002), seem to show that she favors judicial restraint with respect to standing issues.
Terminology
Issues
Abortion
Parental Rights
Establishment Clause
Hankins v. Lyght, 441 F.3d 96 (2006) "In an age discrimination challenge by a Methodist clergyman, Judge Winter writing for the majority held that [the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA)] is properly applied to an Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim. Judge Sotomayor dissented contending that RFRA does not apply to disputes between private parties and that the ADEA does not govern disputes between religious entities and their spiritual leaders." [5]
Sotomayor stated, "The majority's opinion thus violates a cardinal principle of judicial restraint by reaching unnecessarily the question of RFRA's constitutionality. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent." (emphasis added)
"I believe that a remand is a wasteful expenditure of judicial resources and an unnecessary and uninvited burden on the parties. The district court is in no better position than we are to decide either the statutory or constitutional questions presented in this case. In my view, the most appropriate disposition of this case would be to affirm the district court's dismissal of appellant's claims on the ground that the ADEA does not apply to employment suits brought against religious institutions by their spiritual leaders. Because the majority's contrary approach disregards a clear and voluntary waiver, conflicts with RFRA's text and with binding precedent, and unnecessarily resolves a contested constitutional question, I respectfully dissent."
Free Speech
Sotomayor appears to believe in a strong right to free speech.
Sotomayor dissented in Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143, 155 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2002)
"The Court holds that the government does not violate the First Amendment when it fires a police department employee for racially inflammatory speech -- where the speech consists of mailings in which the employee did not identify himself, let alone connect himself to the police department; where the speech occurred away from the office and on the employee's own time; where the employee's position involved no policymaking authority or public contact; where there is virtually no evidence of workplace disruption resulting directly from the speech; and where it ultimately required the investigatory resources of two police departments to bring the speech to the attention of the community. Precedent requires us to consider these factors as we apply the Pickering balancing test, and each counsels against granting summary judgment in favor of the police department employer. To be sure, I find the speech in this case patently offensive, hateful, and insulting. The Court should not, however, gloss over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives because it is confronted with speech it does not like and because a government employer fears a potential public response that it alone precipitated."
References
- ↑ http://abajournal.com/news/who_will_replace_justice_souter
- ↑ http://www.verumserum.com/?p=5306&cpage=1
- ↑ http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=33654
- ↑ http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=6831739
- ↑ http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayor-is-high-court-pick-here-are.html
