Yes, of course biography matters in a judge
According to Judge Sonia Sotomayor, biography matters. President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court believes a person’s gender, ethnic background and upbringing will inevitably affect how he or she interprets the law.
She is absolutely correct.
The jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas is inescapably informed by his personal history, both as a black man and as someone who lifted himself out of poverty. Likewise, the rulings of Antonin Scalia are informed, even if subconsciously, by his strict Catholicism. Chief Justice John Roberts grew up as the son of a Bethlehem Steel executive, an upbringing that at some level had to color his outlook on issues such as management-labor disputes.
After all, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts are human, and we do not stop being human when we don a judge’s robe. Furthermore, the law is not a mathematical construct. Two plus two always equals four no matter who adds it up, but the law is a human construct, subject to human interpretation. So it matters which human does the interpreting.
In a 2001 speech, Sotomayor made the same point, noting that “there can never be a universal definition of wise.” Then came the sentence that opponents want to hang around her neck:
“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.”
Read that carefully. Sotomayor expresses hope that her life experience would make her a better judge than someone who did not have that same experience. There’s nothing controversial in that thought, as the example of Sandra Day O’Connor demonstrates.
In 1981, O’Connor was nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan, in part to honor a campaign pledge to name a woman to the court. (Apparently, he saw wisdom in diversity).
Part of O’Connor’s appeal was her biography. She had grown up on an Arizona ranch and had political experience as majority leader in the state Senate. As a woman, she was also a legal pioneer of sorts. After she graduated third in her class at Stanford Law in 1952, no California law firm would hire her (although one did offer her a job as a legal secretary.)
In 1982, soon after joining the Supreme Court, O’Connor wrote the majority opinion in “Mississippi University for Women et. al v. Hogan.” The ruling, which held that the public university could not bar men from enrolling in its nursing program, might seem obvious today, but a quarter-century ago it was not. It came in a narrow 5-4 ruling, with O’Connor casting the deciding vote.
In the opinion, you can hear O’Connor’s gender and biography speaking.
The law, she writes, “must be applied free of fixed notions concerning the roles and abilities of males and females. Care must be taken in ascertaining whether the statutory objective itself reflects archaic and stereotypic notions.”
And if the objective of a law “is to exclude or ‘protect’ members of one gender because they are presumed to suffer from an inherent handicap or to be innately inferior, the objective itself is illegitimate. MUW’s admissions policy lends credibility to the old view that women, not men, should become nurses, and makes the assumption that nursing is a field for women a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
Almost two decades later, in her 2001 speech, Sotomayor said she agrees 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.” She strives for “constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives.”
However, she also acknowledged that is a goal to be aspired to but never achieved by mere mortals.
The Founding Fathers knew that as well. If they believed it possible for a judge to rule solely on the basis of written law, unaffected by personal background, history, experience, etc., we would need only one such wise judge on the Supreme Court, just as baseball requires only one umpire for the simple duty of calling balls and strikes.
Instead, the original Supreme Court convened with six members, a number that has since grown to nine. From the beginning, our Founding Fathers understood that court interpretations are just that, interpretations, and that no single person can overcome their own biases. Biography matters, and the best interpretations are those created by people with disparate backgrounds and life experience.
It’s the nearest we can get to wisdom.
UPDATE: Over at Washington Monthly, Hilzoy tackles the Ricci v. DeStefano firefighter case out of New Haven, involving race and promotions. Basically, Hilzoy writes that Sotomayor and the other appellate judges on the panel followed existing law and precedent in that case, even if that existing law and precedent did not produce the outcome that many would want.
In other words, Sotomayor did not act as an “activist judge” who rewrote the law to reach a desired outcome. That should make her the sort of judge that conservatives say they want.
Except, of course, not.
Also, conservative columnist Rod Dreher, having now read Sotomayor’s 2001 speech in context, withdraws his earlier criticism of the judge and admits he was wrong.
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
235 comments Add your comment
Whiner is a Sore Loserman
May 28th, 2009
10:30 am
“Skeered?” Yeah, right. Like people in Illinois are going to vote for one of your Dixiecrats.
But maybe you could tie up the election in court, like Minnesota.
Sore Losermen. A National Party No More.
zip
May 28th, 2009
10:33 am
Why does Lady Justice have a blindfold? Just wondering….
RetLTC
May 28th, 2009
10:34 am
Jay, guys like Dave will only feel NOT marginalized when the whole power structure is exactly like them. White. Guys like that are so scared of something culturally different that they probably go through a box of depends a day.
Tray
May 28th, 2009
10:41 am
Wow Jay, you just gave us all a reason to get Obama out of office!! Thank you!
And I quote: “-and the best interpretations are those created by people with disparate backgrounds and life experience.”
Yeah, Obama had NO EXPERIENCE!!
Now, on to this racist judge…Lady justice has a blind fold to not see the color of skin/sex of a person, none of it should matter. This lady see white skin as the devil. But that’s ok, Obama wants to re-write the Constitution to fit his vision, and this judge is one step closer to helping him.
By the way-CONGRATULATIONS (though a bit early) to all the left wingers who officially this week will turn our cuntry socialist by GM and Chryslers takeovers! I hope this is what you wanted. When you all hit 60 and need life saving surgery and your government ‘healthcare’ deems it not necessary-you can sit on your deathbed thinking why you voted his idiot into office!
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
10:41 am
Mrs. G., I’ve seen no determination that the District court concluded in New Haven that the test was skewed. It appears that they ruled on the 4/5th quota without any other determination, and that is just wrong.
AmVet
May 28th, 2009
10:41 am
The Party of No (Ethics) adds yet one more name to their rogue’s gallery of criminals
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A grand jury charged former Florida House Speaker Ray Sansom with perjury Wednesday in an indictment related to $6 million Sansom steered to Northwest Florida State College for an aircraft hangar.
Also indicted was Sansom’s friend and political supporter Jay Odom, who was charged with official misconduct.
Odom had sought and failed to get government money for the hangar. Sansom later stuck an appropriation in the 2007-2008 state budget for the project.
Sansom stepped down as speaker in January, a little more than two months after taking the office. In addition to the hanger, Sansom steered millions more to the school when he chaired the House Budget and Policy Council. He then accepted a $110,000 job at the school on the same day he formally became speaker.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
10:41 am
“Why does Lady Justice have a blindfold? Just wondering”
Because people, and especially judges, do not.
jt
May 28th, 2009
10:42 am
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
What is so hard to understand that. If our constitution was respected, Sotomajor and the other supremes would be relegated to only taking turns dusting this glass enclosed document. At the most, if some case did reach them, at the REQUEST of the states, the supremes would merely point to the pertenant part of the document.
In effect, the supreme justices would be just like the majority of goverment workers that really don’t have a real job.
eagle scout
May 28th, 2009
10:43 am
OFF TOPIC….
As reported by the AJC….Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are to debate in Canada!
Is this a joke or what?
Ali (Bill Clinton) vs Sonny Liston (GWB)
I hope it’s on pay per view…..This could be a night for having a real party!
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
10:45 am
I read that Jefferson wanted to have a constitutional congress every 19 years (every generation)to re-write.
Interesting.
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
10:46 am
Jumping in on the thread at hand: is Sotomayor a racist? Of course she is and, RetTLC, so are you and so am I. The mere fact that we are framing our comments using terminolgies such as “Hispanic” and “White” is witness to that. The question is, what kind of racists are we?
Curious Observer
May 28th, 2009
10:47 am
Yes, indeed, if we had judges who read the Constitution and its 10th Amendment literally, Judge Taney’s decision would still stand and states would be free to decide who was a person and who was not.
getalife
May 28th, 2009
10:49 am
Lets take a look at the crazy contest:
“We have Rush Limbaugh:
She’s got a — she’s an angry woman, she’s got a — she’s a bigot. She’s a racist.
Newt Gingrich goes the extra mile, and tweets his accusation from Auschwitz:
White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.
Pat Buchanan spews on MSNBC:
She is also an affirmative action pick, Chris.
And from Tom Tancredo:
I’m telling you she appears to be a racist. She said things that are racist in any other context. ”
Who won?
Well, it will still be 5-4.
S GA dem
May 28th, 2009
10:49 am
Well, a lot of the people on this blog feel marginalized. And rightly so. Their world views put them there. Way out on the margins of society. Today, they are actually protesting a Supreme Court nominee who is a woman, a Latino, and a Catholic. She is as middle of the road philosophically as they come, as far as I can see, with a background that would seem to put her in the prolife camp, yet the Radical right is kicking this gift horse square in the mouth. Maybe, just maybe, her nomination will get held up for some reason and Obama will be forced to restart the nomination process w/ another pick. May that pick be a dyed in the wool, big, flaming liberal. At least then, the right will have something real to b**ch about.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
10:49 am
“The mere fact that we are framing our comments using terminolgies such as “Hispanic” and “White” is witness to that. The question is, what kind of racists are we?”
That isn’t necessarily a sign of racisism, but COULD be a sign of bigotray. Or it could just be an attempt to define the person being discussed to keep the discussion within the relevance of the frame of the discussion.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
10:50 am
Enter your comments here
Paul
May 28th, 2009
10:52 am
Seems to me Judge Sotomayor has been speaking some obvious truths – the ‘we make policy’ remark, for instance (intended or not) that others accept but do not discuss. If anything, that acceptance should make a jurist even more cautious in their decisions.
From my comment on the prior thread: “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 (not the talking points) and find out she isn’t the flaming liberal activist judge on a broad spectrum of issues as they’d thought?”
You make some valid points about the context and intent of her remarks. To state that one’s life experiences affect how one sees life and circumstances seems a bit self evident. I think the real issue is to what extent are judges aware of this about themselves and what reign to they give it in their decisions?
The Rod Dreher examples are good examples – not that the decision would be swayed one way or the other but that an attitude of justice would prevail. (Side note: this is yet another example of a conservative who reexamined a position and modified it or said “I was wrong.” Interesting how liberals are always so right, so sure, so eternally correct they never have to say “I was wrong.” Hmmmm. Do liberals ever get divorced?).
As far as Hilzoy tackling the Ricci v DeStefano firefighter case: yes, the judge did look at the case and follow existing law. But as one of the good judges (an Hispanic, appointed by Pres Clinton) noted in his unusual criticism of Sotomayor and the others, they did not address the plaintiff issues addressed under Equal Protection and Title VII. Strikes me as much more of a ‘this is set in stone, never to change’ attitude or , more negatively, ‘I don’t want to address that because I don’t want to upset the affirmative action cart.’ Much has been made of the fact the criticism was in a minority opinion and didn’t sway the 2nd Court; however, the Supremes were swayed, weren’t they?
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
10:54 am
Dave R
is not the 4/5 rule one of the tests of skew?
Tray
May 28th, 2009
10:55 am
josef nix- if by that comment you mean we are all racist, than so is THE GOVERNMENT that these liberals love so much!
Think abour it-the gov’t is the most racist institution anywhere!! If we were all equal, then why do they break down studies based on race? Why is there still affirmitive action when it’s QUITE CLEAR unqualified not white people will get a job over a qualified white person?? Obama will widen the racial tension gap more in his 4 years than ANYONE ever has. I know King must be proud of his brotha’ for turning back hi decades of work!
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 28th, 2009
10:55 am
Somaliadawg, Koran is a hate filled rag written by an egomaniacal warrior who justified all his digressions in his writings. It’s an amoral rag and all that follow it are fools at best, murders or worse if the follow the hate.
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
10:57 am
Doggone: Yeah, will do. It COULD be a sign of bigotry or it could be “just” an attempt to “define” the person within the relevnce of the “frame of discussion.” That frame, sir, IS a frame of race. This is what I meant earlier about the fallacies of labelling. Incidentally, I’m a left wing liberal by self-definition, so does that mean I’m somehow less “white” than a right wing conservative?
Cuz
May 28th, 2009
10:59 am
Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed. The Republicans have neither the votes nor the will to stop her and even with the Latina woman comment, I have seen nothing that disqualifies her. I don’t think she will make a brilliant judge, probably an average judge. Well she still gets a vote. I personally believe, and it is my opinion so take it as you will, that the President should get his judicial nominees confirmed. Unless there is a smoking gun, or dead person in a closet. It is the Senate’s role to advise and consent. They should do their job. Hearings are really for us to know the judge. If she handles herself with decorum, she will slide right through.
Just my humble Libertarian/Conservative hybrid opinion.
Paul
May 28th, 2009
11:00 am
Mrs. Godzilla 10:54
4/5 is a bit heavy for any particular ingredient. Although driven by personal taste, it’s likely it’d be a much different ration of beef, potatoes, carrots, etc.
Oh, you said ’skew.’ I thought we were talking ’stew.’ Sorry.
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
11:01 am
Tray–I agree. Our government is just as racist as the people it represents. It just depends on whether “our” racists or “their” racists are in power. The Constitution is SUPPOSED to be color blind. The point we should be addressing is DISCRIMINATION based on race. That’s a two-way street.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
11:02 am
“That frame, sir, IS a frame of race”
Your sexual bias towards men is showing.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
11:05 am
For some people, maybe, Mrs. G., if you were to see racial or gender bias under every rock. But in and of itself, without any evidence to the contrary, is simply an artificially generated number.
So again, I see no attempt to try to determine what the cause of the 4/5ths issue was in New Haven, which is why I believe the ruling of Ms. Sotomayor was incorrect, and will hopefully be overturned by her future brethren.
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
11:06 am
Doggone/GA! HA! This is TOO rich. My Significant Other got a big chuckle out of this one. You probably meant gender bias, but HE says to tell you that he’s not at all put off by my “sexual bias” toward men and is rather happy for it!
@@
May 28th, 2009
11:08 am
I see where DB, on the previous thread, chose to split off a jewish hair declaring Cardozo a half-breed.
DB, the purist?
Indeed, Jewish identity is a complicated animal. So too is Latino identity. Put them together and, well, you’re going to have a tough time reaching consensus.
So what’s the point of identifying Soyomayor as latina?
It’s a political “point” and nothing more.
Not unusual for democrats to USE people of race to ply their trade.
ply: to use of wield diligently.
I’ve always found it disgusting — even when I was voting Democrat.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
11:11 am
Paul
4/5 chococlate chips would make a lop-sided tollhouse cookie, but with enough cold milk anything would be possible.
Jake
May 28th, 2009
11:12 am
Jay – You give us a liberal hack writing in a liberal rag who admits he’s not a lawyer as evidence that Sotomayor’s appeals court followed the law and precedent on the Ricci case? Is that the best you can come up with? Please rerun this article after the Supreme Court ruling on the legality of New Haven’s action is determined by justices and not some ‘journalist’. Hilzoy at one point argues that throwing out the test for everyone was facially neutral. Huh? After the whites passed and the blacks didn’t how can throwing out the resulls be facially neutral? It clearly discriminates against the white firefighters that passed the test, which is the basis of the Ricci suit. He also states they were motivated by desire to comply with title VII, but a more neutral case summary says their motivation was fear of being sued for adverse impact. That’s not quite the way Hilzoy, the world renowned legal authority, spun it.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
11:13 am
Dave R
Artificially generated to be sure, but law none the less.
Perhaps her future brethren will “activist” all over it and over turn.
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
11:13 am
@@–interesting comment. I “got into it” at work yesterday with a fellow Sephard as to whether or not we “qualify” as “Hispanic.” His folks came to America via Turkey and mine via Western Europe. He says we’re not, but speaks fluent Ladino and has a “Spanish” surname. I say we are and read and understand Ladino, but am not fluent, and have an English surname. Go figure!
jt
May 28th, 2009
11:14 am
Curious Observer
May 28th, 2009
10:47 am
Yes, indeed, if we had judges who read the Constitution and its 10th Amendment literally, Judge Taney’s decision would still stand and states would be free to decide who was a person and who was not.
Maybe the issue would have been solved more civily without 800,000 dead.
Furthermore, federal interference(reconstruction) prolonged the misery for years.
Shame is a much better tool for coercing better behavoir than armed force. Armed force always has a terrible backlash in which we are still experiancing today.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
11:15 am
“Doggone/GA! HA! This is TOO rich. My Significant Other got a big chuckle out of this one. You probably meant gender bias, but HE says to tell you that he’s not at all put off by my “sexual bias” toward men and is rather happy for it!”
“gender” “sexual” – same idea, different word. Your sexual PREFERENCE is none of my business. But it does shed a light on your assumption that I am male. You have no way of verifying that, but you assume it anyway.
Dan
May 28th, 2009
11:15 am
The ascertation that ones life experience colors their perspective is absolutely correct. While nobody can completely eliminate their bias, the key to being an exceptional judge is the ability to recognize the innate bias and ignore it as much as possible while making a decision. To in any way suggest that these biases are a positive trait in whats supposed to be an objective judicial system, shows a profound ignorance of that system and the balance of the 3 branches of government
TUESDAY VANDY GIRL
May 28th, 2009
11:16 am
This is a lot like “depends on what the meaning if IS, is”.
Bookman seems content to parse every word to finagle and extract some semblance of a way that this can be seen as not divisive or racial or indeed sexist ( although we all know women are usually smarter than men..but i digress…)
I’d like to see if Bookman thinks the following is acceptable, or will this keep me off the supreme court oneday?
More often than not, a White Person, with the richness of their background and cultural experience, has made better decisions than (insert race/gender here). This is factual based upon the number of whites in positions of power and wealth as opposed to the number of (insert race/gender here). Therefore, I think we need more white judges because their track record for making the right decision is more established than that of (insert race/gender here).
BTW Bookman, in phase 3 of the AJC cllapse, have you guys started using thinner cheaper woodpulp? my new puppy seems to to pee right thru the entire thing….thank goodness for bestbuy’s heavier ads or i’d have had to find out if my parents have a mop.
SOMALIDAWG
May 28th, 2009
11:19 am
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 28th, 2009
10:55 am
Somaliadawg, Koran is a hate filled rag written by an egomaniacal warrior who justified all his digressions in his writings. It’s an amoral rag and all that follow it are fools at best, murders or worse if the follow the hate.
همهٔ افراد بشر آزاد به دنیا میآیند و از دید حیثیت و حقوق با هم برابرند، همه دارای اندیشه و وجدان Koran equal Bible in eyes of America Justice.
You are silly camel flea.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
11:21 am
“I’d like to see if Bookman thinks the following is acceptable, or will this keep me off the supreme court oneday?”
For the umpteenth time in this discussion…IF that white male is discussing a subject that turns on BEING a white male, then there would be nothing objectionable about his referencing HIS “white maleness” experience as a basis for judgement. No more than is HER referencing her “Latina-ness” in reference to subjects that turn on being Hispanic and female.
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
11:25 am
So, tell me, Doggone, do you have “gender” relations with your Significan Other? The terms are not entirely interchangeable. I certainly hope my “sexual preference” is none of your business. I try to keep that behind closed doors between me and my partner. Perhaps you meant “sexual orientation?” And, Doggone, yes, I did assume you were male by addressing you as “sir,” but then assumption appears to be a line of thought you are familiar with.
I beg others to forgive me, but I am a linguist by profession and do believe that words have meaning, both denotative and connotative.
TUESDAY VANDY GIRL
May 28th, 2009
11:27 am
what subject turns on being white versus sorta rican?
was this a Paella contest?
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
11:28 am
“I beg others to forgive me, but I am a linguist by profession and do believe that words have meaning, both denotative and connotative”
Then stop using the word “sir” when you have no reference point for the sexual identity of the person you are addressing. Otherwise, we’ll begin to think that to YOU “all men are created equal” excludes women.
middler and so tired of all the rhetoric :
May 28th, 2009
11:29 am
Do all of us listen to sound bites from pundits and “news” people who agree with what we think or do any of us ever bother to investigate past our own feelings! How many understand that out of thousands of briefs submitted from appellate courts each year the SC only hears and decides a few? If their agreeing/disagreeing upholding/overturning should affect a nominee would Scalia be a justice with a 100% overturn rate? Should we not consider a nominee’s education, record with the bar, and willingness to work hard and keep current on the law?
And why has it become okay to throw around “racist” and “reverse discrimination” with the inauguration of a biracial president? We are not hearing “whitey” and “racism” from the executive branch yet it is now okay for white opinion givers to introduce a race card.
I want our military home from a dishonest war with no pluses instead of additional dead. I want this interminable and unwinnable debate over Gitmo and waterboarding and who is patriotic/American enough over. I want our economy back on track with jobs for as many of us as want to work and rules for business leaders to follow to hold their greediness and less than legal actions in check. I’d like to see universal health care available, and protection in our old age for those of us not fortunate enough to have those great benefits our elected represenatives and ceos/cfos/board members have. Actually, I just want a nice life with hope for my children and all the rest of us. Why don’t we support and try to do what each of us can to get where we all want to go?
Tallulah
May 28th, 2009
11:36 am
White man bad. Latino woman good. Go home paleface and take your immigrants with you. Tueday Vandy Girl can stay.
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
11:37 am
md May 28th, 2009 8:27 am SAID: Judicial record – overturned by supreme court 60% of the time (New Haven outstanding). Only in baseball is that considered doing well. And some posters here question the intellect of others?
Chris SAYS: Another SC Justice, Samuel Alito had 100% of his rulings subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court.
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
11:39 am
Doggone: your last post is well taken and only goes to show how even those of us who should know better are prone to err. I apoligize. I’m afraid it’s my cultural bias surfacing. I’m a Southerner and “sir” and “ma’am” are part of my reaction. But tell me, in languages in which gender is required in verb conjugation, what should I do?
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
11:43 am
“I apoligize”
I accept. And also, please try to remember that not everyone is word oriented. In my case, I am dyslexic and the “correct word” won’t always come to mind…so I have to make do with the next best word that WILL come to mind.
“But tell me, in languages in which gender is required in verb conjugation, what should I do?”
Use English?
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
11:44 am
Gandalf, the White! (!) May 28th, 2009 10:55 am SAID: Somaliadawg, Koran is a hate filled rag written by an egomaniacal warrior who justified all his digressions in his writings. It’s an amoral rag and all that follow it are fools at best, murders or worse if the follow the hate.
Chris SAYS: Have you read the Old Testament??? Maybe you missed the part about God commanding the Israelites to kill every man, woman, infant and animals of their enemies. I guess the Jewish/Christian God must be pretty hate filled too. According to your definition, that would make the Old Testament is also an “amoral rag”?
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
11:44 am
Tallulah–another good one for this household. My aforementioned Significant Other is Choctaw-Cherokee. When folks ask him if he’d prefer to be called Native American or American Indian, he says “I prefer to be called a man,” but he says that for Doggone he’ll go for human being!
RW-(the original)
May 28th, 2009
11:48 am
I’m kind of glad the link to “conservative columnist” Rod Dreher is broken. It made go read some of his stuff since I was unfamiliar with him and if you read some of his articles without knowing who wrote it you may very well think it was written by Bookman. It’s the same pap about how Republicans need to be quiet little lapdogs of the Democrats if they ever want to regain power.
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
11:50 am
Doggone…thank you for accepting the apology. Speak English? Why in the world would I demand someone speak my native language in order to communicate, exchange thoughts, ideas and opinions? Now THAT takes us back into the realm of cultural imperialism and with it the idea that somehow “we” are better than “they.”
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
11:50 am
About @@’s ham-handed business @ 11.08–
Other people have discussed whether current definitions of “Hispanic” apply to Justice Cardozo and apparently it’s not something universally agreed upon.
I never referred to Cardozo as “half breed” and my only interest in responding to @@’s earlier message was to provide a little bit of reference material about the man’s rather interesting family background.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
11:51 am
“It’s the same pap about how Republicans need to be quiet little lapdogs of the Democrats if they ever want to regain power.”
Well…it worked for the Democrats, didn’t it?
RetLTC
May 28th, 2009
11:51 am
Rickster, that’s where the word interpret comes into play. That is why you always hear “how will he/she INTERPRET the Constitution”. The Constitution is very ambiguous anyway. It has to be interpreted. Prime example: “a well REGULATED militia”….”the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon”. While the second phrase seems rather clear, it is the first part that creates issues of interpretation. There is no black or white with the Constitution. Bring the same issue before every federal district court and you get several different rulings.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
11:52 am
“Why in the world would I demand someone speak my native language in order to communicate, exchange thoughts, ideas and opinions? ”
that’s why I put a question mark after it. I speak no other language than English, so I have no reference point for discussions in other languages.
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
11:53 am
I agree with JB. Every person’s “baggage” consists of their respective sex, background and upbringing. To deny that these factors don’t play a role in a person’s decision making process is just plain ignorance.
RetLTC
May 28th, 2009
11:54 am
No RW, they just need to be a little more diverse. And obviously being nothing but a pack of jackals isn’t expanding their party is it?
RW-(the original)
May 28th, 2009
11:56 am
Doggne/GA,
I think what worked for the Democrats was being the very pack of jackals RetLC is whining about.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
11:59 am
“I think what worked for the Democrats was being the very pack of jackals RetLC is whining about”
Maybe, but this time the jackals are in the majority.
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
12:00 pm
Doggone…Ah! Once again I err. I did not take notice of the question mark and that altogether adds a new dimension. Though my response would have been much the same, the tone would have been less didactic.
Sharecropper
May 28th, 2009
12:02 pm
Of course life experiences count. It is bizarre to claim otherwise, and the wingnuts make the case the other way only when a Democrat is on the griddle. Otherwise, as somebody described it yesterday, they want people like Roberts to be unrelenting in their support for the upper dog. And he is. The right wing would have you believe you can key in a case and let a computer interpret the constitution. Which is what judges do, all the time, and why it is that federal judges do — horrors! — make policy.
Personally I hope the right wing is out there every day, led by the really crazed Gingrich and equally unbalanced Cheney. it’s gonna be a good 10 or 12 years for Democrats. (By the way, can we get one, just one, loony tunes Republican to volunteer for the Smithsonian so that future generations can see what a Republican looked like?)
kitty
May 28th, 2009
12:04 pm
I am sooo going to enjoy watching the GOP tear itself apart and destroy any standing they have with Hispanics. Go for it “marginalized” white boys with all the money. LOL
Normal
May 28th, 2009
12:04 pm
Middler and So Tired… I agree with all you have said in your 11:29
post. As Rodney King said, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
________________________
Sanalidawg and Gandalf, you two getting this?
Copyleft
May 28th, 2009
12:07 pm
Vandy Girl: What do power and wealth have to do with making “right decisions?” If that were true, then Czar Nicholas and Genghis Khan were among the most righteous men in history.
Booger: “the film which shows her making the comment that the Appealate Court is where policy is made. After she made the comment she giggled and said I shouldn’t say that on tape should I. This shows that she is clearly an activist Judge, who understands it is wrong.”
No, it shows she’s aware of the right-wing hysteria machine and its rabid tendency to pounce on obvious truths–like the fact that policy IS made in our courts–and scream about it. There’s not a thing wrong with it, unless you count the fact that acknowledging it openly tends to bring out the screeching crazies.
DaveR: “It appears that they ruled on the 4/5th quota without any other determination, and that is just wrong.”
No, that is just the law. The law includes affirmative action, and Sotomayor correctly pointed that out. If you have a problem with affirmative action, then try to overturn it–but don’t blame Sotomayor for upholding the law of the land, (which IS part of her job, after all).
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
12:07 pm
RetLTC, you are completely wrong about the 2nd amendment, and should be ashamed of yourself. Your problem, and other libs as well, is forgetting that the DEFAULT condition that the Founding Fathers wanted for Americans was to be free from Government regulation.
“Shall not be infringed upon” means simply that, and ONLY that in a free society. No other intent can be taken from this statement in a document designed to describe the LIMITS of Government.
Please stop the torturous twisting to suit your goals of Governmental control.
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
12:08 pm
Moving on to the attack on the Koran–It, like the Bible, Old or New Testament, is a product of its time and place and should be seen as such by believers and non believers alike. No one, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh or Jain holds a patent on the universal truths or the search for understanding.
RetLTC
May 28th, 2009
12:10 pm
Obama is using Latinos to drive the last nail in the coffin of the Republican party and other than Jeb Bush they just don’t get it. Sotomayor and next comprehensive immigration reform. By the time that’s done the republican party will never see more than a hand full of Latino votes for generations to come. If John McCain had garnered the same percentage of Latino votes that GWB got in 2004 he’d be POTUS today. And now there are 1.3 million Latinos to be sworn in as citizens this go round with over 3 million more applications filed. Why? To vote against republicans that used them to pander to the bigoted, nativist, ethnocentric,xenophobic right wing. RIP wingnuts. Latinos are a demographic you desperately need.
@@
May 28th, 2009
12:10 pm
DB, the purist:
When you said “kinda, sorta” it implied that he wasn’t quite “all” THAT.
Tell me, did you check out any of his LEGAL opinions? or did the fact that he had a HONKER preclude the need.
clyde
May 28th, 2009
12:13 pm
At this juncture in time this nominee had to be a woman and she had to be Hispanic.These were to be the primary qualifications.That this woman has other qualifications is a plus for Obama.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
12:13 pm
Copylefty, you missed the point entirely, which is par for the course for you.
Any law that is NOT JUST is a bad law. Plessy v. Ferguson was bad law. Dred Scott was bad law. Do you want to go back to those because they were precedent? Of course not.
If the court, as I believe they did, decided this issue SOLELY on a numerical value in Title VII, then that is WRONG, because it doesn’t take into consideration that there may have been circumstances that allowed that to happen without any discrimination being in play at all. The court did NOT rule that the test was skewed, in fact, they appear to be silent on that point.
Pay attention, or go home.
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
12:14 pm
Here’s a little something for all those ditto-heads. Click on the link below which has notable quotes from Scalia and Alito.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/antonin-scalia-judges-mak_n_208531.html
Essentially, Scalia was once quoted as saying that state court judges have the power to make common law and even have leverage to shape State’s constitutions. Alito was quoted (video is included in the link) that in cases of discrimination, he would take the experience and background of his own family who suffered discrimination when deciding these sort of cases.
WOW……and who appointed these two justices??? Why are the ditto-heads complaining now? Sotomajor is more qualified based on experience and qualifications than any sitting SC Justice when they were nominated. But then, the Republicans have become the Party of No, right?
RW-(the original)
May 28th, 2009
12:17 pm
Maybe, but this time the jackals are in the majority.
doggone/GA,
Don’t take this wrong, but is English your first language? That’s just what I said. The Democrats gained power by becoming a pack of jackals tearing into anything and everything the Republicans did. It worked which is exactly why they want Republicans to give them a pass now under a phony cloak of moderation.
Moderation to today’s Democrat leadership means getting Republicans to voluntarily move to dead center and then compromising in the middle of what the new boundaries have become.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
12:19 pm
DB, the purist:
When you said “kinda, sorta” it implied that he wasn’t quite “all” THAT
No, it meant that there was an ongoing discussion as to whether self-identifying American Hispanics consider this Justice from the 1930s to have been “the first Hispanic SCOTUS Justice”. I’ve heard him called that in some news outlets; others have simply said that Sotomayor would be the first one.
Tell me, did you check out any of his LEGAL opinions? or did the fact that he had a HONKER preclude the need.
A honker? As in his nose? huh?
Seriously, why would you write such a thing? Are you imagining that I’m an anti-Semite? Have a problem with Jews? Really? When have I ever posted anything to make you think such a thing? Or is this just some level of humor I’m not getting?
It’s disturbing, in any case.
@@
May 28th, 2009
12:20 pm
kitty may find herself choking on a hairball in all her excitement.
Michael Barone reiterated something I said a couple of days ago.
In this case, Sotomayor seemed to share the view of legal elites that racial preferences must be defended, even at the sacrifice of candor, against all attacks. But most Americans tend to agree with Martin Luther King that people should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on this in June, probably just before Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing. Is this an issue that Obama and the Democrats want to litigate in the court of public opinion?
I don’t think it is considering…
Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that 45 percent of Americans believe that legal background and competence are the most important qualities for a nominee, while only 27 percent believe that diversity is the most important. Independents on this issue, as on several others lately, are more like Republicans than Democrats: Fifty percent say legal background and competence are more important.
Obama should have placed more emphasis on her judicial merit and less on her ethnicity.
His intent was waaayyyy too obvious!
GRACE
May 28th, 2009
12:21 pm
Rush & Hannity calling this judge racist is like Michael Jackson critizing Joan River’s face lift.
If the current laws are color blind why do crack dealers (mostly blk) get a mandatory 5yr sentence for selling $125/crack & powder cocaine dealers (mostly white) would have to get caught with $50k to get the same 5yr sentence. LET ME BE CLEAR…..I do NOT want crack dealers to get less time, I want to see powder & Meth dealers get the same for $125 worth of their product.
President Obama’s pick was brilliant. 1st, she is qualified. 2nd, it will solidify his base with Latinos. 3rd, it started GOP infighting (AGAIN) on how to attack her. The GOP have already lost half of their latino base. 4th, SHE’S QUALIFIED!!!!
The more the RIGHT tries to call Obama dumb, the smarter that man get. He didn’t just go to 2 Ivy league schools, he graduated! Then turn down your greedy Wall street jobs.
RetLTC
May 28th, 2009
12:23 pm
No RW, I’m just a pragmatist that understands the republican party is its own worst enemy. The right wing is killing it. By the way. What is it that Jeb Bush gets that you can’t comprehend. The numbers don’t lie. The demographic ignorance of the GOP doesn’t either. But at least you’ll go down swinging…huh RW. You and Rush. And take Lou Dobbs with you.
RetLTC
May 28th, 2009
12:26 pm
And btw RW, could it be that that middle of the road you’re talking about is exactly where mainstream America is right now? 20% won’t get you a cup of coffee anymore when it comes to electoral politics.
Jeb Bush gets it. Why don’t you?
ken
May 28th, 2009
12:30 pm
Two peas in a pod. Neither believe in the Constitution.
Rickster
May 28th, 2009
12:33 pm
Actually, the Constitution is pretty much clearly written with very little ambiguity written in. If you read Articles I – X, Article II is the only one that people debate. (They have, however, misconstrued Article I to develop the “Separation of Church & State philosophy when it simply says the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”)
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
12:33 pm
@@ May 28th, 2009 12:20 pm SAID: Obama should have placed more emphasis on her judicial merit and less on her ethnicity. His intent was waaayyyy too obvious!
Chris SAYS: So, the fact that she’s more qualified and experienced than ANY of the sitting Justices on the Supreme Court when THEY WERE NOMINATED has NOTHING to do with why she was picked??? Obama is first and foremost a politician. Of course he’s also looking to also win more votes from the Hispanic community.
This reminds me when in one of my previous jobs, my former, staunchly Republican boss hired this very qualified Black lady for a managerial role. She was picked from a field that was pretty much lily white. Don’t get me wrong, she was also the most suitable candidate for the job. However, my former boss still couldn’t resist telling me that he was overjoyed, for HR reasons, at being able to kill TWO Birds with ONE stone. He hired an ethnic minority AND a woman. I’m sure Obama’s feeling the same way.
RetLTC
May 28th, 2009
12:34 pm
The beauty in this @@ is that she is Latina AND imminently more qualified and experienced than any of her sitting soon to be peers at the time of their nominations. She’ll cruise to confirmation. Republicans are between the proverbial rock and hard place on this one. Obama got ya and he got ya good.
RW-(the original)
May 28th, 2009
12:40 pm
RetLC,
Is there some reason you’re humping my leg today? Of course that’s where America is now, but when the full impact of Obamanomics kicks in they won’t be and America will turn to the people that stood up against it from the beginning.
I’ve got work to so good day
sirperson. Don’t want to get the gender assumption folks up ^^^ there riled again.Kamchak
May 28th, 2009
12:42 pm
Copyleft
Don’t be dissin’ my good buddy Temujin. From Wikipedia:
“Genghis Khan is credited with bringing the Silk Road under one cohesive political environment. This allowed increased communication and trade between the West, Middle East and Asia, thus expanding the horizons of all three cultural areas. Some historians have noted Genghis Khan instituted certain levels of meritocracy in his rule, was tolerant of different religions and explained his policy clearly to his soldiers.”
Copyleft
May 28th, 2009
12:50 pm
DaveR: I completely agree–unjust laws should be overturned.
Now, if you can construct an argument for why affirmative action should be considered “unjust,” please do so.
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
12:53 pm
RetLTC brings out the “speech police” in me yet again
“The beauty in this @@ is that she is Latina AND imminently more qualified and experienced than any of her sitting soon to be peers at the time of their nominations”
You weaken your argument. The beauty really should be that she is imminently more qualified, etc, AND is a latina.
RW. Thanks for the chuckle!
Copyleft
May 28th, 2009
12:53 pm
Rickster: The Constitution’s language is clear. It is also very general, outlining core principles and no specifics. (That’s why the Constitution is less than 60,000 pages long.)
How to APPLY those principles to specific situations (oh, let’s call them “cases”)… well, you’d need some kind of expert in law and logic to “interpret” those principles and make them work in reality, wouldn’t you?
Good thing we have an ENTIRE THIRD OF OUR GOVERNMENT designed for that very purpose, isn’t it?
@@
May 28th, 2009
12:57 pm
DB:
It was intended in humor. HONKER…HONKIE.
Chris:
Obama is first and foremost a politician.
But during the campaign he claimed to be more than…
I keep hearing the leftists say she was MORE qualified. You have to do more than claim she was — show me the proof. Be sure to include all those who Obama was considering alongside Sotomayor.
RetLTC:
Same goes to you. Show us why she’s more qualified.
I think you’re gonna be surprised at how the Republicans respond. Obama didn’t get “us” good. He chose a safe candidate. Rather moderate in my opinion. Ruled against environmentalists, ruled in favor or pro-life advocates, ruled in favor of Wall Street over Main Street. But the ruling on Ricci v DeStefano (which I believe will be overturned) is not going to play well with the American people — especially when so many are out there competing for jobs.
We’ll see. His was definitely a strategy but one that I think the Republicans saw coming.
The conservative pundits are just stoking the fire so more people will pay attention during the confirmations.
The Republican senators will be polite but thorough.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
12:59 pm
Already did, copylefty, you just missed it as usual.
If Sotomayor used ONLY the 4/5ths numeric threshold as her basis for relying on Title VII (as I suspect she did), then that is unjust and must be corrected, which is what I hope and expect the Supreme Court to rule in favor of.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
1:03 pm
It was intended in humor. HONKER…HONKIE.
Oh. Never mind, I guess. So Sephardic Jews honk at Gentiles? the honk-ees?
(intended as humor. Not valid in all fifty states.)
Californication
May 28th, 2009
1:04 pm
This woman is an idiot who believes as a judge she sets policy, she said it herself. She does not even know what the job of a judge is. A judge interprets the law, they do not make it.
TUESDAY VANDY GIRL
May 28th, 2009
1:05 pm
I just saw obamas freshman photos from Hahvahd…Am I the only one who thinks he was probably referred to by his peers as “The black guy who can get us some coke”, that year?
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
1:05 pm
RetLTC, what DO you believe in that you are willing to defend?
It certainly isn’t the U.S. Constitution. Pardon some of us (conservatives, Libertarians and Constitutionalists) if we do believe in something worth defending. Better to live a life of principle, even if I go down swinging, than to compromise because you think that is the way life should be lived.
DoubleStandard
May 28th, 2009
1:10 pm
It’s the continuing double standard and media fawning and pass that frustrates me — How does the following sound — “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman.”????? Thought so!!!
“Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.’ Wouldn’t they have to withdraw?” asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on his Web site. “New racism is no better than old racism.”
Kamchak
May 28th, 2009
1:10 pm
tUeSdAy vAnDy gIrL
Yes, you are.
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
1:14 pm
My Significant Other says we’re all missing the point. Obama is pandering to the Type 1 Diabetics, He also says we better watch out, he’s one himself and he hates to think what decision he’d make during a sugar drop!
DB: that’s a good one! No, though, we honk at the Ashkenazim. We’re better than them, you know!
Sidebar
May 28th, 2009
1:16 pm
Apologies for the sidebar — as a recent transplant to Atlanta, watching the local news scares the bejesus out of me and my family. Is serious crime by a certain demographic segment of Atlanta’s population pretty much a given??
TUESDAY VANDY GIRL
May 28th, 2009
1:22 pm
sidebar..yes..
Jake
May 28th, 2009
1:26 pm
Copyleft – Affirmative action is unjust because it replaces merit with minority status as a qualification for college admissions, employment, promotion, etc. Put is this way. Your house is on fire and your family is trapped inside. The fire crew arrives. Who do you want running the crew responsible for trying to save your family? The ones that passed the test or the one that becazme boss because she was black?
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
1:29 pm
Sidebar…well, sort of, when that demographic constitutes the bulk of the population it should be expected that it would also commit the bulk of the crime. Now just how out of proportion that may or may not be, I don’t know.
DebbieDoRight
May 28th, 2009
1:30 pm
Your “everybody does it” argument in paragraph 3 would be better served by at least one example to back up the assertion.
Dred vs Scott a decision made when Blacks were thought inferior to whites; then the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education; when, opinions changed, more or less.
RB: u just keep making excuses for her Bookman. You know darn well if a white man had said the exact same thing, you and your cohorts would be screaming like a bunch of sissies.
And that doesn’t even take into account her pathetic record.
RB why do the elephants keep on only taking that ONE SENTENCE out of the entire speech? I mean, isn’t that nonsense? The entire speech has been given time and time again; only someone colored by the paintbrush of “pretend” outrage can still see her as a racist!! And as for her being unqualified!?! HA!! How much qualification did the newly appointed Chief Justice have before HE got the job to SCOTUS?
also think Bush and the R congress spent like drunken democrats for 6 years and poorly handled the war by being too nice.
Drunken DEMS!!!! OMG too funny!!! I never knew you had such a great sense of humor RB!!
REALLY a great topic!! I’ve done some research online and found out that the same things that are being said about Soto— were the EXACT same things that were said about Thurgood Marshall, (the first black SCOTUS)!! The only difference is that Strom Thurmond is now being replaced by Newt, Rush, and the entire RNC!!!
DebbieDoRight
May 28th, 2009
1:33 pm
Jake: I’d want the one who was able to save my house and my family. COLOR doesn’t make you a hero or define how you respond in an emergency.