quote:

---

Originally posted by SAProsecutor:
Remember, she started in the ancient times like 1979 or something like that. I was like 7 years old back then. I think if you go back to 1979 courts they didn't have photocopiers, forensics, and no air conditioning. They do trials in the summer with no jackets and just fans going while the lawyers, who are all fat and wear suspenders, sweat and ask bad questions. And apparently everything was in black and white.

So 20 trials was alot back then!

---

I thought you were still 7 years old.

Greg, just trying to get some of you more seasoned prosecutors up in arms about 1979!

Don't tell my boss about me having the mentality of a 7 year old!

A new article suggests that Sotomayor is somewhat pro-State in her rulings.

Every article is looking for what her hidden agenda might be. Maybe she just followed the law, without regard to any other factors! (Yes, I know, but that's my dream.) I think most prosecutors would go both ways (for and against "law enforcement" issues) because we have seen it from the inside. The media's need to put labels on candidates and describe people in caricature-like exaggeration drives me crazy. What we should be looking for is does she have friends in diverse professions and stations in life? Does she surround herself with people that agree with her every word or people who speak the truth? Has she hired someone to change her public personality from who she really is?

Can we really predict what her pet issues are going to be? One can start out in a position of power and just follow the law, but any human with that much authority, over time starts to think that he or she knows better than the rest of the little people and starts to insert an agenda (even if with the best intentions at the beginning). Then, eventually, the agenda is to stay in power because how else can one person do all those good things without the power??? I have seen this happen in the tiny counties in Texas, with local politics, and I've seen it played out in the national media with our national candidates.

Maybe that's an argument for some type of term limits. Or it could go the other way, too, in that if a supreme court justice did have an agenda, and knew there were only 8 years in which to accomplish that agenda, then that would significantly change that justice's picking cases, etc.

Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, but doesn't New York only have jury trials in felony cases? If that's the case, then 20 in five years would make sense, especially if she had to work her way up from misdemeanors.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SAProsecutor:

Don't tell my boss about me having the mentality of a 7 year old!

---

She probably already knows, friend.

I have not heard what her friends are like, but if she is like a lot of N.Y. liberals, she leads a very insular life with no real contacts with non-liberals. I had one of these people as a law professor and even tho she had lived in Tex. a number of years, she seemed utterly perplexed that there were people out and about who disagreed with The N.Y. Times editorial board.

Sotomayor's pre-Supreme Court Nominee statements and her decisions indicate that she is a very results oriented judge. I think Robt. Bork would be a far better choice, even if he is rather old.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg Gilleland:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SAProsecutor:

Don't tell my boss about me having the mentality of a 7 year old!

---

She probably already knows, friend.

---

OH NO!!!

Don't hold back Terry, say what you really think!

In a story by James Oliphant, the Los Angeles Times reports,

"Her experience as an assistant district attorney in New York made her something of a law-and-order judge, experts say, especially when it came to police searches and the use of evidence."

Link to the rest of the story....