So the guy gives to Dems; many lawyers do. I think most Dems and Reps that give to candidates are pro-business, even the trial lawyers, although they may not all be right wing on social issues as you apparently also want them to be. Must everyone march in lock step to the right wing on every note? Can someone be pro-business and for some gun control? Or pro-business and pro-gay rights? And you talk about totalitarian on the left!!
The government (under both Reps and Dems) is closely aligned with corporate interests and controlled by them.
Not everyone lives and breathes partisan politics like you do. Not everyone sees a need to blow out of context every vote, every utterance, every gesture. I think more people, except die-hard right wingers, are turning away from your kind of over-the-top “analysis” and criticisms and looking for solutions.
Do you really think the world will change all that much if Sotomayor is confirmed? Are you not at all reassured by her insurance rulings?
Well stated, George. I am one of those pro-business / pro gun control / pro gay rights individuals you speak of, and I know I am among many, although we all know our industry is more slanted towards conservatism. Leben und leben lassen.
You’re right, George. My point merely was that, in my opinion, he may have some undisclosed biases. He could’ve at least stated whether or not he’s a registered Democrat and whether or not he supported Obama. He also could’ve disclosed what contributions he’s made to what candidates.
I write to address 2 points raised in this thread:
1. The sum total of my lifetime contributions to political candidates is $100 — to Ed Rendell (D) to support his 2002 campaign for Pa. Governor. I have a consistent record of voting Republican, but supported Rendell because of his tremedous efforts to turn around Philadelphia’s Center City district. You decide for yourself if that makes me a big-time Democrat contributor or not a neutral party because of a political bias.
2. As for those wanting other examples of cases in which Judge Sotomayor strongly sided with the insurer, I direct you to the following (these are all cases where she wrote the opinion and was not simply a judge on a Summary Order) (copies gladly provided upon request):
Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., 252 F.3d 608, 625 (2d. Cir. 2001) (Sotomayor, J, Dissenting)
Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Chios Constr. Corp., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 414, *9-10 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sotomayor, J.)
Maska U.S., Inc. v. Kansa General Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 74, 84 (2d. Cir. 1999) (Sotomayor, J.)
Coregis Insurance v. American Health Foundation, 241 F.3d 123 (2d. Cir. 2001) (Sotomayor, J.)
Webster v. Mt. Vernon Fire Insurance, 368 F.3d 209 (2d. Cir. 2004) (Sotomayor, J.)
Noonan, Astley & Pearce v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3803 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sotomayor, J.)
And there are many more….
Randy J. Maniloff
White and Williams LLP
1800 One Liberty Place | Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395
Direct Dial: 215.864.6311 | Direct Fax: 215.789.7608 maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com
Thank you Randy Maniloff. This is the information that helps make the article complete. Now those of us who want to see how she ruled on the cases can go and look at the information, which is much more complete than the article stating one case, and gives us an opportunity to be more objective.
Just call me FOX(y) Peon Agent, but I have to be fair and balanced here. Showing a $100 contribution to anyone means very little. Lots of good business people contribute on both sides of the aisle and we all know why. Maybe it’s not the most patriotic action, but it does have business benefits.
But, having said that, I would like to go back to his goofy article and review. Here’s what I find ..and all of you kool-aid drinkers at the MSNBC news desk can have your fun, if you like.
In the first four paragraphs, nothing of substance is said, except that the judge is insurance-friendly.
The fifth paragraph explains why the good journalist started this review just for fun …any bridges for sale? Fun?? C’mon.
The sixth paragraph tells us she’s not a liberal. Oh good, I feel better now.
The seventh and eighth paragraph tells us why his job, defending insurance companies, is so tough. Thanks for the insight. I will say a prayer every night for those called into that service. Never mind the high incomes and loads of spare time for “fun” projects like this one, which results from their efforts.
The ninth paragraph is a refreshing starter on how the judge is so thorough. Trust him, she’s thorough. Well, that’s what his fun project has now revealed to him.
Finally, in the tenth paragraph we get our only proof of these heartfelt views. One single case? That’s it? Trust him though; there are countless many that could be cited.
Then, we have paragraph’s 11 through 19 that detail how the one case was wrong, the judge was right, and again how defending insurance companies is a very difficult job.
One of the responders on this thread talked about how there was a link to the research. Uh, no there’s not. There’s a link to this author’s newsletter. Yes, it turns out there are more cases cited, but an average reader would NOT know that. Why do I want to click and see somebody’s newsletter? Tell me there are more cases to review, and I might click.
A newsletter, which by the way starts off with a laugh in the mistyped article title. But, that’s getting petty. I’m sure I’ve mistyped in these posts before. But, this is where we find out that his motives are NOT what he says. The reason for his interest is his newsletter. He would also like to have insurance-friendly judges to make is oh-so-difficult job, just a little easier, I’m certain.
The first case cited here is an Absolute Pollution Exclusion. Now, I’m not saying she’s liberal, but since I like to look at both sides of an issue, let’s presume she’s a hater of fat-cat corporations. I didn’t say she was. I’m just supposing at this point. And, let’s suppose she gets a court case suing one of those fat-cats because they polluted. Well, you don’t punish that fat-cat by making the insurance company pay more. You punish them by denying them insurance coverage, so that the fat-cat must reach in his own fat wallet and pull the cash out of his fat-cat assets. Don’t you? Ok, that might be insurance-friendly. Or, it could be a case of taking out the frontline before going after the heavy artillery.
That is, if you are so inclined to feel she leans that way. Do you? It doesn’t really matter. She is, what she is, no matter what the D’s and the R’s want to label her.
The author goes on to cite more cases, and I do hope that she is fair-minded, thorough, and not anti-business. I really do.
But, I do have to call out the author, because most folks aren’t going to click on the link and research the author’s research. To spend so much time on fluff and praise is simply ridiculous. And, I think it borders on the theory that goes like this. If you tell a lie often and loud enough, it becomes the truth.
Why not do a serious article and expound on all those great case decisions that are insurance friendly. Tell me she’s fair and tell me she’s insurance friendly once or twice. But, don’t pound it into my head over and over again without the facts.
All I hear, when you do when first reading this article is, “drink the kool-aid, drink the kool-aid, drink the kool-aid, it is good, it is good, it is good”.
Just give me the facts, and let me decide if it’s good. When I read the ingredients, and it says arsenic, I can make up my own mind about how good it might be.
And, my last comment. I know I’ve said it before. I do NOT get my news from Rush. I work for a living. I’m not saying anything against Rush. I just don’t have the opportunity to hear him more than a few of times a year. AM radio does not come into my office building, so whether it’s EIB or NPR, I don’t get to listen much. Nuff said?
Nope. I do have to go back to the racism. Another post writer basically called me an idiot because the article didn’t mention anything about racism. That’s true. But it’s certainly being discussed at the water cooler, isn’t it?
Anyone that wants to smooth right over that fact can do so. The fact is, her comment that’s gotten so much press, and I won’t bother to repeat, would be reason to hang a lighter skinned person. You know it, too. The fact that she’s a member of La Raza is something that should be discussed as well. I’m perfectly certain there are non-racist members of La Raza. But, those that are non-racist members are either very foolish, or just don’t care about racism in ALL its forms. The Race is not an organization that any Supreme Court justice should be enrolled, whether it’s a white race, black race, or Hispanic race. If the judge cared, she should remove her membership, explain why she felt that she needed to join however many year ago that might have been, and explain that moving forward requires everyone to pay closer attention to ALL forms of racism. If she did, I could respect her for that. But, THE RACE is something that should fall into the history books as a bad chapter in Hispanic politics.
I just read your post after plugging in my wanna-b-blog. I wanted to thank you for the additional cases. I read a couple more and I can see your point.
I think the current liberal, near communistic, administration could definitely pick a much worse judge. I hope if she’s confirmed that she turns out to be a choice that most of those in charge will regret – as Republicans regretted the appointment of the one that’s vacating and providing this current opportunity.
Anyway, this is the kind of info that I would like to have seen in the original article, and then I could have spent my half-day working instead of burning my keyboard again.
And, while she’s “NOT” taking money from the consumer’s pocket, she’s in the other pocket taking your firearms.
“Judge Sotomayor, a New York native, ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California, that the Second Amendment IS incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
So the guy gives to Dems; many lawyers do. I think most Dems and Reps that give to candidates are pro-business, even the trial lawyers, although they may not all be right wing on social issues as you apparently also want them to be. Must everyone march in lock step to the right wing on every note? Can someone be pro-business and for some gun control? Or pro-business and pro-gay rights? And you talk about totalitarian on the left!!
The government (under both Reps and Dems) is closely aligned with corporate interests and controlled by them.
Not everyone lives and breathes partisan politics like you do. Not everyone sees a need to blow out of context every vote, every utterance, every gesture. I think more people, except die-hard right wingers, are turning away from your kind of over-the-top “analysis” and criticisms and looking for solutions.
Do you really think the world will change all that much if Sotomayor is confirmed? Are you not at all reassured by her insurance rulings?
What are your solutions?
Well stated, George. I am one of those pro-business / pro gun control / pro gay rights individuals you speak of, and I know I am among many, although we all know our industry is more slanted towards conservatism. Leben und leben lassen.
Thank you, George. It’s nice to finally read something that sounds educated, open-minded, and non-fanatical.
You’re right, George. My point merely was that, in my opinion, he may have some undisclosed biases. He could’ve at least stated whether or not he’s a registered Democrat and whether or not he supported Obama. He also could’ve disclosed what contributions he’s made to what candidates.
I write to address 2 points raised in this thread:
1. The sum total of my lifetime contributions to political candidates is $100 — to Ed Rendell (D) to support his 2002 campaign for Pa. Governor. I have a consistent record of voting Republican, but supported Rendell because of his tremedous efforts to turn around Philadelphia’s Center City district. You decide for yourself if that makes me a big-time Democrat contributor or not a neutral party because of a political bias.
2. As for those wanting other examples of cases in which Judge Sotomayor strongly sided with the insurer, I direct you to the following (these are all cases where she wrote the opinion and was not simply a judge on a Summary Order) (copies gladly provided upon request):
Greenidge v. Allstate Ins. Co., 446 F.3d 356, 364 (2d. Cir.) (Sotomayor, J.)
Hugo Boss Fashions, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., 252 F.3d 608, 625 (2d. Cir. 2001) (Sotomayor, J, Dissenting)
Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Chios Constr. Corp., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 414, *9-10 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sotomayor, J.)
Maska U.S., Inc. v. Kansa General Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 74, 84 (2d. Cir. 1999) (Sotomayor, J.)
Coregis Insurance v. American Health Foundation, 241 F.3d 123 (2d. Cir. 2001) (Sotomayor, J.)
Webster v. Mt. Vernon Fire Insurance, 368 F.3d 209 (2d. Cir. 2004) (Sotomayor, J.)
Noonan, Astley & Pearce v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3803 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sotomayor, J.)
And there are many more….
Randy J. Maniloff
White and Williams LLP
1800 One Liberty Place | Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395
Direct Dial: 215.864.6311 | Direct Fax: 215.789.7608
maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com
Thank you Randy Maniloff. This is the information that helps make the article complete. Now those of us who want to see how she ruled on the cases can go and look at the information, which is much more complete than the article stating one case, and gives us an opportunity to be more objective.
Just call me FOX(y) Peon Agent, but I have to be fair and balanced here. Showing a $100 contribution to anyone means very little. Lots of good business people contribute on both sides of the aisle and we all know why. Maybe it’s not the most patriotic action, but it does have business benefits.
But, having said that, I would like to go back to his goofy article and review. Here’s what I find ..and all of you kool-aid drinkers at the MSNBC news desk can have your fun, if you like.
In the first four paragraphs, nothing of substance is said, except that the judge is insurance-friendly.
The fifth paragraph explains why the good journalist started this review just for fun …any bridges for sale? Fun?? C’mon.
The sixth paragraph tells us she’s not a liberal. Oh good, I feel better now.
The seventh and eighth paragraph tells us why his job, defending insurance companies, is so tough. Thanks for the insight. I will say a prayer every night for those called into that service. Never mind the high incomes and loads of spare time for “fun” projects like this one, which results from their efforts.
The ninth paragraph is a refreshing starter on how the judge is so thorough. Trust him, she’s thorough. Well, that’s what his fun project has now revealed to him.
Finally, in the tenth paragraph we get our only proof of these heartfelt views. One single case? That’s it? Trust him though; there are countless many that could be cited.
Then, we have paragraph’s 11 through 19 that detail how the one case was wrong, the judge was right, and again how defending insurance companies is a very difficult job.
One of the responders on this thread talked about how there was a link to the research. Uh, no there’s not. There’s a link to this author’s newsletter. Yes, it turns out there are more cases cited, but an average reader would NOT know that. Why do I want to click and see somebody’s newsletter? Tell me there are more cases to review, and I might click.
A newsletter, which by the way starts off with a laugh in the mistyped article title. But, that’s getting petty. I’m sure I’ve mistyped in these posts before. But, this is where we find out that his motives are NOT what he says. The reason for his interest is his newsletter. He would also like to have insurance-friendly judges to make is oh-so-difficult job, just a little easier, I’m certain.
The first case cited here is an Absolute Pollution Exclusion. Now, I’m not saying she’s liberal, but since I like to look at both sides of an issue, let’s presume she’s a hater of fat-cat corporations. I didn’t say she was. I’m just supposing at this point. And, let’s suppose she gets a court case suing one of those fat-cats because they polluted. Well, you don’t punish that fat-cat by making the insurance company pay more. You punish them by denying them insurance coverage, so that the fat-cat must reach in his own fat wallet and pull the cash out of his fat-cat assets. Don’t you? Ok, that might be insurance-friendly. Or, it could be a case of taking out the frontline before going after the heavy artillery.
That is, if you are so inclined to feel she leans that way. Do you? It doesn’t really matter. She is, what she is, no matter what the D’s and the R’s want to label her.
The author goes on to cite more cases, and I do hope that she is fair-minded, thorough, and not anti-business. I really do.
But, I do have to call out the author, because most folks aren’t going to click on the link and research the author’s research. To spend so much time on fluff and praise is simply ridiculous. And, I think it borders on the theory that goes like this. If you tell a lie often and loud enough, it becomes the truth.
Why not do a serious article and expound on all those great case decisions that are insurance friendly. Tell me she’s fair and tell me she’s insurance friendly once or twice. But, don’t pound it into my head over and over again without the facts.
All I hear, when you do when first reading this article is, “drink the kool-aid, drink the kool-aid, drink the kool-aid, it is good, it is good, it is good”.
Just give me the facts, and let me decide if it’s good. When I read the ingredients, and it says arsenic, I can make up my own mind about how good it might be.
And, my last comment. I know I’ve said it before. I do NOT get my news from Rush. I work for a living. I’m not saying anything against Rush. I just don’t have the opportunity to hear him more than a few of times a year. AM radio does not come into my office building, so whether it’s EIB or NPR, I don’t get to listen much. Nuff said?
Nope. I do have to go back to the racism. Another post writer basically called me an idiot because the article didn’t mention anything about racism. That’s true. But it’s certainly being discussed at the water cooler, isn’t it?
Anyone that wants to smooth right over that fact can do so. The fact is, her comment that’s gotten so much press, and I won’t bother to repeat, would be reason to hang a lighter skinned person. You know it, too. The fact that she’s a member of La Raza is something that should be discussed as well. I’m perfectly certain there are non-racist members of La Raza. But, those that are non-racist members are either very foolish, or just don’t care about racism in ALL its forms. The Race is not an organization that any Supreme Court justice should be enrolled, whether it’s a white race, black race, or Hispanic race. If the judge cared, she should remove her membership, explain why she felt that she needed to join however many year ago that might have been, and explain that moving forward requires everyone to pay closer attention to ALL forms of racism. If she did, I could respect her for that. But, THE RACE is something that should fall into the history books as a bad chapter in Hispanic politics.
Now, that’s enough said from me.
I just read your post after plugging in my wanna-b-blog. I wanted to thank you for the additional cases. I read a couple more and I can see your point.
I think the current liberal, near communistic, administration could definitely pick a much worse judge. I hope if she’s confirmed that she turns out to be a choice that most of those in charge will regret – as Republicans regretted the appointment of the one that’s vacating and providing this current opportunity.
Anyway, this is the kind of info that I would like to have seen in the original article, and then I could have spent my half-day working instead of burning my keyboard again.
Thanks,
The attorney states he was doing research mostly for “fun”. I wouldn’t exactly call this good journalism.
And, while she’s “NOT” taking money from the consumer’s pocket, she’s in the other pocket taking your firearms.
“Judge Sotomayor, a New York native, ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California, that the Second Amendment IS incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”