Wise Latina: Man Exonerated After 16 Years In Prison

Would you have accepted the petition, or rejected it?

 

That's not the relevant inquiry though, remember Sot was on the 2d Cir. Court of appeals, and her inquiry was limited to whether or not it was an abuse of discretion(at least Im pretty sure that's the applicable standard) for the D-Ct to have not heard the petition despite it being filed after the statutory deadline.

 

Appellate court review of lower court decisions is either "de novo" (they review it the decision on their own the same way the lower court did) or the way harder "abuse of discretion" (was the lower courts action outside the bounds of what they can permissibly do). As I stated earlier, I didn't read the decision and didn't research it so I don't know for sure, but usually with deadlines and the court setting it's calendar etc its the "abuse of discretion" standard.

 

Ah, I love when people not versed in the law try to argue legal concepts... Look into what an "abuse of discretion" standard is before you make arguments like this.

 

chirpy mcchirpenstein up in here!

 

Katherine Harris basically did the same thing in Florida (which I agreed with as well); rejected the recount ballots because they were too late.

 

I just love damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't questions.

He knows perfectly well that he has to either agree with Sot., or he needs to rule based on pity/emotion... both of which the GOP have clearly established themselves against doing. Which is why he will never answer.

 

Bingo.

It isn't as though he originally filed the habeas petition to the 2nd Cir. People want to stir this stuff up as though it were a hearing on the merits. All Sotomayor's job (along with the other justices) was to make sure that the lower court correctly applied the law.

 

Here's some logic for you. I'm more of a "rule of law" kinda guy as opposed to "rule by emotion", but there are exceptions.

Example: Child rapist gets off easy and gets only a couple years in prison due to a procedural error in court by the prosecutor. It happens. Happened recently. What do I say here? Procedure be damned. Put the guy away.

Unfortunately, it's just not that simple.

 

So bascially, you're a "rule of law" guy except when you feel there's an emotional reason not to be, in which case you're a "rule by emotion" type of guy?

 

i keep seeing the term 'wise latina' pop up with the conservatives when speaking about sotomayor. is this the latest coordinated race baiting attack of a minority by the republicans?

 

Some conservatives. Certainly not all of us. Certainly not me. Personally, it appears that Sotomayor did her job in this case and ruled only on whether there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court. If that is what she did, she made sure that the rule of law was followed rather than being an activist from the bench.

The job of an appellate court justice is to apply the law, not to ignore the law to achieve a result that the justice wants. In cases where there is no settled law on the topic (or a case that is distinguishable from that decided in prior cases), then the job is to analyze the situation in accordance with any applicable statutes or analagous court decisions and rule on what the law is in that jurisdiction.

Bottom line...Sotomayor did nothing improper here. In fact, she did her job well.

 

Naturally. And the point, of course, is that the GOP is trying so hard to make it that simple... and when that's no longer convenient for them, they either clam up or a do a 180.