Corporate lawyer considers Sotomayor to be a reliable pick for corporations

[brentspeak]

In all the bizarre giddiness surrounding Sotomayor (why? why not just simple, basic approval?), there's the following ominous endorsement from a corporate attorney:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124338260937756559.html

Her record in more than 4,000 cases, including those from 11 years on the Second Circuit, shows her occasional siding with corporate defendants or diverting from a standard liberal position.

The judge has favored corporate defendants in suits that test when cases can be brought as class actions. Judges often must determine whether plaintiffs' claims should be pre-empted by more defense-friendly federal and international laws.
European Pressphoto Agency

President Obama announces his Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.

"There is no reason for the business community to be concerned" about Judge Sotomayor, said Lauren Rosenblum Goldman, a partner at Mayer Brown LLP who has represented businesses including Wachovia Corp. and Dow Chemical Co.

By "business community", this corporate lia..er, lawyer...is definitely not referring to the Main Street business community.

[vaberella]

1. I was waiting for you to show up with a negative post.

Man...I was rooting for Sunstein anyway. Can you find me a negative post on him too?! I hear he's O's advisor during the campaign and probably ongoing.

[brentspeak]

2. NSR: No Substance Response

[vaberella]

4. Sadly I don't find any substance in your post...when at times I can't dispute your post has a point.

This on the other hand doesn't give me anything. I haven't read anything where they list her cases in detail that I can read about those cases. Have you read any of the cases to find out for sure that the writer is correct, or is it just hearsay?

To be honest I don't know much about her and what I've read hasn't been bad. Nor is the information overall in the article "news"----only that she sides with corporations is the only thing. But I've seen this on all sides. Everyone is bashing her. Liberals say she's not liberal enough and the RW say she's a liberal activist. Good lord. Let's wait until she's in office before we pass judgement because we don't know anything yet.

And unfortunately your article doesn't refute anything significantly. Added to that..when it comes to a lot of rulings. I, personally need to read, all the issues involved and not the statements claimed. A lot of time the burden of proof was not met by the accuser so what is a judge supposed to do? That doesn't mean the judge is a corportist.

[dionysus]

19. more substance than your predictable OPs.

:shrug:

[villager]

3. Because you certainly wouldn't want to threaten corporate "personhood"

regardless which of the "two" parties is in power!

[Thrill]

5. Where here he comes. The top Obama basher has showed up. You must have searched all day

to finally find something to attack this pick on.

Never mind she has ruled for unions in cases and for workers on wage issues.

[AlexanderProgressive]

6. OP analyzes zero rulings, accusing Sotomayor of nothing

Guilty by association, as if Obama, to cite an analogy, were a bad candidate only because the New York Post endorsed him.

[SpartanDem]

7. Is it really that ominous?

particularly in light of that their analysis in the quoted section doesn't say she's a reliable pick for corporations, "occasional siding with corporate defendants or diverting from a standard liberal position.". In addition, the premsis of the rest of the article notes that she has solid left of center voting record.

Record Shows Rulings Within Liberal Mainstream


WASHINGTON -- Judge Sonia Sotomayor has built a record on such issues as civil rights and employment law that puts her within the mainstream of Democratic judicial appointees.

Among the cases she has heard during her 15 years on the federal bench -- and one that will be examined closely through her confirmation process -- is one now pending before the Supreme Court.

[grantcart]

8. class actions suits have, unfortunately, evolved into a case of corporate lawyers

shaking down corporations.

Usually only small percent of the judgements go to the defendents ( I got a check for $ 14.87 last week for a $300 million judgement against a credit card company).

In some cases class action actually has involved criminal conspiracies and some of the largest class action attorneys are now serving time in jail for it.

Now if you have a specific case that she made an error of judgement on I would be interested. You can probably get somebody at the Free Republic to help you as they are actively working to destroy the nominee, which is apparently consistent with your own objectives.

[brentspeak]

16. Corporate lawyers shake down corporations?

When did that start happening?

But even with workplace discrimination claims, Judge Sotomayor is far from a reliable vote for employees. In 1999, for example, she ruled against a black nurse, who claimed she had been fired from Staten Island University Hospital in New York due her race and age and the fact that she had suffered a debilitating injury. Judge Sotomayor ruled that the plaintiff, Wendy Norville, could move ahead on her disability claim, but tossed out the race and age claims. “There was ample evidence that the hospital had accommodated white nurses with similar disabilities,” says Glenn Greenwald, who represented Norville. “In the race and age-discrimination claims, she rather coldly dismissed what I thought were good claims,” says Greenwald, who is now a columnist for Salon.com.

So not only is Glenn Greenwald someone who belongs on Free Republic, but he's probably a criminal shake-down artist, too?

[grantcart]

21. Without any reference you tied me to Greenwald, the Free Republic

nice magic.

My point is more general and widely held in the legal community that some large legal firms have abused class action law suits actually undermining their intended use. They do generate hundreds of millions for corporate attorneys.

Here is a link to a criminal prosecution against Lerach who was consider the leader in the field.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/business/12legal.html

[Mojambo]

9. Both sides, D and R, know who really runs this country.

There simply isn't going to be ANYONE nominated who isn't hip to this fact.

[firedupdem]

10. This is so ridiculous....of course you would find something to

spin as a negative against this nominee.

[Honeycombe8]

11. "Occasional siding with corporations"? I would be suspicious if she DIDN'T

occasionally side with corporations. Sometimes the plaintiff has the evidence, sometimes the defendant does.

That actually sounds like a good recommendation.

[vaberella]

13. That was exactly my point. Burden of Proof people, Burden of Proof.

Some plaintiffs have none so why would she side with them.

[babylonsister]

12. You never fail to put the worst face on the best thing! She's great!

Her life story, her education, her decisions. What don't you like, oh angry one?

[leftofthedial]

14. I think that's probably a pretty safe bet.

She'll also be good for cops, bad for citizens and victims of cops.

But she beats hell out of the fascists on the court.

[Boomerang Diddle]

15. Oh noes!

[dionysus]

20. .

:spray:

[ClarkUSA]

17. Really? FACT: Sotomayor ruled in favor of minimum wage for homeless workers in class action suit

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8432716

This, plus her pro-baseball players' union ruling during the last strike and her recent pro-affimative action New Haven, CT fire department ruling all sound like pretty progressive to me.

[dionysus]

18. brent, why is it that i could have predicted you'd be up in arms about this?

:rofl: