Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

I second your assessment.

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

Yep, she's disavowed her entire 17 year judicial carreer: "I didn't mean that" "That was wrong" "Those were an unfortunate choice of words":puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

Just like 0bama, she'll say anything they need to hear to get confirmed then it's back to business as usual: judging from the "I'm a disadvantaged minority and will do whatever it takes to right past wrongs and objective [white man] law be damned" perspective.

The "wise latina" will get confirmed. After all, she's a latina with an affirmative-action education: what more qualification do you need?:sarc:

This country is done - put a fork in it.:banghead::bawling::banghead::bawling: :banghead::bawling:

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

Judge Sonia Sotomayor Denied My Appeal and I Spent 16 Years in Prison For a Crime I Didn't Commit

By Jeffrey Deskovic, AlterNet
Posted on July 10, 2009, Printed on July 15, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/141197/

My name is Jeffrey Deskovic. At age 17, I was wrongfully convicted of murder and rape, a conviction that was based upon a coerced, false confession, the fabrication of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and fraud by a medical examiner. I was cleared 16 years later -- almost three years ago -- when DNA evidence proved my innocence, while also identifying the real perpetrator, who subsequently confessed to the crime. Since my release, I have made it my life's mission to battle against wrongful convictions and fight for legislation that would minimize the chances of what happened to me happening to someone else. It is this fight that compels me to speak out about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Before I was exonerated, I sought out every legal avenue I could to win my freedom. I defended my innocence before the New York Appellate Division, raising such proof as the fact that the physical evidence found did not match me and arguing that the police violated my rights by coercing a false confession from me at the age of 16. The court ruled against me 5 to 0, concluding that there was nothing wrong with my interrogation and stating that there was "overwhelming evidence of guilt," despite the fact that there was no evidence beyond my forced confession. In truth, the DNA and the hairs found on the victim's body were evidence of my innocence.

When my lawyer was denied a chance to reargue the case on the grounds that the court's decision ran counter to the law and to the facts, we moved to the Court Of Appeals, the highest court in New York. I filed a Writ Of Habeas Corpus, in which I argued that my conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The year was 1997. The year before, Congress had passed Bill Clinton's Anti-Terrorism-Effective-Death-Penalty Act (often called AEDPA in legalese), which mandated that from then on, all state prisoners would have only one year to appeal to a federal court after being denied an appeal by their state's highest court. As a result, there was some confusion in the federal courts regarding the filing procedure; it was not clear how this new law would apply to cases already in the system. Different jurisdictions were answering the question in different ways; my lawyer called the court clerk and asked whether it was enough that my petition be post-marked on the due date, or if it had to physically be filed and in the building on the due date. The court clerk told my attorney that it was enough that it be postmarked. That information turned out to be false. Consequently, my petition arrived four days too late.

Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro seized on the late petition, arguing that the court should dismiss my case without even considering my innocence claim. The court sided agreed. I then appealed my case to the 2nd Circuit. It was there that I first met Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

My lawyer gave three reasons why Judge Sotomayor and her colleague should overturn the procedural ruling: 1) Upholding such a ruling would cause a miscarriage of justice to continue; 2) Reversing the procedural ruling could open the door to more sophisticated DNA Testing; 3) The late petition was not my fault or my attorney's. To our dismay, Judge Sotomayor and her colleague refused to reverse the ruling. "The alleged reliance of Deskovic's attorney on verbal misinformation from the court clerk constitutes excusable neglect that does not rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance," they wrote. "Similarly, we are not persuaded that � his situation is unique and his petition has substantive merit." A second appeal to Sotomayor's court resulted in the same decision. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear my case, and I remained in prison for six more years.

When I first learned that Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, I was immediately alarmed. What would it mean for other people who were wrongfully convicted? Judge Sotomayor put procedure over innocence in my case. Could she be trusted not to do so again in the future? Could she be counted on to correct injustices when the facts indicated that and/or the legal arguments could demonstrate that a trial was unfair?

Judge Sotomayor condemned me to serve a life sentence for a murder and rape that I did not commit. That other innocent people could be denied relief based on procedural technicalities is no mere possibility; Take the case of Troy Davis, who faces execution in Georgia despite overwhelming proof of his innocence -- proof that has never been allowed in a court room. Consider, too, the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Alaska V.S. Osbourne, in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated that no prisoner has a constitutional right to access DNA Testing even when such testing could demonstrate innocence. That decision came down to a 5 to 4 vote; if Judge Sotomayor had been on the court, can anybody say with confidence that she would have voted in favor of DNA access?

There are human consequences to these decisions. I can still see the prison cell, the barbed wire, the isolation from my family, the depression, helplessness, frustration, abuse by prison guards, the constant physical danger in prison, no opportunities to build for my future, missing births, deaths, and holidays. We need to awaken this country to the role that judges play in perpetuating wrongful convictions by putting procedure over innocence, by putting finality of conviction over accuracy, and by rubber stamping appeal denials regardless of whether a trial was truly fair.

Judge Sotomayor will appear before the Senate next week. Given that she has been nominated to a lifetime appointment that affects all of our rights, what she did in my case -- condemning me to a life sentence based on procedure in the face of an airtight innocence claim -- should be part of the discussion. I want my case to be a part of the national discussion. I want Senators to ask Judge Sotomayor if she stands by her ruling, and whether she would rule that way in the future. If I could I would testify at the Senate confirmation hearing, about the human impact of Judge Sotomayor's putting procedure over innocence. Thus far, however, I have gotten no response from either side on Capitol Hill.

It is deeply dismaying that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have introduced my case to the national conversation about Judge Sotomayor. Do people remember Anita Hill? As serious as her allegations of sexual harassment were, I would think that my serving time in prison wrongfully and being condemned to a life sentence for a crime that I was innocent of would be even more serious. Why does Judge Sotomayor continue to ignore this story? Does President Obama agree with Judge Sotomayor�s ruling? Does he think that ruling served justice? Is that the type of �empathy� he wanted? I lost 16 years of my life. It seems evident that politics is trumping justice; that I am once again being wronged by the system.


� 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/141197/

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

I agree, and I can only hope that our "esteemed" Senators realize that by reneging on her entire career, she's in effect telling them that she doesn't even have the appropriate judicial experience for the job, let alone the integrity.

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

It would be interesting to ask a judge like Sotomayor what the government's interest in keeping innocent people in jail might be.

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

Sotomayor responds: "It depends. Are they white, male or members of an approved disadvantaged minority group?"

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

Is it time to start unloading my mags yet?

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

If so then we are creating jobs for this country's disenfranchised and abused minorities.


I'll second that puke doc.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

Do you really want a BS artist like this on the Supreme Court?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...na_remark.html

This woman is so FOS and full of herself that I wouldn't want her as a judge in traffic court, let alone SCOTUS.

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

Some other "abstract questions", then, according to her logic:

"Do I have a right to free speech?"

"Do I have a right against unreasonable search and seizure?"

"Do I have a right to not give evidence against myself?"

"Do I have a right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury of my peers?"

"Do I have a right against cruel and unusual punishment?"

"Do I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"

"Do I have a right to vote at age 18?"






Disgusting.

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

What are you talking about? She fits the mold of the traffic court judge to a tee, right down to her 'make a freight train take a dirt road' looks.

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

:4_1_72::4_1_72::4_1_72::4_1_72:

If I'd have been drinking, you'd owe me a keyboard....

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

Those are even more abstract notions than the right to self-defense.

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

I just finished reading that article and was about to post it too! It makes me sick. What is even more sickening is I would bet many would vote her in just because Obama nominated her. Without even taking in account her answers she has given over the past couple of days. :no_ma:

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

I don't know about the rest of you but, I'm ready for the party to get started.

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

My vote for post of the month.
:applause_:applause_:applause_

Well done!
:coolbeer:


ST

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

I was rather surprised to hear Al Franken asking her some serious sounding questions. Maybe it was just the soundbites that ABC news had, but I was hearing an awful lot of fluff questions like "Are you a Mets or Yankees fan?"

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

Was that before or after he asked her about Perry Mason episodes?

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

Before. He was asking her opinions on certain cases. I think he was trying to get her to openly say she supported Roe v. Wade, but I can't be certain.

Glad you mentioned that though, I had forgotten. Maybe everyone's asking a kinda "fluffy" question at some point, just to be "inclusive".

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

And Now Ladies and Gentalmen live and in person......

Government created through affirmitive action.......

Mental light weight........with only 3 of her 4 decisions over turned

Raceist member of La Raza.....

Willing to laugh off the usurpation of the Constitution by Appelet level Judges.


The best first choice of Baraq Hussein Obama

I give you the Confused frompy anti American White Male Hateing.


SOOOOOOOOOTOOOOOOOOOOOOOMAYYYYYYYYYYYOR

:signs14:

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

LLLLET'S GET READY TO RUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMBUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

FWIW Here is a video of it.

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

good post hivemind. thank you

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

Okay, after watching this I've decided I can't even be nice about it. This bitch doesn't have the stones to be a Supreme Court Justice.

If I was interviewing someone for a job and they were this mincing and mewling with me, you know I'd be say "Well, we'll let you know."

I know that, but I can dream, can't I?

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

Did you watch the whole thing? About 12:10 into it, he asks: "do I have the right to defend myself in my home?

Her answer at 13:10 into it:
"under NY law, if you are being threatened with eminent death, over very serious injury, you can use force to repel that, and that would be legal."

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

There is a clear distinction between legal and lawful, but few get it.

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

Yeah I watched the whole thing, I was in shock that she couldn't even say "hell yes people have a right to defend themselves".

I swear with the way it is now I think we might run out of trees or rope before we cleanse Washington.

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

She seemed overly careful in pointing out that at the end of the day, it comes down to state law. That's why she framed her answer in the context of the NY criminal code.

She is saying that the court should not make up new law, only interpret existing law. And by existing law she means the settled law of the state in question. So doesn't that mean that on the SCOTUS bench, she and her fellow judges will look to the state laws, at least for home defense?

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

i would say by to all my guns , but it will take more then her

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

What is that supposed to mean? Explain, in context of the exchange in the video starting with his question at 12:10.

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

Bend over and get ready to get Sotomized.

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

So ugly she made an onion cry?:yes:

So ugly that when she goes into a bank they turn off the surveillance cameras?:yes:

So ugly the Elephant Man paid to see her?:yes:

So ugly that if she was a scarecrow, the corn would run away?:yes:

Re: Dear Ms. Sotomayor, f%ck you.
 

So sad, but I agree...