The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on June 10, 2009, 10:07:44 AM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5817244
Oh my.
This is a brand-new bonfire, no primitives having seen it yet.
Badgerman (289 posts) Wed Jun-10-09 11:02 AM
Original message
A disturbing ruling by Sotomayor...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/nyregion/10dna.html?_...
A Supreme Court Nomination Stirs Up Bad Memories
"...Imprisoned at the age of 16 for the killing of a high school classmate, Mr. Deskovic, now 35, filed a habeas corpus petition in 1997 in Federal District Court contesting his conviction. The court denied the request because the paperwork had arrived four days late. Mr. Deskovic and one of his lawyers — who he said had been misinformed about the deadline for filing — appealed the decision to the federal appellate court on which Ms. Sotomayor sat."
"...“When we filed the appeal, I thought for sure that she and the other judge were going to see the facts of the case, that this wasn’t an error of my doing and that upholding a ruling like that would be a miscarriage of justice,†Mr. Deskovic said."
"... In court papers, the lawyer who drafted the petition said that a clerk had provided the wrong deadline. Ms. Sotomayor and her colleague, Judge Rosemary S. Pooler, ruled that the “alleged reliance of Deskovic’s attorney on verbal misinformation from the court clerk†amounted essentially to neglect.
“There was at least an explanation, which was all the more powerful because of the question of innocence raised by the DNA evidence, but the court paid no attention to it,†said another of his lawyers, Eleanor Jackson Piel , who handled the appeal."
This should give some pause to those who believe this woman is going to become Saint Sotomayor the Defender of the downtrodden and Protector of Rights. Whatever the merits of the case are or were are immaterial to the core problem with her ruling. she chose to ignore, deny the rights of a citizen because of a small error by the persons attorney...and to make matters worse she acknowledged that the erro was from no fault of the petitioner and were tantamount to neglect by counsel. Yet, she chose to pick-nits with a persons life and the nits won the day.
Is this really what you want on the bench? Isn't this just a latino version of Thomas? All indications are that this woman is going to be as disappointing to her boosters as David Souter was to his. There is a point when a blind-eye must not be used any longer and this administration has reached that point in my mind.
Sotomayor is no Harriet Meyers, but their is strong evidence emerging that she might well be the missing sister of Scalia.
-
Isn't this just a latino version of Thomas?
WTF?
When did Thomas ever make such a ruling? If he did, then he did but I'd like to see some substantiation.
-
Badgerman (289 posts)
That's a dangerously low post count to be bashing Sotamayor.
-
Badgerman (289 posts)
That's a dangerously low post count to be bashing Sotamayor.
That's what I thought too.
There's been some primitive comments now, and those expressing doubts about the Latina woman have low post-counts too.
-
There is a saying in the legal profession that "Late is late" though various exceptions are allowed in many a court or administrative body for "Good cause shown." Taking a clerk's verbal word on a deadline instead of actually reading the order on a motion or docket entry on it is just plain old negligence and malpractice, though, and would not be "Good cause" to the vast majority of judges.