Charlie Rose

charliesheep  03/31/2013 12:28 PM Report

BIENVIENIDOS; AMERICA, ES UN PAIS--CUANDO ENGANCHE LA VOZ- DEL LA GENTE--ES EL "DOLLAR"- SOLO--"VOZ" DEL ESTE PAIS Y DE LOS CORPORACIONES- Y TAMBIEN, LOS LEYS ESTAN-EXISTE, SOLO PARA UNA CRUZETA DENTRO DEL CORAZON DE LOS HERMANO'S Y HERMANO'S DEL MUNDO--ESTAMOS DENTRO-- AMERICA ! PERO, IGUALES, NO PANGA LA QUENTA PARA ENTRAMOS- AL EL GOVENADOR----LA BOLSA; DEL GOVEBERNO---BIEN BROVECHO!

mlgmills  02/22/2013 08:48 PM Report

Justice Sotomoyer seemed humble and competent. The story of her life demonstrated determination, great courage and grace. I hope young girls, women in general-everyone- can learn from her- that if you believe in yourself you can excel in life. This was a very inspiring interview. Keep up the good work Justice SS.

NeilMacCallister  02/09/2013 09:54 PM Report

Dear Ms. Sotomayor,

Is it the responsibility of the government to manage the people? ..or the responsibility of the people to manage the government?

If it came down to either the government, or the people, must lose their right to bear arms, ..should that loser be the government? ..or the people?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/08/2013 11:00 PM Report

$3,600 base pay per page ($1.2M advance and 336 pages).

Spoke into a tape recorder with Zara Houshmand, an Iranian-American poet, doing the actual writing.

Swearing in of our VP had to be moved to 8 am for a book signing at noon.

Yes, she is a diabetic, was raised in public housing, without speaking English, by an alcoholic father and a largely absent mother and became the first Latina on the Supreme Court but here is some real wisdom:

Be nice to everyone so you don't have to pay a lawyer thousands and thousands of dollars.

Be nice to your mind and your body so you don't have to pay a doctor and a hospital thousands and thousands of dollars.

STAY OUT OF THE COURTROOM AND THE HOSPITAL--they will kill you both monetarily and literally.

That is the real beloved world.

Scandinavia  02/08/2013 05:23 PM Report

AN EXCELLENT interview: Thank you, Charlie, for sharing your programs also with us here in Europe. I would personally be very proud to have Sonya Sotomayor as Supreme Court Justice here in London, Hague, Bern or Stockholm.

Greetings from Scandinavia,

Frank David

Emeritus professor

TyRonne  02/08/2013 03:05 PM Report

I was absolutely riveted to Justice Sotomayor's statements. I, a white male retired govt. lawyer/judge age 65 in Oregon, personally related to many of her experiences & crossroads! Very well spoken and down to earth. I would paraphrase her vortex funneling into a law career more like a career problem solver using a different set of tools. As far as investigation via Perry Mason etc. I liken it more to the CJS--DA Ham Burger...tee hee--having a puzzle in place to convict.....Perry & crew then carefully remove the pieces of the CJS puzzle....re-arranging them into a new puzzle for re-focus & release. Very impressed with Her Honor!!!!

charlie1000  02/07/2013 08:24 PM Report

I would hope she also took a science or a math course.

Scientific and technical ignorance in the judiciary is a

danger to our well being!

sugar  02/07/2013 07:41 PM Report

'"I don't know what I think until I see what I write."

-- Flannery O'Connor quote

Any serious writer will agree to the truth of that statement.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/07/2013 07:18 PM Report

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

(Naughty, naughty. Way too many assumptions.)

"We apply law to facts. We don't apply feelings to facts."

(Sounds wonderful. The Memphis Three (and many in the Innocence Project) would love to believe you.)

"It's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it's the law."

(Sure, that is why courtroom drama will never make it on TV.)

"Until we get equality in education, we won't have an equal society."

(Class warfare has already been waged, and as Warren Buffet tells us, his class won. It is not income taxes but school taxes.)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/07/2013 07:05 PM Report

We already have robot judges.

We call them red light cameras.

They cost us $150 for two infractions in 2012.

The camera did not care about personal experiences like whether changing clothes in gym class was like being stripped searched for an aspirin.

The camera did not care that it was 3 am and there was no one on the road and the speed was at a crawl.

The camera did not have a two-tier justice system based upon how much lawyering one could afford.

GUILTY! Pay the fine!

Robot judges: so simple, so clean, so affordable.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/07/2013 06:55 PM Report

We are told how the Court corrects itself:

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The Court decide that separate “but equal” was fine, and so refused to overturn blatantly unconstitutional Jim Crow laws for generations.

Brown v. Board (1954). Overturned Plessy and got the Court involved in overturning state laws violating civil rights.

Here is a nice list of the 12 WORST and the 12 BEST Supreme Court decisions including the two above:

http://techliberation.com/2009/02/15/best-and-worst-supreme-court-decisions/

(There are amendments in the comments section which speaks for itself.)

MisterMittster  02/07/2013 06:52 PM Report

When she first was made a Supreme Court Justice, I commented that she was a Spanish Bitch; I said she 'probably' was a Spanish Bitch. Well, I was wrong, she is Not a Bitch. And shame on me. She worked hard to get where she is. Type 1 Diabetes is a nasty disease to live with, even for a lawyer. God Bless her.

Hope she can stay humble and live a long life.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/07/2013 06:33 PM Report

Yes Charlie, wrong person.

“Like most literary quotes, if you dig a bit deeper you find things, and then there are nuances.”

Discovery writing and the so-called Forster quote:

“How do I know what I think until I see what I say.”

http://rjheeks.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/discovery-writing-and-the-so-called-forster-quote/

So yes, she should try harder to "write with style and flourish" to meet and beat the competition, and in turn, out think them.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/07/2013 06:25 PM Report

She says, “Why do you need to think what I think.”

Indeed, then why write this book?

REMant  02/07/2013 02:12 PM Report

If she hasn't been on this program before, we certainly discussed her quite a lot during the nomination and confirmation process, and I recall the Perry Mason story.

IMHO, the kids should rather have asked why were she was so ambitious. For it seems to me we are much more in need of people who realize we can't have all chiefs and no Indians. And, realistically, what are lawyers except people who aspire to be lawgivers? Under our frame of govt, if she wants to legislate, she belongs in elective office, and many states have seen it sufficiently that way to make them stand for election and forget about judicial independence.

A major part of the problem is that the Constitution is a contract among people assumed to be individuals, couched in civil terms, exemplifying commercial relations, not feudal stations, and those in turn from canon and natural law, as indeed, were the conclaves and councils which gave rise to the notion, and it gives precedence to a legislative body to carry it out, sharply limited in what it can do and the way it can do it. And, rather than resting on some hypothetical balance of passions, self-interests, or status, as is often alleged, or in clearly defined powers, it was the result of a lot of horse-trading.

Unlike the Glorious Revolution, which sought to limit monarchy, the Phila convention sought an acceptable substitute for it, something that would hold the states' legislators in check, while maintaining their support, and is why so much of what is not involved in balancing state interests was consumed in a fight over executive power and tenure, and why the judiciary was, according to Madison, too contentious to even be considered.

There is in fact precious little place for a common law in any of it, nor are the courts authorized to assume one, and it seems to me the judicial branch has no more understood its role than the executive or the Congress.

Nearly everyone thinks it imperative that the three branches of govt should be kept distinct, but few seem to have realized that they are inherently incompatible.

The strength of courts lies in juries and the assertion that custom so defined may overrule any king or parliament. If a system has no juries, then there's no rationale for it. And in this country the people were given no avenue of redress to begin with.

The legislative branch is supposed to express the will of the people, and it can only be of significance if it can thereby match executive power, but that, as everyone knows, quickly became a matter of public opinion and political parties, at least until the rise of corporations (thanks in no small measure ironically to the 14th Amendment), and why commerce, contract, rights, and all, provoked such conflict, continuing to this day. Foreigners have often expressed their astonishment at our battles about "the limited clauses of an old State paper," to quote one of them, but really our system is no different from theirs, just less efficient at managing opinion and parties.

If the judiciary want to defend that piece of parchment, providing they understand it, well and good, but it doesn't help anything to have nine unelected and essentially immovable robed figures pontificating on popular causes as if they were actually accomplishing something.

And in an attempt to protect equality they have progressively taken away or stifled it. The president has said he is looking for the positive in govt, but there's nothing positive about equal rights (if there is about Right); it's like thinking competition is wealth. The mere discussion of rights underscores the failure of the Hume-Madison contention. People have become more private and less inclined to engage with others. There's less virtue in the people, not more. Lawyers no less than the bureaucrats and lawmakers have made the "rule" of law into a Byzantine labyrinth. Were I appointed to the Court, I'd be inclined to not even show up, much less ask questions. And none of this, by the way, would have suited Erle Stanley Gardner.

While we are on the subject of the 14th Amendment, the Court might ask itself how it is the Obamacare mandate is not discriminatory.