Sotomayor a racist? Oh, the stupidity!
I’m working on a longer and I hope more well-researched piece on this topic, but let me jump in with this:
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has joined Rush Limbaugh and others in attacking Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a racist. In a recent post on Twitter, Gingrich wrote:
“White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”
The sole basis of that explosive charge is a single sentence in a much longer speech by Sotomayor in 2002. In that speech, she notes that “there can never be a universal definition of wise,” then states:
“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.”
In other words, Sotomayor hopes that her life experiences would make her a better judge than someone without those experiences. On that basis, she is supposedly a racist who must now withdraw.
The stupidity of that argument is stunning.
As I noted, that single sentence comes from a major speech, available here in its entirety. The following excerpts help put the sentence in context:
“…. Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society….
I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. ….
The aspiration to impartiality is just that — it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.
…. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald, formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father’s visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women’s claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants’ claims in search and seizure cases.
…. 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 (v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruling that ended segregation).
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.
…. Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. 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. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
Quite the racist, isn’t she?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
330 comments Add your comment
RealityKing
May 27th, 2009
4:51 pm
Prejudice is a better word…
RealityKing
May 27th, 2009
4:54 pm
But as NJ correctly states, it doesn’t really matter what or who Obama puts forth because dems have the votes to ram any nominee down our throats. Exactly what Obama promised not to do last year..
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
4:56 pm
RW-(the original),
“I’m going to have to learn to quit typing in the freaking comment box around here.”
I’ve noticed comments on my Blackberry that do not appear on my computer either at home or the office. Weird.
not really
May 27th, 2009
4:56 pm
“Not to mention her extremely high rate of decisions being reversed.”
Out of 400 rulings, 2 have been reversed by the Supremes. Facts really mean nothing in this debate do they?
Mrs. Godzilla
May 27th, 2009
4:57 pm
Reality King
High rate of reversal? Really?
“out of the 380-odd opinions she penned while on the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court granted cert on just six. And of those six, Sotomayor was reversed on only three. That’s a .500 batting average, a figure even Ted Williams would have to admire.”
better pass up the GOP talking points and do a little independent study.
you could start here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2170477/
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
4:58 pm
That’s a pretty cool “analysis” Mrs. G. All one needs do is come up with a nifty new definition for activist judge and Presto!
The nerve of Justice Thomas being the #1 best at doing his job!!!
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
4:58 pm
RealityKing,
Was there ever a real chance that the Republicans were not going to universally reject whatever candidate was put forth simply as political posturing?
@@
May 27th, 2009
4:58 pm
So tell me, Mrs. G, who, in the workplace, is entitled to protection under Title VII, civil rights law? Is there a preference given and if so, what is it based on?
ty webb
May 27th, 2009
4:58 pm
DB,
No problem.
Tamye Bobyie Huntyr
May 27th, 2009
4:59 pm
I say, I say son, I have been called a racist for many decades now and I can not for the life of me figure out why. My ancient and distinguish family has kept the darkies in employment since they were emancipated by that dear unenlightened man Lincoln. Now I ask you, how can someone who lets darkies clean their toilets and suckle their children be in any way shape or form a racist? And since we started buying those darkies way back in the 1600’s we Huntyr menfolk have had intimate relations with our darkie women, and I truly believe they enjoyed it, at least the ruckess they kicked up was more than Mrs Huntyr ever did. Now I ask you again, how can a man who would lay down with a darkie ever be labeled a racist? I for one just need to let the general public on this here AJC blog know that I, Tamye Bobyie Huntyr is NOT a racist nor have I ever been a racist. Damn, I bet I have little halfbreed Huntyrs running around all over South America.
Wells
May 27th, 2009
5:01 pm
Byll
One definition of racist–a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
5:01 pm
RW-(the original),
“All one needs do is come up with a nifty new definition for activist judge and Presto!”
I asked Joey the same thing with no response, what would your criteria for an “activist” judge be based on?
This is theirs: “Here is the question we asked: How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?
Declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional is the boldest thing a judge can do. That’s because Congress, as an elected legislative body representing the entire nation, makes decisions that can be presumed to possess a high degree of democratic legitimacy.”
Kamchak
May 27th, 2009
5:01 pm
I’m not a racist. I am using the forces of the free market to maximize MY profits. Tell me Byll, did you pay these immigrants the same wage? Did these immigrants live, 6-10 adults per apartment or house? As one who has worked construction since the 70’s I have seen contractors and builders put more money in their pockets by utilizing immigrant labor. And don’t tell me how bad these poor builders have it–I have helped build the homes they now live in.
booger
May 27th, 2009
5:02 pm
jewboy,
He lost his job because of his words at Strom’s party. There was no cumulative effect. The media decided to make a ruling, and he was out. No fear of the media in this case though.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
5:03 pm
I might be shallow, but TBH @ 4.59 might be the single funniest thing on the Internets ever.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
5:03 pm
jewcowboy,
I typed another short comment down there to try to jump start the thread and it posted so this must be one of those things where I hit one of Jay B’s secret words that keep posts from showing up. I don’t know how considering the subject matter, but it was too lengthy to recreate and probably too dry to care about.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
5:05 pm
DB, Gwinnettian,
“I might be shallow, but TBH @ 4.59 might be the single funniest thing on the Internets ever.”
My thoughts exactly. I nearly choked on my water.
Midori
May 27th, 2009
5:09 pm
Gee, using language like that I can tell you’ve been wronged. Did you refer to Bush as the Creamy Success?
Is Jewcowboy in rare form today, or what??
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
5:09 pm
jewcowboy,
It’s basically their job description to strike down unconstitutional law when presented with a case. The only time I would put that in the activist category would be if they did it outside the scope of a case being presented.
What I mainly consider an activist judge is one that will not stop at striking down an unconstitutional law but go on to say what the law must be,
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
5:10 pm
booger,
He lost his post as Majority Leader not his job. He lost his post from those within his own party in the Senate and the White House. The media is to blame for the Republicans weakness to stand behind one of their own?
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
5:11 pm
JC, it had me at “My ancient and distinguish family”.
Pogo
May 27th, 2009
5:12 pm
If mediocrity is acceptable to you leftists (and apparently it is, considering who is now president) then this gal is perfect for you. She isn’t that smart and she certainly has no concept of “Blind Justice”. She does however carry the liberal flag proudly and loudly and she strongly believes in using the court to carry out liberal political doctrine (which is precisely why she was chosen by O’bawahwah in the first place). What would have happened if a white male would have said what she said about “life experience”? Once again Jay, you are a Hypocrit and your little facists buddies are to.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
5:12 pm
RW-(the original),
“What I mainly consider an activist judge is one that will not stop at striking down an unconstitutional law but go on to say what the law must be,”
And the metrics for that would be?
@@
May 27th, 2009
5:13 pm
Off Topic!
Pakistan’s Supreme Court on May 26 overturned an earlier ruling that prohibited former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from running for public office. Sharif, currently the most popular politician in Pakistan, is seen as an anti-establishment politician — and one the military is likely to have problems with. The United States (Obama) has been warming up to Sharif lately, but even if he and his party were to come into power in Islamabad, Washington still would have no good choices in Pakistan.
That’s putting it mildly.
While Sharif would be willing to work with Washington to enhance the power of the civilians over the military, he has his redlines. The PML-N chief is staunchly opposed to the unilateral airstrikes conducted by U.S. unmanned aerial vehicles in Pakistan’s tribal belt. He also wants all national security and foreign policy issues to be channeled through parliament, which would complicate Washington’s dealings with Islamabad on the jihadist war. Sharif, given his own ideological inclinations and populist stance, would be reluctant to make the tough decisions in the fight against jihadism and would be more inclined to negotiate settlements with what in his view are reconcilable Islamist forces.
Midori
May 27th, 2009
5:14 pm
Pogo isn’t a bigoted slug, but he did stay in a Holiday Inn Express.
DoggoneGA
May 27th, 2009
5:14 pm
“If mediocrity is acceptable to you leftists ”
Got ALL the talking points down pat…don’t cha? Do you get them via email or fax, or are they transmitted directly to your head?
DoggoneGA
May 27th, 2009
5:15 pm
“And the metrics for that would be?”
There aren’t any. An “activist judge” is one who’s decision goes counter to whatever “you” think it should have been.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
5:17 pm
Pogo,
My those are some sour grapes. Were you this worked up over Scalia and Thomas? Or were those just your type of judges who carry the conservative flag proudly and loudly and who strongly believe in using the court to carry out conservative political doctrine?
S GA dem
May 27th, 2009
5:17 pm
Pogo, Where were your ‘mediocrity’ comments when you chose to elect a ‘c’ student to run our country? How many businesses did Georgie bankrupt before deciding to go into politics? How many bankrupt business ventures would it have taken for the right to acknowledge that GWB is the definition of mediocre??
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
5:20 pm
S GA dem,
“How many bankrupt business ventures would it have taken for the right to acknowledge that GWB is the definition of mediocre??”
Not even bankrupting the U.S. has allowed them to acknowledge his mediocrity.
I Rule You :-) / You Whine :-(
May 27th, 2009
5:23 pm
After the wind blows down the teleprompter of Vice President Biden at the Air Force Academy graduation he joked “what am I going to tell the President when I tell him his teleprompter is broken? What will he do then?”
Bwahahahaha. good one, Plugs!
Alec Martin
May 27th, 2009
5:23 pm
This nomination is not about race or gender.
It’s about qualifications and a vow to uphold The Consitution and The Rule of Law.
Neither of which Obama or Sotomajor have any interest in-
Except to change it, shred it and remake it-because the framers got it wrong.
Republicans need to “grow a pair” and Filibuster this nominee and fight for what is right- The Constitution.
Not gender or race.
Or her “compelling life story” or empathy.
4 out of 5 of her opinions have been overturned by the Supreme Court.
She is admittedly biased- and yes, racist.
She has admitted that she is about “making policy”-not the rule of law.
Ah- sorry, I though we had a Legislative Branch for this.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
5:24 pm
Ok, RW, I see your comment now. I guess it was there earlier and I just missed it…
I can’t stand the thought of public financing and a whole new can of worms is opened there by figuring out at what level you allow a candidate to take financing, but it almost seems like the way things are going that might be the only thing that works
Welcome aboard.
RealityKing
May 27th, 2009
5:26 pm
Sotomayor has a 60% reversal rate by the high court.., not counting the lastest prejudice ruling over firefighter promotions.
Chris http://www.buffalobullet.blogspot.com
May 27th, 2009
5:28 pm
“Old Rush and Newt got her pegged. They are never wrong. Who are you going to beleive, a bunch of libruls trying to pass off this racist radical as normal or old Rush and Newt?”
I think I’ll go along with the “libruls” on that one. Sotomayor will make a great Supreme Court Justice. Her background, and her experience make her a lot more trustworthy than most Judges I know, especially in my city (Buffalo NY). If you take Rush and Newt (who should know better to even listen to a cartoon character like Limbaugh) at their words, you’ll be sucking your brain out your head at their convenience the rest of your life.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
5:31 pm
jewcowboy,
I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at with the metrics question. Admittedly part of it might because Maria Sharapova is currently playing on ESPN2HD, but let me know what you’re talking about and I’ll try to answer.
Jake
May 27th, 2009
5:31 pm
It doesn’t look like Obama will be able to radically change the makeup of the Court unless soemone dies unexpectedly. So we’ll still have Roe v Wade and several affirmative action by another name majority opinions written by the estimable Ms. Sotomayor.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
5:33 pm
DB,
I think Jay B went in and rescued it from whatever fault holds the offending posts. If so thanks, Jay B!
Welcome aboard what? I was more torn after I typed that than I was when it was rolling around in my head.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
5:35 pm
fault is a little known alternate spelling for vault too.
@@
May 27th, 2009
5:35 pm
Castro’s daughter: Cuba to reinstate sex changes
Some Cubans protested the decision last year to allow the operations, either because of general opposition to the procedure or for its high costs for a developing country with economic problems.
What? The groveling masses weren’t eager to share the wealth…the “government” resources?
The government would bear the cost of the operations because Cuba has a universal health care system.
A little research revealed that the cost of sex reassignment surgery can exceed $50,000 very quickly.
Compare that to the cost of a twinkie addiction.
DoggoneGA
May 27th, 2009
5:39 pm
“Sotomayor has a 60% reversal rate by the high court”
Which is about the average reversal rate for all cases the court chooses to accept. 3 out of 5 cases. BIG DEAL. How many decisions did she make that never even had to go the Supreme Court? 300? 400? You need to find better nits to pick.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
5:40 pm
Welcome aboard what?
The Good Ship Public Campaign Financing, of course, if I read you right.
gotta run. Later, all. Sock it to ‘em, JB!
SaveOurRepublic
May 27th, 2009
5:40 pm
Normal @ 15:57 – I’m certainly not above being wrong & am receptive to correction. Can you specify where you believe I mistaken? Thanks.
I Rule You :-) / You Whine :-(
May 27th, 2009
5:41 pm
By the way, bookman has no idea how he is going to defend this racist remark but he is under orders from the DNC or else! So up pops the little fishing expedition, under the guise of further “deep thinking to follow,” with the real intentions of poaching some of the ideas we offer up in our comments.
Hence, I am unable to unload the bomb on bookman because I know he will steal it and a freaking full page article will appear in the Urinal forthwith and it would probably win him the Pukelitizer.
So, na na na na, I’m not telling.
I rule.
Ray
May 27th, 2009
5:43 pm
Newt in line at a McCain/Palin rally?
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
5:46 pm
DB,
You read me right up to a point but you didn’t follow through to the conclusion. I kind of like the anonymous small donor through independent approval idea.
Kamchak
May 27th, 2009
5:57 pm
Andy @5:41
I’ll try to contain my disappointment.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
6:18 pm
Not only that, there is a gaping hole a mile wide in prop 8. Since it is not retroactive, they must recognize 18,000 marriages that occured before it. But the catch is that means that they MUST also recognize the marriages of gays from OTHER states.
The reason prop 8 passed is that the gays and liberals did a terrible job of getting out the vote.
Democrats make up 42 percent of the vote in California and of the Democrats that voted 64 percent voted AGAINST prop 8.
Independents make up 28 percent of the electorate and 54 percent of them voted against prop 8.
Republicans make up 29 percent of the vote, and they voted 82 percent FOR prop 8.
All gays need to do to get this overturned, and they could easily do it by next year, is to get a LARGER percent of Democrats and independents to actually turnout on this issue. They were rabbit punched by the Mormon church so the Republican voters turned out in much greater numbers than the GLBT community anticipated. They could EASILY slaughter the Republicans in a revote on a new proposition if they simply raised the Democratic and Independent turnout by as little as five percent, even if every Republican in the state came out to vote and a significantly smaller percentage of Democrats came out.
The BEST thing to do is wait to get it on the November 2010 ballot. Republicans are tracking dismally in California for 2010, and there is enough outrage at the Republican Governor for a new pro gay marriage ballot initiative to ride in on the coattails of any Republican nominee. Even the best they have to offer, Meg Whitmire is fighting an uphill battle against either of the Democratic nominees. And one one of them is Governor Moonbeam, Jerry Brown, the Republicans are in serious trouble. The people in California blame their economic mess on their Republican governor, and no amount of attempting to blame the legislature is going to stick in this case. With the massive state layoffs and furloughs the Republicans can come in with no more than 45-48 percent of the gubernatorial race, regardless of who they put up.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
6:22 pm
Top Republican doubts filibuster against Sotomayor
2009 The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday he doesn’t foresee a filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, even though he thinks her legal philosophy should be closely examined.
“The nominee has serious problems,” Sen. Jeff Sessions said in a nationally broadcast interview. “But I would think that we would all have a good hearing, take our time, and do it right. And then the senators cast their vote up or down based on whether or not they think this is the kind of judge that should be on the court.”
“I don’t sense a filibuster in the works,” the Alabama Republican said, after President Barack Obama’s call for the Senate to install his history-making choice of the 54-year-old Sotomayor to succeed Justice David Souter on the high court. She would be the first Hispanic justice to serve there.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6443839.html
As I said, the Republican dont have the national positioning to even attempt a filibuster, and Sessions knows it. He is quite aware of the Republican position on Roberts and Alito, and this is not far enough in the past for anyone to have forgotten the Republican insistance on EVERY PRESIDENTS NOMINEE DESERVING AN UP OR DOWN VOTE.
In their eye.
Normal
May 27th, 2009
6:24 pm
SaveOurRepublic,
All I’m trying to point out is that I feel that you fail to see
that the Supreme Court IS the last word.
The last side of the Checks and Balances triangle, therefore they make policy.
Any ruling they make becomes law, period. The fear people have over
Sotomayor (not necessarily you) beliefs, opinions, whatever is unfounded. Her opinions are watered down by eight other opinions. I personally believe that she will be in the majority perhaps one out
of ten times. She is replacing Ginsberg, another woman and was also
picked by a very astute politician because of her race. In the long
run she will be a non-factor. My belief anyway.
Kamchak, I too think Heinlein got better with age. I’m going to un-
crate my collection and enjoy some good reading again.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
6:24 pm
Hey Jay, this post made it into the top two sets of news items on Google when you Google “Sotomayor”. Good work.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
6:24 pm
RW,
If one is going to determine something such as who is the most “activist” justice without it being simply opinion, some sort of unbiased measure must be laid out. The fellow laid out theirs based on the number of laws passed by Congress being overturned as unConstitutional. What measurement would you consider fair and un-biased? Otherwise it’s just your opinion vs. mine.
Joey
May 27th, 2009
6:24 pm
Mrs. Godzilla:
Your position is:
You accept an Op-Ed from the NYTimes as being factual, thus if I disagree I must prove that the Op-Ed that you accepted without question or doubt is not accurate or factual.
Where exactly is your proof that the Opinion you accepted is factual and accurate. It is an Opinion. Your challenge to disprove an Opinion has the same validity as the Opinion.
That may seem to you to be a valid challenge, but you are wrong.
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
6:29 pm
Joey,
Did you read the piece in the NYT or just Mrs. G’s post?
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
6:30 pm
There are some crazies on this blog ex; Wyld Byll Hyltnyr and Tammie whatever the Darkie.
Anyway Ms. Sotomayor is a great pick I am so proud that Pres. Obama has foresight and good knowledge and judgement. As for her comment: like usual only the Relosers would cut only a part and try to make a mountain out of a mole hill. For those who would like to be educated just read the below link to her speech in 2001 and for those who are waiting for their darkie nanny or another darkie to education them here it is: Educate Yourself it is so Liberating.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1
Title of Article: Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’ see below cut section of speech where she says that.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
TnGelding
May 27th, 2009
6:33 pm
DoggoneGA
May 27th, 2009
5:39 pm
Like the “high court” has never been wrong.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
6:42 pm
jewcowboy,
I pretty well laid out why their definition was about 180 degrees off in my first paragraph at 5:09. I’m not really interested in playing a game of semantics with you though. If you want to think a body whose job it is to determine Constitutionality of laws, and does just that, is working outside the scope of their job description it’s fine with me.
que
May 27th, 2009
6:47 pm
blind justice?
“I warn Latinos in this room: Latinas are making a lot of progress in the old-boy network.
Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”
Paul
May 27th, 2009
6:47 pm
Wow, gone for a couple hours and zing! Nearly 200 comments. Congrats, Jay, this beats the socks off the Calif Supremes slapdown on gay marriage for ginning up interest.
I’m interested in why just ‘racist’ – from Newt’s comment to your emphasis. Seems ’sexist’ could be slipped right in there, also.
I wasn’t struck as much by the comparison to the ‘white male’ thing in “would more often than not reach a better conclusion” as I was by the word “better.” That seems to me to be the crux of the issue. Better. Not as good as. Not legally innovative, brilliant, consistent. But ‘better.’
And, she never substantiated how or why. Custody and protective law cases? I wonder what appeals court numbers those cases comprise. Could a white male judge say that based upon the richness of his life experiences he’d render a ‘better’ decision on matters of corporate law than could a latina woman? It’s possible, given the decidedly pro-corporate decisions of Judge Sotomayor. Maybe those white guys are a little more practical and a little less theoretical when it comes to big business?
This couldn’t be another Newt/Rush diversion, could it? Diversion, maybe, for the farfarleft when they examine her record and find out she isn’t the flaming liberal activist judge on a broad spectrum of issues as they’d thought?
Hello RW-(the original)
That campaign financing issue strikes me as another of those theory/reality issues. I rather like your compromise position – I think it’s one that we may get to and that may pass Constitutional muster.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
6:56 pm
Paul,
That compromise popped into my head as soon as my brain felt the horror of typing words of support for public financing.
That’s why it follows what DB excepted.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
6:57 pm
Or even excerpted….
Geez
Paul
May 27th, 2009
7:02 pm
RW-(the original)
Hmmm. You’re more flexible that Spkr Pelosi! Y’know, for all the mocking by the farLeft of the religious right, the farLeft sure does endow their leaders with the same kind of omniscient, all-knowing, ‘We know the Truth and What’s Right more than you heathens do’ and ‘we will never compromise’ characteristics with which they caricature the religious right -
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
7:15 pm
Cute trick on the blog tonight. I went to the comment box to answer Paul’s comment that isn’t here anymore and a 4 step process for subscribing popped up.
Paul,
It’s a work in progress. You and I will have to hash it before the 2010 elections get cranked up.
pat
May 27th, 2009
7:16 pm
I am more concerned with the fact that she said that the judicial branch is “…where policy is made”. That shows an astounding ignorace of the Constitution in itself. Furhter the fact that she apparently uses race as a crutch and you have a bonafide incompetant activist judge.
I am hispanic too..I have never used it as an excuse or a method of expression as my lot in life as being different than anybody elses. To say otherwise is simply dishonest.
If she feels her race or sex gives her any advantage in judging cases she is unqualified to judge anybody, ever, muchless the Supreme Court.
I’ll just heap this on top of the long list of obama failures, he’s making record time.
Ghost
May 27th, 2009
7:32 pm
It’s racism.
Had the reverse comment been spoken by a white man, it would have been considered an outrage. And if we are to believe that all she meant was to express the value of diversity, why did she assert that one is “better” (her word) than the other? It’s racism. No question.
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
7:41 pm
Pat: Stop just taking a clip or listening to faux news for your information. Do some research first then make judgement. Please see below statement in its entirety THEN you can blame GOD for OBAMA being BORN–what a wicked GOD for you pro-lifers. There will be a time when the dinosaurs will turn to ashes.
SOTOMAYOR: The saw is that if you’re going into academia, you’re going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is — court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know — and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. OK, I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it, I’m — you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating — its interpretation, its application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you’re on the district court, you’re looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so you’re always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, “I don’t care about the next step,” and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say, “We’ll worry about that when we get to it” — look at what the Supreme Court just did. But the point is that that’s the differences — the practical differences in the two experiences are the district court is controlled chaos and not so controlled most of the time.
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
7:43 pm
Sonia Sotomayor will be nominated and placed and the first Latina US Supreme Court Judge. Go Sonia……
Michael H. Smith
May 27th, 2009
7:43 pm
You are BS-ing all the way Bookman. That one sentence in the same totality of context given in the reverse had a white male said the same words it would destroy that man publically for life, as it “rightly should” and you know it.
Oh, the Bigotry!
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
7:47 pm
Ghost: Maybe you people need affirmative action.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
7:52 pm
Some time ago RW rote:
I kind of like the anonymous small donor through independent approval idea.
Oh, I know. I just jumped on the juicy news bit that was worth quoting.
I didn’t intend for that to be a statement about how the next SCOTUS justice’s remarks about her ethnicity / making policy have been similarly distorted by removing them from context but, what the heck, maybe there’s a bit of truth in that too.
For what it’s worth, I see your point about anonymous small donors–it always kinda creeps me out just a bit that any anti-abortion nut (for example) can look up and find out that I’ve contributed to Candidate X on his hit-list.
Jesus
May 27th, 2009
7:52 pm
She’s a racist!
Impeach Obama now!
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
7:55 pm
“Had the reverse comment been spoken by a white man”
Oh, please, just stop with this stupid meme already, conservatives. It’s obviously not the same thing. We’ve been over this a kajillion times, and while it may play well in the Moron Belt it’s still wrong.
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
7:57 pm
Jesus: Let’s Impeach Jesus NOW.
Palin 2012…..
jewcowboy
May 27th, 2009
7:59 pm
RW-(the original),
“That’s a pretty cool “analysis” Mrs. G. All one needs do is come up with a nifty new definition for activist judge and Presto!”
“I’m not really interested in playing a game of semantics with you though. If you want to think a body whose job it is to determine Constitutionality of laws, and does just that, is working outside the scope of their job description it’s fine with me.”
Then why did you even bother responding to Mrs. G’s post in the first place?
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
7:59 pm
He statement is absolutely true. The JUDICIAL branch IS where policy is made. They look at legislation, determine if it is constitutional or unconstitutional, and it is EXACTLY at the point at which law is interrepted by ANY branch where policy is made.
The EXECUTIVE branch makes policy in the same way. It INTERPRETS the laws passed by Congress and then “CODIFIES” those laws. That is it breaks up each law and INTERPRETS how it applies to each department run by the executive branch. When the Judiciary decides how a law is to be interpreted, that is DEFINING policy. It always has been.
Only one who is PROFOUNDLY ignorant of how laws get turned into practice would make such a dumb comment.
godless heathen
May 27th, 2009
7:59 pm
White men are better at interpreting law than Hispanic women.
How you like that statement, Jay?
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
8:00 pm
Then why did you even bother responding to Mrs. G’s post in the first place?
He’s distracted by the hawt tennis players on the tube. Duh.
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
8:01 pm
DB, Gwinnettian : I agree…no matter how much factual information and knowledge you give to these people they will always try to find a way to twist it–I think they really believe the nonsense they preach–I’ve come to the conclusion that igorance can’t be changed.
The Moron Belt lives on…..
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
8:02 pm
godless heathen: Black men are better at interpreting law than white women. Yeah I said it….
Michael H. Smith
May 27th, 2009
8:03 pm
“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,” said Judge Sotomayor
Now reverse that statement as follows:
I would hope that a wise white Anglo male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a brown Latino woman who hasn’t lived that life. said Judge White Guy
Do you think if a white male judge from any court in this land had ever made that statement in his lifetime that he would still be under consideration at this moment to sit on the bench of the highest court of this land?
I’d be the first one to say get rid of that Supreme Omnipotent Bigot, right now!
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
8:04 pm
DB,
Except what you excerpted from my comment really did change the message through lack of context and nothing in that speech changes Sotomayor’s message. In fact the more you read of it the more it gets reinforced. You have to cherry pick paragraphs like Jay B did to attempt to make that sound like an isolated comment.
Anyway, Wipeout is on and that’s a train wreck nobody should miss.
See y’all
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
8:04 pm
Shorter stupid conservatives, today:
“White guys can’t say stuff that brown women can! Wahhhh!”
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
8:05 pm
You can’t lead a horse to water but you can let it drown.
N.J,
May 27th, 2009
8:05 pm
Again Sotomayors point about the interpretation of law being the place that policy is made and created is absolutely correct. When laws are passed by Congress, you will NEVER see them in the same form in the Code of Federal Regulations even REMOTELY resembling the bill the Congress signed. Each department looks at the law and then INTERPRETS how it applies to their department. When the Judiciary looks at a law it interprets how that law actually works when it is applied to different areas of government. That IS the essence of making policy.
When the courts decide what a particular law MEANS with regard to how it is being applied by a department, it is making policy. When the SUPREME Court said it was ILLEGAL to do certain things with regard to particular terrorist detainees, it was making policy. It said the president could NOT try them in Guantanamo, but HAD to try them in U.S. Courts. THAT IS MAKING POLICY and it is a policy that the current Supreme Court made. The president had to alter policy to fit that decision.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
8:06 pm
nothing in that speech changes Sotomayor’s message.
If you seriously have a problem with Sotomayor’s message in that speech, then I’m seriously worried about your sense of proportion.
(ok, not seriously, more like a little more than I was before.)
demwit
May 27th, 2009
8:07 pm
Sotomayor has such a compelling story! She’s hispanic! She’s a woman! She was raised by a single parent! She’s angry! She hates white people! I’m so overjoyed, this is a first! What?
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
8:08 pm
jewcowboy,
Because had she chosen to engage she’s capable of trying to make her argument through examples and cases. You just wanted to play word games.
Midori
May 27th, 2009
8:09 pm
Sotomayor’s Reversals No Different Than Souter Or Alito
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/27/sotomayors-reversals-no-d_n_208362.html
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
8:09 pm
By the way, if you want an actual intelligent discussion about this particular nominee and what her ethnicity brings to the table? Strongly suggest you download this podcast and skip to about the 15.00 mark… I learned a lot about her background, and quite a bit about Puerto Rico’s legal status, too.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
8:11 pm
Demwit, if you really believe that she’s angry and that she hates white people…
Well, you may be a redneck.
RW-(the original)
May 27th, 2009
8:11 pm
HEY! The hawt tennis player won too so she’ll be back on soon.
Note to self: Bookmark the French Open schedule.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 27th, 2009
8:13 pm
HEY! The hawt tennis player won too so she’ll be back on soon.
It’s a hetero thing. JC wouldn’t understand.
Later, all.
mike
May 27th, 2009
8:15 pm
Newt’s accusations of racism are pretty hateful.
That being said, plenty of the folks on this blog regularly call Republicans racist and that is equally hateful. Jenene Garafalo recently accused all of the Tax protesters as being racists. Jay himself made a big deal over Westmoreland’s use of the term “uppity” and dismissed his rebuttal that there was nothing racial intended in his remarks.
If you think accusing someone of racism is wrong, then don’t do it yourself. Otherwise you come off looking like a hypocrite.
TUESDAY VANDY GIRL
May 27th, 2009
8:19 pm
“I would hope that a wise white woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a jewish / puerto rican / mullato mix who hasn’t lived that life”
I agree, she isn’t racist.. I think the same thoughts everyday
I Report :-) / You Whine :-(
May 27th, 2009
8:22 pm
Score one for Vandy.
Kamchak
May 27th, 2009
8:26 pm
If you don’t think “uppity” is racist, you either ain’t from ’round here, or you’re standing in an Egyptian river.
mike
May 27th, 2009
8:29 pm
jewcowboy –
“Was there ever a real chance that the Republicans were not going to universally reject whatever candidate was put forth simply as political posturing?”
Well, the last time there was a Democrat nomination it was Ruth Bader Ginsburg and she sailed through the Senate 93-3.
Contrast that to the nominations of Bork, Thomas, Roberts and Alito and the Democrat’s response.
getalife
May 27th, 2009
8:29 pm
It’s getting tough for Keith to come up with the worst person in the world when all the cons are losing it.
So many choices.
Welfare for the Rich
May 27th, 2009
8:30 pm
A slave woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a free woman who hasn’t lived that life.
Ask a slave how hard life was under the slavemaster “harsh” then asked a free woman and she will tell you “it was great”.
Sonia Sotomayor spoke the truth..only someone who has lived a particular life whether it be due to social, emotional, mental, gender, race, ethnicity….only they can answer truthfully and honestly.
jt
May 27th, 2009
8:31 pm
I’m just so glad to live here in the land of the “FREE”.
http://projects.ajc.com/gallery/view/metro/gwinnett/gwinnett-police-check/