Obama Picks Soina Soytomayor for Supreme Court

Mr. Incognito

AP sources: Obama picks Sotomayor for high court

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama tapped federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, officials said, making her the first Hispanic in history picked to wear the robes of a justice.

If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor, 54, would succeed retiring Justice David Souter. Two officials described Obama's decision on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.

Administration officials say Sotomayor would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice confirmed in the past 70 years.

A formal announcement was expected at midmorning.

Obama had said publicly he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy — the ability to understand the troubles of everyday Americans.

Democrats hold a large majority in the Senate, and barring the unexpected, Sotomayor's confirmation should be assured.

If approved, she would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the current court.

Sotomayor is a self-described "Newyorkrican" who grew up in a Bronx housing project after her parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico. She has dealt with diabetes since age 8 and lost her father at age 9, growing up under the care of her mother in humble surroundings. As a girl, inspired by the Perry Mason television show, she knew she wanted to be a judge.

A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, a former prosecutor and private attorney, Sotomayor became a federal judge for the Southern District of New York in 1992.

As a judge, she has a bipartisan pedigree. She was first appointed by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, then named an appeals judge by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

At her Senate confirmation hearing more than a decade ago, she said, "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."

In one of her most memorable rulings as federal district judge, Sotomayor essentially salvaged baseball in 1995, ruling with players over owners in a labor strike that had led to the cancellation of the World Series.

As an appellate judge, she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters after the city threw out results of a promotion exam because two few minorities scored high enough. Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court.

Obama's nomination is the first by a Democratic president in 15 years.

His announcement also leaves the Senate four months — more than enough by traditional standards — to complete confirmation proceedings before the Court begins its next term in the fall.

Republicans have issued conflicting signals about their intentions. While some have threatened filibusters if they deemed Obama's pick too liberal, others have said that is unlikely.

Given Sotomayor's selection, any decision to filibuster would presumably carry political risks — Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment of the population and an increasingly important one politically.

Abortion rights have been a flashpoint in several recent Supreme Court confirmations, although Sotomayor has not authored any controversial rulings on the subject.

Sotomayor's elevation to the appeals court was delayed by Republicans, in part out of concerns she might someday be selected for the Supreme Court. She was ultimately confirmed for the appeals court in 1998 on a 68-28 vote, gathering some Republican support.

Among those voting against her was Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, now the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee that will hold sway over her confirmation.

Now, more than a decade later, Sotomayor possesses credentials Sessions said he wanted in a pick for the high court — years of experience on the bench. Obama had talked openly about the upside of choosing someone outside the judiciary — every single current justice is a former federal appeals court judge — but passed on at least two serious candidates who had never been judges.

Personally I think it's a dream pick - a female Hispanic.

paddyboy23

i think obama picks who he knows wont rock the boat sotomayor is a liberal who will do what she told like the rest of them, the top 6 jobs in the white house for women are all held by afarican american women,makes you wonder where all the clever white women at.

Nodin

paddyboy23 wrote: »

the top 6 jobs in the white house for women are all held by afarican american women,.

Not being American, I'm unfamiliar with these jobs set aside specifically for women, apart from 'First Lady'. Might you illuminate me?

mike65

She sounds like a wholesome ingredient in something rather bland yet nutritious

paddyboy23

Nodin wrote: »

Not being American, I'm unfamiliar with these jobs set aside specifically for women, apart from 'First Lady'. Might you illuminate me?

im not american either so i dont no what these jobs are i no the first lady is one of them not sure of the other five are but i do no that there held by african women im not sayin these women were specifically picked it just looks odd

JohnMc1

Now for the million dollar question. How much does she owe in back taxes?

metaoblivia

I have no idea what these jobs specifically set aside for women are, and I'm American. Perhaps you could provide us with a link from wherever it is you got this information? The closest I could find were several articles stating that 7 of roughly 3 dozen appointees to his senior staff were African American women. But they weren't appointed to "women only" jobs, and they weren't the only women appointed to senior level positions in the administration. Off the top of my head, Clinton, Sebelius, Napolitano and Solis come to mind.

Nodin

paddyboy23 wrote: »

im not american either so i dont no what these jobs are i no the first lady is one of them not sure of the other five are but i do no that there held by african women im not sayin these women were specifically picked it just looks odd

What I'm trying to get at, and what Meta is saying, is that there are no jobs put aside for women. Given the overall number of appointees he can make and the demographics of the US population, its not that suprising that non-white women have gained some places. Bush, IMO, had a number of different persons of different ethnicity and gender in his regime. I think the days of all white faces are long, long gone. And as proved by (for example) Yoo, Gonzalez and Rice, they can be just as right wing as the white guys.

(I didn't mention Thomas....for years I could only remember him as 'the guy no-one likes')

Jim_Are_Great

paddyboy23 wrote: »

sotomayor is a liberal who will do what she told like the rest of them...

What?

GuanYin

paddyboy23 wrote: »

im not american either so i dont no what these jobs are i no the first lady is one of them not sure of the other five are but i do no that there held by african women im not sayin these women were specifically picked it just looks odd

Otherwise known as making stuff up.

This isn't a propaganda forum. Link to facts or don't post.

Manic Moran

I didn find it interesting that when CNN was showing the 'short list' of possible nominees, only one of them was male. That certainly does imply that simple capability was not the prime criterion. The political reality is obvious: Who can object to a female hispanic without being seen as bigoted or sexist? (regardless of any actual rational reasons)

For once, however, a judge has been nominated that I had actually taken an interest in a case at the time it was being decided by said judge, in this instance Maloney v Cuomo, the first time a Court of Appeals considered a 2nd Ammendment case since Heller. Frankly, it had a hole in the logic so large I could drive my tank through: The Court refused to consider the concept of Incorporation holding and that Presser v Illinois ruled, despite the fact that Presser pre-dated the Incorporation doctrine. The 9th subsequently undertook a more exhaustive analysis (i.e. they actually considered the possibility) in Nordyke v Alameda County, and decided that yes, Incorporation did apply. Not something I take great reassurance in.

The rest of her decisions on split courts seem to be about a fair scattering of ones I agree with her on, and ones I don't, which I guess isn't too bad. Keep an eye on the Ricci case, SCOTUS should rule on it later this month. If it gets reversed (as commentators believe to be likely) before she is confirmed, it would be bad timing for her chances.

NTM

randylonghorn

Manic Moran wrote: »

I didn find it interesting that when CNN was showing the 'short list' of possible nominees, only one of them was male. That certainly does imply that simple capability was not the prime criterion. The political reality is obvious: Who can object to a female hispanic without being seen as bigoted or sexist? (regardless of any actual rational reasons)

Perhaps because the current "short list" of sitting justices is overwhelmingly male?

Personally, I believe that it should be the best person for the job, regardless of gender, race, etc.

I picked up that attitude from my mother, who was an ardent but a very logical and practical feminist, driven by a strong sense of justice rather than any particular sense of grievance or personal baggage.

At the same time, I can see why Obama would feel that there was a need for better gender balance in the court ... as it stands at the moment, it's wildly out of whack.

But yes, I do agree that it's also a shrewd move politically.

Manic Moran

as it stands at the moment, it's wildly out of whack.

I would suggest that it is only out of whack if it is not an adequate reflection of the proportion of legal types in a position of seniority or experience to be considered for SCOTUS. What proportion of Appeals Court Judges are female? If one assumes that capability has nothing to do whatsover with gender, it would be reasonable to assume that any 'short list' of candidates for 'best judge' should statistically more or less reflect the gender balance of the available pool.

NTM

randylonghorn

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would suggest that it is only out of whack if it is not an adequate reflection of the proportion of legal types in a position of seniority or experience to be considered for SCOTUS. What proportion of Appeals Court Judges are female? If one assumes that capability has nothing to do whatsover with gender, it would be reasonable to assume that any 'short list' of candidates for 'best judge' should statistically more or less reflect the gender balance of the available pool.

NTM

That's one way of looking at it, Manic, and it's logical and has validity, I accept.

Here's another way though:

- Approx. half of the US population are women.

- The US Supreme Court has a lot of power to affect their lives (and the lives of men in the US too) by striking down laws, by interpreting the constitution, etc. It has done so on a number of issues which are especially pertinent to women ... abortion is only one obvious example.

- The legal profession and therefore the judiciary in the US has traditionally been WASP dominated, and WASP male dominated at that ... this has begun to change somewhat, but it takes time, especially to reach the top.

- The Supreme Court, and the judiciary generally, in America is historically prone to have strong political views and indeed affiliations, and to act out of those beliefs and affiliations. It is not for nothing that so much emphasis is placed on the political background, and social and moral belief systems, of candidates for the senior courts during the confirmation process, or indeed by political analysts thereafter.

Given all that, do you not think that a sizeable proportion of the American population might consider the current make-up of the court as "out of whack" as to gender balance, to name just one facet, and to have less than full confidence in that court as a result?

Do you not think that it is logical for a new President, esp. one of Obama's background, to attempt to address that issue?

The opportunity doesn't come up very often.

Manic Moran

You're basically describing social engineering. You add someone of one demographic to 'retain a balance', then that ties your hand for the replacement for next person that retires. And the person after that. And so on.

Worse, if you're trying to chose people specifically because of their 'point of view', you'll never end the sociological cycle either. As much as possible, you want to eventually start stacking the court with people with no particularly held 'point of view' outside of legal experience. Sure, for the first two or three replacements you won't have changed the base problem, because you will still have a situation where 'opinionated' people have sway but eventually when those oldest few people retire, you now have a more neutral organisation.

Face it, she's got a good variety of experience, and is the 'right' gender and colour, but what has she actually demonstrated in her professional capacity? Even when Obama was nominating her, he was unable to reference any worthy case in her Appeals career, and had to go back to an obscure trial case almost fifteen years ago. Is this really the 'Change' we want? More of the same, only as biased in the other direction?

NTM

randylonghorn

Manic Moran wrote: »

You're basically describing social engineering.

Hmmm ... I think that's pushing it a bit tbh, but I suppose what one person sees as balancing the scales (that's probably an appropriate image! ) another sees as social engineering ...

Manic Moran wrote: »

You add someone of one demographic to 'retain a balance', then that ties your hand for the replacement for next person that retires. And the person after that. And so on.

Well, I would say "creating a balance" rather than retaining one, as I don't believe there's one at the moment in many ways, but I wouldn't disagree totally with your point that every choice has a knock-on effect on the next one.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Worse, if you're trying to chose people specifically because of their 'point of view', you'll never end the sociological cycle either. As much as possible, you want to eventually start stacking the court with people with no particularly held 'point of view' outside of legal experience. Sure, for the first two or three replacements you won't have changed the base problem, because you will still have a situation where 'opinionated' people have sway but eventually when those oldest few people retire, you now have a more neutral organisation.

I actually fairly much agree with you, in an ideal world. I'd even be hopeful that in that small way at least an "ideal" world might not be too far over the horizon, as the US law fraternity (sic :rolleyes:) broadens out.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I can understand a President like Obama tampering a bit in the meantime ... hell, every one of his predecessors did so, albeit usually with a different goal in mind.

And as I said earlier, I would be fully prepared to accept that he is keeping his eye on the political ball as well as having (hopefully) more elevated motives as well.

I do note that she has been proposed / appointed / considered by both Rep. & Dem. administrations fairly much equally in the past, so at least we can presume that she isn't seen as holding a particularly partisan position in terms of politics.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Face it, she's got a good variety of experience, and is the 'right' gender and colour, but what has she actually demonstrated in her professional capacity? Even when Obama was nominating her, he was unable to reference any worthy case in her Appeals career, and had to go back to an obscure trial case almost fifteen years ago. Is this really the 'Change' we want? More of the same, only as biased in the other direction?

Now there I'm not going to engage with you, as I simply don't have the familiarity with US law to do so, or the interest to follow it up at that level.

I would hope that she has the calibre ... I don't think being appointed simply as the "token" hispanic or a token woman for that matter, will do much for her, the court or the problem.

Manic Moran

randylonghorn wrote: »

I would hope that she has the calibre ... I don't think being appointed simply as the "token" hispanic or a token woman for that matter, will do much for her, the court or the problem.

Well, I've already expressed my personal concern over the lack of legal logic she displayed in "Maloney." I've also pointed out that "Ricci" is currently before the Supreme Court and the current bets are that she will be reversed.

Of the six other Appeals cases she decided in the majority on which subsequently went to the Supreme Court, four were overturned entirely, one was upheld but by fluke (as the Judges unanimously disagreed with her reasoning, even though the end result was correct) and in only one did the Supreme Court think she got it right. If Ricci is, indeed, reversed, that would make her score 6 losses to one win.

That doesn't seem very supportable to me.

NTM

Ho_hum

paddyboy23 wrote: »

im not american either so i dont no what these jobs are i no the first lady is one of them not sure of the other five are but i do no that there held by african women im not sayin these women were specifically picked it just looks odd

Thank you for that illuminating post, paddyboy23 - I didn't, um, no any of that stuff.

Ho_hum

Manic Moran wrote: »

I didn find it interesting that when CNN was showing the 'short list' of possible nominees, only one of them was male. That certainly does imply that simple capability was not the prime criterion.

You saw CNN's short-list....but did you see President Obama's? :rolleyes:

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Worse, if you're trying to chose people specifically because of their 'point of view', you'll never end the sociological cycle either.

We live in the real world, not the Best of All Possible Worlds. Presidents have historically stacked the US Supreme Court with nominees that favour their political agenda. Every now and then a president screws-up and the US Justice goes his/her own separate way on a decision, thank the gods (but that's rare)! So Obama is no different than the Republican and Democratic presidents before him in terms of US Supreme Court nominees.

Black Swan

paddyboy23 wrote: »

the top 6 jobs in the white house for women are all held by afarican american women,makes you wonder where all the clever white women at.

Huh? Perhaps you may want to rethink this comment in terms of the facts? See below:

Department of State
Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton
http://www.state.gov

Department of the Treasury
Secretary Timothy F. Geithner
http://www.treasury.gov

Department of Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates
http://www.defenselink.mil

Department of Justice
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.
http://www.usdoj.gov

Department of the Interior
Secretary Kenneth L. Salazar
http://www.doi.gov

Department of Agriculture
Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack
http://www.usda.gov

Department of Commerce
Secretary Gary F. Locke
http://www.commerce.gov

Department of Labor
Secretary Hilda L. Solis
http://www.dol.gov

Department of Health and Human Services
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
http://www.hhs.gov

Department of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary Shaun L.S. Donovan
http://www.hud.gov

Department of Transportation
Secretary Raymond L. LaHood
http://www.dot.gov

Department of Energy
Secretary Steven Chu
http://www.energy.gov

Department of Education
Secretary Arne Duncan
http://www.ed.gov

Department of Veterans Affairs
Secretary Eric K. Shinseki
http://www.va.gov

Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Janet A. Napolitano
http://www.dhs.gov

silverharp

I dont think they like her on Fox, starts about 1m.40 in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkKHRajo84I

Benedict XVI

silverharp wrote: »

I dont think they like her on Fox, starts about 1m.40 in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkKHRajo84I

I agree with some of their points

If a white male said that their life experience allowed them to make 'better' decisions that a black person then they would be slated the world over a a racist.

It should be the same for this woman.

I am concerned about her racist language

bobbyjoe

The right wing conspiracy send out the memo that she is racist.
The sheep obey.

JohnMc1

Benedict XVI wrote: »

I agree with some of their points

If a white male said that their life experience allowed them to make 'better' decisions that a black person then they would be slated the world over a a racist.

It should be the same for this woman.

I am concerned about her racist language

100% correct.

Sand

Meh, they extrapolate far too much. Any Obama pick would be horrific from their point of view. Because Obama would have picked them. They are furious about the decision on the firefighters ( rightfully so if the facts bear any resemblance to the shorthand version) but whilst they praise judges who enforce the law even if they dont agree with it, they never allow the possibility that she enforced the law in the case of the firefighters, regardless of her own views.

However, that said, the comment that a latino female would make better decisions than a white male is cringe inducing. I dont think she quite "gets" racism.

Jim_Are_Great

The Ricci decision was a comparatively uncontroversial example of a judge applying and interpreting law. The city of New Haven rejected the exam in question because the results of the test violated Title VII, a federal workplace discrimination civil rights law. This requires employers to consider the racial impact of their employment procedures in order to prevent inadvertent or intentional discrimination. Had the city proceeded with the promotions based on the test results as they turned out, they would have been wide open to a civil rights action. Ricci's claim was that this attempt to comply with Title VII was itself race discrimination. It's a fair argument, but clearly there are two possible discriminations, depending on how you view the case. Reminds me of that picture that looks like two guys looking at each other, then suddenly looks like a vase; both are visible, but mutually exclusive.

Anyway, some would say that Title VII is anachronistic and vestigial, some would say it's important to civil rights law. Either way, Sotomayor's approach is jurisprudentially sound, agree or disagree. I honestly can't see why people are attacking her and her decision, as opposed to the law in question.

Sand

Reminds me of 2+2 to be honest...

Honestly, going from a situation of racial discrimination to racial discrimination, criticising past racial discrimination whilst praising current and future racial discrimination (usually be the same people) is mind bending.

Had the city proceeded with the promotions based on the test results as they turned out

Which would have clearly been kee-razy! It would have discriminated against firemen from <insert ethnic minority here> because...well, this is the tricky part. The clear (and twisted) reasoning is that <insert ethnic minority here> firemen need the helping hand from their superior, who isnt just better than them, but also so nice and great that theyre willing to play the game with one hand tied behind their back. Arent they awesome?

Racial discrimination is racial discrimination. Even the "good" racial discrimination is still based on an inherent belief in the superiority of one race over another. Maybe there is the belief that they *shouldnt* be better, but there is still the belief that they are.

Jim_Are_Great

Racial discrimination/affirmative action/selective advantage etc are all a bit dubious, no doubt. But I'm saying that the discrimination in the Ricci case was based on an existing law, not on a whim of Sotomayor's (or Obama's). The debate about discrimination is welcome, but I don't understand why people are attributing the law's shortcoming to either of them.

Sand

Oh I agree - if thats the way the law is stated ( not enough people of type X? Rip up the test scores...) then she just enforced it in the dispassionate, reasoned manner the Fox news guys claim to want. Its still a foolish, patronising law, but whatever, she didnt write it, she just enforced it.

However, its not entirely clear that shes wholly of the view that she is there to only enforce the law. See below:

“court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

“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,”

“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,”

Shes invited attacks on her credentials with the above comments. She might be bluntly honest - shes aware that shes biased by her own views and maybe she guards against this by questioning more deeply her assumptions when making her judgements?

But she didnt say a "wise" Latina woman would reach a different conclusion, rather a better one.

Theyre foolish comments, and theyre going to be a red rag to a bull for anyone who thinks that everyone should be equal before the law regardless of race, creed, gender, social status. I expect she'll get through because Obama has the backing to get his pick, and the Reps know Obama can replace her with another dozen picks each coming from pretty much the same place. Also, if the Reps are to have any hopes electorally they need to stop getting on the wrong side of history...

Jim_Are_Great

From that exact same lecture:

"I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations."

Pretty much as emphatic a statement of judicial dispassion as is realistic.

Also, de-contextualising her statements is clearly disingenuous. The statement

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.

was directly followed by

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.

It wasn't a statement to the effect that Latinas are better judges, or that women are more empathetic. It was a statement de-coupling decision and background. Read the whole lecture before relying too heavily on the Fox News soundbites.

Sand

It wasn't a statement to the effect that Latinas are better judges, or that women are more empathetic. It was a statement de-coupling decision and background.

Pardon? The entire lecture was disagreeing that it was possible or even best to decouple decision making and background. She cited and disagreed with judges who argued a judge should decouple decision making from their background, arguing that such impartiality was while admirable and to be aspired to not practically possible, and perhaps not even the best course of action.

And it was a statement that she would make better decisions because she was a latin female, than a white male judge would make. If she was to say she would make better decisions due to her experience as a judge, fine. The best disclaimer she inserted was that now and then, the odd white male judge made a decent decision or two as well. Stopped clocks right twice a day...

To further expand her comments:

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

What she is basically saying is that she does not believe that on average a white male judge would give her (a latina) as fair a hearing as latina judge. Logically, we must assume a white male in her courtroom will not get as fair a hearing as they would from a white male judge on average?

Its a ludicrously foolish thing to say when people expect to be equal before the law, and she is going to get a lot of stick about it. But she will get appointed either way.

And for the record, I took the quotes from the New York Times article. Small world.

Jim_Are_Great

I think this is being stretched to illogical conclusions. A lecture that was essentially a colour piece is being taken as her judicial statement of intent. I am unconvinced that she is going to go into SCOUTS, see a white male litigant and think "I am going to be artificially unfair to this person". Is that what you think, or have I misunderstood you?

Sand

A lecture that was essentially a colour piece is being taken as her judicial statement of intent.

No, not as a statement of intent. She repeats that she considers the impartiality expected of a judge to be admired and aspired to. It follows she intends to try to be impartial.

Her point is that realistically she is going to fail. As much as white male judges are (apparently) by and large disinterested in the needs of ethnic or social minorities (often through no overt intent of their own) surely ethnic or social minorities must be by and large disinterested in the needs of white males, again through no overt intent of their own?

Now - I can see how that could be argued to a view that: Yes, impartial judges are great and we should all try to be impartial. But we need to recognise that we are human, and we need to question our impartiality rather than assume it.

That I cant disagree with. Cynical perhaps, but not disagreeable.

What I can disagree with is she continues that she is going to make better decisions than white males would (on average) due to her experience as a latina. That makes no sense whatsoever. Assigning subjective traits on a racial or gender basis tends to be quite foolish. In a single parent setting, would it be fair to say a single mother more often than not would serve her children better than a single father due to her gender?

What I also disagree with is that instead of expecting impartial judges, that instead we accept some level of partiality is inevitable and then attempt to balance it by ensuring a wide, diverse spread of judges and just hope you get lucky that youre drawn before a judge of the same ethnic/social background because its a bit of a longshot that a judge of another ethnic/social background is going to give you a fair hearing.

I am unconvinced that she is going to go into SCOUTS, see a white male litigant and think "I am going to be artificially unfair to this person". Is that what you think, or have I misunderstood you?

Shes going to try not to be artificially unfair, but her thesis is that unfortunately she very well may be through no intent of her own.

Her views are controversial when you consider equality before the law in something people would be touchy about. Shes going to get stick about those comments. Shes going to get stick about her comments where she announced that the court of appeals was where judges made policy.

But she will get appointed. She'll probably reassure her critics on her impartiality and respect for the judges role and it will be fairly routine. The most controversial case she has been on is this firefighters one. Apparently her judgement on that is likely to be overturned which will be a small bit embarrassing but whatever. The world will keep turning and Im sure she will be a little more careful in her comments.

Jim_Are_Great

Wait now... I agreed with almost everything in the post above. Yet for some reason I felt like we were arguing about something. Odd.

Sand wrote: »

What I also disagree with is that instead of expecting impartial judges, that instead we accept some level of partiality is inevitable and then attempt to balance it by ensuring a wide, diverse spread of judges

But if you acknowledge that justices can't be impartial-o-bots, then what's so objectionable about that?

Sand wrote: »

...and just hope you get lucky that youre drawn before a judge of the same ethnic/social background

I could have sworn, though I may be wrong, that SCOTUS always sits with the full court, ie all nine justices.

LostinKildare

Some historical perspective.

This 1992 tribute to the retired Justice Thurgood Marshall by Reagan's appointee Justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggests that the sentiments Sotomayor is getting attacked for — that her race-based experiences shape and sometimes enrich her judgments — aren’t new or outrageous:

Like most of my counterparts who grew up in the Southwest in the 1930s and 1940s, I had not been personally exposed to racial tensions before Brown; Arizona did not have a large African American population then, and unlike southern States, it never adopted a de jure system of segregation. Although I had spend a year as an eighth grader in a predominately Latino public school in New Mexico, I had no personal sense, as the plaintiff children of Topeka School District did, of being a minority in a society that cared primarily for the majority.

But as I listened that day to Justice Marshall talk eloquently to the media about the social stigmas and lost opportunities suffered by African American children in state-imposed segregated school, my awareness of race-based disparities deepened. I did not, could not, know it then, but the man who would, as a lawyer and jurist, captivate the nation would also, as colleague and friend, profoundly influence me.

Although all of us come to the Court with our own personal histories and experiences, Justice Marshall brought a special perspective. His was the eye of a lawyer who saw the deepest wounds in the social fabric and used law to help heal them. His was the ear of a counselor who understood the vulnerabilities of the accused and established safeguards for their protection. His was the mouth of a man who knew the anguish of the silenced and gave them a voice.

At oral arguments and conference meetings, in opinions and dissents, Justice Marshall imparted not only his legal acumen but also his life experiences, constantly pushing and prodding us to respond not only to the persuasiveness of legal argument but also to the power of moral truth.

Manic Moran

Sotomayor is getting attacked for — that her race-based experiences shape and sometimes enrich her judgments — aren’t new or outrageous

There's a mite difference between saying 'experiences shape and enrich' to 'certain experiences will result in making a better legal decision than someone with different experiences'

NTM

jonny72

If this was a Republican choice of judge the arguments would be switched the other way round, come on, its clutching at straws, whichever, hopefully she'll be better than the last crooked Bush appointee.

Jim_Are_Great

Alito? How's he crooked?

Running Bing

People like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh were always going to come up with something to attack her with but what she said was wrong, simple as that. If George Bush had said:

I would hope that a wise [Texas man] with the richness of [his] experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a [black female] who hasn't lived that life

Would that be acceptable? No that would be an outrageous thing to say. Trying to defend what she said is pure partisan folly imo.

Now the question is how relevant is a statement she made 8 years ago, that may have been simply badly worded, to her current appointment? Personally I dont know but I do know that there appears to be a distinct double standard in the states between what qualifies as outrageous racism or a slip of the tongue.

LostinKildare

I would hope that a wise [Texas man] with the richness of [his] experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a [black female] who hasn't lived that life

Haha. Interesting opposition of "Texas man" (presumably a white man and not the Other) and "black female" (presumably a female person, not a female animal, and, really, who cares where she lives? -- no need to humanize a black female as you would a man)

Ya know, there are some people out there who would parse those phrases and, knowing nothing more about you, label you both a racist and a sexist for your (presumably unintentional) poor choice of words.

I wouldn't, though.

Running Bing

Latina woman=Texas man
white male=black female

There the substitutions I made.


Latina-a person of Latin-American origin living in the United States


Texan-normally refers to someone who originated from, or who lives in, the state of Texas in the United States of America

Woman-Antonym=man
White-Antonym=black
male-Antonym=female

Tbh from your post, knowing nothing more about you, Id be more inclined to label you a racist and a sexist.

I wouldnt though.;)

LostinKildare

Um, I think you missed my point -- that pouncing on what is simply an infelicitous choice of words to fuel a charge of racism/sexism, as Sotomayor's attackers have done, is foolish.

Running Bing wrote: »

Tbh from your post, knowing nothing more about you, Id be more inclined to label you a racist and a sexist.

Why is that?

Running Bing

LostinKildare wrote: »

Why is that?

look we're getting off topic here, I dont think your a racist (and I would hope you dont really believe I am).

The point is the statement is an abhorrent one and under slightly different circumstances it would be treated as such by those trying to defend it (imo).

Now as I said in my post, its not a good thing to say but does that lead us to believe that Sonia Sotomayor is a racist (Im not necessarily sure it does)? That is the real question here imo, not wheter what she said was ok (because it clearly was'nt).

Running Bing

LostinKildare wrote: »

Um, I think you missed my point -- that pouncing on what is simply an infelicitous choice of words to fuel a charge of racism/sexism, as Sotomayor's attackers have done, is foolish.

Actually I think we are in agreement here (see my post above).

I dont think you can just automatically say she is racist because of the statement (even if I believe it is a racist statement).

LostinKildare

No, I don't think you're a racist!

Sand

pouncing on what is simply an infelicitous choice of words to fuel a charge of racism/sexism, as Sotomayor's attackers have done, is foolish.

Pouncing on an infelicitous choice of words to fuel a charge of <insert negative characteristic here> constitutes 99% of modern political discourse. Its not for nothing that Bush became famous for his stumbles in speeches.

Wait now... I agreed with almost everything in the post above. Yet for some reason I felt like we were arguing about something. Odd.

We arent so much arguing - its just I believe youve got an (understable) stake in US domestic politics and I dont. I think Soytomayors comments were dumb and I dont have any real reason to defend them.

Either you dont think theyre dumb, or you feel they were poorly chosen but youve got to take one for the team in trying to defend the choice which means defending every stupid thing she said and trying to pretend it was actually misunderstood words of wisdom.

Jim_Are_Great

It's actually not the case. I just like to take the other side, principally to see if I can argue it out. Devil's advocate. Half the time I don't care/know anything about what I'm saying.:)

Sand

High fives all round then!

LostinKildare

Sand wrote: »

Pouncing on an infelicitous choice of words to fuel a charge of <insert negative characteristic here> constitutes 99% of modern political discourse. Its not for nothing that Bush became famous for his stumbles in speeches.

Indeed.

Seen the cover of the new National Review? WTF?!? Latins, Asians, whatever --- they all look the same, huh?

This whole thing is a comedy.

lyda

Manic Moran wrote: »

You're basically describing social engineering.

Only having white males on the bench for ~180 years was also social engineering.

Your point?