Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor

Mr. Obama and his aides responded by denouncing her critics while saying she had used a poor choice of words. “I’m sure she would have restated it,” Mr. Obama said on Friday. “But if you look in the entire sweep of the essay that she wrote, what’s clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through — that will make her a good judge.”

The White House and its liberal supporters also dug up quotes from Republican-appointed justices, including Samuel A. Alito Jr., who said at his confirmation hearing that his immigrant roots played into his consideration of cases.

“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,” he said at the hearing, “I can’t help but think of my own ancestors because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.”



Its silly to think a person's past experiences wont
in someway affect judgement. The Supreme Court
takes on the very toughest cases. If the cases were
easy, they would all be 9-0.

This pontification about the Supreme Court having
to view the Constitution in a perfectly sterile way is
absurd, yet this is basically what we are fed.

If everything is so darn clear why do we have all these
5-4 decisions with dissents and opinions dressed up
by very good writers in order to appear to lack any political
or personal bias...

If you follow the Supreme Court you can usually pick which
judge voted where as long as the legal question is made clear.
Occasionally there are some surprises.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

But do you have anything outside of a comment, taken out of its proper context, that makes you think she's a racist, or are you just taking the wingnut bait?

Give me a decision. A comment in a decision. Anything from a decision anywhere -- and she has PLENTY of them -- that even comes close to making it seem like this comment actually plays out in her judicial philosophy in the activist way the wingnuts want you to think it will.

Methinks you will find nothing...which is why the scare quote is all anyone's got, because you better believe that if there was even anything CLOSE in one of her decisions, they'd be using that instead of this pathetic attempt at playing the racist/fear of the brown lady card. Since they don't have anything, they go back to their usual -- pulling things totally out of context to scare people...and you're falling for it.

Speaking of meat -- give me something meaty if you're going to go along with those opposing her. Out of context scare quote doesn't cut it...look how well that worked out in the last election.

I can think of a case that makes it seem like her comments play out in her judicial philosophy. How about the case involving the firefighters?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124354041637563491.html

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Gunna be an uphill climb for her. See, if you combine the racist comment with the legislating from the bench comment, then you've got (what I feel will be) quite a substantial problem. There's a good chance that you're gunna be against her for one of those two comments. Since they let Uncle Tom on there, I guess she has a chance to talk her way out of it in the hearings. OBA should have saved the bullets for healthcare. She's not worth what it's going to cost.

unless they dig up a corpse under her porch, it's going to be an easy downhill coast to confirmation.

most elected republicans are relieved someone more ideological wasn't nominated. many liberals may wish they had gotten the ideological choice but aren't going to oppose her.

supreme court nominations are fund raising opportunities for advocacy groups of all ideological stripes. the nominee doesn't matter in terms of whether there's going to be some "controversy" manufactured.

looking at a judicial record that shows no evidence of bias in favor of minorities and generally narrow rulings that apply only to a specific case, only the seriously uninformed could think this is a troubled nomination.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

unless they dig up a corpse under her porch, it's going to be an easy downhill coast to confirmation.

most elected republicans are relieved someone more ideological wasn't nominated. many liberals may wish they had gotten the ideological choice but aren't going to oppose her.

supreme court nominations are fund raising opportunities for advocacy groups of all ideological stripes. the nominee doesn't matter in terms of whether there's going to be some "controversy" manufactured.

looking at a judicial record that shows no evidence of bias in favor of minorities and generally narrow rulings that apply only to a specific case, only the seriously uninformed could think this is a troubled nomination.

I would agree with you that she is a very heavy favorite to be confirmed.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Mr. Obama and his aides responded by denouncing her critics while saying she had used a poor choice of words. “I’m sure she would have restated it,” Mr. Obama said on Friday. “But if you look in the entire sweep of the essay that she wrote, what’s clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through — that will make her a good judge.”

The White House and its liberal supporters also dug up quotes from Republican-appointed justices, including Samuel A. Alito Jr., who said at his confirmation hearing that his immigrant roots played into his consideration of cases.

“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,” he said at the hearing, “I can’t help but think of my own ancestors because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.”



Its silly to think a person's past experiences wont
in someway affect judgement. The Supreme Court
takes on the very toughest cases. If the cases were
easy, they would all be 9-0.

This pontification about the Supreme Court having
to view the Constitution in a perfectly sterile way is
absurd, yet this is basically what we are fed.

If everything is so darn clear why do we have all these
5-4 decisions with dissents and opinions dressed up
by very good writers in order to appear to lack any political
or personal bias...

If you follow the Supreme Court you can usually pick which
judge voted where as long as the legal question is made clear.
Occasionally there are some surprises.

i think you get 5/4 decisions because some think the constitution is a 'living, breathing' document, while others do not.
you have rulings such as roe v wade, where the justices who voted to allow abortion thought that said right was contained in the right to privacy-certainly abortion rights are not specifically named in the constitution.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Brian, How is the quote taken out of context? Does the quote have different meaning if you read her whole speech? I don't think so. If a white, Republican male made the same comments, would you be saying that it's a non-issue and simply scare tactics?

I think you are totally wrong in your assessment of this whole thing. As I said earlier, there are plenty of people that are fairly liberal such as Scuds who are troubled by the comments. I think it's insulting for you to say that anyone who disagrees with you on the issue must simply be falling for scare tactics. I think it's totally the opposite. Her comments are not taken out of context. I think people totally understand her comments and are offended by them. Did you consider the possibility that you may be biased on the subject and that you would find the comments offensive if she was a white, republican male?

I do think you are correct that her judicial record is more impotant than some quotes she has made. But I think her quotes are certainly something that people will and should consider just as they would if she was a white, republican male.

Of course I would find those comments offensive if a white, Republican male made them. Actually, perhaps offensive isn't the right word, but delusional would be better.

Only white, male, Republicans think that white, male, Republicans have some unique set of life experiences. Minorities of all kinds, folks without the sorts of built in privilege, DO have a unique view on things. I fully believe that, and it has nothing to do with quotas, affirmative action, or anything. White, male, heterosexual, Republicans would easily be the most privileged class of folks in the entire country, so of COURSE it would be different, because it would make absolutely no sense and it would rightly be seen as nothing but a racialist comment.

I firmly believe, and people can disagree all they want, that being a minority and having qualities about you that have no privilege does make one privy to a unique set of circumstances....and white, male, heterosexual, Republicans are about as privileged as you can get.

If the concept of privilege is lost on you, then I could type 80,000 words on it and you'll never get it.

EDIT: Let me add that I don't think that this unique set of experiences I'm talking about should influence her judicial philosophy, and she was being honest in that speech while acknowledging that it exists, how her striving to remain impartial is key. She knows that this potential bias is there, but she admits it's there and talks about how she avoids letting it influence her. The fact that she's a Latina isn't why I think she should be a judge, and she essentially admits as much in her speech. I take this whole dustup as nothing more than people interpreting something she said in a way she didn't mean it whatsoever, because to me, all she's done is acknowledge that minorities realize that their experience is unique in white America.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think you get 5/4 decisions because some think the constitution is a 'living, breathing' document, while others do not.
you have rulings such as roe v wade, where the justices who voted to allow abortion thought that said right was contained in the right to privacy-certainly abortion rights are not specifically named in the constitution.

neither is the right to privacy.

it did mention that slaves should be counted as 3/5 of a white man when doing a census to apportion representation in congress.

so we had that spelled out for us.

roe v wade was 7-2, btw.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Of course I would find those comments offensive if a white, Republican male made them. Actually, perhaps offensive isn't the right word, but delusional would be better.

Only white, male, Republicans think that white, male, Republicans have some unique set of life experiences. Minorities of all kinds, folks without the sorts of built in privilege, DO have a unique view on things. I fully believe that, and it has nothing to do with quotas, affirmative action, or anything. White, male, heterosexual, Republicans would easily be the most privileged class of folks in the entire country, so of COURSE it would be different, because it would make absolutely no sense and it would rightly be seen as nothing but a racialist comment.

I firmly believe, and people can disagree all they want, that being a minority and having qualities about you that have no privilege does make one privy to a unique set of circumstances....and white, male, heterosexual, Republicans are about as privileged as you can get.

If the concept of privilege is lost on you, then I could type 80,000 words on it and you'll never get it.

i'd just concede she misspoke.

if there was only one "wise" decision, then a wise white male should reach the same decision as a wise latina female.

in this sort of discourse you have to ignore that there isn't a single "wise" course and that all decisions have both bad and good consequences. you have to ignore context. you have to ignore nuance.

this part of the nomination process isn't about the nominee. it's political, not judicial.

she can't speak for herself in public until the judiciary committee hearings. in the meantime, all the "judicial watch" pac's have to justify their existence. this is when they get all their contribution's.

relax. every nominee goes through this process. no one will remember the "controversy" a year from now.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i'd just concede she misspoke.

That's what I'm doing -- it has nothing to do with being "wise" at all. It has to do with acknowledging a unique set of circumstances and being cognizant of their existence. And it has nothing to do with her judicial philosophy, which is why I characterize it as a scare quote...because it's being pulled out of this speech to prove one point, when the point she was making is a world away.

I'm not saying she's a better judge because of them...and she doesn't seem to think so either in the context of the entire speech she gave.

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think you get 5/4 decisions because some think the constitution is a 'living, breathing' document, while others do not.
you have rulings such as roe v wade, where the justices who voted to allow abortion thought that said right was contained in the right to privacy-certainly abortion rights are not specifically named in the constitution.

Clarence Thomas.
He wishes he was 3/5 of a man getting
beatn by guys with white wigs.

Events have arisen that the constitution could never have
imagined. So when problems arise as mentioned, one pigeon
holes the question to fit their particular moral comfort zone.

Living breathing document might not be the proper metaphor
but that is the way we get it fed to us. How about its very
old and there are certain issues that dont fit nicely
under anything that is written so we pretend like the constitution
does or does not say something on the issue..


Law and lawyers love word games. Intentions, beyond a reasonable
doubt, on and on... my little hang up.

[Honu]

Is she not American? Was she not born in this counrty and afforded all the rights that every other person born in America is?
It would be like me saying ( because of where my families came from) that as wise Germanic woman I would be wiser at making decsions than an American Indian when it pertains to someone of Germanic heritage. Its her belief that she would be better at coming to a judical conclussion when it pertains to someone of ethnenticity than someone who's direct heritage is not ethnic.
To me and it is only my opinion that should rule from the bench with no bias whatsoever.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Honu

Is she not American? Was she not born in this counrty and afforded all the rights that every other person born in America is?
It would be like me saying ( because of where my families came from) that as wise Germanic woman I would be wiser at making decsions than an American Indian when it pertains to someone of Germanic heritage. Its her belief that she would be better at coming to a judical conclussion when it pertains to someone of ethnenticity than someone who's direct heritage is not ethnic.
To me and it is only my opinion that should rule from the bench with no bias whatsoever.

she was born in the bronx and was raised by a single mother. that's the same demographic that usually results in a career path as a stripper.

instead she graduated from princeton and then yale law school.

her legal opinions are narrow and show no bias.

a dropout from southeast missouri state university with a drug problem tells you she's a reverse racist and unqualified for the supreme court. you take that as gospel?

[Honu]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

she was born in the bronx and was raised by a single mother. that's the same demographic that usually results in a career path as a stripper.

instead she graduated from princeton and then yale law school.

her legal opinions are narrow and show no bias.

a dropout from southeast missouri state university with a drug problem tells you she's a reverse racist and unqualified for the supreme court. you take that as gospel?

Hey man its just my opinon , everyday folks grow up and live thru hard lives and are succesful , my parents divorced when I was 14 years old and I somehow managed to grow up to be a productive member of society.
My cousin who works for the Secret Service grew up with an alcoholic abusive father somehow managed to get educated and be a part of President Clintons team of protection.
My friend the Harvard graduated podiatrist somehow managed to become successfull despite the fact that his father died when he was 3.
I have no idea who the drop out is that you are talking about , I do my own reading and I havent come to a final conclusion about her but just the little that I have researched leads me to believe that she perhaps might rule with more empathy than I would prefer.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

But do you have anything outside of a comment, taken out of its proper context, that makes you think she's a racist, or are you just taking the wingnut bait?

She didn't say a Conservative White Male, or a Republican White Male. She didn't say a rich white male, or a white male from a well to do family. She singled out a group based solely on sex and race. You(on the other hand) have used Republican White Males as a group that is privileged. At least you've used something besides sex n' race. You've at least used someone's political outlook. She simply used sex n' race. I think it's too big of a brush for someone to be using if they are going to be considered for a spot on the Supreme Court. I considerate quite odd to want to ignore a comment she made that singled out a group of judges based solely on their sex n' race. I don't know why anybody would want her after reading she said that. Minorities have got to someday get beyond the blame whitey man attitude that she represented quite well in that statement(I consider it to be nothing less than her showing you her subtle racist/sexist view of the world.) I think he should find someone better than that. Plenty of people have lost jobs for these types of public statements. Trying to prop her up shows you're not out for equality or fairness (as you correctly do in the gay marriage issue) in judges, because your willing to overlook the same type of sexist-racist remarks that I'm sure you would find inappropriate for many others to express. It's a double standard. I do not see the immigrant statement made by Judge Sam to be like this. Having some bias towards immigrants is not the same as having a bias against someone of a specific sex and/or race. If you objectively look at this, she shows signs of having bias against white males, and that really should make her unacceptable. I'm sure he can find a Liberal Judge that is much less biased against a specific sex and/or race. No matter the huge effort you put into to denying it, that is a sexist/ racist statement she made. I don't have to overlook it just because she's a Liberal Judge that I would probably agree with on most issues. I see no reason to. Why should I?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Trying to prop her up shows you're not out for equality or fairness (as you correctly do in the gay marriage issue) in judges, because your willing to overlook the same type of sexist-racist remarks that I'm sure you would find inappropriate for many others to express.....

...

If you objectively look at this, she shows signs of having bias against white males, and that really should make her unacceptable.

I am objectively looking at it, and I don't see it as any kind of bias whatsoever. I believe that people's unique set of perspectives should be acknowledged....and judge Sotomayor apparently seems to as well.

I'm far more concerned with her case history, and her upholding the NH firefighter case is hardly some smoking gun of a "blame whitey" mentality that you want to make this out to be. There's nothing objectionable in her case history, and that's the point I keep trying to make.

If this quote ACTUALLY means what you keep saying it means....how come she's done a 100% great job of hiding it through countless decisions...throughout her entire life, for that matter?

She must be really stupid then, to be hiding it all this time and then in a moment of weakness in a prepared speech, just freely admit it. Please. The point here is that it you can say all day long that she's some secret whitey-hating racist sexist manhater, but the fact remains that it's clear she's not and her case history proves that a billion times over. And that's what a judge is supposed to be, right....a judge? So until there's a real problem with her history of being a judge, this is all way blown out of proportion.

And like HIG said earlier...this is all politics. Since there's nothing in her case history to complain about, this is the outrage du jour. It'll be forgotten in short order and she'll be a fine justice on the Supreme Court. Good will win out over selective outrage every day of the week....sometimes it just takes awhile for people to calm down and regain their bearings. I'm confident that this will all turn out the way it should, and that's why it's all so entertaining to me for the time being.

[gales0678]

what's funny here is President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada to the supreme court - i believe he was the 1st hispanic nominated for the highest judical office in the land

dems absoultley de-railed him and treated him with a total lack of respect , all because he was there worst nightmare - a hispanic who actually had conservative views , the media is a total joke - remember the ny times has to pay loan shark fees to stay in business folks

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by gales0678

what's funny here is President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada to the supreme court - i believe he was the 1st hispanic nominated for the highest judical office in the land

dems absoultley de-railed him and treated him with a total lack of respect , all because he was there worst nightmare - a hispanic who actually had conservative views , the media is a total joke - remember the ny times has to pay loan shark fees to stay in business folks

stand corrected folks he was nominated for the dc court of appeals , not the supreme court (but basically the 2nd highest court in the land)

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by gales0678

stand corrected folks he was nominated for the dc court of appeals , not the supreme court (but basically the 2nd highest court in the land)

But there was a little more of a solid paper trail that could be attacked than one quote that has been analyzed to death..

Let's talk about Clarence Thomas....forget about pubic hairs and sexual innuendos..hey..it's just the "office"..this man NEVER did sh*t in his life other than be a conservative black man who, ironically, got where he was because of Democratic policies. He by far is the dumbest judge...even traffic court..that I have ever seen. At least Scalia can justify his personal beliefs and judgements by citing the constitution like Oral Roberts does the Bible. That's what makes him brilliant...otherwise he's just Ann Coulter with a beer belly.

Originally Posted by GBBob

But there was a little more of a solid paper trail that could be attacked than one quote that has been analyzed to death..

Let's talk about Clarence Thomas....forget about pubic hairs and sexual innuendos..hey..it's just the "office"..this man NEVER did sh*t in his life other than be a conservative black man who, ironically, got where he was because of Democratic policies. He by far is the dumbest judge...even traffic court..that I have ever seen. At least Scalia can justify his personal beliefs and judgements by citing the constitution like Oral Roberts does the Bible. That's what makes him brilliant...otherwise he's just Ann Coulter with a beer belly.

Oddly enough it is fairly evident that Scalia
really does not respect Thomas, even though
these two have probably voted the same way
more times than any two judges currently on the
court.

wish I knew how to look that up.
Stevens and Ginsberg are probably close also.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I am objectively looking at it, and I don't see it as any kind of bias whatsoever.

I'm not gunna give you the quote again. If you look at that quote objectively, she's talking about her sex, her race, the male sex, and the white race. She said someone of her sex n' race would be better at something than a male member of a specific race. Yes, we normally do tolerate a sexist-racist statement like this from some members of our society. You choose to continue to do that, and I think people who want an important public service position (like this one) should not be given the pass(unless you want all members of society to get the same pass.) Oh, and yes, I do think she was stupid to say it. Like I said before, I think the statement shows enough subtle sexism, and racism to make her inappropriate for this(mainy because we don't have to settle.) If she is allowed to get on that court, a message will be sent to people of her community (and other ones) that it's o.k. to make a sexist-racist statement if you're a member of a minority group. It's 2009, and it's time to stop giving out that message. Unlike the majority of Liberals, I am not being a hypocrite about this.