She broke down [rquoter]Sotomayor Ruled in "D-Bag Case" Ruled teen's blog post created a created "foreseeable risk of substantial disruption" By YVONNE NAVA and LEANNE GENDREAU President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy has yet another tie to Connecticut. She sided against a student in the infamous “douche bag” case, and that has upset some free-speech advocates. In August 2007, Judge Sonia Sotomayor sat on a panel that ruled against an appeal in Doninger v. Niehoff. Avery Doninger was disqualified from running for school government at Lewis S. Mills High School in Burlington after she posted something on her blog, referring to the superintendent and other officials as "douche bags" because they canceled a battle of the bands she had helped to organize. The case went to court and in March 2008, Sotomayor was on a panel that heard Doninger’s mother’s appeal alleging her daughter’s free speech and other rights were violated. Her mother wanted to prevent the school from barring her daughter from running. Sotomayor joined two other judges from the 2nd Circuit in ruling that the student’s off-campus blog remarks created a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption” at the student’s high school and that the teenager was not entitled to a preliminary injunction reversing a disciplinary action against her, Education Week reports. In their opinion, the judges said they were “sympathetic" to her disappointment at being disqualified from running for Senior Class Secretary and acknowledged her belief that in this case, “the punishment did not fit the crime.” However, the judges decided they were not called upon to determine if school officials acted wisely. “As the Supreme Court cautioned years ago, “[t]he system of public education that has evolved in this Nation relies necessarily upon the discretion and judgment of school administrators and school board members,” and we are not authorized to intervene absent “violations of specific constitutional guarantees.” The ruling in this case has come under heavy criticism from some civil libertarians. Some say this case presents a solid rationale for rejecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals to fill the seat of retiring Justice David Souter. “The continual expansion of the authority of school officials over student speech teaches a foul lesson to these future citizens,” Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, told the New Britain Herald. “I would prefer some obnoxious speech [rather] than teaching students that they must please government officials if they want special benefits or opportunities.”[/rquoter]
Do you even read the stuff you regurgitate anymore? I understand you have the capacity now to bold items you think are poignant, not that relevant details like "two other judges" and ...would ever slip. Of course, not even knowing ANYTHING about your thought process behind regurgitating this particular piece, I'll have to assume it.
I don't agree with it, but her decision seems consistent with the way the SCOTUS has dealt with these types of cases.
A demographic hat trick and a former House speaker is a heck of a lot more plausible ticket than you'd think.
she broke down? lets get this straight. kid organizes event. school cancels event. kid drops the d-bag bomb on school. kid wants to run for school government. school denys pottymouth kid. kid files FOS lawsuit. Soto rules against kid. Basso says Soto breaks down. Basso broke down? Basso broke....... Basso. ass.
Wait a minute - now you're upset that she's NOT an activist judge? To rule the other way would have been to rewrite the law for emotional reasons. You are absolutely clueless about what you even believe or want.
Incorrect, isn't it clear by now? Want: Limbaugh, Hannity, Republicans. Do Not Want: Obama, Democrats,
I don't understand the law all that well...but to me it's a travesty that this school got away with what they did. Denying her the ability to run for student gov't because of her speech is incredulous. But because she wrote it on a blog! That's not even saying it on school property. However, schools are notorious for denying freedom of expression. So This is no surprise. The punishment was excessive. What should have happened is the school board should be kicked out for abuse of power.
I thought the reputation system was implemented for "douches" like him. So why, I ask, is he at green?
I am almost 100% certain that if Sotomayor and co had decided for the student then basso would be crying foul over 'kids running their mouths' and 'god knows what Sotomayor is doing to our children! Think of the children! Will somebody think of the children?!"
In Pappas vs Giuliani, Sotamayor dissented from the majority opinion to defend the free speech rights of a white supremacist and argue he should not have lost his job. The case: Her dissent basically argued that since he was working from home anonymously that his actions did not reflect upon the department as a whole and that Pappas should not be terminated for actions he took outside of work when he did not represent the NYPD.* *--read that link on her dissent. The author argues against Sotomayor's dissent quite cogently imo. Still, whether one agrees with her dissent or not the fact that she did so in order to defend a purportedly racist cop shows exactly how racist she is.
The fact that she is willing to defend a man who made white supremacist threats shows whether or not the accusation that she is racist against white people (particularly to the extent that she compromises her objectivity as a judge) has any merit. To answer, it doesn't.
Gotcha. I thought you were implying that since she's willing to defend racist people, it suggested she was racist. Your version makes more sense.
