Could it be that you are so devoid of sound judgement or is it that you really know that you are wrong but so need to hit out – especially at people of colour – that any lie or distortion on which you can conveniently hang your garbage is fine?

Do try to make your arguments more truthful and intelligent in the future.

You can read all about it at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com.

Here is a snip from the TPM story:

“If you were Frank Ricci, you might say something like, “Frank Ricci got a job and somebody who wasn’t dyslexic didn’t.” Remember, this is the same Frank Ricci who took his reverse discrimination suit all the way to the Supreme Court, where lower court rulings against him–including one by Sotomayor’s Second Circuit–were overturned.

“Ricci will testify against Sotomayor before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week–this despite the fact that his views on jurisprudence seem to begin and end with the proposition that legal protections against discrimination are great when they work in his favor, and unconscionable when they don’t. ”

Have a nice weekend, Gram.

A number of readers have asked my views on last week’s Supreme Court decision in the Osborne case out of Alaska where a slim, 5-4 majority ruled there is no constitutional right to postconviction DNA testing.
******
Elsewhere, though, for the most part prosecutors react defensively to requests for DNA testing because it implies their office might have got it wrong. IMO this prosecutorial impulse to vigorously oppose post-conviction DNA testing is misguided and runs counter not only to the interests of justice but the DAs’ and judges’ political interests. It opens them up for legitimate criticisms they cannot counter if someone they denied DNA testing to someone who was later proved to be innocent. In such situations, “I’m sorry” really doesn’t cut it as a response.

Which brings us to our case study of the day on how denying post-conviction DNA testing can come back to haunt you. Go read this excellent piece from Politico by Jeffrey Deskovic, an innocent man falsely convicted of murder and rape at age 17 who was denied DNA testing by Judge Sonia Sotomayor during his habeas appeal. He spent six extra years in prison because of her decision, all for a crime DNA later proved he didn’t commit. The headline of Deskovic’s piece: “Sonia Sotomayor’s ‘empathy’ isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.” The whole article is worth a read, but these are the main conclusions he draws:

Despite Sotomayor’s rhetoric, her ruling in my case showed a callous disregard for the real-life implications of her rulings. She opted for procedure over fairness and finality of conviction over accuracy. Many of the victims of wrongful convictions serving long sentences had exhausted their appeals long before they were exonerated. In how many of those cases did Sotomayor vote to refuse to even consider evidence of innocence?

My case is far from unique in an age when the reality of wrongful convictions is well-established. We face the prospect that Troy Davis, an innocent man on death row in Georgia, faces imminent execution, absent intervention by the high court or by President Barack Obama.

I would like an opportunity to testify at Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings to let the senators — and the country — know that we need a Supreme Court justice who understands the problem of wrongful convictions and is ready to correct them where the facts deem it necessary. Procedure should never be used as an excuse to override justice. The state must not be permitted to take away an individual’s liberty and later argue that his or her actual innocence is no longer relevant. Truth-seeking is central to our understanding of justice.

In my case, Judge Sotomayor did not demonstrate that understanding. If that is her idea of “empathy,” a trait that Obama sought in his appointee, then God help us all, especially those who are wrongfully convicted and possibly sentenced to death. Innocence can never be ruled as out of order in court.

Judge Souter, who Sotomayor will replace, held that there is not a constitutional right to DNA testing, which judging by her ruling in Deskovic’s case appears to also be her position.

Yeah. Sure.

Can you understand the cramped and convoluted logic of your final paragraph above? “Most Constitutionally-oriented justices do their best to be impartial….” What is that but an example of “aspiration?” They try to be impartial. They aspire to be impartial. Impartiality is their objective. They are, in your opinion, constitutionally-oriented. Sotomayor says she trys to be impartial. It is her objective. But her honesty on this, in your opinion, makes her someone who throws that objective overboard. Jeez, girl, at least get your thinking cap on straight.

I suggest you do a little reading up of your own on Sotomayor, Doran. There are lots of good sources available. Here is a place to start: The Sotomayor Case File, in Human Events, p. 3, June 8, 09, which summarizes seven cases ruled on by Judge Sotomayor and later reviewed by the Supreme Court. Four of these decisions were reversed, while two were upheld. One is still pending, which is the Ricci v. DeStefano case, the much-discussed firefighters’ case. No need to discuss that further here.

But along with the “wise Latina” quote she has given us a number of others that make quite clear how her personal views will indeed be given free reign on the bench. Here is one: “I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.” This is from a speech in 2001 in Berkeley, CA.

Another quote, apparently from the same speech: “I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that–it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”

Well, Sotomayor is, anyway; how interesting to read her words acknowledging exactly that. But no white male nominee could make that admission and get away with it.

Most Constitutionally-oriented justices do their best to be impartial, adhering as closely to the Constitution as the facts of a given case allow. They do not throw the objective of impartiality overboard as a mere “aspiration.”

A good read if anyone is interested, specially the comment section.
Beck does a great job in his interview. Good for him going after acorn. Good for him taking up Walpin’s cause. I hope he watches his back. Chicago politics is the most corrupt and always has been.