Sonia Sotomayor and Cannabis : Our New Supreme Court Justice

[JackTheGrower]

I thought to open discussion on our newest US Supreme court justice.

I am yet to see any references on her position on Cannabis.

She is not totally limited to previous Supreme court rulings as she was as a U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit judge now.

The most obvious thing about her as a choice I see today is her Sex and Race are smart choices.

The news today is all about power between Republican and Democrat at least from the point of view with the news.

Does anyone have any info on her position of Cannabis.

Jack

 

[madrecinco]

I am researching her stand on MMJ and she is not on the radar with that one as far as I can see. I like that she is a woman and hispanic....but I am concerned about her decision in the reverse discrimination against the white firefighters in CT though. Nobody is perfect I guess....but overall I am happy with the Supreme Court on their decision to uphold state rights for implementation of MMJ in legal states. That is certainly encouraging for me anyway.

So hopefully as a Dem she will be MMJ tolerant at least.

 

[slappyjack]

I can't find anything either. I hope she's asked questions about legalization/MMJ during her confirmation.

One thing is certain, she's not a drug warrior.

 

[BurmeseDragon]

I find she has a great vibe, but one thing for sure is public office is not a great vibe.

 

[Mr. Tony]

\but I am concerned about her decision in the reverse discrimination against the white firefighters in CT though.

mad concern here.... just because none of the none white applicants past the test in that area doesn't mean we should lower standards.

 

[cannabudz]

All i have to know; is that daddy Bush (GHWB) gave her, her first big job.. /sigh.. better luck next time...

Cannabudz.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

this will be interesting. I hope she is not religious. No offense, but it seems religion is anti-pot, just because it feels good, and they cant have you feeling good with out god.

 

[madrecinco]

mad concern here.... just because none of the none white applicants past the test in that area doesn't mean we should lower standards.

They lowered the standards for minorities not whites. The white firefighters were not promoted even though they passed the test. They just lowered the standards to promote minorities it seems. That is not EQUALITY which I fight for in any area.

 

[madrecinco]

this will be interesting. I hope she is not religious. No offense, but it seems religion is anti-pot, just because it feels good, and they cant have you feeling good with out god.

Religion.....Republicans....MORAL MAJORITY ,,,,,IS OUR ENEMY to the MMJ movement. Trust me on this one HashZ....

 

[ROOTWISE]

Well said Madrecino

 

[Storm Crow]

Hey Madre! How's it going in Fla? Those petitions filling up?

Seems from what I read, her mom was a nurse at a methadone clinic. Let's hope that compassion is inheritable!

Granny

 

[madrecinco]

I have 873 sigs for Kim and am going to a "Tea Dance" for old farts tomorrow and will cha cha and collect signatures from dirty old men voters. Granny will get them signatures if it kills me.

Keep up the cause Granny Storm Crow......WEED LIBRE!!!!!!!!

 

[slappyjack]

Religion.....Republicans....MORAL MAJORITY ,,,,,IS OUR ENEMY to the MMJ movement. Trust me on this one HashZ....

Fortunately this Republican "base" is now ID'ing itself as less than 25% of the total electorate. They're just really loud.

The Republican party is SCREWED!

 

[madrecinco]

The religious RIGHT has ALWAYS been to loud for this old granny. I lived amongst them as a young impressionable child. Thankfully counceling and deprogramming cured me.....
FREE AT LAST! LOL

 

[Nokturnal]

It seems shes very strict and has said on many occasions shes "All about the law", so.. I highly doubt shes gonna side with MM. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

The religious RIGHT has ALWAYS been to loud for this old granny. I lived amongst them as a young impressionable child. Thankfully counceling and deprogramming cured me.....
FREE AT LAST! LOL

I got lucky, My mom is a Christan and my dad is a Jew. Neither of them ever forced religion on me. My mom only made me go to church on holidays, and wensday nights, but it was because I liked the other kids. wensday was juast a hang out day. By age 13 I was skipping the class to make out with this girl named candice. My mom thought that was just fine, she thought it was healthy. My mom's side of the family hates her for not so strict religious views.

My dad being a "texas hippy" as I like to brand him, never ever forced religion on me. He just said live by the golden rule, and life will be golden. He also believes you go where you wanna go when you die. I guess me and My dad will be hittin up the ski slopes when we are dead.


So by another personal example, me; a person can be brought up around religion with out it being crammed down your throat.

 

[madrecinco]

Your parents were wise raising you that way......I was a Texas Hippy also

My husband was raised Catholic but Nam made him think deeper into his beliefs. I was raised very strict protestant and rebelled against the religious restraints. Some of my family still don't approve. BUT that is their problem as I did it my way and expect my kids to do the same. But they did go to church with friends and had freedom of choice in their beliefs about it.

They have various beliefs now, 2 Christians.....1 Atheist...and one Zen Buddhist vegan!

 

[stink.whistler]

She is a former prosecutor, very law and order.

I don't have the details yet, but heard she allowed a couple searches w/ problems with the warrants to be admitted as evidence.

She is NOT sounding like a good choice for us. And she is almost certain to be confirmed.

 

[stink.whistler]

OK, did a little research into what I had heard about her. Read and decide for yourself if this former NY District Attorney is good news for our cause...


Here she decided that just because there was no valid reason for the police to arrest or search the defendant (error in a database showed that he had a warrant), she was going to go ahead and allow the search:

United States v. Santa, 180 F.3d 20 (1999), involved a question the Supreme Court eventually considered this term in Herring v. United States, No. 07-513. At one time, there had been an arrest warrant issued for Mr. Santa. That fact was put into a statewide computer database. The warrant was subsequently recalled, but that fact never made it into the database. When the police arrested Santa, wrongly believing there was still a warrant out for him, they searched him and found drugs. He moved to suppress the evidence as the result of an unconstitutional arrest (i.e., an arrest without probable cause or a warrant). Judge Sotomayor, writing for the majority, ruled that the evidence should not be suppressed under the exclusionary rule – the same conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in Herring. Judge Newman joined the opinion but wrote separately to voice his disquiet over the fact that the defendant had been arrested by the local police but was prosecuted in federal court because New York courts would have suppressed the evidence as a matter of state law had he been prosecuted locally.

Here, mere innocence was not enough to set aside a guy's conviction:

In Doe v. Menefee, 391 F.3d 147 (2004), Judge Sotomayor, writing for the majority, rejected a habeas petitioner’s claim to relief from the federal habeas statute of limitations on actual innocence grounds. The district court held that the defendant was actually innocent of the sodomy charges to which he had pled guilty, but had waited too long to bring a habeas claim to set aside the conviction. On appeal, Judge Sotomayor held that the evidence of actual innocence was insufficient in light of the defendant’s prior confession and other evidence in the record. Judge Pooler dissented, complaining that the majority had failed to adequately defer to the trial court’s assessment of the evidence of actual innocence.

Here is a case where even though she did not think there was probable cause for the search, she was going to allow it anyway (and no, I don't have much sympathy for someone into kiddy porn, but the underlying legality of the search is the important thing for our evaluation of the judge):

In United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2008), Judge Sotomayor, joined by Judge Livingston, rejected a defendant’s plea to overturn his conviction based on a Fourth Amendment violation. The defendant was arrested for possession of child pornography after FBI agents searched his home with a warrant. The warrant application stated that an agent had purchased a subscription to a website advertising available child porn and that in light of a subsequent forensic examination of the site “it appeared” that the defendant “either gained access or attempted to gain access” to the website as well. In addition, the affidavit revealed that the defendant had previously been arrested in 1987 on charges of sexually abusing a seven-year-old girl and pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of “acting in a manner injuriouss to a child less than sixteen” for which he received probation. Writing for the majority, Judge Sotomayor held that this failed to establish probable cause for the search warrant. However, she held that the constitutional violation did not warrant exclusion of the evidence because the officers acted in good faith reliance on the wrongly-issued warrant. She further rejected the defendant’s reliance on an exception to the exception: she concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that the issuing magistrate was knowingly or recklessly mislead. And she rejected the claim that the warrant application was so facially lacking in indicia of probable cause as to make reliance upon it unreasonable. Judge Livingston concurred in part and in the judgment, but would have ruled that the police had probable cause.

She is bad news.

 

[BobbleheadJed]

She is bad news.

Every judge still associating with the Democrat and Republican parties are bad news.