Judge Sonia Sotomayor Accepts Nomination to Supreme Court

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

One of the stories here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052601148.html

-----------------

Well, I for one am glad for this appointment. It knocks down two more affirmative-action targets with one blow. Schweet. If in the next one, BHO can find a blind wheelchair-bound gay Aleut Indian woman-to-man transgender candidate... he can knock down a few more category labels.

Get it over with. Please. Let's get all the race-based and group-identity based nominations behind us so that someday, years from now, we can actually go back to selecting candidates (for lots of offices) based on qualifications and ability.

I know... I know... but I'm a dreamer like that. :)

[cheval]

Is she not worthy?

[Arrow]

So...if a Hispanic woman is appointed, it's automatically affirmative action.

If a white guy like Roberts or Alito is appointed, it's automatically because he's the best one for the job.

Her resume is truly impressive--schooling, she's been a DA and a practicing lawyer. Bush elevated her to the federal bench, and Clinton put her on the Appeals Court. She's qualified and then some.

A truly "political only" appointment would have been 10 years younger--some Dems are probably already grumbling about that.

[WashingtonBay]

~chuckling~

I need a disclaimer for you RD :D.
I guess big brothers never get over giving their little sisters a hard time. :D




I guess I better go find out more about her. I hadn't been watching the news today and this is the first I've heard of it... or her.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Is she not worthy?

Oh, I didn't say she's not qualified. She's as qualified as any of the many, many thousands of potential nominees out there. I'm sure that she's absolutely the finest candidate of them all and just so happens to fit the group-identity criteria that was wanted. Lucky, that.

[Arrow]

I'm against affirmative action 90% of the time, it's time for it to be phased out--but let's face it...the Supreme Court of the land with 8 guys and 1 woman? That's just wrong. I'm certainly not asking for a 5/4 split either way--but it doesn't seem like a pair of woman is too much to ask.

The fact is--there are probably a couple dozen men and women or more who COULD do the job. Candidates have strengths and weaknesses--I doubt that an exhaustive search would show that 3 men are uniquely qualified and this woman would be fourth...very doubtful.

If she's qualified--and there will be a confirmation process to answer that question--then why not this woman? W appointed a couple guys--it's time for a woman.

[cheval]

I'm totally against affirmative action. It should be the best person for the job gets the job.

[Arrow]

Yes, I agree...but for a job like this, what if there are 50 qualified people? How would you decide which ONE is the absolute best? Do you give them a multiple choice test or something?

Best qualified for the Supreme Court? What exactly does that mean? She actually has more experience at more levels of the justice system than any of the current members had when they were appointed--how's that for uniquely qualified?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

So...if a Hispanic woman is appointed, it's automatically affirmative action.
[...]


You're really going to argue that it's not? Please don't. It's not worth either of our time.

Of all my problems with Affirmative Action, this is actually the most pernicious. It touches all with the stain of undeserved promotion, whether they deserve it or not. If I were a member of a "protected class" nothing would tick me off more than to share in the automatic suspicion that "I got there because of" that, and not my own effort and ability. I recommend Thomas Sowell's writing on the topic. He says it better than I can. But it's a corrosive effect.

Identity politics is de rigeur these days. Someday I hope it is less so.

[cheval]

Best qualified is just that. Out of 50 people a small group will shine through and out of those another few and out of those you get the final candidate. Male or female, whatever race.

[cheval]

You're really going to argue that it's not? Please don't. It's not worth either of our time.

Of all my problems with Affirmative Action, this is actually the most pernicious. It touches all with the stain of undeserved promotion, whether they deserve it or not. If I were a member of a "protected class" nothing would tick me off more than to share in the automatic suspicion that "I got there because of" that, and not my own effort and ability. I recommend Thomas Sowell's writing on the topic. He says it better than I can. But it's a corrosive effect.

Identity politics is de rigeur these days. Someday I hope it is less so.

Exactly. When I was first starting out in fisheries with the state they were always happy to have a woman applying for the job. It really pissed me off. I could have had the IQ. of a cornflake and still go the job. That is not a good feeling. :mad:

[Arrow]

Any idea how Roberts and Alito got picked? What was the short list? How were they vetted? What did Bush do choosing those 2 men that Obama didn't do picking this woman--do you know? Have you researched it?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

...what if there are 50 qualified people? How would you decide which ONE is the absolute best?...

The same way I hire people for my department. I force-rank however many there are. Sometimes the choice among the top few is excruciating but I've never used race, gender (etc.) in any way as a criteria. Never once. Funny though... I've ended up with pretty much every conceivable "protected class" in my department over the years. Because... they were the best of the best of the applicants. It's not so hard.

Believe it or not: black folk, women, gays, immigrants... can all be really good at their jobs. No, I'm serious. I know it's hard for some people to believe, but they don't need the protection of the government from the big bad world out there.

It was insulting to ever presume they did.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Both of them were ranked at the top of various bar-association and other such lists. Roberts, IMHO, was possibly the single most qualified nominee in a century. I'm glad that Bush didn't knuckle under that time and just went with the best possible candidate.

If you watched the hearings for Roberts... it was good TV. He was pretty clearly the smartest person in the room by a long shot.

[Arrow]

Well, she's no Harriet Miers, that's for sure...

[HoustonFarrier]

Yes, I agree...but for a job like this, what if there are 50 qualified people? How would you decide which ONE is the absolute best? Do you give them a multiple choice test or something?

Best qualified for the Supreme Court? What exactly does that mean? She actually has more experience at more levels of the justice system than any of the current members had when they were appointed--how's that for uniquely qualified?

Well, I for one, would not pick the candidate of whom 75% of her cases that were appealed to the Supreme Court were over-turned.

Nor would I pick a candidate who said that appeals court is where policy is made.

Hope she's got her taxes in order :D LOL

Steve

[cheval]

And her servants. :innocent:

[Arrow]

I wonder if she has servants--I believe she's unmarried, no children. At least there won't be a nanny problem...

[WashingtonBay]

Well, I for one, would not pick the candidate of whom 75% of her cases that were appealed to the Supreme Court were over-turned.

Well that sounds pretty damning... but it's also a fairly selective sample to run a percentage on, if you consider that only those who thought there was a pretty good chance for winning on appeal, would actually BE appealed.

But it would be interesting to know how that compares to other judges at her level, and how it compares to her total history of decisions. I don't know.

[Arrow]

And think of all the cases the Supreme Court refuses to hear. They only take cases that they want to make a strong statement about. It's a pretty meaningless statistic without context--how does it compare to other appeals court judges? And is it 10% of her decisions? 40% of her decisions? Or what?

And as for appeals decisions--that's always as part of a panel, anyway--it's not as if she's being damned and her alone or anything.

I keep reading again and again that she has more experience on the bench as a judge than any of the current Supreme Court justices had when they were appointed. That's pretty impressive.

She's a very experienced person at all levels of the judiciary.

We'll see what comes out in the confirmation process.

[gabhainn]

Of all I can find about her it seems she rarely makes waves on social issues, I did find this one particular case that she ruled on

"The primary court case conservatives will try to use to derail Sotomayor is a discrimination case brought by white firefighters from New Haven, Conn., who claimed a promotion test was improperly tossed out because minorities performed poorly on it. Sotomayor participated in a three-judge panel that supported the city’s decision to not to certify the test results. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court"

It is certainly difficult to follow the logic behind using late 60's era legal precedent in a modern case as Ragnar pointed out the best people for the job tend to be the best people for the job regardless of class, race, gender, or sexual affiliation...Kevin

[Arrow]

I'm curious about that case--it's been in the news for years, but I've never followed it. It does seem that it should be overturned. But I wish I could find the actual test--I'm curious as to what a test for promotion in a fire dept looks like...

In this case, the highest scorers should be promoted, regardless of race...

But I need to find out more facts--

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

And think of all the cases the Supreme Court refuses to hear. [...]

Yes, good point. I'm sure that the Supreme Court, just like the Senate, is an utterly political body that has no relevance to the real world.

Thanks for the tip.

[HoustonFarrier]

They only take cases that they want to make a strong statement about.

Justice Rehnquist wrote......

The justices determine which cases to take. They never explain the reason for their choices. Whether or not a case is accepted "strikes me as a rather subjective decision, made up in part of intuition and in part of legal judgment," Rehnquist wrote in "The Supreme Court: How It Was, How It Is," his 1987 book about the court.
Important factors, he said, are whether the legal question has been decided differently by two lower courts and needs resolution by the high court, whether a lower-court decision conflicts with an existing Supreme Court ruling and whether the issue could have significance beyond the two parties in the case

...and....

But the justices do not automatically take on all cases posing significant societal dilemmas.

Steve

[cowgirlup@idaho]

I'm curious about that case--it's been in the news for years, but I've never followed it. It does seem that it should be overturned. But I wish I could find the actual test--I'm curious as to what a test for promotion in a fire dept looks like...

In this case, the highest scorers should be promoted, regardless of race...

But I need to find out more facts--

This is recent, not years old. Those that passed the test in order to be promoted (to receive pay raise) were caucasian and one hispanic. One of the 'white' men studied hard for an extended time because he is Dislexic. He passed due to his own efforts.

None of these men were promoted because of the lack of racial minority men passing the test. Sotomayor was part of that process to deny promotion. That is troubling for me, to have someone with that mind set to be sitting on the Supreme Court.

[Arrow]

Actually, all she did was confirm a lower court ruling along with her panel.

And it is old--2003, I think, it's been in the courts for awhile.

And as for "no one like her should be on the court..." it's coming up soon on the Supreme Court, and I doubt very much it's going to a 9-0 decision. There are different philosophies out there--that's why there are 9 justices instead of 1. They work together and hash things out and write opinions and dissenting opinions. That's how the system works. Also--you never know how someone will be on the court itself--Souter disappointed conservatives who wanted him there, and as for Earl Warren--there's NO WAY anyone could predict what he'd do (and hooray for that!!!).

I think it's a bad decision. The guys that did best on the test should have gotten the promotions.

But I also think 1 out 9 women on the supreme court is a disgrace, and if there's a woman out there as qualified or better than any of the men available, she should be appointed.

She has a long, long list of stellar qualifications for the post.

[Tatesgram]

From the article by Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, Calif. "Sotomayor: "Empathy" in Action" Today.
http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/05/27/sotomayor__empathy_in_action?page=2

(on the fireman ruling)

This was not an isolated matter for Judge Sotomayor. Speaking at the University of California at Berkeley in 2001, she said that the ethnicity and sex of a judge "may and will make a difference in our judging."
Moreover, this was not something she lamented. On the contrary, she added, "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."
No doubt the political spinmasters will try to spin this to mean something innocent. But the cold fact is that this is a poisonous doctrine for any judge, much less a justice of the Supreme Court.
That kind of empathy would for all practical purposes repeal the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws" to all Americans.
What would the political spinmasters say if some white man said that a white male would more often reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic female?
For those who believe in the rule of law, Barack Obama used the words "rule of law" in introducing his nominee. For those who take his words as gospel, even when his own actions are directly the opposite of his words, that may be enough to let him put this dangerous woman on the Supreme Court.
Even if her confirmation cannot be stopped, it is important for Senators to warn of the dangers, which will only get worse if such nominations sail through the Senate smoothly.

I agree with Mr. Sowell, man or women this is dangerous thinking for someone being given a lifetime job.

[Arrow]

From Samuel Alito's confirmation hearing:

"I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person."

[Arrow]

Glenn Greenwald at Salon quoted that and followed up with this:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/27/sotomayor/

"Anyone who is objecting now to Sotomayor's alleged "empathy" problem but who supported Sam Alito and never objected to this sort of thing ought to have their motives questioned (and the same is true for someone who claims that a person who overcame great odds to graduate at the top of their class at Princeton, graduate Yale Law School, and then spent time as a prosecutor, corporate lawyer, district court judge and appellate court judge must have been chosen due to "identity politics"). And the idea that her decision in Ricci demonstrates some sort of radicalism -- when she was simply affirming the decision of a federal district judge, was part of a unanimous circuit panel in doing so, was supported by a majority of her fellow Circuit judges who refused to re-hear the case, and will, by all accounts, have at least several current Supreme Court Justices side with her -- is frivolous on its face.

I have no doubt there are legitimate grounds for objecting to some of Sotomayor's judicial opinions. Doing that, as well as vigorously questioning her on important areas where she has little record (such as executive disputes), is not only legitimate, but vital. But the attacks thus far -- not just from the Right but from the sterling Respectable Intellectual Center -- say far, far more about the critics than they do about her. How can her "empathy" views possibly be distinguished from what Sam Alito -- at Tom Coburn's urging -- said when he was confirmed?"

[Arrow]

Greenwald on comparing Supreme Court reversals of Sotomayor and Alito (from the link above):

"UPDATE: The focus on the three instances in which Sotomayor's rulings were reversed is equally inane. Reversals of that sort are a standard part of how the appellate justice system works and hardly means that a judge's abilities should be called into question. Any judge who sits on the bench long enough will make erroneous rulings at times. Many times, the Supreme Court makes new law when reversing and other times it is the Supreme Court's majority that errs.

But leave all that to the side: again, look at how Alito's reversals were treated, even though there were more of them and weightier questions:

* In a well-known 1991 case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Alito wrote a sole dissent supporting a state requirement that women inform their husbands before being permitted to obtain an abortion; the Supreme Court later rejected his view.

* In 2000, Alito ruled that Congress could not penalize state governments for failing to comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act; in 2003, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote (including Chief Judge Rehnquist) rejected that conclusion and ruled that states could be penalized.

* In a 2004 death penalty case Alito decided -- Rompilla v. Horn --Alito rejected the defendant's argument that his attorneys had failed to do perform an adequate investigation to prepare for his sentencing hearing. The Supreme Court reversed Alito's decision, ruling that the defense attorney's failure to even review evidence they knew the prosecution was going to introduce at sentencing violated the Sixth Amendment.

There are numerous other instances where Alito's rulings were repudiated either by the Supreme Court or even his own Circuit. Judge for yourself if those were treated the same way as Sotomayor's more limited and less meaningful instances of reversals. Was the argument made that this proved he was inept, intellectually deficient, and chosen soley for "identity politics" in order to attract the key Italian and Catholic voting blocs?"

[WashingtonBay]

I think it's insulting that the headline on the local paper I passed at the store was "Obama names Hispanic Woman to high court" or something like it. Seriously... her qualifications need to be something other than her ethnicity and gender, that's all...

She's a lawyer and a judge, for example.


I don't know the woman, never heard of her before yesterday. Too soon to say then, what my skepticism says about me. :D I'm suspect that if Obama likes her, she probably disagrees with me on several principals, how's that? :)

That's the way it goes.

[Arrow]

Newpapers are there to sell copies. Yes, indeed, it is insulting!

[WashingtonBay]

And newspapers are not even doing a real good job of that, lately.

Well, I assume we'll know quite a bit about her in the month to come. Stay tuned :)

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Yah... Alito was right and the court was wrong. So what?

I think the problem with Sotomayor is mainly that she appears to think she can just make up law to mean whatever she needs it to mean.

But in the big picture it doesn't really matter. I'm glad to be rid of Souter if only for the trivial reason that he was really, reallly creepy. Creepy in a Dennis Kucinich sort of way... like he's just about to burst and start jabbering about the space aliens that visit him every night.

So what's one more marxist? Like for like. No big deal.

[HoustonFarrier]

My biggest problem with Sotomayer lies in what she has said.....


"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." -- Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001

Imagine...just for a minute.....that Justice Scalia (or Alito...or Roberts) had said....

"I would hope that a white, Italian man with the richness of his experiences would more often that not reach a better conslusion as any black man who has lived a different life"

Imagine the FIRESTORM that would ensue...imagine.........but yet, somehow, this seems to be just fine for her to say.....not in my world!

She is, IMHO, a bigot. Period. As the age old saying goes...."...if it walks like a duck...and talks like a duck....it's a DUCK ! ......"

Her second, and VERY telling statement.....that appellate judges "set policy" tells me she is going to legislate from the bench, and that is not right.

Her words are her words, and I take them at heart. There are much better female jurists out there than this one.

Steve

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Imagine, too... that Alito was an active member of the Klan. Just like she is a member of La Raza.

It doesn't matter, man. Nothing matters.

[HoustonFarrier]

Imagine, too... that Alito was an active member of the Klan. Just like she is a member of La Raza.

It doesn't matter, man. Nothing matters.

Hell...even if Alito had been a former member of the klan, he would have been run out of town (and rightfully so).....but Sen Robert Byrd(former klan "kleagle") who fillibusterd the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 hours....since he's a Democrat, he's OK.

It's so obvious, a blind man could see it :D

Steve

[Arrow]

Call her a bigot if you like. If so, then every single person talking in the political section of this forum is a bigot, too--including you Steve, and me. The things y'all say about Democrats and the things I've said about Republicans aren't exactly meritocracy-based...

And the "sets policy" bit has been easily explained--she was talking about working on an appellate court vs. another kind of court when talking to students or something--likely that criticism will be dropped by most opponents fairly quickly. The conservative who took her task on the Newshour last night was letting that particular one slide. It was a description of the different functions of the different levels of courts in our system.

[HoustonFarrier]

Call her a bigot if you like. If so, then every single person talking in the political section of this forum is a bigot, too--including you Steve, and me. The things y'all say about Democrats and the things I've said about Republicans aren't exactly meritocracy-based...
Speak for yourself....I'll speak for myself. Critique I place on politicians are based on their actions and/or words, not their gender, religion or race.

And the "sets policy" bit has been easily explained--she was talking about working on an appellate court vs. another kind of court when talking to students or something--likely that criticism will be dropped by most opponents fairly quickly. The conservative who took her task on the Newshour last night was letting that particular one slide. It was a description of the different functions of the different levels of courts in our system.
Easily "spun" :D I take her words EXACTLY as she said them.

But, since the Dems are in total power, and there are no checks and balances available, she will get on the bench.

Steve

[Arrow]

Steve--I'm talking about critiquing your fellow forum members, not just politicians! And actually, you aren't the worst of them by a long shot...

Bigotry isn't just race, religion or gender--

big·ot (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

bigot
Noun
a person who is intolerant, esp. regarding religion, politics, or race [Old French]

If you are intolerant of others' politics, then you are a bigot. And this place is about as full of intolerant people as anywhere I've seen...including me sometimes. Ooooooo...but sorry, only DEMOCRATS admit fault sometimes (like I'm doing), Republicans NEVER do...

Whoops, was that being intolerant?:)

[WashingtonBay]

Whoops, was that being intolerant?:)

No, I think technically, that's just being a smart ass™. :p

[Arrow]

Who, me?:p

[HoustonFarrier]

Steve--I'm talking about critiquing your fellow forum members, not just politicians!

When have I critiqued ANY forum members ???? I think you are confusing my critques of policy/ideology to be somehow personal in nature, which they are not....or am I missing something ? For example, while I think you are WAY off base in your ideology, I do not harbor ANY personal bias towards you. In fact, I see some humor to your postings which I like:). If I were intolerant towards you....well...I imagine I would perhaps call you names in another language, which I assume you would not understand :D:D

Steve

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. [B. Goldwater, 1964]

[Arrow]

Yeah, and we know what happened to him...

[Tiz]

That's a great thought. I agree completely.

I've always believed that if Goldwater had been elected President, millions of Cambodians, and Vietnamese, and thousands of American soldiers wouldn't have lost their lives in that war, and it's aftermath. It could have been won, decisively, not abandoned.

[Arrow]

The other thing about the Supreme Court is that you do in fact want folks of different backgrounds because of course that will bring in different perspectives--think of what Alito said in his confirmation hearings. If she gets there, she's only 1 of 9 people--hardly in a position to take over the country for Hispanics.

There's a reason why we we don't just have 9 computers as Supreme Court Justices...or one lone justice to do the job. These are 9 men and women who bring different life experiences and philosophies to the court with them and work together as a team to hash things out through their interaction. They push each other, they debate, then come to decisions.

On some things--a woman's perspective might in fact be wiser. On other things--a man's view might be. On some issues, a black might have more to contribute.

We aren't all the same, we aren't robots. I think affirmative action is past its due date, and its time to move on. But a truly color-blind society in terms of rights and opportunities doesn't mean all the sudden we'll all think or act the same.

And as I posted before--I'm not arguing that we say, well woman are 50% of the population, they MUST be 50% of the Supreme Court. But 1 out of 9 is just wrong--let's at least have a pair! The Supreme Court needs to have the perspective of woman to make the best decisions, just like it needs to have the perspective of men.

I was on the nominating committee of my church for awhile, and I was all for not having male or female presidents for too many years in a row--2 or 3 men should be followed by a woman, 2 or 3 woman should be followed by a man. Not because of Affirmative Action or fairness...but because I believe in balance. Men and woman are in fact different, and it's not good to only have the perspective of one or another exclusively all the time.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[sigh]

I've deleted more posts this week than I've probably deleted all year.

Including this one.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Yeah, and we know what happened to him...

Yes, he was beaten by LBJ, the lying sack that promised that "not one American will die for Vietnam". The same POS that promised [before the election] that "American blood would not be spilt in Vietnam". Even as he made these promises to the American people he had already signed the orders to send in the first 50,000 troops as soon as the election was over.

Liberals lie. They have to. It's what they are.

[HoustonFarrier]

The other thing about the Supreme Court is that you do in fact want folks of different backgrounds because of course that will bring in different perspectives--think of what Alito said in his confirmation hearings. If she gets there, she's only 1 of 9 people--hardly in a position to take over the country for Hispanics.

There's a reason why we we don't just have 9 computers as Supreme Court Justices...or one lone justice to do the job. These are 9 men and women who bring different life experiences and philosophies to the court with them and work together as a team to hash things out through their interaction. They push each other, they debate, then come to decisions.

On some things--a woman's perspective might in fact be wiser. On other things--a man's view might be. On some issues, a black might have more to contribute.

We aren't all the same, we aren't robots. I think affirmative action is past its due date, and its time to move on. But a truly color-blind society in terms of rights and opportunities doesn't mean all the sudden we'll all think or act the same.

And as I posted before--I'm not arguing that we say, well woman are 50% of the population, they MUST be 50% of the Supreme Court. But 1 out of 9 is just wrong--let's at least have a pair! The Supreme Court needs to have the perspective of woman to make the best decisions, just like it needs to have the perspective of men.

I was on the nominating committee of my church for awhile, and I was all for not having male or female presidents for too many years in a row--2 or 3 men should be followed by a woman, 2 or 3 woman should be followed by a man. Not because of Affirmative Action or fairness...but because I believe in balance. Men and woman are in fact different, and it's not good to only have the perspective of one or another exclusively all the time.

I don't disagree with what you say...but....I think there are much better female candidates out there than this one.

Steve

[Arrow]

Whew, that's all I ask! That's an answer I can respect. And that's no lie.

[rocknK]

For the life of me I can't figure why being a latina makes her able to make better decisions.......:2cents:

[cowgirlup@idaho]

When people pull out the race card (for whatever reason) they come off as bitter.

[mare]

When people pull out the race card (for whatever reason) they come off as bitter.


Or that they know their resume isn't up to par. Same goes for the gender card, to me.

[cheval]

For the life of me I can't figure why being a latina makes her able to make better decisions.......:2cents:

It doesn't!! Nor does her being a woman. Better decisions should be made by the person that shows the experience and inclination to do so. Not whether you've got dangly bits or not or whether you're a different color.

Infuriating I tell you. I hate this sort of stuff. I actually heard a few months back they were trying to institute AA again because minorities weren't getting into positions. My take is, it doesn't have anything to do with ANYTHING except if they can ACTUALLY do the job!!!!

http://x6b.xanga.com/4a3025547703280173887/w425992.gif

[Tiz]

Ah, the race card. It's kryptonite to white people. Live by political correctness, die by it. Welcome to the court, Ms. Sotomayor.

[rums_mom]

Ah, the race card. It's kryptonite to white people. Live by political correctness, die by it. Welcome to the court, Ms. Sotomayor.

what race card? What race is Ms. Sotomayor? She is Puerto Rican, which is not a race, it is a nationality. As is Mexican, Cuban, Italian, Polish, etc. So she cannot play the race card or be accused of playing the race card since she is not a race different than your own or anyone else on this forum from what I can decipher.

[cowgirlup@idaho]

what race card? What race is Ms. Sotomayor? She is Puerto Rican, which is not a race, it is a nationality. As is Mexican, Cuban, Italian, Polish, etc. So she cannot play the race card or be accused of playing the race card since she is not a race different than your own or anyone else on this forum from what I can decipher.

Ok, have it your way. She has dealt the 'nationality' card saying that a Latino woman (how is that different from me?) has a better, more rounded life experience (my words not hers because I can't remember what she said verbatum) than a Caucasian male and that is what qualifies her as the best pick. So if there is no difference (your words), why would she point that out? :huh:

[rums_mom]

And since you are a Puerto Rican Latina, from No. Central Idaho, no less, and you have experienced everything she has and thousands of other Latinas, you KNOW exactly what she is talking about don't you?

[WashingtonBay]

I think the point is that at the end of the day, what the constitution says is not dependent on your race, gender, ethnicity, childhood, or anything else. At the end of the day, "a wise old man and a wise old woman, should reach the same judgment" as to the law. Period. If the SC feels the law falls short or may be wrong, their duty is to rule on the law as it is, not as they wish it was, and leave changes and revisions to that law to the other branches. That's their job.


We'll all be a lot better off when we no longer feel the NEED to select candidates for anything other than their ability and aptitude.

[Tatesgram]

And since you are a Puerto Rican Latina, from No. Central Idaho, no less, and you have experienced everything she has and thousands of other Latinas, you KNOW exactly what she is talking about don't you?

What has that got to do with interpreting the law? Her gender nor her nationality should matter. Neither should influence her decisions.

[gabhainn]

And since you are a Puerto Rican Latina, from No. Central Idaho, no less, and you have experienced everything she has and thousands of other Latinas, you KNOW exactly what she is talking about don't you?
Well actually I am a white guy from rural East Texas, and I have experienced things she could not dream of, and my experiences are just as relevant to the supreme court as hers are.NOT AT ALL thats the point everyone is making..Kevin

[rums_mom]

I think the point is that at the end of the day, what the constitution says is not dependent on your race, gender, ethnicity, childhood, or anything else. At the end of the day, "a wise old man and a wise old woman, should reach the same judgment" as to the law. Period. If the SC feels the law falls short or may be wrong, their duty is to rule on the law as it is, not as they wish it was, and leave changes and revisions to that law to the other branches. That's their job.


We'll all be a lot better off when we no longer feel the NEED to select candidates for anything other than their ability and aptitude.


And THAT is exactly WHY she was chosen!

[WashingtonBay]

Uh huh :)

Well, she's before us now, we'll see how she does in the confirmation process. It's the attitudes that are important.

[rums_mom]

What has that got to do with interpreting the law? Her gender nor her nationality should matter. Neither should influence her decisions.



Oh really?

How about this viewpoint?

"And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position…

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

Would you support this statement by a candidate for the Supreme Court?

[rums_mom]

Uh huh :)

Well, she's before us now, we'll see how she does in the confirmation process. It's the attitudes that are important.

As long as she is given the same consideration as some other candidates, say like Samual Alito?

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001783/

[WashingtonBay]

Actually, I think I'm seeking better than that... He was also trotted out as a first for his 'kind' and that's the whole discussion I hope to get past one day.... you know, when we've finally run out of "firsts" in every category maybe we can stop keeping track and patting ourselves on the back for our "progress" all the time. When ethnicity and gender are perhaps interesting personal attributes, but mention of them by anyone who is not a friend is probably rude... Like discussing her weight.

[rums_mom]

Then why are we having this heated discussion about exactly those personal attributes? Seems to be important enough to some people.

[WashingtonBay]

Who's heated? Not me :innocent: . I'm just saying what I've always said on this issue.

And it will continue being an issue that generates discussion, as long as she is trotted out, by the president, and by the media, as a type of candidate, not just a candidate.

[rums_mom]

Oh I see, so it's OK if an issue is trotted out by a Republican president on a certain candidate, say like the Republican candidate being say, a white conservative male but not OK for a democratic president to point out something obvious like his candidate is a Hispanic female. Gotcha.....

[WashingtonBay]

What basis do you have for saying I SAID it's ever "OK"? I think I just said the opposite. I think it's the same no matter who does it, which is why I said "president" and "media" above in very clearly generic terms. All politicians do it, and many other otherwise good people get sucked into doing it ALL THE TIME. It's patronizing and self-congratulatory every time it's done, and I don't think you'll find me on record anywhere saying anything otherwise, ever.

[JackieB]

...I hope to get past one day.... you know, when we've finally run out of "firsts" in every category maybe we can stop keeping track and patting ourselves on the back for our "progress" all the time.

I think we have to go through this whole process though, WB. I don't see it as a bad thing as much as I do part of the journey toward becoming a more enlightened, compassionate, and fair society.

Those of us who are in the middle of history as it happens are often unable to see the facts clearly. Of course we think we can, but oftentimes our own personal (and collective as a society) life experiences, outlook, and biases prevent us from being able to objectively evaluate an issue. I'm not saying this to be critical, it's just the way people are.

An example of a Supreme Court ruling that illustrates this point clearly is Dred Scott v. Sanford in which the Court upheld the right to own slaves and sell them as merchandise. Certainly we find this to be abhorrent today, but it all made perfect sense to most Americans at that time, including our most esteemed legal scholars. They saw no conflict with the Constitution and Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence.

If someone had predicted in 1857 that we'd have a black president, it would have been an absurd joke. But we finally came that far, and it is worth celebrating. So it is with the rest of the "firsts".

We'll eventually stop patting ourselves on the back as you aptly point out (e.g. it's common to see women as astronauts or CEOs of major corporations now), but it's OK to celebrate the "firsts" as they occur. They do represent progress.

[WashingtonBay]

You're right.

I've acknowledged before and will again, that there definitely was a point when racial and gender 'fairness' had to be mandated and enforced for it to occur. If there's one thing that hasn't changed, it's that "haves" tend to try to hang on to what they have, and often that thing they have is power.

I think the sign that the pendulum has indeed swung back, or is at least swinging back, through the center is this very pushback by those of us who don't think we need to be told to be fair. While the initial movement needed to happen, by it's very nature it eventually needs to be retired, or it will become what it sought to destroy. :)

[cheval]

And it doesn't need to come back ever. There are definitely fields out there that are male dominated, I'm in one but it makes no sense to hire a person to fulfill a quota and the person can't do the job and I've seen that more times than not when AA was still a big deal.

[Tiz]

You seem to be "heated" most of the time, rm. Maybe the hate sites, like HuffPo, and the Daily Kos, keep you too worked up.

[cheval]

Me? I have no idea what those sites are. I don't get mad much except for stuff like this and yeah, I do think it's not good to hire on anything except experience.

Edit: I see you were talking about the other person now.

[WashingtonBay]

The best and most meaningful "progress" is not made by those who are given what they are not really entitled to, out of fairness. No - because the power in that relationship is still with the one who is doing the giving.

No... the most meaningful progress is progress that was fought darn hard for, by someone who is not average and sheltered and dependent, but rather, is so darn good they will not be denied.

[cheval]

The best and most meaningful "progress" is not made by those who are given what they are not really entitled to, out of fairness. No - because the power in that relationship is still with the one who is doing the giving.

No... the most meaningful progress is progress that was fought darn hard for, by someone who is not average and sheltered and dependent, but rather, is so darn good they will not be denied.

EXACTLY 100% true.

[WashingtonBay]

And that's why AA strikes our generation as harmful. It may very well have been needed, in our parent's generation. But it's timely retirement is important, not just in law, but in our 'progressive minds', for everyone's achievements to really be assumed to be their own. I was one of six gals in a flight school of 70 guys, but we sure didn't want to be perceived as skating through on anything other than our own skill. We wanted to be viewed as good. Because good is where the real pride is.

[rocknK]

My other concern is her statement about courts making "policy". I thought courts were supposed to interperet the law.

[rums_mom]

If I were intolerant towards you....well...I imagine I would perhaps call you names in another language, which I assume you would not understand :D:D

Steve

In your very own words..........
"If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then, it MUST be a duck..........."

Just keep quacking Steve, just keep quacking.

[JackieB]

You're right.

I've acknowledged before and will again, that there definitely was a point when racial and gender 'fairness' had to be mandated and enforced for it to occur. If there's one thing that hasn't changed, it's that "haves" tend to try to hang on to what they have, and often that thing they have is power.

I think the sign that the pendulum has indeed swung back, or is at least swinging back, through the center is this very pushback by those of us who don't think we need to be told to be fair. While the initial movement needed to happen, by it's very nature it eventually needs to be retired, or it will become what it sought to destroy. :)

Thanks for the thoughtful words regarding the strength of this argument, WB. I appreciate them very much.

I agree with what you (and Cheval is commenting along those lines in her next post as well) are saying about the pendulum. I think that's an appropriate analogy and often use it myself. I see things that I find really irksome myself and just figure that this is also part of what happens while we seek a balance.

[cowgirlup@idaho]

Oh really?How about this viewpoint?

"And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position…

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

Would you support this statement by a candidate for the Supreme Court?

No. The above statements show that she has 'personalized' her job. That is unethical and does not apply to "written law" and deems her decisions biased and perhaps even unjust. It's not about her and her family history. It's about us and fair representation as provided by the 'law' that our legal system has agreed to follow.

[WashingtonBay]

cowgirlup... the quote is actually from Alito... one of our more conservative judges during his confirmation hearing. She was trying to trick you. :)

In context, it was in answer to this question: "COBURN: You know, I think at times during these hearings you have been unfairly criticized or characterized as that you don’t care about the less fortunate, you don’t care about the little guy, you don’t care about the weak or the innocent."

And between the two paragraphs in the answer quoted above Alito said this (not quoted): "And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result."

So they asked him to say something empathetic, and he did. No one expects judges to be emotionless automatons with no life experience (well, unless they're white). The question is, when the sides have been heard and it's time to rule, are they ruled by those emotions, or by the law.

And which they should be ruled by... is a question that defines activist versus conservative judges.

[cowgirlup@idaho]

Thanks WB :) I guess I'm naive but I believe that our laws as written should be followed. That way emotion is eliminated and the fairness of the word prevails. We all over react when we feel so strongly that our emotions and passions take over our intellectual functioning. That is why the letter of the law should prevail regardless of race, gender, religion, political orientation and so on. That's what makes a fair judge and that's what holds them accountable. I really don't care if she is Chicano, Latino, Chinese, Dwarf, Multi-racial or Bi-sexual! It bothers me that she has shown FAVOR legally toward minority groups and keeps waving her race/gender banner as her most awsome qualification.

[WashingtonBay]

And that's the part that would bother me too. :)

[JackieB]

Thanks WB :) I guess I'm naive but I believe that our laws as written should be followed. That way emotion is eliminated and the fairness of the word prevails.

With all due respect, cowgirlup, that is a somewhat naive position. I mean I completely understand and agree with you (that the laws should speak for themselves), but the fact is that laws can be interpreted in various ways even by legal scholars. I referred to the Dred Scott case earlier as an example. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote the opinion in that case and was speaking for the majority of the justices. This was the "wisely-considered" decision of the U.S. Supreme Court where the Court certainly believed that is was following the law exactly as it was written.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html
Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

In retrospect, any reasonable person is left thinking something like "OMG, how could they possibly have looked at Dred Scott (that was the slave's name) as an "ordinary article of merchandise" who could "justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery"?!!! But that's how it was at that time.

[cowgirlup@idaho]

I think I qualified myself as 'naive', so no offense taken :). Your example is a good one and yes it was a long time ago. The US has become more educated and wiser with the times.

[Tiz]

The problem with making a straight across comparison of Alito's words to Sotomayor's, is that he didn't conclude with saying that because of his immigrant background, he would be a BETTER judge then a white man, a black man, a Mexican man, an Asian, and so on. That's the racist component in Sotomayor's quote.

[JackieB]

I think I qualified myself as 'naive', so no offense taken :). Your example is a good one and yes it was a long time ago. The US has become more educated and wiser with the times.

Yes, thank goodness, we have come a long, long ways. I'm guessing that when people look back 100 years from now, they won't see anything that causes them to just shake their heads in disbelief. But it's important to keep in mind that we are all a product of our times to some extent, even Supreme Court justices.

[rums_mom]

No, WB, I did not post that quote to try to trick anyone. I posted it to show that there is clearly still a double standard in this country. That a white male conservative can get away with saying basically the same thing that Sotomayor is now being criticized for, and since Arrow already post more of the reply in Post#28, I didn't see any need to post more than that part. So she believes that because she is a Latina she will be more qualified to make decisions than a white male, in many areas, she may. So What?

She is considered tough, oh my! A woman? So once again it is OK for male judges to be tough but not a female. About time we had a female judge like her on the SC.

For over 200 years the supreme court has been 99% white male, the current make up does not reflect the concensus of our citizens. Time to bring the SC into the 21st century.

[cowgirlup@idaho]

So she believes that because she is a Latina she will be more qualified to make decisions than a white male, in many areas, she may. So What?


What does being of a different race/culture/ethnicity/gender have to do with fair unbiased interpretation of the law? That's what. It doesn't. So proclaiming her race/gender as a qualifier for a seat on the Supreme Court indicates a certain favoritism already and she is insinuating how she will rule on cases, regardless of our constitution.

[WashingtonBay]

So she believes that because she is a Latina she will be more qualified to make decisions than a white male, in many areas, she may. So What?

Soooo some may take issue with that?

She is considered tough, oh my! A woman? So once again it is OK for male judges to be tough but not a female.

You could have at least introduced us to your straw man before you knocked him down. :) I think this is the first mention of tough. :coffee:

[rocknK]

To put this in perspective, say for instance a man, say me, for instance, said he could ride better than any woman because of his experiences. I would be considered a total jack-ass because that statement is not true. That is why I don't go around making untrue statements. Which is why our soon to be confirmed Supreme should learn to keep her thoughts to herself.:2cents:

[mare]

Which is why our soon to be confirmed Supreme should learn to keep her thoughts to herself.:2cents:


I think that is a big part of it.

I may say things to be funny, for effect, to get a reaction, to start a discussion, to provoke someone who has interesting views into joining a discussion, to be "the devil's advocate." If I ever ran for an office (no worries... I wouldn't) the press could have a hay day taking quotes and making them it look like I believe one thing or another and nothing else.

I think someone going into public service would really have to be committed to developing the public face that would not detract from their work.

[gabhainn]

To put this in perspective, say for instance a man, say me, for instance, said he could ride better than any woman because of his experiences. I would be considered a total jack-ass because that statement is not true. That is why I don't go around making untrue statements. Which is why our soon to be confirmed Supreme should learn to keep her thoughts to herself.:2cents:
Amen....Kevin