Dec 09
Justice Sotomayor’s first written opinion in the case, Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, No. 08-678, marked the first use of the term `undocumented immigrant,'

Justice Sotomayor’s first written opinion in the case, Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, No. 08-678, marked the first use of the term `undocumented immigrant,'

In an opinion that has the right wing whackos in a tizzy, Justice Sonia Sotomayor has introduced a new word into the legal lexicon of the nations highest court.

It’s an apparent first for the U.S. Supreme Court, the term “undocumented immigrant” is now part of the legal lexicon for the nation’s highest court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor used the term, along with “undocumented worker” in an opinion on the case Mohawk Industries, Inc. vs. Carpenter.

Justice Sotomayor’s choice of words is being hailed by immigrant advocates. On ImmigrationProf Blog, University of California law professor Kevin Johnson wrote that with her first written Supreme Court decision – which by the way focused on a civil procedure issue – the new justice “already has made a difference”

Johnson writes that “the choice of terminology — aliens, illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants, people — matters in the discourse over immigration. Consequently, by employing a more neutral term, Justice Sotomayor has added significantly to the Supreme Court’s dialogue on immigration, which is likely to be with us for the foreseeable future.”

Aug 06
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, 55, confirmed to SCOTUS on 68-31 bipartisian vote, will be the 111th person, the 3rd woman and first Hispanic to sit on the nations highest court

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, 55, confirmed to SCOTUS on 68-31 bipartisian vote, will be the 111th person, the 3rd woman and first Hispanic to sit on the nations highest court

In the end, 9 Republican’s saw the light and voted with the majority party in confirming Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court, replacing retired Justice David Souter.

Judge Sotomayor becomes the 111th person, the first Hispanic and only the third woman on the nations highest court.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, supported Sotomayor but was not present for the vote because of illness.

She will be sworn in at the Supreme Court by Chief Justice John Roberts on Saturday.

President Obama, who selected Sotomayor on May 26, said he was “deeply gratified” by the Senate vote.

“This is a wonderful day for Judge Sotomayor and her family, but I also think it’s a wonderful day for America,” Obama said at the White House.

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, helped close the debate by stressing the historic nature of the nomination.

“It is distinctively American to continually refine our union, moving us closer to our ideals. Our union is not yet perfected, but with this confirmation, we will be making progress,” Leahy said on the Senate floor.

“Years from now, we will remember this time, when we crossed paths with the quintessentially American journey of Sonia Sotomayor, and when our nation took another step forward through this historic confirmation process.”

Leahy also took a swipe at Sotomayor’s critics for choosing “to ignore[her extensive record of judicial modesty and restraint, a record made over 17 years on the federal bench."

Instead, he said, "they focused on and mischaracterized her rulings in just a handful of her more than 3,600 cases."

Congratulations Judge. A good day for you, a great day for America!

Tagged with:
Aug 06

Judge Sonia Sotomayor was expected to easily win Senate confirmation Thursday as two more Republican senators announced their support for the country’s first Hispanic high court pick.

The final day of debate is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m., with a vote on her nomination scheduled for about 3 p.m. Legal sources said a White House swearing-in ceremony could happen as early as Friday.

A new nationwide poll also showed that a majority of Americans now believe the Senate should confirm Sotomayor.

Most Senate Democrats and Republicans, however, continued to express sharply differing opinions of Sotomayor’s experience and temperament during the full chamber’s second day of deliberations.

Democrats praised the nominee as a fair and impartial jurist with an extraordinary life story. Many Republicans continued to portray her as a judicial activist intent on reinterpreting the law to conform with her own liberal political beliefs.

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, broke with the majority of Senate Republicans when he took to the Senate floor to announce that he would vote for Sotomayor despite disagreeing with several of her rulings.

“There’s been no significant finding against her. There’s been no public uprising against her,” Bond said. “I do not believe that the Constitution tells me that I should refuse to support her merely because I disagree with her on some cases. I will support her, I’ll be proud for her, the community she represents, and the American dream she shows is possible.”

Later, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire also said he would vote in favor of Sotomayor’s nomination, calling her qualified for the position.

“Although Judge Sotomayor and I may not see eye-to-eye on all issues or share the same political ideologies, our democratic system should allow for such differences,” Gregg said in statement.

He lamented what he called the politicization of the judicial confirmation process, saying: “This is why I criticized the Democratic leadership’s tactics to block highly qualified judicial nominees during the Bush administration, and these same principles still hold true for me now.”

Bond and Gregg increased to eight the number of Republican senators backing Sotomayor. They joined Maine’s Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Indiana’s Richard Lugar, Florida’s Mel Martinez, South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, and Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander.

Sotomayor’s confirmation by the Democratic-controlled Senate is now considered to be a certainty.

If confirmed, Sotomayor, 55, would be the 111th person to sit on the Supreme Court and the third woman justice.

Senate Democrats opened the second day of floor debate praising Sotomayor’s 17-year record as a federal judge and her made-in-America story as a minority woman who rose to success through hard work and opportunity.

“Here we have a nominee who has had more experience as a federal judge than any nominee in decades,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that approved Sotomayor’s nomination after a four-day hearing.

She has “real-world experience, real-world judging, (and) an awareness of the real-world consequences of decisions.”

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, dismissed GOP charges of Sotomayor’s alleged judicial activism, expressing confidence that she “will be a smart, fair, impartial, and qualified member of the United States Supreme Court.”

Sotomayor has been clear “that her own biases and personal opinions never play a role in deciding cases,” Murray said. “More importantly, her 17 years on the bench stand as a testament to that fact.”

Most Republicans expressed a dramatically different view.

Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, argued that Sotomayor’s record indicates she relies “on something other than well-settled law to come to a decision. My fear is that she (is) unable to separate her personal belief system from that of the letter of the law.”

Burr highlighted Sotomayor’s ruling in the 2008 case Ricci v. DeStefano, in which a group of 20 mostly white firefighters sued the city of New Haven, Connecticut, after the city threw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — including Sotomayor — backed the city. The ruling was subsequently overturned in June by a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, agreed with Burr, arguing that a promise by Sotomayor in her confirmation hearings to “apply the law” in a neutral manner had been undermined by an activist judicial record.

“I have no question about the outcome of this vote on Judge Sotomayor,” Cornyn said. “I hope … she will prove (my) concerns unjustified.”

As the Senate moves closer to a final vote, a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey indicates a majority of Americans believe the chamber should confirm Sotomayor.

Fifty-one percent of those questioned in the poll, conducted Friday through Monday, say the Senate should confirm Sotomayor, with 36 percent opposed. The 51 percent who back Sotomayor is up 4 points from a poll in June.

The poll suggests the rise in support is coming solely from women.

“Among men, there has been virtually no change in attitudes toward Sotomayor. Among women, however, support for Sotomayor’s nomination appears on the rise — from 47 percent in June to 55 percent now,” said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

The poll also indicates a wide partisan divide over Sotomayor, with nearly three out of four Democrats saying that she should be confirmed, but only a quarter of Republicans agreeing.

The telephone poll of 1,136 Americans has a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. The sampling error is larger for the questions broken down between gender and political party.

SOURCE:CNN

Tagged with:
Feb 22

WASHINGTON — Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa, an undocumented worker from Mexico, made a curious and undeniably bad decision. After working under an assumed name for six years, he decided to use his real name and exchanged one set of phony identification numbers for another.

The change made his employer suspicious and the authorities were called in. The old numbers were made up, but the new ones he bought happened to belong to real people. Federal prosecutors said that was enough to label Flores-Figueroa an identity thief.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on prosecutors’ aggressive use of a new law that was intended to strengthen efforts to combat identity theft. In at least hundreds of cases last year, workers accused of immigration violations found themselves facing the more serious identity theft charge as well, without any indication they knew their counterfeit Social Security and other identification numbers belonged to actual people and were not made up.

The government has used the charge, which carries a mandatory two-year minimum prison term, to persuade people to plead guilty to the lesser immigration charges and accept prompt deportation. Many of those undocumented workers had been arrested in immigration raids.

The case hinges on how the justices resolve this question: Does it matter whether someone using a phony ID knows that it belongs to someone else?

The government, backed by victims’ rights groups, says no. The “havoc wrecked on the victim’s life is the same either way,” said Stephen Masterson, a Los Angeles-based lawyer, in his brief for the victims’ rights groups.

On the other side, Flores-Figueroa and more than 20 immigrants’ rights groups, defense lawyers and privacy experts say that the law Congress passed in 2004 was aimed at the identity thief who gains access to people’s private information to drain their accounts and run up bills in their name. Surveys estimate that more than 8 million people in the United States are victims of identity theft each year.

Flores-Figueroa acknowledges he used fraudulent documents to get and keep his job at a steel plant in East Moline, Ill. But he “had no intention of stealing anyone’s identity,” his lawyers said in their brief to the court.

He traveled to Chicago and bought numbers from someone who trades in counterfeit IDs.

Had he been caught while using the fictitious name and numbers that went with it, he could not have been charged with the more serious offense.

Federal appeals courts in St. Louis, which ruled against Flores-Figueroa, Atlanta and Richmond, Va., have come down on the government’s side. Appeals courts based in Boston, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., have ruled for defendants.

The government’s use of identity theft charges in immigration cases was on full display in last year’s raid on a kosher slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa. Authorities charged 270 undocumented workers with identity theft, including its threat of two years in prison.

Chuck Roth, litigation director for the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago, called the charge “a bludgeon” that was intended to elicit guilty pleas to lesser charges. Roth’s group joined one of the briefs supporting Flores-Figueroa.

All 270 workers accepted plea deals in which they also agreed not to contest deportation.

An additional 100 workers arrested in the same raid were using unassigned numbers and faced charges with little prospect of prison time.

The case is Flores-Figueroa v. U.S., 08-108.

SOURCE: Houston Chronicle/AP

Tagged with:
preload preload preload